Armed Navy UCAS Demo Planned 2018

[Rubicks13]

Interesting article as this.

It's expected to lead to a joint Navy/Air Force UCAS program (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ac15ac136-3b03-40a5-b424-2e4902ae8226&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest).


CUBE

[Poose]

A step back in capability if you ask me...

Knockout the ground controlling stations that controls the drones and you have an air force you cannot use.

Hack into or jam the signal controlling the UAV and you have an air force you cannot use.
I do believe Al Qaeda did this recently and were able to watch the same video feeds being supplied to ground troops?

And then we go on to the simple fact that UAVs cannot perform the most basic task... to see and avoid another aircraft. :ugh:

I can't help but feel that there is a drive by nerds, gamers and frustrated pilots to eliminate manned aircraft.

Slightly off topic, but people 'in the know' talk of all aircraft being unmanned in the near future. :mad:

Could a drone have performed a ditching along the lines of what happened in the Hudson River or the B777 at Heathrow with the double engine failure??? No...

The human body has many senses... Until we can equal the computing and sensing power of the human body / brain, elimination of the pilot is not a viable option. And by that stage you have created a computer that can think for itself... Which sounds like the realms of the Terminator movies and science fiction to me.

And not forgetting the first major crash of an unmanned aircraft. Would any operator consider the commercial applications of this? Look what happened to Concorde. The first major accident and the detractors of that aircraft had its card marked.

Most of the UAV advocates I know are failed pilots, gamers / nerds who lack the drive or strength of character to embark upon a career on the flight deck or in the military.

I do however believe that there is a place for UAVs / drones and that we are at the limit of their capability in Afghanistan.
Unmanned fighters and airliners, not viable in my opinion.

For all of the armchair 'experts' who will see fit to attack my opinions, my background: I'm currently working as an Aeronautical Engineer. I also spent seven years in the British Army and I have my pilot's licence.

[The B Word]

Could a drone have performed a ditching along the lines of what happened in the Hudson River or the B777 at Heathrow with the double engine failure??? No...

..err, yes. The Reaper that was lost a few years back when it had engine failure performed a perfect forced landing. In fact, had it not been somewhere hostile, and that the recovery crew were unsure how to transport it, then it would probably have been repaired and flown again - sadly it was blown up, just like the Herc that suffered a similar fate.

Most of the UAV advocates I know are failed pilots, gamers / nerds who lack the drive or strength of character to embark upon a career on the flight deck or in the military.


Most of the people I know in and around the RAF Reaper Program have FJ or ISTAR backgrounds. Those that fly it have volunteered from their FJs or other types. There is a Harrier QWI, 2 Air Defence QWIs, at least half a dozen from Tornado, an ex Britsh Army Apache pilot, a couple of SH pilots and a myriad from the ISTAR fleet.

My flying background and experience? 13yrs on fast jets, 3yrs on an airborne ISTAR asset and 20yrs in total at the ops end of the RAF (Iraq, Afghanistan and Balkans)...and, oh yes, I also have a pilot's license. Hardly, your "armchair" type!

Finally, define "see and avoid", which has so far been avoided by the civil avaition regulators. A Reaper can use its IR turret to detect the heat from aircraft jet engines in excess of 20 nautical miles and then, at the same range, use its EO turret to see what you and I can see from about 300 metres - it can then avoid it! I would offer that this is better than your "Mk1 eyeball" for "see and avoid" on a number of counts?

So, I'm afraid, you are quite wrong!

I can't help but feel that there is a drive by nerds, gamers and frustrated pilots to eliminate manned aircraft.


I could be churlish and say "I can't help but feel that there is a drive by the uninformed public, engineers and frustrated pilots to eliminate unmanned aircraft.". Oh, I already have... :E:E:E

[Lima Juliet]

My two-penneth:

1. The original post says "see and avoid" quite clearly and not "sense and avoid".

2. The average human reaction time to expected stimulous is roughly 1/2 a second. For unexpected it is closer to 2 seconds. Isn't that the latency time in worst case?

3. The US Border Protection Agency are flying Predator B, right now, in US Civil Airspace. Also NASA operate Predator B "IKHANA". They are both civil registered and operated.

4. The Boeing 747-400 has a Cat 3 autoland (allowing approaches in less than 600 metres and a crosswind of 25kts), auto braking and auto spoilers/thrust reversers. Surely the next step is to remove the man wiating to disengage it from the cockpit and put them in a control cabin? Especially for cargo/freight aircraft?

5. Finally, there are more unmanned aircraft programs in the world than manned - surely we can't all be getting it wrong???:confused:

PS. 6. Here is the crash I think he is referring to: 1 of Two RAF Reaper UAVs Crashes in Afghanistan - Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3487241) . It says "the MoD said the vehicle 'made a forced landing whilst on an operation over a remote unpopulated area of southern Afghanistan'."

[Poose]

Ozymandias,

Many thanks for adding accuracy to my response.
Hmm... surprised we still have manned fighter aircraft now... Weren't they all meant to be replaced by Surface to Air Missiles in the 1960's?
Hence the decimation of the UK fighter force in that decade...
And that plan wasn't flawed??? :ugh:

My firsthand experience of the UAV advocates is from alongside the guys who make them. So I'm a tad more up to date than your average 'customer' pilot. No offence implied, The B Word. ;)
I frequently hear their exaggerated visions of future capability and how manned flight will be dead this time next year... :hmm:

So... In the near future we will have computing power that has the sensing, processing and communication skill equal to the human body/brain... all so that UAVs can perform the most basic thing like avoid each other in crowded airspace etc.??? That is what is required gentlemen before these things could be integrated into airspace as we see now and
I am not talking about someone using a drone over a sparsely populated area of desert. I'm talking of aeroplanes flying around as we see now over the towns and cities of the UK, only without pilots.

I wonder how many bodily senses and past knowledge experience etc. was used by Chelsey Sullenberger's brain and body when he put that bus into the Hudson River?? How does a computer know when to reject the rules in favour of a hunch or past experience? It doesn't.

Or the B777 at Heathrow: Would a computer not have obeyed the 'aerodynamics of flight' and maintained a perfect glide speed... Only to land short in the built up area just outside Heathrow's perimeter. The crew in that instance, broke the rules and somhow 'stretched' the glide.

A computer obeys it's programming. It has no sense of self preservation.
You cannot automate judgement and cater for that once in a million scenario.

As regards to Autopilot and Autoland they are great 'labour saving' tools. They ARE NOT to be seen as a replacement for a pilot, they are there to assist and be monitored like any other system, as any Human Factors aficionado will tell you. Henceforth, a lot of recent air disasters are believed to have been caused by pilots forgetting / disregarding the very basic principals of flight and letting automated systems takeover... Only for them to fail and the crew not to notice. Turkish B737 at Schiphol comes to mind... But that's another topic! :rolleyes:

One last point... If the RAF wants to cease to exist in the forseeable future it should throw it's lot in with UAVs. When the RAF is nothing but a radio controlled 'toy' air force it could be easily absorbed into the Army and Navy to be operated by green and dark blue operators.

It kills me as a former pongo rupert to say it, but the RAF needs to take a good look at what it's doing. In my opinion the RAF is making a grave mistake not looking at a manned offensive air asset to replace the Tornado GR4. Which, I might add is a dog tired airframe now (meant to continue until 2025). :hmm:
So... an unmanned strike aircraft is viable with the next decade? Is it b****. :E
I'll tell you what will happen... 2025 will come and the RAF will be forced to buy off the shelf at a loss to British Industry, assuming that any of the fatigued GR4s are still flyable by that date. Bad idea to cancel the manned option of the Future Offensive Air System... Both for the RAF and industry.

So... Anyone want to answer the 'Al Qaeda hacking into the video feed', jamming control signal or knocking out the control station questions?? :rolleyes:

[Tourist]

Poose.
I speak as a pilot who loves his job and would dearly love to see UAVs disappear so his kids can have the career I have.
However, most of your points are absolute twaddle, unfortunately.

In no particular order.

"Would a computer not have obeyed the 'aerodynamics of flight' and maintained a perfect glide speed... Only to land short in the built up area just outside Heathrow's perimeter. The crew in that instance, broke the rules and stretched the glide."

A perfect glide speed is just that. The speed at which maximum range will be reached. Stretching a glide is impossible beyond perfect glide speed. Due to the innacuracies inherrant in human control, however, only a computer could ever sit perfectly on it. It may be possible to stretch the later stages once in ground effect, but a computer is just as if not more capable of achieving that feat. Very delicate control is the computers forte. Just try flying a U2 or even an airliner by hand at altitude.

"I wonder how many bodily senses and past knowledge experience etc. was used by Chelsey Sullenberger's brain and body when he put that bus into the Hudson River?? How does a computer know when to reject the rules in favour of a hunch or past experience? It doesn't."

How many times had he crashed into the Hudson river before whilst gaining this relevant experience?!
You can give a computer rules to follow, even profiles of simulations of the correct ditching proceedure, plus, unlike mister Sullenberger, it would not have forgotten to close the ditching switch. (not having a go at him, I think he did well, just think that even he, as do all humans, made errors.

"A computer obeys it's programming. It has no sense of self preservation.
You cannot automate judgement and cater for that once in a million scenario."

Most air accidents where the choice of pilot type has any effect are due to pilot error, not one in a million scenarios. Driverless trains have a far better safety record due to lack of human error.
Diverging slightly, there have been to my knowledge three instances of total Hyd failure in airliners. The one in the US where the pilots did very well to fly on differential thrust alone, where they nearly got it on the ground ( about half the passengers survived), the one in the Far east where they didnt, and the DHL one in Iraq where they did. I remember reading an article in Flight where I believe DARPA or NASA or some such had developed learning control software which could deal with the situation effortlessly, so computers have already got some advantages, and improve immeasurably each decade.

"In the near future we will have computing power that has the sensing, processing and communication skill equal to the human body/brain"

In terms of speed of processing the external stimuli required to warn of collision risk, computers are already vastly superior. TCAS only uses one source of info for its resolutions, but there is nothing to stop one using visual, thermal, radar combined. If you took the JSF sensor suite and combined it through a processor rather than displayed it to a pilot while waiting for his decision making to continue at the glacial pace of conscious though, you would have a superior system to the current eyeball Mk 1.
And don't get me started on the differences in communication speed of computers versus the spoken word!:rolleyes:

"So... Anyone want to answer the 'Al Qaeda hacking into the video feed', jamming control signal or knocking out the control station questions?? "

Ok, I will.
1. It is very easy to stop the video feed being hacked into. With those systems nobody had bothered previously. There are others that always were secure, and if they aren't already, they should all be soon.
2. Quite difficult to do, and less of a problem all the time as more autonomy is inbuilt.
3. So you are suggesting that it is easier to fly to the US with an assault team and fight your way into the control station or bomb it half way round the world than attack the airfield in your own country?:ugh: I would contend that the control stations invulnerability is one of UAVs advantages.

They may not be ready to take over all role yet, but to state that they won't is just silly. The real issues are more likely to be legal/moral rather than technical, though the bandwidth issue is likely to be a more realistic problem than any of your arguments.

[barnstormer1968]

Quote:

My firsthand experience of the UAV advocates is from alongside the guys who make them. So I'm a tad more up to date than your average 'customer' pilot. No offence implied,

Sitting here in a chair (office type, not arm type), can I just say I thought that statement seemed very silly, and not a little arrogant!

As an ex green person (I have to confess to never having heard an officer call himself a rupert), I think you may have come across the SA80 family of weapons. If you used them as a customer, did you often feel you knew less about their capabilities, flaws, and current use than the folks who made them?

It seems an odd attitude, especially as the design was not even perfected on it's initial roll out (something the makers knew), and more odd perhaps, as the manufacturers often ask the customer for feedback. Why would this be?

Sorry for being a bit ranty, but I feel you may be missing a massive point here:ok:

[Jig Peter]

Who would put a date on when the first Battle of Britain Flypast will be performed by UAVs ???

[Poose]

I give up... :hmm:

I do wonder if the new unmanned version of PPrune will catch on. :hmm:

I detect UAS apologists / nerds by their misunderstanding of basic aviation concepts like avoiding another aircraft. I'm off... :ugh:

[Tourist]

Poose

That's fine, because I detect someone who isn't a real pilot......
ppl maybe.

[Poose]

Barnstormer,

In answer to your questions, I make 'arrogant' comments as I am tired of hearing comments from UAV engineers and Aeronautical Engineers in general who do not understand the realities of operating an aircraft from anywhere other than Flight Sim or playing with radio controlled aeroplanes. Persistently, these breed make unrealistic boasts of their potential capability. When you query these chaps, they just say; "Oh! We shall use a mythical sensor to detect this and a mythical sensor to detect that..." They fail to understand that to replace the pilot you would need the sensory and processing power of the human body and brain. Anyway, I prefer to think of it as confidence not 'arrogance'. It's not a crime to believe in yourself.

I referred to myself as a 'rupert', as in the world I am working in at the minute I am surrounded by ex-RAF types who consistently remind me of my former status and service... All in good humour of course. It's called being self-effacing...

In answer to your questions regarding the SA80: Yes, I would know and did know less than the manufacturer. As the end user all I needed to know was the effective range and the basics; but mainly that it worked when my soldiers and I had to pull the trigger.
As for knowing the muzzle velocity and trajectory of the rounds... :rolleyes:
I didn't need to know it and neither does the average infantry soldier. The sort of bloke who knows all of the useless facts is usually trying to mask inadequacies in other areas in my experience.

As for rolling out designs that are incomplete or not fully developed this is often attributed to the UK Procurement Process where it is more politically prudent for a weapon, aircraft, ship etc. to be seen to enter service albeit not fully developed, than wait to iron out any faults. Feedback from the frontline is naturally vital, but industry generally knows more about their own product.

I'm sure the manufacturer's of our cars knows more about them than you or I do.

Overall, the point I am making is that to replace the pilot you would have to possess the computing and sensory power of the human brain. In which case, you've created a computer that can think for itself. A concept so incredible it is light years away, before we've even considered the ethics of creating a computer that could think for itself.

Quite a scary concept if you think about it. :hmm:
Nice to hear some feedback from the green machine on here! :ok:

[Poose]

Tourist,


With respect to your first comment no one is arguing against the validity of automation. Autopilot is vital in many aspects of flight and for certain types of flying, but the essence of an Autopilot is as a 'labour saving' device and as another system to be monitored... not as a replacement for the pilot. Neither, am I debating the ability of a computer to hold airspeed. You overestimate the capabilites of Autopilots, I currently work in design for a large aircraft and know only too well what is achievable in the real world. I'm talking about judgement, whereby a situation requires the conventional rules to be thrown out of the window and a reversion back to knowledge based behaviour. These are basic Human Factors concepts, from the JAA ATPL exams... But then again, as a pilot Tourist you would know that...

Chelsey Sullenberger was an experienced glider pilot, who made a judgement call on the day. As for your statement regarding the number of times he had crashed or ditched previously, that's just absurd...
Incidentally, his knowledge of how to ditch correctly came from his time in the USAF... Knowledge based behaviour.

I knew that the Human Error Statistic was going to rear it's ugly head... :ugh:

Benjamin Disraeli springs to mind... "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and there are statistics."

I'm not debating the value of automation in aircraft, I did not refer to Hydraulic Failures. Though, your statements are valid regarding the hydraulic failures. I was referring to incidents where automation had failed or the human element saved the day. My example was the Turkish Boeing 737 which crashed on approach to Schiphol, Holland. During this accident the Autothrottle persistently reverted back to idle during final approach. Resulting in two stalls, the second being the fatal one. If the crew had acted correctly the aircraft could have been landed uneventfully. Instead, they failed to spot the failure by not noticing the decline in airspeed.

The Boeing 777 at Heathrow upon inspection had a final recorded airspeed of a value so below the stall speed of that aircraft and configuration that it should have fell out of the sky way before the perimeter of the airport. Judgement, knowledge and skill based behaviour by the crew saved the day.

So... not only are you a pilot Tourist but you are an Avionics Expert on the JSF, too? Once, again nobody is debating the computing power of avionic systems but they are not equivalent to the overall computing and sensory ability of the human brain as a whole. In certain aspects, computers are better. I agree, the amount of information and speed of things that computers can surpass the human ability. In its entirity, an avionic system cannot equate to the human brain and computers fail no matter how highly rated the software is. That's a fact of life. Personally, I'd rather have the pilot there as the last line of defence as another form of redundancy, if nothing else.

Hmm... How many times has my PC or mobile phone crashed inexplicably this week?

You refer to TCAS... Well in that case you should know if you are in fact a pilot that TCAS 2 is only effective if the other aircraft you are on a collision course with is Transponder Equipped. How exactly would a UAV avoid a microlight drifting into it's path without a Transponder?
The UK CAA happens to agree with me on this one...

You seem to think that you have answered the successful Al Qaeda hacking of the Afghanistan UAV. I beg to differ. You miss the point that I am making. If such an obvious thing such as the security of the signals from video feeds can be hacked into has been overlooked by eminent people in industry and the military is it not viable that other more pertinent factors are being overlooked? Admittedly, little military value was gleaned from the video feed hack, but next time it could be something else... :uhoh:
Let's not forget the armed drone that decided to develop a mind of it's own and was en route to Pakistan fully laden. Shot down by a manned aircraft I believe?

By your own admission you have conceded that jamming of the control signal remains a possible form of defence against UAVs and remains so. But I guess that will be miraculously resolved by next year? :rolleyes:

As for an attack on a controlling station. Waging war is all about flexibility, to limit your air force to a handful of fixed controlling stations seems insane. I was thinking more of a Battle of Britain type general war scenario, where aircraft were dispersed from their aerodromes. Not an insurgency, which is what Afghanistan is. Dispersal of your assets, be it the spacings of infantryman on patrol or ships in a task group is inherent to preservation of those assets. To put "all your eggs in one basket" is a step backward. A 'single point of failure' System Safety Engineers would call it. Knock out the controlling stations and I've grounded my enemies air force.

Hmm... Was that a manned fighter aircraft that just flew by? Was that not derided as a flawed concept in the 1960's in the UK?? All fighter aircraft were to be replaced by SAMs, by the late 1960's in the UK... Look how that plan turned out... It was b******. :mad:

There was a famous quote by Samuel Johnson; "Every man thinks meanly of himself for not being a soldier or not having been at sea."

I wonder how this quote relates to pilots... As someone who works in aeronautical engineering I have noticed that there is a great degree of animosity, petty jealousy call it what you will towards those who fly in my industry by those 'who can't'. The greatest detractors are usually in UAVs...

As for being a 'real pilot' I'm halfway through my commercial training. Just passed the first eight ATPL exams... they go nice with my engineering degree.

I doubt a 'real pilot' would be an advocate of UAVs as an alternate to manned flight... Judging by the content of your post I think it more likely that you are a UAV engineer who I've upset, by deriding his toy or a fourteen year old boy who has played too much Flight Sim.

And now you are going to tell me that you are a captain with 10000 hours... :D
I believe you, of course you are... :rolleyes:

[L J R]

This 'Real Pilot' is an advocate of some capability in UAVs.....

...I would rather be supersonic low level upside-down at night..

....there is some real (typical) misunderstanding here in this thread. As a pilot, I enjoy 'being up there', but for some unsavoury things about today's warfare...., I don't mind doing it remotely - its a job.

[Tourist]

"As for being a 'real pilot' I'm halfway through my commercial training."
As I said, a ppl then.

Tourist (halfway through my astronaut / spy / Hugh Heffner's plunge pool assistant / Cat Deeleys thong technician / F1 driver / rock band training):rolleyes:

[tailstrikecharles]

U.S. was Warned of Predator Drone Hacking - Taking Liberties - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/17/taking_liberties/entry5988978.shtml)

[t43562]

It's not a good idea to tell engineers that they will "never be able to do" something.

Human intelligence is founded on a massively parallel computer which is slow and inaccurate but makes up for that with being able to handle an incredible amount of information at once. There are plenty of designs in development that copy this and really one probably doesn't need to reach human level. One would guess that a bumble bee is good enough for most scenarios and perhaps a bird or a bat for the really tough situations - given that higher level decisions about what is to be done are made remotely and the computer only has to carry them out and deal with instantaneous, short-duration problems (in the same way that humans have reflexes but a little more planned than that).

example: Spinnaker at the University of Manchester.
The Advanced Processor Technologies Group (http://intranet.cs.man.ac.uk/apt/projects/SpiNNaker/)

[Capt Pit Bull]

4. The Boeing 747-400 has a Cat 3 autoland (allowing approaches in less than 600 metres and a crosswind of 25kts), auto braking and auto spoilers/thrust reversers. Surely the next step is to remove the man waiting to disengage it from the cockpit and put them in a control cabin? Especially for cargo/freight aircraft?

Not this myth again.

1. For starters, what about when its more that 25 kts cross wind. Or places where topography causes serious chop even below 25 kts.

2. Next, what about the required traffic separation to protect the signals for autolanding? Pretty serious implications for traffic capacity.

3. As usual (for the proponents of "an aircraft can autoland so it doesn't need crew") you completely ignore the fact that the crew are part of the autolanding system, by providing the extra monitoring loops , power supplies (we eat food but don't need electricity) and sensors that are required to assure the level of safety. Aeroplanes are only certified for autolands because of the crew, not inspite of them.

4. The idea that we can accept a lower level of safety for cargo or frieght is also bonkers. You realise that most airborne DG are moved by cargo only aircraft?

As someone with many years operating cat3 aircraft let me tell you categorically that you need to watch them like a hawk, and they do sometimes need intervention. One little wobble and they'll plant you in the grass. Not to mention the more general need in modern aircraft to be able to revert to more basic operation when they decide to go glitchy on you. And those of us with actual experience using modern avionics know exactly how glitchy it can be.

imho drones for some military roles makes perfect sense - the risk of getting shot down anyway means that even a relatively high system loss rate is justifiable. Likewise, if its a war zone anyway, then the risk of a drone spearing in on an innocent bystanders house is relatively small compared to the other war zone risks.

For civil, non public transport use? Well, i can see the arguemnt... but I hope the police force that has it drop on some old biddy is prepared to take the heat.

For public transport use? Utterly crazy.

[Tourist]

Capt Pit Bull

The 747 400 was designed a long time ago, and things have come a long way since then.

I used to fly the Seaking with a clockwork AFCS that also required a lot of supervision during night/IMC transitions, but things improve very rapidly in the world of computers

QinetiQ achieves world's first automatic landing of a STOVL aircraft onto a ship (http://www.qinetiq.com/home/newsroom/news_releases_homepage/2005/2nd_quarter/QinetiQs_JSF_world_first.html)

If you can land a harrier automatically on a deck in 2005, imagine what can be done in 2015

[MightyGem]

"Would a computer not have obeyed the 'aerodynamics of flight' and maintained a perfect glide speed... Only to land short in the built up area just outside Heathrow's perimeter. The crew in that instance, broke the rules and stretched the glide."

A perfect glide speed is just that. The speed at which maximum range will be reached. Stretching a glide is impossible beyond perfect glide speed. Due to the innacuracies inherrant in human control, however, only a computer could ever sit perfectly on it. It may be possible to stretch the later stages once in ground effect, but a computer is just as if not more capable of achieving that feat. Very delicate control is the computers forte. Just try flying a U2 or even an airliner by hand at altitude.

The 777 wasn't in a "perfect glide" configuration. The crew didn't stretch the glide, they changed the glide. The aircraft was configured for landing with flaps set. As we know, as well as increasing lift flaps also cause drag and increase ROD giving a steeper glide path.

The crew knew that so reduced the flap setting to flatten the glidepath and reached the airfield.

Would a computer have done that? Probably not becasue it would have been in landing mode, and that means flaps down.

BBC News - Hero BA pilot speaks of Heathrow Boeing 777 crash (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8505163.stm)

[Tourist]

Mighty Gem

"Would a computer have done that? Probably not becasue it would have been in landing mode, and that means flaps down."

What a bizarre statement.
If the computer was in charge, rather than merely acting as an aid to the whims of a pilot, then yes, of course it would.
You talk as if the computer pilot of the future would be just a dumb autopilot.

Very simple sub-routine.
Measure distance to runway.
Will current configuration give required glide-slope.
If max-glide needed, then assume max-glide profile
simples.

I cannot believe I am defending the bloody things, cos I hate them!
I do believe that one should know the enemy, and the arguments being used on here against them are peurile.

[barnstormer1968]

In answer to your questions regarding the SA80: Yes, I would know and did know less than the manufacturer. As the end user all I needed to know was the effective range and the basics; but mainly that it worked when my soldiers and I had to pull the trigger.
As for knowing the muzzle velocity and trajectory of the rounds... :rolleyes:
I didn't need to know it and neither does the average infantry soldier. The sort of bloke who knows all of the useless facts is usually trying to mask inadequacies in other areas in my experience.

An interesting and amusing reply. You seem to be at least narrowing down your possible former unit with your reply, if nothing else.

I'll stick with being inadequate, and knowing after how many rounds my weapon may fail, or at which temperatures or conditions. I will be doubly bad, in knowing the limitations of the weapon, including how the trajectory would be affected by other countries ammunition. It might be boring to you, but then it can be and is a life saver. That said, and in your defence, a complete ignorance of velocities and trajectories could make folks feel a lot happier. But I guess knowing the reality of where to hide, and where not to was probably far more useful if the rounds are coming at you:}

It is up to you if you want to call yourself a Rupert (rather than say ex army or green for example), Maybe your reasoning was similar to mentioning your degree:}:E

[Poose]

Barnstormer,


You're absolutely right. Most of the other issues raised were what I would class as the 'basics', which I did in fact refer to in my reply. I just didn't want to list weapon parameters in an aviation forum... :zzz:
My response was in no way referring to you as inadequate.
I do however, have past experience of those who can reel off technical specifications of weapons... but couldn't hit a cow in the arse with a spade! ;)

You can guess my former regiment? I find that quite a disparaging comment... But that's okay. I can guess your rank...

As for revealing one's status... It generally adds credence to the discussion. There are a lot of people who masquerade as knowledgeable on this forum. It's good to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Tourist,

All the 'real pilots' I know, would never use such a term, as it goes against the grain. Pilot's don't talk in term's of 'real or fake'. Since, I'm not 'real' and therefore an 'impostor of the sky' I'm not doing too badly at flying an aircraft to date...
To speak in such a derisory manner of another pilot's licence, aircraft etc. reeks of the uninitiated or 'non-pilot'... :suspect:
Such a comment is usually the preserve of the general public who don't fly and see airline pilot's as the only flying that there is...
Therefore... Test Pilot's, Cargo, Flying Instructors etc... You must all be 'fake pilot's'!!! :rolleyes:

In response to my status; I'll let you in on what my day job is. I've spent the last few years working in the design and development of a large aircraft, which means routinely understanding and justifying the rationale of many flight limits of a large aircraft to Test Pilots and Observers for Flight Trials. My contacts are far and reaching across military and civil. So... I know a bit more than your average pilot about how, why and where an aircraft's limits and capability come from. Henceforth, what also can be achieved in the real world.

The truthful answer from my end is that what can be achieved in a real world flight test programme and what science fiction would have you believe are two very different things.

This thread has thrown up some really interesting points, so all has not been in vain.

I do have to question the motives of people who see removal of pilot's as progress and why they are so determined to do this. A pilot is the best redundancy an autopilot could have.

I'm not a total hater of UAVs, I can see the obvious advantages of certain military applications as we see over Afghanistan. Loitering and certain highly dangerous roles where it would be suicidal to put a manned aircraft in spring to mind.

I do however, question the true misunderstanding and perhaps petty jealousy that envisages the elimination of the piloting profession as progress. Why are certain elements so determined to remove pilots from aircraft? My hunch is that it's the same sort of people who think that because they've played 'Call of Duty' or 'Flight Sim' that they are experts on the Army or flying... Yet, strangely and conspicously never try to do it for real.

In answer to your glideslope question; have you not vindicated my argument? You've just described a situation where the computer would have to recognise a 'one in a million' scenario which was more or less inconceivable, then ask that computer to deal with that situation. Is that not artificial intelligence of the highest degree? Or in layman's terms 'thinking'?

I'm genuinely interested in this subject and spoke to a friend today who has a degree in computing. He pointed out that a computer is only as good as the programming and rules it is given to operate around. A pilot is far better equipped to deal with the 'unimaginable' or 'one in a million' disaster scenarios as we've discussed or even just basic mismatches in certain cases. If the computer does not recognise the input, it can't give a meaningful output. A computer does not have the ability to be ingenious or imagine a scenario out of the impossible. You can't programme ingenuity into something.

The simple facts are: A pilot is the best form of redundancy there is for automation. How is removal of him from the aircraft progress?
It's not broken, why fix it?
Next time you encounter an advocate of the 'pilotless sky', question his motivation.

Computer's fail... fact. 'Real' pilot's know that. :rolleyes:
Overall... We could argue forever about this, but only time will tell.

[Tourist]

Poose

"I've spent the last few years working in the design and development of a large aircraft, which means routinely understanding and justifying the rationale of many flight limits of a large aircraft to Test Pilots and Observers for Flight Trials."

You say this, but earlier you also said this:

"Would a computer not have obeyed the 'aerodynamics of flight' and maintained a perfect glide speed... Only to land short in the built up area just outside Heathrow's perimeter. The crew in that instance, broke the rules and somhow 'stretched' the glide."

Statement 2 demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of basic aerodynamics. Very unlikely in anyone with any real involvement in design and development beyond making the coffee for the geeks. Also, for someone as excited by minutia "Just passed the first eight ATPL exams... they go nice with my engineering degree" you are strangely vague about your role in the design of this aircraft.........?
By large aircraft, do you mean 1:72?

" A pilot is far better equipped to deal with the 'unimaginable' or 'one in a million' disaster scenarios "

Hurray! A statement I can agree with.
However, these scenarios are both very exciting to the media and insignificant, because they are a vanishingly small (erm......about one in a million, in fact) proportion of disasters.
Pilots are, however far worse at dealing with mundane tasks like lowering undercarriage before landing.
Trying to justify having a pilot because he is better in that one instance, whilst ignoring the 50% of the time that he caused the accident is cretinous.

"Why are certain elements so determined to remove pilots from aircraft? My hunch is that it's the same sort of people who think that because they've played 'Call of Duty' or 'Flight Sim' that they are experts on the Army or flying... Yet, strangely and conspicously never try to do it for real."
Erm, slightly strange argument.
So let me get this straight.
You, who has flown ppl and, to be fair, probably some pretty gnarly Stormovik etc are accusing me, a military pilot who has "done it for real", whatever that means, of having an unjustified opinion?
Am I missing something?

"The simple facts are: A pilot is the best form of redundancy there is for automation."
Disagree entirely. Some modern Fast Jets ( I believe Typhoon?) now monitor the pilot, and if they decide he has blown it/is about to depart, take control away from him, and give it back later once they have sorted it out.

"Computer's fail... fact. 'Real' pilot's know that."
Of course they do, but as every "Real" pilot knows, we make mistakes every time we fly too, and as I keep saying, pilot error is the major factor in accidents where the type of pilot makes any difference.:rolleyes:
Driverless trains have a far better record than manned ones. I know it is an order of magnitude more complex to fly in three dimensions than drive a train in effectively one, but it is just a matter of degree, rather than of concept, and the pace of technological change only accelerates.

"It's not broken, why fix it?"
Here is the crux of the matter.
The simple fact is that as airframes and avionics have improved, the pilot becomes ever more the weak link.
He isn't broken, but he is certainly limiting future improvement.
His life support/cockpit takes up a vast amount of the weight and volume of the airframe limiting range/payload etc.
His weak body is increasingly becoming the limiting factor in manoevering.(10g max-ish?)
His fatigue limits sortie length even with clever drugs.
The flood of available info to a pilot is fast outgrowing/has out grown any humans ability to assimilate it effectively. Even Air Traffic Control, with effectively unlimited manning is moving slowly towards computerised (Free Flight Is it time to give airliners the freedom of the skies? - 13 July 2002 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17523511.100) etc) control, because of the vast advantages a processor can have when it comes to smooth integration of large numbers of aircraft. The average human mind simply cannot visualise more than 8 interacting objects (Brain can juggle eight balls at once - life - 01 November 2007 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12863-brain-can-juggle-eight-balls-at-once.html)) Not really that impressive.
The speed of modern warfare is fast leaving the human behind. How many DAS fits now require anything from the pilot? He simply cannot react fast enough. How many missiles are now human controlled after launched? Again, he simply does not have the reactions.
There is only so much one pilot can be current on. A UAV can have a squad of people ready to step in as role/task changes.
The UAV pilot can be safe at home out of harms way (or non-existent), also reducing the logistics footprint in theatre, an important consideration twinned with not having to worry about those pesky IDFs whacking your expensive, and in my case dashing, asset.

In the current western climate, losing a pilot is just disasterous, UAVs whilst not by any means the cheap, throwaway items they are sometimes portrayed as are a vastly better option when trying to persuade some politician about the need for a high risk/high payoff strike.

"I do however, question the true misunderstanding and perhaps petty jealousy that envisages the elimination of the piloting profession as progress"

Again, a strange comment. Strange to accuse me of jealousy for something I possess.
The opposite of jealous perhaps?, as in "Mwaaahhaahaaa, I get to have fun but none shall have so in future"?

"I'm genuinely interested in this subject and spoke to a friend today who has a degree in computing. He pointed out that a computer is only as good as the programming and rules it is given to operate around."
"If the computer does not recognise the input, it can't give a meaningful output. A computer does not have the ability to be ingenious or imagine a scenario out of the impossible. You can't programme ingenuity into something."
First, and I apologise, a black cat.
I have two brothers with degrees in computing and one brother who studied artificial intelligence.
The first point they make is that the human brain is merely a computer. Very good at some things, but very limited in others. A good all rounder, but easily surpassable in most individual tasks.
They completely agree that they are only as good as the programming, but point out that this also goes for training in humans, and that computers dont have "bad days", plus you can parallell processors (whatever that means?) which humans can't in a single seat cockpit.
The "imagining a scenario out of the impossible" comment drew some laughter from them because they were not aware (though I have told them many times) that pilots were magical or possessed super-powers enabling us to ignore Newton.

I am sure the old Cavalry officers had lots to say about getting rid of the horses. They probably cited lots of circumstances where a horse would be ideal for the job on very rough terain, and these new fangled tanks and the like were just useless at jumping fences, chasing foxes etc. But do you suggest that we should have kept the horse and ignored the future just for those very narrow circumstances?

I am not saying we are there yet.
We patently are not, but we are certainly moving rapidly towards it, and Moore's law still holds for now.....Fact




...........does saying "fact" make things true?
I'm going to try it.
.......the RAF is abolished. Fact.




.................bugger.

[D O Guerrero]

Whilst I am probably talking myself out of a job, I can't help but wonder how many aircraft accidents have been attributed to human error, versus computer or software error? I can only think of one in the latter category... But quite prepared to be put right...
I think that we pilots will have to accept that one day, we will be surplus to requirements. The economic and technical arguments are stacked against us, both in military and commercial flying and I am absolutely certain that if my boss could get rid of pilots, he'd do it in an instant. And I can't say I'd entirely blame him - we're expensive and easily upset. I'm not entirely sure how the travelling public will feel about this but I'm sure they'll get used to it.

[BEagle]

Whilst drones clearly have their place in the Orbat, they are NOT the universal solution some in the drone community would have everyone believe.

As for the Heathrow 777 accident, whether a computer could have instantly assessed the optimum configuration and AoA for the IAS at the time and selected it - well, perhaps. But only if it had been correctly programmed. The pilots did so purely from experience.

Computers are very good assistants, but very poor masters.

When the Victoria Line first opened, it was said that the computer controlled trains didn't need drivers. But who would ever get into an underground train which didn't have a driver? So they had to provide them.

So if people won't generally trust unmanned underground trains, can you ever imagine them trusting unmanned civil aeroplanes?

The drone community needs to walk before it tries to run. It seems to me that, at the moment, they are getting far too ambitious.

[ProM]

It seems to be the form to states ones experience and qualifications to comment.

I am civilian, I used to be an engineer in the defence industry. Now I manage projects and programmes in said industry. I am not an aeronautical specialist nor UAV specialist. So, a few points:

1) If we are talking military vehicles, the 777 accident is largely irrelevant. If a UAV crash-lands every now and again, quite frankly who cares. No one dies (if we talk about other types of accident then people could die, but thats another matter and has its own problems for both UAV and pilot)

2) We need to separate autonomous and remotely piloted aircraft
- Autonomous aircarft cannot be jammed
- Remotely piloted aircraft have a pilot in the loop who should be just as effective as an on-board pilot
In practice many UAVs will be a mix capabality - autonomous in most operations, pilot control when needed. This in itself resolves many of the concerns
To talk about problems (or solutions) without explicitly referencing which type is misleading at best

I won't go into more detail, but all of the problems mentioned in this thread can be addressed. Perfectly? No. But neither pilots or warfare are perfect, and if we lose the odd UAV but no pilot over hostile territory then once again, who cares.

At the same time the advantages of UAVs (no pilot to lose, wight saving, cost saving etc) are far too great to ignore

However there are many other problems(ethical and political as well as technical), and we are a long long way from eliminating manned aircraft altogether. So for a long time it will be a mix. Look on the bright side, you won't have to let the software engineer nerds into the pilots mess.

[Tourist]

BEagle

"When the Victoria Line first opened, it was said that the computer controlled trains didn't need drivers. But who would ever get into an underground train which didn't have a driver? So they had to provide them.

So if people won't generally trust unmanned underground trains, can you ever imagine them trusting unmanned civil aeroplanes?"

Automatic train operation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_train_operation)

"The earliest ATO system on a full Underground line was on the Barcelona Metro Line 2 (now integrated on L5), which ran from 1963 until 1970 on its seven trains. Another example of one of the earliest examples of ATO was on the Victoria line of the London Underground, opened in 1968. The ATO system performs all functions of the driver except for the opening and closing of the doors. The driver only needs to press two buttons to start the train and if the way is clear, then the train will automatically proceed to the next station. Many newer systems are now computer-controlled, including London's Docklands Light Railway, the Central Line, Line 14 of the Paris Métro, Line 2, Line 3, 5 and 11 of the Barcelona Metro,Copenhagen Metro,Kelana Jaya Line of Kuala Lumpur Rail Transit System, the Washington Metro, Hong Kong MTR, Manila Light Rail Transit System, North East Line and Circle Line of Singapore MRT, Tokyo Metro Namboku Line, Kobe Municipal Subway and a number of ART- and VAL-based systems."


Seems like a lot do.

[BEagle]

If you must quote that font of all knowledge, Wikipedia, then at least do so accurately:

Automatic train operation (ATO) ensures partial or complete automatic train piloting and driverless functions.

Most systems elect to maintain a driver (train operator) to mitigate risks associated with failures or emergencies.

Many modern systems are linked with Automatic Train Control (ATC) where normal signaller operations such as route setting and train regulation are carried out by the system. The ATO and ATC systems will work together to maintain a train within a defined tolerance of its timetable. The combined system will marginally adjust operating parameters such as the ratio of power to coast when moving and station dwell time, in order to bring a train back to the timetable slot defined for it.

[Tourist]

To be fair, I did post a link to the article, and nobody is pretending that the person on board is a driver. The comparison is more with a hostie.

I must admit though, that I think you are right about passenger concerns on airliners being the biggest obstacle.

[Tourist]

I know an ex Kiwi fast jet bloke who came over and flew Harriers with the RN for a while who did some work consulting for the London Underground on CRM training. (a strange set of circumstances, I know. Who would have thought Harrier and CRM in the same sentence?)
He was told by the company that the only reasons they still had drivers was purely due to the Unions, and lines would be slowly moving driverless when they got the chance.

[RugGun]

Oh, I'm so going to get flamed for this....

Hello there - I'm a geeky UAV engineer. The UAV bit is recent, the other bits - less so. I honestly believe that in 2100 most of the aircraft that don't need people in them, won't have people in them. Everyone who says that CAA doesn't allow UAVs in unsegregated airspace because we don't know how to make Sense & Avoid work is ENTIRELY CORRECT. However, geeky engineers & scientists have a habit of making stuff work, in the end, that other people didn't. It's why we're geeks.:8

On the other hand, we're also good at making things like major disasters & global warming, but you like your PC & light bulbs don't you? And that aircraft you're so fond of flying? We did that.:p


I'll give a couple of definitions, so you know what I'm talking about:

1) Every UAV in service today is a Remotely Piloted Aircraft. If the comms link goes down, it might try something sensible, but fundamentally at best it'll have a 'run home to mummy' function & require that everybody else gets out of its way. I'm not talking about these as they are a near term solution & will be gone by 2020 or sooner. Example: The GA Sky Warrior can be flown from an Apache & has autoland where Predator didn't - so the automation level is going up all the time, even in the same airframe.

2) Autonomous UAVs will not be NOT pilotless*. They will do lots for themselves, but they will have an operator who will understand airspace operations - & that the UAV can go to for permissions & help when required.

* - OK, so the ones that will be smaller than a pigeon** or insect sized will be. But you're happy to have dogs help in IED sniffing, so we figure you'll cope with small vehicles with dog/horse levels of intelligence by 2030. Ish.
** - because any bigger & they're a birdstrike hazard & will need airspace understanding!

The traditional anti-UAV arguments at this point are something along the lines of : "Well, you can't programme in all circumstances & a good pilot will save the aircraft" and ye olde chestnut:
"How many times has your phone/PC crashed this week".

The chestnut first: Be honest, how many times has it? Probably less than a Windows 95 PC did. But more importantly: How many times has the safety critical software running on safety critical hardware in A320/330/340/380, B777 crashed this week? How many times has the Typhoon/Gripen/F-22/Tornado/F-16/F-18 fleet been grounded this week because of system crashes? Yes, there will be a few gripes in the initial phases - but the experiences of the 90s have made flight controls guys very sensitive on the matter. Please acknowledge that Microsoft do not, yet, write safety critical software. When they do, they'll be subject to the same rigour & legal ramifications as the rest of us that claim the term.

As an aside - this is why GA do not have and have not sought civil certification for Predator or Reaper - you have to design in sufficient resilience for civil certification from the beginning & have legally supported evidence that you have done so. Or re-design everything at great expense.

Now then: "what about the one in a million..." Honest answer... In a manned aircraft, I care about the one in a million, because I have to save the man. In an unmanned aircraft I've only got to worry about the guy in the other aircraft that is about to hit me or the people on the ground I'd squish.

Remember what I said at the top: no person if one isn't necessary. So an unmanned transport aircraft or JDAM dropper - go UAV. Unmanned recce platform with 5 day endurance (unrefuelled): go for it.

Unmanned passenger aircraft - why? You've spent the power & weight on life support & internal volume - why not add one or two more slots for aircrew.

Consequence: Even if I couldn't get to the 'one in a million', I'd cope because it's actually 'one in 10 million' when I don't have a life to save all the time. The aircraft probably costs 50% what the manned equivalent costs & it probably flies 3x as many hours as a manned aircraft, so the economies work. And without corporate manslaughter or lack of duty of care provision, I may even have adequate insurance cover & only have to pay the excess... Just sayin'...

And in terms of people-on-the-ground avoidance, that's a different problem from sense & avoid - plenty of useless dirt & empty sea in the world to start off with. The BA B777 & Hudson A320 are actually good examples of where an automatic system, that did NOT have to keep pilots in the loop would have coped quite happily. Both are control & trajectory management problems that computers are really good at.

If you a put a UAV in the Hudson example, it's likely that we wouldn't see the point of it gently landing in the water - since the aircraft would not be flyable again anyway & I have no occupant to keep comfy. So we'd try to make it spear into the water to contain the damage. I know people working on exactly this problem for UAVs.

Anyway, happy to be queried - within the bounds of "won't get me fired". Some 'love the geek' would be nice. But, I think, unlikely...:ok:

[D O Guerrero]

Finally... some sense.
PS I love the geek...

[L J R]

As a UCAV pilot myself, I agree that they have some good functionality....but I'd rather be in my Fast Jet....They are definately more fun!

[Poose]

Tourist,


I repeatedly put the word 'stretch' when referring to the glide in inverted commas several times as I didn't really mean a stretch of the glide and I believe that I've even stated that this isn't possible many times over. :ugh:
Anyone with a modicum of understanding or flying experience knows that, myself included!
If you had read my comments you would have noticed that.
The correct description eluded me, that's all. I'm not an aerodynamicist. I was hoping someone could help with a more accurate description, which Mighty Gem did when he referred to a 'change' of glide.

I'm deliberateley vague about my role as I work in a relatively specialist area and as a signatory to the Official Secrets Act, its more than my jobs worth to go to into specifics. Surely that's obvious? :rolleyes:

The project I work on is large enough, thankyou. If you actually read my posts you would have a good idea who and what Project I worked for...
Just out of interest, when you built 1:72nd aircraft in your youth did you paint over the canopy and call yours 'UAVs'?? :hmm:

As for declaring yourself as a military pilot I do find that hard to believe. I think that is more than likely a smoke screen or an effort to throw PPruners off your scent... :suspect:
I don't know of a single pilot who would so vehemently advocate the dismantling of the profession after working so hard to get to that position... I think it more likely that you work for the 'Dilbert Defence Corporation's UAV Arm'... at best.

With respect to your comments about the Typhoon being able to fly itself out of a pilot's screw up... I vaguely recall a colleague who works on Typhoon describing this. If I recall right it's a 'panic button' or 'reset button'... think of it as you wish. However, it still requires a pilot's assessment of the unusual attitude to press that button. I prepare to stand corrected, though.

With regard to the Human Error factor you are absolutely right and I never saw fit to challenge that one. My argument was more of the 'one in a million' arguments, which when put into perspective are more frequent than you might like to consider. When you consider that someone wins the lottery most weeks, it puts my argument into perspective. But that's one for the System Safety Engineers to ponder. :8

So... I'll stop with my "cretinous" comments?
Anyhow, is it true Mrs Tourist has been flown unmanned for years and prefers 'real pilots'...

[Tourist]

Don't be dull, Poose.
Either put forward a cogent argument, or go back to watching Top Gun.
"when I said stretch, I didn't mean it" does not really help your case...