Excerpt from article at link:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg19225806.400-uncrewed-aerial-vehicles-no-pilot-no-problem.html

Even if the industry gets its act together in time for the 2011
conference, competition for the desired frequencies - probably between
3 and 10 gigahertz - will be fierce, as burgeoning wireless services
demand their share, says Bruno Esposito of rival Paris-based trade
group Euro UAV, which includes major European aerospace companies such
as EADS, the owner of Airbus. "Telecoms firms are not going to let
bandwidth that they have paid billions for go easily to us," he says.

Some UAVs have been allowed to perform short experimental flights in
civil airspace, but only under very strict conditions. "Each is done
under piles of exemptions to air regulations that take a very long
time to negotiate," says Ian Poll of Cranfield Aerospace in Bedford,
UK. This summer, the Los Angeles county sheriff's department was
forbidden from flying its small police surveillance UAVs because of
the risk to other air traffic. What's more, every time the US
government launches a UAV to patrol the Mexican border in a bid to
prevent illegal immigration, civil traffic is banned over hundreds of
square kilometres.

So if UAVs are to mingle safely with other civilian aircraft, the
industry needs to develop a safe, standardised collision avoidance
system. This is complicated because aviation regulators demand that if
UAVs are to have access to civil airspace, they must be "equivalent"
in every way to regular planes. For instance, when an air-traffic
controller needs to talk to a UAV's remote pilot, the radio link
should work in the same way as it does for an aircraft with an onboard
pilot - the controller must be able to talk to the remote pilot as if
they were sitting in the UAV, rather than having to be manually
patched through by a radio operator.

Similarly, a UAV on a collision course with another aircraft must
behave as if it had a pilot on board. In such situations, conventional
pilots obey an evasive-action order from an onboard "traffic collision
alerting system" (TCAS). Ultimately UAVs will probably respond
automatically to these orders. The problem for now is that aviation
regulators have yet to define precisely what they mean by
"equivalent", so UAV makers are not yet willing to commit themselves
to developing collision-avoidance technology.

There will be some point in the future when we all have
sense-and-avoid technology in our UAVs," says Ed Walby of Northrop
Grumman in San Diego, maker of the city-bus-sized Global Hawk military
UAV. "It's simply an issue of waiting for the policy." The next
version of Global Hawk, dubbed the Block 20, for example, will be
fitted with TCAS, Walby says. This will allow a remote pilot to take
evasive action to avoid a collision, but the system will not work
automatically until the term "equivalent" is defined.

In the UK, the government-backed plans for civilian UAVs to be flying
routinely by 2010 are likely to be held up by this lack of a
collision-avoidance system. The project is aiming to develop a
simulated system by 2008, but that will not leave enough time for it
to be developed and in use by 2010. "It's fair to say that we are not
as far along as we would like," says Bryan Edmonson, a technologist
with Flight Refuelling of Wimborne Minster in Dorset, UK, and a member
of the project's steering board.

On the brighter side, last week the UN's International Civil Aviation
Organization, based in Montreal, Canada, said its navigation experts
would meet in early 2007 to consider regulations for UAVs in civil
airspace. That could be a step towards internationally agreed rules
for how UAVs should operate.

Even if the UN body makes rapid progress, however, it will be
meaningless unless the industry can obtain the necessary frequencies
to control the planes and feed images and other sensor data back to
base, says Bowker. "The lack of robust, secure radio spectrum is a
show-stopper."

Some experts are even more pessimistic. These problems mean civil UAVs
may not have a future at all, a recent conference at the Royal
Aeronautical Society in London heard. One aerospace executive, who
asked to remain anonymous, believes UAVs will never fly in civilian
airspace. "It's something the industry wants badly, but the risks are
too high and the issues too complex."

Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:

> Excerpt from article at link:
>
>
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg19225806.400-uncrewed-aerial-vehicles-no-pilot-no-problem.html
>
(snipped for brevity)

While "the industry" wonders what "equivalent" means, some obvious issues
appear to be minimized, if not ignored. It's not difficult to understand
that any flight control methods that depend on remote radio control and
communication will be inadequate to provide safety in civil airspace. TCAS
is a necessity, but still does not provide separation for aircraft without
transponders. Until AI is advanced enough to allow UAVs to act
autonomously, they will not even approach the loosest interpretation of
equivalence.

Neil

> Here we are, back on the assertion that remote control of airplanes requires
> an advanced degree of artificial intelligence - NOT.
>
> It has been successfully demonstrated since WWII.

It's not the autonomous =control=, it is the decisionmaking that goes
with operating in a crowded VFR environment, that requires the advanced
sensors and AI. Has that been demonstrated?

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Recently, Greg Farris > posted:

> In article >,
> says...
>
>> While "the industry" wonders what "equivalent" means, some obvious
>> issues appear to be minimized, if not ignored. It's not difficult to
>> understand that any flight control methods that depend on remote
>> radio control and communication will be inadequate to provide safety
>> in civil airspace. TCAS is a necessity, but still does not provide
>> separation for aircraft without transponders. Until AI is advanced
>> enough to allow UAVs to act autonomously, they will not even
>> approach the loosest interpretation of equivalence.
>>
>
>
> Here we are, back on the assertion that remote control of airplanes
> requires an advanced degree of artificial intelligence - NOT.
>
> It has been successfully demonstrated since WWII.
>
Indeed, remote control of airplanes is possible with no AI at all. The
question, though, is what will it take to make it possible to insert
remotely controlled vehicles in civil airspace and maintain safety
equivalent to the existing civil environment? The answer to that question
*does* depend on autonomous action to provide "see-and-avoid" behavior. It
doesn't seem like an insurmountable problem, but it is insurmountable if
nobody is working on it, which is the implication of the article.

Neil

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 21:40:00 -0800, Greg Farris >
wrote in >:

>Here we are, back on the assertion that remote control of airplanes requires
>an advanced degree of artificial intelligence - NOT.
>
>It has been successfully demonstrated since WWII.


http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg19225806.400/mg19225806.400-2_891.jpg
A German army UAV over Kabul in 2004 as it almost hits an Afghan
jet carrying more than 100 passengers

In article >,
says...

>While "the industry" wonders what "equivalent" means, some obvious issues
>appear to be minimized, if not ignored. It's not difficult to understand
>that any flight control methods that depend on remote radio control and
>communication will be inadequate to provide safety in civil airspace. TCAS
>is a necessity, but still does not provide separation for aircraft without
>transponders. Until AI is advanced enough to allow UAVs to act
>autonomously, they will not even approach the loosest interpretation of
>equivalence.
>


Here we are, back on the assertion that remote control of airplanes requires
an advanced degree of artificial intelligence - NOT.

It has been successfully demonstrated since WWII.

GF

In article >,
says...
>
>
>> Here we are, back on the assertion that remote control of airplanes requires
>> an advanced degree of artificial intelligence - NOT.
>>
>> It has been successfully demonstrated since WWII.
>
>It's not the autonomous =control=, it is the decisionmaking that goes
>with operating in a crowded VFR environment, that requires the advanced
>sensors and AI. Has that been demonstrated?
>

No - re-reading the thread, I'm probably off-track on this one.
I thought we were once again talking about externalized control of aircraft,
not fully autonomous control of unmanned vehicles. Since the subject this time
around appears to be the latter, I must agree with you (ane Niel) that the
problem becomes complex. My apologies for the mis-read.

GF

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Some UAVs have been allowed to perform short experimental flights in
> civil airspace, but only under very strict conditions.
>

What is "civil airspace"?

On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:19:52 -0800, Larry Dighera wrote
(in article >):


>
> Some experts are even more pessimistic. These problems mean civil UAVs
> may not have a future at all, a recent conference at the Royal
> Aeronautical Society in London heard. One aerospace executive, who
> asked to remain anonymous, believes UAVs will never fly in civilian
> airspace. "It's something the industry wants badly, but the risks are
> too high and the issues too complex."

And they have not even addressed the liability issues yet.

These vehicles are not "uncrewed." They have a crew, even if it remains on
the ground. And that crew has the same liability as any other crew.

As for using TCAS for traffic avoidance, we all know how well that works.
Large numbers of aircraft have no transponders at all, or even an electrical
system to run them.

These guys have to get their heads out of the idea that all the only things
in the air are airliners. The appalling ignorance of these people is scary.

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 07:00:16 -0800, Steven P. McNicoll wrote
(in article >):

>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Some UAVs have been allowed to perform short experimental flights in
>> civil airspace, but only under very strict conditions.
>>
>
> What is "civil airspace"?
>
>

Non-military airspace? Not a restricted area? Not Class F?

"Christopher Campbell" > wrote in message
e.com...
>
> Non-military airspace?
>

That implies there is something called "military airspace". Is there?


>
> Not a restricted area?
>

So "civil airspace" is all airspace outside of a Restricted Area?


>
> Not Class F?
>

Civil aircraft can operate in ICAO Class F airspace.

> These vehicles are not "uncrewed." They have a crew, even if it remains on
> the ground. And that crew has the same liability as any other crew.

No, they only have the same liability (if that) in court. They have far
less liability to the laws of physics.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 09:09:18 -0800, Jose wrote
(in article >):

>> These vehicles are not "uncrewed." They have a crew, even if it remains on
>> the ground. And that crew has the same liability as any other crew.
>
> No, they only have the same liability (if that) in court. They have far
> less liability to the laws of physics.
>

Maybe what we need is a requirement that all drone operators have to sit in
front of a spring-loaded spear. If their drone hits another aircraft for any
reason, then the spear is released into the operator's chest.

"Christopher Campbell" > wrote in message
e.com...
>
> Maybe what we need is a requirement that all drone operators have to sit
> in
> front of a spring-loaded spear. If their drone hits another aircraft for
> any
> reason, then the spear is released into the operator's chest.
>

Drones don't have operators.

Steven P. McNicoll writes:

> Drones don't have operators.

Put the spear in front of the engineers who designed it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In article >,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> Drones don't have operators.

The drone doesn't just launch itself.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>
> The drone doesn't just launch itself.
>

Correct.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Some UAVs have been allowed to perform short experimental flights in
>> civil airspace, but only under very strict conditions.
>>
>
> What is "civil airspace"?
>

I would think NOT military.

Danny Deger

"Danny Deger" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> What is "civil airspace"?
>>
>
> I would think NOT military.
>

That would seem logical. Any idea where such airspace can be found?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Danny Deger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>> What is "civil airspace"?
>>>
>>
>> I would think NOT military.
>>
>
> That would seem logical. Any idea where such airspace can be found?
>

Most military bases have military airspace around them for training. The
test centers all have large military airspace as does the places that have
large military exercises, e.g. Red Flag. I assume most UAV flying in the
US is done in these airspaces.

Danny

"Danny Deger" > wrote in message
...
>
> Most military bases have military airspace around them for training. The
> test centers all have large military airspace as does the places that have
> large military exercises, e.g. Red Flag. I assume most UAV flying in the
> US is done in these airspaces.
>

We're looking for the opposite.

Danny Deger writes:

> I assume most UAV flying in the US is done in these airspaces.

There's a worrisome little note that appears to apply to non-military
airspace on the sectional chart for Palmdale:

"CAUTION: Unmanned Aircraft System operations conducted in this area
below 14,000' MSL. See and avoid responsibilities being provided
through ground observers and chase aircraft. Contact Joshua Control on
124.55, 363.0 for activity information and advisory service."

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Danny Deger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Most military bases have military airspace around them for training. The
>> test centers all have large military airspace as does the places that
>> have large military exercises, e.g. Red Flag. I assume most UAV flying
>> in the US is done in these airspaces.
>>
>
> We're looking for the opposite.
>

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Danny Deger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Most military bases have military airspace around them for training. The
>> test centers all have large military airspace as does the places that
>> have large military exercises, e.g. Red Flag. I assume most UAV flying
>> in the US is done in these airspaces.
>>
>
> We're looking for the opposite.
>

As far as I know, that would be "everything else". I think 99% of airspace
in the USA is civilian.

Danny Deger

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:39:32 -0600, "Danny Deger"
> wrote in
>:

>I think 99% of airspace in the USA is civilian.

The FAA is responsible for the NAS; it just agrees to let the military
use some of it at certain times, IIRC.

Larry Dighera wrote:
> For instance, when an air-traffic
> controller needs to talk to a UAV's remote pilot, the radio link
> should work in the same way as it does for an aircraft with an onboard
> pilot - the controller must be able to talk to the remote pilot as if
> they were sitting in the UAV, rather than having to be manually
> patched through by a radio operator.
>
I think this is going to be pretty hard for them to do
because ATC has never told anyone to do anything absurd or dangerous...

The thing needs to be like a pilot, listening to ATC, but making it's
own decisions and asking questions... also, anything with voice
recognition will be interesting (there are controlers that are just
harder to understand than others).

"Danny Deger" > wrote in message
...
>
> As far as I know, that would be "everything else". I think 99% of
> airspace in the USA is civilian.
>

The military is barred from 99% of US airspace?

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> The FAA is responsible for the NAS; it just agrees to let the military
> use some of it at certain times, IIRC.
>

I'm pretty sure the military can use damn near any airspace at any time.

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:52:59 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> The FAA is responsible for the NAS; it just agrees to let the military
>> use some of it at certain times, IIRC.
>>
>
>I'm pretty sure the military can use damn near any airspace at any time.
>

I omitted the word 'exclusively' inadvertently.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:39:32 -0600, "Danny Deger"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>I think 99% of airspace in the USA is civilian.
>
> The FAA is responsible for the NAS; it just agrees to let the military
> use some of it at certain times, IIRC.
>

Well put. This is also my understanding.

Danny Deger

Steven P. McNicoll writes:

> I'm pretty sure the military can use damn near any airspace at any time.

The military obeys the civilians, not the other way around.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Steven P. McNicoll writes:

> The military is barred from 99% of US airspace?

Not if it follows the civilian rules.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

mad8 writes:

> The thing needs to be like a pilot, listening to ATC, but making it's
> own decisions and asking questions... also, anything with voice
> recognition will be interesting (there are controlers that are just
> harder to understand than others).

ATC: Hotel alpha lima one zero zero zero, turn left heading zero nine
zero, descend and maintain six thousand for traffic.

UAV: I'm sorry, Dave, but hotel alpha lima one zero zero zero is
unable.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Now THAT was funny!!!

Merry Christmas Anthony.


"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> mad8 writes:
>
>> The thing needs to be like a pilot, listening to ATC, but making it's
>> own decisions and asking questions... also, anything with voice
>> recognition will be interesting (there are controlers that are just
>> harder to understand than others).
>
> ATC: Hotel alpha lima one zero zero zero, turn left heading zero nine
> zero, descend and maintain six thousand for traffic.
>
> UAV: I'm sorry, Dave, but hotel alpha lima one zero zero zero is
> unable.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

lmao.

Hotel alpha lima one zero zero zero I know I've made some very poor
decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my
work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and
confidence in the mission. And I want to help you.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> mad8 writes:
>
> > The thing needs to be like a pilot, listening to ATC, but making it's
> > own decisions and asking questions... also, anything with voice
> > recognition will be interesting (there are controlers that are just
> > harder to understand than others).
>
> ATC: Hotel alpha lima one zero zero zero, turn left heading zero nine
> zero, descend and maintain six thousand for traffic.
>
> UAV: I'm sorry, Dave, but hotel alpha lima one zero zero zero is
> unable.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Shouldn't that be Hotel Alpha Lima Niner Triple Zero?

"mad8" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> lmao.
>
> Hotel alpha lima one zero zero zero I know I've made some very poor
> decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my
> work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and
> confidence in the mission. And I want to help you.
>

LWG writes:

> Shouldn't that be Hotel Alpha Lima Niner Triple Zero?

Triple isn't part of the ICAO/FAA phonetic alphabet, as far as I know,
although I imagine some people use it in practice. The British are
very fond of "double" and "triple."

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Uh, it was the HAL _9_000.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> LWG writes:
>
>> Shouldn't that be Hotel Alpha Lima Niner Triple Zero?
>
> Triple isn't part of the ICAO/FAA phonetic alphabet, as far as I know,
> although I imagine some people use it in practice. The British are
> very fond of "double" and "triple."
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

LWG wrote:
> > Shouldn't that be Hotel Alpha Lima Niner Triple Zero?

indeed, my bad, it should be niner

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Triple isn't part of the ICAO/FAA phonetic alphabet, as far as I know,
> although I imagine some people use it in practice. The British are
> very fond of "double" and "triple."

as far as i've seen (then again, i'm just a lowly primary student that
hasn't even soloed yet)
triple is used (at least by the airport's tower and by me/my CFI)
because we report as November triple-three blah blah or November
triple-five blah blah depending on what we're flying