Opinions wanted for UAV completely take over the helicopter in the long term future?

[chopper2004]

Its interesting to see the development and increase in UAV/UAS technology and proposals for use in law enforcement and firefighting and pipeline and powerline monitoring.

However does this mean that in the long term future that the role of the commercial helicopter pilot (and not meaning re assigned to the UAV/UAS ground operator either!!) may be reduced somewhat?

I understand that in Japan there are over 1000 Yamaha RMAX utilised for crop spraying

Out of interest will UAV/UAS's will completely take over some roles apart from passenger transportation, some law enforcement and EMS operations, because of zero risk to aircrew and cost attraction?

Thanks
Chopper2004

[flyer43]

Out of interest will UAV/UAS's will completely take over some roles apart from passenger transportation, some law enforcement and EMS operations, because of zero risk to aircrew and cost attraction?
What about the risk to others below and around the UAV/UAS?? It would be interesting to see how that risk has been calculated. In the event that manned helicopter has to force land for some reason, at least the pilot can assess the various options open to him for landing without causing damage to the aircraft and/or other persons/structures. I'm not so sure that the person controlling a UAV/UAS would be able to do the same as they wouldn't have the advantage of "all round vision" and thus be able to assess various options quickly.

[tottigol]

Well, according to this link:
Yamaha RMAX Crash - Killed a person (http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_8986657/tm.htm)

Those UAVs are just as deadly.:uhoh:

[ReverseFlight]

Offshore is another area where pilots will still be employed but as chopper2004 said, UAVs will cost less and besides the insurance payouts will be less. Don't forget this industry is driven by the insurance companies.

[tigerfish]

Of course I am probably a bit older than most of you but I do recall the armed forces minister in the 1950's remarking, - as he looked at the new saviour of the RAF, - The Bloodhound Missile". That in future the RAF would not require manned aircraft any more, the missile would do all of that.

This sounds a bit similar!

Tigerfish

[Bravo73]

NB As I've just mentioned in another thread, most* UAVs still need a pilot. The only difference being that the pilot is sat in a ground station, not the cockpit. Current UAVs aren't autonomous - we're not at the Skynet stage yet... ;)



*The Yamaha UAVs are obviously an exception. But they still need an operator to set their GPS routes.

[topendtorque]

the pilot is sat in a ground station,


and, hopefully in a comfy chair.

Mustering? they may be a useful and fun tool. at least one big pastoral house has / is severely examined their potential use.
they also think that they will do away with the experienced pilot to fly 'em. Ho ho.

I see a lot of headless chooks running around, more headless than the usual less than gifted horsemen that we sometimes have to put up with nowadays I mean.

good luck I say, i think it will be a while coming.
tet

[Bravo73]

and, hopefully in a comfy chair.


Absolutely! :ok:


http://www.airforcetimes.com/xml/news/2009/01/airforce_sensor_operators_012409/012409_airforce_sensor_operators_800.JPG

[helmet fire]

Is old mate above wearing the nomex zoom bag in case his console catches on fire? :}:}


....or is it for the chicks????:ok:

[Tq Monster]

The major problems with UAV's etc is that no countries regulatory authority is going to allow mixed traffic of manned and unmanned. Where as this may not be too much of a problem in the remote regions of our planet (Newcastle etc). In locations where there is high density population or manned traffic close to the surface, the usefulness of UAV's diminishes.

Jobs in the remote regions of our planet (Norwich), pipeline survey etc can I would have thought be carried out by a UAV adequately, but you always come back to the same old problem with sensor flown aircraft, the "drinking straw", which means that your view of the world is very limited and that something just out of view to the sensor head may be of interest to the operator but ends up being missed. Not ideal when a farmer is digging in fence posts and has'nt got to your pipeline yet.

I would have thought therefore that there are a limited number of jobs that would would be ideal for UAV's and that those of us still in control of and sat in a heavier that air flying machine will still have jobs for a number of years to come :ok:

[flyer43]

Originally Posted by chopper2004 Opinions wanted for UAV completely take over the helicopter in the long term future?

chopper2004 As you started this thread, what are your own thoughts/hopes regarding the future of UAVs & Helicopters?

