Unmanned Military Aircraft to Operate Under Advisory NOTAM Not TFRs

Is this new policy really a good idea as a model for all UAV
operations conducted in the NAS?

http://www.aopa.org/flightplanning/a...0unmanned.html
The FAA’s decision to issue an advisory notam, rather than flight
restrictions, for unmanned military aircraft operations near
Cherry Point, N.C., should be a model for managing traffic near
unmanned aerial flights, AOPA says. ...


And what does this really mean?

Aircraft that do not have an altitude encoding transponder are
strongly urged to avoid Alert Area A-530 unless they are in
contact with Cherry Point Approach Control.

Is ATC able to track the UAV traffic and alert pilots to conflicting
traffic hazards? Implicit in the lack of ATC contact necessary for
Mode C transponder equipped flights is the possibility that the UAV
can "see" beacon signals and avoid them.

On Feb 4, 8:41 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
Is this new policy really a good idea as a model for all UAV
operations conducted in the NAS?

http://www.aopa.org/flightplanning/a...0unmanned.html
The FAA's decision to issue an advisory notam, rather than flight
restrictions, for unmanned military aircraft operations near
Cherry Point, N.C., should be a model for managing traffic near
unmanned aerial flights, AOPA says. ...

And what does this really mean?

Aircraft that do not have an altitude encoding transponder are
strongly urged to avoid Alert Area A-530 unless they are in
contact with Cherry Point Approach Control.

Is ATC able to track the UAV traffic and alert pilots to conflicting
traffic hazards? Implicit in the lack of ATC contact necessary for
Mode C transponder equipped flights is the possibility that the UAV
can "see" beacon signals and avoid them.

All military UAV operations are IFR so, yes ATC can track them. We
have Global Hawk aircraft out here and the TFR is hot for the entire
time the plane is up flying (days) but the plane only passes through
non-class A airspace for a total of about 20 minutes of that time. The
TFR is only in case of engine failure. On the possitive side, this is
a TFR that ATC will almost always grant you through, on the neg side,
its a TFR.

Interesting to note...
1) The Global Hawk as a transponder just like any other IFR aircraft
2) ATC communications are transmited via a Sat link to the aircraft
and then rebroadcast to ATC on a standard COM radio.
3) There is a bay for a TCAS system on the Global Hawk but nothing is
installed. There are not automated systems to avoid traffic in the
Global Hawk.
4) The pilot is looking at a little computer screen and does not have
a 360 view (or anything close to it). See-and-avoid was not built into
the Global Hawk.

-Robert

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 10:15:38 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in
:

On Feb 4, 8:41 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
Is this new policy really a good idea as a model for all UAV
operations conducted in the NAS?

http://www.aopa.org/flightplanning/a...0unmanned.html
The FAA's decision to issue an advisory notam, rather than flight
restrictions, for unmanned military aircraft operations near
Cherry Point, N.C., should be a model for managing traffic near
unmanned aerial flights, AOPA says. ...

And what does this really mean?

Aircraft that do not have an altitude encoding transponder are
strongly urged to avoid Alert Area A-530 unless they are in
contact with Cherry Point Approach Control.

Is ATC able to track the UAV traffic and alert pilots to conflicting
traffic hazards? Implicit in the lack of ATC contact necessary for
Mode C transponder equipped flights is the possibility that the UAV
can "see" beacon signals and avoid them.

All military UAV operations are IFR so, yes ATC can track them. We
have Global Hawk aircraft out here and the TFR is hot for the entire
time the plane is up flying (days) but the plane only passes through
non-class A airspace for a total of about 20 minutes of that time. The
TFR is only in case of engine failure. On the possitive side, this is
a TFR that ATC will almost always grant you through, on the neg side,
its a TFR.

Well, if this new policy of issuing advisory NOTAMs catches on, that
TFR may go away.

Interesting to note...
1) The Global Hawk as a transponder just like any other IFR aircraft
2) ATC communications are transmited via a Sat link to the aircraft
and then rebroadcast to ATC on a standard COM radio.
3) There is a bay for a TCAS system on the Global Hawk but nothing is
installed. There are not automated systems to avoid traffic in the
Global Hawk.

That's unfortunate. But then, I suppose prudence is not a hallmark of
the military.

4) The pilot is looking at a little computer screen and does not have
a 360 view (or anything close to it). See-and-avoid was not built into
the Global Hawk.

-Robert

But it sounds like TCAS could easily be implemented to add a level of
redundancy and independence of ATC for traffic alerts.

Thanks for the information.