NEWS: Aviation's future -- pilotless planes

From http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/03/30/p....ap/index.html

Here's the opening paragraphs....

Aviation's future -- pilotless planes

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Pilotless planes could be the "next great step forward" in
aviation, or a new safety hazard in already crowded skies, a House panel was
told Wednesday.

Since 1997, unmanned aircraft have been used in U.S. airspace primarily by
the military. But now the government wants to fly more of them to patrol the
nation's borders, catch criminals, monitor the environment and assist in
disaster relief.

Some companies think pilotless planes have a vast commercial potential for
uses that range from crop dusting to weather prediction.




Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 08:04:06 -0000, Skywise
wrote in
::

From http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/03/30/p....ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Pilotless planes could be the "next great step forward" in
aviation, or a new safety hazard in already crowded skies, a House panel was
told Wednesday.

There is little question of the latter. Has anyone seen any proof of
the former?

Since 1997, unmanned aircraft have been used in U.S. airspace primarily by
the military. But now the government wants to fly more of them to patrol the
nation's borders, catch criminals, monitor the environment and assist in
disaster relief.

Would that be a result of the effort of lobbyists, or a genuine need
for UAVs? If the latter, I would like to see a cost justification.

Some companies think pilotless planes have a vast commercial potential for
uses that range from crop dusting to weather prediction.

UAVs can't even see and avoid other aircraft; how are crop dusting
UAVs going to avoid things like electrical wires, etc?

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

Since 1997, unmanned aircraft have been used in U.S. airspace primarily by
the military. But now the government wants to fly more of them to patrol the
nation's borders, catch criminals, monitor the environment and assist in
disaster relief.

Would that be a result of the effort of lobbyists, or a genuine need
for UAVs? If the latter, I would like to see a cost justification.

What's the dollar value of a human life?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 08:04:06 -0000, Skywise
wrote in
::

From http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/03/30/p....ap/index.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Pilotless planes could be the "next great step forward" in
aviation, or a new safety hazard in already crowded skies, a House panel was
told Wednesday.

There is little question of the latter. Has anyone seen any proof of
the former?

Since 1997, unmanned aircraft have been used in U.S. airspace primarily by
the military. But now the government wants to fly more of them to patrol the
nation's borders, catch criminals, monitor the environment and assist in
disaster relief.

Would that be a result of the effort of lobbyists, or a genuine need
for UAVs? If the latter, I would like to see a cost justification.

Some companies think pilotless planes have a vast commercial potential for
uses that range from crop dusting to weather prediction.

UAVs can't even see and avoid other aircraft; how are crop dusting
UAVs going to avoid things like electrical wires, etc?

UAVs are different from remotely piloted planes. Both are "pilotless"
but I'm not sure which will be employed to do border patrol, in-air
refueling stations, or long range passenger trips.

On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 08:30:20 -0400, Stubby
wrote in
::

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 08:04:06 -0000, Skywise
wrote in
::

From http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/03/30/p....ap/index.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Pilotless planes could be the "next great step forward" in
aviation, or a new safety hazard in already crowded skies, a House panel was
told Wednesday.

There is little question of the latter. Has anyone seen any proof of
the former?

Since 1997, unmanned aircraft have been used in U.S. airspace primarily by
the military. But now the government wants to fly more of them to patrol the
nation's borders, catch criminals, monitor the environment and assist in
disaster relief.

Would that be a result of the effort of lobbyists, or a genuine need
for UAVs? If the latter, I would like to see a cost justification.

Some companies think pilotless planes have a vast commercial potential for
uses that range from crop dusting to weather prediction.

UAVs can't even see and avoid other aircraft; how are crop dusting
UAVs going to avoid things like electrical wires, etc?

UAVs are different from remotely piloted planes.

Why do you draw that distinction?

Are either of them currently capable of meeting the federal
see-and-avoid regulations?

Both are "pilotless" but I'm not sure which will be employed
to do border patrol,

The Bush administration has funded two Predator UAVs for southern US
border patrol.

in-air refueling stations,

Refueling is an interesting mission for UAVs. How difficult would it
be for terrorists to monitor the radio control signals, duplicate
them, and seize control of a heavily fuel laden unmanned aircraft?

or long range passenger trips.

What would be the per-seat cost savings to passengers willing to climb
aboard a pilotless airliner? Is there any justification for UAVs in
this mission other than economic? Is that sufficient to justify the
hazard to the public created by UAVs?

Below are some additional excerpts from the Associated Press article:

"The development and use of unmanned aircraft is the next great
step forward in the evolution of aviation," Nick Sabatini, the
Federal Aviation Administration's associate administrator for
aviation safety, told the House aviation subcommittee.

But Sabatini didn't disagree with private pilots who say there's
no proof that they can operate safely.

So in the opinion of FAA officials there is no need for UAV operators
to prove that they can safely operate in the NAS? Pilots have prove
they can't. That's a ridiculous attitude for the federal agency
tasked with making flight safe. The very least that Congress should
mandate is that the UAV operators bear _sole_ responsibility for an
Mid Air Collision that may occur.

Last year, the FAA allowed two unmanned aircraft to be tested for
commercial use. Sabatini said 50 other kinds of unmanned aircraft
will be approved for flight tests this year.

I knew this was coming. The use of UAVs for border patrol duty is the
camel's nose under the tent.

Robert Owen, a professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University,
said the military and private industry want the FAA to fly'
pilotless planes in U.S. airspace.

"Congress needs to encourage the FAA to streamline and energize
its process for granting certificates of authorization for
military and commercial operations under appropriate
restrictions," Owen said.

The FAA's reluctance to approve unmanned aircraft for commercial
reasons "is probably the industry's No. 1 grievance," Owen said.

The military is also chafing under the FAA's restrictions.

How can this spokesman for a firm, whose sole activity is training
pilots, espouse such dreck?

Now, when the military or the government wants to fly a pilotless
plane in civilian airspace, the FAA allows it to operate over
unpopulated areas and be observed by someone on the ground or in a
"chase" aircraft.

Even this limited UAV access to the NAS creates a safety hazard to
other aircraft and those on the ground.

"We want the Department of Defense to have the same access to the
national airspace as commercial aviation," said Dyke
Weatherington, deputy of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems Planning
Task Force for the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense.

Given the lack of responsibility the US military has demonstrated in
the mishaps that have occurred on its Military Training Route
operations, granting the military's UAVs unrestricted access to the
NAS wouldn't be prudent, and would cause a hazard, not only to
recreational aviators, but airline traffic and the flying public as
well.

Greed may blind the proponents of UAV operations in the NAS, but it
doesn't blind any thinking person.

The sheriff's department in Gaston County, North Carolina, for
example, recently announced it would fly unmanned aerial vehicles
for law enforcement purposes. Alarmed pilots told the FAA, which
told the sheriff's department it couldn't fly unmanned aircraft
over a congested area because it wasn't safe, Sabatini said.

Now that is alarming! Imagine a NAS in which only the aircraft with
human pilots aboard need bother with the legal responsibility to
see-and-avoid, and the pilotless aircraft are exempt from culpability
for the hazards they cause! It's time to write your Congresspersons.

Lawmakers were reviewing the government's authority to oversee the
safety of unmanned aircraft in civilian airspace.

So rather than searching for ways to safely meld UAVs into the NAS,
lawmakers are checking to see if the government has jurisdiction over
UAV operations in the NAS?!?! Can there be any question? What are
these people thinking?

Below is a quote from Bill Maher's HBO TV series Real Time that aired
March, 31, 2006. Although delivered in jest, it sheds some light into
the Bush administration's respect for the public and the laws of our
nation:

NEW RUEL:

Nobody can use the phrase "our greatest problem" anymore unless you're
talking about global warming. President Bush has been saying we are
in a war on "terr," and now I get it. He's not saying "terror."; he's
saying "terra," as in terra firma; as in the Earth.

George Bush is an alien sent here to destroy the Earth. I know it
sounds strange, it made perfect sense when Tom Cruise explained to me
last week.

Now, last week on _60 Minutes_, James Hensen, who is NASA's leading
expert on the science of climate, delivered the world's most important
message. He said, "we have to, in the next ten years, begin to
decrease the rate of carbon dioxide emissions, and then flatten it
out. If that doesn't happen in ten years, we're going to be passing
certain tipping points."

If the ice sheets begin to disintegrate, what can you do about it? You
can't tie a rope around an ice sheet, although I know a certain cowboy
from Crawford who might think you could. Ant that cowboy and his
corporate goons at the White House tried to censor Mr. Hansen from
delivering that message claiming such warnings were speculative. Ha
ha. This from the crowd who rushed into a war based on an article in
the Weekly Standard. This from the guy who thinks Kyoto is that
Japanese emperor dude his dad threw up on.

Global warming is not speculative. It threatens us enough, so that
would be considered a national security issue. Failing to warn the
citizens of a looming weapon of mass destruction, and that's what
global warming is, in order to protect oil company profits, well that
fits for me the definition of treason; uncodified treason.

The guy in the White House who made the edits was Phil Coney, who had
been an oil industry lobbyist before given this job as head of the
White House Council on Environmental Quality. This is the office that
is supposed to be watching out for us. That's where Phil busied
himself crossing stuff out in scientists' reports. Apparently in
Phil's mind, he hadn't switched jobs. He was just doing his old job,
oil industry lobbyist, from a different office. You know. In the
peoples' house.

Republicans have succeeded in making the environment about some
tie-died duce from Seattle who lives in a solar powered yurt and eats
twigs. It's not.

This issue should be driven by something conservatives are much more
familiar with, utter selfishness. That's my motivation. I don't
wanta live my golden years having to put on a Hasmet suit just to go
down and get the mail. Those are my Viagra years. When I'll be
thinking about having children. But I wouldn't know what to tell a
kid about our world in twenty years.

"Dad tell me about the birds and bees." "They're all gone; now eat
your Soilent Green." We are letting dyeing men kill our planed for
cash, and they are counting on us being too greedy or distracted, or
just plane lazy, to stop them.

So on this day, the 17th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill,
let us pause to consider how close we are to making ourselves fossils
from the fossil fuels we extract. In the next twenty years, almost a
billion Chinese people will be trading in their bicycles for the
automobile. Folks, we either get our **** together on this quickly,
or we're going to have to go to plan 'B': inventing a car that runs on
Chinese people.

--

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country
and our people, and neither do we." - George W. Bush

Snipola

Larry, when I saw the story, I thought of you. I knew you'd be all
over it like ants to honey.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 16:54:53 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

UAVs can't even see and avoid other aircraft; how are crop dusting UAVs
going to avoid things like electrical wires, etc?

BTW, I've read this here before and I don't understand why UAV "pilots"
don't have vision in all directions combined with active traffic
avoidance (seeing even just primary targets). With a wearable HUD,
bandwidth, and sufficiently smart processing, a UAV "pilot" should have
*better* see&avoid capabilities than we do.

More, ground-based RADAR should be yet another input to the "pilot".

[...]

Refueling is an interesting mission for UAVs. How difficult would it be
for terrorists to monitor the radio control signals, duplicate them, and
seize control of a heavily fuel laden unmanned aircraft?

I'd hope that the traffic would be encrypted.

Jamming would be a more realistic threat, I'd opine. But isn't that
enough of a problem?

[...]

What would be the per-seat cost savings to passengers willing to climb
aboard a pilotless airliner? Is there any justification for UAVs in
this mission other than economic? Is that sufficient to justify the
hazard to the public created by UAVs?

I can imagine some advantages. For example, consider that Egyptian (?)
flight that a pilot flew into an ocean a few years back. On one hand,
this becomes easier for a non-suicidal pilot to achieve. But the pilot
under this model is operating in an environment with many others (or so
one would presume). There's far better opportunity to smack a killer pilot
on the head and have someone else take over the plane.

There are also training implications, but I'm not sure how significant
this would be. Choose some tough airport approach, train a few pilots to
be perfect in that approach, and then they always fly it. Any airplane
about to transition from en route to approach to that airport gets handed
over to one of these "specialists".

Is all this worth the threat of jamming (natural or man-made)? I'd not
think so. We've seen traffic snarls when an ATC facility has gone down.
Imagine the havoc if a "remote piloting" facility goes down!

[...]
So in the opinion of FAA officials there is no need for UAV operators to
prove that they can safely operate in the NAS? Pilots have prove they
can't. That's a ridiculous attitude for the federal agency tasked with
making flight safe. The very least that Congress should mandate is that
the UAV operators bear _sole_ responsibility for an Mid Air Collision
that may occur.

What would that possibly mean? If I'm dead from a midair with a UAV, what
difference does it make to me if the UAV operator is held "responsible"?

[Unless by "responsible" you mean "dropped from an airplane w/o a chute".]

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
What would that possibly mean? If I'm dead from a midair with a UAV, what
difference does it make to me if the UAV operator is held "responsible"?

I figure that if I'm going to die because of the pilot's mistake, I want him
on the plane with me for company... I want him to have at least as good of a
chance of dying in the crash as I will...

It is natural for pilots to disagree with anyone proposing to eliminate
their roles. As much as I like the sensation of being in control of an
airplane, I believe that computers can be designed to do a better job
than people. For that to happen, airplanes need to be designed and
built differently. ATC need to be designed and built differenty. It
would be a complete revamp of the system. I don't think it would be
possible to take your average Piper Cherokee and retrofit it for
pilotless flying and send it into a busy class B airspace controlled by
talking humans. The same will be true for airliners as well. This is
also why most pilots think of automated flight as being impossible.
They are thinking of the the conventional cockpit, and the amount of
human interactions that are required to make a safe flight. If one
could start with a clean slate, a much more efficient and better system
could be built.



Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 08:04:06 -0000, Skywise
wrote in
::

From http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/03/30/p....ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Pilotless planes could be the "next great step forward" in
aviation, or a new safety hazard in already crowded skies, a House panel was
told Wednesday.

There is little question of the latter. Has anyone seen any proof of
the former?

Since 1997, unmanned aircraft have been used in U.S. airspace primarily by
the military. But now the government wants to fly more of them to patrol the
nation's borders, catch criminals, monitor the environment and assist in
disaster relief.

Would that be a result of the effort of lobbyists, or a genuine need
for UAVs? If the latter, I would like to see a cost justification.

Some companies think pilotless planes have a vast commercial potential for
uses that range from crop dusting to weather prediction.

UAVs can't even see and avoid other aircraft; how are crop dusting
UAVs going to avoid things like electrical wires, etc?

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote

I believe that computers can be designed to do a better job
than people.

That may be true, until the **** hits the fan. Then I want a biotec
computer there, to figure it out right, in the real time instant that will
make the difference between live and dead.

It is on the top of a torso, called the pilot, and the computer is called a
brain.

There does not exist, in this world, an infallible machine.
--
Jim in NC