Yep, safe to fly in controlled airspace.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO, you are correct, G-Hawk is a "UAS" but it is so far above and beyond the others in terms of systems capabilities/redundancies that it really is in a class of it's own. But again, as I have said before, to achieve that level of sophistication, and maintain it, costs a lot of money. So much so that the whole program is under an affordability review.
The "rest" of the uas family suffer from the same problems, they all have comm link problems, some more than others, but they do.
Stop the rush for the money, quit promising to the people in Govt., who have no idea what is and is not possible, that you can produce an all dancing, all singing unmanned aircraft that will revolutionize civilian air transport for a few billion more.
Why? Because, in my opinion it will cost more and be less capable and safe than the manned variant.
As for the "understanding" of lost link and the systems, don't know how old you are, but I helped formulate/write the damn rules and the ORIGINAL law was "chop throttle, full down elevator, full aileron deflection". NONE of us wanted a runaway, and that was at 160 lbs! The "cost" of losing $70K every time a lost link occured was not acceptable to the powers that be, so the thinking was you must have lost comms because you dropped out of los, so simply circle and climb to reacquire. After that it was "well if you reverse course you are forced to reacquire", then it became "transit to x holding point", sound familiar?
I could regale you with stories, some hilarious, some frustrating, one that came within 100 yards and a heartbeat of becoming an air accident investigation, and in each and every one, none of us on the ground had any control whatsoever over the antics of the uav(s).
Just my (last) tuppence worth on uas's.
Sorry, couldn't help it.
I will now turn the whole thing over to the young turks.
The "rest" of the uas family suffer from the same problems, they all have comm link problems, some more than others, but they do.
Stop the rush for the money, quit promising to the people in Govt., who have no idea what is and is not possible, that you can produce an all dancing, all singing unmanned aircraft that will revolutionize civilian air transport for a few billion more.
Why? Because, in my opinion it will cost more and be less capable and safe than the manned variant.
As for the "understanding" of lost link and the systems, don't know how old you are, but I helped formulate/write the damn rules and the ORIGINAL law was "chop throttle, full down elevator, full aileron deflection". NONE of us wanted a runaway, and that was at 160 lbs! The "cost" of losing $70K every time a lost link occured was not acceptable to the powers that be, so the thinking was you must have lost comms because you dropped out of los, so simply circle and climb to reacquire. After that it was "well if you reverse course you are forced to reacquire", then it became "transit to x holding point", sound familiar?
I could regale you with stories, some hilarious, some frustrating, one that came within 100 yards and a heartbeat of becoming an air accident investigation, and in each and every one, none of us on the ground had any control whatsoever over the antics of the uav(s).
Just my (last) tuppence worth on uas's.
Sorry, couldn't help it.
I will now turn the whole thing over to the young turks.
Last edited by fltlt; 6th Sep 2010 at 17:16.
JN
That's just the point, there was a pretty big clue on a thing called an "Altimeter", sadly he relied upon the picture (ie. his/her senses) rather than his/her instruments - a common pilot error in manned aircraft for many years.
A good example to consider is that the trains on the Docklands Light Railway have no drivers but a Human monitoring them. They have had 2 accidents: 10 Mar 87 and 22 Apr 91, both with Humans at the manual control - who were Passenger Service Agents that were "trained to take control at a reversionary control panel if required".
Anyway, we can all bicker and bemoan the arrival of the UAS/RPAS, but we begin to sound like the C130K Navs, the Tornado Navs, the Flight Engineers and the Wireless Operators - "but we're irreplacable!". I do note that Typhoon, C130J and most airliners are doing just fine without them...the pilot in the cockpit will be next...
As for the lost-link argument. I've seen it happen. However, if it is a real malfunction, rather than 1-5 second drop-out, then the Pred-series perform admirably and usually get gathered line-of-sight under a different frequency system. Yes, there has been the widely reported one that had to be shot down (Air Force Shoots Down Runaway Drone Over Afghanistan | Popular Science), but let's face it, the Pred-series has flown over 1 MILLION flying hours and this isn't happening every year! The yearly stats for USAF Predator A are here: http://www.afsc.af.mil/shared/media/...080114-108.pdf
They flew over 187,000 flying hours from Oct 08 to Oct 09. I understand that at present the whole Pred-series logs over 30,000 flight hours per month!!!
There's a good article on flying hours here: Predator Passes 1 Million Flight Hours by Defence IQ
Quite frankly, the number of incidents versus the hours flown just don't stack up to underpin all of your arguments (unless, of course, you write for sensationalist newspapers and journals?).
LJ
Well, for starters, had the said operator had his little pink body sat inside the vehicle, instead of in an air conditioned control cabin, he might have had some vague inkling that he'd left the fecking ground, and might have been a little less hasty in shutting down.
A good example to consider is that the trains on the Docklands Light Railway have no drivers but a Human monitoring them. They have had 2 accidents: 10 Mar 87 and 22 Apr 91, both with Humans at the manual control - who were Passenger Service Agents that were "trained to take control at a reversionary control panel if required".
Anyway, we can all bicker and bemoan the arrival of the UAS/RPAS, but we begin to sound like the C130K Navs, the Tornado Navs, the Flight Engineers and the Wireless Operators - "but we're irreplacable!". I do note that Typhoon, C130J and most airliners are doing just fine without them...the pilot in the cockpit will be next...
As for the lost-link argument. I've seen it happen. However, if it is a real malfunction, rather than 1-5 second drop-out, then the Pred-series perform admirably and usually get gathered line-of-sight under a different frequency system. Yes, there has been the widely reported one that had to be shot down (Air Force Shoots Down Runaway Drone Over Afghanistan | Popular Science), but let's face it, the Pred-series has flown over 1 MILLION flying hours and this isn't happening every year! The yearly stats for USAF Predator A are here: http://www.afsc.af.mil/shared/media/...080114-108.pdf
They flew over 187,000 flying hours from Oct 08 to Oct 09. I understand that at present the whole Pred-series logs over 30,000 flight hours per month!!!
There's a good article on flying hours here: Predator Passes 1 Million Flight Hours by Defence IQ
Quite frankly, the number of incidents versus the hours flown just don't stack up to underpin all of your arguments (unless, of course, you write for sensationalist newspapers and journals?).
LJ
Ozy
Your underpinning of your argument with this accident report is unconvincing for the following reasons:
1. The RPAS did as it was commanded to do by the human pilot. They appear to have commanded engine shut down by incorrectly configuring the 2nd pilot position and following the incorrect procedures. As soon as the 2nd Pilot took control with the incorrectly configured control station the engine shut down (as it was supposed to!).
2. Flying a lost-link profile in a single engined aircraft with the engine shut down will crash - Sir Isaac Newton proved that many years ago with an apple!
3. The crew would have appeared to have ignored several procedures - this could mean that other operator errors could have compounded the crash. They certainly did not follow the procedures set out in the FAA's Certificate Of Authority (COA), which would indicate that they were not procedure followers.
3. The report mentions LOS, which I take to mean Line Of Sight? It also mentions Iridium which is an L Band Satellite (1.6 to 2 GHz) and not the usual Ku satellite (12 - 18 GHz) that Predator series use for Beyond Line Of Sight (BLOS) control; either this US Customs bird is different or they were flying LOS only? If they were flying LOS only then it might be difficult to gather it on the BLOS tether before the engine-out caused the crash. (Edit: I've just re-read the report and it mentions turning off the Ground Data Terminal (GDT) to force lost-link, so this is definately a LOS mission. It also states that by the time the instructor has realised what has happened the aircraft is out of LOS (ie. too low)).
4. The system lock out is also key as without this you cannot gather the aircraft, cannot monitor the last emergency mission you programmed in and it is difficult to work out what is happening. Don't forget that the lock-out appears to culminate from poor practices by the humans all around!
So your underpinning example appears to have a RPAS doing as it was told to do and designed to do - all helped on its way to its sad demise by a human operator(s)!!!
Just like the trains as well, eh? ;-)
QED?
LJ
(sorry for any typos as done on my iPhone by a stupid human operator!)
Your underpinning of your argument with this accident report is unconvincing for the following reasons:
1. The RPAS did as it was commanded to do by the human pilot. They appear to have commanded engine shut down by incorrectly configuring the 2nd pilot position and following the incorrect procedures. As soon as the 2nd Pilot took control with the incorrectly configured control station the engine shut down (as it was supposed to!).
2. Flying a lost-link profile in a single engined aircraft with the engine shut down will crash - Sir Isaac Newton proved that many years ago with an apple!
3. The crew would have appeared to have ignored several procedures - this could mean that other operator errors could have compounded the crash. They certainly did not follow the procedures set out in the FAA's Certificate Of Authority (COA), which would indicate that they were not procedure followers.
3. The report mentions LOS, which I take to mean Line Of Sight? It also mentions Iridium which is an L Band Satellite (1.6 to 2 GHz) and not the usual Ku satellite (12 - 18 GHz) that Predator series use for Beyond Line Of Sight (BLOS) control; either this US Customs bird is different or they were flying LOS only? If they were flying LOS only then it might be difficult to gather it on the BLOS tether before the engine-out caused the crash. (Edit: I've just re-read the report and it mentions turning off the Ground Data Terminal (GDT) to force lost-link, so this is definately a LOS mission. It also states that by the time the instructor has realised what has happened the aircraft is out of LOS (ie. too low)).
4. The system lock out is also key as without this you cannot gather the aircraft, cannot monitor the last emergency mission you programmed in and it is difficult to work out what is happening. Don't forget that the lock-out appears to culminate from poor practices by the humans all around!
So your underpinning example appears to have a RPAS doing as it was told to do and designed to do - all helped on its way to its sad demise by a human operator(s)!!!
Just like the trains as well, eh? ;-)
QED?
LJ
(sorry for any typos as done on my iPhone by a stupid human operator!)
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 6th Sep 2010 at 23:56.
The problem I have found is that the UAS industry thinks it's got the solution and it'll be flying in controlled airspace near (and above) you tomorrow. Well that just isn't realistic, and the lack of professionalism and realism exhibited by the UAS industry, as evidenced in reports like the one for the Nogales Predator crash, give me cause for concern. They've got a long long way before they're on a par with manned aviation.
They are flying in controlled airspace right now - they have been flying USAF/US CBPA/NASA Predator As and Bs in US FAA controlled airspace for nearly 10 years!
In fact, the one's on the West Coast fly in LAX Controlled Airspace daily; and that's pretty busy airspace! I would estimate thousands of hours per month on training alone.
Finally, in the past 3-4 years the Predator series accident rate per 10,000 flying hours is better than the FJ accident rate.
I percieve a lack of vision within you that reminds me of quotes like this:
When Swansea’s Oystermouth & Mumbles Railway began carrying fare-paying passengers in the early 1800s they tried using horse- and then sail-power to get the thing moving.
Later, when steam locomotives began to come into service, legions of so-called experts warned that if they went at anything more than a few miles an hour the passengers wouldn't be able to breathe and would suffocate before the train reached its destination.
For much the same reason, in 1884, the Times described London's new Circle Line as "a form of mild torture which no person would undergo if he could conveniently help it."
Later, when steam locomotives began to come into service, legions of so-called experts warned that if they went at anything more than a few miles an hour the passengers wouldn't be able to breathe and would suffocate before the train reached its destination.
For much the same reason, in 1884, the Times described London's new Circle Line as "a form of mild torture which no person would undergo if he could conveniently help it."
LJ
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LJ,
Maybe they are just doing it because?
"US forces go ahead with RQ-7B Shadows datalink revamp
The US Army and US Marine Corps are moving ahead with plans to upgrade their RQ-7B Shadow unmanned aerial vehicle with a new datalink. Prime contractor AAI is currently conducting its second set of flight-tests of Shadows equipped with the Tactical Common Data Link (TCDL), according to Russ Walker, AAI's division vice-president of tactical unmanned aircraft systems programmes"
And no, the uav's flying in lax airspace are actually flying out of here, SCLA (the old George AFB, up in the high desert just outside Victorville) and trust me, this ain't lax traffic. If you dont believe me, google the movement reports. Their only headings are between up and right a bit and the reciprocal down and left a bit,to return home. Plus, they have been flying manned aircraft to tail them to and from the ops areas for a good long time, just in case. That is now being reviewed to see if they can find their way all alone, with ground based radar, to start the "integration into manned airspace" process. Maybe a new reason for the tinfoil hat brigade, or had one better have a kevlar bonnet?
The Guard are building a brand new hangar to house their toys, should be completed mid to late next year. Why here? very little local air traffic and close proximity to a whole bunch of ranges/op areas. And compared to down the hill, very few population centers, just in case.
Maybe they are just doing it because?
"US forces go ahead with RQ-7B Shadows datalink revamp
The US Army and US Marine Corps are moving ahead with plans to upgrade their RQ-7B Shadow unmanned aerial vehicle with a new datalink. Prime contractor AAI is currently conducting its second set of flight-tests of Shadows equipped with the Tactical Common Data Link (TCDL), according to Russ Walker, AAI's division vice-president of tactical unmanned aircraft systems programmes"
And no, the uav's flying in lax airspace are actually flying out of here, SCLA (the old George AFB, up in the high desert just outside Victorville) and trust me, this ain't lax traffic. If you dont believe me, google the movement reports. Their only headings are between up and right a bit and the reciprocal down and left a bit,to return home. Plus, they have been flying manned aircraft to tail them to and from the ops areas for a good long time, just in case. That is now being reviewed to see if they can find their way all alone, with ground based radar, to start the "integration into manned airspace" process. Maybe a new reason for the tinfoil hat brigade, or had one better have a kevlar bonnet?
The Guard are building a brand new hangar to house their toys, should be completed mid to late next year. Why here? very little local air traffic and close proximity to a whole bunch of ranges/op areas. And compared to down the hill, very few population centers, just in case.
fltlt
You're talking RQ-7 and I'm talking MQ-1/MQ-9 - a bit like comparing a Hawk to a Typhoon! RQ-7 Shadow is a small tactical line-of-sight (LOS) only UAS, it doesn't have Pilots to fly it (they are "operators" from the US Army and USMC) and it is not designed to fly outside of segregated airspace (yet - which is what this upgrade might be (still needs Instrument Rated Pilots, though, to keep the FAA happy)). It's the equivalent of the British Army's Hermes 450 / WATCHKEEPER, here's a pic to give you an idea:
Here's a pic of someone in front of an MQ-9 (this is not a "toy" UAS for LOS only operations!):
By the way, GEORGE AFB became the Southern California Logistics Airport. It is home to Southern California Aviation - the civilian equivalent of the military "boneyard" aircraft storage facility.
So, in summary, this small tactical LOS UAS is not designed for flight in Class A, B, C controlled airspace, whereas, the MQ-9 Predator B was/is...
LJ
You're talking RQ-7 and I'm talking MQ-1/MQ-9 - a bit like comparing a Hawk to a Typhoon! RQ-7 Shadow is a small tactical line-of-sight (LOS) only UAS, it doesn't have Pilots to fly it (they are "operators" from the US Army and USMC) and it is not designed to fly outside of segregated airspace (yet - which is what this upgrade might be (still needs Instrument Rated Pilots, though, to keep the FAA happy)). It's the equivalent of the British Army's Hermes 450 / WATCHKEEPER, here's a pic to give you an idea:
Here's a pic of someone in front of an MQ-9 (this is not a "toy" UAS for LOS only operations!):
By the way, GEORGE AFB became the Southern California Logistics Airport. It is home to Southern California Aviation - the civilian equivalent of the military "boneyard" aircraft storage facility.
So, in summary, this small tactical LOS UAS is not designed for flight in Class A, B, C controlled airspace, whereas, the MQ-9 Predator B was/is...
LJ
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leon,
I wasn't "talking" anything, I found it rather amusing that the article should pop up now, that's all. BTW, I don't need the picture of the 9 thanks, all I have to do is look out the window. Or pop over to gaasi at el mirage. Then back to edwards to global hawk. Or just wait for a call to go recover a downed one.
SCLA is not the civilian equivalent of d-m, that's mojave, where Burt and the boys, NTPS and the F4/F16 drone folks are. There are a few "stored" civilian ac at SCLA, plus million-air, the airhead for irwin rotations, a p&w engine o/haul facility, a&p school, embry riddle campus and an ac painting facility, the old base golf course is still open. The marines payed a whole bunch of money year before last to go romping through the old base housing in their strykers, left a real mess.
SCLA had to remain open after the af left (F4G's), because it is an faa designated alternate for ontario/lax. Currently Boeing has 2 of it's dreamliners out here doing testing, C-17 in's and outs from March arb, odds and sods.
