National Air Support: UAV's
Thread Starter
National Air Support: UAV's
UAS/ UAVs were on the agenda at the National Police Aviation Service meeting in 2009. As reported in the Times earlier in the year (and evidenced in the documents linked below) use of UAVs are on a wish list for the London Olympics.
in late 2009 head of business development security at BAE, who are lead development team with NPAO, described the potential role out of UAVs as a "fundamental change to Air Support for the Police"
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...DISCLOSURE.pdf
The question is will UAVs will be sold to the public as a replacement for helicopters? There is no doubt that they will be a valuable tool but they should not be considered a replacement for helicopters in all circumstances.
Under the watch of the press, the roll out of UAS would falter if this is the public's expectation.
The latest 'small" (sub 7kgs) four rotor systems are basically autonomous and relatively easy to learn to "fly" But can they be deployed in enough numbers from the back of a patrol cars to be able to launch with a similar response time to the typical police helicopter? It would be a brave chief constable to commit to a full scale rollout.
Can a small UAS track a suspect for few miles when ine of sight operation is mandatory by aviation authorities at the moment?
Small UAS/UAVs should be allowed a few years of creative deployment and tweaking on the job, rather than to ape manned helicopters from day one.
Larger more expensive UAS for coastal patrols ect will be a valuable addition to aerial policing, it remains to be seen if CAA will allow their use within control zones and over densely populated areas.
In the meantime expect to see 7kg systems whirring around below 200 feet, but unless the operator has a high vantage point they won't be straying too far.
Mickjoebill
in late 2009 head of business development security at BAE, who are lead development team with NPAO, described the potential role out of UAVs as a "fundamental change to Air Support for the Police"
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...DISCLOSURE.pdf
The question is will UAVs will be sold to the public as a replacement for helicopters? There is no doubt that they will be a valuable tool but they should not be considered a replacement for helicopters in all circumstances.
Under the watch of the press, the roll out of UAS would falter if this is the public's expectation.
The latest 'small" (sub 7kgs) four rotor systems are basically autonomous and relatively easy to learn to "fly" But can they be deployed in enough numbers from the back of a patrol cars to be able to launch with a similar response time to the typical police helicopter? It would be a brave chief constable to commit to a full scale rollout.
Can a small UAS track a suspect for few miles when ine of sight operation is mandatory by aviation authorities at the moment?
Small UAS/UAVs should be allowed a few years of creative deployment and tweaking on the job, rather than to ape manned helicopters from day one.
Larger more expensive UAS for coastal patrols ect will be a valuable addition to aerial policing, it remains to be seen if CAA will allow their use within control zones and over densely populated areas.
In the meantime expect to see 7kg systems whirring around below 200 feet, but unless the operator has a high vantage point they won't be straying too far.
Mickjoebill
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's not start with the UAV subject again 
- surely that's for a different thread.
This is about the impending budget cuts, with everyone waiting for news ( hopefully today ) of how the exisitng Air Support Units will be affected.
To clarify : The above was originally posted in the "Police helicopter budget cuts" thread and has been transferred across here to a new Thread dealing with UAV's.
- surely that's for a different thread.This is about the impending budget cuts, with everyone waiting for news ( hopefully today ) of how the exisitng Air Support Units will be affected.
To clarify : The above was originally posted in the "Police helicopter budget cuts" thread and has been transferred across here to a new Thread dealing with UAV's.
Last edited by Coconutty; 18th Oct 2010 at 11:46. Reason: Clrification that message originally posted elsewhere !
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlyForFun & Coconutty
I think this document highlights that there is a group within the ACPO framework who have already made some progress with trying to understand how some tasks currently undertaken by the ASU could be done without a helicopter.
This will no doubt assist in the discussions have a sound footing rather than simply being a case of "we can do it all with drones, so scrap the helicopters" type of response to budget cuts.
I think this document highlights that there is a group within the ACPO framework who have already made some progress with trying to understand how some tasks currently undertaken by the ASU could be done without a helicopter.
This will no doubt assist in the discussions have a sound footing rather than simply being a case of "we can do it all with drones, so scrap the helicopters" type of response to budget cuts.
Thread Starter
UAS traction
et's not start with the UAV subject again - surely that's for a different thread.
