Hi Everyone!

I just want let everyone know that ASOG will be at Combat Helicopter (see ASOG events) this week (Krakow, Poland 17-19 Oct).  Again, one of ASOG Advisory Council members will be there working and volunteered to continue to spread the word to his network & cross-talk with fellow ASOG members. 

Thanks, Everyone!

ASOG Desk Editor     

POB Column: Define Your UAS Operations

ASOG Members,

I just wanted to share this article regarding commercial aerial surveying & mapping i.e. what to think about before starting your own UAS/Drone business.  If you’re an ISR or public safety ASO and ever thought of expanding into the commercial side of aerial remote-sensing, the Point of Beginning is a good magazine focused on the Geospatial sector i.e. add it to your ASO professional reading list. Also, if you have or are planning to start up a sUAS business...let the group know...maybe we can help.

ASOG Desk Editor

ASOG members...especially for the ISR community. this is a good article on sensor planning..."Part math and part art form, sensor planning should not be confused with the standard flight or mission plan."

Trial by fire: Training for the ISR flight

Are you logging your flight time? If not, you should be!

As a professional aviator and aerial sensor operator, it doesn’t matter what type of aerial platform you fly, be it fixed or rotary wing, manned or unmanned, tethered or free flight, you should be logging your flight time. It’s not just a pilot thing!

As a professional aircrew member, you should track your flight time because it represents you as a professional aviator, documents your skill set, and reflects your personality. It is attention to detail.  Even if airborne sensing is a secondary duty (your primary job is an archeologist, utility-line inspector, research scientist, etc. but fly & sense regularly to support that primary job), you should be logging your flight time.

First, it shows accountability and competence. Your logbook demonstrates and documents how many hours and experiences you have under your belt. It shows others you know your profession, and that you’re a competent aircrew member with a solid foundation. It can help in gaining access to training and certification programs, support your employers grant or contract proposals with solid data, or assist in documenting potential legal matters relating to flight mishaps or equipment damage. You have physical evidence that you are a competent, professional aircrew member that knows what you are doing.

Second, as a professional aviator, you need this for career development and self-evaluation.  As a doctor friend of mine once said, “If you didn’t write it down, it never happened”.  Having a log assists in tracking of upcoming requirements (flight physical exams, check-rides, annual training), as well as providing the 5 W’s (Who, What, Where, When, and Why) of the mission. Additionally, it will help you to record any training you have accomplished (be it certification or OJT) regarding aircraft, sensors, TTP (Tactics, Techniques & Procedures), communication systems, and data processing hardware/software systems. By writing it down, a log provides a well-documented, official record to help you to compare your current level of experience & knowledge against current trends in your industry sector, identify potential gaps in training or experience, and provide a roadmap for your professional development.

Finally, it can help you get promoted at your current job or help you find a new position! Having a professional ASO flight log will help you communicate in a factual way to your current and future employers that you’re the right person for the job. It showcases you as a professional aviator and sensor operator quantitatively defines your skill set, and reinforces your professional personality. Having a well-maintained flight log will help you when it comes time to prepare annual evaluations in your current job or write your resume or CV. If your log is current, it makes it that much easier to write that evaluation or job winning resume or CV.

Now that we talked about the “why ” let’s talk about the “what” and “how” of logging your flight information, what information should be in your log book?

Since the ASO profession lacks formalization, there is no set global “standard” on “what” is required in an ASO Aircrew Log Book. My recommendations, based on field experience are:

• Record of Flight Physicals, Medical Exams, and Altitude Chamber (if required)

• Record of Qualifications and Renewals (Check rides, Instructor certifications)

• Other required annual training (CRM, Risk Management, Survival, etc.)

• Record of Flying Hours

• Flight Date

• Takeoff and Landing times

• Flight Location (Arrival/Departure airfields, working area)

• Aircraft Type & Registration

• Aircrew Duties & Position (Mission op, Instructor, Evaluator)

• Flight Details (Mission type, Day/Night, Weather conditions, etc.)

