Yep, safe to fly in controlled airspace. [Archive]

Lima Juliet

30th Aug 2010, 09:17

Come on then, where are all these examples? As someone who has sat on the MAA's UAS Safety Working Group, airspace infringements were not on the agenda! So come on, spill the beans and I'll raise it as an Agenda item.

Now if you're talking mini and micro UAS then there is scope for issues, as they're not flown by rated pilots.

However, for Remotely Piloted Air Systems (RPAS) they're flown by rated pilots (such as Predator, Reaper, Global Hawk) and I see less infringements from these types than manned types because of the SA they have in their Ground Control Stations.

So some examples for the debate would be useful.

LJ

Kitbag

30th Aug 2010, 11:25

Surely the issue is when control from the ground is interrupted and the aircraft becomes (presumably) autonomous?

L J R

30th Aug 2010, 12:37

Surely the issue is when control from the ground is interrupted and the aircraft becomes (presumably) autonomous?

So the training and airmanship needs greater focus on this aspect - (the lost link 'autonomy' is Called Return Home for Israeli systems, and Emergency Mission for General Atomics products) ..This aspect is a 'fundamental' issue of RPA management - as equally important as MSA adherence for IFR

flown by rated pilots (such as Predator, Reaper, Global Hawk) and I see less infringements from these types than manned types because of the SA they have in their Ground Control Stations.

I think you are basically correct here, but it is not the SA of the GCS, more the ABILITY to communicate if 'classical' comms are lost...ie the telephone is a good back-up.

There are a good number that never make it to the public eye

...but comparing ALL UAV / UAS / RPA / Drones is like stating that a 747 and a Cessna 150 are all flown by like minded professionals....

mmitch

30th Aug 2010, 14:17

There is a plan to have a UAV patrolling the Kent and Essex coasts.
BBC News - Forces considering drone aircraft (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8380796.stm)
They are also proposing their use over the Oylimpic games site in 2012!
mmitch.

Mr Grim

30th Aug 2010, 14:41

Ozy

I rather thank that it is you that have missed the point, or not read LJR's post. He quoted facts. You quoted ill-informed speculation.

You had to go to the Congo for your first example, the second is irrelevant - the crew engaged a convoy the aircraft did not. Your third link I could not get to load.

What you must understand is that large UAVs flown by rated pilots are not perfect. They will crash, get lost etc etc but they are at least as good as manned aircraft. UAVs are also not a panacea, there will be manned aircraft in all spheres for many, many years yet.

I understand the resistance to change and the physical move of the pilot from the aircraft to the ground is a big change, but brace yourself for the future, try to think objectively rather than knee-jerk react.

Lima Juliet

30th Aug 2010, 17:28

LJR

I think you are basically correct here, but it is not the SA of the GCS, more the ABILITY to communicate if 'classical' comms are lost...ie the telephone is a good back-up.

I completely agree, and in the case of the Pred/Reaper if the aircraft goes "lost link" then it will fly the planned route to a destination and hold, squawk a specific squawk to let ATC know that the human has lost control of it and ATC will get other air users out of its way (just like a manned aircraft squawking 7600). On top of the normal telephone, there are "Chat Windows", VOIP phones, e-mails and even mobiles with SMS text - wouldn't that be great if you could do all that from a manned aircraft?? :ok:

Mr Grim

I understand the resistance to change and the physical move of the pilot from the aircraft to the ground is a big change, but brace yourself for the future, try to think objectively rather than knee-jerk react.

I couldn't agree more old chap.

And finally, for mmitch

There is a plan to have a UAV patrolling the Kent and Essex coasts.
BBC News - Forces considering drone aircraft
They are also proposing their use over the Oylimpic games site in 2012!
mmitch.

I rather think that 2012 is a little ambitious for the BAES Herti and Mantis to be able to perform without huge swathes of "Restricted Airspace (Temporary)" being ceded to them - this is very unlikely to happen anywhere near the London TMA, however, for somewhere near Weymouth for the sailing this could be a possibility. I also think it very unlikely that Astrea will deliver a suitable CAA-satisfying "sense and avoid" system, so Class G is definately right out for now (and probably for 5-10years or so). So the BBC article is probably just picking up on a bit of wishful thinking from BAES.

But as Mr Grim has said "brace yourself for the future, try to think objectively rather than knee-jerk react"; this definately holds true, but probably not for 2012 (ie. 20 months away).

LJ

Lima Juliet

30th Aug 2010, 17:45

Oops! I forgot to mention the Belgian Congo IAI Eagle UAV crash:

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=15014

On the 3rd October 2006 an IAI Eagle UAV crashed after take-off from N'Dolo. Allegedly the pilot was concerned that the aircraft would not get airborne in time before the end of the runway, and so he switched off both engines (!!). However, as the aircraft was already 15-20ft in the air it crashed a few hundred metres after the end of the runway on Boulevard Triomphal. One woman on the ground was killed and at least three others were injured.

The official cause of the crash has been ascribed to a " loss of situational awareness" . The UAV ground controller thought the UAV had not taken off, when in fact it had, and closed down the engines. The UAV then crashed due to the operator instruction to cut engine power.

So where was the UAV to blame for that? I believe that the Belgians do not use "rated pilots" on the Eagles and that they train regular Army JNCOs/SNCOs to do the job. Perhaps if they did, it might have been different? That said, the human has made the error and not the machine.

LJ

fltlt

31st Aug 2010, 02:47

Gentlemen, the "operator issues" are but 1%. The major, and I do stress major, problem is the "lost link syndrome". Everybody will tell you, "We don't have that problem, ours does: insert climb to regain signal, recip heading, fly to known waypoint, et. etc. etc. Problem is they don't at least 50% of the time. If you want examples go look at the various "museums" with bits of, and one or two complete predators and others. Loss rates are published, and some not. I know of 4 af recovery team efforts just this year in the sw US, all lost link. Border patrol had an "incident" with it's bird. The ones operating out of George had to have manned aircraft following them to and from their ops area
for that very reason. They are now allowing them to fly alone, trying to certify them for ops in controlled airspace.
I say again, in my humble experience in this field (since 1985, up at DRES) these systems in their current form are not ready for integration into controlled airspace. All you are doing is pushing the envelope for pushings sake. Mark my words, there will be a manned unmanned incident/accident in the not too distant future.
Hopefully it will not result in death or dismemberment. But what it will do is push back integration 10 years at least, and possibly never.
The only uav/rpv/whatever that I feel is appropriate in controlled airspace is global hawk, and that system is so far ahead in capabilities and redundency, it makes the rest look like rc aircraft, but so is the cost. In my day, the predators capabilities cost $50k, and that was using a ferranti missile gyro at $11k, pre gps days. El cheapo was using a humphries gyro at $3k, but while spinning up you could hear it chinging
and changing 50 yards away. And yes, we had the same lost link issues back then too.

Just my tuppence worth.

fltlt

2nd Sep 2010, 22:04

And yet another one bites the dust:

Unmanned Plane Crashes Near Edwards Air Force Base - Bakersfield News Story - KERO Bakersfield (http://www.turnto23.com/news/24841073/detail.html?treets=bak&taf=bak)

Fire 'n' Forget

4th Sep 2010, 23:51

The major, and I do stress major, problem is the "lost link syndrome".

Referring to fltlt above who seems to work in the area of discussion. The link issue is being looked at and bandwidth is a problem I believe. Trials are ongoing however. Two winged mates down the back who would have thought it :}

HERE (http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/uvonline/nato-awacs-progress-full-control-of-an-unmanned-airborne-system/6919/?)

fltlt

5th Sep 2010, 01:45

The problem isn't bandwidth or frequency per se, although the available is becoming less and less. Up there where the air is rarefied, are all manner of overmodulated/off cycle/power to the umph electrons, across all the frequencies you can think of. As one can imagine, some strong filtering is required to "sort out the good stuff". Sometimes it works great, sometimes it doesn't. When it doesn't, then it's up to the "pre programmed, lost link action(s)" in the onboard gubbins. Young snuffy in the control shack can push, pull, scream and yell, qualified pilot or mere operator as may be, they are purely spectators at this point.

Now we all know the wonders of computer code, and the millions of lines required. Somehow, somewhere, someone may have forgot to insert a correct "if this happens, then do that". Well this happens, and it don't do that, so proceed to the site of the crash.

Humble opinion, to correct this problem to safely, and I do stress safely operate in controlled airspace, you would end up with an unaffordable, unmanned aircraft. Keep an eye on Global hawk, it's at that point already.

There are only two things that I can see that unmanned has over manned:

Endurance/Persistence (shift the crews on the ground instead. Pottie breaks instead of a pee tube/diaper, sheer luxury!).

And if it does go down in enemy territory, no "Gary Powers moment".

I guess you could call it the PC form of aerial warfare.

Anyone remember Aquila?

Just my tuppence.

big v

5th Sep 2010, 07:44

Does that "unsafe to fly in controlled airspace" jibe mean that they're safe to fly in the open FIR or that they're unsafe per ser se? If the former, then the regulatory work being done should come to fruition, if not, then it can't happen.

UAS do a variety of tasks extremely well. The big issue for me is airworthiness. We have seen some early operational systems developed by small companies where airworthiness is bolted on at the end. Some of these projects have been taken up by larger concerns but at a late stage in development. Until the aviation world's big boys do a proper end to end job from first principles, there will be issues.

Similarly, as system experience develops, we will see increasing professionalism. This is particularly relevant where non-aircrew form the team. Technicians operating the UAS have an intuitive grasp of how the link is working, probably more so than aircrew. The big knowledge gaps are altimetry, met and airmanship from experience. I see training as the key to improved professionalism among operating crews.

And the unfortunate incidents are not limited to UAS as some of our more strident posters would like to claim:

BBC News - Review urged over BA plane runway error (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11153545)

Head below parapet.

bigv

fltlt

6th Sep 2010, 00:41

big v, no incoming from me, so no need to duck. The "unsafe" is just that. It is fine in a war zone, maybe even fine over training areas, and depending on your opinion, fine over the countries of enemy combatants.

Where the safety issue really raises it's ugly head is that you, the operator, have no prior indication if or when a loss of link occurs. Further to that point, after the loss, you, the operator, have a 50/50 chance that the uav will follow what you think is programmed to happen, and a 100% chance of not being able to do diddly squat about it if it does not.

You can train all you want, but when that uav ignores every button push, control input, reboot that is in the manual, and the knot in the pit of your stomach tightens when you realize that you have absolutely no control of where that uav is headed, powerless is an apt description. Only thing left to do is calculate how far can it go on the fuel remaining, draw the circle and sit back, hope, and wait.

Now, I don't know about anyone else, but that does not give me a warm and fuzzy to have uav's anywhere close to other aircraft, in any civilian setting. Leave them where they are extremely useful, in the military arena.

