New congress, same old tune, inaccurate

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kirk

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark

On Jan 13, 9:33*am, Ferstlesque wrote:
All Predators and Reapers have transponders with mode C, and maintain
2-way radio communication with ATC (with a phone as backup). Military
Predators and Reapers do all of their training within Restricted
airspace; when they must transit the national airspace to travel to
their operating areas, they do so under an IFR flight plan above FL
180. They cannot "see and avoid" in the common sense of the phrase, so
VFR flight in the NAS is not done. Kirk's estimates on weight are
fairly accurate.

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

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

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

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

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

Mark

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

The future probably lies in smaller, lightweight autonomous drones.

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

Mike

The

Mark, Kirk,

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

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

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

-John

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark

"Ferstlesque" wrote in message
...

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

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

Vaughn

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

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

On Jan 13, 3:28*pm, Ferstlesque wrote:
Mike, I could not agree with you more on the cost-benefit of the
present type of UAV's along our borders. I am sure it has to do with
the higher ups' obsession with "the newest thing", even if it does the
job more poorly than previous solutions. It's very common in my career
field too, unfortunately.

Also agree. Hard to see how in most situations a couple of Huskies
with a semi-retired old fart in the FCP and a young eagle eyed border
patrol kid in the back seat couldn't do the job of a Predator. Less
sexy, I guess (of course, that depends on the kid in the back seat...)

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

On Jan 13, 2:28*pm, Ferstlesque wrote:
Mike, I could not agree with you more on the cost-benefit of the
present type of UAV's along our borders. I am sure it has to do with
the higher ups' obsession with "the newest thing", even if it does the
job more poorly than previous solutions. It's very common in my career
field too, unfortunately.

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

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

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




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

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/su...3-drones_N.htm

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

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

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

-John

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