UAVs to share civil airpace by 2008?

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5025745/

Hmmm....

I don't know about this. Probably no big deal, but still.

[gatt]

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
news:gmrrc.132494\

> I don't know about this. Probably no big deal, but still.

I bet the local news networks just can't wait for those robot traffic
cameras to replace their live pilots and aircraft. Well, since there's a
computer involved, maybe UAV pilot job will pay more. Brush up on those
video games!

-c

[me]

And this might be the outcome if you have a mid air with one of them.

"We dont know anything about a drone"

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/05/21/mystery.plane/index.html

JG



"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
...
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5025745/
>
> Hmmm....
>
> I don't know about this. Probably no big deal, but still.
>
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 21 May 2004 17:53:16 GMT, "Thomas J. Paladino Jr."
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5025745/
>
>Hmmm....
>
>I don't know about this. Probably no big deal, but still.
>


“The fundamental underpinnings of this program are, how can we safely
introduce this class into the national airspace system?” said Jeff
Bauer, manager of the $360 million NASA program.


http://www.uavnas.aero/index.html
Welcome to Access 5 ()

Opening the Nation's Airspace Safely to Remotely Operated Aircraft
for Important New Applications in Transportation, Commerce,
Science and Secruity.


http://www.uavnas.aero/ace/news/civilairspace_apr04.html
Civil Airspace Article from Union-Tribune ("Increasing use in
civilian airspace raises safety issues").


>December 2003
>
>
>a collaborative NASA,
>FAA, DoD, industry effort sponsored the forum. Access
>Five is focused on safely introducing high altitude,
>long endurance remotely operated aircraft, into the
>National Airspace System within 5 years. Access Five
>calls the range of applications for the new aircraft "Dull
>and Dangerous Missions." Possibilities include
>pipeline, power-line and critical infrastructure
>monitoring, cargo delivery, fire and flood
>management, hurricane tracking, telecommunication
>platform provision, search and rescue assistance, crop
>harvesting, and marine fisheries monitoring.
>involved.
>
>The event closed with a roundtable
>discussion of members from NASA, DOD,
>Northrop Grumman, the Boeing Company, and FAA.
>Quentin Smith, AVR-4, moderated the forum. Smith
>said, "Our goal is to enable FAA and other government
>employees to experience first hand a revolutionary
>technology program that will be in the vanguard of
>change, affecting future development of aerospace in
>the U.S."
>"Envisioning the Future of Aviation"
>Dres Zellweger and Andy Lacher (MITRE) participated
>in the AIAA's 3rd Aviation Technology, Integration, and
>Operations Technical Forum held in Denver, CO
>November 17-19, 2003. Andy was the moderator and
>leadoff speaker in a session entitled "Envisioning the
>Future of Aviation". Andy's presentation focused on air
>transportation trends. Dres gave a talk at the same
>session on the JPO. Other presentations were by John
>Cavolowsky (NASA Ames) on the role of research and
>importance of modeling and simulation and by J.P.
>Clarke (MIT) on "wild new ideas". The panel of
>speakers and the 40 session participants engaged in a
>lively discussion after the presentations. Several
>people talked about airports as the real bottleneck for
>achieving a three-fold increase in capacity; there was
>agreement that one cannot accurately predict 20 years
>into the future and that it was therefore important not
>to work toward a point solution for air transportation
>in 2025; and finally, it was pointed out that a strategy
>of waiting to implement new technology until new
>concepts are well defined was a poor strategy - rather
>one should postulate and implement the most likely
>air and ground technology infrastructure to meet the
>range of possible future concepts early and use this as
>a basis for steps in the transformation to future
>concepts.
>
>Joint Planning Office
>801 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 100
>Washington, DC 20004
>Joint Planning Office
>Next Generation System
>
>The FAA auditorium was filled last week with NASA,
>DoD, and industry participants for the first in a series of
>town hall technology forums initiated by the JPO.
>Thursday's topic was Remotely Operated Aircraft,
>commonly known as UAV's. The JPO, in cooperation
>with the Access Five program, a collaborative NASA,...
>
>The FAA reauthorization language calls for a Joint Planning Office, with
>the authority to coordinate the goals and priorities across the
>agencies while "creating and carrying out" a National Plan for
>the Next Generation Air Transportation System. There was a
>great turn out for the inaugural Town Hall Meeting on
>transforming ideas, "Unmanned vehicles in the NAS". Our pace
>will continue to pick up as we reach more constituencies. Karl
>Grundmann and Charlie Heuttner will be reaching out to more
>than 100 organizations and individuals to get their thoughts
>on what the National Plan should be, and how industry can be
>involved. Stay tuned!


http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2282185
....
Today, at least 32 countries are developing a total of more than 250
models of UAV, and 41 countries already operate 80 types. Most of
these are reconnaissance craft, but pilotless aircraft will also be
the combat vehicles of the future. As the leading frontier in aviation
research, the military's ideas and development on UAVs will be
influential in the rest of aviation.

As UAVs have proved themselves in various theatres of war, military
interest has blossomed. In the past two years, American spending on
them has gone from $300m-400m a year to over $1 billion, according to
Laurence Newcome, who runs the website “UAV Forum”. America's
Department of Defence expects to spend $16 billion on UAVs between
2002 and 2010. According to a UAV road map from America's Department
of Defence, by 2012 UAVs the size of F-16 fighter aircraft are likely
to exist. These will be capable of many combat and support missions,
including the suppression of enemy air defences and electronic attacks
on enemy sensors. The ultimate goal is to enable America to project
its power on to the far side of the globe with no need for nearby air
bases, or risk to the lives of pilots.

Initially, pilots and a lot of equipment will be needed back at base
to control these remote UAVs. To start with, such bases will look like
glorified video-game arcades. Later, pilots may control their craft
via suits linked to their neuro-muscular systems. The pilot would
sense what the UAV was seeing through sensors on a head-mounted visor.
But by 2015-2020, as onboard processing power begins to take off, UAVs
are expected to start thinking for themselves. This could lead
ultimately to completely autonomous UAVs and swarms of UAVs that talk
to one another and operate as a single unit. Research is already under
way on the technologies to command thousands of airborne drones.

By 2020, the Pentagon estimates that one-third of America's combat
planes will be robotic. UAVs certainly look as though they will be
commanding a large share of future military spending (see chart). And
the Joint Strike Fighter being built by Lockheed Martin looks as
though it will be the last new manned American fighter for decades. By
2100, human military pilots will be a quaint oddity. Why? Even if
pilots could be beefed up with an exoskeleton that would allow their
bodies to turn under a force 20 times that of the Earth's gravity,
they think and react more slowly than computers.

By 2030, it is even possible that UAVs ...

Manufacturers of civilian aircraft are treading warily on the issue of
removing the pilot. The aircraft they are now designing for operation
into the 2040s use computers to pick up, and correct, pilot error. But
the practicality, and safety, of doing away with the pilot altogether
could eventually become obvious to all as, in 20 or 30 years, the
military begins to use pilotless vehicles to airlift soldiers, and
UAVs start moving cargo routinely around the world. And small UAVs,
some say, might one day buzz around cities in place of the Fedex
delivery van. ...

find early applications in a wide array of commercial and
transnational uses—from fire fighting to geological and environmental
surveys, border patrol, film production, research, rescue and even
agriculture. These could emerge before the end of the decade if UAVs
can obtain swift regulatory approval. And UAVs will not merely replace
existing, piloted applications. They will also create new markets. One
of their most valuable uses could be as “pseudosatellites”, hovering
over cities, providing broadband-communication platforms at a fraction
of the cost of the geostationary satellites that currently do that
job.

The biggest breakthrough in civil aviation, though, would be the
invention of the aerial equivalent of the motor car. The era of the
personal “air car” has been predicted since the 1930s. And although
much progress is being made, it is still not likely to happen in the
foreseeable future. There are some big obstacles.

What is well under way, though, is a new breed of piloted light jet or
micro-jet that is designed to operate halfway between public and
private transport—a form of air taxi. One such craft is the Eclipse
500. Designed for six people, it is a cheap jet, selling for under
$1m. Its creators, Eclipse Aviation of Albuquerque, New Mexico, claim
it is cheaper to operate than any jet in existence, and that it has
several thousand orders already. Many rival micro-jets are also on the
way, including one made by Adam Aircraft Industries of Englewood,
Colorado. It is more expensive than the Eclipse 500 but could arrive
as soon as the end of next year.

To exploit the availability of such smaller aircraft, the entire
air-transport system will have to be overhauled. The number of
domestic air travellers in America, for example, is expected to triple
within 20 years according to an aeronautics blueprint by America's
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). But if this is
to happen, many more of America's 5,000 regional airports will have to
be used. Currently, only 64 airports carry 85% of the country's civil
air traffic. Yet in the past decade, only one large hub airport and
seven new runways have been opened. Given the constraints, few new big
hub airports are likely to be built.

True personal air transport, however, will require vertical take-off
and landing, not just better access to regional airports. For safety,
it may well be necessary to have them operate using the technology for
pilotless vehicles. They will also require far more sophisticated
air-traffic control systems than exist today.

It is true that air-traffic control is close to making a big leap,
though probably to a kind of halfway house toward pilotless flight
rather than all the way to what would be required for the creation of
widespread personal aviation. Air traffic management is moving
increasingly to digital data communications between the ground
controller and the cockpit. The next step will be using
computer-network technology to allow pilots to fly freely where they
want, instead of taking instructions from the ground. The controller
will simply be monitoring what is going on. Planes will need
fool-proof collision-avoidance systems to tell them how close they are
to each other. But once this technology is in place, it could be
applied to computers driving planes without human intervention.

....


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 21 May 2004 17:15:51 -0400, "me" >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>
>
>"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
...
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5025745/
>>
>> Hmmm....
>>
>> I don't know about this. Probably no big deal, but still.
>>
>>
>

>And this might be the outcome if you have a mid air with one of them.
>
>"We dont know anything about a drone"
>
>http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/05/21/mystery.plane/index.html
>
>JG
>




The NTSB also obtained a piece of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle from the
U.S. Air Force. It also did not match.

And military officials at Tyndall Air Force base, about 140 miles from
the marsh where the plane crashed, are convinced that drones -- which
are launched from the base -- had nothing to do with the downing of
Night Ship 282.

The base did not launch any drones the evening of October 23, 2002,
says Lt. Col. Jerry Kerby, commander of the 82 Aerial Targets Squadron
at Tyndall, located on the Florida panhandle.

In addition, a drone launched from Tyndall could not hit the Alabama
delta, Kerby said.

"It's not technically possible for us to get a drone that far west
mainly because we will lose control, we will lose an uplink with that
drone. If we lose an uplink or any kind of communications with that
drone, the drone will command itself to shut its engine down and put
itself in a parachute where it will float down into the Gulf of
Mexico."


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Larry Dighera]

-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 10, Number 22b -- May 27, 2004
-------------------------------------------------------------------


SEE AND AVOID? A SKYFULL OF UAVS
Not yet, but it may not be long... While one arm of the government
worries about how the FAA will cope with the existing air traffic
load, another is spending $360 million to figure out how to squeeze
scores of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) into the mix. NASA, along
with five companies that make remotely piloted and robotic aircraft,
are undertaking a five-year study aimed at putting unmanned aircraft
on the same airways and at the same altitudes as conventional planes
so they can take on jobs like forest-fire surveillance, relaying
communications and keeping watch on hurricanes. "The fundamental tenet
is to preserve the safety of the airspace," said NASA project manager
Jeff Bauer.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/242-full.html#187378


On Sat, 22 May 2004 03:34:49 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>On Fri, 21 May 2004 17:53:16 GMT, "Thomas J. Paladino Jr."
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:
>
>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5025745/
>>
>>Hmmm....
>>
>>I don't know about this. Probably no big deal, but still.
>>
>
>
>“The fundamental underpinnings of this program are, how can we safely
>introduce this class into the national airspace system?” said Jeff
>Bauer, manager of the $360 million NASA program.
>
>
> http://www.uavnas.aero/index.html
> Welcome to Access 5 ()
>
> Opening the Nation's Airspace Safely to Remotely Operated Aircraft
> for Important New Applications in Transportation, Commerce,
> Science and Secruity.
>
>
> http://www.uavnas.aero/ace/news/civilairspace_apr04.html
> Civil Airspace Article from Union-Tribune ("Increasing use in
> civilian airspace raises safety issues").
>
>
>>December 2003
>>
>>
>>a collaborative NASA,
>>FAA, DoD, industry effort sponsored the forum. Access
>>Five is focused on safely introducing high altitude,
>>long endurance remotely operated aircraft, into the
>>National Airspace System within 5 years. Access Five
>>calls the range of applications for the new aircraft "Dull
>>and Dangerous Missions." Possibilities include
>>pipeline, power-line and critical infrastructure
>>monitoring, cargo delivery, fire and flood
>>management, hurricane tracking, telecommunication
>>platform provision, search and rescue assistance, crop
>>harvesting, and marine fisheries monitoring.
>>involved.
>>
>>The event closed with a roundtable
>>discussion of members from NASA, DOD,
>>Northrop Grumman, the Boeing Company, and FAA.
>>Quentin Smith, AVR-4, moderated the forum. Smith
>>said, "Our goal is to enable FAA and other government
>>employees to experience first hand a revolutionary
>>technology program that will be in the vanguard of
>>change, affecting future development of aerospace in
>>the U.S."
>>"Envisioning the Future of Aviation"
>>Dres Zellweger and Andy Lacher (MITRE) participated
>>in the AIAA's 3rd Aviation Technology, Integration, and
>>Operations Technical Forum held in Denver, CO
>>November 17-19, 2003. Andy was the moderator and
>>leadoff speaker in a session entitled "Envisioning the
>>Future of Aviation". Andy's presentation focused on air
>>transportation trends. Dres gave a talk at the same
>>session on the JPO. Other presentations were by John
>>Cavolowsky (NASA Ames) on the role of research and
>>importance of modeling and simulation and by J.P.
>>Clarke (MIT) on "wild new ideas". The panel of
>>speakers and the 40 session participants engaged in a
>>lively discussion after the presentations. Several
>>people talked about airports as the real bottleneck for
>>achieving a three-fold increase in capacity; there was
>>agreement that one cannot accurately predict 20 years
>>into the future and that it was therefore important not
>>to work toward a point solution for air transportation
>>in 2025; and finally, it was pointed out that a strategy
>>of waiting to implement new technology until new
>>concepts are well defined was a poor strategy - rather
>>one should postulate and implement the most likely
>>air and ground technology infrastructure to meet the
>>range of possible future concepts early and use this as
>>a basis for steps in the transformation to future
>>concepts.
>>
>>Joint Planning Office
>>801 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 100
>>Washington, DC 20004
>>Joint Planning Office
>>Next Generation System
>>
>>The FAA auditorium was filled last week with NASA,
>>DoD, and industry participants for the first in a series of
>>town hall technology forums initiated by the JPO.
>>Thursday's topic was Remotely Operated Aircraft,
>>commonly known as UAV's. The JPO, in cooperation
>>with the Access Five program, a collaborative NASA,...
>>
>>The FAA reauthorization language calls for a Joint Planning Office, with
>>the authority to coordinate the goals and priorities across the
>>agencies while "creating and carrying out" a National Plan for
>>the Next Generation Air Transportation System. There was a
>>great turn out for the inaugural Town Hall Meeting on
>>transforming ideas, "Unmanned vehicles in the NAS". Our pace
>>will continue to pick up as we reach more constituencies. Karl
>>Grundmann and Charlie Heuttner will be reaching out to more
>>than 100 organizations and individuals to get their thoughts
>>on what the National Plan should be, and how industry can be
>>involved. Stay tuned!
>
>
>http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2282185
>...
>Today, at least 32 countries are developing a total of more than 250
>models of UAV, and 41 countries already operate 80 types. Most of
>these are reconnaissance craft, but pilotless aircraft will also be
>the combat vehicles of the future. As the leading frontier in aviation
>research, the military's ideas and development on UAVs will be
>influential in the rest of aviation.
>
>As UAVs have proved themselves in various theatres of war, military
>interest has blossomed. In the past two years, American spending on
>them has gone from $300m-400m a year to over $1 billion, according to
>Laurence Newcome, who runs the website “UAV Forum”. America's
>Department of Defence expects to spend $16 billion on UAVs between
>2002 and 2010. According to a UAV road map from America's Department
>of Defence, by 2012 UAVs the size of F-16 fighter aircraft are likely
>to exist. These will be capable of many combat and support missions,
>including the suppression of enemy air defences and electronic attacks
>on enemy sensors. The ultimate goal is to enable America to project
>its power on to the far side of the globe with no need for nearby air
>bases, or risk to the lives of pilots.
>
>Initially, pilots and a lot of equipment will be needed back at base
>to control these remote UAVs. To start with, such bases will look like
>glorified video-game arcades. Later, pilots may control their craft
>via suits linked to their neuro-muscular systems. The pilot would
>sense what the UAV was seeing through sensors on a head-mounted visor.
>But by 2015-2020, as onboard processing power begins to take off, UAVs
>are expected to start thinking for themselves. This could lead
>ultimately to completely autonomous UAVs and swarms of UAVs that talk
>to one another and operate as a single unit. Research is already under
>way on the technologies to command thousands of airborne drones.
>
>By 2020, the Pentagon estimates that one-third of America's combat
>planes will be robotic. UAVs certainly look as though they will be
>commanding a large share of future military spending (see chart). And
>the Joint Strike Fighter being built by Lockheed Martin looks as
>though it will be the last new manned American fighter for decades. By
>2100, human military pilots will be a quaint oddity. Why? Even if
>pilots could be beefed up with an exoskeleton that would allow their
>bodies to turn under a force 20 times that of the Earth's gravity,
>they think and react more slowly than computers.
>
>By 2030, it is even possible that UAVs ...
>
>Manufacturers of civilian aircraft are treading warily on the issue of
>removing the pilot. The aircraft they are now designing for operation
>into the 2040s use computers to pick up, and correct, pilot error. But
>the practicality, and safety, of doing away with the pilot altogether
>could eventually become obvious to all as, in 20 or 30 years, the
>military begins to use pilotless vehicles to airlift soldiers, and
>UAVs start moving cargo routinely around the world. And small UAVs,
>some say, might one day buzz around cities in place of the Fedex
>delivery van. ...
>
> find early applications in a wide array of commercial and
>transnational uses—from fire fighting to geological and environmental
>surveys, border patrol, film production, research, rescue and even
>agriculture. These could emerge before the end of the decade if UAVs
>can obtain swift regulatory approval. And UAVs will not merely replace
>existing, piloted applications. They will also create new markets. One
>of their most valuable uses could be as “pseudosatellites”, hovering
>over cities, providing broadband-communication platforms at a fraction
>of the cost of the geostationary satellites that currently do that
>job.
>
>The biggest breakthrough in civil aviation, though, would be the
>invention of the aerial equivalent of the motor car. The era of the
>personal “air car” has been predicted since the 1930s. And although
>much progress is being made, it is still not likely to happen in the
>foreseeable future. There are some big obstacles.
>
>What is well under way, though, is a new breed of piloted light jet or
>micro-jet that is designed to operate halfway between public and
>private transport—a form of air taxi. One such craft is the Eclipse
>500. Designed for six people, it is a cheap jet, selling for under
>$1m. Its creators, Eclipse Aviation of Albuquerque, New Mexico, claim
>it is cheaper to operate than any jet in existence, and that it has
>several thousand orders already. Many rival micro-jets are also on the
>way, including one made by Adam Aircraft Industries of Englewood,
>Colorado. It is more expensive than the Eclipse 500 but could arrive
>as soon as the end of next year.
>
>To exploit the availability of such smaller aircraft, the entire
>air-transport system will have to be overhauled. The number of
>domestic air travellers in America, for example, is expected to triple
>within 20 years according to an aeronautics blueprint by America's
>National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). But if this is
>to happen, many more of America's 5,000 regional airports will have to
>be used. Currently, only 64 airports carry 85% of the country's civil
>air traffic. Yet in the past decade, only one large hub airport and
>seven new runways have been opened. Given the constraints, few new big
>hub airports are likely to be built.
>
>True personal air transport, however, will require vertical take-off
>and landing, not just better access to regional airports. For safety,
>it may well be necessary to have them operate using the technology for
>pilotless vehicles. They will also require far more sophisticated
>air-traffic control systems than exist today.
>
>It is true that air-traffic control is close to making a big leap,
>though probably to a kind of halfway house toward pilotless flight
>rather than all the way to what would be required for the creation of
>widespread personal aviation. Air traffic management is moving
>increasingly to digital data communications between the ground
>controller and the cockpit. The next step will be using
>computer-network technology to allow pilots to fly freely where they
>want, instead of taking instructions from the ground. The controller
>will simply be monitoring what is going on. Planes will need
>fool-proof collision-avoidance systems to tell them how close they are
>to each other. But once this technology is in place, it could be
>applied to computers driving planes without human intervention.
>
>...
>
>
>--
>
>Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
> -- Larry Dighera,

--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Larry Dighera]

-------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Volume 6, Issue 27 July 2, 2004
-------------------------------------------------------------

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT TO PATROL ARIZONA-MEXICO BORDER
You won't have a close encounter with an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
any time soon. And AOPA is fighting to keep it that way. Some AOPA
members in the Southwest expressed concern when the Department of
Homeland Security announced Friday that two Hermes 450 UAVs would fly
surveillance patrols along the Arizona-Mexico border. (The
1,000-pound, remotely controlled aircraft can cruise at 95 knots up to
18,000 feet.) But where and how the UAVs fly is being strictly
controlled. Current UAV operations are conducted within special-use
airspace or must have a "certificate of authorization" approved by
both the air traffic and flight standards branches of the FAA. See
AOPA Online
( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/040630uav.html ).



On Sat, 29 May 2004 11:23:59 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>AVflash Volume 10, Number 22b -- May 27, 2004
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>SEE AND AVOID? A SKYFULL OF UAVS
>Not yet, but it may not be long... While one arm of the government
>worries about how the FAA will cope with the existing air traffic
>load, another is spending $360 million to figure out how to squeeze
>scores of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) into the mix. NASA, along
>with five companies that make remotely piloted and robotic aircraft,
>are undertaking a five-year study aimed at putting unmanned aircraft
>on the same airways and at the same altitudes as conventional planes
>so they can take on jobs like forest-fire surveillance, relaying
>communications and keeping watch on hurricanes. "The fundamental tenet
>is to preserve the safety of the airspace," said NASA project manager
>Jeff Bauer.
>http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/242-full.html#187378
>
>
>On Sat, 22 May 2004 03:34:49 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote in Message-Id: >:
>
>>On Fri, 21 May 2004 17:53:16 GMT, "Thomas J. Paladino Jr."
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:
>>
>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5025745/
>>>
>>>Hmmm....
>>>
>>>I don't know about this. Probably no big deal, but still.
>>>
>>
>>
>>“The fundamental underpinnings of this program are, how can we safely
>>introduce this class into the national airspace system?” said Jeff
>>Bauer, manager of the $360 million NASA program.
>>
>>
>> http://www.uavnas.aero/index.html
>> Welcome to Access 5 ()
>>
>> Opening the Nation's Airspace Safely to Remotely Operated Aircraft
>> for Important New Applications in Transportation, Commerce,
>> Science and Secruity.
>>
>>
>> http://www.uavnas.aero/ace/news/civilairspace_apr04.html
>> Civil Airspace Article from Union-Tribune ("Increasing use in
>> civilian airspace raises safety issues").
>>
>>
>>>December 2003
>>>
>>>
>>>a collaborative NASA,
>>>FAA, DoD, industry effort sponsored the forum. Access
>>>Five is focused on safely introducing high altitude,
>>>long endurance remotely operated aircraft, into the
>>>National Airspace System within 5 years. Access Five
>>>calls the range of applications for the new aircraft "Dull
>>>and Dangerous Missions." Possibilities include
>>>pipeline, power-line and critical infrastructure
>>>monitoring, cargo delivery, fire and flood
>>>management, hurricane tracking, telecommunication
>>>platform provision, search and rescue assistance, crop
>>>harvesting, and marine fisheries monitoring.
>>>involved.
>>>
>>>The event closed with a roundtable
>>>discussion of members from NASA, DOD,
>>>Northrop Grumman, the Boeing Company, and FAA.
>>>Quentin Smith, AVR-4, moderated the forum. Smith
>>>said, "Our goal is to enable FAA and other government
>>>employees to experience first hand a revolutionary
>>>technology program that will be in the vanguard of
>>>change, affecting future development of aerospace in
>>>the U.S."
>>>"Envisioning the Future of Aviation"
>>>Dres Zellweger and Andy Lacher (MITRE) participated
>>>in the AIAA's 3rd Aviation Technology, Integration, and
>>>Operations Technical Forum held in Denver, CO
>>>November 17-19, 2003. Andy was the moderator and
>>>leadoff speaker in a session entitled "Envisioning the
>>>Future of Aviation". Andy's presentation focused on air
>>>transportation trends. Dres gave a talk at the same
>>>session on the JPO. Other presentations were by John
>>>Cavolowsky (NASA Ames) on the role of research and
>>>importance of modeling and simulation and by J.P.
>>>Clarke (MIT) on "wild new ideas". The panel of
>>>speakers and the 40 session participants engaged in a
>>>lively discussion after the presentations. Several
>>>people talked about airports as the real bottleneck for
>>>achieving a three-fold increase in capacity; there was
>>>agreement that one cannot accurately predict 20 years
>>>into the future and that it was therefore important not
>>>to work toward a point solution for air transportation
>>>in 2025; and finally, it was pointed out that a strategy
>>>of waiting to implement new technology until new
>>>concepts are well defined was a poor strategy - rather
>>>one should postulate and implement the most likely
>>>air and ground technology infrastructure to meet the
>>>range of possible future concepts early and use this as
>>>a basis for steps in the transformation to future
>>>concepts.
>>>
>>>Joint Planning Office
>>>801 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 100
>>>Washington, DC 20004
>>>Joint Planning Office
>>>Next Generation System
>>>
>>>The FAA auditorium was filled last week with NASA,
>>>DoD, and industry participants for the first in a series of
>>>town hall technology forums initiated by the JPO.
>>>Thursday's topic was Remotely Operated Aircraft,
>>>commonly known as UAV's. The JPO, in cooperation
>>>with the Access Five program, a collaborative NASA,...
>>>
>>>The FAA reauthorization language calls for a Joint Planning Office, with
>>>the authority to coordinate the goals and priorities across the
>>>agencies while "creating and carrying out" a National Plan for
>>>the Next Generation Air Transportation System. There was a
>>>great turn out for the inaugural Town Hall Meeting on
>>>transforming ideas, "Unmanned vehicles in the NAS". Our pace
>>>will continue to pick up as we reach more constituencies. Karl
>>>Grundmann and Charlie Heuttner will be reaching out to more
>>>than 100 organizations and individuals to get their thoughts
>>>on what the National Plan should be, and how industry can be
>>>involved. Stay tuned!
>>
>>
>>http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2282185
>>...
>>Today, at least 32 countries are developing a total of more than 250
>>models of UAV, and 41 countries already operate 80 types. Most of
>>these are reconnaissance craft, but pilotless aircraft will also be
>>the combat vehicles of the future. As the leading frontier in aviation
>>research, the military's ideas and development on UAVs will be
>>influential in the rest of aviation.
>>
>>As UAVs have proved themselves in various theatres of war, military
>>interest has blossomed. In the past two years, American spending on
>>them has gone from $300m-400m a year to over $1 billion, according to
>>Laurence Newcome, who runs the website “UAV Forum”. America's
>>Department of Defence expects to spend $16 billion on UAVs between
>>2002 and 2010. According to a UAV road map from America's Department
>>of Defence, by 2012 UAVs the size of F-16 fighter aircraft are likely
>>to exist. These will be capable of many combat and support missions,
>>including the suppression of enemy air defences and electronic attacks
>>on enemy sensors. The ultimate goal is to enable America to project
>>its power on to the far side of the globe with no need for nearby air
>>bases, or risk to the lives of pilots.
>>
>>Initially, pilots and a lot of equipment will be needed back at base
>>to control these remote UAVs. To start with, such bases will look like
>>glorified video-game arcades. Later, pilots may control their craft
>>via suits linked to their neuro-muscular systems. The pilot would
>>sense what the UAV was seeing through sensors on a head-mounted visor.
>>But by 2015-2020, as onboard processing power begins to take off, UAVs
>>are expected to start thinking for themselves. This could lead
>>ultimately to completely autonomous UAVs and swarms of UAVs that talk
>>to one another and operate as a single unit. Research is already under
>>way on the technologies to command thousands of airborne drones.
>>
>>By 2020, the Pentagon estimates that one-third of America's combat
>>planes will be robotic. UAVs certainly look as though they will be
>>commanding a large share of future military spending (see chart). And
>>the Joint Strike Fighter being built by Lockheed Martin looks as
>>though it will be the last new manned American fighter for decades. By
>>2100, human military pilots will be a quaint oddity. Why? Even if
>>pilots could be beefed up with an exoskeleton that would allow their
>>bodies to turn under a force 20 times that of the Earth's gravity,
>>they think and react more slowly than computers.
>>
>>By 2030, it is even possible that UAVs ...
>>
>>Manufacturers of civilian aircraft are treading warily on the issue of
>>removing the pilot. The aircraft they are now designing for operation
>>into the 2040s use computers to pick up, and correct, pilot error. But
>>the practicality, and safety, of doing away with the pilot altogether
>>could eventually become obvious to all as, in 20 or 30 years, the
>>military begins to use pilotless vehicles to airlift soldiers, and
>>UAVs start moving cargo routinely around the world. And small UAVs,
>>some say, might one day buzz around cities in place of the Fedex
>>delivery van. ...
>>
>> find early applications in a wide array of commercial and
>>transnational uses—from fire fighting to geological and environmental
>>surveys, border patrol, film production, research, rescue and even
>>agriculture. These could emerge before the end of the decade if UAVs
>>can obtain swift regulatory approval. And UAVs will not merely replace
>>existing, piloted applications. They will also create new markets. One
>>of their most valuable uses could be as “pseudosatellites”, hovering
>>over cities, providing broadband-communication platforms at a fraction
>>of the cost of the geostationary satellites that currently do that
>>job.
>>
>>The biggest breakthrough in civil aviation, though, would be the
>>invention of the aerial equivalent of the motor car. The era of the
>>personal “air car” has been predicted since the 1930s. And although
>>much progress is being made, it is still not likely to happen in the
>>foreseeable future. There are some big obstacles.
>>
>>What is well under way, though, is a new breed of piloted light jet or
>>micro-jet that is designed to operate halfway between public and
>>private transport—a form of air taxi. One such craft is the Eclipse
>>500. Designed for six people, it is a cheap jet, selling for under
>>$1m. Its creators, Eclipse Aviation of Albuquerque, New Mexico, claim
>>it is cheaper to operate than any jet in existence, and that it has
>>several thousand orders already. Many rival micro-jets are also on the
>>way, including one made by Adam Aircraft Industries of Englewood,
>>Colorado. It is more expensive than the Eclipse 500 but could arrive
>>as soon as the end of next year.
>>
>>To exploit the availability of such smaller aircraft, the entire
>>air-transport system will have to be overhauled. The number of
>>domestic air travellers in America, for example, is expected to triple
>>within 20 years according to an aeronautics blueprint by America's
>>National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). But if this is
>>to happen, many more of America's 5,000 regional airports will have to
>>be used. Currently, only 64 airports carry 85% of the country's civil
>>air traffic. Yet in the past decade, only one large hub airport and
>>seven new runways have been opened. Given the constraints, few new big
>>hub airports are likely to be built.
>>
>>True personal air transport, however, will require vertical take-off
>>and landing, not just better access to regional airports. For safety,
>>it may well be necessary to have them operate using the technology for
>>pilotless vehicles. They will also require far more sophisticated
>>air-traffic control systems than exist today.
>>
>>It is true that air-traffic control is close to making a big leap,
>>though probably to a kind of halfway house toward pilotless flight
>>rather than all the way to what would be required for the creation of
>>widespread personal aviation. Air traffic management is moving
>>increasingly to digital data communications between the ground
>>controller and the cockpit. The next step will be using
>>computer-network technology to allow pilots to fly freely where they
>>want, instead of taking instructions from the ground. The controller
>>will simply be monitoring what is going on. Planes will need
>>fool-proof collision-avoidance systems to tell them how close they are
>>to each other. But once this technology is in place, it could be
>>applied to computers driving planes without human intervention.
>>
>>...
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
>> -- Larry Dighera,
>
>--
>
>Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
> -- Larry Dighera,

[Larry Dighera]

-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 10, Number 28a -- July 5, 2004
-------------------------------------------------------------------

PLANES SANS PILOTS CAUSE CONCERN...
When the U.S. Border Patrol began late last month to fly two Hermes
450 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) to help patrol the Arizona-Mexico
border, the deployment raised questions about collision avoidance.
"UAVs pose a significant threat to air traffic along and near the
border," one AVweb reader, a professional pilot based in Tucson, wrote
to us last week. "Not only for my company, but also for the many GA
airplanes that transit the border, and the airlines coming from Mexico
on descent to Tucson." AOPA also expressed concern, asking the FAA to
establish an industry committee to address UAV operations outside of
restricted airspace and to develop aircraft certification standards
dealing with collision avoidance.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/261-full.html#187616

....FLIGHTS ARE CLOSELY MONITORED, BORDER PATROL SAYS...
Collision-avoidance concerns underwent an extensive review prior to
deployment, and precautions are in place, U.S. Border Patrol spokesman
Roger Maier told AVweb last week. The approval process requires that
the UAV operator satisfy the FAA that the UAV provides an "equivalent
level of safety" compared to a manned aircraft. The UAVs now are
flying pre-programmed routes that are filed 24 hours in advance with
airspace officials, added Andy Adame, spokesman for the Border
Patrol's Tucson sector. Both FAA and military air traffic controllers
in the region are informed of the route in detail, Adame said. The
UAVs are equipped with onboard cameras that provide around-the-clock
images in real time to ground control stations, which are monitored
constantly, he said.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/261-full.html#187617

....AS ASTM DEVELOPS STANDARD FOR ONBOARD SENSOR
In March of 2002 and April of 2003, Proteus (a Scaled Composites
design) flew as a NASA test-bed for UAV see-and-avoid technology with
success. In 2002, the equipment (a Goodrich Skywatch HP Traffic
Advisory System [http://www.as.l-3com.com/products/skywatch.asp])
sensed transponder-equipped aircraft and directed Proteus to avoid
them. In the later tests an Amphitech OASys 35-Ghz primary radar
system sensed the non-transponder-equipped aircraft involved in the
test and relayed their positions to ground-based pilots who made
course corrections as needed to avoid collisions. Last week, ASTM
International (formerly the American Society for Testing and
Materials) said it has completed a report to establish the fundamental
design and performance specifications for an airborne sense-and-avoid
(S&A) system for UAVs that would make it easier for them to operate in
the National Airspace System.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/261-full.html#187618


It would seem that there is a 5 year plan to deploy UAVs in the NAS
http://www.uavnas.aero/index.html


Is a 15 to 30 second or 0.2 to 0.55 nmi horizontal radius adequate
warning of a pending MAC?
http://www.as.l-3com.com/pdfs/Collision_Avoidance.pdf
Who will command the UAV to avoid the MAC if the data link is lost?

From the Goodrich Pilot's Manual:

http://www.as.l-3com.com/pdfs/00910801.pdf
The SKY497 relies on information obtained from transponders in
nearby aircraft. The SKY497 does not detect [n]or track aircraft
which are not equipped with an operating Air Traffic Control Radar
Beacon System (ATCRBS) transponder

The SKY497 does not track intruder aircraft approaching at a
closure rate greater than 900 knots.

Some traffic within the chosen display range may not be displayed
due to traffic prioritizing, antenna shielding, ground intruder
filtering, or surveillance range being shorter than the chosen
display range.

Optimum SKY497 performance is realized when intruder aircraft are
reporting their altitude (via a mode C or other altitude reporting
transponder).

Do not attempt evasive maneuvers based solely on traffic
information on the display. Information on the display is
provided to the flight crew as an aid in visually acquiring
traffic; it is not a replacement for Air Traffic Control (ATC) and
[sic] See & Avoid techniques.

So while the SKY497 is not believed to be a substitute for
See-and-avoid mandated by regulation, it also doesn't address the
issue of aircraft without an operating transponder. It's a tool that
rests on operator interpretation and operator action. How will that
help in the event the UAV ground control data link or vision data link
are lost?


http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewsReleases/2003/03-20.html
NASA, in cooperation with Scaled Composites, LLC, is conducting a new
phase of flight demonstrations of collision-avoidance systems to
develop the ability of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to eventually
fly routinely and reliably in the national civil airspace.

More:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Goodrich+Skywatch+HP+Traffic+Advisory+Sys tem+uav&ei=UTF-8&n=20&fl=0&vc=&x=wrt


My letter to AvFlash and CCed to AOPA ePilot:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sirs,

Thank you for bringing the 'UAV deployment into the NAS' issue to
public attention in your latest issue of AvFlash. Were you aware of
this:

http://www.uavnas.aero/index.html
Access 5 is a national project sponsored by NASA–with
participation by the FAA, DoD, and industry–to introduce high
altitude long endurance (HALE) remotely operated aircraft (ROA) to
routine flight in the National Airspace System (NAS). Access 5
commences in October 2003 and is slated to run for five years. The
project has received initial funding from NASA and guarantees of
support from the ROA industry.

The goal of Access 5 is to enable what government and industry
leaders believe will ultimately be a robust civil and commercial
market for HALE ROA. The current lack of ready access to the NAS
inhibits investment in ROA commercialization and the ability of
users to obtain cost-effective ROA services. Access 5 seeks to
remove the barriers to aviation's most compelling new offering in
decades.

The implications of NON FAA CERTIFICATED UAV operation teams sitting
safely on the ground being responsible for seeing-and-avoiding
passenger carrying aircraft are ominous. How will they be held
accountable in the event of a mishap? They won't lose their lives in
the event of a mid air collision. How will the public know which
individuals are responsible? What standards will civil UAV operators
be required to meet?

How can the U.S. Border Patrol cost justify UAV operations conducted
with 7-man teams as opposed to 2-men in a Cessna 182? Is the public
having this ill conceived program foisted upon them in the name of
financial investment as indicated by the Access 5 web site? It just
gets curiouser and curiouser.

Larry Dighera

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 11:22:28 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>AOPA ePilot Volume 6, Issue 27 July 2, 2004
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>
>UNMANNED AIRCRAFT TO PATROL ARIZONA-MEXICO BORDER
>You won't have a close encounter with an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
>any time soon. And AOPA is fighting to keep it that way. Some AOPA
>members in the Southwest expressed concern when the Department of
>Homeland Security announced Friday that two Hermes 450 UAVs would fly
>surveillance patrols along the Arizona-Mexico border. (The
>1,000-pound, remotely controlled aircraft can cruise at 95 knots up to
>18,000 feet.) But where and how the UAVs fly is being strictly
>controlled. Current UAV operations are conducted within special-use
>airspace or must have a "certificate of authorization" approved by
>both the air traffic and flight standards branches of the FAA. See
>AOPA Online
>( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/040630uav.html ).
>
>
>
>On Sat, 29 May 2004 11:23:59 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>AVflash Volume 10, Number 22b -- May 27, 2004
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>SEE AND AVOID? A SKYFULL OF UAVS
>>Not yet, but it may not be long... While one arm of the government
>>worries about how the FAA will cope with the existing air traffic
>>load, another is spending $360 million to figure out how to squeeze
>>scores of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) into the mix. NASA, along
>>with five companies that make remotely piloted and robotic aircraft,
>>are undertaking a five-year study aimed at putting unmanned aircraft
>>on the same airways and at the same altitudes as conventional planes
>>so they can take on jobs like forest-fire surveillance, relaying
>>communications and keeping watch on hurricanes. "The fundamental tenet
>>is to preserve the safety of the airspace," said NASA project manager
>>Jeff Bauer.
>>http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/242-full.html#187378
>>
>>
>>On Sat, 22 May 2004 03:34:49 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>>wrote in Message-Id: >:
>>
>>>On Fri, 21 May 2004 17:53:16 GMT, "Thomas J. Paladino Jr."
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:
>>>
>>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5025745/
>>>>
>>>>Hmmm....
>>>>
>>>>I don't know about this. Probably no big deal, but still.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>“The fundamental underpinnings of this program are, how can we safely
>>>introduce this class into the national airspace system?” said Jeff
>>>Bauer, manager of the $360 million NASA program.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.uavnas.aero/index.html
>>> Welcome to Access 5 ()
>>>
>>> Opening the Nation's Airspace Safely to Remotely Operated Aircraft
>>> for Important New Applications in Transportation, Commerce,
>>> Science and Secruity.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.uavnas.aero/ace/news/civilairspace_apr04.html
>>> Civil Airspace Article from Union-Tribune ("Increasing use in
>>> civilian airspace raises safety issues").
>>>
>>>
>>>>December 2003
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>a collaborative NASA,
>>>>FAA, DoD, industry effort sponsored the forum. Access
>>>>Five is focused on safely introducing high altitude,
>>>>long endurance remotely operated aircraft, into the
>>>>National Airspace System within 5 years. Access Five
>>>>calls the range of applications for the new aircraft "Dull
>>>>and Dangerous Missions." Possibilities include
>>>>pipeline, power-line and critical infrastructure
>>>>monitoring, cargo delivery, fire and flood
>>>>management, hurricane tracking, telecommunication
>>>>platform provision, search and rescue assistance, crop
>>>>harvesting, and marine fisheries monitoring.
>>>>involved.
>>>>
>>>>The event closed with a roundtable
>>>>discussion of members from NASA, DOD,
>>>>Northrop Grumman, the Boeing Company, and FAA.
>>>>Quentin Smith, AVR-4, moderated the forum. Smith
>>>>said, "Our goal is to enable FAA and other government
>>>>employees to experience first hand a revolutionary
>>>>technology program that will be in the vanguard of
>>>>change, affecting future development of aerospace in
>>>>the U.S."
>>>>"Envisioning the Future of Aviation"
>>>>Dres Zellweger and Andy Lacher (MITRE) participated
>>>>in the AIAA's 3rd Aviation Technology, Integration, and
>>>>Operations Technical Forum held in Denver, CO
>>>>November 17-19, 2003. Andy was the moderator and
>>>>leadoff speaker in a session entitled "Envisioning the
>>>>Future of Aviation". Andy's presentation focused on air
>>>>transportation trends. Dres gave a talk at the same
>>>>session on the JPO. Other presentations were by John
>>>>Cavolowsky (NASA Ames) on the role of research and
>>>>importance of modeling and simulation and by J.P.
>>>>Clarke (MIT) on "wild new ideas". The panel of
>>>>speakers and the 40 session participants engaged in a
>>>>lively discussion after the presentations. Several
>>>>people talked about airports as the real bottleneck for
>>>>achieving a three-fold increase in capacity; there was
>>>>agreement that one cannot accurately predict 20 years
>>>>into the future and that it was therefore important not
>>>>to work toward a point solution for air transportation
>>>>in 2025; and finally, it was pointed out that a strategy
>>>>of waiting to implement new technology until new
>>>>concepts are well defined was a poor strategy - rather
>>>>one should postulate and implement the most likely
>>>>air and ground technology infrastructure to meet the
>>>>range of possible future concepts early and use this as
>>>>a basis for steps in the transformation to future
>>>>concepts.
>>>>
>>>>Joint Planning Office
>>>>801 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 100
>>>>Washington, DC 20004
>>>>Joint Planning Office
>>>>Next Generation System
>>>>
>>>>The FAA auditorium was filled last week with NASA,
>>>>DoD, and industry participants for the first in a series of
>>>>town hall technology forums initiated by the JPO.
>>>>Thursday's topic was Remotely Operated Aircraft,
>>>>commonly known as UAV's. The JPO, in cooperation
>>>>with the Access Five program, a collaborative NASA,...
>>>>
>>>>The FAA reauthorization language calls for a Joint Planning Office, with
>>>>the authority to coordinate the goals and priorities across the
>>>>agencies while "creating and carrying out" a National Plan for
>>>>the Next Generation Air Transportation System. There was a
>>>>great turn out for the inaugural Town Hall Meeting on
>>>>transforming ideas, "Unmanned vehicles in the NAS". Our pace
>>>>will continue to pick up as we reach more constituencies. Karl
>>>>Grundmann and Charlie Heuttner will be reaching out to more
>>>>than 100 organizations and individuals to get their thoughts
>>>>on what the National Plan should be, and how industry can be
>>>>involved. Stay tuned!
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2282185
>>>...
>>>Today, at least 32 countries are developing a total of more than 250
>>>models of UAV, and 41 countries already operate 80 types. Most of
>>>these are reconnaissance craft, but pilotless aircraft will also be
>>>the combat vehicles of the future. As the leading frontier in aviation
>>>research, the military's ideas and development on UAVs will be
>>>influential in the rest of aviation.
>>>
>>>As UAVs have proved themselves in various theatres of war, military
>>>interest has blossomed. In the past two years, American spending on
>>>them has gone from $300m-400m a year to over $1 billion, according to
>>>Laurence Newcome, who runs the website “UAV Forum”. America's
>>>Department of Defence expects to spend $16 billion on UAVs between
>>>2002 and 2010. According to a UAV road map from America's Department
>>>of Defence, by 2012 UAVs the size of F-16 fighter aircraft are likely
>>>to exist. These will be capable of many combat and support missions,
>>>including the suppression of enemy air defences and electronic attacks
>>>on enemy sensors. The ultimate goal is to enable America to project
>>>its power on to the far side of the globe with no need for nearby air
>>>bases, or risk to the lives of pilots.
>>>
>>>Initially, pilots and a lot of equipment will be needed back at base
>>>to control these remote UAVs. To start with, such bases will look like
>>>glorified video-game arcades. Later, pilots may control their craft
>>>via suits linked to their neuro-muscular systems. The pilot would
>>>sense what the UAV was seeing through sensors on a head-mounted visor.
>>>But by 2015-2020, as onboard processing power begins to take off, UAVs
>>>are expected to start thinking for themselves. This could lead
>>>ultimately to completely autonomous UAVs and swarms of UAVs that talk
>>>to one another and operate as a single unit. Research is already under
>>>way on the technologies to command thousands of airborne drones.
>>>
>>>By 2020, the Pentagon estimates that one-third of America's combat
>>>planes will be robotic. UAVs certainly look as though they will be
>>>commanding a large share of future military spending (see chart). And
>>>the Joint Strike Fighter being built by Lockheed Martin looks as
>>>though it will be the last new manned American fighter for decades. By
>>>2100, human military pilots will be a quaint oddity. Why? Even if
>>>pilots could be beefed up with an exoskeleton that would allow their
>>>bodies to turn under a force 20 times that of the Earth's gravity,
>>>they think and react more slowly than computers.
>>>
>>>By 2030, it is even possible that UAVs ...
>>>
>>>Manufacturers of civilian aircraft are treading warily on the issue of
>>>removing the pilot. The aircraft they are now designing for operation
>>>into the 2040s use computers to pick up, and correct, pilot error. But
>>>the practicality, and safety, of doing away with the pilot altogether
>>>could eventually become obvious to all as, in 20 or 30 years, the
>>>military begins to use pilotless vehicles to airlift soldiers, and
>>>UAVs start moving cargo routinely around the world. And small UAVs,
>>>some say, might one day buzz around cities in place of the Fedex
>>>delivery van. ...
>>>
>>> find early applications in a wide array of commercial and
>>>transnational uses—from fire fighting to geological and environmental
>>>surveys, border patrol, film production, research, rescue and even
>>>agriculture. These could emerge before the end of the decade if UAVs
>>>can obtain swift regulatory approval. And UAVs will not merely replace
>>>existing, piloted applications. They will also create new markets. One
>>>of their most valuable uses could be as “pseudosatellites”, hovering
>>>over cities, providing broadband-communication platforms at a fraction
>>>of the cost of the geostationary satellites that currently do that
>>>job.
>>>
>>>The biggest breakthrough in civil aviation, though, would be the
>>>invention of the aerial equivalent of the motor car. The era of the
>>>personal “air car” has been predicted since the 1930s. And although
>>>much progress is being made, it is still not likely to happen in the
>>>foreseeable future. There are some big obstacles.
>>>
>>>What is well under way, though, is a new breed of piloted light jet or
>>>micro-jet that is designed to operate halfway between public and
>>>private transport—a form of air taxi. One such craft is the Eclipse
>>>500. Designed for six people, it is a cheap jet, selling for under
>>>$1m. Its creators, Eclipse Aviation of Albuquerque, New Mexico, claim
>>>it is cheaper to operate than any jet in existence, and that it has
>>>several thousand orders already. Many rival micro-jets are also on the
>>>way, including one made by Adam Aircraft Industries of Englewood,
>>>Colorado. It is more expensive than the Eclipse 500 but could arrive
>>>as soon as the end of next year.
>>>
>>>To exploit the availability of such smaller aircraft, the entire
>>>air-transport system will have to be overhauled. The number of
>>>domestic air travellers in America, for example, is expected to triple
>>>within 20 years according to an aeronautics blueprint by America's
>>>National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). But if this is
>>>to happen, many more of America's 5,000 regional airports will have to
>>>be used. Currently, only 64 airports carry 85% of the country's civil
>>>air traffic. Yet in the past decade, only one large hub airport and
>>>seven new runways have been opened. Given the constraints, few new big
>>>hub airports are likely to be built.
>>>
>>>True personal air transport, however, will require vertical take-off
>>>and landing, not just better access to regional airports. For safety,
>>>it may well be necessary to have them operate using the technology for
>>>pilotless vehicles. They will also require far more sophisticated
>>>air-traffic control systems than exist today.
>>>
>>>It is true that air-traffic control is close to making a big leap,
>>>though probably to a kind of halfway house toward pilotless flight
>>>rather than all the way to what would be required for the creation of
>>>widespread personal aviation. Air traffic management is moving
>>>increasingly to digital data communications between the ground
>>>controller and the cockpit. The next step will be using
>>>computer-network technology to allow pilots to fly freely where they
>>>want, instead of taking instructions from the ground. The controller
>>>will simply be monitoring what is going on. Planes will need
>>>fool-proof collision-avoidance systems to tell them how close they are
>>>to each other. But once this technology is in place, it could be
>>>applied to computers driving planes without human intervention.
>>>
>>--
>>
>>Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
>> -- Larry Dighera,

[Tony Cox]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> The implications of NON FAA CERTIFICATED UAV operation teams sitting
> safely on the ground being responsible for seeing-and-avoiding
> passenger carrying aircraft are ominous. How will they be held
> accountable in the event of a mishap? They won't lose their lives in
> the event of a mid air collision. How will the public know which
> individuals are responsible? What standards will civil UAV operators
> be required to meet?

I like the idea of UAV "pilots" being fitted with headsets that
explode if the UAV is involved in a mid-air. This will ensure
the appropriate level of concentration and attention to collision
avoidance.

Anyone who thinks this extreme hasn't properly understood
the responsibilities of a PIC, and certainly doesn't deserve to
make rules for those of us who take these responsibilities
very seriously.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 15:42:59 GMT, "Tony Cox" > wrote:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> The implications of NON FAA CERTIFICATED UAV operation teams sitting
>> safely on the ground being responsible for seeing-and-avoiding
>> passenger carrying aircraft are ominous. How will they be held
>> accountable in the event of a mishap? They won't lose their lives in
>> the event of a mid air collision. How will the public know which
>> individuals are responsible? What standards will civil UAV operators
>> be required to meet?
>
>I like the idea of UAV "pilots" being fitted with headsets that
>explode if the UAV is involved in a mid-air. This will ensure
>the appropriate level of concentration and attention to collision
>avoidance.

While your suggestion may sound ludicrous at first, it is roughly the
equivalent to what the PIC faces on each flight.

>Anyone who thinks this extreme hasn't properly understood
>the responsibilities of a PIC, and certainly doesn't deserve to
>make rules for those of us who take these responsibilities
>very seriously.

The military is having enough difficulty staffing its UAV operations
as it is. Adding the "equitable" headset you suggest, while adding
more realism to UAV operations, may further reduce pilot interest in
them.

But it's all about money, as usual. It seems the UAV manufacturers
and NASA feel that UAVs offer something piloted aircraft don't. I
can't see how civil UAV operations with a ground based crew of 7 can
possibly provide a financial incentive for their operators. And one
mishap will put the final stake in civil UAV operation's heart as far
as the flying public is concerned. What am I missing?

[Tony Cox]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> The military is having enough difficulty staffing its UAV operations
> as it is. Adding the "equitable" headset you suggest, while adding
> more realism to UAV operations, may further reduce pilot interest in
> them.

Is that not a good thing? If these "pilots" aren't prepared to take
personal responsibility for their own actions, then they have no
business being "in the sky" with those of us who do.

> But it's all about money, as usual. It seems the UAV manufacturers
> and NASA feel that UAVs offer something piloted aircraft don't. I
> can't see how civil UAV operations with a ground based crew of 7 can
> possibly provide a financial incentive for their operators. And one
> mishap will put the final stake in civil UAV operation's heart as far
> as the flying public is concerned. What am I missing?

I can see UAVs being useful to the military. I can see UAVs in
civilian trial uses being of interest to the military. Regardless of the
eventual financial benefits of civilian use (presumably there might
be some), adoption of this technology in the NAS is at variance
with existing rules for pilot certification, and the reasons why these
rules came about. It'll be very interesting to see how these differing
concepts of what constitutes a "pilot" get reconciled.

[Larry Dighera]

FIVE AIRCRAFT, ONE PILOT

The British military is testing a system that would, essentially,
allow a pilot to command his own pilotless wingmates. The system,
developed by QinetiQ* with funding from the British Ministry of
Defense, enables the pilot of a fighter jet to simultaneously control
up to four unmanned companion aerial vehicles. According to Technology
News (http://www.technologynewsdaily.com/node/6566), it was tested for
the first time last week with the pilot of a Tornado fighter also
influencing the movements of a BAC 111, filling in for a UAV, and
three simulated UAVs. Despite the absence of actual UAVs in the test,
the government called the test a success and said the Tornado pilot
was able to lead his simulated backup on a simulated ground attack.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/841-full.html#194888

* http://www.qinetiq.com/home/newsroom/events/auvsi.html







On Sat, 22 May 2004 03:34:49 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in >:

>On Fri, 21 May 2004 17:53:16 GMT, "Thomas J. Paladino Jr."
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:
>
>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5025745/
>>
>>Hmmm....
>>
>>I don't know about this. Probably no big deal, but still.
>>
>
>
>“The fundamental underpinnings of this program are, how can we safely
>introduce this class into the national airspace system?” said Jeff
>Bauer, manager of the $360 million NASA program.
>
>
> http://www.uavnas.aero/index.html
> Welcome to Access 5 ()
>
> Opening the Nation's Airspace Safely to Remotely Operated Aircraft
> for Important New Applications in Transportation, Commerce,
> Science and Secruity.
>
>
> http://www.uavnas.aero/ace/news/civilairspace_apr04.html
> Civil Airspace Article from Union-Tribune ("Increasing use in
> civilian airspace raises safety issues").
>
>
>>December 2003
>>
>>
>>a collaborative NASA,
>>FAA, DoD, industry effort sponsored the forum. Access
>>Five is focused on safely introducing high altitude,
>>long endurance remotely operated aircraft, into the
>>National Airspace System within 5 years. Access Five
>>calls the range of applications for the new aircraft "Dull
>>and Dangerous Missions." Possibilities include
>>pipeline, power-line and critical infrastructure
>>monitoring, cargo delivery, fire and flood
>>management, hurricane tracking, telecommunication
>>platform provision, search and rescue assistance, crop
>>harvesting, and marine fisheries monitoring.
>>involved.
>>
>>The event closed with a roundtable
>>discussion of members from NASA, DOD,
>>Northrop Grumman, the Boeing Company, and FAA.
>>Quentin Smith, AVR-4, moderated the forum. Smith
>>said, "Our goal is to enable FAA and other government
>>employees to experience first hand a revolutionary
>>technology program that will be in the vanguard of
>>change, affecting future development of aerospace in
>>the U.S."
>>"Envisioning the Future of Aviation"
>>Dres Zellweger and Andy Lacher (MITRE) participated
>>in the AIAA's 3rd Aviation Technology, Integration, and
>>Operations Technical Forum held in Denver, CO
>>November 17-19, 2003. Andy was the moderator and
>>leadoff speaker in a session entitled "Envisioning the
>>Future of Aviation". Andy's presentation focused on air
>>transportation trends. Dres gave a talk at the same
>>session on the JPO. Other presentations were by John
>>Cavolowsky (NASA Ames) on the role of research and
>>importance of modeling and simulation and by J.P.
>>Clarke (MIT) on "wild new ideas". The panel of
>>speakers and the 40 session participants engaged in a
>>lively discussion after the presentations. Several
>>people talked about airports as the real bottleneck for
>>achieving a three-fold increase in capacity; there was
>>agreement that one cannot accurately predict 20 years
>>into the future and that it was therefore important not
>>to work toward a point solution for air transportation
>>in 2025; and finally, it was pointed out that a strategy
>>of waiting to implement new technology until new
>>concepts are well defined was a poor strategy - rather
>>one should postulate and implement the most likely
>>air and ground technology infrastructure to meet the
>>range of possible future concepts early and use this as
>>a basis for steps in the transformation to future
>>concepts.
>>
>>Joint Planning Office
>>801 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 100
>>Washington, DC 20004
>>Joint Planning Office
>>Next Generation System
>>
>>The FAA auditorium was filled last week with NASA,
>>DoD, and industry participants for the first in a series of
>>town hall technology forums initiated by the JPO.
>>Thursday's topic was Remotely Operated Aircraft,
>>commonly known as UAV's. The JPO, in cooperation
>>with the Access Five program, a collaborative NASA,...
>>
>>The FAA reauthorization language calls for a Joint Planning Office, with
>>the authority to coordinate the goals and priorities across the
>>agencies while "creating and carrying out" a National Plan for
>>the Next Generation Air Transportation System. There was a
>>great turn out for the inaugural Town Hall Meeting on
>>transforming ideas, "Unmanned vehicles in the NAS". Our pace
>>will continue to pick up as we reach more constituencies. Karl
>>Grundmann and Charlie Heuttner will be reaching out to more
>>than 100 organizations and individuals to get their thoughts
>>on what the National Plan should be, and how industry can be
>>involved. Stay tuned!
>
>
>http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2282185
>...
>Today, at least 32 countries are developing a total of more than 250
>models of UAV, and 41 countries already operate 80 types. Most of
>these are reconnaissance craft, but pilotless aircraft will also be
>the combat vehicles of the future. As the leading frontier in aviation
>research, the military's ideas and development on UAVs will be
>influential in the rest of aviation.
>
>As UAVs have proved themselves in various theatres of war, military
>interest has blossomed. In the past two years, American spending on
>them has gone from $300m-400m a year to over $1 billion, according to
>Laurence Newcome, who runs the website “UAV Forum”. America's
>Department of Defence expects to spend $16 billion on UAVs between
>2002 and 2010. According to a UAV road map from America's Department
>of Defence, by 2012 UAVs the size of F-16 fighter aircraft are likely
>to exist. These will be capable of many combat and support missions,
>including the suppression of enemy air defences and electronic attacks
>on enemy sensors. The ultimate goal is to enable America to project
>its power on to the far side of the globe with no need for nearby air
>bases, or risk to the lives of pilots.
>
>Initially, pilots and a lot of equipment will be needed back at base
>to control these remote UAVs. To start with, such bases will look like
>glorified video-game arcades. Later, pilots may control their craft
>via suits linked to their neuro-muscular systems. The pilot would
>sense what the UAV was seeing through sensors on a head-mounted visor.
>But by 2015-2020, as onboard processing power begins to take off, UAVs
>are expected to start thinking for themselves. This could lead
>ultimately to completely autonomous UAVs and swarms of UAVs that talk
>to one another and operate as a single unit. Research is already under
>way on the technologies to command thousands of airborne drones.
>
>By 2020, the Pentagon estimates that one-third of America's combat
>planes will be robotic. UAVs certainly look as though they will be
>commanding a large share of future military spending (see chart). And
>the Joint Strike Fighter being built by Lockheed Martin looks as
>though it will be the last new manned American fighter for decades. By
>2100, human military pilots will be a quaint oddity. Why? Even if
>pilots could be beefed up with an exoskeleton that would allow their
>bodies to turn under a force 20 times that of the Earth's gravity,
>they think and react more slowly than computers.
>
>By 2030, it is even possible that UAVs ...
>
>Manufacturers of civilian aircraft are treading warily on the issue of
>removing the pilot. The aircraft they are now designing for operation
>into the 2040s use computers to pick up, and correct, pilot error. But
>the practicality, and safety, of doing away with the pilot altogether
>could eventually become obvious to all as, in 20 or 30 years, the
>military begins to use pilotless vehicles to airlift soldiers, and
>UAVs start moving cargo routinely around the world. And small UAVs,
>some say, might one day buzz around cities in place of the Fedex
>delivery van. ...
>
> find early applications in a wide array of commercial and
>transnational uses—from fire fighting to geological and environmental
>surveys, border patrol, film production, research, rescue and even
>agriculture. These could emerge before the end of the decade if UAVs
>can obtain swift regulatory approval. And UAVs will not merely replace
>existing, piloted applications. They will also create new markets. One
>of their most valuable uses could be as “pseudosatellites”, hovering
>over cities, providing broadband-communication platforms at a fraction
>of the cost of the geostationary satellites that currently do that
>job.
>
>The biggest breakthrough in civil aviation, though, would be the
>invention of the aerial equivalent of the motor car. The era of the
>personal “air car” has been predicted since the 1930s. And although
>much progress is being made, it is still not likely to happen in the
>foreseeable future. There are some big obstacles.
>
>What is well under way, though, is a new breed of piloted light jet or
>micro-jet that is designed to operate halfway between public and
>private transport—a form of air taxi. One such craft is the Eclipse
>500. Designed for six people, it is a cheap jet, selling for under
>$1m. Its creators, Eclipse Aviation of Albuquerque, New Mexico, claim
>it is cheaper to operate than any jet in existence, and that it has
>several thousand orders already. Many rival micro-jets are also on the
>way, including one made by Adam Aircraft Industries of Englewood,
>Colorado. It is more expensive than the Eclipse 500 but could arrive
>as soon as the end of next year.
>
>To exploit the availability of such smaller aircraft, the entire
>air-transport system will have to be overhauled. The number of
>domestic air travellers in America, for example, is expected to triple
>within 20 years according to an aeronautics blueprint by America's
>National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). But if this is
>to happen, many more of America's 5,000 regional airports will have to
>be used. Currently, only 64 airports carry 85% of the country's civil
>air traffic. Yet in the past decade, only one large hub airport and
>seven new runways have been opened. Given the constraints, few new big
>hub airports are likely to be built.
>
>True personal air transport, however, will require vertical take-off
>and landing, not just better access to regional airports. For safety,
>it may well be necessary to have them operate using the technology for
>pilotless vehicles. They will also require far more sophisticated
>air-traffic control systems than exist today.
>
>It is true that air-traffic control is close to making a big leap,
>though probably to a kind of halfway house toward pilotless flight
>rather than all the way to what would be required for the creation of
>widespread personal aviation. Air traffic management is moving
>increasingly to digital data communications between the ground
>controller and the cockpit. The next step will be using
>computer-network technology to allow pilots to fly freely where they
>want, instead of taking instructions from the ground. The controller
>will simply be monitoring what is going on. Planes will need
>fool-proof collision-avoidance systems to tell them how close they are
>to each other. But once this technology is in place, it could be
>applied to computers driving planes without human intervention.
>
>...
>
>
>--
>
>Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
> -- Larry Dighera,

[john smith]

What's the big deal?
Dale Brown has written about this in his last three novels.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:07:30 -0400, john smith > wrote
in >:

>What's the big deal?

I can't imagine how a single F-16 pilot can fly his aircraft and be
expected to adequately control five other aircraft simultaneously.

>Dale Brown has written about this in his last three novels.

Has he mentioned what happens to the pilotless aircraft if the pilot
controlling them becomes incapacitated?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:07:30 -0400, john smith > wrote
> in >:
>
>> What's the big deal?
>
> I can't imagine how a single F-16 pilot can fly his aircraft and be
> expected to adequately control five other aircraft simultaneously.
>
>> Dale Brown has written about this in his last three novels.
>
> Has he mentioned what happens to the pilotless aircraft if the pilot
> controlling them becomes incapacitated?


Dale's pilots are commanding from a B1. And if something happens to the
command ship the UAVs can work on there own and head for the house or
destroy themselves.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:41:10 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:07:30 -0400, john smith > wrote
>> in >:
>>
>>> What's the big deal?
>>
>> I can't imagine how a single F-16 pilot can fly his aircraft and be
>> expected to adequately control five other aircraft simultaneously.
>>
>>> Dale Brown has written about this in his last three novels.
>>
>> Has he mentioned what happens to the pilotless aircraft if the pilot
>> controlling them becomes incapacitated?
>
>
>Dale's pilots are commanding from a B1.

How many crew a B1? How many crew an F-16?

>And if something happens to the command ship the UAVs can work on
>there own and head for the house or destroy themselves.
>

I can see this possibly working in a war theater. My fear is that it
will be done in the NAS among civilian flights.