Can't say it enough, the problems we had in the 1980's are still the same problems today. That's 25+ years of minimal progress in the most vital area of uav operations, the comm link.

Please don't take my opposition to operating in civilian airspace (is that a better term?) to mean I am anti uav, I am not. I am against needlessly risking civilian casualties from what I believe is a rush to the money, disregarding the inherent risks involved. Who knows, maybe in time someone will actually solve this problem, however we are a long ways away at this point in time.

Just my tuppence worth.

Jackonicko

6th Sep 2010, 06:16

Leon,

"in the case of the Pred/Reaper if the aircraft goes "lost link" then it will fly the planned route to a destination and hold, squawk a specific squawk to let ATC know that the human has lost control of it and ATC will get other air users out of its way (just like a manned aircraft squawking 7600)."

There is surely a massive difference in that the manned aircraft squawking 7600 still has humans on board capable of exercising basic airmanship - including keeping a lookout :ooh: for other airspace users.

What? A belt as well as braces? But the elastic on these braces is enough, surely.... (sudden twang)

The official cause of the crash has been ascribed to a " loss of situational awareness" . The UAV ground controller thought the UAV had not taken off, when in fact it had, and closed down the engines. The UAV then crashed due to the operator instruction to cut engine power.

So where was the UAV to blame for that?

Well, for starters, had the said operator had his little pink body sat inside the vehicle, instead of in an air conditioned control cabin, he might have had some vague inkling that he'd left the fecking ground, and might have been a little less hasty in shutting down. :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

Fltlt and Ozymandias,

Well put. So well put, in fact that I can only sit dumbly by and applaud. :D

L J R

6th Sep 2010, 10:52

...yep, yet again ALL UAS are classed as 'the same' to the underinformed - in the same way we classify a Cessna 150 and A330......

...an Airbus has NEVER settled into the trees on go-around...

..An F-16 has NEVER bombed a JTAC...

..A C-17 has NEVER landed 'firm'..

..an Ultra-Light has never hit a home on take-off..

I am presuming that all of these were flown by qualified crews who did not intentionally perform the above..

My point is that before you class ALL UAS in the same way, a better understanding of each systems capabilities, roles link management, and lost link logic should be considered.

...I agree that there are less capable UAS out there than others, and others are flown by undertrained and uninformed crews. Whilst ALL UAS should be subject to robust airworthiness scruitiny - and clearly some need prohibition, and whilst the comments of the blind critics are generally sound, the generalisations fail to display systems understanding.

...I also FIRMLY believe that RPAs should be flown by rated Pilots..

LowObservable

6th Sep 2010, 12:56

L J R

Far from it - it seems that FltLt is making a clear distinction between G-Hawk and the rest, and is zeroing in on a specific problem: The UAV that loses its link, and software that fails to recognize that the link is gone.

Of course, you can get a parallel problem in manned aircraft if the pilot or pilots become incapacitated, and that has happened (Payne Stewart and Helios 737 to give two examples). But there is also a perception issue: if a UAV crashes on or into somebody (elsewhere than the Congo) it's not only going to be a potentially tragic accident but will set the deployment of UAVs back.

I wonder though, if the lost-link problem simply needs a bit more technical attention (as the PS and Helios accidents focused attention on oxygen training). So far, a lot of the lost-link records concern products of one company, who have their own proprietary ways of doing things and don't like to be told anything different.

fltlt

6th Sep 2010, 16:48

LO, you are correct, G-Hawk is a "UAS" but it is so far above and beyond the others in terms of systems capabilities/redundancies that it really is in a class of it's own. But again, as I have said before, to achieve that level of sophistication, and maintain it, costs a lot of money. So much so that the whole program is under an affordability review.

The "rest" of the uas family suffer from the same problems, they all have comm link problems, some more than others, but they do.

Stop the rush for the money, quit promising to the people in Govt., who have no idea what is and is not possible, that you can produce an all dancing, all singing unmanned aircraft that will revolutionize civilian air transport for a few billion more.

Why? Because, in my opinion it will cost more and be less capable and safe than the manned variant.

As for the "understanding" of lost link and the systems, don't know how old you are, but I helped formulate/write the damn rules and the ORIGINAL law was "chop throttle, full down elevator, full aileron deflection". NONE of us wanted a runaway, and that was at 160 lbs! The "cost" of losing $70K every time a lost link occured was not acceptable to the powers that be, so the thinking was you must have lost comms because you dropped out of los, so simply circle and climb to reacquire. After that it was "well if you reverse course you are forced to reacquire", then it became "transit to x holding point", sound familiar?

I could regale you with stories, some hilarious, some frustrating, one that came within 100 yards and a heartbeat of becoming an air accident investigation, and in each and every one, none of us on the ground had any control whatsoever over the antics of the uav(s).

Just my (last) tuppence worth on uas's.

Sorry, couldn't help it.

I will now turn the whole thing over to the young turks.

Lima Juliet

6th Sep 2010, 19:24

JN

Well, for starters, had the said operator had his little pink body sat inside the vehicle, instead of in an air conditioned control cabin, he might have had some vague inkling that he'd left the fecking ground, and might have been a little less hasty in shutting down.

That's just the point, there was a pretty big clue on a thing called an "Altimeter", sadly he relied upon the picture (ie. his/her senses) rather than his/her instruments - a common pilot error in manned aircraft for many years.