F43

[pasptoo]

Let's think about this, there are currently a lot of self loading cargo which does not want to be in a manned helicopter, How do you think they would feel if the pilots were not going on the journey with them?????

Secondly, as a pilot you have a vested interest in the survival of you and your airframe as well as your passengers. Would you have the same vested interest sitting in a cupboard on the edge of an airport, if it all goes wrong you still get to drive home after the paper work is complete!

I think we are a great number of years away from being comfortable with unmanned air transport. I reckon the military might take the first hit on this one! ( 50 years perhaps?) Some operators are still using S61/Seaking

Pas.

[chopper2004]

flyer43,

I can appreciate some systems such as Predator, Reaper and Firescout are acceptable for some military operations though Predator and its new maritime variant are doing well to complement the manned assets for border patrol for the US CBP.

However I am not overly keen on UAVs replicating or replacing the manned helicopter even for surveillance be it powerline or parapublic or even crop spraying. Laying aside the risk argument and assessment for manned/unmanned flight, taking the pilot out of risk, out cockpit and sitting in a trailer 'flying' the craft.

Also on a personal level, a lot of UAV designs are IMHO, dead ugly to look at compared to manned rotorcraft say a Huey II, AS-350, EC-135.

One could argue that man since the early centuries has always wanted to fly and to travel....you can't do that with a UAV.

In conclusion UAVs are ok:

1) Providing they complement manned systems and do not dominate the airspace
2) They do not take away revenue from a small commercial helicopter outfit that may have crop spraying or surveillance as more than 50% of its business

Thankyou everyone for your thoughts and would appreciate more input as well on here.

Take care and merry xmas

[timex]

You mentioned HEMS and Police work, I wonder how the pax will feel knowing that while they are out in the middle of nowhere they will be relying on a guy miles away to pick out a good HLS possibly in hills, poor weather and with limited external cues? UK airspace is still a busy place to be in.

[bolkow]

I do seem to recall that manchester police were emplying about 6 UAV's for crowd surveillance and such, and according to my sources they were setting it all up on channel 35 until someone remarked that remote control aircraft both fixed wint and heli's operate on that channel, and use pegs at their flying field to make sure they do not switch on and conflict with another aircraft alreay operating that channel. It was pointed out to them the consequences of som3eone with a remore control on channel 35 inadvertently unknowingly switching it on and according to my sources there was a lot of shocked looks and expression son their faces as it dawned on them what the ocnsequences would have been. I was somewhat surprised that their researchers were not alreay aware of a conflict like this,

[John Eacott]

The Navy's new Robo-Copter heads to Afghanistan (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/video-kmax-afghanistan/#more-59288)

K-Max Demo - YouTube

Next month, the Afghanistan war gets a boost. Specifically, a boost from a robotic helicopter that ferries gear to U.S. troops.

Check out the video above. That’s the K-MAX helicopter, a collaboration between defense giant Lockheed Martin and Connecticut aerospace company Kaman, lifting off from an Arizona test site in August, after its human pilot walked out of the cockpit. The copter ascends, toting nets bearing what look like hundreds of pounds’ worth of palletized cargo, flies the gear off to another part of the Yuma Proving Ground, drops it safely, and lands.

This isn’t the first unmanned helicopter used in the Afghanistan war. Earlier this year, the Navy — which also owns the K-MAX — sent its Fire Scout surveillance helos into the war zone, where they flew as much as 400 hours per month. But K-MAX is the first robo-copter used for cargo operations, and the Department of the Navy’s been looking for months at using drone helos not only to drop troops their re-supply, but to get wounded warriors to a field hospital before it’s too late.


It’s not hard to see why. Afghanistan’s craggy terrain isn’t great for airstrips large enough to land a hulking Air Force cargo plane, so helicopters have to hopscotch the south and east of the country to make their base drops. Those helicopters are at constant risk of running into Afghan insurgents packing rocket-propelled grenades or even shoulder-mounted missiles, especially if they’re freighted with heavy pallets. Even worse: Afghanistan’s terrain is hell on helicopters. “The most God-awful environment I’ve ever seen helicopters placed,” one commander recently told Danger Room.