But it's biggest claim to fame as far as employment is concerned are the rubber-maid and snapple facilities, oh and the waaaay overpriced and unfinished generating plant (GE not being fully paid for the turbines) something to do with it being designated an "enterprise zone" ie; govt subsidized. Latest, as of yesterday, is an argument between two levels of local govt. about who has control of the funds for the place.
I'm not playing gotcha, I don't have to.
That's definitely my last tuppence. Have fun gents. Now where did I put that lost link?
Dont need me coat and hat, its 95 deg.
I wasn't "talking" anything, I found it rather amusing that the article should pop up now, that's all. BTW, I don't need the picture of the 9 thanks, all I have to do is look out the window. Or pop over to gaasi at el mirage. Then back to edwards to global hawk. Or just wait for a call to go recover a downed one.
SCLA is not the civilian equivalent of d-m, that's mojave, where Burt and the boys, NTPS and the F4/F16 drone folks are. There are a few "stored" civilian ac at SCLA, plus million-air, the airhead for irwin rotations, a p&w engine o/haul facility, a&p school, embry riddle campus and an ac painting facility, the old base golf course is still open. The marines payed a whole bunch of money year before last to go romping through the old base housing in their strykers, left a real mess.
SCLA had to remain open after the af left (F4G's), because it is an faa designated alternate for ontario/lax. Currently Boeing has 2 of it's dreamliners out here doing testing, C-17 in's and outs from March arb, odds and sods.
But it's biggest claim to fame as far as employment is concerned are the rubber-maid and snapple facilities, oh and the waaaay overpriced and unfinished generating plant (GE not being fully paid for the turbines) something to do with it being designated an "enterprise zone" ie; govt subsidized. Latest, as of yesterday, is an argument between two levels of local govt. about who has control of the funds for the place.
I'm not playing gotcha, I don't have to.
That's definitely my last tuppence. Have fun gents. Now where did I put that lost link?
Dont need me coat and hat, its 95 deg.
Big V:
Well, and for me too, Big V. In which case I hope that we can both agree that whatever was being "bolted on at the end", it certainly wasn't Airworthiness. That requires a cradle to grave audit trail, hence the premature departure to the latter destination of the Nimrod Mk2. I know nothing of UAS other than they be predominately military aircraft. If you tell me that they lack Airworthiness I can only respond by saying that frankly I am not surprised!
Oh, just to point out the blindingly obvious (always to be recommended on PPRuNe!), they may be unmanned but they fly over and amongst others that are. If they are allowed to operate in CA that could include my house! Thanks, but no thanks!
The big issue for me is airworthiness. We have seen some early operational systems developed by small companies where airworthiness is bolted on at the end.
Oh, just to point out the blindingly obvious (always to be recommended on PPRuNe!), they may be unmanned but they fly over and amongst others that are. If they are allowed to operate in CA that could include my house! Thanks, but no thanks!
And another one bites the dust...
Yet another drone stoofs in:
A160 Hummingbird crashes during testing in Belize
One day these things might be safe to operate outside SUA or war zones. But that day is clearly still some way off, despite what the drone-drivers might advocate.
A160 Hummingbird crashes during testing in Belize
One day these things might be safe to operate outside SUA or war zones. But that day is clearly still some way off, despite what the drone-drivers might advocate.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The Meadows
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And some more aircraft crashes:
AirDisaster.Com News: Embraer 190 crashes in China; 96 aboard.
BBC News - Father and son killed in Isle of Wight air race crash
No survivors in Pakistan air crash - Central & South Asia - Al Jazeera English
Clearly it is some time before they will be safe to use widely.
AirDisaster.Com News: Embraer 190 crashes in China; 96 aboard.
BBC News - Father and son killed in Isle of Wight air race crash
No survivors in Pakistan air crash - Central & South Asia - Al Jazeera English
Clearly it is some time before they will be safe to use widely.
Mr Grim
Another one today:
The Courier - Fife man "stable" after plane crash
And also someone killed and lots injured at an air display for the first time in many years:
Culprit behind British Vintage biplane Tiger Moth?s crash at Nuremberg ? Plane or the pilot, both 70 years of age | Seer Press
The Germans are just about getting over the Frecce accident at Ramstein in 1988 - I really feel for them
Anyway, I think your post is spot on, and it doesn't matter whether they're manned or unmanned, this quote is equally applicable:
Another one today:
The Courier - Fife man "stable" after plane crash
And also someone killed and lots injured at an air display for the first time in many years:
Culprit behind British Vintage biplane Tiger Moth?s crash at Nuremberg ? Plane or the pilot, both 70 years of age | Seer Press
The Germans are just about getting over the Frecce accident at Ramstein in 1988 - I really feel for them
Anyway, I think your post is spot on, and it doesn't matter whether they're manned or unmanned, this quote is equally applicable:
"Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity, or neglect."
LJ
LJ
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leon,
UAV operations in the US are limited to restricted areas, positive control airspace (where all aircraft must be talking to ATC) or visual observation (by ground observers or chase aircraft).
The Predators operating out of the Southern California Logistics Airport use chase aircraft to get to/from the restricted areas where they conduct their training. At other locations, such as Beale AFB (Global Hawk) and Grand Forks AFB (Predator), the airspace over the airport is restricted by NOTAM during UAV ops to allow ATC to ensure the UAVs are separated from manned aircraft while they climb/descend between the bases and Class A airspace.
The issue with the FAA isn't separating UAVs from IFR aircraft, but rather allowing them to operate in a see-and-avoid environment.
UAV operations in the US are limited to restricted areas, positive control airspace (where all aircraft must be talking to ATC) or visual observation (by ground observers or chase aircraft).
The Predators operating out of the Southern California Logistics Airport use chase aircraft to get to/from the restricted areas where they conduct their training. At other locations, such as Beale AFB (Global Hawk) and Grand Forks AFB (Predator), the airspace over the airport is restricted by NOTAM during UAV ops to allow ATC to ensure the UAVs are separated from manned aircraft while they climb/descend between the bases and Class A airspace.
The issue with the FAA isn't separating UAVs from IFR aircraft, but rather allowing them to operate in a see-and-avoid environment.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: The higher plane of alcoholism..hic.
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A classic debate... we should frame this!
Gents,
Late to the fight, but very good and well informed banter with nary a mud slinging... How un-Pprune! This debate is simmering (although maybe it should rage a little more) across the NAS regions and I 'll cut and paste much of it for later bar-brawls... Pray do keep it up (sts).
As fltlt is clearly out of tuppences, allow me a dime: a few years flying GR1/4s at Goose Bay for 1:00 IMC in a 1:05 sortie, and nothing above 1000ft (for the ILS join) has given me a healthy respect for George, our resident auto-p. That was 500kt, 250ft 4-ship Terrain Following in a 1980s-designed jet using magnetic tape plotted by 21 yr old Navigators on out-of-date maps and hand-held calculators for the WGS conversions.
Years later, a stint on UAVs, with fairly robust 'lost link' logic, did make me marvel at the similarities... It all works VERY well if you plot it right. Almost all (and I know I said 'almost', but give these poor new aircraft type a chance) the LL issues are human-induced... Just as landing 1-4-3-2 on the ILS was (Tonka joke, sorry)...
Big picture: daily how many 777s Auto-take-off - FMS route follow - autoland at Cat IIIB; and never let those web-surfing, non-sterile chatting, tired and under-paid humanoids touch the controls? See link:
YouTube - Cat 3 Landing Zurich...175m Vis
Right now probably 0.5% of those missions that do need pilot alteration; but with Next-Gen, ADS-B, WAAS, etc, the age of unmanned airlines will (my words) be seen in our lifetime. As soon as your car drives you to the airport (5-8 years, driver input optional?), why trust the pilot who auto-drove to the jet too?
Much more to add, but I'll take a few spears first... Always a pleasure.
Cheers FFS
Late to the fight, but very good and well informed banter with nary a mud slinging... How un-Pprune! This debate is simmering (although maybe it should rage a little more) across the NAS regions and I 'll cut and paste much of it for later bar-brawls... Pray do keep it up (sts).
As fltlt is clearly out of tuppences, allow me a dime: a few years flying GR1/4s at Goose Bay for 1:00 IMC in a 1:05 sortie, and nothing above 1000ft (for the ILS join) has given me a healthy respect for George, our resident auto-p. That was 500kt, 250ft 4-ship Terrain Following in a 1980s-designed jet using magnetic tape plotted by 21 yr old Navigators on out-of-date maps and hand-held calculators for the WGS conversions.
Years later, a stint on UAVs, with fairly robust 'lost link' logic, did make me marvel at the similarities... It all works VERY well if you plot it right. Almost all (and I know I said 'almost', but give these poor new aircraft type a chance) the LL issues are human-induced... Just as landing 1-4-3-2 on the ILS was (Tonka joke, sorry)...
Big picture: daily how many 777s Auto-take-off - FMS route follow - autoland at Cat IIIB; and never let those web-surfing, non-sterile chatting, tired and under-paid humanoids touch the controls? See link:
YouTube - Cat 3 Landing Zurich...175m Vis
Right now probably 0.5% of those missions that do need pilot alteration; but with Next-Gen, ADS-B, WAAS, etc, the age of unmanned airlines will (my words) be seen in our lifetime. As soon as your car drives you to the airport (5-8 years, driver input optional?), why trust the pilot who auto-drove to the jet too?
Much more to add, but I'll take a few spears first... Always a pleasure.
Cheers FFS
Almost all (and I know I said 'almost', but give these poor new aircraft type a chance) the LL issues are human-induced...
Drones will one day be adequately reliable and hopefully some crass HMI issues (read the report about one such drone crash in the USA) will have been corrected. But not by next week, next month or next year.
777 'auto take-off'? That's a new one on me....
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: The higher plane of alcoholism..hic.
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah those zealots...
BEagle,
Too true, and bless their zealous cotton socks. Every cause needs its advocates and they will always oversell and underperform until a compromise is finally reached. I suspect that to get the tank and the first aircraft into service there needed to be similarly 'motivated' individuals to push against the tide of 'no change please'.
And 'my bad' on the auto-take off... That's one thing many UASs have OVER their manned brethren I guess (Heron 1 leaps to mind)
Cheers
FFS
Too true, and bless their zealous cotton socks. Every cause needs its advocates and they will always oversell and underperform until a compromise is finally reached. I suspect that to get the tank and the first aircraft into service there needed to be similarly 'motivated' individuals to push against the tide of 'no change please'.
And 'my bad' on the auto-take off... That's one thing many UASs have OVER their manned brethren I guess (Heron 1 leaps to mind)
Cheers
FFS
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could not resist, I tried and tried, honest, but when someone mentions cars driving by themselves, I strongly suggest they research the DARPA unmanned challenge, the second, the last one, held at? Where else but SCLA! $250,000+ worth of onboard gubbins, which required the vehicles ac system be set to hanging meat standards and the biggest alternators possible to keep all the batteries charged. They can't be manned, there's no room.
It was much better than the first one, the hummer didn't set on fire and most got further than 2 miles, but the sight of the oshkosh entry gently bumping the buldings front pillar, or the car that parked itself in a garage and the truck that came to an intersection, promptly developed amnesia and held up the other bots behind it. The "control vehicles" manned but with rollcages, crash bars, four point harness and all had "The Stig" driving just in case their bot decided to exit the course, big red OFF switches, driving gingerly amongst the bots. At least there wasn't a motorcycle like the first year.
Great fanfare, progress etc. but unless you have nodes all over the place, especially in cities, absolutely useless.
Of course the military wants to equip resupply convoys with this novel technology. Again, no warm bodies to lose their way and be captured. But if one thinks about it, what a perfect way for the opposition to get their beans, bullets and bombs. Just grab a few radioshack pieces and presto, redirect a few vehicles their way instead of ours. Before the proponents say too hard to do, no it isn't.
And yes, everybody makes great noise about outfitting test sections of I-5/15 to enable commuters to travel at 70 mph while reading their morning paper/drinking coffee/eating breakfast/texting and on the phone (sounds like a normal morning commute around here) then someone mentions the Bill Gates blue screen of death.
One can imagine the headline: "500 vehicle pile up on freeway, cause thought to be 15 yr old boy eating cheeto's, sat in bedroom in his underwear, hacking".
Reality bytes, or crashes.
Apologies to all, no hat, no coat.
It was much better than the first one, the hummer didn't set on fire and most got further than 2 miles, but the sight of the oshkosh entry gently bumping the buldings front pillar, or the car that parked itself in a garage and the truck that came to an intersection, promptly developed amnesia and held up the other bots behind it. The "control vehicles" manned but with rollcages, crash bars, four point harness and all had "The Stig" driving just in case their bot decided to exit the course, big red OFF switches, driving gingerly amongst the bots. At least there wasn't a motorcycle like the first year.
Great fanfare, progress etc. but unless you have nodes all over the place, especially in cities, absolutely useless.
Of course the military wants to equip resupply convoys with this novel technology. Again, no warm bodies to lose their way and be captured. But if one thinks about it, what a perfect way for the opposition to get their beans, bullets and bombs. Just grab a few radioshack pieces and presto, redirect a few vehicles their way instead of ours. Before the proponents say too hard to do, no it isn't.
And yes, everybody makes great noise about outfitting test sections of I-5/15 to enable commuters to travel at 70 mph while reading their morning paper/drinking coffee/eating breakfast/texting and on the phone (sounds like a normal morning commute around here) then someone mentions the Bill Gates blue screen of death.
One can imagine the headline: "500 vehicle pile up on freeway, cause thought to be 15 yr old boy eating cheeto's, sat in bedroom in his underwear, hacking".
Reality bytes, or crashes.
Apologies to all, no hat, no coat.
Ozy
I fail to see your logic on not being a pilot, however, if it pleases you then I had feet on the rudder bar, hands on stick and throttle last Thursday - and it was a taildragger and I didn't have anyone else to talk to! The fun of flying will probably never leave any of us, but the days are numbered for men in cockpits of commercial or military aircraft (estimate 3650 days and counting).
Good to see that someone has also had an airborne re-plen of twopences as well ;-)
LJ
I fail to see your logic on not being a pilot, however, if it pleases you then I had feet on the rudder bar, hands on stick and throttle last Thursday - and it was a taildragger and I didn't have anyone else to talk to! The fun of flying will probably never leave any of us, but the days are numbered for men in cockpits of commercial or military aircraft (estimate 3650 days and counting).
Good to see that someone has also had an airborne re-plen of twopences as well ;-)
LJ
I'm pretty sure that drones will indeed have their place in the future. However:
1. Sense and avoid outside CAS? Years off.
2. Operate in CAS without sanitised routes / timings? Years off.
3. Unmanned freight aircraft? Talk to your insurer!
4. Unmanned passenger aircraft? Probably never.
5. Operate within sanitised elements of an ACO in the combat arena? Yes - today. Except, that is, for those grunts who wouldn't know what an ACO was if it bit them on the ar$e.
As for 'cars which drive themselves', remember the Mercedes-Benz S-Class demo to the motoring press? This was held inside a hangar which would be filled with artificial fog. One S-Class would be parked, another would run at it from behind until the active-braking radar detected the first, whereupon the BAS braking would kick in and it would come to an emergency stop.
At the eleventh hour, M-B discovered that the radar was spoofed by false returns from the hangar structure. But the press were already on their way. Someone had a brainwave and suggested that a piece of timber should be placed at a specific point on the track; the driver of the second S-Class would feel the bump, then stamp on the anchors. The press would never know the difference.
All was made ready for Der Tag; unfortunately, some well-meaning chap thought "Ach so, vot is zis piece off vood doing hier?" and tidied it away....
The result was 2 very bent S-Class in front of the World's motoring press........
1. Sense and avoid outside CAS? Years off.
2. Operate in CAS without sanitised routes / timings? Years off.
3. Unmanned freight aircraft? Talk to your insurer!
4. Unmanned passenger aircraft? Probably never.
5. Operate within sanitised elements of an ACO in the combat arena? Yes - today. Except, that is, for those grunts who wouldn't know what an ACO was if it bit them on the ar$e.
As for 'cars which drive themselves', remember the Mercedes-Benz S-Class demo to the motoring press? This was held inside a hangar which would be filled with artificial fog. One S-Class would be parked, another would run at it from behind until the active-braking radar detected the first, whereupon the BAS braking would kick in and it would come to an emergency stop.
At the eleventh hour, M-B discovered that the radar was spoofed by false returns from the hangar structure. But the press were already on their way. Someone had a brainwave and suggested that a piece of timber should be placed at a specific point on the track; the driver of the second S-Class would feel the bump, then stamp on the anchors. The press would never know the difference.
All was made ready for Der Tag; unfortunately, some well-meaning chap thought "Ach so, vot is zis piece off vood doing hier?" and tidied it away....
The result was 2 very bent S-Class in front of the World's motoring press........