My understanding is the goals are to both provide a tool with different capabilities to a helicopter and also to make aerial surveillance cheaper, so what better time for the idea to gain (perhaps a little too much) traction than now?
Mickjoebill
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what better time
whereas the UAV's ( which certainly have their place ), are not currently licensed for use by the Police in this Country.
The document refers to plans for prototype testing during 2010,
and Airship testing ( in lieu of UAV ) to overcome CAA restrictions,
but full operational capability is not planned until 2012.
Could be good for the Olympics etc, but don't hold your breath waiting for UAV's
to fill in where the current fleet are slashed if it happens before then !
Now - Where are those spies we were hoping would appear yesterday with news from the ACPO meeting ?
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Two words to add to the UAV/UAS debate;
Frequency Jamming.
Frequency Jamming.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sid, this is not as easy as you may think with the stuff from Warton. This is not a case of going to Maplin and buying a transmitter to steal the UAS as it gets closer to you than it is to the operator.
As for Cocnutty's reposnse about the time to get them certified by the CAA, well I think I covered that in some depth already, but in case you missed it....the people demanding the changes are the people who make the rules.
If Parliament decides to give the Police less money to spend and the Police say they can't do the job for that money, because of legal obstructions, then Parliament can decide to make it possible for them to do the job by removing the obstructions.
I'm not saying they will, but they can.
As for Cocnutty's reposnse about the time to get them certified by the CAA, well I think I covered that in some depth already, but in case you missed it....the people demanding the changes are the people who make the rules.
If Parliament decides to give the Police less money to spend and the Police say they can't do the job for that money, because of legal obstructions, then Parliament can decide to make it possible for them to do the job by removing the obstructions.
I'm not saying they will, but they can.
Thread Starter
There seems to be a keenness to introduce this new technique at the expense of manned helicopters which IMHO does not sit well with such a critical event as the Olympics. New technology + aviation = high risk.
I've just done a job with 5 helicopters airborne at a time, 5x microwave links ect, covering a sports event for TV. I don't see why technically, the met can't bring in more aircraft for three weeks, a more reliable option than "going for gold" with UAVs.
If there is a prospect of numerous police drones and TV sports micro drones flying around the Olympics, who will be able to identify and act if the bad guys decide to launch one of their own?
Mickjoebill
I've just done a job with 5 helicopters airborne at a time, 5x microwave links ect, covering a sports event for TV. I don't see why technically, the met can't bring in more aircraft for three weeks, a more reliable option than "going for gold" with UAVs.
If there is a prospect of numerous police drones and TV sports micro drones flying around the Olympics, who will be able to identify and act if the bad guys decide to launch one of their own?
Mickjoebill
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Sid, this is not as easy as you may think with the stuff from Warton. This is not a case of going to Maplin and buying a transmitter to steal the UAS as it gets closer to you than it is to the operator.
Once a real procurement quango is in operation, it would quckly find they would be prohibitively expensive, especially when you add in the crewing requirements, which I think you'll find match what we have now operating real aircraft.
You don't need to go to maplins for the hardware, china based companies can provide jammers cheaper. It is as simple as that :-)
Thread Starter
UAV, UAS and DRONE 101
And just how much so these Warton military grade/spec UAVs cost?
Once a real procurement quango is in operation, it would quickly find they would be prohibitively expensive, especially when you add in the crewing requirements, which I think you'll find match what we have now operating real aircraft.
You don't need to go to maplins for the hardware, china based companies can provide jammers cheaper. It is as simple as that :-)
Once a real procurement quango is in operation, it would quickly find they would be prohibitively expensive, especially when you add in the crewing requirements, which I think you'll find match what we have now operating real aircraft.
You don't need to go to maplins for the hardware, china based companies can provide jammers cheaper. It is as simple as that :-)
CCTV in the sky: police plan to use military-style spy drones | UK news | The Guardian
The other type are loosely called micro drones with a payload of a few kilos and so capable of carrying a transmitter, small thermal camera, digital stills camera or TV camera with 10x zoom. The popular models have quad rotors, a flight computer with auto hover, self land using gps and other instruments. Fully equipped with a downlink (1km range) and camera they cost around US$40k. It takes just a day of training to be competent, in this respect they are far easier to learn to operate than a model helicopter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/E...de/8510370.stm
There is also talk of an airship like the BAE GA22 being used during the Olympics, this also being called a "drone'.
In respect to jammers I'd suggest that the commercial models could be hacked so new code would need to be written and kept confidential. The military manage to achieve this as there are not too many reports of UAVs going haywire.
In the event of loss of control signals or other problems, the microdrones and UAVs shift into fully autonomous mode and land themselves in a predetermined location.
So there are two ends of the spectrum one with low setup cost but not capable yet of being flown beyond 1km from the operator and the other more expensive, long range military style UAV, requiring more expensive infrastructure and a significant change in thinking from CAA about them being flown over congested areas.
To share the cost, Kent police (who have been leading the charge) are looking for partners from other agencies for the long range drone. They have been working with BAE as primary aircraft supplier.
I think we can agree that an autonomous drone patrolling the South coast 24/7 is an efficient and effective use of a drone.
But it is a quantum leap to suggest, as they have, that they be used in numbers, during the Olympics, when there is existing capable and proven technology. From the outside looking in, it looks like the Olympics are being used for gain traction to launch the coastal operation.
A 5O knot orbit in a fixed wing at 2000 feet won't always get you a continuous picture of a suspect in typically narrow UK streets, but hover and slow track and follow capability of a twin engine helicopter will get the job done.
from the web
"The UK Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) published a tender IN September. Soca's efforts are focused on tackling organised gangs involved in drug smuggling, human trafficking, gun crime, money laundering and identity theft. Often described as Britain's FBI, the organisation is led by Sir Ian Andrews, a former senior Ministry of Defence official.
The agency's request for bids is entitled "UK-London: intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance". It proposes the use of both conventional planes and UAVs for a national air patrol service. The document suggests the surveillance contract could be put out to a private company.
Speaking on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers, ACC Allyn Thomas of Kent police confirmed that Staffordshire, Merseyide and Essex were using drones. "It is a cheaper option [than helicopters]," he said, "along with the opportunity to use the drones when cloud base cover makes it impossible for the conventional air support to fly."
Mickjoebill
Last edited by mickjoebill; 17th Oct 2010 at 03:38.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
For these micro-drones, another 2 'words', GPS Jammers.
Still no rumours or leaks then!
Perhaps there is nothing to be leaked after all
Still no rumours or leaks then!
Perhaps there is nothing to be leaked after all
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having spoken to the BAE UAV project team 3 years ago they were looking to compliment Air Support rather than replace it. They were keen to find out which tasks were more suited to UAVs, ie the longer term/planned/repetitive/hovering over one point or flying a preplanned search type job, as opposed to the aerial detective agency/fast paced/changing perameters type jobs that are the domain of manned aircraft.
As I say, this was 3 years ago and the country and the economy have changed a lot since then! The opinion then was that these UAVs would save operational helicopter hours and thus reduce costs (slightly). The larger types still require significant infrastructure such as ground crew operators working shifts, vehicles, an airfield or short strip to operate to and from, fuel installation, maintenance etc, infact not unlike an air support unit!
As I say, this was 3 years ago and the country and the economy have changed a lot since then! The opinion then was that these UAVs would save operational helicopter hours and thus reduce costs (slightly). The larger types still require significant infrastructure such as ground crew operators working shifts, vehicles, an airfield or short strip to operate to and from, fuel installation, maintenance etc, infact not unlike an air support unit!
Thread Starter
UAV flight rules
Occasionally in the UK during news and sporting events there are two or more twin engine aircraft operating where visual seperation is the last line of defence, both in controlled and uncontrolled airspace.
But if UAV pilots are operating "under the hood" how do we determine what suite of instruments are required in the UAV to maintain the equivelant level of saftey provided by visual seperation, especially in uncontrolled airspace?
Should the larger UAVs fly under the same flight rules as manned aircraft, such as requiring twin power plants when operating over built up areas?
Mickjoebill
But if UAV pilots are operating "under the hood" how do we determine what suite of instruments are required in the UAV to maintain the equivelant level of saftey provided by visual seperation, especially in uncontrolled airspace?
Should the larger UAVs fly under the same flight rules as manned aircraft, such as requiring twin power plants when operating over built up areas?
Mickjoebill
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So one of these proper drones can take off in one country be handed over to another and off to do the job. Seemless 
But this is the UK we can't even talk to another force with out it getting
cked up. We have no chance 
But this is the UK we can't even talk to another force with out it getting
cked up. We have no chance
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACC Allyn Thomas of Kent police confirmed that Staffordshire, Merseyide and Essex were using drones.
after losing control of it
( Wonder why that was ? - SS - Any ideas 
),... and then didn't the other forces stop using them around the same time
after the CAA raised concerns about the legality of using them without a licence ?
Thread Starter
after the CAA raised concerns about the legality of using them without a license ?
GPS jamming will indeed put the commercially available micro drones into auto land mode, but the larger more expensive UAVs could be manually flown back to base.
I'd suggest that a manned police helicopter be a good defense against unwanted micro drones with sinister 2kg payloads. We need manned helicopters over London (along with other measures) in 2012 to help counter this serious new threat.
Microdrones; a poor government's ASU and a poor terrorists' cruise missile.
Mickjoebill
MJB: the UK position has substantially changed via the CAA. There is now a permitting process and there was a change in the ANO last January. There is a 400ft AGL height limit - but the operator must remain in visual contact with the UAV and the max distance for this is 500m. Must not fly over congested areas at less than 150m, nor within 50m of any person, vehicle, vessel or structure "not under the control of the aircraft operator". Not within 30m of any person. Must have fail-safe systems. Not allowed in CAS or ATZ without ATC permission.
And all operators must have British Model Flying Association "B" certificate.
There was an incident at Buckingham Palace in September which caused this to be released.
And your point about number of engines is irrelevant. The most popular models have 6 or 8 electric motors.
Here's a 4-engine one controlled by iPhone and a wifi connection.
And all operators must have British Model Flying Association "B" certificate.
There was an incident at Buckingham Palace in September which caused this to be released.
And your point about number of engines is irrelevant. The most popular models have 6 or 8 electric motors.
Here's a 4-engine one controlled by iPhone and a wifi connection.
Over on this side of the pond, two years ago, I did some prelim research to make a recommendation to a police detective I know. He occasionally works with the Feds on homicide and serious crime/gang/burglary cases. He is in awe of their kit. He is also frustrated that the city isn't rich enough to afford police helicopters.
I explained a few of the advantages and disadvantages of UAV's for a surveillance role, or pursuit, and then we laid out the city map.
I was pretty familiar with the local VFR and IFR traffic patterns, which I pointed out as being a NON trivial issue for his department. He asked why, and I offered a perspective both on basic air traffic safety and the Air Command and Control points I learned doing both Joint and Combined operations, home and abroad.
He'd rather the city have police helicopters. His captain (not the Chief of Police) is absolutely not interested in more links to the Feds, which means he's not too keen on the program/proposal I offered (pro bono) to help him pursue.
In our city, this idea is either dead, waiting for that captain to retire, or waiting for some federal money.
There is to my eye some very productive use that can be made locally for use of UAV, but getting the trained and experienced personnel will probably have to wait until after the Afgh and Iraq wars are over, and a significant number of vets with hands on experience are more available in our area.
The part that scares me is ... in a UAV, you can't "see and avoid" as a helicopter can. With a municipality that at present can't afford the overhead for a modest air C2 arrangement, I'd not want to see UAV being operated by the police force.
Fed money? We shall see, it always comes with a string attached.
I explained a few of the advantages and disadvantages of UAV's for a surveillance role, or pursuit, and then we laid out the city map.
I was pretty familiar with the local VFR and IFR traffic patterns, which I pointed out as being a NON trivial issue for his department. He asked why, and I offered a perspective both on basic air traffic safety and the Air Command and Control points I learned doing both Joint and Combined operations, home and abroad.
He'd rather the city have police helicopters. His captain (not the Chief of Police) is absolutely not interested in more links to the Feds, which means he's not too keen on the program/proposal I offered (pro bono) to help him pursue.
In our city, this idea is either dead, waiting for that captain to retire, or waiting for some federal money.
There is to my eye some very productive use that can be made locally for use of UAV, but getting the trained and experienced personnel will probably have to wait until after the Afgh and Iraq wars are over, and a significant number of vets with hands on experience are more available in our area.
The part that scares me is ... in a UAV, you can't "see and avoid" as a helicopter can. With a municipality that at present can't afford the overhead for a modest air C2 arrangement, I'd not want to see UAV being operated by the police force.
Fed money? We shall see, it always comes with a string attached.