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."

Comments

let them eat cake !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone but me see the OLPC XO-1 as an insulting "let them eat cake" sort of message to the world's poor?

Hands Across America, Live AID, the Concert for Bangladesh, and so on. The American (and world) public has witnessed one feel-good event (and the ensuing scandals) after another. Each one manages to assuage our guilt about the world's problems, at least a little. Now these folks think that any sort of participation in these events, or even their good thoughts about world poverty and starvation, actually help. Now they can sleep at night. It doesn't matter that nothing has really changed.

This is how I view the cute, little One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) XO-1 computer, technology designed for the impoverished children of Africa and Alabama. This machine, which is the brainchild of onetime MIT media lab honcho Nick Negroponte, will save the world. His vision is to supply every child with what amounts to an advertising delivery mechanism. Hence the boys at Google are big investors.

Before you cheer for the good guys, ponder a few of these facts taken from a world hunger Web site. In the Asian, African, and Latin American countries, well over 500 million people are living in what the World Bank has called "absolute poverty." Every year, 15 million children die of hunger. For the price of one missile, a school full of hungry children could eat lunch every day for five years. Throughout the decade, more than 100 million children will die from illness and starvation. The World Health Organization estimates that one-third of the world is well fed, one-third is underfed, and one-third is starving. Since you've entered this site, at least 200 people have died of starvation. One in 12 people worldwide is malnourished, including 160 million children under the age of 5. Nearly one in four people, or 1.3 billion--a majority of humanity--live on less than $1 per day, while the world's 358 billionaires have assets exceeding the combined annual incomes of countries with 45 percent of the world's people. Let's include Negroponte and the Google billionaires.

So what to do? Let's give these kids these little green computers. That will do it! That will solve the poverty problem and everything else, for that matter. Does anyone but me see this as an insulting "let them eat cake" sort of message to the world's poor?

"Sir, our village has no water!" "Jenkins, get these people some glassware!"

But, wait. Think of how cool it would be! Think of how many families will get to experience the friendly spam-ridden Information Super Ad-way laced with Nigerian scams, hoaxes, porn, blogs, wikis, spam, urban folklore, misinformation, sites selling junk from China, bomb-making instructions, jihad initiatives, communist propaganda, Nazi propaganda, exhortations, movie clips of cats playing the piano, advertising, advertising, and more advertising. Do you now feel better about the world's problems, knowing that some poor tribesman's child has a laptop? What African kid doesn't want access to Slashdot?

Of course, it might be a problem if there is no classroom and he can't read. The literacy rate in Niger is 13 percent, for example. Hey, give them a computer! And even if someone can read, how many Web sites and wikis are written in SiSwati or isiZulu? Feh. These are just details to ignore.

Every time I bring up this complaint to my Silicon Valley pals--usually as we race down I-280 in their newest Mercedes-Benz S Class sedan while listening to their downloaded music from their iPod to the car's custom stereo--I get flak. They tell me, "It's a start. Computers will save the world from poverty. You are just jealous you didn't think of the idea."

Yeah, that's it. I'm jealous.

Apparently, saying anything negative about the OLPC XO-1 computer amounts to heresy in this community. You may as well promote NAMBLA or the KKK. People don't want to consider the possibility that their well-meaning thoughts are a joke and that a $200 truckload of rice would be of more use than Wi-Fi in the middle of

Re:let them eat cake !!

[woof69]

Thats a random first post!

Re:let them eat cake !!

[professional_troll]

Not as random as http://goatse.ca/

Horray for GOATSE!

Re:let them eat cake !!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm afraid you're mistaken. How can you prove that this 'cake' isn't just another lie?

Re:let them eat cake !!

[mcrbids]

WOW. Talk about OFF-TOPIC. But let's cover what is perhaps the most salient point of your ramble:

People don't want to consider the possibility that their well-meaning thoughts are a joke and that a $200 truckload of rice would be of more use than Wi-Fi in the middle of nowhere.

Eh, that's a negative. If you want to see what foreign subsidies for basic items like food can do for (to) a local economy, one need look no further than Haiti.

Remember that the basis of economy is in commodities like food, clothing, and the like. These are the foundations of economy; everybody needs these items. And conveniently enough, they require very little economic infrastructure to develop. You plant seeds in wet soil to grow food. You spin fibers and cure hides to make clothing. Neither requires anything beyond 10th century technology to develop.

But subsidies short-circuit this basic economy. Your $200 truck full of rice (delivered for free) is cheaper than locally developed food. So, the very basics of the economy are devastated. Even such basic acts as growing a goat and feeding it garbage becomes not worth doing. The end result!? Nobody grows food, the population becomes less capable, they never develop the wealth necessary wealth to move into more advanced economy, and the area is now permanently depressed.

Take your $200 truck full of rice and cram it up your backside.

The OLPC provides the following REAL BENEFITS to the local economies:

1) It doesn't devastate the basic economy by its presence. Local folks can still grow food, dig ditches, and make basic clothing free of charge.

2) Due to its connection to the Internet, it becomes a replacement for an unlimited number of text books and reference material. Wikipedia, anyone?

3) Today's economy is not based on mass-based wealth, it's based on information flow. OLPC allows for the lowest-cost participation into this incredible world economy.

4) It provides the "disparity of wealth" scenario necessary for the impoverished to see that things can be better. Bill Clinton once commented on this: People who grow up in an "only-poor" neighborhood stay poor. The kids never see that there even is a world that's better, or at least, never see that they could ever have a part in it. Since they aren't exposed to it, well-off neighborhoods might as well be on the moon.

Children who are raised in a mixed neighborhood, with both poor and wealthy see the economic disparity, and are exposed to the culture of wealth. They have opportunity to better consider their position, and will realistically evaluate the costs of becoming wealthier. They are far, far more likely to decide that they don't want to be poor as adults and exert the appropriate effort necessary to make this happen.

By exposing the 3rd world to the Internet, where the wealthy are more accessible, more of the poor will not only decide on a better life, they'll have the means to do it, too.

Only history will tell if this project will really, ultimately succeed. But it's already succeeded at one thing: It's brought the cost of access to the most powerful information processing system ever devised to the lowest point it's ever been. The ripples of this will affect mankind for generations.

Re:let them eat cake !!

[Anonymous Coward]

From his perspective, I think it was more accurately a random topic.

Re:let them eat cake !!

[bwd234]

It may technically be offtopic, but it is very insightful.
These computers won't do a damnned thing to help poverty.
Just wish I had saved up some mod points!

Re:let them eat cake !!

[bwd234]

How the hell is this moderated "troll"? Because you, the moderator, doesn't agree? I wasn't "trolling". I was stating the fact that what he said, however offtopic, was insightful. How can you disagree with the fact that providing computers instead of food, clean water, clothing, etc. to staving children is a good idea?

These children are dying by the thousands...hell, millions and without proper food, water and healthcare aren't going to grow up to live the wonderful rich fullfilling life that these computers are promising them.

I just hope these computers are made from organic materials so when the kids are starving they can eat the computers instead of all the worthless food that we didn't send them!

Feel free to mod as your personal agenda permits.

Re:let them eat cake !!

[jimicus]

Children who are raised in a mixed neighborhood, with both poor and wealthy see the economic disparity, and are exposed to the culture of wealth. They have opportunity to better consider their position, and will realistically evaluate the costs of becoming wealthier. They are far, far more likely to decide that they don't want to be poor as adults and exert the appropriate effort necessary to make this happen.

Come on, that's been known for years. In the 1982 film Annie, for example:

Warbucks: I was born in liverpool, in a railroad switchhouse. My younger brother died of pneumonia because we had no money for medicine. It was then and there I decided I would be rich. Very, very rich.
Annie: Good idea.

(Do I get bonus karma for backing up up my POV with a quote from a cheesy film?)

Re:let them eat cake !!

[kiddygrinder]

Let me phrase it in terms you may understand. Computers can generate food, food in most cases does not, it simply feeds today and makes the production of food pointless, economically speaking. However you are not actually seeing the real truth here, these computers are not sent as a replacement for food; they are sent in addition to any other aid that is sent. The only way you can rightfully say that they are wrong to send these laptops over there is if you can either prove that it's decreasing other types of aid or you have a better way of stimulating their economy (the main goal of this laptop project) that you can prove is more efficient.

Re:let them eat cake !!

[CRCulver]

Due to its connection to the Internet, it becomes a replacement for an unlimited number of text books and reference material. Wikipedia, anyone?

The first post already mentioned Wikipedia etc., namely the fact that there isn't much Wikipedia material in the languages of many impoverished people. Project Gutenberg isn't going to help a classroom of third-graders in need of instructional material in their own language.

The only effect the OLPC project could have on these peoples if it were meant to flood them with Wikipedia-like resources for classroom use is language imperialism. There's nothing wrong with learning English, but for a language to survive the vast majority of classroom instruction across a community must be done in the native language of the community. The OLPC project has, though, given admirable attention to indigenous language issues.

Re:let them eat cake !!

[guisar]

Wish I had mod points- an excellent discussion. In addition, the OLPC has brought this discussion to the forefront- without the project nobody would be having these discussions. Would anyone argue that distributing OLPC among the poor of the Americas, Europe and industrialized Asia would be useful? The red herring raised as an objection to the OLPC always seems to be some hypothetical starving African in the bush- that's pretty much a very small demographic among the computer deprived.

I was really glad to hear students in Alabama (http://www.jasonbradbury.com/jason_bradbury/2007/11/latest-developi.html) will be getting the OLPC. I was stationed in Montgomery, AL- not exactly the third world but there's a DoD school on the base. I found out why during orientation to the area. I actually though the Montgomery school (on the other side of the base fence from the DoD school) was the relic of the old DoD school and asked why it hadn't been demolished already. It was that bad. An OLPC won't give the students who had to attend that school better teachers, books or buildings but it might give them a better view of the wider world.

Re:let them eat cake !!

[Richy_T]

"Language imperialism"? WTF?

Since forever, learning the language of the more successful has been key to improvement. This is why English itself borrows so heavily from other languages. If learning English opens the doors to many resources to enrich knowledge and culture, that's a good thing. What you seem to be advocating is some kind of language ghettoization.

Rich

Re:let them eat cake !!

[CRCulver]

Did you miss the "There's nothing wrong with learning English" in my post? It's possible for a community both to learn English and to preserve its native language, you just have to ensure that schooling fulfills both needs.

Re:let them eat cake !!

[Retric]

I don't think there is value in having a huge number of languages. IMO languages mutate rapidly enough as it is. Their value is in communication so their is little point to preserving every idiom ever spoken.

Bringing this back to air traffic control imagine if pilots over the US spoke 200 languages and every little airport in the country needed to be able to speak to any pilot. Chances are you would drop the number of connections and go Language A > generic > Language B because for most things close enough works just fine.

Re:let them eat cake !!

[CRCulver]

I don't think there is value in having a huge number of languages. IMO languages mutate rapidly enough as it is. Their value is in communication so their is little point to preserving every idiom ever spoken.

Languages serve for more than what you would consider communication. They serve to preserve cultural traditions (poetry and song don't translate so well), maintain a group identity, and give people a sense of connection to their ancestors (important in most non-Western countries). And though it might be easy for you to claim that all we need is English, I do field work in places were the local language is highly threatened, and the people there regularly tell me that the loss of something so precious to them hurts greatly.

Re:let them eat cake !!

[vtcodger]

***Does anyone but me see the OLPC XO-1 as an insulting "let them eat cake" sort of message to the world's poor?***

Oh, probably. But not very many I'd guess. OLPC is a computer that is designed to provide cheap, effective computing in countries without a first world infrastructure. I have my doubts about it as an educational tool. But if I were looking for a computer to help with running a village store or garage or other local business someplace where news arrives on the afternoon bus (assuming that it doesn't break down again) and the power line (if any) is more or less a joke, an OLPC would look to be ideal. If you ask me, the third world could probably use as many insults like this as the first world can contrive.

If it actually is an insult then I'd imagine that they won't buy them.

Re:let them eat cake !!

[Retric]

Some people place great value on Culture, Religion, and Language but they are also the root causes of most of the worlds abject poverty. It's not that English is a better language based on it's syntax so much as it's speakers. From an efficiency standpoint I think Spanish would make a good universal language. Anyway, when given the option to live in abject poverty or give up your culture most people chose to give up their culture because it's not really that important to them.

PS: I am not suggesting the world would be better off filed with mindless drones, but the world is shrinking and over time some cultures are going to die out. EX: In 200 years having 10 kids will probably be vary rare, 200 years ago 10 kids was not that uncommon is this really a bad thing?

Re:let them eat cake !!

[SkunkPussy]

"I don't think there is value in having a huge number of languages...Their value is in communication"

There is no guarantee that English/Spanish/Chinese/whatever is the most efficient or effective language of communication.

i keed, i keed.... 9/11

[User 956]

domestic authorities must work out access and use of UAVs in domestic airspace. "I'm surprised we haven't had a collision yet,"

What, you mean you don't remember the trial run?

Re:i keed, i keed.... 9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh fuck off you tedious little house-nigger.

Artificial Intelligence

[nephridium]

Obviously these self-guided planes need some accurate image recognition coupled with the ability to know the location and trajectory of any other aircraft in the area and adding an AI to process the information and accurately judge the situation. Sharing this information between all those drone via wireless network would be very effective as well. - A network in the sky... OMFG it's gonna be Skynet - it's inevitable! Goddammit Sarah Connor! You've been KILLING machines in three movies now. Stop screwing around and get the frickin job done!

Re:Artificial Intelligence

[cheater512]

Why not just stick radar on them? Or beam them radar images?
Problem solved. No stupidly advanced image recognition system needed.

Re:Artificial Intelligence

[digitig]

Why not just stick radar on them? Or beam them radar images?
Problem solved. No stupidly advanced image recognition system needed. And then make the automatic collision avoidance sufficiently safe for all the other users of the airspace.

Re:Artificial Intelligence

[davester666]

Unmanned != self-guided.

Now, as for the split between planes that are self-guided/follow a preset flight plan versus ones that are controlled by a remote operator, I have no idea.

Re:Artificial Intelligence

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically what you are saying is that they need something like a World of Warcraft collision detection system? Will a plane have to stop in midair if there is a network disconnect?

Re:Artificial Intelligence

[Anonymous Coward]

these self-guided planes The overwhelming majority of UAVs are remotely guided. And, let me tell ya, it ain't like a goddamn video game. ;(

Re:Artificial Intelligence

[Anonymous Coward]

Dudes, I have one acronym for you: TCAS.

Re:Artificial Intelligence

[Anonymous Coward]

Not so obviously, your post was humorous, I almost bit.

All that would be required is simple gps, connected to mainframes to receive navigational commands. No image recognition required, just redundant systems. Not a difficult issue at all, until you have to deal with humans navigating the skies. You just can't programmatically account for human (mis)behavior.

Re:Artificial Intelligence

[kalirion]

So then we'll only have them colliding with billion-dollar stealth bombers.

Re:Artificial Intelligence

[ralewi1]

Unmanned != self-guided. For many remote controlled UAV's, if you lose the data link, then it either follows a pre-planned flight route back to base or it drops out of the sky.

Re:Artificial Intelligence

[ChrisA90278]

Why not just stick radar on them? Or beam them radar images?

The current system with piloted aircraft does not require radar on each plane. It does not even require radar on the ground. You don't need radar in controlled airspace. If you tell a plan to fly at a certain speed and heading you can write that down on a post-it note and any time later you can computer where that airplan is based on speed, direction and last known location. This si exactly how air traffic control works. OK they do have ground based radar at many high traffic locations. It make the controlers job MUCH easier But there is never a need to send radar "images" to the airplan. All they send are directions, speeds and altitudes

Re:Artificial Intelligence

[A nonymous Coward]

Are you one of those morons who see the word "radar" and think it magically sees everything around it?

Radar is like using a flashlight and a telescope to see around you. It has to be aimed at each position. The farther away you want to see, the more powerful flashlight and telescope you need, and the longer it takes to build up an idea of what is out there. Plus it is pretty dang tricky to look behind you. AWACS planes with those huge circular radars on top have trouble looking straight up or down. Radar in typical airliners only looks in a cone faced forward and won't detect that plane below you which is rising as you are descending, or to the side coming in your direction.

Re:Artificial Intelligence

[sgt_doom]

On the more serious side, one must suspect the UAV field took a setback with the deaths of those UAV people (government contractors, I believe they were from Raytheon) aboard several of those four hijacked planes involved in the 9/11/01 attacks. Even recall one, or two of those guys were involved with the original remote piloting software development for commercial airliners.

A coincidence no doubt......

Re:Artificial Intelligence

[TooMuchToDo]

Good point. How about we speed up ADS-B deployment, and simply integrate it with the avionics onboard the automated aircraft? With ADS-B, they'll be able to "see" all the traffic in the sky like a person would be able to.

Re:Artificial Intelligence

[Anonymous Coward]

Current radars are not very suitable for UAVs. They are too large and use too much power, and both space and current are in limited supply. I know this because I am working for an (unnamed) company that is working on a new antenna technology that addresses these problems. Our antenna is stearable (it can point in different directions), it has no moving parts and it is light weight. It also uses solid state microwave electronics which are efficient and compact. Because I am reading Slashdot at work, and I am not authorized to make public statements under any circumstances, this is as explicit as I can get.

Having said this, I also know that we are not getting very much interest from the military about using our radar for collision avoidance. They have put some money into optical technology, which just is does not work very well, but it is small and lightweight. The FAA wants them to have collision avoidance, and I guess that the military is trying to avoid spending the time and money, and they are currently getting away with it. (Avoiding real problems is a specialty of the current administration.) I think that we will get more interest in 2009 after the new administration takes over, assuming that we don't get the same kind of irresponsible neo-con idiots in charge.

Re:Artificial Intelligence

[cheater512]

We are talking about UAVs here.

They only need short range radar for collision avoidance.
Also the blind spots wouldnt be too much of a problem with reasonably intelligent software since it can track a plane going overhead (it cant be above it all the time).

Re:Artificial Intelligence

[A nonymous Coward]

Sorry, I didn't realize that being a UAV changed the laws of physics, nor that all planes always approached from ahead. My bad.

Re:Artificial Intelligence

[cheater512]

Why exactly cant they have 360 degree radar?

Just because commercial airliners dont have it doesnt mean UAVs cannot.
It adds a bit of weight but it would make a nice solid collision avoidance system.

Re:Artificial Intelligence

[A nonymous Coward]

Okay genius, explain to me how many radars you would mount and where. Consider that the closest ANY plane has to full coverage is the AWACS, and they don't have coverage above or below except at a sufficient distance for the cone of coverage to reach the ground.

