UNMANNED, THE WAY OF THE FUTURE

[Larry Dighera]

So, how are these pilotless aircraft expected to comply with the
see-and-avoid mandate?


-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 9, Issue 48b — November 27, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------

UNMANNED, THE WAY OF THE FUTURE
As the 100th anniversary of manned flight looms, some navel-gazers are
now suggesting the future of flight is with drones. "It's no longer
'yes or no.' The technology and the systems are accepted," Daryl
Davidson, head of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems
International (AUVSI), told CNN. "These things are here to stay and
they are proliferating. We'll see them on every runway of every
airport doing patrols and day-to-day routine tasks." Some are even
predicting that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be the last manned
fighter. But battlefield conditions, and their attendant attrition
rates, don't apply over a crowded freeway; others suggest it will be a
while before we accept drones for traffic reports or other urban uses.
"The local TV station isn't going to be happy to have a million dollar
plane crash into traffic or someone's house," said aerospace analyst
Steve Zaloga. "It's going to be a hazard and it's going to be a cost
issue."
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/159-full.html#186167

[C J Campbell]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
|
|
| So, how are these pilotless aircraft expected to comply with the
| see-and-avoid mandate?
|

The FARs are completely unnecessary. The trial lawyers and insurance
companies will solve this problem.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

> | So, how are these pilotless aircraft expected to comply with the
> | see-and-avoid mandate?
> |
>
> The FARs are completely unnecessary. The trial lawyers and insurance
> companies will solve this problem.

solve or create?

--
Bob Noel

[C J Campbell]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
| In article >, "C J Campbell"
| > wrote:
|
| > | So, how are these pilotless aircraft expected to comply with the
| > | see-and-avoid mandate?
| > |
| >
| > The FARs are completely unnecessary. The trial lawyers and insurance
| > companies will solve this problem.
|
| solve or create?
|

Whichever. In any event, they will make sure that the liability of operating
these drones far outweighs any benefits.

I was wondering, do UAV operators have pilot certificates? What kind of
training do they get covering aviation regulations, airspace, etc.?

[Icebound]

C J Campbell wrote:

>
> I was wondering, do UAV operators have pilot certificates? What kind of
> training do they get covering aviation regulations, airspace, etc.?
>
>

Why would they? It is all automated, isn't it? :-)

If not immediately, then certainly pretty soon. If any inflight
programming is to be done, it would be results-oriented and would let
the computer determine the method. Operator only says: "I want to go
there". All the flight rules, already in the drone's computer to get
"there" safely.

Excellent for TFR patrol: boundary violation? Automated-Follow of Rule
1a: Open up the cannon.

The neat thing is that once pilotless becomes well-established, piloted
flight may be forced to comply with the pilotless rules. In order to
operate securely, pilotless would probable require that the piloted
planes be similarly equipped with whatever transponders, automated
data-telemetry, etc., etc..., that would be deemed necessary for
compatibility in the same airspace...

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
.rogers.com>,
Icebound > wrote:

> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> >
> > I was wondering, do UAV operators have pilot certificates? What kind of
> > training do they get covering aviation regulations, airspace, etc.?
> >
> >
>
> Why would they? It is all automated, isn't it? :-)
>
> If not immediately, then certainly pretty soon. If any inflight
> programming is to be done, it would be results-oriented and would let
> the computer determine the method. Operator only says: "I want to go
> there". All the flight rules, already in the drone's computer to get
> "there" safely.
>
> Excellent for TFR patrol: boundary violation? Automated-Follow of Rule
> 1a: Open up the cannon.
>
> The neat thing is that once pilotless becomes well-established, piloted
> flight may be forced to comply with the pilotless rules. In order to
> operate securely, pilotless would probable require that the piloted
> planes be similarly equipped with whatever transponders, automated
> data-telemetry, etc., etc..., that would be deemed necessary for
> compatibility in the same airspace...
>


Not bloody likely in the US, at least! AOPA, EAA and otheres would raise
holy hell over that kind of proposal -- and they should!

[Leslie Swartz]

Larry:

Easy. It's not "See" and avoid any more.

Steve Swartz

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> So, how are these pilotless aircraft expected to comply with the
> see-and-avoid mandate?
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> AVflash Volume 9, Issue 48b - November 27, 2003
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> UNMANNED, THE WAY OF THE FUTURE
> As the 100th anniversary of manned flight looms, some navel-gazers are
> now suggesting the future of flight is with drones. "It's no longer
> 'yes or no.' The technology and the systems are accepted," Daryl
> Davidson, head of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems
> International (AUVSI), told CNN. "These things are here to stay and
> they are proliferating. We'll see them on every runway of every
> airport doing patrols and day-to-day routine tasks." Some are even
> predicting that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be the last manned
> fighter. But battlefield conditions, and their attendant attrition
> rates, don't apply over a crowded freeway; others suggest it will be a
> while before we accept drones for traffic reports or other urban uses.
> "The local TV station isn't going to be happy to have a million dollar
> plane crash into traffic or someone's house," said aerospace analyst
> Steve Zaloga. "It's going to be a hazard and it's going to be a cost
> issue."
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/159-full.html#186167

[Icebound]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article
> .rogers.com>,
> Icebound > wrote:
>
>
>>C J Campbell wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I was wondering, do UAV operators have pilot certificates? What kind of
>>>training do they get covering aviation regulations, airspace, etc.?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Why would they? It is all automated, isn't it? :-)
>>
>>If not immediately, then certainly pretty soon. If any inflight
>>programming is to be done, it would be results-oriented and would let
>>the computer determine the method. Operator only says: "I want to go
>>there". All the flight rules, already in the drone's computer to get
>>"there" safely.
>>
>>Excellent for TFR patrol: boundary violation? Automated-Follow of Rule
>>1a: Open up the cannon.
>>
>>The neat thing is that once pilotless becomes well-established, piloted
>>flight may be forced to comply with the pilotless rules. In order to
>>operate securely, pilotless would probable require that the piloted
>>planes be similarly equipped with whatever transponders, automated
>>data-telemetry, etc., etc..., that would be deemed necessary for
>>compatibility in the same airspace...
>>
>
>
>
> Not bloody likely in the US, at least! AOPA, EAA and otheres would raise
> holy hell over that kind of proposal -- and they should!

But GPS has made it so EASY :-)

http://www.insitugroup.net/Pages/atlantic.html (and look at the date)

Program in the waypoints and a destination, get the flight started and
tell the autopilot: "GO". With just about the sophistication than you
already have today, you can then pretty well shut off the communication
link to the aircraft, until it is 100 feet off the ground at
destination, and at some airports you probably don't even need it then.

Oh, this is coming, all right. They will build up hours in remote
applications such as the coastline surviellance or forest fire
applications, and then some enterprising statistician will show how the
reliability rate compares with piloted flight. It remains to be seen
whether the reliability will compare well or badly.

[BTIZ]

> I was wondering, do UAV operators have pilot certificates? What kind of
> training do they get covering aviation regulations, airspace, etc.?

USAF Predator "Pilots" "were" USAF rated pilots (not required to hold civil
rating) or USAF rated flight navigators with civil commercial/IFR ratings. I
can't speak for civil drones.

BT

[BTIZ]

Predator used to have an escort (wingman) to fly between military Restricted
ranges but not when within a Restricted airspace.

I think recently (about 1 yr ago) they were granted a waiver to fly between
Mojave CA and Indian Springs AFS NV, staying as much as possible in
restricted or MOA airspace. But could transition open airspace. They are
relatively "slow" and do carry a camera (observer) that looks around and
looks ahead that is beamed real time to the control station.

They also have pre programmed "lost link" flight plans to follow if the link
to ground is lost that would keep them in "protected" airspace.

At least that's the way it used to be.

BT

"Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message
...
> Larry:
>
> Easy. It's not "See" and avoid any more.
>
> Steve Swartz
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > So, how are these pilotless aircraft expected to comply with the
> > see-and-avoid mandate?
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > AVflash Volume 9, Issue 48b - November 27, 2003
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > UNMANNED, THE WAY OF THE FUTURE
> > As the 100th anniversary of manned flight looms, some navel-gazers are
> > now suggesting the future of flight is with drones. "It's no longer
> > 'yes or no.' The technology and the systems are accepted," Daryl
> > Davidson, head of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems
> > International (AUVSI), told CNN. "These things are here to stay and
> > they are proliferating. We'll see them on every runway of every
> > airport doing patrols and day-to-day routine tasks." Some are even
> > predicting that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be the last manned
> > fighter. But battlefield conditions, and their attendant attrition
> > rates, don't apply over a crowded freeway; others suggest it will be a
> > while before we accept drones for traffic reports or other urban uses.
> > "The local TV station isn't going to be happy to have a million dollar
> > plane crash into traffic or someone's house," said aerospace analyst
> > Steve Zaloga. "It's going to be a hazard and it's going to be a cost
> > issue."
> > http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/159-full.html#186167
>
>

[JDupre5762]

Does anyone remember......... The missile will make the internal gun and the
dog fight obsolete? Fighters will kill thier targets at BVR and never see
them? Modern submarines with missiles make surface ships obsolete? Modern man
portable anti tank missiles make the tank obsolete?

Clearly UAVs have an important and increasing role especially in military roles
but there will always be a need to have a pilot on station somewhere who can
actually see what is going on with his own eyes.

John Dupre'

>"These things are here to stay and
>they are proliferating. We'll see them on every runway of every
>airport doing patrols and day-to-day routine tasks." Some are even
>predicting that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be the last manned
>fighter.

[Leslie Swartz]

And what about "the longbow will never defeat armor" no, wait . . .

Sorry dude.

Smokeless powder and cased cartrdges did indeed replace black powder and
minie balls.

Technology has a way of surprising us, after all.

What similar disadvantage(s) do UCAVS poseess (like each of your examples
clearly did at their introduction) to limit their application? Moral
disadvantages? Legal disadvantages?

The technical limitations are falling away very quickly.

Steve Swartz


"JDupre5762" > wrote in message
...
> Does anyone remember......... The missile will make the internal gun and
the
> dog fight obsolete? Fighters will kill thier targets at BVR and never see
> them? Modern submarines with missiles make surface ships obsolete?
Modern man
> portable anti tank missiles make the tank obsolete?
>
> Clearly UAVs have an important and increasing role especially in military
roles
> but there will always be a need to have a pilot on station somewhere who
can
> actually see what is going on with his own eyes.
>
> John Dupre'
>
> >"These things are here to stay and
> >they are proliferating. We'll see them on every runway of every
> >airport doing patrols and day-to-day routine tasks." Some are even
> >predicting that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be the last manned
> >fighter.
>
>

[Paul F Austin]

"JDupre5762" wrote
> Does anyone remember......... The missile will make the internal gun and
the
> dog fight obsolete? Fighters will kill thier targets at BVR and never see
> them? Modern submarines with missiles make surface ships obsolete?
Modern man
> portable anti tank missiles make the tank obsolete?
>
> Clearly UAVs have an important and increasing role especially in military
roles
> but there will always be a need to have a pilot on station somewhere who
can
> actually see what is going on with his own eyes.

"The bomber will always get through"? How about the cavalry?

UAVs are pretty obviously the platform of choice for sensors in the recon
role. They have a big role to play in SEAD but are unlikely to do autonomous
targeting until a lot more experience is available. The only reason they
can't do autonomous air to air is because our pilots will have no desire to
share the sky with self-targeting AAMs.

[Leslie Swartz]

Great point, Paul, on the main limitation to the use of UCAVs in the A-A
mode is fear of "blue on blue" losses.

Maybe there will be some role for manned vehicles (or remotely piloted
vehicles) in some A-G applications where the advantages of having a robot
pilot aren't so great.

However, the advantages of lighter, leaner, cheaper, more lethal, less risk
will be a powerful reason for getting the wet bags of protein out of the
loop quickly.

Steve Swartz

"Paul F Austin" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "JDupre5762" wrote
> > Does anyone remember......... The missile will make the internal gun and
> the
> > dog fight obsolete? Fighters will kill thier targets at BVR and never
see
> > them? Modern submarines with missiles make surface ships obsolete?
> Modern man
> > portable anti tank missiles make the tank obsolete?
> >
> > Clearly UAVs have an important and increasing role especially in
military
> roles
> > but there will always be a need to have a pilot on station somewhere who
> can
> > actually see what is going on with his own eyes.
>
> "The bomber will always get through"? How about the cavalry?
>
> UAVs are pretty obviously the platform of choice for sensors in the recon
> role. They have a big role to play in SEAD but are unlikely to do
autonomous
> targeting until a lot more experience is available. The only reason they
> can't do autonomous air to air is because our pilots will have no desire
to
> share the sky with self-targeting AAMs.
>
>