Segregated airspace for Wales UAS environment?

[BEagle]

A consultation has been launched which proposes the establishment of segregated airspace for 'Wales UAS' operations.

That's 'UAS operations' as in 'drone operations', not 'University Air Squadron operations'.....:rolleyes:

The claim is that 'The current airspace configuration around West Wales Airport does not currently meet customer needs and therefore there is a requirement to establish permanent segregated airspace' for their drone operations. Quite a large chunk of west Wales would be affected - see Welsh Assembly Government | Consultation on an airspace change to establish segregated airspace for the Wales Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) environment (http://wales.gov.uk/consultations/business/090505uas/?lang=en) .

[L J R]

Why segregate them?....We have to grip the issue that they are here now and we have to deal with them. To reserve large chunks of airspace permanently is not doing the UAS/RPV/UAV community any favours in progressing.

Certainly restrict the types of RPAs into 'manned' airspace and or specify certain Sense and Avoid criteria (and if don't meet a particular standard and must fly, THEN segregate them).

[green granite]

Shame they got rid of RAE Llanbedr really. :(

[BEagle]

In the UK, it is not illegal to fly in IMC in Class G airspace without a transponder or even any ATSOCAS service. It would be stupid, but not illegal.

How does a drone 'sense and avoid' non-squawking traffic in IMC?

[A and C]

Aaaah.............. so thats why Mode S is being pushed so hard!

[Sun Who]

For an informed debate, see:

CAP 722: Unmanned Aircraft System Operations in UK Airspace - Guidance | Publications | CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=415)

and

Saab co-ordinates European MIDCAS development project | Shephard Group (http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/3102/saab-co-ordinates-european-midcas-development-project/)

and for those of you with access to it, Project CHURCHILL.

This is an interesting and complicated topic. It's a necessary debate for the useful future of Bril Mil PLC and should be considered in light of the fact that commercial spend on UAS is about to double to......$4.5 billion.

Keen to hear peoples views on this as I have a vested interest.

Sun.

Edited to add:

Beags, a lot of effort is being expended on the ability to 'sense and avoid' non-squawking and difficult to detect traffic. Most of it revolves around quite wizzy radars and EO systems. The tricky bit however, isn't the sensors, but the ability of the platform to make its own decisions. Latency in downlinks makes it very tricky to keep the operator in the loop for this type of function. As I said, interesting topic.

Sun

[L J R]

Quote:

How does a drone 'sense and avoid' non-squawking traffic in IMC?


I imagine it doesn't.... just like no-one else can either.

Just because it is uninhabited, may not mean that someone is not in control.

Unfortunately most people classify ALL UAS (Drones = sooooo 1960s) in the same 'basket' of aviation, like comparing a 777 to a Piper Cub in a lot of respects. Some have high end specs to work in the manned airspace, others don't....I believe there is work to clarify UAS into categories - which (unfortunately for the UAS community) currently only classify altitude, weight and endurance. What should be done is compare on-board and external systems and overall airworthiness, redundancies etc, to ascertain what and where they can be used. Just because it is a 'Drone' does not necessarily mean it is autonomous.

[BEagle]

Sun Who, the latency you describe was one of the main issues with Lunakhod many years ago - by the time it's told its operators that there's a cliff ahead, it's fallen over it.

Even the most optimistic drone proponent can't do much about the speed of electromagnetic propagation!

Some years ago I was involved in a study programme concerning drone AAR - we concluded that, whilst the drone itself would probably be capable of maintaining close formation to the precision required for boom-to-drone AAR, due to round trip timing issues, off-board safety monitoring had insufficient response time to breakaway the drone if its guidance systems suddenly went out to lunch.

In a high threat environment, with a good tactical data link net, the drone should have complete knowledge of friendly PPLIs and tracks. To reduce separation, the drone controller must have suitable assurance that the SRAP known to the drone matches that known to the operator. If not, it must work to increased separation minima and/or remain within drone segregation areas until the link is properly recovered.

But in a low tempo peacetime environment, attempting to enhance drone 'sense and avoid' capability seems rather cost-ineffective. The alternative would be to operate the drone during hours of night only, greatly reducing the threat to/from uncontrolled civil traffic.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

green granite. That was my first thought too. I suspect that the new kit is a bit smarter than your average Jindivik. Presumably, they need some reasonably flat scenery to fly over which would preclude a big chunk of Snowdonia.

I think the salient point is that these are test flights. It would seem advisable, then, to have some separation from a Robot that's still being programmed.

Whenever I see Wales and drone in the same sentence, I always think of Ieuan Wyn Jones!

[Sun Who]

Beags, all you say is true. However, the interesting aspect to this problem is that it's not just a question of the requirements for in-theatre operation. The mil UAS of the future will need to get to the theatre. Putting them on a ship/C17 and freighting them there is fraught with technological and logistical challenges. This opens up the need for discussion about how to fly a UAV to theatre from its MOB in blighty. Tricky. The ability to do so however, would present a significant strategic capability.
Associated challenges include not just the technological ones but also the legal framework, airspace and socio-political issues surrounding public acceptance of unmanned systems 'mixing it up' with airliners.
As an aside, latency is not such an issue for systems operating within LOS of the controlling intelligence but for platforms travelling intercontinental distances, it's a big problem.

Sun

[BEagle]

Sun Who, yes, the LOS issue is nothing like such a problem.

We concentrated on generic issues - if they could be solved for drones half a world away, they would work in LOS conditions.

I don't know what the climb performance of long range drones is, but a simplistic view would be to base such drones as far as possible from busy airspace and centres of population. Ascension Island, perhaps? Excellent connectivity with geostationary satellites, of course.

I simply don't see the UK genpub accepting military drones flying from somewhere like Waddington during daytime. If the military mind is so keen on drones, then it'll simply have to accept the consequences.

[green granite]

This opens up the need for discussion about how to fly a UAV to theatre from its MOB in blighty. Tricky. The ability to do so however, would present a significant strategic capability.

Could it not fly airways under "normal" ATC control? It seems to me that it makes very little actual difference whether the pilot is sitting in the plane controlling the fly-by wire computers, or is many miles away, providing he is talking to the relevant ATC centre and responds to any instructions given. It's slower speed might be an issue though.

[Sun Who]

Green Granite,
Your question/proposition is very reasonable, but when you take into account the requirements of CAP 722 (shortcut in one of my previous posts) it becomes clear it's not that simple. Millions have been spent exploring exactly what a system that satisfied CAP 722 would look like.
Other considerations for a mil UAS include, how would a stealthy UAV be 'de-stealthed' for flight in the ATC system and then 're-stealthed' in theatre. That aint easy either.

Sun Who.

[Backwards PLT]

Strange - I was reading the above posts and realised that if you replaced the (mis-used) word "drone" with "aircraft" or "flying machine" then the comments could have been in the Times letter page 100 years ago!

Of note UAVs already mix it up with both military and civil aviation in many parts of the world and some already do fly to theatre. The most valid point is LJR's - you CANNOT just lump them all together. A global hawk should not be treated the same as some bloke flying a model aircraft in his back garden.

[Lima Juliet]

Beagle

"Burn the Spinning Jenny" is what comes to my mind when reading your posts. As far as UAS AAR goes please take a look at this picture:

http://www.skycontrol.net/UserFiles/Image/UAV_img/200712/200712boeing-uav-refueling.jpg

"By adding an automated aerial refueling capability to UAVs, we can significantly increase their combat radius and mission times while reducing their forward staging needs and response times," said David Riley, Boeing Phantom Works program manager for the Automated Aerial Refueling (AAR) program. The goal of the government-industry AAR program is to develop and demonstrate systems that will enable UAVs to safely approach and maneuver around tanker aircraft so they can successfully perform boom and receptacle refueling operations. The systems — including a flight control computer and control laws developed by Boeing Phantom Works — are demonstrated using a Calspan Learjet specially equipped to fly autonomously as a UAV.

I'm sad to say that a lack of understanding of UAS by "previous generation" aviators is seriously hampering the UK Military keeping up with the rest of the world. Much as it sticks in throat to say it, BAeS have been developing this capability for a long time but the old-and-bold "nay-sayers" have led this country to lag far behind other nations on this technology. Like it or not, UAS or "drones" as you keep insisting on calling them are here to stay (even though some of them have jet engines these days and the original "drones" were prop jobs - hence the name!). Even in its infancy, "sense and avoid" is far more reliable to "mk 1 eyeball" in Class G. REAPER flies in Class A and B airspace in the US and it has a transponder plus a radio which transmits from the aircraft and allows crews to coordinate with ATCRUs - it's only the nervousness and lack of understanding that stops us doing something similar here. In years gone by the military flew experimental aircraft, on the verge of airworthiness, on the say so of ACAS without worrying about CAA or EASA regs - we still have this ability today, but litigation threats and unsound UAS knowledge hamper and 'roadblock' this means. The French have been doing it at Istres with an licence built IAI Heron since 2007 - they are signatory to EASA and Istres isn't exactly the "back of beyond" with regards to 3rd party liability!

The choice is stark at the moment. Get some UK segregated airspace and an airfield to fly them from or the UK Aerospace industry will fall further behind in UAS production.

Sorry for the rant old boy, but 'ludditism' would have sunk us in the past if it had not been for forward-thinkers such as Mitchell, Royce, Camm, Hawker, Chadwick, Wallis, et al... I ask you to open your mind to UAS and talk to some people in the know (and as this is so new there aren't many of us).

By the way, a UAS flying for 36hrs (which some can) at 250KTAS (which some can) gives it the ability to deploy 9000nm (or UK to Oz) - who needs AAR with flying time like that anyway? AAR could have other uses though - extending persistence over target for example.

LJ:ok:

PS There are more unmanned surveillance aircraft on the drawing board and in production than there are manned aircraft in toto - as I said before this type of flying machine is here to stay. I'm surprised that FedEx and DHL haven't gone this route as well.

[L J R]

Informed discussion on PPRune for a change - it will never catch on..

[BEagle]

The type of drone under consideration for AAR was not the Global Hawk / Predator / Reaper class....

The problem with autonomous AAR using probe and drogue is that the drone is flying an approach to contact without an immediate safety overview. We did suggest that drone operators involved in probe and drogue AAR should be on board the tanker; it would concentrate their minds on safety if nothing else.

Whereas with the boom system, all the drone has to do is to maintain a stable position and not respond to the impact of the boom nozzle as an unexpected step pitch moment.

Of course modern drones should have a place in the sky - but the impatience of their proponents is frankly unacceptable. Safety is paramount.

Incidentally, the dictionary definition of drone is 'A pilotless aircraft operated by remote control.' Why are people so sensitive about the term? Which is increasingly being used by the news media, incidentally.

[L J R]

....cos the Press are as equally as skeptical as most of us.

'Drone kills 45 in airstrike in Pakistan'

If it was an F-15, it would read '45 Taliban dead in surgical airstrike'

[Lima Juliet]

The term "drone" was first adopted when refering to Capt Archibald Lowe RFC's aerial target in WWI and it refered to the noise that this rudimentary but also pioneering vehicle made. I believe it first flew from Upavon in 1916ish.

If you apply the term "Drone" to modern UASs, most of which have levels of autonomy (such as switching to "lost link" modings), then it is not truly a Remotely Piloted Vehicle (RPV) anyway. UASs such as BAeS HERTI and LM's DESERT HAWK 3 have very high levels of control autonomy - they are most definately NOT RPVs or "Drones".

I hear you on probe and drogue vs boom - interestingly some E-3D drivers find probe and drogue easier than boom!!! :eek: That said, nothing is impossible and computers can make far quicker reactions to basket fluctuations than a human - it just takes a bit of R&D.

The other thing to get our heads around is thought of a UAS AAR Tanker - flying an orbit in VMC for hours on end sounds like ideal UAS territory! You could do OCA, DCA, SEAD, EW, CAS, ISTAR and AAR with the right kind of UAS platform with offensive and defensive capabilities- as I said before, it is time to open our minds.

LJ

[BEagle]

Given the very low SFC of most drones, surely external tanks would be simpler?

That said, nothing is impossible and computers can make far quicker reactions to basket fluctuations than a human - it just takes a bit of R&D.

A 'bit of R&D', eh? Ever had your Windows PC freeze or crash? And Bill Gates has been in the computer game for far longer than any drone designer....:rolleyes:

Particularly one from BWoS...:eek:

...such as switching to "lost link" modings

If I recall correctly, that's what early model aeroplane 27 MHz proportional R/C systems did in the mid-1960s. In the event of loss of signal, everything to neutral and throttle to idle - hopefully the model had sufficient natural stability to glide to a soft landing.

