Slashdot Mirror
Unmanned Aircraft Will Test Air Traffic Control
coondoggie writes "While the skies aren't exactly buzzing with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) just yet, experts are warning their explosive growth will require military and public officials to address the issue sooner than they might think.
The four chiefs of service aviation and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) branches told the Army Aviation Association of America's unmanned aircraft symposium last week that the military should crystallize combat air control regarding UAVs, while domestic authorities must work out access and use of UAVs in domestic airspace. "I'm surprised we haven't had a collision yet," said Rear Adm. Joseph Aucoin, director of the Navy's aviation plans and requirements branch."
As of right now, many things.
One is risk - like any non-locally human controlled craft we can send these into places we can not go due to us being fairly fragile. We simply do not have to worry that the pilots return alive.
Another factor is that these aren't really taking the place of full aircraft. These are used to loiter around someplace we think someone is at, look for them, and kill them if they find them (or direct others to kill them, usually from a distance). It is trivial to keep them up in air as long as they have power to do so, we simply switch some guys at a desk. Nor are these generally as large as a "real" aircraft - those humans take up room and have requirements other than simply the physical space they take up sitting still (though combat aircraft designers try and minimize this, it is still well above zero). This makes them much harder for those on the ground to find.
And finally, cost. As expensive as even something like our f-22 is it pales in comparison to the cost of the human flying it. See above for most of the reason as to why we remove the risk against this cost, not to mention many of us are used to controlling things nowadays from a keyboard and joystick. Add in other things like we no longer care what our bodies can sustain but only care what the airframe does (some of these can pull in the 20 and 30 g's) and you have a real case for UAV's.
In short, we have combat fighter pilots telecommuting.
They don't totally replace humans on the field (or in the air) and never will. At the very least war requires humans have their ability to wage war to be removed and that generally involves killing us or damaging us to the point where we can not function. In this case it is just a person behind the controller (or maybe someday the programmer writing the AI) to be the one causing the causalities or be the one taking them. At some point UAV's will make less sense as both sides will have equal access to them and we will back to human vs human.
And, no, latency has not really been an issue as of yet. We have combat air-to-air craft that function well, however at some point attacks against the signal are inevitable (I assume that has been though of in some way).
When we are in the current state where we can sit in a safe spot and inflict casualties on the enemy with little to no ability for them to inflict them back we are crazy to not use it. If we had the equivalent of this for infantry then on our side we would be seeing "body counts" of robots - no matter your opinion on if the Iraq war (or even war at all) is justified it should be obvious why any nation would want to be able to say only robots got blown up or damaged. One may argue that blowing things up is futile, but that id VERY different as to why one would want this.
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
For cargo planes at least, you can make a lot of savings if you don't have to support human survival on board. For example you don't need to pressurise the cabin (thus saving weight of air), nor provide toilets, sound insulation, heating systems, safety equipment etc.. With a redesign of plane you don't even need to provide standing room - you could fit cargo into a wing shape that didn't have the tube bit in the middle, thus making it more aerodynamic. You wouldn't be limited by how long people can tolerate being on board, so for cargo you could fly a plane say from England to New Zealand non-stop at a much slower speed, thus saving on fuel consumed, thus saving on weight of fuel you need to supply when you take off and so forth. It also becomes more economical to have smaller point-to-point cargo deliveries which don't incur the energy and handling costs of bringing a plane to land at a major hub, sorting the cargo onto an onward flight and shoving it back up in the air again.
43 - For those who require slightly more than the answer to life, the universe and everything.
Dudes, I have one acronym for you: TCAS.
As for the air traffic control issue there is no reason that ATC cannot control a UAV in the way that they contol other aircraft in civilian airspace - but instead of talking to it on the radio, send it a message to change course/altitude. There are already standard systems for controlling piloted aricraft (automated landings etc.) No reason why similar systems cannot be used on UAVs.
Art is the mathematics of emotion
Really, why is it OK for planes to fly without even having a radio? It's almost 2008, we should have planes with full, digital situational monitors that tell the pilot about any looming threats. If you spend $500,000, you can have that today, but it should be costing somewhere around a couple grand. Since the entry point for aviation is around $20,000 for a basic, 2-seat plane, this is a big deal.
You assume the aircraft has electrical power. I've got a 1962 Stitts that does not have an electrical system. You start it the old fashion way - spin the prop. Cost me ~6.5, with a couple thousand more in maintenance to fly a 100 hp, two seat, tail dragger that has its aerobatics rating. Next time I resurface the wings, I'll probably run wiring for lights. I just cannot afford (weight) an alternator. The extras are nice - but the moment you buy anything 'aviation' grade, you tend to shell out 2-3 times what one would think you might pay. I'd reply back - why are bicyclist allowed to bike on a street without a drivers license? Why aren't all cars all wheel drive? Just like a radio, in some conditions you don't need it. Flying is not so different from boating. Most areas follow some simple rules. You don't take a canoe into a major port...
So anyhow - I don't have my instrument rating, so I fly below 10,000' in good weather - VFR (visual flight rules) airspace. This is my worry about the UAV's - they damn well better keep those things in IFR airspace. They can be hard to spot in the air - much like a glider. You get the wrong angle, and you could be in for a surprise if you are not diligent in scanning the sky. Commercial aircraft are equipped with the transponder, radio, etc. Personal aircraft - not so much. Either way, the pilot is ultimately responsible. An autonomous drone scares the hell out of me. A remotely piloted drone is troubling, as the odds they will look at their cameras for oncoming traffic as intensely as somebody who's life *depends* on it is slim.
(One final note - while I do lust after a glass cockpit, the altimeter and other gages tend to work on air pressure. The old displays might be analog, but digital display or not - it is the same data source that worked in the 50's)
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU