UAV Questions
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: S of 55N
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAP 722
Yeah,
See CAP 722: Unmanned Aircraft System Operations in UK Airspace - Guidance | Publications | CAA which should answer your question in spades.
There are no currently fielded systems or associated procedures which meet the requirements of this document.
Sun
See CAP 722: Unmanned Aircraft System Operations in UK Airspace - Guidance | Publications | CAA which should answer your question in spades.
There are no currently fielded systems or associated procedures which meet the requirements of this document.
Sun
There are no currently fielded systems or associated procedures which meet the requirements of this document.
Also, you need to get someone at the top to sign up to the risk - not easy after the fall-out over the Nimrod!
Finally, to take the risk you need a reason to fly these aircraft in the UK - at present there is no reason to fly DH3/MQ-9/H450 in the UK.
The B Word
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: S of 55N
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAP 722 compliance
I take your point B, but as I understand it, and having been involved in several planning efforts (MoD not industry) to consider the flight of Mil UAVs in non-seg airspace, I think at the moment any brit Mil UAV that were to apply to fly non-seg would have to obtain a CAP 722 exception approval.
The killer paras in the 722 that currently prevent CAA acknowledgement of CAP 722 compliance are 6.1 and 6.3. Whilst (highly theoretically) mil UAVs might get away with not complying with the ANO (as stated in 2.2.2.1 of CAP 722 the ANO articulates the requirements for civil UAS) and notwithstanding the fact that EASA regs don't (again theoretically apply to Mil UAS) and neither does the Chicago Convention, the CAA don't have to let Mil UAS fly non-seg if they're not CAP 722 compliant. I've yet to hear anyone declare any of the UAS you list as being so.
Very happy to discuss this further though as if you have a way round the wording, I and some peeps in town would be keen to hear it.
Regards,
Sun
The killer paras in the 722 that currently prevent CAA acknowledgement of CAP 722 compliance are 6.1 and 6.3. Whilst (highly theoretically) mil UAVs might get away with not complying with the ANO (as stated in 2.2.2.1 of CAP 722 the ANO articulates the requirements for civil UAS) and notwithstanding the fact that EASA regs don't (again theoretically apply to Mil UAS) and neither does the Chicago Convention, the CAA don't have to let Mil UAS fly non-seg if they're not CAP 722 compliant. I've yet to hear anyone declare any of the UAS you list as being so.
Very happy to discuss this further though as if you have a way round the wording, I and some peeps in town would be keen to hear it.
Regards,
Sun
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hi,
I've got question to UAV operators.
I'd like to know yours opinion about instruments and equipment needed to integrate UAV with outside segregated traffic.
I'm studying CS-23 (ex JAR-23) and JAR-OPS 1.
I deducted that uav should have:
- appropriate autopilot (with preprogrammed way in case of lose comm)
- Transponder mod C, or mod S (better)
- TCAS min I, TCAS II preferred with some kind of GPWS (it could be programed terrain data in autopilot)
- NAV lights, Strobe lights
something else?
I've got question to UAV operators.
I'd like to know yours opinion about instruments and equipment needed to integrate UAV with outside segregated traffic.
I'm studying CS-23 (ex JAR-23) and JAR-OPS 1.
I deducted that uav should have:
- appropriate autopilot (with preprogrammed way in case of lose comm)
- Transponder mod C, or mod S (better)
- TCAS min I, TCAS II preferred with some kind of GPWS (it could be programed terrain data in autopilot)
- NAV lights, Strobe lights
something else?
- Autopilot - yes, triple redundant, plus robust 'lost link' programming and logic. It does exactly as it says on the tin every time it goes lost link.
- Transponder - yes, with full mode C. Mode S would be most handy, though.
- TCAS - No, at least not yet, but again would be useful.
- Nav lights / strobes - yes, just as you would find on any other ac. Also an on-board radio, allowing you to operate in the same fashion as any other air asset.
And yes, we do wear growbags, yes we do get flying pay, yes we do require instrument ratings, a valid PME, etc etc just as any other pilot in the RAF does. And yes, we are subject to CDT limitations, the same as all other aircrew.
Any more Q's (UNCLAS of course) feel free to ask.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Above the clouds
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for your reply.
I was wondering about radio transmitter? Is it necessary?
If UAV operate in region where the ATC is active, the UAV operator should have contact with ATC. The controller can inform other airspace users about traffic. I'm talking here about weight saving if you know what I mean.
Sorry but my english isn't perfect.
I'm working on project where the UAV will be used over seas (coast areas), so the zone of flying will be limited (but not so small).
How about anti-ice or de-ice systems? Do you know any producer who has such systems in the offer?
I was wondering about radio transmitter? Is it necessary?
If UAV operate in region where the ATC is active, the UAV operator should have contact with ATC. The controller can inform other airspace users about traffic. I'm talking here about weight saving if you know what I mean.
Sorry but my english isn't perfect.
I'm working on project where the UAV will be used over seas (coast areas), so the zone of flying will be limited (but not so small).
How about anti-ice or de-ice systems? Do you know any producer who has such systems in the offer?
Sun
There are plenty of manned mil aircraft flying that do not meet CS23/25 or any other civil airworthiness requirements. That said, they are not far removed from these standards - for example most of the mil FJs do not have TCAS I or II.
How do they do this? They fly under sovereign military airworthiness regimes and are exempt portions of the ANO in this country - that is how we could fly mil UAS/UAV/RPA in the UK in segregated airspace.
We have already done it - Jindavik flew from Aberporth for years in segregated airspace without conforming to CAP722. Also Banshee and Mirach are used today. So, it is possible if there is an appetite to do it - as I said before, WATCHKEEPER is awaiting an Airspace Change Proposal to fly in Salisbury Plain Trg Area this year (2010).
Is this the answer you were looking for?
Finally, the answers on MQ-9 show that it is pretty well compliant with CAP722 for IFR flying (not VFR in Class G). That is how the USAF, US Customs & Border Patrol and the Italian Air Force fly their Predator series aircraft outside of segregated airspace on a daily basis - the Italians are flying their Predators in EASA/Euro Control airspace as I type this message!
Regards
The B Word
There are plenty of manned mil aircraft flying that do not meet CS23/25 or any other civil airworthiness requirements. That said, they are not far removed from these standards - for example most of the mil FJs do not have TCAS I or II.
How do they do this? They fly under sovereign military airworthiness regimes and are exempt portions of the ANO in this country - that is how we could fly mil UAS/UAV/RPA in the UK in segregated airspace.
We have already done it - Jindavik flew from Aberporth for years in segregated airspace without conforming to CAP722. Also Banshee and Mirach are used today. So, it is possible if there is an appetite to do it - as I said before, WATCHKEEPER is awaiting an Airspace Change Proposal to fly in Salisbury Plain Trg Area this year (2010).
Is this the answer you were looking for?
Finally, the answers on MQ-9 show that it is pretty well compliant with CAP722 for IFR flying (not VFR in Class G). That is how the USAF, US Customs & Border Patrol and the Italian Air Force fly their Predator series aircraft outside of segregated airspace on a daily basis - the Italians are flying their Predators in EASA/Euro Control airspace as I type this message!
Regards
The B Word
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: S of 55N
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Segregated v non-segregated
B,
I don't disagree with you matey. I think the issue is segregated v un-segregated airspace. As you quite rightly say, UAS have been operating in segregated airspace for many years. The issue, particularly with the advent of systems which can operate BVR is how UAS might mix it up with the rest of us in non-seg. That issue was the driving force behind the drafting of the 722 and why Para 1.2 says explicitly that UAV flights BVR are limited to segregated airspace.
Even in the US, UAS flights in non-seg take place on a case by case basis and several requirements are placed on each flight to mitigate against the fact that none of them are (for want of a better phrase) CAP 722 compliant.
Sun.
I don't disagree with you matey. I think the issue is segregated v un-segregated airspace. As you quite rightly say, UAS have been operating in segregated airspace for many years. The issue, particularly with the advent of systems which can operate BVR is how UAS might mix it up with the rest of us in non-seg. That issue was the driving force behind the drafting of the 722 and why Para 1.2 says explicitly that UAV flights BVR are limited to segregated airspace.
Even in the US, UAS flights in non-seg take place on a case by case basis and several requirements are placed on each flight to mitigate against the fact that none of them are (for want of a better phrase) CAP 722 compliant.
Sun.
We're in agreement by the looks of it...
The next generation of MQ-9 (MQ-9B?), known as the GUARDIAN (sounds like a cr@p newspaper to me), will have some great enhancements:
Guardian leads Predator B modernisation push
The next generation of MQ-9 (MQ-9B?), known as the GUARDIAN (sounds like a cr@p newspaper to me), will have some great enhancements:
New features slated for first use on the Guardian include an electromagnetic expulsion de-icing system for wing and tail leading edges, an onboard traffic alert and collision avoidance system, a laser altimeter-based landing guidance system for pilots at altitudes below 100ft (30m), and a Jeppesen electronic flight bag for mission planning and weather information in the ground control station.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The practicalities of the segregated airspace bit in the US is not as cut and dry as you might think.....
As stated earlier, USAF Reapers fly in Civil controlled airspace daily from Creech AFB. The Los Angeles Centre (and Salt Lake Centre) airspace that is utilised is not segregated per se, (More of a memorandum of understanding) but the ATC controllers are aware that the aircraft will go home (following a nominated delay) along a previously agreed route. All the PRA pilot has to do is in this instance is to call LA Centre on the phone and say that the RPA IS comming their way at time xxx. Up until then the airspace is fully useable by ATC for 'normal' activity. Whilst the RPA is in transit (under full control) whilst in civil controlled airspace, it is treated like all other aircraft - and normal separation standards are applied, IFF coded assigned, ATC freqs monitored etc..
If the aircraft loses link (and goes home following the announced delay) - it changes its IFF code to a recognised setting...
A flight plan is submitted and an ATC clearance is obtained and the pilot talks (From the RPA) to ATC agencies.
Crews go to great lengths to ensure that this will happen on the rare occasion that the RPA loses Ku (Satelite) link.
- YES! - If you want to fly in any airspace, you need to talk to someone.
As stated earlier, USAF Reapers fly in Civil controlled airspace daily from Creech AFB. The Los Angeles Centre (and Salt Lake Centre) airspace that is utilised is not segregated per se, (More of a memorandum of understanding) but the ATC controllers are aware that the aircraft will go home (following a nominated delay) along a previously agreed route. All the PRA pilot has to do is in this instance is to call LA Centre on the phone and say that the RPA IS comming their way at time xxx. Up until then the airspace is fully useable by ATC for 'normal' activity. Whilst the RPA is in transit (under full control) whilst in civil controlled airspace, it is treated like all other aircraft - and normal separation standards are applied, IFF coded assigned, ATC freqs monitored etc..
If the aircraft loses link (and goes home following the announced delay) - it changes its IFF code to a recognised setting...
A flight plan is submitted and an ATC clearance is obtained and the pilot talks (From the RPA) to ATC agencies.
Crews go to great lengths to ensure that this will happen on the rare occasion that the RPA loses Ku (Satelite) link.
I was wondering about radio transmitter? Is it necessary?
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Above the clouds
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- YES! - If you want to fly in any airspace, you need to talk to someone.
But you misunderstood my question...
I was wondering if radio is necessary ON BOARD or only it can be used by operator.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If your RPA is 9000 miles away form you (its pilot), it is difficult to talk to anyone near your RPA unless it has a radio on-board.
Aircraft in Class G airspace don't need a radio because it assumes a see and avoid principle is observed....which with most current UAS is not the case.
Aircraft in Class G airspace don't need a radio because it assumes a see and avoid principle is observed....which with most current UAS is not the case.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Above the clouds
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok, I through, that is possible to crate some kind of link between UAS operator and the ATC in area where UAV flies.
But I'm wondering which method would be simplest
But I'm wondering which method would be simplest
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The Meadows
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok, I through, that is possible to crate some kind of link between UAS operator and the ATC in area where UAV flies.
But I'm wondering which method would be simplest
But I'm wondering which method would be simplest
I have to say the whole CAA "see and avoid" soapbox makes me laugh - have you seen how much lookout the average airline pilot does?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, I through, that is possible to crate some kind of link between UAS operator and the ATC in area where UAV flies.
, Training in Wommera the next, JTAC in Qalat, Civil ATC for transit to LA Centre, and Security for the World Cup in J'Berg...Its kind of a lot of comms. A radio in the RPA will be the most practical kit to do all of the comms.....the question is what do you want your UAS to actually do. Just to be uninhabited and fly around as a 'Drone' is all fine and dandy - but for it to actually do something - priceess......
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Above the clouds
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok,
I've got another question to people who know..
Which of listed below M&B definitions are useful for UAV:
Basic Empty Mass (Basic Mass) is the mass of an aeroplane plus standard items such as: unusable fuel and other unusable fluids; lubricating oil in engine and auxiliary units; fire extinguishers; pyrotechnics; emergency oxygen equipment; supplementary electronic equipment.
Dry Operating Mass (DOM) is the total mass of the aeroplane ready for a specific type of operation excluding usable fuel and traffic load. The mass includes items such as:
• Crew and crew baggage.
• Catering and removable passenger service equipment.
• Potable water and lavatory chemicals.
• Food and beverages.
Maximum Structural Landing Mass (MSLM) the maximum permissible total aeroplane mass on landing in normal circumstances.
Maximum Structural Take-Off Mass (MSTOM) the maximum permissible total aeroplane mass at the start of the take-off run.
Maximum Structural Taxi Mass is the structural limitation of the mass of the aeroplane at commencement of taxi.
Maximum Zero Fuel Mass (MZFM) is the maximum permissible mass of an aeroplane with no usable fuel.
Operating Mass (OM) is the DOM plus fuel but without traffic load.
Performance Limited Landing Mass (PLLM) is the mass subject to the landing aerodrome
limitations.
Performance Limited Take-Off Mass (PLTOM) is the take-off mass subject to departure aerodrome limitations.
Regulated Landing Mass (RLM) is the lowest of the ’performance limited’ landing mass and ’structural limited’ landing mass.
Regulated Take-Off Mass (RTOM) is the lowest of the ’performance limited’ TOM and ’structural limited’ TOM.
Take-Off Mass (TOM) is the mass of the aeroplane including everything and everyone contained within it at the start of the take-off run.
Taxi Mass is the mass of the aeroplane at the start of the taxi (at departure from the loading gate). Sometimes referred to as Ramp Mass.
Traffic Load (TL) is the total mass of passengers, baggage and cargo, including any ’non-revenue’ load.
Useful Load is the total mass of the passengers, baggage and cargo, including any non-revenue load and usable fuel. It is the difference between the Dry Operating Mass and the Take-Off Mass.
Zero Fuel Mass (ZFM) is DOM plus traffic load but excluding fuel.
f.e. Is any UAV wit MSLM?
Or maybe someone know where I can find information like this about uavs?
I've got another question to people who know..
Which of listed below M&B definitions are useful for UAV:
Basic Empty Mass (Basic Mass) is the mass of an aeroplane plus standard items such as: unusable fuel and other unusable fluids; lubricating oil in engine and auxiliary units; fire extinguishers; pyrotechnics; emergency oxygen equipment; supplementary electronic equipment.
Dry Operating Mass (DOM) is the total mass of the aeroplane ready for a specific type of operation excluding usable fuel and traffic load. The mass includes items such as:
• Crew and crew baggage.
• Catering and removable passenger service equipment.
• Potable water and lavatory chemicals.
• Food and beverages.
Maximum Structural Landing Mass (MSLM) the maximum permissible total aeroplane mass on landing in normal circumstances.
Maximum Structural Take-Off Mass (MSTOM) the maximum permissible total aeroplane mass at the start of the take-off run.
Maximum Structural Taxi Mass is the structural limitation of the mass of the aeroplane at commencement of taxi.
Maximum Zero Fuel Mass (MZFM) is the maximum permissible mass of an aeroplane with no usable fuel.
Operating Mass (OM) is the DOM plus fuel but without traffic load.
Performance Limited Landing Mass (PLLM) is the mass subject to the landing aerodrome
limitations.
Performance Limited Take-Off Mass (PLTOM) is the take-off mass subject to departure aerodrome limitations.
Regulated Landing Mass (RLM) is the lowest of the ’performance limited’ landing mass and ’structural limited’ landing mass.
Regulated Take-Off Mass (RTOM) is the lowest of the ’performance limited’ TOM and ’structural limited’ TOM.
Take-Off Mass (TOM) is the mass of the aeroplane including everything and everyone contained within it at the start of the take-off run.
Taxi Mass is the mass of the aeroplane at the start of the taxi (at departure from the loading gate). Sometimes referred to as Ramp Mass.
Traffic Load (TL) is the total mass of passengers, baggage and cargo, including any ’non-revenue’ load.
Useful Load is the total mass of the passengers, baggage and cargo, including any non-revenue load and usable fuel. It is the difference between the Dry Operating Mass and the Take-Off Mass.
Zero Fuel Mass (ZFM) is DOM plus traffic load but excluding fuel.
f.e. Is any UAV wit MSLM?
Or maybe someone know where I can find information like this about uavs?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All of the above without the rations....
Apply aviation legislation to UAVs like any other aircraft, and you will understand what is involved with RPA activity.
Airworthiness is not just a manned principle.
Apply aviation legislation to UAVs like any other aircraft, and you will understand what is involved with RPA activity.
Airworthiness is not just a manned principle.