But usually it didn't work. Mind you, the far more common servo hardovers caused by radio interference were much more interesting to watch!

[Fox_4]

Air-Attack.com News :: Joint UAS mission sets mark: First transatlantic flight for RQ-4A Global Hawk (http://www.air-attack.com/news/article/3368)

Beyond LOS in International airspace has happened more than once already. As per the link.

It just requires knowledge of the system doing the flight and having the correct safety precautions built in. ie lost link logic/autolands etc.

Beagle - Please dont say you are comparing some 60s remote control plane to modern UAS aircraft?!

The technology is rapidly advancing but until organisations like the CAA catch up I doubt you will see them flying in UK airspace soon.
Although it is bad news for putting us out of jobs!

[Sun Who]

Fox 4 - The RQ-4 flew above controlled airspace, something not all future UAVs will be designed to do (for good reason). Crossing the Atlantic is one thing (a great achievement) but doesn't really inform the debate on how a UAS might get its associated platform from here, to theatre, via any intervening airspace.
I can't get excited about the drone/UAV argument except to say that I feel the terms UAV and UAS are more useful in a detailed discussion, given that a UAV is a component of a UAS and that the term drone doesn't, in my opinion, facilitate the autonomy discussion.
I'm familiar with the way in which Reaper operates in the US and I'm not aware of it flying in un-segregated airspace other than under 'special provision'.
Beags proposal to operate UAVs from remote sites such as ASI doesn't allow for how we'd train with them and the future breed of UAS and UCAVs in particular will come with a significant training burden.

Sun Who

[Gainesy]

Putting them on a ship/C17 and freighting them there is fraught with technological and logistical challenges.

What's so challenging about renting a truck and crane?

[BEagle]

Gainesy, some of the latest drones are pretty big beasts - you don't just undo a couple of rubber bands to take the wings off (like my old Veron Robot R/C model....:p). Breaking them down for transport and erecting them at the other end would be fairly time consuming - and would require a fair bit of post-assembly testing.

RAF Mount Pleasant would seem to be a good place to base the training for future drone operators - plenty of varied terrain around and an ideal opportunity to work up with the Wesident Wedgiment under realistic exercise conditions.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

That could be interesting. What are the wind limitations on these machines?

[L J R]

The solution is Cyprus - always has been always will be!

[Lima Juliet]

Beagle

Lost link mode is a little more than...

In the event of loss of signal, everything to neutral and throttle to idle - hopefully the model had sufficient natural stability to glide to a soft landing.

It is pre-programmed to fly a pre-set series of manoeuvres - for example, the UAV loses link with the rest of the system, it then flies to a pre-determined orbit area and flies there until it either restores the link or it starts to run low on gas and then goes back to base and enters the hold for the line-of-sight team to gather it on a different frequency/antenna set up. Obviously, the orbit area and hold has to be selected carefully and notified to other air users - it would also be prudent to ensure that if the UAV runs out of gas it will come down with the lowest chance of a human casualty. Of course, you could always send up QRA for a bit of target practice! (unless you've mothballed them, that is :ugh:).

So it's a bit more than centralise and throttle back, I'm afraid.

What are the wind limitations on these machines?

The auto take off and land on some types is pitifully low (around 6kts on some) but human-in-the-loop fying is around 15kts akin to your PA28 or C152. It certainly doesn't help when BAeS built one of their's based upon a tail-dragging motorglider (HERTI is based upon a J&AS motorglider) - x-winds, tailwheels, motorgliders, hard runways and UAVs are not your best choices of combination!

Cyprus - too many political sensitivities these days for it to be an option.

MPA - Runways not into prevailing winds (thanks to the REs!), weather factor not great and then it isn't exactly replicating Afghanistan is it? Which is why CREECH/HOLLOMAN is so good for MQ-9 Reaper.

Now the UK Military have just invested £14m in Stanford Trg Area (STANTA) to build an Afghan Village - opening up Honington to fixed wing flying again???:}

Here's a piccy of Lashkar Gah in Norfolk!!

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/4BB6EAF7-FAE7-472A-9637-DABC41BB43A4/0/Bra_09_P13824_Out_Unc_024.jpg