Int Airspace Regs - Military rules...

[OoAyVee]

What are the Rules for flying in International areas outside of the airspace of a particular nation - such as in the middle of an Ocean ? Particularly below FL 120, and here, by a UAV. What Airworthiness/Navigation/Comms/Rules of the Air are there (less discussion on the UAV side, more the Rules & Regs? You Military bods might give a different perspective on this question !

Is a digitised map of the Global (World's VFR/IFR Airspace perimeters available, and if so from where, and to what accuracy (deg/mins or nm), and anyone know what format ?

Answers on a postcard - shouldn't take a minute !

Many Thanks to anyone who can help !!
:ok:

[BEagle]

Why not jst nip up to Garmin (not far from you) and ask for a GPS database?

How are you going to get your little robotplane down there and back up again without ATC approval? It can't fly under 'Due Regard'..... You do know what that is, I suppose?

The enthusiasm for UAVs shown in industy at present is totally out of touch with the reality of global airspace requirements.

[M609]

The enthusiasm for UAVs shown in industy at present is totally out of touch with the reality of global airspace requirements.

I know of a few norwegian army and airforce chaps that this point has become real for after a meeting with the CAA some months ago......

Soon to be UAV crew: "....it will have a transponder, we can just fly it like a plane right??"

CAA bloke: "Ehhhh......NO!"

:E

BTW our CAA is looking at the UK's handling of the UAV "problem", so you lot best not let us down. We will get the stuff based up here next year.
Don't see much activitiy outside restricted airspace in the near future..... :ok:

[Spotting Bad Guys]

It very much depends on who owns the airspace - i.e. in a conflict zone the appropriate CAOC has much of the authority required to establish UAV transit corridors/operating areas and so on but the situation is much more complicated when a transit through civilian controlled airspace is required. However, despite the 'nay-sayers' often loud and vociferous statements, this has already been acheived on many occasions both within the CONUS and in other regions - with the full approval of, and perhaps understandibly nervous attention of the FAA, in the case of the US transits.
Clearly, the handling pilot cannot operate the 'see and avoid' principle but with careful co-ordination and a clear plan of what the aircraft will do should it lose its link, briefed to, cleared with, and understood by the relevant controlling agencies, the likelihood of a mishap is greatly reduced.
The main problem is one of education; the aircraft will follow the pre-programmed route in the same way an autopilot will route any of today's aircraft; we should not be scared to embrace new concepts and technology!

SBG

[BEagle]

Many of these things have been lost in take-off or landing accidents. Their reliability needs to be considerably better than it currently is - multiple redundant systems will be needed if they are to be allowed anywhere close to real aeroplanes and their human occupants. There is no-one on board to take control when they go wrong..go wrong..go wrong...

'Handling pilot' of a UAV? Don't make me laugh - UAVs have 'operators', not 'pilots'!!

[Pontius Navigator]

It is all very well the UAV knowing where it is, where it was, and where it will be. The problem is the poor sod in the puddle jumper flying the other way.

It wasn't just UAV one has to watch for but also missiles dropping out of the sky.

I once sent a very clear, coded message to a herk. Remain south of 10S and east of 14 west, temporary danger area.

As we were WEST of 14W the crew assumed a coding error and ensured they were WEST of 14 W when they were NORTH of 10S.

They wouldn't have seen anything I dont think <vbg>

[Dan Winterland]

Airpsape below FL50 on the North Atlantic is Class G.

Accurate databases of terrain and obstacles do exist. Many airliners now use EGPWS (Enhanched Ground Proximity Warning System) which not only uses Rad Alt for warnings, but has such a database in it's memory to give advance warnings.

[OoAyVee]

Thank you all for replying !

Specifics such as the North Atlantic Class G Airspace classification are very helpful, and if you can provide similar specific detail I'd be very grateful. I have a fair knowledge of UAV and Airworthiness requirements and UAV pros and cons (such as similarity to missile, collision avoidance, redundancy etc..as mentioned above), and am quite up to speed on these issues. However, consider a Civilian Survey UAV based from a (not large) vessel (the vessel can travel worldwide), surveying a radius about the vessel and collecting a far greater range of data that presently permissible. The requirement is to know in black and white what the present AIRSPACE (not so much ATC comms etc here) Rules exist for ANY aircraft type, piloted or not, to fly from Sea level up to max FL120 (by way of example), in coastal or mid-oceanic waters (i.e. within and without of national air boundaries).

Additionally, what requirements (formal arrangements) are there when a military exercise tests low-flying aircraft and/or "missile firings" in waters where the airspace is controlled by another (not-necessarily NATO) Nation ?

Thanks all of you for your help !!

:p

[Spotting Bad Guys]

I'm sorry BEagle but I disagree with you. Whilst you are correct in that the majority of UAV accidents/mishaps occur in the landing phase (much less during takeoff, however) if you re-read my posts we were discussing the en-route sections of the aircraft's operation. Compared to operations near the ground, flying the UAV during its navigation or recce phase is relatively simple and problem-free.

As for the puddle jumpers, the bigger UAVs tend to operate at higher FLs and in controlled airspace would therefore pose less of a problem to the guys operating between 2000'-12K. Agreed that the smaller UAVs are a problem in this regard and need to remain within military restricted airspace.

Many UAVs are (relatively) small and are prone to crosswind problems on landing, in exactly the same way as a light aircraft. This makes them a tricky beast to put down on the concrete, and in the case of say, Predator, there are also the tailboards to consider so an agressive flare may not be an option to the pilot. This is where most of the accidents occur.

Yes, I did say 'pilot'. I have worked closely with the US military UAV community for some time and I can guarantee you that the guys with their hands on the aircraft controls are indeed pilots, and would be insulted to be referred to in any other way. Many of them are FJ drivers and they all have considerable experience in their own aircraft types.

Many people are scared of UAVs because they perceive a lack of 'man-in-the-loop' control - this is simply not the case.

Regards

SBG

[Pub User]

Interesting post SBG.

I didn't realise they operated in Controlled Airspace. When they're routing through said airspace, following a 'pre-programmed route in the same way an autopilot will route any of today's aircraft', what happens when ATC say "turn left 10 degrees for separation"? Is it relayed to the pilot and actioned?

[NoseGunner]

Yea I can see the lack of "see and avoid" being a real problem - we all know how seriously airline pilots take it!!!

Personally I think a UAV flying down an airway is at least as safe as an airliner, if not more so. However, I'm not suprised that the regulatory authorities are handling it with their usual understanding and flexibility.
:}

[BEagle]

"Many UAVs are (relatively) small and are prone to crosswind problems on landing, in exactly the same way as a light aircraft. This makes them a tricky beast to put down on the concrete, and in the case of say, Predator, there are also the tailboards to consider so an agressive flare may not be an option to the pilot. This is where most of the accidents occur.

Yes, I did say 'pilot'. I have worked closely with the US military UAV community for some time and I can guarantee you that the guys with their hands on the aircraft controls are indeed pilots, and would be insulted to be referred to in any other way. Many of them are FJ drivers and they all have considerable experience in their own aircraft types."

Their operators might well have been real pilots once, but when OPERATING a UAV are no more a pilot than I would be flying a radio-controlled model aircraft!

The UAV proponents are sooooo keen to run before they can walk - and it's reassuring to learn that the airspace authorities are being very cautious in their approach to the access to airspace which these things are being allowed.

[Spotting Bad Guys]

Comms with ATC depends very much on the type of UAV - the bigger ones carry a standard V/UHF radio that can be operated via the datalink, allowing direct comms between the pilot (via the aircraft) and the controlling agency. Alternatively - and I accept that this is more cumbersome - in many cases the ground stations are equipped with telephones and a landline call can be set up in seconds. Changing the autopilot route is as easy and quick as it would be on the flight deck of any aircraft equipped with a computerised autopilot.
For the smaller UAV, why bother with a long slow transit when you can pack it up in its box and ship it as cargo?

UAV transits of controlled airspace in the CONUS are by no means a daily occurrence, but have been accomplished without incident on many occasions. However, turning 10 left for separation can be an issue when the UAV may only be capable of 100kts!

BEagle, it's funny how you maintain that 'UAV proponents are sooooo keen to run before they can walk' when UAVs have been conducting effective combat ops since 1996. Your perspective of the UAV programme seems to be limited to the hand-launched variety and yet there are many that are the same size as a light aircraft (or larger) which have to be flown on exactly the same way regardless of the location of the pilot. The UAV pilots I know are all fully current, have instrument ratings and many have a CPL on top. To call them 'operators' rather than 'pilots' is pure tosh. Or are you paranoid that the advent of the UAV will remove the need for pilots?
I have been a contributor and reader of these fora for some time, and I respect your opinions on many issues; however, this time you need to update your information.


SBG

[BEagle]

Well actually I'm currently involved in a project which includes UCAVs. Not just mini-UCAVs, but X-45 type things.

Some of the theory is reasonable, but some is pure Buck Rogers and we have to advise the boffins to consider a reality check - as what they propose is unlikely to be accepted in the time frame they envisage.

A degree of autonomy is needed for the application they would like; however, much of what they propose is very one-sided and totally fails to adress the legitimate concern of others.

[Impiger]

So I guess for 'see and avoid' we should read 'sense and avoid!'

[BEagle]

Not quite, Impers old bean. And when the 'sensor' goes on the fritz..... or the 'avoider'?

The concern comes with permitting an active mode for the UCAV autopilot instead of a passive mode to achieve the same result. Our Spamerican chums think that they've evolved a Gucci solution; in true simple UK form we've told them that they're seking a solution to a non-existent problem!

[Spotting Bad Guys]

Sorry for the slow rejoin...

Why go for the autonomous option? The UAV datalink bandwidth available is more than capable of carrying almost any sensor data down to the ground station, thus providing the 'telepresence' (as much as I hate to use the term). The beauty of using experienced pilots to fly the aircraft is that they bring better understanding of airspace structure, higher SA and bags of airmanship to the party. In operational theatres the situation can also be improved by giving the pilot access to the RAP. Rather than giving autonomous capability to the UAV, surely it would be better to take a two-strand approach of increasing the 'sense and avoid' capabilities whilst improving SA by providing a civvie equivalent of the RAP to the pilot, maintaining the man-in-the-loop control?

I can now see why you are nervous, BEagle - our boffins might be planning for 2020, but don't seem to be recognising any of the advances in the current operational UAV community. But whatever the advance, if you want to operate UAVs effectively you can't replace the pilot! (Many of ours will go back to their F-jets on completion of their tours, so 'pilots' they remain!:D )

SBG

[West Coast]

Beagle
Funny you take exception to the term pilot. AP on at some minimum altitude, a few buttons pushed, knobs twisted on the FCP and your a pilot. Do the same on a UAV and your an operator. I guess you could find some distinction in that a pilot may die if his aircraft lawndarts while the UAV "operator" won't.
Slim but notable distinction all the way up to the last landing. Then again passengers die also when the plane augers in, perhaps we should hold them above "operators" also.

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

From the regulator's perspective, the key words are "equivalence" and "transparency". In other words, the UAV must be expected to behave in exactly the same manner a manned aircraft would within the same piece of airspace. Rather perversly, this means that it is highly likely a UAV will meet the necessary sense & avoid criteria for ops within CAS before being let loose in Class G airspace. In operational theatres, an increased risk is rightly accepted and UAVs already mix with manned ac. However, if you want to fly one within the UK FIRs you will have to either be in segregated airspace of have proven equivalence.

Equivalence has yet to be demonstrated

[OoAyVee]

Thanks SATCO and constructive bods above !

UAVs/Remote-Control Aircraft can be a handy and practical civil tool for data gathering/survey over a fairly large area where manned aircraft are prohibitively expensive, unsafe for the pilot, or cannot be reached due, in my colleagues' case, to distance offshore. As a consequence it is worth the attempt to development such a small easily-deployed and recovered platform, thta is relatively inexpensive.

I agree with the current CAA CAP 722 Airworthiness Guidelines and its required sense-and-avoid, and effective redundancy and safety and ATC comms/command requirements. However, my colleagues and I need to know more about the operational REQUIREMENTS/RULES of deploying such an aircraft for a low altitude survey at sea or along a coast, to and from a basic vessel on the water ANYWHERE in the World.

[Reichman]

Have to agree with BEagle; they're operators not pilots. I don't think any UAV operator, when faced with a serious problem with his aircraft, would react the same way if he was actually in it. How would he avoid the mobile orphanage just before it crashed?

I can see the Sun headlines when one of these unmanned, unaware machines lands on the house of Mr Joe Public.

Reichman

[Spotting Bad Guys]

What utter drivel! Are you suggesting the pilot would take his hands off the controls, shrug and go and get a cup of tea? Why would a UAV pilot behave any differently to that of a manned aircraft when faced with a serious problem? OK, let's assume a catastrophic failure of the engine in a single-donk aircraft. I won't insult you by detailing the manned aircraft's boldface and emergency actions. As most UAVs are built for endurance/loiter, the aircraft at this stage turns into a large glider, with control retained until the batteries give out as alternator power has been lost (this can be some considerable time and you can also load shed to extend remaining life). Now assume that we are outside glide range to any useable concrete and it's clear that the aircraft is going to impact somewhere. Assuming the datalink holds up (and there's no reason to suggest it wouldn't) then the pilot can stay with the aircraft all the way to impact, thus steering clear of any schools/busloads of nuns etc. He has more control, not less, as he doesn't have to jump out!

Additionally, in the environment I work in, AIB rules apply equally to pilots of UAVs so if an aircraft is lost the pilot and crew face exactly the same investigation, urinalysis etc as a guy who has just thrown his F-16 away.

SBG

[West Coast]

There is room for argument as to the proper title. I however don't think trying to find some difference in reaction to planting a plane versus a uav into an orphanage has any bearing. A UAV pilot is not gong to react any different than a FJ who can step out at any time.

[BEagle]

But perhaps if he/she/it/thing had to operate a UAV in the same manner as a pilot who wasn't able to step out...?

So, wire 115v 60 cps (US) or 240v 50Hz (EU) throught the operator's seat and hang up a sign saying "You crash, you fry" over the console....??

Might concentrate the mind rather..............

[Spotting Bad Guys]

I find it staggering that you can call into question the professionalism of your fellow pilots and aircrews in such a cavalier fashion. Do you really believe that in an emergency situation the crew's minds aren't already concentrated enough?

I reiterate: the pilots within the UAV community I work in are almost all FJ, most of whom will return to their own aircraft types on completion of their current tour. Sharp? Yes. Professional? Definitely. Likely to deposit their aircraft into a populated area? I don't think so.

Perhaps they should have wired 240VAC into the captain's seat of the VC-10 sim with the same warning.....:\

As you dislike UAVs so much, and taking into acount your VC-10/Buccaneer/Vulcan background - why are you involved with the X-45?

SBG

[BEagle]

SBG - do get a grip. I don't dislike UCAVs per se, just the more bizarre ideas of their proponents whose glazed-eye "But we know it's wonderful - why can you not just accept our beliefs" attitude is more often encountered amongst religious zealots.

I am not working with the X-45 as such; I'm involved in a study which includes that class of UCAV.....

Since when did crashing a simulator have the same effect on third parties as crashing an aeroplane?

[Reichman]

Oooh. Didn't realise how sensitive these UAV types were.

[OoAyVee]

and distracted ! How's about my post then ??? :p

[Spotting Bad Guys]

Get a grip? Hmmmmm.

OoAyVee - pm me more detail on your requirements and I'll try to help.

Regards

SBG