BAE Mantis drone doing flight tests in Australia
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B Word - an interesting debate indeed. It might be spin on BAE Systems' behalf but having witnessed first hand the build standards they appear to be applying, I can say that they are more akin to manned aircraft production than the current UAV methods of construction. This is what they believe to be their 'unique selling point' in a market already pretty congested - the question was asked earlier in the thread as to why the UK was looking to reinvent the wheel - well, in my view this is it (that and the need to conduct sovereign operations of course). I repeat - I am NOT a fan of BAE systems and despise their arrogance and the unseemly degree of influence they appear to have at senior levels.
You are absolutely correct in that Predator A and Bs routinely operate in FAA airspace, under ATC control and with the appropriate approvals in place etc - ISTR the notice required was approximately 90 days the last time I was on a Pred A crew flying one from Creech from 29 Palms - but that was 4 years ago!). I have, however, operated the Pred A in busy airspace in Theatre - of course it can be done, it's just the measure of risk that is carried and that those responsible are willing to accept.
I also have friends and colleagues working for the US CBP operating various UAVs on the US southern border. Whilst it is becoming routine I've heard it is still not easy and doing anything unusual can be a royal pain to coordinate with the FAA and ATC.
Again, the memory fades a little but I think I'm correct in stating that takeoff weight for Block 10 Pred A was 2250lbs - so that takes it above the routine limit for CAA operations you describe. The Pred B (and also Mantis) are much larger with a takeoff weight of 10500lbs for Pred B (about the same for Mantis I think). Even with the Astraea project under way, I think there is still some way to go before we can operate large UAVs in the UK routinely in non-segregated airspace. The decision makers are worried about the potential for a large UAV failing to accept flight commands and droning on in a straight line until it runs out of fuel...coming to earth at some point somewhere down route. We know this is highly unlikely but without a pilot at the controls in the vehicle itself, it will remain a concern for the CAA.
I don't know how good the software is in the Mantis FCS, but I do know how often the control racks or datalinks used to lock up when operating Pred A. Most of the time, the aircraft did what it was supposed to, but once or twice we got a call from ATC asking where the hell the aircraft was going! Acceptable risk on operations, and also probably good enough for the wide open spaces in the US...however, is it good enough for the crowded airspace of the UK? This also answers the question of why these trials are carried out in Woomera..the safety trace for a vehicle that can stay airborne for a long time whilst out of direct operator control will be fairly large.
Cheers
You are absolutely correct in that Predator A and Bs routinely operate in FAA airspace, under ATC control and with the appropriate approvals in place etc - ISTR the notice required was approximately 90 days the last time I was on a Pred A crew flying one from Creech from 29 Palms - but that was 4 years ago!). I have, however, operated the Pred A in busy airspace in Theatre - of course it can be done, it's just the measure of risk that is carried and that those responsible are willing to accept.
I also have friends and colleagues working for the US CBP operating various UAVs on the US southern border. Whilst it is becoming routine I've heard it is still not easy and doing anything unusual can be a royal pain to coordinate with the FAA and ATC.
Again, the memory fades a little but I think I'm correct in stating that takeoff weight for Block 10 Pred A was 2250lbs - so that takes it above the routine limit for CAA operations you describe. The Pred B (and also Mantis) are much larger with a takeoff weight of 10500lbs for Pred B (about the same for Mantis I think). Even with the Astraea project under way, I think there is still some way to go before we can operate large UAVs in the UK routinely in non-segregated airspace. The decision makers are worried about the potential for a large UAV failing to accept flight commands and droning on in a straight line until it runs out of fuel...coming to earth at some point somewhere down route. We know this is highly unlikely but without a pilot at the controls in the vehicle itself, it will remain a concern for the CAA.
I don't know how good the software is in the Mantis FCS, but I do know how often the control racks or datalinks used to lock up when operating Pred A. Most of the time, the aircraft did what it was supposed to, but once or twice we got a call from ATC asking where the hell the aircraft was going! Acceptable risk on operations, and also probably good enough for the wide open spaces in the US...however, is it good enough for the crowded airspace of the UK? This also answers the question of why these trials are carried out in Woomera..the safety trace for a vehicle that can stay airborne for a long time whilst out of direct operator control will be fairly large.
Cheers
SBG
I hear all your points and I remain suspicious of the debate "we're an aircraft manufacturer and GA is not". In fact, Northrop Grumman also encountered resistance to fly Global Hawk in UK airspace - they are a far bigger (and, IMHO, a better!) manufacturer of manned aircraft than the company concerned and they also encountered similar resistance.
I also hear your points on Predator A but the Reaper would appear to be a wholly different, and upgraded, beast. This is what I am talking about, from the GA website:
I hear all your points and I remain suspicious of the debate "we're an aircraft manufacturer and GA is not". In fact, Northrop Grumman also encountered resistance to fly Global Hawk in UK airspace - they are a far bigger (and, IMHO, a better!) manufacturer of manned aircraft than the company concerned and they also encountered similar resistance.
I also hear your points on Predator A but the Reaper would appear to be a wholly different, and upgraded, beast. This is what I am talking about, from the GA website:
FEATURES
• Honeywell TPE 331-10 turbo prop (over 12,700 engines in use and has accumulated more than 70 million hours of dependable service on over 75 applications).
• Triple-redundant flight control system
• Redundant flight control surfaces
• Remotely piloted or fully autonomous
• Military Standard 1760 Stores Management System
• C-Band Line-of-Sight data link control
• Ku-Band Beyond Line-of-Sight/SATCOM data link control
• Over 90% system operational availability
I know that "lost link" can be a problem but from what I understand the aircraft will either fly back to base for pick-up by the launch team or fly a pre-programmed flight plan before returning to base - it also squawks to tell the ATC controllers that it is now autonomous.
So I still think the airworthiness argument wears a bit thin. Also, I understand that the Italians have Reapers on order for delivery soon and they still plan to fly the bigger aircraft in EUROCONTROL and EASA regulated airspace - so why can't we? (Hence my suspicion that soomeone is not playing with a straight bat!).
Finally, the FCS could well be an issue if the company responsible for MRA4's FCS debacle is involved! I understand that Global Hawk corrects via its FCS over 50 times a second - hence it is so smooth. I suspect that the inevitable Sinclair ZX81 the company puts in Mantis will be lucky if it updates twice a second (ie. what an above average pilot is capable of).
Thanks for the input and keeping the debate alive (it was starting to turn into a Trekkie Convention!).
The B Word
• Redundant flight control surfaces
• Remotely piloted or fully autonomous
• Military Standard 1760 Stores Management System
• C-Band Line-of-Sight data link control
• Ku-Band Beyond Line-of-Sight/SATCOM data link control
• Over 90% system operational availability
I know that "lost link" can be a problem but from what I understand the aircraft will either fly back to base for pick-up by the launch team or fly a pre-programmed flight plan before returning to base - it also squawks to tell the ATC controllers that it is now autonomous.
So I still think the airworthiness argument wears a bit thin. Also, I understand that the Italians have Reapers on order for delivery soon and they still plan to fly the bigger aircraft in EUROCONTROL and EASA regulated airspace - so why can't we? (Hence my suspicion that soomeone is not playing with a straight bat!).
Finally, the FCS could well be an issue if the company responsible for MRA4's FCS debacle is involved! I understand that Global Hawk corrects via its FCS over 50 times a second - hence it is so smooth. I suspect that the inevitable Sinclair ZX81 the company puts in Mantis will be lucky if it updates twice a second (ie. what an above average pilot is capable of).
Thanks for the input and keeping the debate alive (it was starting to turn into a Trekkie Convention!).
The B Word
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A quick show of hands?
Ok,
- Hands up everyone who would sleep more soundly knowing that there are UAVs flying in or near the UK airspace in which they fly, or for ground dwellers, flying over them as they sleep?
- Hands up those who would prefer a UAV in UK airspace to have two independent engines & propellers?
- Hands up everyone who would like the manufacturer to iron the bugs out of all systems over somewhere with almost no-one on the ground (or in the air) to bump into, within an hour's flying time of where it lost uplink or whatever?
- Hands up all those who think the RAF would have considered buying Predators/Reapers/Mantii(?) before Officer's Mess sleeping quarters were replaced by dusty fly-infested armoured shipping containers? Oh, and before landing away from a friendly airfield might result in bits of one's anatomy being removed by the locals?
- Hands up who is more concerned whether a UAV is made of metal instead of composite, than how reliable its uplink/downlink and see & avoid capability is?
Last edited by Mechta; 24th Nov 2009 at 23:25.
Of course, it could be that BAe is just developing a proof of concept into something other than military uses?
If it is compliant with UK CAA UAS rules, could BAe be prepping it for a police or traffic role? Where it doesn't need armament - only observation and surveillance gear with effective (and realtime) video downlinks.
Having this travelling up and down motorways might be quite appealing to the Home Office - potentially cheaper than hundreds of police and highways agency vehicles and thousands of staff. It could be operated by a central / single organisation and falls straight into line with the governments "Big Brother" future dreams.
If it is compliant with UK CAA UAS rules, could BAe be prepping it for a police or traffic role? Where it doesn't need armament - only observation and surveillance gear with effective (and realtime) video downlinks.
Having this travelling up and down motorways might be quite appealing to the Home Office - potentially cheaper than hundreds of police and highways agency vehicles and thousands of staff. It could be operated by a central / single organisation and falls straight into line with the governments "Big Brother" future dreams.
OK, IMHO,
1. Hands up who doesn't believe a certain company will deliver on time?
2. Hands up who is fed up with being promised the Earth and then getting shown Uranus?
3. Hands up who doesn't believe that Defence Funding should prop up UK industry whilst consistantly letting down its airmen?
4. Hands up who thinks the roll-out of Tornado F2s with no radar, EFA (Eurofighter, EFA 2000, Typhoon) without a full RTS, Hawk 128 with dodgy wings and Nimrod MRA4s with FCS problems has already demonstrated the company's true colours?
5. Hands up who thinks the company is all spin and no substance?
6. Hands up who was disgusted to find out that a company had allegedly accepted £400k for a non-existent safety case?
7. Hands up who thinks that a company of over 110,000 with only 30,000 British jobs is not worth paying above the market rate?
ME 
1. Hands up who doesn't believe a certain company will deliver on time?
2. Hands up who is fed up with being promised the Earth and then getting shown Uranus?
3. Hands up who doesn't believe that Defence Funding should prop up UK industry whilst consistantly letting down its airmen?
4. Hands up who thinks the roll-out of Tornado F2s with no radar, EFA (Eurofighter, EFA 2000, Typhoon) without a full RTS, Hawk 128 with dodgy wings and Nimrod MRA4s with FCS problems has already demonstrated the company's true colours?
5. Hands up who thinks the company is all spin and no substance?
6. Hands up who was disgusted to find out that a company had allegedly accepted £400k for a non-existent safety case?
7. Hands up who thinks that a company of over 110,000 with only 30,000 British jobs is not worth paying above the market rate?
ME
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just spotted this on NewsNow...
Unmanned drones plan in immigrants crackdown - Eastbourne Today
Dunno if it may set any particular trains of thought in motion...
Unmanned drones plan in immigrants crackdown - Eastbourne Today
Dunno if it may set any particular trains of thought in motion...
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4. Hands up who thinks the roll-out of Tornado F2s with no radar, EFA (Eurofighter, EFA 2000, Typhoon) without a full RTS, Hawk 128 with dodgy wings and Nimrod MRA4s with FCS problems has already demonstrated the company's true colours?
What do you mean by full RTS? Full air to air and air to surface clearances? Isn't the RTS the responsibility of the RTSA and not the contractor (obviously not forgetting in this case EFA/Eurofighter/Typhoon isn't just a BAE product....)?
This is what Wiki says:
Early RAF Typhoons were based at BAE Systems Warton, where the aircraft was assembled. This arrangement, dubbed "Case White" was intended to provide a smooth entry into service, with the close proximity of BAE staff allowing easy solutions to any technical issues which arise. The first squadrons, No. 17 OEU and No. 29 OCU Sqns, moved to RAF Coningsby in 2005 to begin establishing an initial operational capability (IOC).
Nuff said?
LJ
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup well aware of case white (had the pleasure of being there....)
Not old enough to remember another aircraft entry into service, but how many start service life with anything other than IOC?
Not old enough to remember another aircraft entry into service, but how many start service life with anything other than IOC?
Last edited by Tester_76; 27th Nov 2009 at 07:31.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: S of 55N
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviation Publication 67
From Aviation Publication 67 (MoD Flying Orders to Contractors):
"102.115.1 An approval will normally not be granted for a pilot to carry out experimental, clearance or development flying, or some categories of research flying, in command, unless the pilot is a test pilot; however, some types of development flying and research flying may be approved for non-test pilots."
In my experience, whilst non-TPs do fly under AvP67, it tends to be for very 'basic' non safety critical tasks. No slur intended on my part against the top chaps carrying out these tasks without the TP qual.
Of note for this particular thread, these rules also pertain to UAV-P.
Sun Who.
"102.115.1 An approval will normally not be granted for a pilot to carry out experimental, clearance or development flying, or some categories of research flying, in command, unless the pilot is a test pilot; however, some types of development flying and research flying may be approved for non-test pilots."
In my experience, whilst non-TPs do fly under AvP67, it tends to be for very 'basic' non safety critical tasks. No slur intended on my part against the top chaps carrying out these tasks without the TP qual.
Of note for this particular thread, these rules also pertain to UAV-P.
Sun Who.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EAP86,
Is rubbbish. The aircraft were ready (ie built), the evidence to support the RTS, to be provided by the Parnter Companies, wasn't. When the appropriate evidence was available and assessed, the IPT and the RTSA could then produce the RTS.
sw
Actually the aircraft were ready, the RTS, which was an IPT responsibility, wasn't...
sw
Join Date: May 2007
Location: upstairs
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"When the appropriate evidence was available and assessed, the IPT and the RTSA could then produce the RTS."
The risk to aircrew must be judged acceptable using either F13 or RTS. This alone infers that "the appropriate evidence was available and assessed" doesn't it and, presumably, the approach would also require RTSA consent?
The risk to aircrew must be judged acceptable using either F13 or RTS. This alone infers that "the appropriate evidence was available and assessed" doesn't it and, presumably, the approach would also require RTSA consent?