• Sensor & Systems Details (Type sensor, Data-Links, etc.)

• PIC/Other Crewmembers

• Comments & Notes

• Flight Hours (mission and cumulative)

• Summary of Monthly and Grand Totals

Again, if you have any other recommendations from experience, please share with the group.

Now that we have an outline of what to record, the final question is “how.” Like I said before, the aviation community has not invested much in our profession; We are defining it as we go. There are not many “off-the-shelf” products (paper or electronic) available for ASO use. For now, use a pilot or generic aircrew log and manipulate the categories to meet your needs, or produce an excel spreadsheet. The situation is not optimal, but for now, it gets the job done.

However, I would like to challenge the ASOG community to do better. If you ever had a dream of publishing a book or developing an app, here’s your chance to fill a need. Now that there’s a growing group of us, I would think a smart and energetic individual could produce a paper and electronic product focused on the ASO professional community. If someone does, let me know, we’ll use the ASOG network to get the word out. Plus, we could even beta-test it for you! What do you think?

Are you logging your flight time and experiences? If you’re not writing it down, it never happened.

Hello Everyone,

I just sent this press release out for the company I work for. I thought the technical people in this this group would be interested.

Katrin

http://www.airbornetechnologies.at/media-news/news/379-multi-sensor-p68-hits-the-mainstream 

Hi Everyone!

I just want let everyone know that ASOG (in a little way) will be at Helitech next week (London, UK 03-05 Oct). One of our senior & well connected group members will be there working and volunteered to spread the word to his network. Additionally, he has volunteered to be our French speaking advisor, so, if you want to network with him, please let me know...I'll introduce you to him!

ASOG Desk Editor (Patrick Ryan)     

ASOG Members…This is a think piece…Is your aircrew position (commercial surveying, public safety & defense) changing from an “analog to a digital” or “stick & rudder” to a “sensing and responding” activity? I want to highlight one aircrew position that I think is changing in this direction. The position is the Air Refueling Boom Operator, based on current trends in this sector of aerial work/mil ops; the Boom Operator has gone from “stick & rudder” laying on his or her stomach flying a boom to operating an RQ-1 like sensor operator station to pass gas!

Think about it…how is technology changing your way of flying and are you adapting?

ASOG Desk Editor

Hi guys,

has anyone read this book?

Tactical Helicopter Missions: How to Fly Safe, Effective Airborne Law Enforcement Missions by Kevin P. Means

Can some give me a feed back if it is worth to read?

cheers,

Thomas

Hi Everyone,

The networking has already started! Wayne in our group just relayed a new job posting...Thank you Wayne! You can check it out on the ASOG Career Center - Job Posting area. If you're interested, contact Wayne...he has the skinny on the job.

Birds that flock together fly together!

ASOG Career Center

Hi, Everyone,

Like with all new start-up network projects, change is required to meet the needs of the group. ASOGs goal is to adjust & morph with your recommendations & inputs. Speaking of that, one recommendation was to add additional information to the ASOG Career Center Job Posting webpage. So based on your inputs, we made the following improvements:

• Job Search Web-Pages (Links) that have ASO jobs posted. Plus, we’ve listed different ASO job titles to help you narrow your search.

• A list of companies and organizations that routinely or semi-routinely hire Sensor Operators (Civ & Mil, manned & unmanned) .i.e. for members to routinely check.

However, to support and expand the strength of this page, please feed it with any current and forthcoming job opportunities you hear about, plus the names of any companies or organizations that routinely or semi-routinely need aerial sensor operators.

Like always, my crew-hatch is always open to you if you have additional recommendations or questions!

Thanks, Everyone!

Patrick

Finding the right person to fill a position is always a challenge.  Will they fit in with the culture of your company or unit?  In the airborne sensing business, this can be an extremely tricky question, and it depends upon the position you are trying to fill.

If you need an operator to run a sensor in a low threat, low altitude, civilian aircraft in a non-combat area, then almost anyone with average technical skills, average common sense, and average ability will be able to do the work, unless they have some previously undiscovered motion sickness or fear of flying issue.  One could say, these types of missions are “low threat, routine” and any competent person can do them without much hassle, and only minimal training is required on how to run the systems.

