Doped pilots

[Frizbee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Jan. 15 2003,10:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I read once that each pilotless Predator drone mission is supported by ~60 people huddled in front of umpteen monitors etc.  And that's for a subsonic aircraft on recon with  minimal payload, if any.  Perhaps this friendly fire incident will become part of a strong argument for developing unmanned fighter jets and even bombers.  Afterall, is there anything a pilot can see from a cockpit that could not be more accurately rendered back in a bunker across a real-time datalink?

By the way, much of the AI technology required for this will probably come from the gaming industry. <span id='postcolor'>

Well, actually the Situational awareness of a pilot in a cockpit is a hell of a lot more than the crews controlling an unmanned aircraft.

For one, human's have peripheral vision. Camera's don't.

A second point is that a pilot can react almost immediately to a sudden threat appearing. (Ie. another fighter)

Even the best computers uplinked by satellite would have small delays. Both the information sent from the unmanned aircraft, and then the info sent back. Its minimal certainly, but that 1/2 a, or one second extra might be life or death for the aircraft.

ANd plus that, I'd like someone to show me a true blooded pilot who would rather sit in an airconditioned room staring at a computer screen than actually be up in the Jet flying.

You can add multi-million dollar computer equipment to the scenario.. but it's still just Microsoft Combat Simulator in disguise.

[theavonlady 2]

I have been off of coffee now for several years. Before that, I was absolutely addicted to my first cup of coffee in the morning. Without that, my day would have been ruined.

I must have started drinking a morning cup at around the age of 11 or 12. If I missed it, it was a bad day at school. My mother tested this out by slipping me caffeine-free coffee several mornings. On each of those days, I was headachey and easily annoyed.

Now, the only caffeine I have is in my green tea but I'm not addicted to the caffeine whatsover.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frizbee @ Jan. 15 2003,13:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can add multi-million dollar computer equipment to the scenario.. but it's still just Microsoft Combat Simulator in disguise.<span id='postcolor'>

Here's how to save big bucks!

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frizbee @ Jan. 15 2003,12:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, actually the Situational awareness of a pilot in a cockpit is a hell of a lot more than the crews controlling an unmanned aircraft.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, this is why I don't think the technology is there yet.  However, the incident in question did happen at night, which didn't really leave the pilots with much beyond their instruments to be aware of.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frizbee @ Jan. 15 2003,12:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ANd plus that, I'd like someone to show me a true blooded pilot who would rather sit in an airconditioned room staring at a computer screen than actually be up in the Jet flying.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree.  I'm a pilot.  But this should not be about pursuing personal passions.  An unmanned fighter could be faster, pull more G's, cheaper and expendible.  Datalink through an airborne forward controller would be much faster than satellite.  Evasive maneuvers could be onboard AI controlled and without any human reflects lag or fear of breaking into your wingman's path. But I admit that selling this idea would be like selling tickets to an unmanned F1 Grand Prix race.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Jan. 15 2003,12:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That must have been one tiny joint! <span id='postcolor'>

[Supah 0]

I fail the see the problem IceFire

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> The reason that is not a good idea is because all these unmanned planes are still controlled from the ground by experienced pilots <span id='postcolor'>

So they wont get unemployed then .... no problem there

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Many pilots are strongly against this since they would be forced to stop doing the thing they love and trained their lives to do, to pilot a unmanned plane. <span id='postcolor'>

Well sorry but just because they "love" it this shouldnt be done? Sorry but i think thats flawed reasoning. I love to drive my car at twice the legal speedlimit ... but i dont, its illegal and its not necesary. If manned aircraft become unnecesarry i dont see the use of sending pilots in to harms way "Just because they love to fly" ... well hey buy a cessna or a old fighter. MiG-15's are available at reasonable cost. I doubt their wives/children will be so pleased when they get shot down just because they "loved to fly" while they could have been sitting a continent away behind a desk with a terminal and a joystick.

[mr. Duck 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I doubt their wives/children will be so pleased when they get shot down just because they "loved to fly" while they could have been sitting a continent away behind a desk with a terminal and a joystick.<span id='postcolor'>

Pilot's know the risks, and so do their family's. But if you think like this, you might as well do this to the entire military (soldiers behind a desk controlling drones, naval personell do ship's etc. etc.)

But I think the U.S. military wanted to do something like this, only for the planes who would go out for a SEAD mission.

[Jinef 2]

I know the RAF used amphetamines in WW2 but we don't anymore because of bad side effects of over use.

If you look at some of the side effects you'll be amazed at how stupid the idea of giving a person in control of a $80m war machine is! One of these side effects is Phsycotic behaviour for god's sake!

The RAF very rarely has civilian casualties on it's hands and the RAF is considered by the Americans (the ones i've met) as a bunch of old men in their magnificent flying machines so why is it that a supposedly far superior air force with better equipment cannot carry out the mission without serious cockups?

[DracoPaladore 0]

About both situations, don't the pilots need confirmation from their commanders in order to engage? And isn't the wingman there suppose to do the same?

[bn880 5]

Well, if you watch the tape of the events, on TV, it is apparent that the pilot did make a mistake. That tape is however edited, to cut out a few minutes of question period (ie: waiting for a reply) between the pilot and HQ...

The pilots were pre conditioned to fire and forget in that area, in the briefing they were specifically told that al Qaeda had just acquired anti aircraft artillery(etc.) from Iran (not Iraq), and that there is a heavy al Qaeda presence in the region of operations.

It looks from the tape like the pilot did make a mistake, but so did the whole U.S. chain of command by not having all the data available to the aircraft performing missions on the fly. And by counting on it's pilots to work on narcotics. Therefore the main problem is actually the U.S. chain of command, or at least it looks like it is at the moment.

Sloppy, very sloppy. It is nearly impossible to get any facts out of the Americans to the general public.

EDIT: Topic2

Like Denoirs story says, caffeine can only be taken as a last resort, ie: you are downed behind enemy territory and need to stay awake to avoid the enemy search teams. You have to be wired up to survive, since it may take 48+ hours before a rescue plan is in place and you get a chance out. Taking any narcotics in the middle of combat missions is bad practice, because your performance will simply deteriorate mission after mission from getting used and abused by the narcotics.

[Renagade 0]

well what happened if there was a drug without the bad side effects.

Why does the screwy spider webs have any bearing on this argument,all it proves is that spiders get screwed up on caffine and last time i checked ppl arne`t much like spiders maybe getting ppl on drugs to ddraw spiders webs would of been better

Unmanned fighters would be a good idea but they too have pros and cons which ill list

Basicly it wouldn`t need to accomadate a pilot which means that quite a lot of crap would not be needed in the plane also no pilot placed restrictions on movement like g forces.

The possiblility to use them in missions where a missile couldn`t be used and and where a normal plane couldn`t go in becuase of the risks.

It should in theory be easier to get information in a unmanned plane.I think it would be able to get more infomation and have that information faster and more easily accessable than a normal pilot in plane..

Somone mentioned a pilot has a greater view well with VR goggles or a surrond display a person in a comm centre could have the same as or better view of the area not only that but places where a normal pilot wouldn`t see like under the plane and in other blind spots would become viewable.

The problem is lag so unless u also had a command centre somewhere it could be a problem then after that there is the possibility of the signal becoming jammed,distorted or even taken over.

Evn if there was unmanned fighters they`d still suffer from fatigue only if they did use stuff like caffine or speed there would be others surveying the situation unless they took turns in shifts.

A problem with it being in shifts would be the loss of more subtle information between users changing.

I think the use of drugs in combat missions needs to be decided the specific mission unless combat drugs can be developed to rule out the negative consequences or at least limit them or instead of that find a new way to train pilots to operate.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

If the issue here is caffine and amphetamines, I wouldn't take them on an excercise with me. Caffine makes me jittery and I don't want to be that way while holding any kind of weapon. A guy in my platoon during basic took caffine pills to stay awake during training and ended up passing out from them.

I beleive the American pilots mistook the firing of Carl Gustavs to be some kind of AA missiles. The CG makes a big flash when firing at night and the projectiles we use are rocket assisted. So I can see how the Pilots might have mistook AT fire for AA fire from 20,000 feet. However that is not the issue. If the pilots had waited for confirmation to drop a bomb, they probably would have been told not to fire anything. The pilots weren't told that the area around Kandahar was in use for training. I think the some of the blame should lie in the higher command of the USAF. Both for letting the pilots use 'go pills' and not giving them proper information.

Just my POV.

Tyler

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ Jan. 15 2003,20:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...there is the possibility of the signal becoming jammed,distorted or even taken over.<span id='postcolor'>

Yup.  Unless your going up against a Taliban army on horseback you have to expect the possibility of EMP-type weapons and interference systems.  The UAV would have to be able to limp home on its own with onboard shielded AI guidance systems if cut off from the control team.

[Jinef 2]

You said the pilot's were flying at 20,000 feet. Why? All it does is let more mistakes happen. Do it the good old fashioned way like us in 1991, low and fast with no mistakes.

True it's more dangerous but that is what being a military pilot is about - being in dangerous situations. Is the risk of having a doped up American pilot fly into a mountain worth Afghan civilian lives? Yes or No?

[FSPilot 0]

This is one thing I didn't know my government was doing and I frankly don't support it. Then again, even though I don't like to admit it, I'd probably do it if they put my entire career on the line.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Jan. 16 2003,04:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">True it's more dangerous but that is what being a military pilot is about - being in dangerous situations.<span id='postcolor'>

Eh, I disagree. Although being in the military is a dangerous job and will include dangerous situations it doesn't mean you have to willingly put yourself in a dangerous situation all the time. I sure hope you don't do that, especially with a lot of passengers under your care.

Anyway, I don't know whether or not these drugs cause jitteryness or other sideffects, but this is the air force. Don't you think they'd know about it, or of noticed by now?

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ Jan. 15 2003,20:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well what happened if there was a drug without the bad side effects.

Why does the screwy spider webs have any bearing on this argument,all it proves is that spiders get screwed up on caffine and last time i checked ppl arne`t much like spiders maybe getting ppl on drugs to ddraw spiders webs would of been better <span id='postcolor'>

There will not be a stimulant drug without the bad side-effects, not ever. See, the whole point of stimulants is to make your brain fire faster. And like it or not, making your brain fire faster also impairs your judgement and makes you jittery. You cannot separate the bad effects from the good effects, since they are essentially two sides of the same thing.

Spider webs have bearing on this argument, since human and spider DNA are 70-90% identical. Furthermore, human and spider neurons operate on the same principle and are constructed almost the same way.

[Bernadotte 0]

I've just heard the communications tape.  The pilot was told to standby for attack clearance.  After waiting ~80 seconds, he announced that he was attacking without clearance, "in the interest of self-defence."  This was a big mistake.  The correct response would have been to climb higher.  So it was not only drugs that impaired his judgement, it was also his instinct for self-preservation - a mistake that would not have been made by an unmanned flight.

[Oligo 1]

And since he was riding on speed, those 80 seconds have felt like 80 hours to him.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Jan. 16 2003,08:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Furthermore, human and spider neurons operate on the same principle and are constructed almost the same way.<span id='postcolor'>

Not quite Oligo. They are very different. Spiders have ganglions which are much more primitive then our neural nets. The biggest difference is that the ganglions are hard coded, i.e no learning is possible. It just maps sensory input to motoric movement without anything inbetween.

[cam0flage 0]

This is a bit offtopic, but someone drop me a link with more information about these drugged spider experiments. Really interesting! Thank you in advance!

[Badgerboy 0]

The drugged monkey article I saw was far more amusing...

Let's get down to the brass tacks...... how much for the ape?

[FSPilot 0]

http://www.centcom.mil/News/Reports/Tarnak_Farms_Report.htm

A report on the friendly fire incidents.

anybody else find it ironic that the pilots were hopped up on adrenaline drugs, and their callsign was "Coffee 5"?

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 16 2003,12:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not quite Oligo. They are very different. Spiders have ganglions which are much more primitive then our neural nets. The biggest difference is that the ganglions are hard coded, i.e no learning is possible. It just maps sensory input to motoric movement without anything inbetween.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes of course, but in the molecular level (where the drugs take effect) our wiring looks quite the same.

[theavonlady 2]

The Pentagon and CIA are monitoring this thread!

Ooooooooooooooooooh! That ending paragraph is flamebate! Canadians take notice!