Remember, each radar sends out beams. Whether from a dish or electronically steered, they still send out beams. They don't fill the surrounding space with some kind of field that magically reports back disturbances in the force. They send out beams and read reflections. Like you with a flashlight and telescope.

Explain why lacking a pilot suddenly makes it feasible.

The military spends squillions of dollars on this stuff, and still don't have it. Are you that much better?

Not sure of the reason for unmanned aircraft

[lobiusmoop]

Maybe I'm being naive, but what is the purpose of having unmanned aircraft? For non-combat flights, the weight of the crew+support (500-1000 lbs perhaps) doesn't seem significant in comparison to that of the craft+fuel+systems (10,000 lbs from the example in the article). In combat flights, the latency in ground based fly-by-wire must be significant enough to warrent having in-craft crew surely.

Re:Not sure of the reason for unmanned aircraft

[hxnwix]

It's easy for the next shift to take over the UAV terminal.
It's not so easy for the next shift to take over the f16 cockpit.

Also, UAVs are more expendable than ugly bags of mostly water, and ugly bags of mostly water tend to burst when they pull 25g turns...

Re:Not sure of the reason for unmanned aircraft

[Arimus]

1. For recon work you can pack more sensor equipment in, you can configure the UAV to have extremely long loiter times, some can be made a lot smaller and cheeper than a manned craft.

2. For combat craft the really big selling point is that when your fighter gets shot down you haven't lost several million pounds worth of trained crew in addition to several million pounds of aircraft... unmanned uav's can also pull alot higher G force than a traditional craft (ok the airframe can take it but the crew won't appreciate it).

Re:Not sure of the reason for unmanned aircraft

[FredDC]

AFAIK the current line of operational UAV's aren't big enough to carry a human being. They are used on missions where regular manned airplanes would draw too much attention to themselves because of their size and the noize they make.

They are used in Afganistan for example to spy on Taliban camps in the mountains and to bomb them. They are not detected by them, unless they fly very close. A regular airplane is spotted from much further away, by the time it's close enough to take pictures / drop bombs they have already fled deep inside caves.

So, yes, UAV's do offer an advantage to manned aircraft. They can be made much smaller because they don't need to fit a human being inside them!

Re:Not sure of the reason for unmanned aircraft

[bm_luethke]

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.

Re:Not sure of the reason for unmanned aircraft

[Yvanhoe]

Safety ? Isn't half of the crashes due to human errors ?

Re:Not sure of the reason for unmanned aircraft

[Anonymous Coward]

"and ugly bags of mostly water tend to burst when they pull 25g turns..."

OTOH, ugly bags of water continue to work when the radio link is severed.

Re:Not sure of the reason for unmanned aircraft

[jacquesm]

I'm not sure if 'naive' is the right moniker to use. Not cynical enough maybe ? The charm of unmanned vehicles has nothing to do with shifts or logistics or payloads. It has everything to do with being able to rain down death on others with impunity, because you no longer have to defend loss of life to the 'homefront'. Note that the only solid number of casualties to come out of Iraq is the number of American servicemen / women that have died there. Casualties of the 'enemy' are not counted, much less reported ('we don't do bodycounts'). So, by mechanizing the airforce, the army and the marine forces war will be wageable by remote control. No more people that get upset because their own countrymen are at risk of losing life or limb. This means that future wars will be even easier to wage from a political point of view, because the 'cost' to the own base approaches 0.

I personally think that everybody that is in politics and that votes for a war would have to immediately join the frontline troops in that war or retract their votes. Substituting children would not be permitted, only if they think that the war is so important they are willing to *personally* risk their lives then I think their vote should be counted.

Re:Not sure of the reason for unmanned aircraft

[Anonymous Coward]

OTOH, ugly bags of water continue to work when the radio link is severed.

Considering the recent crop of US "Nintendo" pilots blowing up weddings, birthday celebrations, Canadians, brits, Danes, protesters etc. as a matter of routine, I'm not so sure how long that will last either.

Re:Not sure of the reason for unmanned aircraft

[EveLibertine]

when your fighter gets shot down you haven't lost several million pounds worth of trained crew It sounds like the Royal Air Force has some ridiculously overweight pilots. It's no wonder they started employing UAV's.

Re:Not sure of the reason for unmanned aircraft

[slashbob22]

Safety ? Isn't half of the crashes due to human errors ? Just pulling a figure out of the air: wouldn't that mean that half of crashes are due to mechanical errors?

Re:Not sure of the reason for unmanned aircraft

[Vr6dub]

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.

Lets not forget the hundreds of billions of dollars required to wage war. Take (our) loss of life out of the equation but it still costs an ass load to go to war.

Re:Not sure of the reason for unmanned aircraft

[bkr1_2k]

First, there are plenty of places we send UAVs that we don't really want to send people. Despite what it seems like from an outside perspective, we try to minimize human casualties, especially our own. Downed pilots can be captured, used as a deterrent for other troops (either publicly or privately) and can provide a lot of information on CONOPS, technical details of aircraft, facilities and other plans. An unmanned aircraft can only provide information about itself if it is brought down. Some don't even provide that because they have failsafe self destruct methods in the event of losing control.

Furthermore, most UAVs aren't "fly-by-wire" from the ground during mission. Some use fly-by-wire for take-off and landing, but most operational UAVs are truly autonomous once they're off the ground. We have pilots for "backup" control and manual override, but generally that's not how they fly.

Welcome to the new military.

Re:Not sure of the reason for unmanned aircraft

[GooberToo]

Safety ? Isn't half of the crashes due to human errors ?

Actually, most crashes are deemed "human error". But then again, they blame almost anything on human error. If the wings come off during straight and level flight, they may decide it's human error for failure to maintain positive control. Okay, that was not realistic but let me give you one.

Pilot takes off. During his climb out, the engine fails. His only option is a field in front of him. Pilot clips some bushes as he comes in low. The accident is deemed to be pilot error for failure to maintain positive control; which completely ignores this thing call, "physics." Associated factors include engine failure and landing off field. No injuries and the aircraft received significant damage.

Is that really human error? A large chunk of accidents are really not human error in the least. Then again, there is a good size chunk which is well into Darwin Award territory.

The problem with UAVs is ALL pilots are required to "see and avoid". UAVs are so small, it's almost impossible for a pilot to fulfill his responsibility. And, since the UAV is unmanned with very limited capabilities to avoid the pilots which almost certainly can't see it, they can't do their part either. So basically, people flying blind. This means they are trying to purposely create midair collisions but forcing UAVs into public use air. How long do you think a person would last walking down a highway with blinders on?

One of the worst situations is actually happening in Houston. The Houston PD/Sheriff has spent tons of dollars on UAVs but they do not have permission to fly them. Their solution; illegally fly them. It seems HPD is above the law and has not problem endangering the public. Tell the public and news organizations they are coordinating with the FAA and have created a TFR where they are flying. In reality, they are clueless, creating a serious threat to public safety. When the news copter showed up (there was not a TFR so he could legally be there) to report on their illegal actions, they threatened to arrest him if he did not immediately leave the area. HPD has no legal authority to tell the helicopter to leave. My money is on HPD killing a bunch of people in the next year or two unless some heads roll real soon.

Re:Not sure of the reason for unmanned aircraft

[Yvanhoe]

Sorry, the figure I had in mind was about on-air collisions. "Human error" was supposed to include only pilots and air controllers, not control technicians. Thinking about it, maybe it was higher than 50%...

Re:Not sure of the reason for unmanned aircraft

[thrillseeker]

While the majority of crashes are attributed to human error, it's not all pilot error - frequently some error is made in the ground-based maintenance process, air-traffic mis-guidance, etc. However, the thing that we don't have much data on is what percentage of safe flights were made only because the pilot was present when some significant mechanical problem arose. That said, one of the first things taught to any pilot is to remain calm during an unexpected situation - don't start reacting immediately - analyze first. Computers are generally excellent at following directions, and modern sensors are excellent at determining the various events occurring. Unmanned, even autonomous aircraft are a natural extension of this - it's actually much easier to maneuver in the air, given the extra dimensions (lateral movement is often not available on the ground for example, as running off the road may be a worse option than "riding through" the crash). Additionally, it'll be a long time before there is sufficient aircraft airborne to saturate any sort of autonomous routing algorithm - the weakness is our belief that we need to control everything from centralized and ground-based locations - a requirement that such aircraft have reliable position beacon systems that other aircraft can reliably see would go a long way to ensuring no collisions.

Additionally, there are relatively very few unmanned aircraft presently - I don't find it statistically remarkable at all that no collision has occurred.

Re:Not sure of the reason for unmanned aircraft

[Pode]

IAIFAUE (I Am In Fact A UAV Engineer), and the main way we pitch our products is that they do missions thta are too dull, dirty, dangerous, or expensive for human crews. For examples, flying in a circle for 10 hours watching the same spot waiting for someone to come out (dull) and flying a sampler through a cloud of stuff and determining that it is, in fact, nerve gas (dirty and dangerous).

Re:Not sure of the reason for unmanned aircraft

[GooberToo]

a requirement that such aircraft have reliable position beacon systems that other aircraft can reliably see would go a long way to ensuring no collisions.

It is actively being deployed and tested. But we are not there today.

Re:Not sure of the reason for unmanned aircraft

[timeOday]

"During 2004 in the United States, pilot error was listed as the primary cause of 78.6% of fatal general aviation accidents, and as the primary cause of 75.5% of general aviation accidents over all."

So, yeah, his made-up statistic was understating it. That said, autopilots won't be perfect either. But at least they're attentive.

Re:Not sure of the reason for unmanned aircraft

[vtcodger]

***So, yes, UAV's do offer an advantage to manned aircraft. They can be made much smaller because they don't need to fit a human being inside them!***

For terrorists, they will be a Godsend. Just imagine if just one of these ten cheap UAVs we have here makes it through, we can blow up a airliner or fighter on the ground at any airport in the world where we can get line of sight to the UAV. Or knock down most any bridge. Or blow up any oil refinery.

And, I expect UAVs aren't limited to military applications. Imagine the potential for, carrying compact, high value loads -- narcotics, for example -- through potentially hostile environments -- The US border for example.

And I suppose that one could use them for avacado picking as well.

Re:Not sure of the reason for unmanned aircraft

[GooberToo]

I understand. My point being, a mid-air between a UAV and a plane is likely to cite the pilot at error despite the fact he likely won't be. That's like citing pilots in error for bird strikes. The problem stems from UAV which should never be using general use airspace. And the solution to that is not to start an airspace-land-grab.

AUVs simply should not be used in shared airspace until ADS-B is fully deployed, tested, and proven to be 100% reliable. And even then, serious consideration should be given to provide additional visual indicators (high power strobes, etc) so pilots can do their portion to "see and avoid." The problem is, easy to see UAVs is often contrary to the goal of having UAVs in the first place.

Re:Not sure of the reason for unmanned aircraft

[Torvaun]

Or weather. Or errors by people other than the pilot, which can include traffic controllers and other pilots.

Re:Not sure of the reason for unmanned aircraft

[slashbob22]

Understood and considered - but weather is either going to cause a human or mechanical failure. ATC's are likely in the human category.

Re:Not sure of the reason for unmanned aircraft

[Anonymous Coward]

For combat craft the really big selling point is that when your fighter gets shot down you haven't lost several million pounds worth of trained crew in addition to several million pounds of aircraft.

Dear God, what are you feeding your pilots?

Re:Not sure of the reason for unmanned aircraft

[Anonymous Coward]

2. For combat craft the really big selling point is that when your fighter gets shot down you haven't lost several million pounds worth of trained crew

Wow, do the pilots really weigh that much? Time for some serious dietary reforms in the military, and feed the world's hungry with the surplus!

Re:Not sure of the reason for unmanned aircraft

[FredDC]

Damn, what a load of crap...

Any invention can be turned to evil, we should just stop inventing stuff because it can always be perverted by someone!

Excuse me now, I have to go to kitchen and get rid of all my knives 'cause they could be used to stab me...

Re:Not sure of the reason for unmanned aircraft

[Arimus]

ok, I should have put million £'s rather than million pounds ;)

Some advice

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm surprised we haven't had a collision yet,"

...and by not using Linux, you can certainly avoid technical disasters, particularly those that cause collisions. Remember, reliable systems are a must.

Re:Some advice

[Anonymous Coward]

...and by not using Linux, you can certainly avoid technical disasters, particularly those that cause collisions. Remember, reliable systems are a must.