However, if you are trying to find a person who can run a sensor (of any kind) in a combat zone and have direct contact with the “customer” on the ground, you MUST set up your criteria for what you want representing you and your company.  The individual you hire may be the hottest thing on two wheels during routine, day-in day-out, pattern of life style missions, but on “THAT DAY,” you need someone who can handle the pressure of doing it right the first time, every time.

When I was on active duty in the Air Force, we were not allowed to remove a student from training without cause.  With pressure from the headquarters to constantly turn out more and more operators (because we were always undermanned), we wanted to identify early which of our prospective students were most likely to need extra attention, or possibly would need more unusual training methods to get the instruction to “stick.”  Since these individuals would also be flying with us when we deployed, we had a vested interest in making sure they were the best we could make them.

 We devised a “vetting” process we would use for our prospective students.  The student candidates had to accomplish the following, simultaneously, for an hour:

1. Play HALO (or any other storyline, first person shooter game) on medium and not die.
2. Monitor a second screen with CNN, FOX or some other national news outlet, with a news scroll bar across the bottom, and keep track of what was scrolling.
3. Listen to an audio book in their left ear, and be able to relate the major plot lines and characters of the story.
4. Listen to a music play list in their right ear, and keep track of which songs they had heard.

We did not expect (nor did we ever achieve) a perfect score.  But, what we did learn was that students who had the hand eye coordination, prioritization skills, and ability to train themselves to pay attention to what was important at that moment, had a much higher success rate than those who were natively unable to handle these tasks.

In the aircraft, it happens MUCH faster, and the consequences are simply life and death.

As instructors and trainers of military flyers, this was the most realistic vetting we could come up with that could approximate the average workload on a combat mission profile.

Our operators had to be able to track a moving target with a camera, and not lose PID, listen to the combat chatter of the ground team we were supporting, and make sure we were fully informed of what their locations, plans, and current actions were.  We also had to keep track of our aircraft position relative to our currently assigned airspace and altitude block, keep track of the pilots’ coordination with the airspace control authority, as well as any other supporting aircraft that were in the same piece of airspace with us.  We then had to be able to relay ALL this information to the ground force commander, so he or she was fully informed of the activities in their command area, in preparation for, or in direct support of, combat operations.

In the airborne sensor world, defining what you expect from your operators clearly and establishing an effective “vetting” process, and then training them to do the job properly will ensure a positive result. Having the right and well-trained crew member will help the individual, the crew, and the unit gets the job done right the first time, every time.

Training mission operators with a dwindling budget - Now that you’ve spent $18 million for a fully equipped Beech 350 MPA (Maritime Patrol Aircraft), and $8 million for a full ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance) equipped Twin EC135, or $4 million for a single engine A-Star, you think that taxpayers’ monies are well spent; and you don’t have to worry about a thing for the next 5-10 years…Except for the occasional aircraft and mission system repair. Is this really the case though when, conditions, many operators will spend a large amount of money training in the air? While training is of great importance, in order to be truly effective and to provide the best return on investment for the operator, it must involve the entire mission crew and employ a more cost effective solution. So you better think again.

During the preparation of this article, it came as no surprise that the majority of ALE (Airborne Law Enforcement) and ISR operators admitted some of the equipment knowledge imparted to them years ago during their (one-time…) manufacturer equipment training had been forgotten; what came as a major surprise was that some of them detailed this knowledge loss as up to 60%... And this wasn’t just the small operators, but particularly larger government institutions deploying more than half a dozen ISR aircraft. It also appeared that the more years the operators were doing their job, the less likely they would ask for refresher training – and if they did ask, that training more often than not became the first casualty in the yearly fight for the ever-shrinking budget. Spares and training are normally the first items to be negotiated downwards during contract negotiations. However, because a missing spare part means mission abort and AOG (Aircraft on Ground), it seems in the end spares are mostly winning the battle. Having half trained ISR operators on the other hand rarely gets any mention (or remedy), very likely because when no targets are detected, it is easier to blame the equipment or simply state there must be less targets out there because the missions are such a great deterrent…

Aside from this, for those who want and get ISR training funded an even bigger battle ensues: almost 100% of all ISR training has to happen with the actual equipment on real flying aircraft. This raises such ugly issues as:

What we are not short on is missed opportunities to detect targets, to track and identify them. We are our own worst enemy. We clamor for high MTBF equipment but think we don’t have to buy spares. We specify the most sophisticated equipment but think we don’t have to spend time/money on equally sophisticated operators.

Large operators of any type of aircraft, commercial as well as military, have solved their pilot training problem to a great extent thru the use of aircraft simulators. The forecasted pilot simulator market of $16 Billion by 2020 attests to that, as does the number and size of dedicated aircraft simulator companies. But it’ is extremely rare and very expensive to include in such simulators the rest of the mission crew tasks. The number of dedicated ISR simulator companies, whether it be radar, EOIR, EW (Electronic Warfare) or other mission equipment, is but a fraction of their aircraft simulator counterparts – both in number as well as in size. Consequently, ISR operators are left to study manuals, ask for advice from fellow operators, or resort to the standard excuses when the mission results are poor.

We are again our own worst enemy: when loss of life (our life...) is involved we want the best pilot training money can buy; when loss of target and mission efficiency is involved we think we can get by with the absolute minimum. The abundance of mandatory FAA pilot training requirements against practically non-existing mandatory TFO training only magnifies this gap.

It does not have to be that way! We can train ISR operators effectively for greater mission success, and please the accounting folks by spending less money in the process. It is kudos all around – so why don’t we do it? And what, really, is an EOIR (Electro-Optic Infra-Red) simulator anyway?

In the course of several discussions on this topic with the user community, we rarely encountered disagreement on the need for training. And very often the same reasons for lack of training were the same:

Yet most customers agreed that there was sufficient non-air time which could have been used for training purposes, but more often than not, there was no training time scheduled because of recurring lack of ground training equipment. Even champions of training within a user group lost their enthusiasm when confronted with this problem.

No Money (or budget constraints)

Yet a lot of money was available for a totally insufficient amount of in-flight EOIR training. Cost of such (mostly unsupervised and without feedback) airborne training ran around $2,500+/hr for twin engine helicopters ($1,300+/hr for single engine) to $6,000+/hr for larger fixed wing platforms. Assuming every operator needs a bare minimum of 16 hours training per year, the money available for in-flight training for even half of that is staggering – especially when multiplied by the number of operators in a fleet of ISR aircraft. Somehow ‘the flying budget’ was easier justified and tapped than the ‘training budget’…regardless of the fact that over the past 15 years the cost per flight hour has increased at an average of 8% per year.

No Equipment (or limited access to equipment)

This was the most common reason given for the lack of hands-on equipment training – ranging from zero equipment available to equipment available but not in a manner that would allow training. Yet most customers had a fleet of 2+ or many more EOIR turrets – all nicely installed on aircraft but without the necessary extra group A kit to allow operation in a class room… Even when cabling was available, the dilemma of powering up a million dollar turret for 8 hours/day for 10+ days per year meant 10%-30% of the MTBF-coupled (Mean Time Between Failure) warranty hours were eaten up by the training department!

So the Time/Money/Equipment problem is very real and difficult to address within the overall management structure. On the other hand, flying missions with half-trained ISR operators carries practically no repercussions in the daily operator life.

Since the Time factor needs a commitment from a dedicated champion within every organization, there is little technology can do to create such a person/commitment.

However, the Money/Equipment factors can today be more than adequately addressed by implementing new technologies: the tremendous costs of in-flight training can be obviated by the simple procurement of a simulator dedicated to the ISR sensor at hand. We hinted earlier at the ‘per hour flying cost’ of typical aircraft for the purpose of training ISR sensor operators – we feel that an appropriately selected ISR sensor simulator can reduce these flying cost by up to 90% over a 5-year period. At least 20%-30% of the ISR operator training must be performed in-flight in order to address real-life CRM (Crisis Response Management) issue; the remaining need for manual dexterity and operational knowledge can be obtained via regular simulator training.

Addressing Money/Equipment from the perspective of both aircraft and ISR equipment, we examined four types of aircraft and their average hourly operating cost. The type of aircraft that can be used for typical ISR missions vastly outnumbers the types of EOIR systems available. For the sake of simplicity we examined manned and unmanned, rotary and fixed-wing – with all combinations thereof. For rotary we limited the operational flight hours to 3, while for fixed wing we selected 6 flight hours as the typical in-flight training duration. The assumptions made are that a) the operator is trained fully 100% during the training flights, against b) the simulator training is replacing up to ~70% of those training flights (leaving 30+% for actual in-flight training).

We examined the typical hourly operating cost for several aircraft in those four categories. Our research in public literature and from actual operators revealed a large disparity of resulting hourly costs for identical or similar aircraft, depending on who produced the numbers and what result the originator wanted to achieve. Some costs from manufacturers were disputed by customers with higher values – in that case we used the average number. The costs shown are therefore representative only of what typical hourly operating costs can be and not of any specific aircraft. For manned and unmanned aircraft we included both the requirement of a pilot and a TFO (Tactical Flight Officer); for the simulator operation we included only the TFO.

The resulting cost graphs ($1,000, $3,000 and 7,000/hr) are shown against the simulator training hours. The cost range of an EOIR simulator is plotted as $60,000 to $200,000 based on market values – the cross-over or break-even points can be determined for every typical hourly operating cost.

We examined also UAVs (fixed wing, rotary, airships and aerostats) with payload of 60Kg or more. The disparity between various sources on actual cost per hour of operation varied even more than with manned aircraft: the inclusion (or not…) of required support equipment and personnel in addition to the vehicle flying cost plus operator cost made for large differences in perceived totals. For a non-armed large UAV the estimated hourly cost given was ~$2,200; yet the operator stated ~$10,000 while the accounting office said even that number was underestimated by at least $2,000…

It appears that the hourly operating cost ‘lies in the eye of the beholder’: we therefore decided to let the customer decide and provide typical hourly cost from helicopters up to medium-sized fixed-wing surveillance aircraft. Hourly operating costs of $1,000, $3,000 and $7,000 represent aircraft from AS350/Cessna208-size up to C-212/Beech350 size. This gives the reader the freedom to use his own cost values to reach his conclusion on whether or not a simulator is a cost-saving item in his overall training program. This approach also allows the reader to use yearly total training hours encompassing his complete operator fleet, and gives him the flexibility to plot the crossover points when 2 less expensive simulators are purchased instead of a single expensive one.

We found that military aircraft operating cost vary between $15,000-$80,000/hr, with some special purpose aircraft going as high as $162,000/hr. For such environments the choice of purchasing a simulator vs. in-flight training is neither an issue nor does it warrant a detailed calculation: at $20,000/hour significant cost-savings are achieved in less than 3 hours when buying a $60,000 simulator…

Important factors:

While most simulators do a good job mimicking the actual operation of the sensor, one important hardware component cannot be overlooked: the operator tool (hand controller, key grip, keyboard, etc.) must replicate the one used in-flight. The first and most important aim of a simulator is not the high resolution video-game type images shown to the operator, but to give the operator the ability to operate the equipment in total darkness, without the need to constantly look at the hand controller or keyboard in order to find the right buttons to push or dials to select. Compare this to learning how to type: the most fluent and fastest transformation from thought to paper will be achieved by the typist who is not inhibited by constantly having to look at the keyboard. While visually following a target on screen there is no allowance for ‘looking to find the right pushbuttons on the hand controller’. The concept of ‘detect first so you can identify quickly’ takes on a whole new meaning when the system shows the detected target in milliseconds, but the operator can’t ID because he’s fumbling to find the right buttons on his hand controller. No HD (High Definition) 100” monitor, no perfect simulation of rain or snow or desert, no 25 million color display will make this operator have a successful simulator mission – let alone during his next real-life mission where real lives may be lost or saved. What a simulator cannot do is simulate the stress associated with actual missions, when ‘flying fatigue’ sets in and the human eyes see but the brain fails to register. Still, a good simulator can provide a large degree of ‘situation awareness’ which is totally lacking with a real system operated in a class-room or aircraft hangar. And a simulator can easily provide direct inputs and feedback, and even inexpensive testing during the writing and fine-tuning of ISR Operational Procedures.

Summary:

Specific sensor simulators (EOIR, radar, etc.) are needed to establish a cadre of well-trained TFOs, who will thus provide:

a. Most comprehensive and on-the-spot feedback from training supervisors and mission replay.

b. The best instant tactical performance in-the air which will lead to successful missions, including saving lives on the ground as well as in the air.

c. Clean, sharp and mission-optimized video of targets that will allow the image analysts to faster extract more accurate ‘actionable intelligence’ data during their post-mission examination

d. An invaluable help in establishing ISR Operational Procedures.

The cost of a typical simulator is not prohibitive when viewed in the context of the other alternatives:

a. Training the TFOs using expensive flying hours (and using up warranty hours).

b. Training the TFO on the same sensor but using a less expensive (read different) training aircraft.

The cost of the simulator should be dictated by its purpose, and should primarily focus on:

a. Total familiarization of the mission sensor with all the capabilities inherent in its specific configuration

b. ‘Eyes-Off Operation’ of the hand controller, to allow the TFO to maintain visual contact with the target at all times

c. Upgrade-ability and customization of the basic simulator hardware with different software packages for:

d. Compactness and ruggedization for those instances where out-of-country missions need to be supported

e. Ability to store the ‘simulator mission flown’

f. Ability to randomly change certain mission parameters to avoid ‘trainee scenario memorization’

g. Ability to have multiple-choice solutions on key operational aspects of the equipment and    sensors

h. Ability for superiors to grade mission performance during later review

i. Ability to store individual operator preferences and test results for use during future training sessions

The selection of a simulator should not be dictated by the ‘bells and whistles’ that do not represent the TFOs’ flying experience:

a. Super-large monitors or projectors that are not found in the mission aircraft

b. Super-high resolution screens/processors that represent neither the resolution of the aircraft monitors nor that of the ISR sensors

c. Video-game type fancy hand controllers that are different from the mission equipment

There are two things your simulator choice will not simulate, your present annual cost of training your operators in the air, and the CO2 carbon foot print generated during your present in-flight training…

This article is a summary of the Simulator presentation given by the authors at the Airtec aerospace conference in Munich.

G.Davies is a seasoned satellite controller, microwave downlink and EOIR consultant who is a firm believer that only TFO training can make your equipment live up to its’ full potential.

G.DeCock is a veteran in the field of communications, EW, radar and EOIR sensors and their integration into a smart ISR package.

They can be reached at george@g2consulting.eu

What bugs me, and tell me if I’m wrong, is seeing people operating on a flight crew with no aviation and aerial work sense. Over the last ten years as I’ve expanded from just military sensor operations to civilian I’ve noticed one major thing.  That major thing, especially on the civilian side, is the blindness of both the individual who says “Cool, I’ll work the sensor while you fly Mr. Pilot” and the organizations that allow people on a flight crew without proper training & standards.  

Why is this? Is it because people in the aviation and aerial remote-sensing business don’t care or because it really won’t affect flight safety, the data collection or the flight organizations bottom-line? Or better yet, the PIC can handle it all if the half ASO/Half passenger goes Tango Uniform during the flight.

My thought on this is: REALLY! Is that the best we can do as an industry sector? What are your thoughts?

Patrick Ryan

Aviation Safety concerns are the most relevant in all aviation sectors. The fact that a considerable number of human lives are always at stake makes it worth all the right reasons to improve on it. Additionally, in the Civil Commercial Aviation sector (especially in the aerial remote-sensing community), the economic effect of an accident or regulatory violation can be a disaster regarding staying in business.

One of the primary reasons accidents & violations happen is due to human error. The fuel that usually feeds human error is a lack of professionalism, airmanship skills and not having a positive safety mindset at different levels and within the many different career fields that make up the aviation community.

So…What do I mean by “There’s a Gap in Aviation Safety!”

The gap that I’m talking about is the civil Airborne Sensor Operator (ASO) career field. This profession is a global group of highly skilled technical individuals. Since the beginning of man flight ASOs have directly participated as crew members in civil commercial aerial remote sensing operations every day and in every corner of the world (both Manned and Unmanned). However, ASOs lack the global aviation standards to professionalize, train and develop a safety mindset equal to Pilots, Flight Dispatchers, and Flight Attendants. Search the internet and you’ll find very little regarding specific civil aviation regulations or associations promoting best aviation/remote-sensing practices & standards for this profession. What you will find are many job postings for Airborne Sensor Operators, Payload Operators, Aerial Survey Operators, Aerial Photographer, etc. (Manned & Unmanned).  What this says is that the aviation community has an “Orphan among its Tribe.”

One could argue that there is no safety gap because the Airborne Sensor Operator is just a:

• “Passenger.”
• The “Guy in Back” (GIB)
• “Self-Loading Luggage”
• Some person who babysits a sensor on a tethered Zeppelin
• The “Dude” standing next to me operating the camera on my drone

Additionally, others would argue, individual civil ASOs should be self-discipline to self-interpret pilot & remote pilot standards and best practices to meet critical safety & task expectations of the job if they want to make some money. Or, hire from the various militaries around the world for well-trained ASOs rather than bother the established civil aviation community with another area of improvement.

The counter argument to this is the true intent of Civil Aviation Safety and Risk Mitigation. The baseline of aviation safety is to mitigate risk. The means of mitigating this risk is to identify the areas of improvement and apply the appropriate actions or efforts in a rigorous & standardized manner.  In this case (“Orphan among its Tribe”), the civil aviation community can probably shave off a few accident percentages, ASOs will improve their career choice, and commercial firms will protect their bottom-line by:

• Recognizing and establishing basic operating standards of the career field in Civil Aviation regulations around the world (ICAO, CAA, FAA, etc.). Rationale: By Civil governmental aviation organizations establishing a baseline of standards for this career field, it will provide an authoritative framework for other non-government organizations to refine & improve regarding their specific non-pilot/flight crew safety requirements…ie…Professionalize with a safety mindset.
• Establish training programs focused on airmanship and remote-sensing applications. Rationale: By non-governmental organizations (Flight Schools, Associations, etc.) developing and offering focused courses for non-pilot flight crewmembers, it will start to formally educate a group of active flying participants who in the past lacked recognition as a civil aviation crewmember (i.e., Flight Engineers, Flight Attendants, etc.). This approach will help with accountability and make the ASO part of the safety community in general.
• Establish professional Certifications to formally validate an individual ASO’s level of knowledge and experience. Rationale: Like with other aviation professions (i.e.,…Flight Attendants: “Flight Attendants Certification of Demonstrated Proficiency”), establishing a global certification system will enhance the professionalism of the ASO/Crewmember career field while providing commercial & non-commercial entities the means to mitigate risk by hiring quickly & correctly.

Again, It appears the aviation community has a gap in its safety perspective. The gap is related to a particular highly skilled aviation group, in this case, the Airborne Sensor Operator but lacks the recognition & formalization to guide participants to the next level of professionalism & a safety mindset equal to other critical aviation career fields. By incrementally formalizing this profession, the aviation community as a whole can improve its safety margins a bit more! Like you hear in the London underground…”Mind the Gap!”

If you have any information on a particular country’s government aviation standards for ASOs or specific Associations or Societies that promote standards for ASOs, please share. It would be great to start a global baseline!