At least not in the accepted sense...

The aircraft flies itself autonomously, doing whatever is necessary to meet the needs of the mission controller and the image analyst. There is no facility for a remote pilot to actially take control of it.

The mission controller can plot a general course based on a series of waypoints, and the image analyst can then demand particular types of live infra-red imaging video scan - say to look at a point, or scan along a particular bearing at a particular speed etc. The aircraft flies orbit patterns to enable it to loiter in one general area for long enough. It is also possible (in theory) to hand over the air vehicle from one ground station to another to extend a missions range beyond the comms range of a single ground station.

There is lots of quite clever stuff in there, but that is part of its problem - its a massively distributed system involving countless boxes that need to communicate and work together (IIRC, I counted over 85 processors in one complete system - only two of which were in the aircraft itself), and a comms failure in any part can break a mission (or an air vehicle!) It did not help that there was always a strong suspicion that the flight control computer used to tell the rest of the system porkies about where it actually was, which can make rather a mockery of the complex algorithms that point the comms antennae on the airframe supposedly at the ground station! Probably why a number lost contact and buggered off ;-)