National Air Support: UAV's

[mickjoebill]

UAS/ UAVs were on the agenda at the National Police Aviation Service meeting in 2009. As reported in the Times earlier in the year (and evidenced in the documents linked below) use of UAVs are on a wish list for the London Olympics.

in late 2009 head of business development security at BAE, who are lead development team with NPAO, described the potential role out of UAVs as a "fundamental change to Air Support for the Police"

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/27855/response/75327/attach/3/UAV%20DISCLOSURE.pdf

The question is will UAVs will be sold to the public as a replacement for helicopters? There is no doubt that they will be a valuable tool but they should not be considered a replacement for helicopters in all circumstances.


Under the watch of the press, the roll out of UAS would falter if this is the public's expectation.


The latest 'small" (sub 7kgs) four rotor systems are basically autonomous and relatively easy to learn to "fly" But can they be deployed in enough numbers from the back of a patrol cars to be able to launch with a similar response time to the typical police helicopter? It would be a brave chief constable to commit to a full scale rollout.
Can a small UAS track a suspect for few miles when ine of sight operation is mandatory by aviation authorities at the moment?

Small UAS/UAVs should be allowed a few years of creative deployment and tweaking on the job, rather than to ape manned helicopters from day one.

Larger more expensive UAS for coastal patrols ect will be a valuable addition to aerial policing, it remains to be seen if CAA will allow their use within control zones and over densely populated areas.

In the meantime expect to see 7kg systems whirring around below 200 feet, but unless the operator has a high vantage point they won't be straying too far.


Mickjoebill

[Shell Management]

Is this not the future?

[Coconutty]

Let's not start with the UAV subject again :ugh:- surely that's for a different thread.

This is about the impending budget cuts, with everyone waiting for news ( hopefully today ) of how the exisitng Air Support Units will be affected.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/Coconutty.jpg

To clarify : The above was originally posted in the "Police helicopter budget cuts" thread and has been transferred across here to a new Thread dealing with UAV's.

[airpolice]

FlyForFun & Coconutty

I think this document highlights that there is a group within the ACPO framework who have already made some progress with trying to understand how some tasks currently undertaken by the ASU could be done without a helicopter.

This will no doubt assist in the discussions have a sound footing rather than simply being a case of "we can do it all with drones, so scrap the helicopters" type of response to budget cuts.

[mickjoebill]

et's not start with the UAV subject again - surely that's for a different thread.

Coconutty have a look at the pdf (at least the 2009/10 dated portions) because as Airpolice says, there has been significant work done by the National Police Air Operations strategists in planning to utilise unmanned aerial systems (UAS).
My understanding is the goals are to both provide a tool with different capabilities to a helicopter and also to make aerial surveillance cheaper, so what better time for the idea to gain (perhaps a little too much) traction than now?



Mickjoebill

[Coconutty]

what better time... Because, as I understand it, the cuts being proposed could well have an effect on the aircraft in service NOW,
whereas the UAV's ( which certainly have their place ), are not currently licensed for use by the Police in this Country.
The document refers to plans for prototype testing during 2010,
and Airship testing ( in lieu of UAV ) to overcome CAA restrictions,
but full operational capability is not planned until 2012.

Could be good for the Olympics etc, but don't hold your breath waiting for UAV's
to fill in where the current fleet are slashed if it happens before then !

Now - Where are those spies we were hoping would appear yesterday with news from the ACPO meeting ?

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/Coconutty.jpg

[SilsoeSid]

Two words to add to the UAV/UAS debate;

Frequency Jamming.

[airpolice]

Sid, this is not as easy as you may think with the stuff from Warton. This is not a case of going to Maplin and buying a transmitter to steal the UAS as it gets closer to you than it is to the operator.

As for Cocnutty's reposnse about the time to get them certified by the CAA, well I think I covered that in some depth already, but in case you missed it....the people demanding the changes are the people who make the rules.


If Parliament decides to give the Police less money to spend and the Police say they can't do the job for that money, because of legal obstructions, then Parliament can decide to make it possible for them to do the job by removing the obstructions.

I'm not saying they will, but they can.

[mickjoebill]

There seems to be a keenness to introduce this new technique at the expense of manned helicopters which IMHO does not sit well with such a critical event as the Olympics. New technology + aviation = high risk.

I've just done a job with 5 helicopters airborne at a time, 5x microwave links ect, covering a sports event for TV. I don't see why technically, the met can't bring in more aircraft for three weeks, a more reliable option than "going for gold" with UAVs.


If there is a prospect of numerous police drones and TV sports micro drones flying around the Olympics, who will be able to identify and act if the bad guys decide to launch one of their own?

Mickjoebill

[SilsoeSid]

Sid, this is not as easy as you may think with the stuff from Warton. This is not a case of going to Maplin and buying a transmitter to steal the UAS as it gets closer to you than it is to the operator.

And just how much so these Warton military grade/spec UAVs cost?
Once a real procurement quango is in operation, it would quckly find they would be prohibitively expensive, especially when you add in the crewing requirements, which I think you'll find match what we have now operating real aircraft.

You don't need to go to maplins for the hardware, china based companies can provide jammers cheaper. It is as simple as that :-)

[mickjoebill]

And just how much so these Warton military grade/spec UAVs cost?
Once a real procurement quango is in operation, it would quickly find they would be prohibitively expensive, especially when you add in the crewing requirements, which I think you'll find match what we have now operating real aircraft.

You don't need to go to maplins for the hardware, china based companies can provide jammers cheaper. It is as simple as that :-)

For the purpose of this discussion there are two classes of UAVs. The large that are capable of satellite control and heavy payloads that can remain airborn for hours and require a significant ground infrastructure. BAE has built a fixed wing UAV, the HERTI -OC with a payload of around 150kg and powered by a rotax. Nautalis Institute reports that up to 2006 BAE had invested $100M in its development. Video here.
CCTV in the sky: police plan to use military-style spy drones | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/23/cctv-sky-police-plan-drones)


The other type are loosely called micro drones with a payload of a few kilos and so capable of carrying a transmitter, small thermal camera, digital stills camera or TV camera with 10x zoom. The popular models have quad rotors, a flight computer with auto hover, self land using gps and other instruments. Fully equipped with a downlink (1km range) and camera they cost around US$40k. It takes just a day of training to be competent, in this respect they are far easier to learn to operate than a model helicopter.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/England/merseyside/8510370.stm

There is also talk of an airship like the BAE GA22 being used during the Olympics, this also being called a "drone'.

In respect to jammers I'd suggest that the commercial models could be hacked so new code would need to be written and kept confidential. The military manage to achieve this as there are not too many reports of UAVs going haywire.

In the event of loss of control signals or other problems, the microdrones and UAVs shift into fully autonomous mode and land themselves in a predetermined location.


So there are two ends of the spectrum one with low setup cost but not capable yet of being flown beyond 1km from the operator and the other more expensive, long range military style UAV, requiring more expensive infrastructure and a significant change in thinking from CAA about them being flown over congested areas.


To share the cost, Kent police (who have been leading the charge) are looking for partners from other agencies for the long range drone. They have been working with BAE as primary aircraft supplier.

I think we can agree that an autonomous drone patrolling the South coast 24/7 is an efficient and effective use of a drone.
But it is a quantum leap to suggest, as they have, that they be used in numbers, during the Olympics, when there is existing capable and proven technology. From the outside looking in, it looks like the Olympics are being used for gain traction to launch the coastal operation.


A 5O knot orbit in a fixed wing at 2000 feet won't always get you a continuous picture of a suspect in typically narrow UK streets, but hover and slow track and follow capability of a twin engine helicopter will get the job done.


from the web

"The UK Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) published a tender IN September. Soca's efforts are focused on tackling organised gangs involved in drug smuggling, human trafficking, gun crime, money laundering and identity theft. Often described as Britain's FBI, the organisation is led by Sir Ian Andrews, a former senior Ministry of Defence official.

The agency's request for bids is entitled "UK-London: intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance". It proposes the use of both conventional planes and UAVs for a national air patrol service. The document suggests the surveillance contract could be put out to a private company.

Speaking on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers, ACC Allyn Thomas of Kent police confirmed that Staffordshire, Merseyide and Essex were using drones. "It is a cheaper option [than helicopters]," he said, "along with the opportunity to use the drones when cloud base cover makes it impossible for the conventional air support to fly."



Mickjoebill

[SilsoeSid]

For these micro-drones, another 2 'words', GPS Jammers.

Still no rumours or leaks then!
Perhaps there is nothing to be leaked after all :suspect:

[Art of flight]

Having spoken to the BAE UAV project team 3 years ago they were looking to compliment Air Support rather than replace it. They were keen to find out which tasks were more suited to UAVs, ie the longer term/planned/repetitive/hovering over one point or flying a preplanned search type job, as opposed to the aerial detective agency/fast paced/changing perameters type jobs that are the domain of manned aircraft.

As I say, this was 3 years ago and the country and the economy have changed a lot since then! The opinion then was that these UAVs would save operational helicopter hours and thus reduce costs (slightly). The larger types still require significant infrastructure such as ground crew operators working shifts, vehicles, an airfield or short strip to operate to and from, fuel installation, maintenance etc, infact not unlike an air support unit!

[Fly_For_Fun]

Where do I apply for a job flying one of these godless creatures?

[mickjoebill]

Occasionally in the UK during news and sporting events there are two or more twin engine aircraft operating where visual seperation is the last line of defence, both in controlled and uncontrolled airspace.
But if UAV pilots are operating "under the hood" how do we determine what suite of instruments are required in the UAV to maintain the equivelant level of saftey provided by visual seperation, especially in uncontrolled airspace?

Should the larger UAVs fly under the same flight rules as manned aircraft, such as requiring twin power plants when operating over built up areas?



Mickjoebill

[B.U.D.G.I.E]

So one of these proper drones can take off in one country be handed over to another and off to do the job. Seemless :ok:

But this is the UK we can't even talk to another force with out it getting :mad:cked up. We have no chance :\:ugh:

[Coconutty]

ACC Allyn Thomas of Kent police confirmed that Staffordshire, Merseyide and Essex were using drones. "Were" is probably accurate - didn't Merseyside "land" theirs in the river back in February this year
after losing control of it :uhoh: ( Wonder why that was ? - SS - Any ideas :rolleyes: ),

... and then didn't the other forces stop using them around the same time
after the CAA raised concerns about the legality of using them without a licence ? :ugh:

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/Coconutty.jpg

[mickjoebill]

after the CAA raised concerns about the legality of using them without a license ?

The micro drones can be used without liscence if they are not flown near houses or not higher than around 200 ft ect ect.


GPS jamming will indeed put the commercially available micro drones into auto land mode, but the larger more expensive UAVs could be manually flown back to base.


I'd suggest that a manned police helicopter be a good defense against unwanted micro drones with sinister 2kg payloads. We need manned helicopters over London (along with other measures) in 2012 to help counter this serious new threat.

Microdrones; a poor government's ASU and a poor terrorists' cruise missile.




Mickjoebill

[JimBall]

MJB: the UK position has substantially changed via the CAA. There is now a permitting process and there was a change in the ANO last January. There is a 400ft AGL height limit - but the operator must remain in visual contact with the UAV and the max distance for this is 500m. Must not fly over congested areas at less than 150m, nor within 50m of any person, vehicle, vessel or structure "not under the control of the aircraft operator". Not within 30m of any person. Must have fail-safe systems. Not allowed in CAS or ATZ without ATC permission.
And all operators must have British Model Flying Association "B" certificate.

There was an incident at Buckingham Palace in September which caused this (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&newstype=n&mode=detail&nid=1919) to be released.

And your point about number of engines is irrelevant. The most popular models have 6 or 8 electric motors.

Here's (http://www.youtube.com/user/ARdrone?blend=2&ob=1) a 4-engine one controlled by iPhone and a wifi connection.

t7K0O0YJnFo

[Lonewolf_50]

Over on this side of the pond, two years ago, I did some prelim research to make a recommendation to a police detective I know. He occasionally works with the Feds on homicide and serious crime/gang/burglary cases. He is in awe of their kit. He is also frustrated that the city isn't rich enough to afford police helicopters.

I explained a few of the advantages and disadvantages of UAV's for a surveillance role, or pursuit, and then we laid out the city map.

I was pretty familiar with the local VFR and IFR traffic patterns, which I pointed out as being a NON trivial issue for his department. He asked why, and I offered a perspective both on basic air traffic safety and the Air Command and Control points I learned doing both Joint and Combined operations, home and abroad.

He'd rather the city have police helicopters. His captain (not the Chief of Police) is absolutely not interested in more links to the Feds, which means he's not too keen on the program/proposal I offered (pro bono) to help him pursue.

In our city, this idea is either dead, waiting for that captain to retire, or waiting for some federal money.

There is to my eye some very productive use that can be made locally for use of UAV, but getting the trained and experienced personnel will probably have to wait until after the Afgh and Iraq wars are over, and a significant number of vets with hands on experience are more available in our area.

The part that scares me is ... in a UAV, you can't "see and avoid" as a helicopter can. With a municipality that at present can't afford the overhead for a modest air C2 arrangement, I'd not want to see UAV being operated by the police force.

Fed money? We shall see, it always comes with a string attached.

[mickjoebill]

And your point about number of engines is irrelevant. The most popular models have 6 or 8 electric motors.

Thanks for the update. The point about single engine is relevant to the larger UAVs such as BAE's HERTI-OC which has a single engine like most larger UAVs.
BAE do make a twin UAV designed as a weapons platform.



The larger UAVs are very capable now and it is these that are also being considered by police according to documents released.



Mickjoebill

[mickjoebill]

There is to my eye some very productive use that can be made locally for use of UAV, but getting the trained and experienced personnel will probably have to wait until after the Afgh and Iraq wars are over, and a significant number of vets with hands on experience are more available in our area

Lonewolf, I expect that you are reffering to large UAV's not the microdrones?



Mickjoebill

[jayteeto]

Wait until vets become available to fly them???? So only military people can fly?? Get real.
Merseyside drone went out of range of the handler (not far) and went into autoland as it was programmed to do........ sadly it was over the river:ok:

[PANews]

Clearly then thereb is a need for Dart/Apical etc to invent floatation devices for microdrones......:ok:

[handbag]

we're evaluating a UAV right now. It can silently peer into windows 5 stories up and see who's holding the knife. Hit the GPS hold and it just stays where you left it. As for replacing helos, no, but as a fast deployment multi agency ariel aid over a small area - yeah. Once the FAA can get their act together, they'll sure be hitting the amount of call outs seen by ASUs.

Draganfly.com Industrial Aerial Video Systems & UAVs (http://www.draganfly.com/)

[SilsoeSid]

...but as a fast deployment multi agency ariel aid over a small area - yeah.

Best co-locate with the dog units then!
:ugh:

[bvgs]

Quote:
"Hit the GPS hold and it just stays where you left it"

I have looked seriously at the X6 and of course they now have the X8, I think in the confines of a sports hall where they do their training that "might" be the case but take it outside add a little bit of wind and........

Impressive machine but only around 15 mins battery life, have you looked at the Oktokopter ? Would be interested in your comments!

[handbag]

The X6 sure has some potential - but it really is just a grossly expensive model helicopter. Battery life does indeed suck, and somewhere between 7 and 9 minutes is the reality. Control effectiveness is marginal with a wind over 10 knots and this is a serious disadvantage. Also, it is a 2 man machine. The guy looking at the images who has camera control will need to instruct the pilot to maneuver the machine to capture accordingly. It is robust though and can be deployed in 2 minutes or so. They have devised a neat vibration suppression system so the image quality is pretty stable. We'll be launching it later this week (pending winds of course) if you have any operational questions.

[handysnaks]

Sid. I think you need therapy

[Coconutty]

"Mikrokopter" - Ha !

Nice jeans - did he stand a bit too close when it was still on the ground ? :E

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/Coconutty.jpg

[Noah Zark.]

I noticed that the enormous boots he was wearing to prevent him being blown away by the downwash also prevented him running up the hill to survey the damage! :}