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
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Going deeper underground
Age: 55
Posts: 332
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearly the 'software anomoly' prevented the vehicle from executing its 'lost comms' procedure and flying to its designated landing site. Now that is worrying, but not as worrying as the thought of the USAF trying to shoot it down as it bimbled over Washington. 
More confidence-instilling stuff from the UAS world.....
One low risk infringement and it's doomsday!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Problem is Leon, that's not the only one. There are a good number that never make it to the public eye. Sorry to say, but the rate has really not improved that much since the mid 80's, but everyone keeps saying it will, soon. Define soon.
Come on then, where are all these examples? As someone who has sat on the MAA's UAS Safety Working Group, airspace infringements were not on the agenda! So come on, spill the beans and I'll raise it as an Agenda item.
Now if you're talking mini and micro UAS then there is scope for issues, as they're not flown by rated pilots.
However, for Remotely Piloted Air Systems (RPAS) they're flown by rated pilots (such as Predator, Reaper, Global Hawk) and I see less infringements from these types than manned types because of the SA they have in their Ground Control Stations.
So some examples for the debate would be useful.
LJ
Now if you're talking mini and micro UAS then there is scope for issues, as they're not flown by rated pilots.
However, for Remotely Piloted Air Systems (RPAS) they're flown by rated pilots (such as Predator, Reaper, Global Hawk) and I see less infringements from these types than manned types because of the SA they have in their Ground Control Stations.
So some examples for the debate would be useful.
LJ
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the issue is when control from the ground is interrupted and the aircraft becomes (presumably) autonomous?
flown by rated pilots (such as Predator, Reaper, Global Hawk) and I see less infringements from these types than manned types because of the SA they have in their Ground Control Stations.
There are a good number that never make it to the public eye
There is a plan to have a UAV patrolling the Kent and Essex coasts.
BBC News - Forces considering drone aircraft
They are also proposing their use over the Oylimpic games site in 2012!
mmitch.
BBC News - Forces considering drone aircraft
They are also proposing their use over the Oylimpic games site in 2012!
mmitch.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The Meadows
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ozy
I rather thank that it is you that have missed the point, or not read LJR's post. He quoted facts. You quoted ill-informed speculation.
You had to go to the Congo for your first example, the second is irrelevant - the crew engaged a convoy the aircraft did not. Your third link I could not get to load.
What you must understand is that large UAVs flown by rated pilots are not perfect. They will crash, get lost etc etc but they are at least as good as manned aircraft. UAVs are also not a panacea, there will be manned aircraft in all spheres for many, many years yet.
I understand the resistance to change and the physical move of the pilot from the aircraft to the ground is a big change, but brace yourself for the future, try to think objectively rather than knee-jerk react.
I rather thank that it is you that have missed the point, or not read LJR's post. He quoted facts. You quoted ill-informed speculation.
You had to go to the Congo for your first example, the second is irrelevant - the crew engaged a convoy the aircraft did not. Your third link I could not get to load.
What you must understand is that large UAVs flown by rated pilots are not perfect. They will crash, get lost etc etc but they are at least as good as manned aircraft. UAVs are also not a panacea, there will be manned aircraft in all spheres for many, many years yet.
I understand the resistance to change and the physical move of the pilot from the aircraft to the ground is a big change, but brace yourself for the future, try to think objectively rather than knee-jerk react.
LJR
I completely agree, and in the case of the Pred/Reaper if the aircraft goes "lost link" then it will fly the planned route to a destination and hold, squawk a specific squawk to let ATC know that the human has lost control of it and ATC will get other air users out of its way (just like a manned aircraft squawking 7600). On top of the normal telephone, there are "Chat Windows", VOIP phones, e-mails and even mobiles with SMS text - wouldn't that be great if you could do all that from a manned aircraft?? 
Mr Grim
I couldn't agree more old chap.
And finally, for mmitch
I rather think that 2012 is a little ambitious for the BAES Herti and Mantis to be able to perform without huge swathes of "Restricted Airspace (Temporary)" being ceded to them - this is very unlikely to happen anywhere near the London TMA, however, for somewhere near Weymouth for the sailing this could be a possibility. I also think it very unlikely that Astrea will deliver a suitable CAA-satisfying "sense and avoid" system, so Class G is definately right out for now (and probably for 5-10years or so). So the BBC article is probably just picking up on a bit of wishful thinking from BAES.
But as Mr Grim has said "brace yourself for the future, try to think objectively rather than knee-jerk react"; this definately holds true, but probably not for 2012 (ie. 20 months away).
LJ
I think you are basically correct here, but it is not the SA of the GCS, more the ABILITY to communicate if 'classical' comms are lost...ie the telephone is a good back-up.
Mr Grim
I understand the resistance to change and the physical move of the pilot from the aircraft to the ground is a big change, but brace yourself for the future, try to think objectively rather than knee-jerk react.
And finally, for mmitch
There is a plan to have a UAV patrolling the Kent and Essex coasts.
BBC News - Forces considering drone aircraft
They are also proposing their use over the Oylimpic games site in 2012!
mmitch.
BBC News - Forces considering drone aircraft
They are also proposing their use over the Oylimpic games site in 2012!
mmitch.
But as Mr Grim has said "brace yourself for the future, try to think objectively rather than knee-jerk react"; this definately holds true, but probably not for 2012 (ie. 20 months away).
LJ
Oops! I forgot to mention the Belgian Congo IAI Eagle UAV crash:
On the 3rd October 2006 an IAI Eagle UAV crashed after take-off from N'Dolo. Allegedly the pilot was concerned that the aircraft would not get airborne in time before the end of the runway, and so he switched off both engines (!!). However, as the aircraft was already 15-20ft in the air it crashed a few hundred metres after the end of the runway on Boulevard Triomphal. One woman on the ground was killed and at least three others were injured.
The official cause of the crash has been ascribed to a " loss of situational awareness" . The UAV ground controller thought the UAV had not taken off, when in fact it had, and closed down the engines. The UAV then crashed due to the operator instruction to cut engine power.
So where was the UAV to blame for that? I believe that the Belgians do not use "rated pilots" on the Eagles and that they train regular Army JNCOs/SNCOs to do the job. Perhaps if they did, it might have been different? That said, the human has made the error and not the machine.
LJ
On the 3rd October 2006 an IAI Eagle UAV crashed after take-off from N'Dolo. Allegedly the pilot was concerned that the aircraft would not get airborne in time before the end of the runway, and so he switched off both engines (!!). However, as the aircraft was already 15-20ft in the air it crashed a few hundred metres after the end of the runway on Boulevard Triomphal. One woman on the ground was killed and at least three others were injured.
The official cause of the crash has been ascribed to a " loss of situational awareness" . The UAV ground controller thought the UAV had not taken off, when in fact it had, and closed down the engines. The UAV then crashed due to the operator instruction to cut engine power.
So where was the UAV to blame for that? I believe that the Belgians do not use "rated pilots" on the Eagles and that they train regular Army JNCOs/SNCOs to do the job. Perhaps if they did, it might have been different? That said, the human has made the error and not the machine.
LJ
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen, the "operator issues" are but 1%. The major, and I do stress major, problem is the "lost link syndrome". Everybody will tell you, "We don't have that problem, ours does: insert climb to regain signal, recip heading, fly to known waypoint, et. etc. etc. Problem is they don't at least 50% of the time. If you want examples go look at the various "museums" with bits of, and one or two complete predators and others. Loss rates are published, and some not. I know of 4 af recovery team efforts just this year in the sw US, all lost link. Border patrol had an "incident" with it's bird. The ones operating out of George had to have manned aircraft following them to and from their ops area
for that very reason. They are now allowing them to fly alone, trying to certify them for ops in controlled airspace.
I say again, in my humble experience in this field (since 1985, up at DRES) these systems in their current form are not ready for integration into controlled airspace. All you are doing is pushing the envelope for pushings sake. Mark my words, there will be a manned unmanned incident/accident in the not too distant future.
Hopefully it will not result in death or dismemberment. But what it will do is push back integration 10 years at least, and possibly never.
The only uav/rpv/whatever that I feel is appropriate in controlled airspace is global hawk, and that system is so far ahead in capabilities and redundency, it makes the rest look like rc aircraft, but so is the cost. In my day, the predators capabilities cost $50k, and that was using a ferranti missile gyro at $11k, pre gps days. El cheapo was using a humphries gyro at $3k, but while spinning up you could hear it chinging
and changing 50 yards away. And yes, we had the same lost link issues back then too.
Just my tuppence worth.
for that very reason. They are now allowing them to fly alone, trying to certify them for ops in controlled airspace.
I say again, in my humble experience in this field (since 1985, up at DRES) these systems in their current form are not ready for integration into controlled airspace. All you are doing is pushing the envelope for pushings sake. Mark my words, there will be a manned unmanned incident/accident in the not too distant future.
Hopefully it will not result in death or dismemberment. But what it will do is push back integration 10 years at least, and possibly never.
The only uav/rpv/whatever that I feel is appropriate in controlled airspace is global hawk, and that system is so far ahead in capabilities and redundency, it makes the rest look like rc aircraft, but so is the cost. In my day, the predators capabilities cost $50k, and that was using a ferranti missile gyro at $11k, pre gps days. El cheapo was using a humphries gyro at $3k, but while spinning up you could hear it chinging
and changing 50 yards away. And yes, we had the same lost link issues back then too.
Just my tuppence worth.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And yet another one bites the dust:
Unmanned Plane Crashes Near Edwards Air Force Base - Bakersfield News Story - KERO Bakersfield
Unmanned Plane Crashes Near Edwards Air Force Base - Bakersfield News Story - KERO Bakersfield
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Here,there,everywhere
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The major, and I do stress major, problem is the "lost link syndrome".
HERE
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem isn't bandwidth or frequency per se, although the available is becoming less and less. Up there where the air is rarefied, are all manner of overmodulated/off cycle/power to the umph electrons, across all the frequencies you can think of. As one can imagine, some strong filtering is required to "sort out the good stuff". Sometimes it works great, sometimes it doesn't. When it doesn't, then it's up to the "pre programmed, lost link action(s)" in the onboard gubbins. Young snuffy in the control shack can push, pull, scream and yell, qualified pilot or mere operator as may be, they are purely spectators at this point.
Now we all know the wonders of computer code, and the millions of lines required. Somehow, somewhere, someone may have forgot to insert a correct "if this happens, then do that". Well this happens, and it don't do that, so proceed to the site of the crash.
Humble opinion, to correct this problem to safely, and I do stress safely operate in controlled airspace, you would end up with an unaffordable, unmanned aircraft. Keep an eye on Global hawk, it's at that point already.
There are only two things that I can see that unmanned has over manned:
Endurance/Persistence (shift the crews on the ground instead. Pottie breaks instead of a pee tube/diaper, sheer luxury!).
And if it does go down in enemy territory, no "Gary Powers moment".
I guess you could call it the PC form of aerial warfare.
Anyone remember Aquila?
Just my tuppence.
Now we all know the wonders of computer code, and the millions of lines required. Somehow, somewhere, someone may have forgot to insert a correct "if this happens, then do that". Well this happens, and it don't do that, so proceed to the site of the crash.
Humble opinion, to correct this problem to safely, and I do stress safely operate in controlled airspace, you would end up with an unaffordable, unmanned aircraft. Keep an eye on Global hawk, it's at that point already.
There are only two things that I can see that unmanned has over manned:
Endurance/Persistence (shift the crews on the ground instead. Pottie breaks instead of a pee tube/diaper, sheer luxury!).
And if it does go down in enemy territory, no "Gary Powers moment".
I guess you could call it the PC form of aerial warfare.
Anyone remember Aquila?
Just my tuppence.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: People's Republic
Age: 68
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UAVs are unsafe to fly in controlled airspace
Does that "unsafe to fly in controlled airspace" jibe mean that they're safe to fly in the open FIR or that they're unsafe per ser se? If the former, then the regulatory work being done should come to fruition, if not, then it can't happen.
UAS do a variety of tasks extremely well. 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. Some of these projects have been taken up by larger concerns but at a late stage in development. Until the aviation world's big boys do a proper end to end job from first principles, there will be issues.
Similarly, as system experience develops, we will see increasing professionalism. This is particularly relevant where non-aircrew form the team. Technicians operating the UAS have an intuitive grasp of how the link is working, probably more so than aircrew. The big knowledge gaps are altimetry, met and airmanship from experience. I see training as the key to improved professionalism among operating crews.
And the unfortunate incidents are not limited to UAS as some of our more strident posters would like to claim:
BBC News - Review urged over BA plane runway error
Head below parapet.
bigv
UAS do a variety of tasks extremely well. 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. Some of these projects have been taken up by larger concerns but at a late stage in development. Until the aviation world's big boys do a proper end to end job from first principles, there will be issues.
Similarly, as system experience develops, we will see increasing professionalism. This is particularly relevant where non-aircrew form the team. Technicians operating the UAS have an intuitive grasp of how the link is working, probably more so than aircrew. The big knowledge gaps are altimetry, met and airmanship from experience. I see training as the key to improved professionalism among operating crews.
And the unfortunate incidents are not limited to UAS as some of our more strident posters would like to claim:
BBC News - Review urged over BA plane runway error
Head below parapet.
bigv
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
big v, no incoming from me, so no need to duck. The "unsafe" is just that. It is fine in a war zone, maybe even fine over training areas, and depending on your opinion, fine over the countries of enemy combatants.
Where the safety issue really raises it's ugly head is that you, the operator, have no prior indication if or when a loss of link occurs. Further to that point, after the loss, you, the operator, have a 50/50 chance that the uav will follow what you think is programmed to happen, and a 100% chance of not being able to do diddly squat about it if it does not.
You can train all you want, but when that uav ignores every button push, control input, reboot that is in the manual, and the knot in the pit of your stomach tightens when you realize that you have absolutely no control of where that uav is headed, powerless is an apt description. Only thing left to do is calculate how far can it go on the fuel remaining, draw the circle and sit back, hope, and wait.
Now, I don't know about anyone else, but that does not give me a warm and fuzzy to have uav's anywhere close to other aircraft, in any civilian setting. Leave them where they are extremely useful, in the military arena.
Can't say it enough, the problems we had in the 1980's are still the same problems today. That's 25+ years of minimal progress in the most vital area of uav operations, the comm link.
Please don't take my opposition to operating in civilian airspace (is that a better term?) to mean I am anti uav, I am not. I am against needlessly risking civilian casualties from what I believe is a rush to the money, disregarding the inherent risks involved. Who knows, maybe in time someone will actually solve this problem, however we are a long ways away at this point in time.
Just my tuppence worth.
Where the safety issue really raises it's ugly head is that you, the operator, have no prior indication if or when a loss of link occurs. Further to that point, after the loss, you, the operator, have a 50/50 chance that the uav will follow what you think is programmed to happen, and a 100% chance of not being able to do diddly squat about it if it does not.
You can train all you want, but when that uav ignores every button push, control input, reboot that is in the manual, and the knot in the pit of your stomach tightens when you realize that you have absolutely no control of where that uav is headed, powerless is an apt description. Only thing left to do is calculate how far can it go on the fuel remaining, draw the circle and sit back, hope, and wait.
Now, I don't know about anyone else, but that does not give me a warm and fuzzy to have uav's anywhere close to other aircraft, in any civilian setting. Leave them where they are extremely useful, in the military arena.
Can't say it enough, the problems we had in the 1980's are still the same problems today. That's 25+ years of minimal progress in the most vital area of uav operations, the comm link.
Please don't take my opposition to operating in civilian airspace (is that a better term?) to mean I am anti uav, I am not. I am against needlessly risking civilian casualties from what I believe is a rush to the money, disregarding the inherent risks involved. Who knows, maybe in time someone will actually solve this problem, however we are a long ways away at this point in time.
Just my tuppence worth.
Leon,
"in the case of the Pred/Reaper if the aircraft goes "lost link" then it will fly the planned route to a destination and hold, squawk a specific squawk to let ATC know that the human has lost control of it and ATC will get other air users out of its way (just like a manned aircraft squawking 7600)."
There is surely a massive difference in that the manned aircraft squawking 7600 still has humans on board capable of exercising basic airmanship - including keeping a lookout
for other airspace users.
What? A belt as well as braces? But the elastic on these braces is enough, surely.... (sudden twang)
The official cause of the crash has been ascribed to a " loss of situational awareness" . The UAV ground controller thought the UAV had not taken off, when in fact it had, and closed down the engines. The UAV then crashed due to the operator instruction to cut engine power.
So where was the UAV to blame for that?
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.
Fltlt and Ozymandias,
Well put. So well put, in fact that I can only sit dumbly by and applaud.
"in the case of the Pred/Reaper if the aircraft goes "lost link" then it will fly the planned route to a destination and hold, squawk a specific squawk to let ATC know that the human has lost control of it and ATC will get other air users out of its way (just like a manned aircraft squawking 7600)."
There is surely a massive difference in that the manned aircraft squawking 7600 still has humans on board capable of exercising basic airmanship - including keeping a lookout
for other airspace users. What? A belt as well as braces? But the elastic on these braces is enough, surely.... (sudden twang)
The official cause of the crash has been ascribed to a " loss of situational awareness" . The UAV ground controller thought the UAV had not taken off, when in fact it had, and closed down the engines. The UAV then crashed due to the operator instruction to cut engine power.
So where was the UAV to blame for that?
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.
Fltlt and Ozymandias,
Well put. So well put, in fact that I can only sit dumbly by and applaud.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...yep, yet again ALL UAS are classed as 'the same' to the underinformed - in the same way we classify a Cessna 150 and A330......
...an Airbus has NEVER settled into the trees on go-around...
..An F-16 has NEVER bombed a JTAC...
..A C-17 has NEVER landed 'firm'..
..an Ultra-Light has never hit a home on take-off..
I am presuming that all of these were flown by qualified crews who did not intentionally perform the above..
My point is that before you class ALL UAS in the same way, a better understanding of each systems capabilities, roles link management, and lost link logic should be considered.
...I agree that there are less capable UAS out there than others, and others are flown by undertrained and uninformed crews. Whilst ALL UAS should be subject to robust airworthiness scruitiny - and clearly some need prohibition, and whilst the comments of the blind critics are generally sound, the generalisations fail to display systems understanding.
...I also FIRMLY believe that RPAs should be flown by rated Pilots..
...an Airbus has NEVER settled into the trees on go-around...
..An F-16 has NEVER bombed a JTAC...
..A C-17 has NEVER landed 'firm'..
..an Ultra-Light has never hit a home on take-off..
I am presuming that all of these were flown by qualified crews who did not intentionally perform the above..
My point is that before you class ALL UAS in the same way, a better understanding of each systems capabilities, roles link management, and lost link logic should be considered.
...I agree that there are less capable UAS out there than others, and others are flown by undertrained and uninformed crews. Whilst ALL UAS should be subject to robust airworthiness scruitiny - and clearly some need prohibition, and whilst the comments of the blind critics are generally sound, the generalisations fail to display systems understanding.
...I also FIRMLY believe that RPAs should be flown by rated Pilots..
L J R
Far from it - it seems that FltLt is making a clear distinction between G-Hawk and the rest, and is zeroing in on a specific problem: The UAV that loses its link, and software that fails to recognize that the link is gone.
Of course, you can get a parallel problem in manned aircraft if the pilot or pilots become incapacitated, and that has happened (Payne Stewart and Helios 737 to give two examples). But there is also a perception issue: if a UAV crashes on or into somebody (elsewhere than the Congo) it's not only going to be a potentially tragic accident but will set the deployment of UAVs back.
I wonder though, if the lost-link problem simply needs a bit more technical attention (as the PS and Helios accidents focused attention on oxygen training). So far, a lot of the lost-link records concern products of one company, who have their own proprietary ways of doing things and don't like to be told anything different.
Far from it - it seems that FltLt is making a clear distinction between G-Hawk and the rest, and is zeroing in on a specific problem: The UAV that loses its link, and software that fails to recognize that the link is gone.
Of course, you can get a parallel problem in manned aircraft if the pilot or pilots become incapacitated, and that has happened (Payne Stewart and Helios 737 to give two examples). But there is also a perception issue: if a UAV crashes on or into somebody (elsewhere than the Congo) it's not only going to be a potentially tragic accident but will set the deployment of UAVs back.
I wonder though, if the lost-link problem simply needs a bit more technical attention (as the PS and Helios accidents focused attention on oxygen training). So far, a lot of the lost-link records concern products of one company, who have their own proprietary ways of doing things and don't like to be told anything different.