Worldwide, a significant number of Air Traffic Control systems run Linux.

Better than video games

[Harmonious Botch]

When there are traffic UAVs overhead, I think I'll go back to building RC aircraft, but this time with a cam and real weaponry.

Re:Better than video games

[Anonymous Coward]

"Army Aviation Association of America's Unmanned Aircraft Symposium"

"AAAAUAS!"

That's the sound of my UAV hitting your UAV. =)

long endurance UAVs

[azery]

Some kind of UAVs are designed to fly for months, being controlled by a computer instead of being flown remotely by a pilot on the ground. (see e.g. http://www.qinetiq.com/home/newsroom/news_releases_homepage/2005/2nd_quarter/qinetiq_awarded_contract.html ) In normal operation, these aircraft fly high above normally used airspace. Taking off can be done in special locations under special rules. Landing is more difficult. The real problem is however what happens in case of a crash.

Those aircraft are very low weight composite aircraft with very thight energy budgets. Due to the composite parts, they are invisible to primary radar. Due to the energy budget, they cannot install an SSR transponder. In other words, they are completely invisble in case something goes wrong. (in which you cannot trust the transponder anyhow)

What you need in such case is a direct link to air traffic control to tell that your autonomious plane is lost so that they can clear a part of the airspace. Now, since your aircraft is no longer controlled by a "ground pilot", who is going to make the call?

One alternative is to let the ground station relay the aircraft position to ATC centers (air traffic control centers). However, current ATC systems are not built to accept this information, especially not when the number of users of UAVs increases.

Re:long endurance UAVs

[MichaelSmith]

Due to the energy budget, they cannot install an SSR transponder.

Ummm, maybe. They need power for communications anyway, and COTS mode C/A and mode S transponders are not designed for low power electrical systems, but they probably could be.

What you need in such case is a direct link to air traffic control to tell that your autonomious plane is lost so that they can clear a part of the airspace. Now, since your aircraft is no longer controlled by a "ground pilot", who is going to make the call?

I think the ground control position for the UAV needs to be outfitted as an aircraft. It should have HF/VHF communication capabilty, and possibly CPDLC so that it can communicate with ATC, even if the current state of the UAV is problematic.

Additionally I think the UAV needs to have a set of reasonably safe degraded modes, eg, when out of communication return to base and land. When unable to maintain controlled flight deploy a ballistic parachute.

I think all this will come in time. But there will have to be a line of software development for civil as opposed to military applications.

Re:long endurance UAVs

[Anonymous Coward]

Due to the composite parts, they are invisible to primary radar. Due to the energy budget, they cannot install an SSR transponder. In other words, they are completely invisble in case something goes wrong.

Those problems also apply to other aircraft in the sky as well - gliders/sailplanes, microlights, hang gliders, balloons.

The current strategy (in Europe) is to mandate "Mode-S" transponders, even though these are not available (and some claim cannot be available and/or at an affordable price)

Re:long endurance UAVs

[azery]

Concerning the power budget: these type of aircraft are often solar powered. During night, they use stored energy and actually slowly dwirrel down. The next day, the climb again. Even at their lowest altitude, they stay well above commercial manned air traffic. In order to keep flying for months (without refuelling!) on solar energy, they are very low weight structures (in the referenced article, they state 27 kg.) A traditional aircraft transponder can be a few kilograms on it own. The problem with the ground cockpit lies also in the long endurance. It is not very interesting to require pilots on the ground. They would be doing nothing during many years, but they should be there 24h a day / 365 days, just in case of an emergency. I'm sure that in the future, ATC systems will be able to deal with this type of aircraft, but currently they do not. Note that I'm discussing a particular type of UAVs. Many of the military systems have relatively short missions (hours). There, it would be more easy to mimick a real pilot controlled aircraft with a "ground controller".

Re:long endurance UAVs

[azery]

The rules for Mode S transponder carriage is currently not uniform in Europe and depends on the type of aircraft (balloon, glider,...) Airspace infrigment of these less visible airspace users are a problem for ATC.

Apart from that, some people are afraid that if every glider, microlight, etc. is transponder equipped, the radars and/or multiradar trackers can become overloaded. This is why in certain parts of airspace, users are explicitly asked to switch their transponder off.

Some companies (I think Kinetic (not the same as QinetiQ)) are developping a low weight transponder, but there are some issues with their products. (and they are not available for sale already)

However, as pointed out above, even a light trandponder of 250 gr is relatively heavy for a 27 kg plane.

Re:long endurance UAVs

[mpe]

The real problem is however what happens in case of a crash.
Those aircraft are very low weight composite aircraft with very thight energy budgets. Due to the composite parts, they are invisible to primary radar. Due to the energy budget, they cannot install an SSR transponder. In other words, they are completely invisble in case something goes wrong. (in which you cannot trust the transponder anyhow)

Maybe the solution is to work out a way of increasing the RCS of such a device.
NB these things are dangerous even a few hundred grams of bird will destroy a jet engine and cockpit windows probably arn't tested to withstand hitting a UAV.

Re:long endurance UAVs

[mpe]

They need power for communications anyway, and COTS mode C/A and mode S transponders are not designed for low power electrical systems, but they probably could be.

The transponder needs to be able to operate from the RAT and/or battery. Though I'm not sure how well TCAS would would work in the case of two "engine out" planes being on collision course.

Re:long endurance UAVs

[mpe]

they are very low weight structures (in the referenced article, they state 27 kg

Low in comparison to other flying machines. In comparison with the average bird it's rather heavy.

Re:long endurance UAVs

[mpe]

Those problems also apply to other aircraft in the sky as well - gliders/sailplanes, microlights, hang gliders, balloons.

However these are unlikely to be above 10,000 feet. Whereas UAVs can operate higher than 45,000 feet. Thus are a hazard at any altitude for a civil aircraft.

I can see it now...

[hyades1]

"Aircraft six-niner-niner, please go to 5,000 feet heading two-zero-fiver and assume your place in the holding pattern. We will have a landing slot for you in three-zero minutes. I say again, we will land you it three-zero minutes. Over."

"This is Aircraft six-niner-niner.....I'll be back."

Unmanned Aircraft Will Test Air Traffic Control

[threaded]

Yes, when something goes wrong, as it always does, they certainly will test air traffic control.

Modernization

[mcrbids]

You do realize that, to fly an airplane, it's not even a requirement to have a radio?

General aviation is a strange economic fluke - it's a cesspool like backwater of technology, seemingly frozen at its hey day in 1950 or so. The most popular plane flown today is largely identical to its 1956 ancestor - the only real difference is in the instruments on the panel, and even then, most planes are sold with classic "steam guage" instrumentation. Changes to the airframe and body are mostly cosmetic.

It's an industry largely paralyzed by lawyers. Recently, the parents of a 1000-jump skydiver sued the aircraft manufacturer when the pilot flew the plane into icy clouds and crashed the plane because the wing de-icing equipment was overwhelmed. It's like suing Chrysler because the driver of the car drove it into a brick wall at 90 MPH, and the seat belts just weren't quite enough. Except in this case, Cessna will probably have to settle.

Private airplanes == Rich guys == $target.

As a result, nobody wants to develop any new technology because the technology, even if demonstrably safer, will still be sued if it should ever fail. (which it would, eventually)

If some kind of law was passed at the federal level so that aviation was held to sane liability standards, so that plane manufacturers actually had the free resources to develop better technology, then aviation would be more modern, cheaper, and safer for all.

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.

If planes reliably had a situational-awareness monitor, UAVs would be a non-issue. We have the technology - your $300 Garmin has more than enough processing power for this and already has all the latitude/longitude/altitude information it needs to make this work.

So, why not?

Re:Modernization

[MichaelSmith]

If planes reliably had a situational-awareness monitor, UAVs would be a non-issue. We have the technology - your $300 Garmin has more than enough processing power for this and already has all the latitude/longitude/altitude information it needs to make this work.

Until a couple of years ago my dad flew tugs for a glider club here in Australia. Like me, he is an old hacker and spent some time working on a TCAS like system for the gliders. Its pretty much what you described. A COTS GPS and some simple communication gear.

I was at the club with him one day and helped a pilot change a wheel on a glider. Its a one bolt job. Very simple. The pilot reminded me not to talk about it too much because they have to get a LAME out to do stuff like that. Maybe that profession is the source of come of the conservatism.

Re:Modernization

[freedom_india]

You are right to an extent.
The basic difference is this:
Speed of innovation == ability to take risk.

Humans have placed 3 things based on risk probability:

Human Life (Least Risk to be taken), One's Property (Medium Risk to be taken), Other's property (max Risk to be taken).

Which is why you have Hospital equipments and software written to the highest standards possible. And which is why Java is not certified for life-threatening applications like Nuclear power plants and like, while Java is approved for E*Trade applications.

Anything that could endanger life is subject to a high degree of verification which leaves little for innovation.

Which is why wall street is very comfortable with losing your money, but reluctant to lose their own.

Coming to airplanes, after Hindenberg's death march, governments have been very reluctant to play with people's lives so that aircraft builders could build a 3,500 MPH Dreamliner.

Its similar to trains. What innovation we had since 1930s for Box Cars, etc?

As you rightly said, unless laws are introduced which allow companies to avoid collateral liability and manslaughter charges, they will play safe.
And don't expect congress to pass any law soon enough. Any party which does it would have a death sentence hanging over it.

Playing with people's lives is not "that" important for any party....

Re:Modernization

[foobsr]

Anything that could endanger life is subject to a high degree of verification which leaves little for innovation.

Especially with regard to health care.

Its similar to trains. What innovation we had since 1930s for Box Cars, etc?

Yes. The world speed record still is 574.8 km/h.

CC.

Re:Modernization

[Skater]

Its similar to trains. What innovation we had since 1930s for Box Cars, etc? What's wrong with box cars now that need improvement?

And, perhaps you haven't noticed, but they have been getting larger over the years. Also, they're now made from lighter materials so they can carry more stuff. Granted the basic design is the same, but if it's working, what's the problem?

Railroads aren't in the business of using stuff that doesn't work - if there was a problem with the classic box car, they'd either fix it or replace it with something else. There's too much money at stake to do anything else. (If it's available where you live, pick up a copy of this month's Trains Magazine if you'd like to see how much it costs to buy and own a boxcar and plenty of other railroad equipment - it's pretty surprising.)

And this applies in other areas, too - sometimes there's no innovation because none is required.

Re:Modernization

[MikeTheMan]

I agree. I also think the bureaucracy of the FAA is much to blame for the slow development of technology. Glass cockpits that offer a digital display instead of traditional instruments have just recently become a reality.

The FAA is extremely slow to approve any kind of new technology, and they seem very reluctant to force upgrades of old tech and old rules (like the "No radio" requirement in certain not-very-busy airspace classes). It's like Microsoft's upgrade from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 where they left all the old code there "just in case" since they weren't willing to break compatibility.

The same argument might be made for other things as well -- processor architectures, operating systems...how many things could be vastly improved if we could start from scratch, forget compatibility, and design something from the ground up using what we know now?

Re:Modernization

[kabocox]

Really, why is it OK for planes to fly without even having a radio?

Maybe cause they are too busy flying to listen to the music on the radio...

Well, why don't you have a radio in your car telling the cops, DOT, or any central government entity exactly where you are, and plan on going. It's 2007 we could require and have it done in less than 5 years if we really wanted to.

Re:Modernization

[mpe]

Recently, the parents of a 1000-jump skydiver sued the aircraft manufacturer when the pilot flew the plane into icy clouds and crashed the plane because the wing de-icing equipment was overwhelmed. It's like suing Chrysler because the driver of the car drove it into a brick wall at 90 MPH, and the seat belts just weren't quite enough. Except in this case, Cessna will probably have to settle.

WTF!

Private airplanes == Rich guys == $target.
As a result, nobody wants to develop any new technology because the technology, even if demonstrably safer, will still be sued if it should ever fail. (which it would, eventually)

There's also the problem that anything new would face an expensive certifciation process. Which would increase the cost. Even if it was something as difficult as a stupid pilot proof wing anti-ice.
AFAIK nobody tried to sue Boeing over Air Florida Palm 90 though. So it's a bit strange that they didn't try and sue the aircraft owner in this case (or their estate if the pilot was the owner).

Re:Modernization

[__aailrp9629]

"Situational-awareness monitor?" Do you mean TCAS, or some sort of fantasy system you made up using an aviation term?

Also, manned aircraft don't use GPS altitude, they use an altimeter; that's one of the reasons it's so shocking there haven't been midair collisions between manned and unmanned aircraft yet. If vertical separation between aircraft is 500' and the error between GPS altitude and altimeter setting is 400' you're asking for trouble anyplace there are lots of both manned and unmanned aircraft.

The reason GPS isn't required for flight is that it's considered a "backup navigational aid" -- it's a lot more failure-prone than an altimeter and a compass. Aviation procedures are focussed on reliability before all else, and understandably so. If you're driving your Chrysler down the road and the engine decides to quit, then you pull over to the side of the road and call AAA. If you are flying your Cessna somewhere, you can a) restart the engine, b) find a suitable place to land if one exists, or c) crash the aircraft.

Re:Modernization

[Richard W.M. Jones]

Its similar to trains. What innovation we had since 1930s for Box Cars, etc?

Actually lots and lots in Europe and Japan.

Rich.

Re:Modernization

[(H)elix1]

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)

Re:Modernization

[vinn01]

There is no such thing as IFR airspace. You're probably thinking of positive airspace, (positive control airspace) class A Airspace - 18000-60000 feet. (Flight Level 180-600). All aircraft at these altitudes must be under positive control and in contact with ATC.

If they are testing spy UAV's, they will likely be up in Class A.

If they are testing UAV's for battlefield use, they will likely be flown at the lowest altitudes possible which still avoid ground fire. That will place them at about the same altitude as a 1962 Stitts.

Re:Modernization

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're driving your Chrysler down the road and the engine decides to quit, then you pull over to the side of the road and call AAA. If you are flying your Cessna somewhere, you can a) restart the engine, b) find a suitable place to land if one exists, or c) crash the aircraft.

It's not clear to me what fundamental difference you're trying to demonstrate here. If I'm driving my car down the road as and the engine dies I can A) try to restart the engine before the cars around me smash in to me B) find a suitable place to pull over, if one exists or C) crash the car. Those are basically the same choices I have in a plane. Granted in a plane the "suitable place" maybe be somewhat harder to find. But from 10k feet I can also see a lot more places, and have a lot longer to find them than I do at 70 MPH in traffic.

Now, if I were flying something that needed thousands of feet of wide, paved surface to land and was carrying 150 people, the story might be different. But finding *someplace* to land a small GA craft after an engine failure is not the impossible task you make it out to be.

Re:Modernization

[(H)elix1]

Instrument flight rules (IFR) vs visual flight rules. I should have said class E airspace. Anything over 10k' requires oxygen, so yes... technically you could get something up that high, 10,000 feet is a practical limit. Odds are, if something has O2 or a pressurized cabin, it will have an electrical system.

I'm thinking of the Police drones rather than the version (and activities) they use on the non-civilian side. A prop based drone like they are playing with in Houston would probably fly in my airspace.

Re:Modernization

[CopaceticOpus]

Not to be insensitive, but... this guy had skydived 1000 times, but couldn't figure out what to do when he found himself wearing a parachute in a plane that was going down?

Re:Modernization

[cameldrv]

Gliders don't have an engine driven electrical system, yet commonly go over 10k with oxygen.

Re:Modernization

[mattr]

> The pilot reminded me not to talk about it too much

Then why post it to Slashdot MichaelSmith?

Re:Modernization

[mcrbids]

This is an old thread, hopefully you'll check your post history.

First off, let me start by saying I'm an avid aviation fan. I love flying, and am a private pilot with current medical. I fly (generally) a few times per month, in a rented Cessna 172.

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.

Thanks for making my point. We have an ANCIENT fleet of airplanes, with an average age about as old as myself. (I'm 35) In 50 years there have been no great changes in aviation - somebody who flew a brand new 2007 Cessna would find that the original straightback from 1956 was largely unchanged, with some changes in the layout of the instruments. While there are cosmetic differences, there's virtually no significant change in the general operational characteristics, fuel economy, crash-survivability, or pilot visibility. They go about as fast, as far, with the same amount of gas, with the same performance and safety envelopes, as they ever did.

Compare that to my recent monologue, in particular comparing my Dad's late 1970's VW Rabbit against my late 1990's Saturn SL2. In many ways they are comparable cars for their day - midrange, 5 seat cars with good efficiency. If anything, the Saturn has LESS bend on efficiency than the original Rabbit. Yet on just about every metric, the Saturn bests the VW handily, sometimes shockingly, including fuel economy! Compare 20 years of advances in automotive technology to the ones you see in General Aviation in 50 years. It's a stark difference, especially if you look at price point.

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.

Airplanes today are largely hand made. Even the certified ones from Cessna and Cirrus. You can't get the combination of consistency, quality, durability, and cost out of *anything* hand made that you can get out of some reasonable quality mass-production.

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?

Probably because bikes don't weigh 2,500 pounds and travel at 130 MPH?

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.

Cars don't always need headlights. But they all have them. They don't always need window defrosters, either. However, items that significantly improve safety are pretty much required. EG: brake lights, seat belts, crumple zones, etc. Even your boats require life vests for everybody. (In California, anyway) Ever wonder where the crumple zone is in your Stitts?

Personally, I have a Sporty's SP 200 that I ALWAYS carry on flights. I took it "just in case" on my first solo X-Country, and the radio died in my plane. Completely. Wow, did I appreciate having failover NAV/COM in my hand! I've never again flown without it and fresh batteries!

Compared to dash radios, it's small, light, and portable. It doesn't even require an electrical system in your Stitts. I'd strongly recommend it. Flying with a radio is night and day for situational awareness, particularly in even lightly packed airspace. Yet compared to the Razr cellphone in my pocket, it's large, bulky, and old-fashioned looking. The screen is a dim LCD, it uses 8 AA batteries to get just a dozen or so hours of battery life, and that's among the better battery life among full-strength handhelds.

Of course, the Int

Re:Modernization

[__aailrp9629]

You put the car at freeway speeds in traffic. How about we put the GA craft in a similar situation? You're at 500' over a major metropolitan area doing some sightseeing, and your engine dies. Do you see the magnitude of the difference in difficulty here?

Obvious solution:

[Atario]

Unmanned air traffic control.

Re:Obvious solution:

[NoPantsJim]

Thanks for the suggestion but I'd rather not have my source of income vanish.

The odds of the FAA ever, ever getting an automated system off the ground are pretty much zero. