ASO Group...this is a good general read...I've seen this technology slowly come to the forefront in the last few years...Can VR training/simulation improve efficiencies in the Airborne Sensor Operator community?
image: © Learn to Fly Melbourne
ASO Group...this is a good general read...I've seen this technology slowly come to the forefront in the last few years...Can VR training/simulation improve efficiencies in the Airborne Sensor Operator community?
image: © Learn to Fly Melbourne
Written by Patrick McConnell, President, ClearSkies Geomatics Inc.
My marketing director has been pushing me for over 6 months to write this article. So today I am putting keyboard to bits and bytes to write something that will hopefully engage the reader to participate by adding comments either for or against my position.
Why consider purchasing used aerial sensor equipment? There is risk involved, right? What should I do to ensure the investment (ROI) would be successful?
Purchasing used aerial survey equipment can be a scary thing to do. The biggest benefit of considering used equipment is that often, the equipment sells for a fraction of the new equipment available to the market. What is scary about the process? Well, if it were my money, my concerns would be whether or not the system comes complete (no missing parts or software), is the system still serviceable by the manufacturer, is the software transferable, is there a warranty, will the system deliver the expected specification to my end user, are there export restrictions etc.… As a broker of such systems, it’s my job to make sure all of these questions are answered to ensure a deliverable that meets the buyer’s expectations. If there are no surprises, then I feel like I have done my job in an ethical and professional way.
First off, when considering the purchase of any piece of equipment, it is important to understand your end user needs and this must be done in a way that satisfies most of your end client needs. I have yet to see any equipment that satisfies all the possible needs of different end users so the goal has to be to meet as many scenarios possible. From an aerial camera perspective, consideration of image quality and swath are very important. From a LiDAR perspective, points per meter, avoiding shadows and swath width seem to be the most desired features.
In the years that I have been in the business of marketing aerial survey equipment, the most significant change I have seen is the market has been two fold for both the camera and LiDAR markets. First, swath of the data has in most cases doubled while image quality has improved but not at the same rates as swath growth. Secondly, software workflow and tools have improved greatly by the advent of greater computing power and better tools to fix data. Both of these factors affect efficiencies so the bigger the jobs, the more money you potentially save by adopting a newer sensor. From a qualitative perspective, passive sensors like cameras, have improved (better radiometry, smaller pixels, better signal to noise ratios) but not to the point where older sensors (10 year old) have become obsolete. I have noticed that from a geometry perspective, in general, the improvements have been relative to the improvement of image quality. So, some improvement, but nothing like footprint improvement. Also, the geometry generated from these older systems meet most specifications required by the end user. There are a greater number of these older sensors in operation today than newer sensors and this is because the data generated from these older cameras continue to meet the end user specifications from a qualitative perspective. For active sensors, the number of clean points per square meter is the big driver for this market. To achieve this, these sensors are capable of generating more usable point than ever, while pushing the envelope on swath width. So there are fewer older active sensors still operating in the market today because of the end user desire to have a denser point cloud.
What to look for in buying used equipment? First, you want to make sure that this equipment has been well taken care of during its tenure with the current owner. Is the equipment clean? Has it been maintained by the manufacturer? When was it last used successfully? Has it been bench tested, or air tested? Can it be set up in an airplane for viewing and testing? What are the acceptance criteria? If needed, what would it cost to have the manufacturer test the system? Is the post processing software transferable? Are there any restricted items such as IMUs and how does this affect you? All of these factors play out in pricing of the system.
Why would someone sell his or her own equipment? The simple answer is that the manufacturers will not usually buy your system back unless it’s on a ‘trade in’ for something newer. If you have ever purchased a new car and traded in an old one, then you know what that experience will be like… One of the things manufacturers do to hold you ‘captive’ is they do not restrict the sale of the sensor, but they restrict the transfer of the software making it nearly impossible for you as a seller to control your asset sale to a third party. It’s akin to buying a Tesla, and allowing for the resale of that car, but without the software included. Without allowing the transfer of the software in a Tesla, the value of this car results in in a parts only value unless the transfer is done ‘under the table’. Try getting service on that car after this happens… This is why in most industries, when you buy an asset, the license of that asset belongs to you, to do as you wish provided you do not reverse engineer the software. In a lot of cases, in our industry, this is not the case. You can sell the hardware with no problem, but the software must be repurchased at exorbitant prices. This fact should be considered when purchasing new equipment. It is something that should be a negotiating point when purchasing new equipment, otherwise you will be stuck with an unsellable asset later on. In short, why spend a million + on a new system today if 5 years down the road you will not have control of the sale of the full system?
Why use a broker and not sell your equipment on your own? Selling equipment through a broker has certain advantages. You can flow the contract through a broker and avoid any potential litigation with the end user if the system is not delivered as promised. Exporting restricted items can be tricky and a good broker should be licensed with the Department of State to do these activities. Shipping of the equipment is not always straightforward and having a broker organize this on your behalf can be a real value. Finally, good brokers have worldwide reach thus increasing your chances at getting top dollar for your asset.
The morale of this narrative is that if you can, use a broker to help guide you through this process. Advice is mostly free…
Image: Wikicomons – Cargyrak
ASOG Members,
You might find this guide or checklist useful in your ASO profession. Based on some ASOs networking regarding career transition and job searching, several of the members of our group put together this simple guide to help. It’s based on their experience, and they just wanted to share their humble thoughts to further the ASO profession and our fellow ASOs.
Below is just is an excerpt from the guide. You can find the full document in the member’s only “Career Center” – “Career Path” – “Career Management Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTP)” section of the ASOG webpage (https://aso-group.ning.com/career-path).
If you want to contribute additional information to this guide, please speak up, and we’ll put it in the 2nd edition.
Cheers!
ASOG Desk Editor
----------------------Excerpt:
Introduction
The Airborne Sensor Operator Career Transition Checklist is intended to serve as an initial job search or career transition tool for Airborne Sensor Operators (ASOs) seeking information on various types of aerial remote-sensing industry sectors.
The checklist section of this guide reflects many of the tasks related to successfully transitioning from one ASO job or aerial work industry sector to another. Every job search situation is different, so personalize the checklist as needed. This guide is divided into sections for ease; however, tasks from “Flight planning,” “Preflight,” and “Taxi & Take-Off” phases may overlap.
Lastly, this is a living document which is periodically updated by the ASOG community to reflect changes in aviation, remote-sensing practices, and the professional environment. Please send suggestions, edits, errata, questions, and comments to info@aso-group.org.
Payload: the reason why you are being paid!
I think this is a very good overview of payloads and capabilities e.g. a quick reference guide. You don’t see too many ASOs take the time to post their thoughts…hint, hint folks. Is there anything you would add to Pier’s list and/or new knowledge?
ASOG Desk Editor (Patrick)
Image: YSSYguy at English Wikipedia
Do you feel like you know a lot but no one listens to you, or you always wanted to write an article but felt it was beyond your abilities?
Well, one reason ASOG came about is to let the average ASO stretch themselves out of their comfort zone by sharing their professional ASO experiences, thoughts and opinions through posting on the ASOG webpage. The ASOG webpage was partially designed to be a professional journal which focuses on a particular professional audience and published by a professional organization. If I were king for a day, it would be great to see more members (YOU) post your articles, reports, and practical how-to-guides applicable to our profession.
Because we have some top-notch sensor operators, air crewmembers, and technical folks in the group, it would be a shame we didn’t share & learn as other professional associations/groups do! It’s time for folks like you to write and post (long or short write-ups…it doesn’t matter) your thoughts regarding your industry sector, technology trends, ASO professional standards, etc, so that we all can “fly & collect” better as a profession which did not exist before.
If you’re up to the challenge, but not sure how to get start, answer one or all of the following questions, i.e., self-interview yourself and write down your thoughts. Once you do this, “prest-o change-o” you have an article. If you need help with a second-set of eye-balls to review and provide feedback, do not hesitate to contact the ASOG Desk Editor, it would be a pleasure to help you get started!
------------------------Sample Questions:
Q: What is the general role for Airborne Sensor Operators in today’s (You pick: commercial, public safety and defense sectors – Manned/unmanned Aerial Mapping & Surveying, Aerial Photography, Maritime Patrol/SAR, Law Enforcement, Fire Fighting, Contract ISR, Battle Management, EW, etc. etc. ) Sector?
A:
Q: What are the general trends you see in the (You pick: commercial, public safety and defense sectors – Manned/unmanned Aerial Mapping & Surveying, Aerial Photography, Maritime Patrol/SAR, Law Enforcement, Fire Fighting, Contract ISR, Battle Management, EW, etc. etc. ) sector or markets?
A:
Q: What are the challenges encountered when flying data collection missions? (Regarding/You pick: commercial, public safety and defense sectors – Manned/unmanned Aerial Mapping & Surveying, Aerial Photography, Maritime Patrol/SAR, Contract ISR, EW, etc. etc.)
A:
Q: What technologies can be implemented to enable higher throughput and maximize service availability? (Regarding/You pick: commercial, public safety and defense sectors – Manned/unmanned Aerial Mapping & Surveying, Aerial Photography, Maritime Patrol/SAR, Contract ISR, EW, etc. etc.)
A:
Q: What are the functional requirements to enable successful data collection missions? (Regarding/You pick: commercial, public safety and defense sectors – Manned/unmanned Aerial Mapping & Surveying, Aerial Photography, Maritime Patrol/SAR, Contract ISR, EW, etc. etc.)
A:
Q: What are the results when translating these technologies into real-world practice and actual airborne data collection programs/missions? (Regarding/You pick: commercial, public safety and defense sectors – Manned/unmanned Aerial Mapping & Surveying, Aerial Photography, Maritime Patrol/SAR, Contract ISR, EW, etc. etc.)
A:
----------------------------------End
Now that you have a starting point find the time and start writing. We’re all looking forward to hearing what you have to say!!
Cheers!
ASOG Desk Editor (Patrick)
Hi Everyone,
As some of you know, one of ASOG’s goals is to promote the profession (https://aso-group.ning.com/about-us ). A great method is to share videos or pictures of ASOs doing their job, the systems they use or the missions they fly. The video I posted here (click the image above) highlights the role & responsibilities of an unmanned ISR Sensor Operator Instructor (O’, listen to SSgt Joseph points…spot on!).
If you have a favorite video or picture that relates to the ASO and aerial remote sensing profession (commercial mapping/surveying, public safety, manned & unmanned collection platforms, sensors, educational lectures, news clips, etc. etc.), let’s see it…just post the link on the Blog Board with a few words highlighting the main points! Also, we’ll share it across our other ASOG Social Media profiles for the public to see.
Thanks Everyone,
Cheers!
ASOG Desk Editor (Patrick)
In the last 30 years, the Aerostat aircraft has undergone tremendous changes in both mission and sensor equipment. If you don’t know what an Aerostat is, it’s a low-level airborne ground surveillance system that uses aerostats (moored balloons) as a sensor & communications platform, i.e., an unmanned aerial vehicle. Along with these changes, the roles & responsibilities of the operator have also changed to include managing sensors.
Today's Aerostat Operator
Jump forward to today, and the individuals who manage the mission of an Aerostat is commonly known as the Aerostat Operator (AO). On the ISR side of the house the AO, besides managing the flight of the Aerostat, is responsible for quite a mix of cutting-edge technologies and radios.
The ISR Aerostat platform of today is usually fielded to provide Operations and Sustainment (O&S) support to include the Persistent Threat Detection System (PTDS) and Persistent Ground Surveillance System (PGSS). The ISR Aerostat aircraft is considered part of the Quick Reaction Capability (QRC) that provides integrated persistent surveillance, detection capabilities, and Full Motion Video (FMV) dissemination to Tactical Operation Centers (TOC). The Aerostat system integrates different sensors to detect small arms fires and Counter Improvised Explosive Device (IED) activity near airfields, fixed-base encampments, forward operating locations, and other facilities in support of rapid reaction security forces in the area of operation.
Considering all the flight oversight of the platform and the sensor operations an AO must manage during a routine mission or shift, the AO of today is often multi-tasked like other aircrews. While keeping one eye on the threat, they’re also watching the flight status of the airship and all the elements that provide critical support. Also, there’re usually two or more tactical radios, chats or land-lines buzzing asking a million questions about the situation.
Besides the AO managing all the system maintenance, sensor operations, and mission duties, he or she must maintain and provide attention to his or her primary duty: safety-of-flight. Even with all the responsibilities of the force protection mission, the AO must always look for conflicting aircraft activity and weather conditions.
Like with other flight operations, if additional tasking is assigned, it’s often the AO that interacts to complete the mission. For example, if the Aerostat system needs to relocate, the AO must coordinate to make sure all the elements of the system is mobilized in a quick-reaction manner and doesn’t miss a beat in operational readiness.
Selection and Training
Most companies and organizations have a formalized selection process for AOs. Among the usual hiring criteria considered are work records, experience, and technical skills. Any flying experience is considered, but many successful AOs have limited or no prior aviation experience. However, after completing Aerostat training and building mission hours, they develop a baseline aviation skill set.
Training programs have also become much more formal and structured. Current training consists of formal classroom, simulation, and in-flight events to learn how to manage and use all the technology and resources available. The newly assigned AO must learn quite a bit about a sometimes completely strange environment. They learn to speak aviation with such terms like transponders, safety management systems and aircraft de-confliction to name just a few. Although every organization has different requirements, many training programs from start to a fully qualified AO can take anywhere from xx months to a year. This does not include any additional even-more-specialized training that an AO might need. If the AO does multi-duty work such as special system repairs or management duties, the AO has additional training.
Once fully mission qualified, there is constant recurrence training. As with most technologies, equipment and capabilities change rapidly, and the AO is expected to keep up with any changes or new mission equipment that becomes available.
One could say that a surveillance aircraft is just an aircraft until a properly trained Operator makes it a true surveillance platform. Operating in such demanding conditions requires all the same skills as a good ISR or any aerial work crewmember:
Bottom-line, the Aerostat aircraft has come a long way since its employment. Additionally, the Operators have also come along way in their roles & responsibilities. Todays Aerostat Operator is more than a ground crew managing a tethered airship; they’re aircraft maintainer, pilot and sensor operator all in one. In many ways similar to a sUAS/RPA operator.
ASOG Members, I just wanted to share this article (click image). The main purpose is to highlight the concept of Pod Sensor Systems. From my perspective, this tech concept (like Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) opens the door to many more uses of aerial remote-sensing be it civilian, public safety or defense. What do you think, plus, what other affordable Pods are available today?
If you want to know more about the SAR system highlighted in this article, please reach out to Scott H....He's one of us! You can find him in the members' directory.
ASOG Desk Editor
As an Airborne Sensor Operator Group (ASOG) member, you know how important professional development is, i.e., one reason you joined this network/group.
“Professional development is learning to earn or maintain professional credentials such as academic degrees to formal coursework, conferences and informal learning opportunities situated in practice. It has been described as intensive and collaborative, ideally incorporating an evaluative stage. There are a variety of approaches to professional development, including consultation, coaching, communities of practice, lesson study, mentoring, reflective supervision and technical assistance.” (Wikipedia)
One of my favorite professional development TTP (Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures), and there are many others, is attending Trade Shows & Conferences. When it comes to improving my professional knowledge and strengthen my career, there’s no substitute for a live learning event like a trade show or conference. By interacting with a roomful or exhibit hall of peers, asking questions of subject matter experts, and examining real-world applications of the information you’re focused on, it helps cement your knowledge & connections.
Yes, most trade shows and conferences are expensive, but if you’re able to get your employer to send you or budget your funds to attend, take advantage of it. Also, before attending have a plan of what you want to learn, experience and whom to connect with, this will maximize your investment.
Additionally, to go above and beyond just attending, try to become a guest speaker. Going through the processes and sharing your professional experiences and knowledge will double your knowledge & connections.
For reference, below is a list of events that relate to the Airborne Sensor Operator profession (Civilian, Public Safety, and Defense). If you know of any other events that relate to the Airborne Sensor Operator profession, please speak up. (Note: The list below was randomly selected from the internet based on their relationship to the ASO profession…ASOG has no connection with these events. Also, see the home page for additional events around the world and for the different industry sectors).
ICASDM 2018: 20th International Conference on Aerial Surveying and Digital Mapping
Dubai, UAE
April 9 - 10, 2018
Commercial UAV Expo 2017
Commercial Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Expo
24 Oct 2017 - 26 Oct 2017
84 days to go
Westgate Las Vegas Resort & Casino
Maritime Reconnaissance and Surveillance Summit
26 September, 2017 - 28 September, 2017
Rome, Italy
ISR & C2 Battle Management US conference
7 November 2017 - 9 November 2017
Bethesda, United States
Maritime Security & Coastal Surveillance Conference
28 November 2017 - 29 November 2017
Singapore, Singapore
ASOG Desk Editor (Patrick Ryan)
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."
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.
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
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