The Navy’s other robotic helicopter, the Fire Scout, has a mixed track record. The Pentagon’s independent testing group says it only completed 54 percent of its missions during a recent tour about the U.S.S. Halyburton. The Navy strongly rejects that assessment, and wears the Fire Scouts’ shootdown over Libya as a kind of badge of honor. Still, the K-MAX will have a much different mission than the Fire Scout. And as long as a human pilot isn’t in danger, the Navy isn’t so concerned.

The K-MAX is capable of hauling up to 6,000 pounds at sea level, and can carry 4,300 as high up as 15,000 feet. In August, it ran a battery of tests at Yuma to show it can meet the Navy/Marine Corps requirement of moving up to 6,000 pounds of gear per day in Afghanistan. Pilots control the helicopter from a ground control station, like many larger drones.

Before the year is done, two K-MAXes will arrive in Afghanistan. (A Navy spokeswoman, Jamie Cosgrove, declined to specify where they’ll be stationed.)

[mickjoebill]

The media are hot to raise concerns of remote controlled craft going AWOL.


Exclusive: Computer Virus Hits U.S. Drone Fleet (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/virus-hits-drone-fleet/)

Mickjoebill

[topendtorque]

I've had a bit of a rethink about these gadgets, not that I would be at home in the "comfy chair" in a 'clean' bunker, but it strikes me that there could be an extensive usage of these machine for routine night street patrols, especially in the smaller provinical cities with smaller budgets.

In particular a growing menace is the gangs of under age and older louts that get about and mug law abiding citizens for money or often just for fun.

They are usually impossible to spot from the ground unless by accident, but a cooled off street background could be useful for a heat signature to show up even a small group of urchins and warrant investigation from the local squad car.

cheap, effective?

cheers tet

[[email protected]]

I really can't see the saving or increase in capability that the remotely-piloted KMAX brings to the game... the helicopter is still vulnerable to ground fire (more so with no DAS and no pilot to take evasive action quickly), still vulnerable to the harsh conditions (heat and dust) and the lack of a pilot will only give an extra 200lbs of payload. A RPV will always be slower to complete tasks than a helicopter flown by real pilots - the video of the Kmax with the load is painfully slow compared to normal ops for pick up and drop off (increased exposure to threat again).

Pointless exercise in trying to save money. As for wearing the FireScout's loss as a badge of honour - that goes to show what morons you are dealing with making these decisions - 'we sent it to do a job and we lost it' that is very mission-effective...not!

[9Aplus]

Real value is for next Fukushima & Chernobil like nuclear incident.....
1986 to 2011....
25 years in between and we are stll not capable to handle huge incdent pilotless.
:}

[ShyTorque]

Although I can see uses for rotary winged observation UAVs, there is often a lot more to helicopter jobs than just the flying.

For example, who will carry the passengers bags, sign for the fuel and put the aircraft to bed at the other end of the journey? Top the oil up the next day? Ring for a taxi?

I reckon it won't happen in any big way in my lifetime.

[22clipper]

I saw a photo of that Kmax drone, I think the remote control cable coming out the bottom is a bit short?
Marines To Test Lockheed's Drone Helicopter In Afghanistan (http://defense.aol.com/2011/10/05/marines-to-test-lockheeds-drone-helicopter-in-afghanistan/)

[mickjoebill]

They are usually impossible to spot from the ground unless by accident, but a cooled off street background could be useful for a heat signature to show up even a small group of urchins and warrant investigation from the local squad car.

One of the current drawbacks compared to a maned flight is lack of situational awareness of ground activities by the remote crew.
This will change in the next decade or two as higher resolution imagers become available allowing for very wide angles of downward capture and view, ie
8x the res of HD.

Mickjoebill

[Ada Quonsett]

Marines’ Robot Cargo-Copter Takes Flight in Afghanistan.

Pakistan is still blockading NATO war supplies passing through the port of Karachi in response to last month’s killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers by an alliance air strike. But inside Afghanistan, supply lines are about to get a lot safer for NATO’s logisticians. On Saturday, the Marine Corps flew history’s very first combat resupply mission using a robot helicopter. The unmanned Kaman K-MAX successfully hauled a sling-load of cargo out to an unspecified base, presumably somewhere in southern Afghanistan.

The successful first flight, plus a couple test runs earlier last week, “were in preparation for sustained operations,” Jeffrey Brown from Lockheed Martin told Paul McLeary of Aviation Week. Lockheed has partnered with Kaman and the Marine Corps to demonstrate two of the unmanned supply choppers in combat. Marines' Robot Cargo-Copter Takes Flight in Afghanistan | Danger Room | Wired.com (http://tinyurl.com/cl495rq)

[SASless]

9A....so lets see here....the Robo-Chopper does it thing all day long over a very hot radioactive area...gets lit up doing so...then who is supposed to service the thing....a Robo-Engineer?

Come to think about it....there's the deal...no spanner twisters to deal with! Just type a few commands into the computer....shove a work card through a card reader....and zingo....work done...no tea breaks...no fag breaks...no surly attitudes....and if one decides to lay out on you...you just hit the kill switch and that it sorted.

[9Aplus]

That robo engineers we are already sending around near space :)

The facts are that we are supposed to send full resourced unit to danger site....
so just few "robo" refueling while operational.

Later you have secondary dose on that airframe, which is measurable and
under control - conditions of cooking reactor can not be....

If dose is just to much over to be possible to handle after decontamination,
just park on safe side distance and send next one. :ok:

Or scene can be also like "this" one :p
"You brought 2, too many" - YouTube

[Zee Nine]

behind a successful mission of UAV there is an experienced pilot

[RVDT]

Time to get out the dog food.

Article here. (http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/military/unmanned/Unmanned-Little-Bird-Completes-Takeoff-and-Landing-Tests_77038.html)

[Heliringer]

Not just offshore pilots but pretty much all of us in mmmmmmmmm 50 years.
Kmax and the USMC have been using a pilotless machine to sling in supplies in Afghanistan. It's quite amazing to watch, it's slower than a good long liner but this is only the beginning. Automation is the way to go EG. The autopilot on the machine I fly is better than me, it never gets tired, I do!

Anyway I retire in 20 or so years so I think I'll be earning a living until then:D

[Fareastdriver]

Way back in 1962 as a brand new RAF pilot I was waylaid by a very senior engineering officer and informed that I was wasting my time as I would be replaced by missiles in a few years. Ever since they have made underground trains automatic there hace been continuous statements of how aeroplanes in general were the next in line.

Who do you blame if something goes wrong?

[RVDT]

Who do you blame if something goes wrong?

Apparently thats the best part - no-one!

[heliduck]

As long as they don't let microsoft anywhere near it they'll do well.

[dissymetry]

Better invest in some Apple shares than.... :D
In the year 2030, we get a the pilotcontrollS92 application for Iphone, where we fly remotly from the couch... :ok:

[paco]

And Microsoft engineers! :E

Phil

[lelebebbel]

The military doesn't quite count. They worry about being shot down and want no people on board at all, at any cost.

But as long as railroad trains, busses, airplanes and cars still need drivers on board, I wouldn't get too enthusiastic about pilotless civilian helicopters, especially when they are supposed to carry passengers..

[RVDT]

In the year 2030, we get a the pilotcontrollS92 application for Iphone, where we fly remotly from the couch...

You might be about 18 years too late on that one............

Check this (http://www.youtube.com/user/ARdrone?feature=relchannel) out!

[terminus mos]

Hmmm

Our passengers who fly offshore on long sectors just can't wait to be flown in a pilot-less helicopter (not)

Its at least a generation away with commercial passengers on board, as attitudes to risk will have to change.

But, with Autonomous helicopters, (not those flown remotely) we could maybe go back to "single pilot" monitoring operations?

[Dave_Jackson]

"Opinions wanted for UAV completely take over the helicopter in the long term future?"

IMHO, Yes.

And there are a number of very logical reasons for this.


Dave

[tu154]

When I was a kid, the future was all hover boards and heli cars. I'm still waiting. There's logic, and practical realities, demand versus cost.

[Gemini Twin]

Commercial operations? Without a pilot? Not going to happen. Who could afford the insurance?

[FairWeatherFlyer]

The Kmax has hit the mainstream news:

Autonomous helicopters: Robocopter arrives | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/21562897)

And rather than 0 humans, some long-lining with more than you might expect:

Adel Abdessemed » Survey: Selected Works » David Zwirner (http://www.davidzwirner.com/artists/adel-abdessemed/survey-2/image/page/24/)

Adel Abdessemed » Survey: Selected Works » David Zwirner (http://www.davidzwirner.com/artists/adel-abdessemed/survey-2/image/page/25/)

[SASless]

Management cannot fire an Autopilot on a UAV!

[hihover]

Forget the insurance, who would get on board as a passenger? Ain't going to happen.

Tam

[jymil]

I've recently seen a "making-of" of a music video which featured quite impressive aerial shots, and they used a remote-controlled quadcopter with a gyro-stabilized cam. So for this specific segment, it will be hard to compete against this with a full-sized chopper.

We'll see UAV innovation primarily in the military sector, where cost-effectiveness is not always a primary concern. However, this will eventually trickle over to the civilian sector in one form or another. Civilian UAV applications are conceivable if they are commercially viable (Operating an unmanned K-Max is probably not cheaper than one with a pilot) and do not involve passenger transport (e.g. powerline patrol).

But before we'll see that, some legal issues are yet to be solved (e.g. "see and avoid" principle and liability questions).

[MBJ]

This is an old chestnut - much like the "everyone will have their own helicopter/ aerial car" to go to work in.

Never inside of hell freezing over!

[morris1]

its all b@llox...

whenever you see the demos of these things..
the weather is always fine..

They wont work with 600' cloud base and 40 kt winds.. hence useless.

The other thing that the protagonists of UAVs always forget is that when a crew is searching for vehicles/persons (in daylight).. nearly all of it is done with human eye.. NOT by the camera.. The human eye has a MUCH wider field of view than a camera, and the human brain is much quicker and better at interpreting whats in view when seen first hand rather than via a remote screen on the ground..

The UAV manufacturers always ignore how much of our search work is done by actually LOOKING OUT THE WINDOW..!!!

I would relish a challenge whereby a large open area is searched for lets say a laid out casualty, by a normal police crew of 3, versus a UAV.. and lets see how effective the UAV is..
Of course the weather would have to be acceptible for the UAV..!!

[ShyTorque]

Forget the insurance, who would get on board as a passenger? Ain't going to happen.

'Zactly. And who would carry the luggage, anyway?

[vrtcld]

[email protected], I'm actually overseas flying the K-MAX right now and think you’re a little off on your statements. Not trying to start an argument here but our capabilities to move things continuously under the cover of night with very minimal crew have quite a good purpose. Even if we pull one convoy off the road by supplying a FOB or COB with supplies they needed. There's more than just one truck carrying cargo, for that truck to get the cargo there's many support trucks that roll along with it. Also the maintenance man hour to flight hour is totally incomparable to even that of one 53. Albeit a 53 can carry a substantially larger load, the average load over here suits our mission quite well.

Instead of sending a 53 into a zone while requiring two gunships to escort, we have one robot this is quite a few less lives and machines to shoot at. You are correct it's not the fastest machine in the world but it is the first of its kind, most crawl before they walk. On the speed note, have you seen the download and upload times spent in these little LZ's. They are def faster on their ingress but they stay running on the deck for a good while.

I'm sure there are better ways to skin the cat but I think we're doing a pretty good job of getting the ball rolling. We've proven the concept and now are moving forward with far more knowledge in bettering the system and implementing greater uses for the Marines needs.

Now for UAV's to take over, I don't think we'll see it in our life time. I feel fairly confident that there will always be a need for a manned pilot at the controls in most cases.

[JimBall]

With at least 2 "UAV" crashes on UK tv shoots in the past month (not reported), and no airworthiness requirements for anything less than 20kgs - we are just a few headlines & injuries away from heavy legislation.

[FairWeatherFlyer]

Some more mainstream news including some interesting sounding work on variable rpm rotary and something which sounds like a V22 Osprey:

Brain scan: The dronefather | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21567205-abe-karem-created-robotic-plane-transformed-way-modern-warfare)

Regardless of legisalation, i think the biggest UAV shock is going to be when their role as an assassination tool becomes more widespread, not sure first world countries will appreciate that.

[pilot and apprentice]

Hello Heli823,

I shared some airspace with you, in a manner of speak. What you have said is entirely correct given the environment you are in. I don't see a need to comment on each of your points. You are doing good work and keep it up.

The counter is that, after having shared airspace with a variety of UAV's and now happily working in a different environment, I absolutely do NOT want to do it any more. Until 'see and avoid' is in the UAV capability they should remain completely away from civil VFR traffic. Most models are fairly blindly cruising through the air which is dangerous in less controlled
and busier airspace.

I've also noticed a similarity to what these other posters have been hinting at: with no pilot at risk in the operation, many operators become very casual about what risk their tools are causing. This will eventually bring new and onerous regulation that will put the brakes on the explosion of usage that is happening now. Unfortunately, a few more deaths will be needed to get the pendulum swinging.

[FairWeatherFlyer]

I hadn't finished the print edition, there's an article on the concept of packet switched networks where small cargo is moved around by a grid of UAVs:

Monitor: An internet of airborne things | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21567193-networking-enthusiasts-dream-building-drone-powered-internet-carry-objects)

Mentions delivering pharmaceuticals as a potential application. If you didn't see it, this was a good view into the difficulties in less developed nations:

BBC Two - Ewan McGregor: Cold Chain Mission (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01gymp4)

[TequilaMockingbird]

I understand that in Japan there are over 1000 Yamaha RMAX utilised for crop spraying.
Out of interest will UAV/UAS's will completely take over some roles apart from passenger transportation, some law enforcement and EMS operations, because of zero risk to aircrew and cost attraction?

Three years on and this question is still relevant.

As for my opinion - I think that ultimately UAV/UASs will take over some roles.

Will an unmanned aircraft complete the job to the same standard as a manned aircraft? No. Will it be 100% safe? No. Will it be cheaper? Yes. And that's all that matters - the cost.

I sincerely hope that UAV/UASs never take over roles such pax transport, EMS, etc, and I don't really see it happening. That being said, a beancounter somewhere will only see the dollar signs and will think that an unmanned pax plane is a great idea. Therefore, it will be attempted.

[n6330v]

New here but I feel like I have a little insight, perhaps somewhat repetitive, to what has already been said.

UAVs will very soon, from the perspective of trends, experience a heavy push in applications that meet the 3 Ds - applications that are Dirty, Dangerous, and Dull. Having said that, we are already seeing heavy research in the agricultural, resource management, and mapping sectors with substantial interest in the use of unmanned systems. They are aimed at improving safety and limiting operator liability in areas that are not populated or, if at all, very very sparsely populated.

Unmanned systems will NEVER replace passenger ferrying operations. However, they will very soon start chipping away at the aforementioned sectors.

[grumpytroll]

Black Hawk flies, lands and avoids threats - all without pilots at the helm (With Video) | al.com (http://blog.al.com/breaking/2012/12/black_hawk_flies_lands_and_avo.html)

[Ian Corrigible]

Unmanned K-MAX nominated for Collier award (http://naa.aero/html/news/index.cfm?cmsid=99)

...though it faces steep competition from the Curiosity Rover (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/index.html) and V'Ger (http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov).

I/C

[FairWeatherFlyer]

When I read the headline I thought it would have missiles a la American's Assassination programme but looks like surveillance only for now!

BBC News - German railways to test anti-graffiti drones (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22678580)

The London Underground used to have pictures of a helicopter on their anti-vandalism posters, might have looked a bit like a squirrel on a blue background.

On a related note, I have a colleague who as a hobby is trying to build a small UAV to do data collection from low powered transmitters in beehives. I suspect that project is going to be under-resourced but it's an indication of just how affordable some of this stuff is becoming.