UAVs - a growing midair concern?

[jcarlyle]

Recently I've seen articles talking about the use of Predator UAVs (66
foot wingspan, 10,000 pound MTOW) along the US-Mexican border
(www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4213464.html), as well as
tests of smaller (10 foot wingspan, 44 pound MTOW) UAVs by the Houston
Police (www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4234272.html). Now
there's news of an even smaller (6 foot wingspan, 4 pound MTOW) UAV
for use over forests (www.sacbee.com/111/story/836413.html).

Given an apparent increasing use of UAVs in areas where we wouldn't
expect to find one, what should glider pilots know about avoiding
midair collisions with UAVs? Obviously the UAV operator/pilot isn't
going to see us. Will a transponder/PCAS/ADS-B help us detect/avoid
UAVs? Will the use of UAVs in police operations/drug surveillance
require a NOTAM, considering that could tip off the bad guys? Will
there be strict altitude adherence by UAVs? What about ridge flights,
where a 4 pound UAV at 250 feet could pose extreme danger to a glider
traveling at 100 kts?

Can someone educate me on this subject?

-John

[Mike the Strike]

John:

You obviously missed my earlier thread on this subject. In the first
test along the Arizona/Mexico border, operators lost control of a
Predator, which then autonomously flew north out of control. Tucson
air space was shut down, but fortunately, the errant UAV turned south
before crashing in the back yard of a farmhouse near Nogales.
Predators (or at least their control systems) have not been known for
their reliability.

Many of us are concerned, not just for the incursion on our airspace,
but by the use of horrendously expensive and unreliable technologies.
The Predator unmanned programs are much more expensive than the manned
aircraft they are replacing and many of us are unconvinced they will
be cost effective.

Ground-based solutions can be deployed - how about a fence, vibrations
sensors, tower-mounted cameras. All cheaper and more effective.

However, budgets have been allocated to buy more Predators for both
the Mexican and Canadian borders. At least they have transponders so
you can see them coming!

Mike

[jcarlyle]

Hi, Mike,

Your previous thread's points regarding control unreliability, system
expense and grabbing of airspace are well taken. But I was aiming at a
different question than you were: what can we glider pilots do to
protect ourselves, given that UAV use is increasing and is now
encroaching into unexpected areas like forests?

I'm gratified to learn that the new Predators have transponders - at
least someone might have a fighting chance with a PCAS. But I'm really
doubting that a 4 pound MTOW UAV will have a transponder! Even if the
damn thing doesn't get above 250 feet, if we don't know that it's
being used and it doesn't have a transponder some ridge runner might
be in for a real unpleasant surprise.

Are there some FAA regulations that govern the use of UAVs?

-John

On Apr 7, 1:02 pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> John:
>
> You obviously missed my earlier thread on this subject. In the first
> test along the Arizona/Mexico border, operators lost control of a
> Predator, which then autonomously flew north out of control. Tucson
> air space was shut down, but fortunately, the errant UAV turned south
> before crashing in the back yard of a farmhouse near Nogales.
> Predators (or at least their control systems) have not been known for
> their reliability.
>
> Many of us are concerned, not just for the incursion on our airspace,
> but by the use of horrendously expensive and unreliable technologies.
> The Predator unmanned programs are much more expensive than the manned
> aircraft they are replacing and many of us are unconvinced they will
> be cost effective.
>
> Ground-based solutions can be deployed - how about a fence, vibrations
> sensors, tower-mounted cameras. All cheaper and more effective.
>
> However, budgets have been allocated to buy more Predators for both
> the Mexican and Canadian borders. At least they have transponders so
> you can see them coming!
>
> Mike

[fredsez]

On Apr 7, 10:36*am, jcarlyle > wrote:
> Hi, Mike,
>
> Your previous thread's points regarding control unreliability, system
> expense and grabbing of airspace are well taken. But I was aiming at a
> different question than you were: *what can we glider pilots do to
> protect ourselves, given that UAV use is increasing and is now
> encroaching into unexpected areas like forests?
>
> I'm gratified to learn that the new Predators have transponders - at
> least someone might have a fighting chance with a PCAS. But I'm really
> doubting that a 4 pound MTOW UAV will have a transponder! Even if the
> damn thing doesn't get above 250 feet, if we don't know that it's
> being used and it doesn't have a transponder some ridge runner might
> be in for a real unpleasant surprise.
>
> Are there some FAA regulations that govern the use of UAVs?
>
> -John
>
> On Apr 7, 1:02 pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>
>
>
> > John:
>
> > You obviously missed my earlier thread on this subject. *In the first
> > test along the Arizona/Mexico border, operators lost control of a
> > Predator, which then autonomously flew north out of control. *Tucson
> > air space was shut down, but fortunately, the errant UAV turned south
> > before crashing in the back yard of a farmhouse near Nogales.
> > Predators (or at least their control systems) have not been known for
> > their reliability.
>
> > Many of us are concerned, not just for the incursion on our airspace,
> > but by the use of horrendously expensive and unreliable technologies.
> > The Predator unmanned programs are much more expensive than the manned
> > aircraft they are replacing and many of us are unconvinced they will
> > be cost effective.
>
> > Ground-based solutions can be deployed - how about a fence, vibrations
> > sensors, tower-mounted cameras. *All cheaper and more effective.
>
> > However, budgets have been allocated to buy more Predators for both
> > the Mexican and Canadian borders. *At least they have transponders so
> > you can see them coming!
>
> > Mike- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I have "Flown" the early Predator. The pilot (on the ground), can see
and identify other aircraft miles away in the area the UAV is flying.
N numbers are readable long miles away. On most missions the Predator
is so high that not many planes can fly at that level. After 30,000
flights in lots of planes and gliders, except near testing sites I
would say the threat is nil. There are NOTAMS posted for test flights.
The optics are so good they do not have to fly in general aircraft
airspace. The see and be seen ability exceeds nearly all pilots in
flight.
When Predator test pilots trained, they also trained in gliders. They
can travel far after an engine failure.

Who would be threatened by a 6 ft model airplane at 200 ft flying over
gang areas? They are built so light, they might not even break a
window if it hit. These things are not cheap due to the optics and
electronics and the manpower to use them. They are not a "Big Brother"
threat, unless you are trying to escape a felony attempt.

It may become so much of a threat that model airplanes may not be
allowed to fly. What a tragedy it would be for the Feds to over
regulate airspace in "the interests" of safety because ghosts may be
flying and accidents that threaten people on the ground are few and
far between. I believe that class G airspace is not very regulated as
of now. There are regs in reference to minimum safe altitudes, but as
of now, it applies to airplanes being flown by pilots in command.

Police helicopters often fly below the minimums. They rarely fly where
I'm going. I would not want to stop them.

Most low altitude and low speed UAVs have a fuel limit that only
allows short time flights. The threat to people on the ground is much
less than the threat of a criminal intent on harming you.

Use a little reason and rational thought. Unless you, your self want
to threaten people with harm, you have nothing to fear. If you want to
aid and abet criminal activities, I would think of you as one of them.
Rest easy and enjoy the best freedom of action and opportunities that
are found no where else in the world.

Who me worry? Not one minute. Fred Robinson

[J a c k]

fredsez wrote:

> Use a little reason and rational thought. Unless you, your self want
> to threaten people with harm, you have nothing to fear. If you want to
> aid and abet criminal activities, I would think of you as one of them.
> Rest easy and enjoy the best freedom of action and opportunities that
> are found no where else in the world.


http://www.thirdreich.net/Thought_They_Were_Free.html

[vontresc]

On Apr 9, 8:15*am, J a c k > wrote:
> fredsez wrote:
> > Use a little reason and rational thought. Unless you, your self want
> > to threaten people with harm, you have nothing to fear. If you want to
> > aid and abet criminal activities, I would think of you as one of them.
> > Rest easy and enjoy the best freedom of action and opportunities that
> > are found no where else in the world.
>
> http://www.thirdreich.net/Thought_They_Were_Free.html

Ooooh Godwin's Law!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Pete

[jcarlyle]

Hi, Fred,

Thanks for taking the time to write. Let me state up front that I've
held a number of high level security clearances, so you don't have to
worry about me being a bad guy. But everyone fears death by
something: my dad feared fire, my mom feared knives, and I fear
midairs.

From what you say, it sounds like Predators in flight are quite good
at see and be seen. Great - I won't worry about them anymore,
especially since I happen to live far from any US border. I'll bet
that Mike won't be so easily reassured about their reliability,
however.

Your comments on the SkySeer seem way off base. These little 4 pound
whizzies are being used over state forests, and they certainly could
be a threat to glider pilots flying ridges. I'd bet big bucks that
these little babies don't have the same see and be seen abilities that
you claim for the Predator, nor would I expect that their operators/
pilots would be as well trained as Predator pilots.

You're not worried about hitting a 4 pound object when you're at 200
feet and doing 100 kts? Why not? I'm sure you're aware that birds have
brought down airliners taking off and/or coming in to land. Here's
another thought - 4 pound rocks dropped off overpasses have killed
drivers in vehicles, and laminated windshields are much stronger than
plexiglas glider canopies.

As for police helicopters, I've had the experience of viewing one up
close - while on tow! I don't want to stop them doing their business,
but I'd certainly like them to respect both the G symbol on their
sectionals and the rules of the air.

-John

On Apr 9, 2:33 am, fredsez > wrote:
> I have "Flown" the early Predator. The pilot (on the ground), can see
> and identify other aircraft miles away in the area the UAV is flying.
> N numbers are readable long miles away. On most missions the Predator
> is so high that not many planes can fly at that level. After 30,000
> flights in lots of planes and gliders, except near testing sites I
> would say the threat is nil. There are NOTAMS posted for test flights.
> The optics are so good they do not have to fly in general aircraft
> airspace. The see and be seen ability exceeds nearly all pilots in
> flight.
> When Predator test pilots trained, they also trained in gliders. They
> can travel far after an engine failure.
>
> Who would be threatened by a 6 ft model airplane at 200 ft flying over
> gang areas? They are built so light, they might not even break a
> window if it hit. These things are not cheap due to the optics and
> electronics and the manpower to use them. They are not a "Big Brother"
> threat, unless you are trying to escape a felony attempt.
>
> It may become so much of a threat that model airplanes may not be
> allowed to fly. What a tragedy it would be for the Feds to over
> regulate airspace in "the interests" of safety because ghosts may be
> flying and accidents that threaten people on the ground are few and
> far between. I believe that class G airspace is not very regulated as
> of now. There are regs in reference to minimum safe altitudes, but as
> of now, it applies to airplanes being flown by pilots in command.
>
> Police helicopters often fly below the minimums. They rarely fly where
> I'm going. I would not want to stop them.
>
> Most low altitude and low speed UAVs have a fuel limit that only
> allows short time flights. The threat to people on the ground is much
> less than the threat of a criminal intent on harming you.
>
> Use a little reason and rational thought. Unless you, your self want
> to threaten people with harm, you have nothing to fear. If you want to
> aid and abet criminal activities, I would think of you as one of them.
> Rest easy and enjoy the best freedom of action and opportunities that
> are found no where else in the world.
>
> Who me worry? Not one minute. Fred Robinson

[J a c k]

vontresc wrote:

> On Apr 9, 8:15 am, J a c k > wrote:

>> fredsez wrote:

>>> Use a little reason and rational thought. Unless you, your self want
>>> to threaten people with harm, you have nothing to fear. If you want to
>>> aid and abet criminal activities, I would think of you as one of them.
>>> Rest easy and enjoy the best freedom of action and opportunities that
>>> are found no where else in the world.


>> http://www.thirdreich.net/Thought_They_Were_Free.html
>
> Ooooh Godwin's Law!
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law


Yes, be sure and read it, esp. this:

It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily
with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized
codicil that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law
will be unsuccessful (this is sometimes referred to as "Quirk's
Exception").

[....]

However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction or
diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as
hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are
actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that
Godwin's Law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons.



Jack

[fredsez]

On Apr 9, 6:55*am, J a c k > wrote:
> vontresc wrote:
> > On Apr 9, 8:15 am, J a c k > wrote:
> >> fredsez wrote:
> >>> Use a little reason and rational thought. Unless you, your self want
> >>> to threaten people with harm, you have nothing to fear. If you want to
> >>> aid and abet criminal activities, I would think of you as one of them.
> >>> Rest easy and enjoy the best freedom of action and opportunities that
> >>> are found no where else in the world.
> >>http://www.thirdreich.net/Thought_They_Were_Free.html
>
> > Ooooh Godwin's Law!
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
>
> Yes, be sure and read it, esp. this:
>
> * *It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily
> * *with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized
> * *codicil that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law
> * *will be unsuccessful (this is sometimes referred to as "Quirk's
> * *Exception").
>
> * *[....]
>
> * *However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction or
> * *diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as
> * *hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are
> * *actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that
> * *Godwin's Law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons.
>
> Jack

Oh Dear God! What other laws exist? Did I do wrong to add information?
Did I have an evil intent in the post?
Authors in many publications do not get read by me...I fly too much. I
am on my knees asking for forgiveness.
Please set me straight. Use my personal e-mail and we might become
friends. Fred.

[HL Falbaum]

"jcarlyle" > wrote in message
...
> Hi, Fred,
>
> Thanks for taking the time to write. Let me state up front that I've
> held a number of high level security clearances, so you don't have to
> worry about me being a bad guy.

> Your comments on the SkySeer seem way off base. These little 4 pound
> whizzies are being used over state forests, and they certainly could
> be a threat to glider pilots flying ridges. I'd bet big bucks that
> these little babies don't have the same see and be seen abilities that
> you claim for the Predator, nor would I expect that their operators/
> pilots would be as well trained as Predator pilots.
>

OK--enlighten me----please.

What is a 4 pound Sky Seer looking for over State Forests? Insect damage
like the Pine Beetle? Fire?
If it does not have super vision what can it see over a forest? What would
it be looking for over a ridge?

Why are you flying a glider at 200 ft over a forest?

Thanks

Hartley Falbaum USA

[Mike the Strike]

> Why are you flying a glider at 200 ft over a forest?
>
> Thanks
>
> Hartley Falbaum USA

Ridge running?

Mike

[jcarlyle]

Hi, Hartley,

The use of SkySeer that got my attention was looking for marijuana
patches hidden in forests. These would be in remote forested areas,
but of course would be visible from the air. The camera looks only
down and side to side, it is completely blocked from looking forward
and up. Thus, so as far as I could determine, there is no "see and
avoid" capability.

As Mike said, my concern was the danger this 6 foot wingspan 4 pound
UAV could pose to pilots running ridges. From talking to a police
officer friend I know that people grow marijuana in Pennsylvania, and
there's lots of forests along the ridge system. Further, I was
wondering what pilots should know in general about avoiding midair
collisions with UAVs.

It appears that the method you use to access RAS may not permit you to
see the whole thread. Here's one of the url's from the original post,
which describes the SkySeer: www.sacbee.com/111/story/836413.html

-John

On Apr 13, 8:39 am, "HL Falbaum" > wrote:
> OK--enlighten me----please.
>
> What is a 4 pound Sky Seer looking for over State Forests? Insect damage
> like the Pine Beetle? Fire?
> If it does not have super vision what can it see over a forest? What would
> it be looking for over a ridge?
>
> Why are you flying a glider at 200 ft over a forest?
>
> Thanks