Global Hawk

[Robert M. Gary]

I was speaking with a couple of Global Hawk pilots at Beale this
weekend and got some interesting information. The information was
presented to me as public (non-classified). The first thing that
surprised me is that contrary to whatI had heard previously the
aircraft has no traffic avoidance systems at all. There is a bay for a
civilian TCAS unit but as of yet none have been installed. The pilot
reported that certification of TCAS was interrupted because TCAS
resolutions require 30 degree of bank and the GH is limited to 15.
However, he also said that they do not do any training below class A
airspace in the U.S. The TFR is for the 5 minutes it takes for the
climb out. The reason the TFRs stay in affect so long is because the
GH is a single engine aircraft it could possibly return to base if it
lost the engine and that the FAA required the TFR to deal with that
possibility. However, I've found that I have never been denied access
through the TFR by ATC.
The pilot also said that they are all very confused as to why the GH
is based out of an area of such high air traffic. He said he thought
the military was originally going to base them out of an island owned
by the Navy off the cost of LA where there is really no GA traffic.
He also said that although they can log their flight time for military
hours they mean nothing for airlines and that even though a GH
assignment is considered prestigious, pilots who think they'll end up
flying for the airlines avoid the project. At this moment they don't
have another plane for currency (the U-2 pilots have the T-38's to fly
for currency), but that they are hoping to get some T-6's brought in
so they can keep up their stick/rudder stills.
The GH is a very cool aircraft. GH's in theatre are based in UAE but
only the takeoff and landing pilots actually have to be in UAE. The
pilots who are flying the GH over Iraq at this moment are sitting,
drinking coffee, in California. They fly in 3 hour shifts. They are
limited to 3 hours mostly because there are so many pilots the 3 hours
is the only way for everyone to get time. However, they don't just get
up and walk off to go the bathroom. ;) Oh, and yes, the plane is flown
mostly by mouse, not yoke.

-Robert

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> I was speaking with a couple of Global Hawk pilots at Beale this
> weekend and got some interesting information. The information was
> presented to me as public (non-classified).

T'ain't a pilot if you aren't in the aircraft. :-)

> The first thing that
> surprised me is that contrary to whatI had heard previously the
> aircraft has no traffic avoidance systems at all. There is a bay for a
> civilian TCAS unit but as of yet none have been installed. The pilot
> reported that certification of TCAS was interrupted because TCAS
> resolutions require 30 degree of bank and the GH is limited to 15.

um, no. TCAS II resolutions are vertical only. No TCAS II resolution requires
a turn. TCAS II azimuth information simply isn't accurate enough to support
horizontal guidance.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

> The TFR is for the 5 minutes it takes for the
> climb out.

5 minutes to FL180?

[Robert M. Gary]

On Oct 1, 3:19 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
> > The TFR is for the 5 minutes it takes for the
> > climb out.
>
> 5 minutes to FL180?

About 5,000 fpm I was told.

[Blueskies]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message ups.com...
> On Oct 1, 3:19 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
>> > The TFR is for the 5 minutes it takes for the
>> > climb out.
>>
>> 5 minutes to FL180?
>
> About 5,000 fpm I was told.
>

Cruising at 60,000' requires a pretty healthy climb rate...

[Blueskies]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message ups.com...
> Oh, and yes, the plane is flown
> mostly by mouse, not yoke.
>
> -Robert
>


....and that is no yoke!

[Dave S]

Blueskies wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message ups.com...
>
>>On Oct 1, 3:19 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
>>
>>>"Robert M. Gary" wrote:
>>>
>>>>The TFR is for the 5 minutes it takes for the
>>>>climb out.
>>>
>>>5 minutes to FL180?
>>
>>About 5,000 fpm I was told.
>>
>
>
> Cruising at 60,000' requires a pretty healthy climb rate...
>
>

They only need to get to 18,000 to enter Class A in the US. After that
they can back off the climb profile. Thats less than 4 minutes at 5k fpm.

[Veeduber]

They're referring to San Nicolas Island. The facilities are already
there... and have been for more than fifty years. In fact, a lot of
the early Global Hawk flights were done there.

-R.S.Hoover
-(USN, Retired)

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:33:15 -0700, Richard Riley
> wrote in
>:

>
>Better to put them in the middle of Kansas than off shore.

Better for whom?

[Robert M. Gary]

On Oct 1, 10:33 pm, Richard Riley > wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:02:44 -0400, john smith >
> wrote:
>
> >In article om>,
> > "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> >> The pilot also said that they are all very confused as to why the GH
> >> is based out of an area of such high air traffic. He said he thought
> >> the military was originally going to base them out of an island owned
> >> by the Navy off the cost of LA where there is really no GA traffic.
>
> >Come on Robert, that is an easy answer.... politics!
>
> Well, Beal isn't exactly Los Alamitos. Sure, there's traffic there,
> but it's not that much.
>
> Basing them off shore would have been a LOT more expensive. There's
> no infrastructure there, it would all have to be built.

There is a massive Navy base.

-Robert

[Ash Wyllie]

Larry Dighera opined

>On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:33:15 -0700, Richard Riley
> wrote in
>:

>>
>>Better to put them in the middle of Kansas than off shore.

>Better for whom?

Those not in Kansas.


-ash
Cthulhu in 2007!
Why wait for nature?

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:23:09 -0700, "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote in
om>:

>> Basing them off shore would have been a LOT more expensive. There's
>> no infrastructure there, it would all have to be built.
>
>There is a massive Navy base.

I suppose that depends on your definition of 'massive.'

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=san+nicholas+island&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=46.005754,71.279297&ie=UTF8&ll=33.251034,-119.477434&spn=0.023866,0.034804&t=h&z=15&om=1
http://tinyurl.com/27ofxh

[Maxwell]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:23:09 -0700, "Robert M. Gary"
> > wrote in
> om>:
>
>>> Basing them off shore would have been a LOT more expensive. There's
>>> no infrastructure there, it would all have to be built.
>>
>>There is a massive Navy base.
>
> I suppose that depends on your definition of 'massive.'
>

Any idea what else the base is currently being use for?

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 18:34:41 -0500, "Maxwell" > wrote
in >:

>Any idea what else the base is currently being use for?

I had always heard over the years, that San Nicolas Island was part of
a missile testing range, but that's just rumor.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:38:15 -0700, Richard Riley
> wrote in
>:

>On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:01:59 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:33:15 -0700, Richard Riley
> wrote in
>:
>>
>>>
>>>Better to put them in the middle of Kansas than off shore.
>>
>>Better for whom?
>
>Taxpayers.

By 'better' you mean cheaper, right?

[Robert M. Gary]

On Oct 3, 7:56 am, Richard Riley > wrote:

> I'm supporting a UAV test program in So. Cal - on the mainland - right
> now. Even though we have to have ground observers watching the
> vehicle entire flight to ensure separation, it's far easier to fly
> than if we had to ship everything and everyone 50 miles off shore by
> boat or aircraft.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What you are describing is quiet different from Global Hawk. A minimum
crew is maintained at the airports where take off and landings are
normally done (although the plane can land w/o any ground crew if
necessary). All enroute flying is done via a Sat link from Beale.
Right now there are guys at Beale flying missions over Iraq. There is
no need to ship anything. The ground support unit used for take off
and landing pilots can be pulled by a Ford F-150.

-Robert

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> The ground support unit used for take off
> and landing pilots can be pulled by a Ford F-150.
>

But, of course, it isn't called a Ford F-150. It is probably called a Global
Hawk Support Vehicle and cost the Pentagon $1Mil. ;)