The importance of looking out
 

Is soon likely to increase because the other aircraft can't...
Unmanned spy planes to police Britain - Home News, UK - The Independent

Includes an interesting quote....

"UAVs are currently restricted to military installations in Salisbury Plain because of regulations banning them from using the same airspace as civil aircraft. However, a commercial consortium led by BAE Systems will provide the safety measures necessary for the planes to fly over the UK within three years"

So, one can only presume that it's BAe Systems, and not the CAA, that is pushing Mode-S /interoperability measures through currently.

Hmmm... Now thats very interesting ... I guess to fit in with all that 'unmanned' traffic, the only way to fly in the UK will be under IFR .

What I've read somewhere else is that this has nothing to do with Mode S at all. Obviously the UAVs will be equipped with some sort of TCAS but Mode C is good enough for TCAS.

When they talk about the "safety measures" what they are referring to are things like optical and infrared cameras mounted to the airframe and downlinked to the operator on the ground who monitors them, computer assisted of course. And the article I read (can't remember where though) claims that initial research suggests that operators are able to pick up traffic using this setup that they never would have picked up in a manned aircraft with the Mk 1 eyeball.

So it looks like optical and infrared cameras are good enough for a human to spot traffic and initiate see-and-avoid. From that it's only a small step to let the computer come up with a solution advisory and initiate avoiding action.

And obviously computers never get distracted, can be configured so that there's no blind spots, and so forth.

One can only imagine that Bristol will be very busy with a load of coppers doing their ATPL's :}

You might want to do a little research there BackPacker :)


Some extracts from a recent article -

...There are reportedly 185 small Raven UAVs in Iraq and Afghanistan, and at least one midair collision has occurred in Iraq between a Raven and an OH-58D helicopter.

...Scarier still was a near miss between a German military Luna UAV and an airliner with gear and flaps down on approach to Kabul...

...With 300 UAV programs worldwide and billions invested by the industry, momentum is building for these primarily military vehicles to cross into commercial territory

...What if a nonmilitary drone remotely piloted from the U.S. by a civilian employee of a government contractor landed on a rooftop in France? Or a foreign-owned, commercial drone crashed into a home or business in the U.S.?


My bolding, and full article at -

Avionics Magazine :: Input/Output: UAVs and the Regulatory Gap

Is there really going to be a problem with a UAV operating at 50,000ft?

Interesting near-miss youtube vid. -

YouTube - German Army Luna UAV vs Ariana Afghan Airlines Airbus A300B4


An article about the incident in the youtube vid. -

Animation: Near misses between UAVs and airliners prompt NATO low-level rules review-14/03/2006-London-Flight International

"Is there really going to be a problem with a UAV operating at 50,000ft? "

...At 50,000' I agree there's not likely to be a problem. At 5,000' or 500' (and anywhere in between) then yes!

Another "interoperability" issue that's likely to arise is that there's a move for autonomous UAV operations, i.e. the drone operates without somebody on the ground directing/controlling it. If that takes off (pun intended) then there won't be a pilot on the ground looking at any optical images (or physically watching) to see if the aircraft is about to hit something else.

I hear there's a proposal to designate a large amount of airspace south of Salisbury Plain ranges as RA(T) for UAV operations. Don't know boundaries or upper and lower limits. Only a rumour but there may be some truth to it.

More than a rumour, I'm afraid

http://www.qinetiq.com/home_salisbur...93344.File.pdf

The UAV industry inertia is becoming huge and it will massively impact not only upon our flying but our safety unless the lunatics are stopped by those of us who have at least some insight into it.

Well the airspace proposal revealed in #10 won't affect me personally, but it will affect a lot of people, and doesn't appear to be well publicised; I wonder if 'Pilot' or 'Flyer' know about it?

@ Flying Binghi: you're talking about the past. I (and Backpacker) are talking about the future and its rapid rate of technological change.

Call me an optimist if you will (how dreadfully unfashionable!), but Backpacker's suggestion of technical solutions seems entirely feasible. Computer vision systems are advancing at a tremendous pace, and are already far more effective at detecting visual anomalies (albeit with a modest false-positive rate) than humans. Of all the computer vision problems that are being worked on (facial recognition, human behaviour recognition, etc.), spotting an aircraft that's on a collision course is relatively straightforward algorithmically. It's quite plausible that within three years, we'll have UAVs that are better at detecting potential VFR traffic conflicts than pilots. Combine that with TCAS, and UAVs programmed to take deconfliction action with some knowledge of the other traffic's likely behaviour (e.g. observing the Rules of the Air), and I don't see how they'll be a significant increase on the mid-air collision hazard as it is right now.

Pragmatically, it may well be easier for the UAV guys to use this technology to allow UAV operations outside CAS, than to try to force massive restrictions on airspace that's currently class G. The technology will be extremely valuable operationally anyway, so it's probably going to happen, and class G will probably remain much as it is.

An interesting potential spin-off of this is computer vision systems for piloted aircraft to assist lookout. Cue flame war about "what's wrong with the Mk.1 eyeball", "lulls pilots into false sense of security", "keeps eyes inside the cockpit", etc... :}

Rather worrying reading... they may operate up to 50'000ft but when do they go up and where do they come down? Anyone know the dimensions of the things? One has to weigh up the benefits to the anti-terrorism fight versus the danger of collisions with ALL aircraft in the UK skies.

Not even gonna start on about the civil liberties issue here - looking at Google Earth's new street project and now this I really do despair....

VFE.

The range of UAVs I have seen (on Discovery Channel and similar) range from devices weighing less than three kilos to several hundred kilos, maybe even over a thousand.

At the lowest end of the scale you've got very simple, probably electrically powered aircraft that can be carried in a backpack or suitcase and can be operated by a soldier with no flight experience whatsoever. These are typically used in operational recon situations, flying over the top of buildings to see what's behind them and so forth.

At the highest end of the scale you've got aircraft that easily match the size of a PA-28, with turbocharged engines allowing it to go to serious flight levels and stay there for hours on end. They are typically used to keep a eye on larger areas when satellites, either because of cloud or because of orbit issues, are not effective. There was a time when the US military snapped up all Rotax 914s as soon as they rolled off the production line, for the "Predator" but I think they've moved on now to even bigger stuff - and of course with the "single fuel battlefield" you'd expect them to use a diesel engine anyway.

UAVs
 

I saw on a gliding forum (u.r.a.s.) that there's a recent house of commons defence committee report:

http://www.publications.parliament.u...ce/535/535.pdf

or easier to use:

tinurl http://tinyurl.com/6xgp2l

On page 136 starts a memo from the CAA about UAVs. I presume that as it is in thepublic domain, I can reproduce an extract here:

7. The long term industry aspiration is that UAVs will be permitted to fly in exactly the same airspace as
manned aircraft. An essential prerequisite will be that UAVs will need to meet all existing safety standards
applicable to manned aircraft, which are appropriate to the class of airspace within which they are intended
to operate. However, this will not be permitted until the UAV industry can demonstrate that UAVs have
an “equivalent” capability to manned aircraft in a number of respects, including safety. Airworthiness of
the aircraft is an issue being monitored by the CAA’s Safety Regulation Group. In airspace terms, the critical issue will be the development of a technical solution replicating the ability of a pilot of a manned aircraft to see and avoid other aircraft. The latter requirement has yet to be overcome and therefore, for the time being UAV flights that take place beyond line of sight are restricted to such airspace as can be segregated from other airspace users. The operation of UAVs must also be transparent to the ATC system which means that an air traffic controller providing a service should expect a UAV to react to control instructions in the same way as would a manned aircraft. To date, the impact of UAVs on UK airspace and Air Traffic Control has been minimal; however, there are clear indications that the demand for segregated airspace is on the increase, both from UK industry and from the MOD.

8. In the UK, segregation is achieved by restricting UAV activity to the confines of existing or newly
established Danger Areas. On a temporary basis, segregated airspace can take the form of Restricted Area
(Temporary), which can be established under Article 96 to the Air Navigation Order 2005 where it would
be in the public interest to do so or in the interests of national defence; however, the establishment of a
Restricted Area (Temporary), as opposed to the utilisation of existing Danger Areas, places further
restrictions on other airspace users.

UAV Activity

9. A significant increase in both civil and military UAV flying is anticipated, most of which will require
access in the future to all classes of airspace if it is to be operationally effective and/or commercially viable.
The CAA is involved in a number of working groups to ensure the demands and requirements of UAV
operators and other airspace users are met. The CAA is represented on an International Civil Aviation
Organisation (ICAO) Study Group, which is developing international guidance on the operation of UAS
and is also engaged with a major European body (EUROCAE) which is developing UAV standards.
Furthermore, by ensuring it is at the forefront of this emerging activity, the CAA has the opportunity to
influence other regulators (such as the European Aviation Safety Agency and the Federal Aviation
Administration) to maintain an acceptable level of safety for all aircraft and airspace users into the future.
The recent amendment process to update Civil Aviation Publication (CAP) 722: Unmanned Aircraft System
Operations in UK Airspace—Guidance has been a collaborative approach with significant input from
industry and the MoD. To ensure a co-ordinated approach across all relevant disciplines, the CAA has
established committees to address UAV issues that involve all relevant CAA departments as well as industry
representatives.


10. In terms of military UAV flying within the UK, the prime activity is for training, which, at present,
is confined to existing Danger Areas; however, the acquisition of systems such as Watchkeeper has led to a
growth in demand for airspace to enable UAV training missions to be conducted in a realistic environment.
As previously stated, before UAVs can be safely integrated with other airspace users, UAV operators would
be required to work within the same regulatory framework as that of manned aircraft operating in the same
class of airspace. As such, current MoD and industry UAV operations, beyond line of sight, will take place
inside Danger Areas or other segregated airspace. The following points are of note:

(a) Whilst manned aircraft can utilise the principles of “see and avoid” to visually avoid colliding with
other aircraft, UAVs do not yet have an equivalent method of aerial collision avoidance. “sense
and avoid” systems are under development to emulate this manned aircraft capability; however,
it is unlikely that a system which is acceptable to civil regulatory authorities (and by implication,
other airspace users) will be available for some time.10

(b) It is CAA policy to utilise Danger Areas as a method of segregating UAV activities; however, it
is recognised that this may be misinterpreted to mean that the activity is in some way dangerous.
While the flight may not in itself be considered dangerous, with the lack of a “sense and avoid”
capability the UAV activity requires an enhanced level of protection from other airspace users,
which can best be catered for by using Danger Areas.

(c) In all aviation activities, including UAVs, it is essential that the risk of endangerment to people
and property on the ground, as well as to other aircraft, be avoided. As such, for a UAV that has
not yet gained an airworthiness certificate or a military release to service, flights may be restricted
to segregated airspace over land or sea that is devoid of people and property to ensure that third
parties are not exposed to any unacceptable risks. This issue is carefully considered when
establishing segregated airspace and has been a key factor in the development of the UAV flight
test and trials facility at Parc Aberporth in West Wales with its access to Danger Area EG D201.

11. With the future introduction of Watchkeeper, it was recognised that the size of the Danger Area
complex in the vicinity of Salisbury Plain would not allow the UAV to utilise its full ISTAR capabilities due
to the standoff range required for its sensors, ie the capability to operate at range from their intended target.
As such, a proposal has been put forward by the MOD to establish additional Danger Areas to the south
of the existing Salisbury Plain Training Areas. The Airspace Change Process is being conducted in
accordance with CAA policy as set out in Civil Aviation Publication 725. Whilst this will clearly have an
impact on other airspace users, full consultation will take place with, amongst others, the aviation
community to ensure that the available airspace can be used in a safe and efficient manner and that the new
Danger Area structure is proportionate to the MOD’s needs and has the minimum impact on other
airspace users.

12. The CAA is aware of the UAV industry’s view on the benefits that the operation of UAVs may bring,
and will apply its best efforts to meeting the reasonable demands of this sector, whilst balancing those against
the needs of the manned aviation industry. It is recognised that the requirements for UAV operations inside
Controlled Airspace, in terms of procedures and equipment carriage, may differ from operations outside of
that more stringent regulatory environment; however, the basic remit for collision avoidance is the same in
all classes of airspace. Detailed policy has yet to be established in some areas, which will be progressed by
the CAA with all interested parties playing a significant role. However, UAVs will be segregated from other
traffic until an acceptable collision avoidance system has been developed and is in place.

Conclusion

13. The CAA is alert to the airspace requirements of all users, including operators of UAVs, and is
working closely with stakeholders to ensure a collaborative approach in determining evolving policy related
to UAV operations. UAVs are expected to play a significant role in a number of military and civil areas and
it is important that the abilities of these platforms are exploited fully. In the short term at least, it is
anticipated that these operations will be significantly different in their profile and requirements from manned
aircraft operations. It is anticipated that future airspace arrangements will need to cater for all types of UAV
operations and access to all classes of airspace. The need for safe integration without compromising current
levels of safety is evident. The CAA has played, and continues to play, a lead role in this regard.

29 April 2008
---------------------------------
Chris N.

michaelthewannabe, yes, I see the options, a simple google search shows the effort being put into UAV vision and aviodance systems.

The mid-air accidents/incidents in Iraq best show the current situation of how an airspace saturated with UAVs and manned air vehicles will operate.

While improved UAV aviodence systems may be under development, theres no guarentee of succes. For any current airspace discusion, I would think it prudent to only use the currently demonstraited dangers of large numbers of UAVs operating with manned air vehicles.

Ask yourself a simple question =

As a manufacturer of UAV's would you prefer to:
(a) Make significant investments in optical recognition and collision avoidance technologies and limit the available payload that this would entail, or
(b) Prevent other aircraft from using the airspace that you're operating in (or put the cost/onus onto the manned, rather than unmanned aircraft)

More news from the BBC shows how UAV's are becoming ever more pervasive in our lives:

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Robot plane sweeps over UK fields

Global Hawk


Image, click here Image:RQ-4 Global Hawk.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General characteristics

• Crew: 0
• Length: 44 ft 5 in (13.5 m)
• Wingspan: 116 ft 2 in (35.4 m)
• Height: 15 ft 2 in (4.6 m)
• Empty weight: 8,490 lb (3,850 kg)
• Gross weight: 22,900 lb (10,400 kg)
• Powerplant: 1 × Allison Rolls-Royce AE3007H turbofan engine, 7,050 lbf (31.4 kN) each

Performance

• Cruise speed: 404 mph (650 km/h)
• Endurance: 36 hours
• Service ceiling: 65,000 ft (20,000 m)

Source Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Hawk

That be a biggy ... have a look at the other end of the UAV scale -

Miniature UAVs

Miniature Aerial vehicles


And for a rough guide to various types of UAV -

List of unmanned aerial vehicles

List of unmanned aerial vehicles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia