New congress, same old tune, inaccurate

[Frank Whiteley]

Hasn't been keeping up.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/01/17-years-faa-delay-ntsb-air-safety-recommendations

[Mike the Strike]

On Jan 12, 7:58*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> Hasn't been keeping up.
>
> http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/01/17-years-faa...

I wouldn't pay too much attention to the Washington Examiner, they
have been rather shrill over this favorite hobby horse for some
while. Glider/aircraft collisions are hardly the worst thing to worry
about.

I personally am much more concerned about UAVs that are being used
more and more along our borders and likely soon elsewhere. We've had
a few lost and out of control in the past year or two and it's only a
matter of time before we have a more serious accident than we've had
already.

Mike

[Frank Whiteley]

On Jan 12, 6:28*am, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> On Jan 12, 7:58*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>
> > Hasn't been keeping up.
>
> >http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/01/17-years-faa...
>
> I wouldn't pay too much attention to the Washington Examiner, they
> have been rather shrill over this favorite hobby horse for some
> while. *Glider/aircraft collisions are hardly the worst thing to worry
> about.
>
> I personally am much more concerned about UAVs that are being used
> more and more along our borders and likely soon elsewhere. *We've had
> a few lost and out of control in the past year or two and it's only a
> matter of time before we have a more serious accident than we've had
> already.
>
> Mike

However, they do deliver print copies to all of the elected
representative offices.

I agree, I think that's a real concern along the southern border.
There's a pretty strong lobby to get these into state, county, and
local police use. A large part of North Dakota airspace is already
UAV enabled I believe, but that's for military use and maybe for
border patrol training. I don't see UAV as an NTSB searchable field
yet and don't recall any FAA prelims since the one hit the telephone
pole here in Colorado.

Frank

[Mike the Strike]

On Jan 12, 6:05*pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> On Jan 12, 6:28*am, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 12, 7:58*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>
> > > Hasn't been keeping up.
>
> > >http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/01/17-years-faa....
>
> > I wouldn't pay too much attention to the Washington Examiner, they
> > have been rather shrill over this favorite hobby horse for some
> > while. *Glider/aircraft collisions are hardly the worst thing to worry
> > about.
>
> > I personally am much more concerned about UAVs that are being used
> > more and more along our borders and likely soon elsewhere. *We've had
> > a few lost and out of control in the past year or two and it's only a
> > matter of time before we have a more serious accident than we've had
> > already.
>
> > Mike
>
> However, they do deliver print copies to all of the elected
> representative offices.
>
> I agree, I think that's a real concern along the southern border.
> There's a pretty strong lobby to get these into state, county, and
> local police use. *A large part of North Dakota airspace is already
> UAV enabled I believe, but that's for military use and maybe for
> border patrol training. *I don't see UAV as an NTSB searchable field
> yet and don't recall any FAA prelims since the one hit the telephone
> pole here in Colorado.
>
> Frank

Compared to a 1,000 lb glider, a 30,000 lb fully-fueled Predator is a
pretty nasty flying bomb. Still, you don't hear folks talking much
about the incident where a stray Predator shut down Tucson airspace
before auguring into someone's back yard near Nogales a year or so
ago. And there have been plenty of other crashes and mishaps.

No, it's us and our dangerous gliders that need more restrictions!

Mike

[jcarlyle]

Is there any new information on how these UAVs identify themselves to
other aircraft? Do they carry a transponder that a PCAS could pick up?
Is their position known to ATC? In other words, do we know better now
how they fit in with "see and be seen"?

-John

On Jan 12, 12:13 pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> Compared to a 1,000 lb glider, a 30,000 lb fully-fueled Predator is a
> pretty nasty flying bomb. Still, you don't hear folks talking much
> about the incident where a stray Predator shut down Tucson airspace
> before auguring into someone's back yard near Nogales a year or so
> ago. And there have been plenty of other crashes and mishaps.
>
> No, it's us and our dangerous gliders that need more restrictions!

[5Z]

On Jan 12, 9:36*am, jcarlyle > wrote:
> Is there any new information on how these UAVs identify themselves to
> other aircraft? Do they carry a transponder that a PCAS could pick up?

install FLARM in all of them and then insist their operators to
subsidize the purchase and installation of FLARM in VFR GA
aircraft :-)

-Tom

[kirk.stant]

On Jan 12, 11:13*am, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> Compared to a 1,000 lb glider, a 30,000 lb fully-fueled Predator is a
> pretty nasty flying bomb. *

Actual max gross weight of the MQ-1 Predator is 2300lbs. The bigger
MQ-9 Reaper is up to 10,000 lbs.

Both are pretty sure to carry transponders, so military jets can avoid
them in combat areas.

The UAV operators are probably talking to ATC when they are not in
restricted areas (UHF/VHF in the UAV with a SATCOM relay).

The military users of UAVs are just as concerned about midairs (well,
maybe slighly less concerned, since it's only money to them...).

Still not something you want to run into, but PowerFLARM should help.

Kirk

[Ferstlesque]

All Predators and Reapers have transponders with mode C, and maintain
2-way radio communication with ATC (with a phone as backup). Military
Predators and Reapers do all of their training within Restricted
airspace; when they must transit the national airspace to travel to
their operating areas, they do so under an IFR flight plan above FL
180. They cannot "see and avoid" in the common sense of the phrase, so
VFR flight in the NAS is not done. Kirk's estimates on weight are
fairly accurate.

Customs Predator B's have to be flown with a manned aircraft chase
plane at all times in order to meet "see and avoid" criteria, and do
so both inside and outside class A airspace. To me, this is the
epitome of waste (defeats the purpose of UAV's and is well over twice
the cost of a single aircraft with a sensor ball, AKA MC-12)... not to
mention the several-fold increased risk of midair with the aircraft
flying chase. I digress.

Losing an aircraft in other than landing or takeoff is increasingly
rare. If the signal is lost between the UAV and operator, it will fly
back into the vacinity of the home airfield on a pre-programmed, pre-
coordinated route.

I can't speak for other UAV's, but the Predator family does not
warrant the scepticism levied by the masses. Though I can understand
where it's coming from. UAV's are a new concept, and very little is
publicly released.

I flew the Predator for 5 years and have a close friend who chases
Predators around with customs.

If anyone has any other BASIC questions about their operation with
regard to the NAS and manned aircraft, please ask.

Mark

[Mike the Strike]

On Jan 13, 9:33*am, Ferstlesque > wrote:
> All Predators and Reapers have transponders with mode C, and maintain
> 2-way radio communication with ATC (with a phone as backup). Military
> Predators and Reapers do all of their training within Restricted
> airspace; when they must transit the national airspace to travel to
> their operating areas, they do so under an IFR flight plan above FL
> 180. They cannot "see and avoid" in the common sense of the phrase, so
> VFR flight in the NAS is not done. Kirk's estimates on weight are
> fairly accurate.
>
> Customs Predator B's have to be flown with a manned aircraft chase
> plane at all times in order to meet "see and avoid" criteria, and do
> so both inside and outside class A airspace. To me, this is the
> epitome of waste (defeats the purpose of UAV's and is well over twice
> the cost of a single aircraft with a sensor ball, AKA MC-12)... not to
> mention the several-fold increased risk of midair with the aircraft
> flying chase. I digress.
>
> Losing an aircraft in other than landing or takeoff is increasingly
> rare. If the signal is lost between the UAV and operator, it will fly
> back into the vacinity of the home airfield on a pre-programmed, pre-
> coordinated route.
>
> I can't speak for other UAV's, but the Predator family does not
> warrant the scepticism levied by the masses. Though I can understand
> where it's coming from. UAV's are a new concept, and very little is
> publicly released.
>
> I flew the Predator for 5 years and have a close friend who chases
> Predators around with customs.
>
> If anyone has any other BASIC questions about their operation with
> regard to the NAS and manned aircraft, please ask.
>
> Mark

There appears to be little reason (except political ones) to use an
expensive large UAV like the Predator on our domestic borders when the
same job could be done with less manpower and lower cost using manned
aircraft. There is enough published data to show the operational cost
of the Predator far exceeds that of any manned aircraft typically used
on similar photo missions. Also, their controllability,
communications and reliability have not historically been stellar,
even if these are improving.

The future probably lies in smaller, lightweight autonomous drones.

We masses (who, by the way, pay for these things) justifiably get
nervous when they get out of control and auger into our back yards!

Mike

The

[jcarlyle]

Mark, Kirk,

Many thanks for the information on Predator and Reaper UAVs. It's nice
to know that those flying near the national border with a PCAS have a
chance to detect and avoid one of these UAVs.

Do either of you (or anyone else) know anything about the family of
smaller, lighter UAVs that are being proposed for use by the Forest
Service and others for detecting pot fields and forest fires? Do these
also carry transponders? If the "big boys" don't comply with see and
avoid, I assume there's no chance these little guys will, either.

My concern is an encounter with a small UAV while running along the
Appalachian ridges.

-John

Ferstlesque wrote:
> All Predators and Reapers have transponders with mode C, and maintain
> 2-way radio communication with ATC (with a phone as backup). Military
> Predators and Reapers do all of their training within Restricted
> airspace; when they must transit the national airspace to travel to
> their operating areas, they do so under an IFR flight plan above FL
> 180. They cannot "see and avoid" in the common sense of the phrase, so
> VFR flight in the NAS is not done. Kirk's estimates on weight are
> fairly accurate.
>
> Customs Predator B's have to be flown with a manned aircraft chase
> plane at all times in order to meet "see and avoid" criteria, and do
> so both inside and outside class A airspace. To me, this is the
> epitome of waste (defeats the purpose of UAV's and is well over twice
> the cost of a single aircraft with a sensor ball, AKA MC-12)... not to
> mention the several-fold increased risk of midair with the aircraft
> flying chase. I digress.
>
> Losing an aircraft in other than landing or takeoff is increasingly
> rare. If the signal is lost between the UAV and operator, it will fly
> back into the vacinity of the home airfield on a pre-programmed, pre-
> coordinated route.
>
> I can't speak for other UAV's, but the Predator family does not
> warrant the scepticism levied by the masses. Though I can understand
> where it's coming from. UAV's are a new concept, and very little is
> publicly released.
>
> I flew the Predator for 5 years and have a close friend who chases
> Predators around with customs.
>
> If anyone has any other BASIC questions about their operation with
> regard to the NAS and manned aircraft, please ask.
>
> Mark

[vaughn[_3_]]

"Ferstlesque" > wrote in message
...
>
> All Predators and Reapers have transponders with mode C, and maintain
> 2-way radio communication with ATC (with a phone as backup). Military
> Predators and Reapers do all of their training within Restricted
> airspace; when they must transit the national airspace to travel to
> their operating areas, they do so under an IFR flight plan above FL
> 180. They cannot "see and avoid" in the common sense of the phrase, so
> VFR flight in the NAS is not done. Kirk's estimates on weight are
> fairly accurate.

The real danger to GA is implied above. Eventually, some administration will
become convinced that the "see & avoid" concept for UAVs is "too hard", "too
expensive" and (inevitably they will claim) "too dangerous". The "solution"
will be a huge loss of VFR airspace for GA. Further, flight without an
operating transponder will become history. At that point, the entire country
will become controlled airspace.

Vaughn

[Ferstlesque]

Mike, I could not agree with you more on the cost-benefit of the
present type of UAV's along our borders. I am sure it has to do with
the higher ups' obsession with "the newest thing", even if it does the
job more poorly than previous solutions. It's very common in my career
field too, unfortunately.

Vaughn, that would suck. Let's hope the EAA, AOPA and SSA continue to
fight against future encroachment.

[kirk.stant]

On Jan 13, 3:28*pm, Ferstlesque > wrote:
> Mike, I could not agree with you more on the cost-benefit of the
> present type of UAV's along our borders. I am sure it has to do with
> the higher ups' obsession with "the newest thing", even if it does the
> job more poorly than previous solutions. It's very common in my career
> field too, unfortunately.
>
Also agree. Hard to see how in most situations a couple of Huskies
with a semi-retired old fart in the FCP and a young eagle eyed border
patrol kid in the back seat couldn't do the job of a Predator. Less
sexy, I guess (of course, that depends on the kid in the back seat...)

Kirk
Semi-Retired old fart (well, from the first career at least...)

[Frank Whiteley]

On Jan 13, 2:28*pm, Ferstlesque > wrote:
> Mike, I could not agree with you more on the cost-benefit of the
> present type of UAV's along our borders. I am sure it has to do with
> the higher ups' obsession with "the newest thing", even if it does the
> job more poorly than previous solutions. It's very common in my career
> field too, unfortunately.
>
> Vaughn, that would suck. Let's hope the EAA, AOPA and SSA continue to
> fight against future encroachment.

Coming to an airport near you. (Hey, Wichita)
http://tinyurl.com/478oqcf

[Frank Whiteley]

On Jan 14, 8:59*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2:28*pm, Ferstlesque > wrote:
>


>
> Coming to an airport near you. (Hey, Wichita)http://tinyurl.com/478oqcf

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/surveillance/2011-01-13-drones_N.htm

[jcarlyle]

The AOPA article Frank linked to is very discouraging. There are 273
active Certificates of Authorization in the USA, all involving
unmanned systems, but the FAA won't identify where the operation areas
are. AOPA has been trying to get a list of the COAs from the FAA for 4
years, but the FAA refuses to provide it.

This makes no sense. The F-177 and other classified aircraft were
developed inside distinct areas published on aviation charts. Pilots
could call a published number and find out if it was safe to fly in
those areas. In this way public safety and military necessity worked
together well, without compromising security. How come UAVs can't work
this way?

The FAA is supposed to be publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) sometime in June 2011 concerning the operation of unmanned
aircraft systems (UAS) in the national airspace. If would be great if
this NPRM, when it becomes available, is linked to by whoever on RAS
sees it.

-John

On Jan 14, 10:59 am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> Coming to an airport near you. (Hey, Wichita)http://tinyurl.com/478oqcf