A good example to consider is that the trains on the Docklands Light Railway have no drivers but a Human monitoring them. They have had 2 accidents: 10 Mar 87 and 22 Apr 91, both with Humans at the manual control - who were Passenger Service Agents that were "trained to take control at a reversionary control panel if required".

Anyway, we can all bicker and bemoan the arrival of the UAS/RPAS, but we begin to sound like the C130K Navs, the Tornado Navs, the Flight Engineers and the Wireless Operators - "but we're irreplacable!". I do note that Typhoon, C130J and most airliners are doing just fine without them...the pilot in the cockpit will be next...

As for the lost-link argument. I've seen it happen. However, if it is a real malfunction, rather than 1-5 second drop-out, then the Pred-series perform admirably and usually get gathered line-of-sight under a different frequency system. Yes, there has been the widely reported one that had to be shot down (Air Force Shoots Down Runaway Drone Over Afghanistan | Popular Science (http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2009-09/when-drones-go-wild-air-force-shoots-them-down)), but let's face it, the Pred-series has flown over 1 MILLION flying hours and this isn't happening every year! The yearly stats for USAF Predator A are here: http://www.afsc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080114-108.pdf
They flew over 187,000 flying hours from Oct 08 to Oct 09. I understand that at present the whole Pred-series logs over 30,000 flight hours per month!!! :eek:

There's a good article on flying hours here: Predator Passes 1 Million Flight Hours by Defence IQ (http://www.defenceiq.com/article.cfm?externalid=2273)

Quite frankly, the number of incidents versus the hours flown just don't stack up to underpin all of your arguments (unless, of course, you write for sensationalist newspapers and journals?).

LJ

L J R

6th Sep 2010, 19:26

LO - Correct :ok: - but others are jumping on the bandwagon....:ugh:

Lima Juliet

6th Sep 2010, 23:42

Ozy

Your underpinning of your argument with this accident report is unconvincing for the following reasons:

1. The RPAS did as it was commanded to do by the human pilot. They appear to have commanded engine shut down by incorrectly configuring the 2nd pilot position and following the incorrect procedures. As soon as the 2nd Pilot took control with the incorrectly configured control station the engine shut down (as it was supposed to!).

2. Flying a lost-link profile in a single engined aircraft with the engine shut down will crash - Sir Isaac Newton proved that many years ago with an apple!

3. The crew would have appeared to have ignored several procedures - this could mean that other operator errors could have compounded the crash. They certainly did not follow the procedures set out in the FAA's Certificate Of Authority (COA), which would indicate that they were not procedure followers.

3. The report mentions LOS, which I take to mean Line Of Sight? It also mentions Iridium which is an L Band Satellite (1.6 to 2 GHz) and not the usual Ku satellite (12 - 18 GHz) that Predator series use for Beyond Line Of Sight (BLOS) control; either this US Customs bird is different or they were flying LOS only? If they were flying LOS only then it might be difficult to gather it on the BLOS tether before the engine-out caused the crash. (Edit: I've just re-read the report and it mentions turning off the Ground Data Terminal (GDT) to force lost-link, so this is definately a LOS mission. It also states that by the time the instructor has realised what has happened the aircraft is out of LOS (ie. too low)).

4. The system lock out is also key as without this you cannot gather the aircraft, cannot monitor the last emergency mission you programmed in and it is difficult to work out what is happening. Don't forget that the lock-out appears to culminate from poor practices by the humans all around!

So your underpinning example appears to have a RPAS doing as it was told to do and designed to do - all helped on its way to its sad demise by a human operator(s)!!!

Just like the trains as well, eh? ;-)

QED?

LJ

(sorry for any typos as done on my iPhone by a stupid human operator!)

Lima Juliet

7th Sep 2010, 17:44

The problem I have found is that the UAS industry thinks it's got the solution and it'll be flying in controlled airspace near (and above) you tomorrow. Well that just isn't realistic, and the lack of professionalism and realism exhibited by the UAS industry, as evidenced in reports like the one for the Nogales Predator crash, give me cause for concern. They've got a long long way before they're on a par with manned aviation.

Ozzy

They are flying in controlled airspace right now - they have been flying USAF/US CBPA/NASA Predator As and Bs in US FAA controlled airspace for nearly 10 years!

In fact, the one's on the West Coast fly in LAX Controlled Airspace daily; and that's pretty busy airspace! I would estimate thousands of hours per month on training alone.

Finally, in the past 3-4 years the Predator series accident rate per 10,000 flying hours is better than the FJ accident rate.

I percieve a lack of vision within you that reminds me of quotes like this:

When Swansea’s Oystermouth & Mumbles Railway began carrying fare-paying passengers in the early 1800s they tried using horse- and then sail-power to get the thing moving.

Later, when steam locomotives began to come into service, legions of so-called experts warned that if they went at anything more than a few miles an hour the passengers wouldn't be able to breathe and would suffocate before the train reached its destination.

For much the same reason, in 1884, the Times described London's new Circle Line as "a form of mild torture which no person would undergo if he could conveniently help it."

By the way, I hate trains, I don't know why I keep using them to illustrate arguments - I must be a train-spotter in denial!!!

LJ :ok:

fltlt

7th Sep 2010, 18:46

LJ,

Maybe they are just doing it because?

"US forces go ahead with RQ-7B Shadows datalink revamp
The US Army and US Marine Corps are moving ahead with plans to upgrade their RQ-7B Shadow unmanned aerial vehicle with a new datalink. Prime contractor AAI is currently conducting its second set of flight-tests of Shadows equipped with the Tactical Common Data Link (TCDL), according to Russ Walker, AAI's division vice-president of tactical unmanned aircraft systems programmes"

And no, the uav's flying in lax airspace are actually flying out of here, SCLA (the old George AFB, up in the high desert just outside Victorville) and trust me, this ain't lax traffic. If you dont believe me, google the movement reports. Their only headings are between up and right a bit and the reciprocal down and left a bit,to return home. Plus, they have been flying manned aircraft to tail them to and from the ops areas for a good long time, just in case. That is now being reviewed to see if they can find their way all alone, with ground based radar, to start the "integration into manned airspace" process. Maybe a new reason for the tinfoil hat brigade, or had one better have a kevlar bonnet?

The Guard are building a brand new hanger to house their toys, should be completed mid to late next year. Why here? very little local air traffic and close proximity to a whole bunch of ranges/op areas. And compared to down the hill, very few population centers, just in case.

Lima Juliet

7th Sep 2010, 20:35

fltlt

You're talking RQ-7 and I'm talking MQ-1/MQ-9 - a bit like comparing a Hawk to a Typhoon! RQ-7 Shadow is a small tactical line-of-sight (LOS) only UAS, it doesn't have Pilots to fly it (they are "operators" from the US Army and USMC) and it is not designed to fly outside of segregated airspace (yet - which is what this upgrade might be (still needs Instrument Rated Pilots, though, to keep the FAA happy)). It's the equivalent of the British Army's Hermes 450 / WATCHKEEPER, here's a pic to give you an idea:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Shadow_200_UAV.jpg/220px-Shadow_200_UAV.jpg

Here's a pic of someone in front of an MQ-9 (this is not a "toy" UAS for LOS only operations!):

http://a.imageshack.us/img230/9173/090327reaper2custom.jpg

By the way, GEORGE AFB became the Southern California Logistics Airport. It is home to Southern California Aviation - the civilian equivalent of the military "boneyard" aircraft storage facility.

So, in summary, this small tactical LOS UAS is not designed for flight in Class A, B, C controlled airspace, whereas, the MQ-9 Predator B was/is...

LJ

fltlt

8th Sep 2010, 00:26

Leon,
I wasn't "talking" anything, I found it rather amusing that the article should pop up now, that's all. BTW, I don't need the picture of the 9 thanks, all I have to do is look out the window. Or pop over to gaasi at el mirage. Then back to edwards to global hawk. Or just wait for a call to go recover a downed one.

SCLA is not the civilian equivalent of d-m, that's mojave, where Burt and the boys, NTPS and the F4/F16 drone folks are. There are a few "stored" civilian ac at SCLA, plus million-air, the airhead for irwin rotations, a p&w engine o/haul facility, a&p school, embry riddle campus and an ac painting facility, the old base golf course is still open. The marines payed a whole bunch of money year before last to go romping through the old base housing in their strykers, left a real mess.

SCLA had to remain open after the af left (F4G's), because it is an faa designated alternate for ontario/lax. Currently Boeing has 2 of it's dreamliners out here doing testing, C-17 in's and outs from March arb, odds and sods.

But it's biggest claim to fame as far as employment is concerned are the rubber-maid and snapple facilities, oh and the waaaay overpriced and unfinished generating plant (GE not being fully paid for the turbines) something to do with it being designated an "enterprise zone" ie; govt subsidized. Latest, as of yesterday, is an argument between two levels of local govt. about who has control of the funds for the place.

I'm not playing gotcha, I don't have to.

That's definitely my last tuppence. Have fun gents. Now where did I put that lost link?

Dont need me coat and hat, its 95 deg.

Chugalug2

8th Sep 2010, 11:09

Big V:
The big issue for me is airworthiness. We have seen some early operational systems developed by small companies where airworthiness is bolted on at the end.
Well, and for me too, Big V. In which case I hope that we can both agree that whatever was being "bolted on at the end", it certainly wasn't Airworthiness. That requires a cradle to grave audit trail, hence the premature departure to the latter destination of the Nimrod Mk2. I know nothing of UAS other than they be predominately military aircraft. If you tell me that they lack Airworthiness I can only respond by saying that frankly I am not surprised!
Oh, just to point out the blindingly obvious (always to be recommended on PPRuNe!), they may be unmanned but they fly over and amongst others that are. If they are allowed to operate in CA that could include my house! Thanks, but no thanks!

BEagle

10th Sep 2010, 20:08

Yet another drone stoofs in:

A160 Hummingbird crashes during testing in Belize (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/09/10/347201/a160-hummingbird-crashes-during-testing-in-belize.html)

One day these things might be safe to operate outside SUA or war zones. But that day is clearly still some way off, despite what the drone-drivers might advocate.

Mr Grim

10th Sep 2010, 22:52

And some more aircraft crashes:

AirDisaster.Com News: Embraer 190 crashes in China; 96 aboard. (http://www.airdisaster.com/news/article.php?id=71)
BBC News - Father and son killed in Isle of Wight air race crash (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-11191805)
No survivors in Pakistan air crash - Central & South Asia - Al Jazeera English (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/07/201072811014913132.html)

Clearly it is some time before they will be safe to use widely.

The B Word

11th Sep 2010, 20:20

Mr Grim

Another one today:

The Courier - Fife man "stable" after plane crash (http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/Fife/article/4977/fife-man-stable-after-plane-crash.html)

And also someone killed and lots injured at an air display for the first time in many years:

Culprit behind British Vintage biplane Tiger Moth?s crash at Nuremberg ? Plane or the pilot, both 70 years of age | Seer Press (http://seerpress.com/culprit-behind-british-vintage-biplane-tiger-moth%E2%80%99s-crash-at-nuremberg-%E2%80%93-plane-or-the-pilot-both-70-years-of-age/6083/)

The Germans are just about getting over the Frecce accident at Ramstein in 1988 - I really feel for them :(

Anyway, I think your post is spot on, and it doesn't matter whether they're manned or unmanned, this quote is equally applicable:

"Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity, or neglect."

LJ

KKoran

11th Sep 2010, 22:35

Leon,

UAV operations in the US are limited to restricted areas, positive control airspace (where all aircraft must be talking to ATC) or visual observation (by ground observers or chase aircraft).

The Predators operating out of the Southern California Logistics Airport use chase aircraft to get to/from the restricted areas where they conduct their training. At other locations, such as Beale AFB (Global Hawk) and Grand Forks AFB (Predator), the airspace over the airport is restricted by NOTAM during UAV ops to allow ATC to ensure the UAVs are separated from manned aircraft while they climb/descend between the bases and Class A airspace.

The issue with the FAA isn't separating UAVs from IFR aircraft, but rather allowing them to operate in a see-and-avoid environment.

Farm-for-sale

12th Sep 2010, 05:55

Gents,

Late to the fight, but very good and well informed banter with nary a mud slinging... How un-Pprune! This debate is simmering (although maybe it should rage a little more) across the NAS regions and I 'll cut and paste much of it for later bar-brawls... Pray do keep it up (sts).

As fltlt is clearly out of tuppences, allow me a dime: a few years flying GR1/4s at Goose Bay for 1:00 IMC in a 1:05 sortie, and nothing above 1000ft (for the ILS join) has given me a healthy respect for George, our resident auto-p. That was 500kt, 250ft 4-ship Terrain Following in a 1980s-designed jet using magnetic tape plotted by 21 yr old Navigators on out-of-date maps and hand-held calculators for the WGS conversions.

Years later, a stint on UAVs, with fairly robust 'lost link' logic, did make me marvel at the similarities... It all works VERY well if you plot it right. Almost all (and I know I said 'almost', but give these poor new aircraft type a chance) the LL issues are human-induced... Just as landing 1-4-3-2 on the ILS was (Tonka joke, sorry)...

Big picture: daily how many 777s Auto-take-off - FMS route follow - autoland at Cat IIIB; and never let those web-surfing, non-sterile chatting, tired and under-paid humanoids touch the controls? See link:

YouTube - Cat 3 Landing Zurich...175m Vis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgeT-F9-1KI&feature=related)

Right now probably 0.5% of those missions that do need pilot alteration; but with Next-Gen, ADS-B, WAAS, etc, the age of unmanned airlines will (my words) be seen in our lifetime. As soon as your car drives you to the airport (5-8 years, driver input optional?), why trust the pilot who auto-drove to the jet too?

Much more to add, but I'll take a few spears first... Always a pleasure.

Cheers FFS

BEagle

12th Sep 2010, 07:21

Almost all (and I know I said 'almost', but give these poor new aircraft type a chance) the LL issues are human-induced...

The problem is, they are being rushed along by shiny-eyed zealots who seem unwilling to wait for the system design to have reached such an advanced state of maturity.

Drones will one day be adequately reliable and hopefully some crass HMI issues (read the report about one such drone crash in the USA) will have been corrected. But not by next week, next month or next year.

777 'auto take-off'? That's a new one on me....:hmm:

Lima Juliet

12th Sep 2010, 14:50

BEagle

The Predator first flew in 1994, that's hardly rushed along!

In aviation terms that would be Wright Flyer to Bristol Fighter or Vickers Vimy...

LJ

Farm-for-sale

12th Sep 2010, 15:24

BEagle,

Too true, and bless their zealous cotton socks. Every cause needs its advocates and they will always oversell and underperform until a compromise is finally reached. I suspect that to get the tank and the first aircraft into service there needed to be similarly 'motivated' individuals to push against the tide of 'no change please'.

And 'my bad' on the auto-take off... That's one thing many UASs have OVER their manned brethren I guess (Heron 1 leaps to mind) :)

Cheers

FFS

fltlt

12th Sep 2010, 18:00

I could not resist, I tried and tried, honest, but when someone mentions cars driving by themselves, I strongly suggest they research the DARPA unmanned challenge, the second, the last one, held at? Where else but SCLA! $250,000+ worth of onboard gubbins, which required the vehicles ac system be set to hanging meat standards and the biggest alternators possible to keep all the batteries charged. They can't be manned, there's no room.

It was much better than the first one, the hummer didn't set on fire and most got further than 2 miles, but the sight of the oshkosh entry gently bumping the buldings front pillar, or the car that parked itself in a garage and the truck that came to an intersection, promptly developed amnesia and held up the other bots behind it. The "control vehicles" manned but with rollcages, crash bars, four point harness and all had "The Stig" driving just in case their bot decided to exit the course, big red OFF switches, driving gingerly amongst the bots. At least there wasn't a motorcycle like the first year.

Great fanfare, progress etc. but unless you have nodes all over the place, especially in cities, absolutely useless.

Of course the military wants to equip resupply convoys with this novel technology. Again, no warm bodies to lose their way and be captured. But if one thinks about it, what a perfect way for the opposition to get their beans, bullets and bombs. Just grab a few radioshack pieces and presto, redirect a few vehicles their way instead of ours. Before the proponents say too hard to do, no it isn't.

And yes, everybody makes great noise about outfitting test sections of I-5/15 to enable commuters to travel at 70 mph while reading their morning paper/drinking coffee/eating breakfast/texting and on the phone (sounds like a normal morning commute around here) then someone mentions the Bill Gates blue screen of death.

One can imagine the headline: "500 vehicle pile up on freeway, cause thought to be 15 yr old boy eating cheeto's, sat in bedroom in his underwear, hacking".

Reality bytes, or crashes.

Apologies to all, no hat, no coat.

Lima Juliet

12th Sep 2010, 18:38

Ozy

I fail to see your logic on not being a pilot, however, if it pleases you then I had feet on the rudder bar, hands on stick and throttle last Thursday - and it was a taildragger and I didn't have anyone else to talk to! The fun of flying will probably never leave any of us, but the days are numbered for men in cockpits of commercial or military aircraft (estimate 3650 days and counting).

Good to see that someone has also had an airborne re-plen of twopences as well ;-)

LJ

BEagle

12th Sep 2010, 19:33

I'm pretty sure that drones will indeed have their place in the future. However:

1. Sense and avoid outside CAS? Years off.
2. Operate in CAS without sanitised routes / timings? Years off.
3. Unmanned freight aircraft? Talk to your insurer!
4. Unmanned passenger aircraft? Probably never.
5. Operate within sanitised elements of an ACO in the combat arena? Yes - today. Except, that is, for those grunts who wouldn't know what an ACO was if it bit them on the ar$e.

As for 'cars which drive themselves', remember the Mercedes-Benz S-Class demo to the motoring press? This was held inside a hangar which would be filled with artificial fog. One S-Class would be parked, another would run at it from behind until the active-braking radar detected the first, whereupon the BAS braking would kick in and it would come to an emergency stop.

At the eleventh hour, M-B discovered that the radar was spoofed by false returns from the hangar structure. But the press were already on their way. Someone had a brainwave and suggested that a piece of timber should be placed at a specific point on the track; the driver of the second S-Class would feel the bump, then stamp on the anchors. The press would never know the difference.

All was made ready for Der Tag; unfortunately, some well-meaning chap thought "Ach so, vot is zis piece off vood doing hier?" and tidied it away....

The result was 2 very bent S-Class in front of the World's motoring press........:hmm:

fltlt

12th Sep 2010, 20:14

Ozy and BEagle, please do not be too hard on the lad, for he see's the golden future. Unfortunately, like a lot of the ones before him over the years, they imagine it is but one short step from in theater to in the real world.

When the powers that be saw we could do something, and they wanted more, they just couldn't get their minds around the fact that capabilty cost is not linear, it's expotential ++.

When this topic arises, as it always does, I am reminded of one day back in the late 1980's. I had never before seen a "Telex", haven't since. But on this light pink piece of hand delivered paper was a pricing/delivery request for an RPV, capable of oth, awacs, realtime video/linescan, unearthly endurance, on and on. The ob generating capabilty to drive all the gubbins would require a 747 at least. But the last sentence really brought home the lack of understanding of the true capabilities: "Air, sea and soil sampling".

Now, how do you top that. Someone out there, at that time, thought it perfectly feasable for an RPV! I laughed long and hard and still, like now, smirk at the thought.

I think the folks like LJ don't really take into account the major leap in true airworthiness required to do what they propose, along with the costs involved to reach and then operate at that level. There is a cost point that I believe the unmanned folks will exceed in their endeavour, and that's the manned one.

Economics will be the deciding factor, and bandwidth.

Can I have change for a fiver?

Farm-for-sale

12th Sep 2010, 20:40

Folks,

I'm not suggesting that the 2011 model of the Nissan Altima will give you the self drive / auto drive option, but are you HONESTLY telling me that your car won't drive you before you're in a pine box, then I think (IMHO, as always, although not sure about the H bit) you are joining a long list of historic naysayers.

With the rate of acceleration of technology and the avid interest (DARPA is the best example) then it will happen... or are they just going to give up?

As for pilots always being up front:
- If pilot error drives insurance rates, there may be an opening.
- Wherefore art though Flight Engineers and Navigators (or even lift operators come to think)?
- What's taking the next generation of crews to the space station (I mean after the Russians)?

I could easily foresee a 'safety pilot' having a monitoring role in an unmanned cargo plane

And yes, I do have 2500 hours (and an extra 1500 unmanned)... but nice cast. BEagle does have a lot more though :)

fltlt

12th Sep 2010, 21:55

FFS, how funny, we actually have an Altima, H1 and a Nissan truck that have the manned/unmanned capability. You can even "drive" them unmanned by a handheld game controller, watching the video feed, although the braking function is a tad harsh, being none progressive. The Avalanche has over 100,000 miles, probably the highest mileage road going manned/unmanned around, used as a test bed.

It is amazing, one does not appreciate how much information the human brain analyzes and acts correctly on (most of the time) when driving. The computing speed/power and sensor capability required to replicate it (again, most of the time) is absolutely, pardon the pun, mind boggling. Not to mention the cost.

And aside from the complexities of "driving in formation with hundreds of other idiots at high speed" then throw in road conditions, weather conditions, sensor degradation (dirt, mud, snow, salt etc.) stir it all up with a dose of emf, throw in a few pedestrians and you have an insurance companies nightmare, not to mention manufacturers liability.

But until you have sat behind the wheel of a manned optional unmanned vehicle in the u/m mode whilst it is "driving itself" you have no idea how unnerving it truly is, even when you know most of the time it goes where it's supposed to. I foolishly asked if it could do it as well in reverse as in drive, never again.

And yes, to join the clan, I too have hours in the air, years in RPV/UAV and years in UGV.

Experience is the knowledge that indeed, the last time I did this, that happened. And it does.

Have to be down to around 4 quid by now.

fltlt

12th Sep 2010, 22:15

OZY, I could not agree more, well said. The ughknown trips us up far more than one would expect, both in the air and on the ground.

Money ran out in the meter.

Lima Juliet

12th Sep 2010, 22:18

Ozy

No MS Flight Sim for me and the last time I saw BEagle (or the side of his head!) was sitting in echelon in one of Her Majesty's finest aluminium pursuit ships waiting for gas.

As someone still in the military I am not surprised by the "in denial" comments of others that are not. The UAS/RPAS is here to stay, like it or not.

By the way BEags, I'm with you on the full autonomy thing for now - way too flakey at present. There was a recent demo of a Volvo with autonomous braking that didn't go too well. You can watch it on YouTube. The problem I have is that ABS and Electronic Engine Management was much derided in the 80s and early 90s - now most people wouldn't lose it for all the tea in China.

Whilst we're at it, I agree that "see (sense?) and avoid" is quite a way off, but flying under IFR is sooo much more easier than VFR in Class G. Hence Predators fly above 18500ft in the USA with all the CAT without the "chase planes" that have been mentioned.

Well, when you see me at the Cenotaph in my Bowler Hat in 15 years time you can all tell me I was wrong and I'll buy the naysayers a beer on the Tattershall Castle!

Somehow, though, I think my pension money will be safe ;-)

LJ

Farm-for-sale

12th Sep 2010, 22:45

Oz,

You put it so well. The next gen of computing WILL do all of the above, and in a timeline far quicker than the 20+ years from ZX-81 to Pentium.

You can't expect technological advances to just stop here can you? Even if you don't believe in Moore's Law, can you not postulate that the next 10 years will bridge a gap as wide as probably 1970 - 2010: that's computers, GPS, the internet... all equivalent to being invented again in the time it takes to get Cameron's replacement in power?

Call it naive, hopeful, brave new world dreaming, or call it looking starkly at history and realizing that 'status quo' simply doesn't exist: someone is always moving the ball down the field.

You seem hard set in 'your ways': all good. I'll join Leon at Tattershall in 2025 and look down on my Toyota Electric Hover car self-parking in the 'autocar' slots.

Deep joy this.

FFS

fltlt

12th Sep 2010, 23:11

LJ, if we had to go to 18500 from scla the guys on the range(s) would be somewhat upset. And ABS, OBD, I,II and III along with the rest of the loop systems, lull folks into a false sense of security.

A young commisioned female took her GSA assigned vehicle back to the motor pool, completely beside herself. The tech inspector listens to her complaint that "It has no brakes". Asked if the light was on in the dash, she replied that she didn't know. It was patiently explained to her that indeed, she did still have brakes, however the ABS had shut down and she would need to "press really hard" to stop.

Anyone remember servo assist, when it didn't?

We have come to rely, and trust, in systems that do not require the operators to understand any of the basics, which leaves them without much clue as to what to do if the system fails.

fltlt

12th Sep 2010, 23:28

ffs, not you too! Prime examples of capabilities for marketing differentation rather than usefulness, installed in a rush! Better hope that hover switch is wired correctly, otherwise that would "suck".

"Out of the three cars we tested, the "Intelligent Park Assist" option in the Toyota Prius was the most elaborate, offering both parallel and back-in parking, where the car can back itself into a parking lot space. The vehicle's computer calculates the best parallel- or reverse-parking steering angles and displays an image of the best parking spot on a touch screen on the dashboard. Once the driver hits "OK" to select the spot, the computer sends a signal to the electric steering system and navigates the car into the space.
The BMW 5-Series and the Ford Escape operate similarly, but since the BMW is designed primarily for European countries that have no designated parking spots in lots, the company focused on developing a parallel parking system only, according to BMW spokesman Tom Plucinsky.
The Ford Escape's system automatically picks a parking spot without needing extra authorization from the driver. If the driver wants to park in a identified spot, he just presses the gas pedal and applies the brakes as needed until the car is parked.
But all three systems ran into problems when parking conditions didn't match certain specifications. The Escape, for instance, was confused when we wanted to park it in a spot that was near a double-parked delivery truck—the system failed to recognize a good parking spot only a few feet away. Since these systems detect every other car or person surrounding the vehicle, they often won't work if anything other than two ideally parked cars with adequate space between them are detected. In New York City, where cars need to be parked quickly and efficiently, and pedestrians and piles of trash line the streets, the need for perfect circumstances make it nearly impossible to rely on the self-parking system.

From a market standpoint, the self-parking systems are poised to become more popular, Mr. Brauer said. "Car companies are looking for ways to distinguish themselves from competitors and it's getting harder and harder to do that on traditional points like safety and reliability," he said.

But market research shows that it may take a while for self-parking systems to penetrate the mainstream consumer market. When consumers were surveyed about self-parking systems as part J.D. Power's June 2009 emerging technology report, which tracks the newest technologies in vehicles, self-parking garnered the lowest interest. "People felt they didn't need this feature, and many said they infrequently drove in areas where they would have to parallel park," said Mike Marshall, director of automotive emerging technologies at J.D. Power. The feature with the highest interest? Blind-spot detection".