At Least 5 Midairs with UAVs - so far!
 

A bit of political posturing in the article to try and take charge of the US UAV program - but 5 collisions between manned aircraft and UAVs since 2003???

DefenseNews report

There's no way this would be tolerated if both aircraft were manned, so what's going on? A better (any?) method of deconfliction or accountability is clearly needed. We accept significant restrictions on routings to deconflict from other traffic - just because the 'pilot' of the other aircraft isn't there to be hurt shouldn't mean he can take his responsibilities any less seriously. Anybody in the know out there? If there have been "at least 5 collisions between UAVs and manned aircraft" how many airproxs have there been? Are incidents/accidents involving UAVs investigated in the same way as manned flight vs manned flight ones are? Taking a cheap shot - is this what we should expect when non-aviation Army bods get to task 'flying machines'?

See and be seen doesn't work against these things, but I suppose hitting one will get your attention...

Bear in mind that the 'typical' collisions so far reported involve 4 lb UAVs and slow movers, resulting in little more than a small dent on the F/W and a 'Game Over' message on the controller's screen. :E

One interesting quote, not included in the DN article, came from the U.S. Army's PM-UAS a couple of weeks back: "I can guarantee that the annual fatality rate will not be zero when UAVs enter the NAS [National Aerospace System]."

So, yes, improved deconfliction will increasingly become an issue.

I/C

Precisely why UAV ops are strictly controlled in the UK, limited to active danger areas (either permanent or temporary) and always deconflicted by height from manned aircraft. It is a different matter on ops, of course, but airspace control measures do exist to manage the risk.
With respect to 'what we should expect from non-aviation Army bods', the UAV batteries of the RA take this matter extremely seriously and are bricking themselves with the thought that one of them may be the first to have a mid-air. Their 'air-mindedness' is good considering that they are relatively new to the game.

Exactly why I said the non-aviation Army bods. I was trying to avoid a gross generalisation of all in the Army. Not clear enough, sorry for any insult unintentionally given.

However; me in an aircraft with everthing to lose vs someone on the ground who doesn't have the same vested interest in making sure they land safely is not giving me that warm cosy feeling. There are well established deconfliction procedures for air traffic in both GAT and OAT. An obvious start would be to make the UAVs squawk like everyone else. (Something the size of a swallow may well be exempt that requirement IanC! - as long as any airprox's are still investigated and lessons learned).

Not including other countries.... here is a German example:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NOar22TX2k

The only airprox or suchlike that I have seen was an infringement of the 'box' by the manned version!

"....An obvious start would be to make the UAVs squawk like everyone else. (Something the size of a swallow may well be exempt that requirement IanC! - as long as any airprox's are still investigated and lessons learned)."

Not everyone squawks - there are a host of a/c that don't, including some of Her Majesty's finest. Similarly, there are many who don't carry on-board TCAS. UAVs are going to become a bit of a problem in the coming years.

Still, if you live around Swindon or Scouseport, there will be plenty of opportunity for some target practice using the police's UAVs

Robin,

I was under the impression that the majority of aircraft do now squawk, including Her Majesties finest (apart from the UAVs of course...). The squawk, whilst useful for TCAS, would also give any ATC/AWACS a heads-up. It's not a panacea for all theatres, but it would be a powerful tool.

I hadn't thought of it being so close to home either. The idea of Swindonian plods aviating drones around the airspace between Brize, Lyneham and Oxford isn't a pleasant one.

Just wait until the cloaking device is turned on, then you'll never even SEE what bumped into you!:eek:

Propulike

There are around 26,000 UK aircraft, the vast majority being gliders, microlights, paramotors and low-end powered aircraft. These are unlikely to be transponder-equipped, let alone Mode-C equipped, so TCAS is a bit useless in much of the UK airspace.

robin,

Interesting opinion...how much personal flight experience in TCAS equipped aircraft do you have?

Robin, "Useless" is perhaps a little wrong. "Worse than useless" in the hands of someone incorrectly trained in its use as it will lead to an unjustified level of comfort and perhaps reduced lookout. "Useful" in the hands of someone who understands it's limitations and uses it to assist their lookout/SA. With correct training, anything that can improve your personal safety is useful!

(PS isn't there some banter about the CAA forcing all bug smashers to have transponders fitted shortly? Can't remember and have been away from the UK soooo long I'm entirely out of the loop!)

Ah, Robin, I see what you're on about now. The private flyers who use uncontrolled airspace. Not many of them in Iraq or Afghanistan!

Back to topic. Recurring midairs are unacceptable, yet they're being tolerated because the 'new' technology doesn't fit into the current deconfliction scheme. This has to change, but how? Making them join in with everyone else (SSR/IFF) is an obvious start, legal accountability for the operator is also going to have to be implemented. At least 5 collisions in 4 years and counting....

Ah - so the penny has dropped.

I'm not so much bothered about meeting a UAV in the sandpit. What bothers me is meeting a police UAV over Swindon en route to its base at ******* or a Predator on climbout from ******.

We've all seen the brilliant film clip of the UAV being taken out by an Airbus's wake turbulence. A UAV is only as good as the screen the 'pilot' is using. It by no means is as good as having a pilot on board looking around and given the eqipment and stores they carry, a mid-air could have interesting results to taxpayers below.

Just for the record, the Pred is perfectly capable of squawking Mode 3/C/IV and although the lookout capability is (extremely) limited, the launch and recovery crew will be in radio contact with ATC and integrate into the traffic pattern in the same way as a manned ac. However, this is not necessarily the case for the smaller classes of UAV.

I'm happy to be corrected but as far as I recall the UAV/Airbus was attributed to an ATC/airspace control failure i.e. the UAV was where it was supposed to be at the time it was supposed to be there.

I can also reassure Propulike that although the Pred operators don't 'have it all to lose' in the same way as those physically airborne doesn't affect the fact that every possible measure is taken to reduce/remove the risk to manned platforms. The same applies to ground personnel where the decision would be made to throw the aircraft away rather than attempt a risky landing with a damaged/failing bird at a manned airfield. That's not to say I haven't witnessed airproxes and close calls (haven't we all?) but in my experience the most common issue has been with certain specialist platforms not squawking or talking to the airspace control agency and the Pred being cleared into the killbox/keypad. However, it should also be noted that the Pred is equipped with only one V/UHF radio and if you're talking on the JTAC/FAC Freq and the Preds are being cleared in by the airspace control agency, the ability to communicate and co-ordinate/deconflict in real time is reduced. The Pred GCS is fed with the Link 16 picture however, and this helps immensely.

As I said, I can't vouch for operators of other UAVs but the Pred pilots and sensor operators take deconfliction extremely seriously.

SBG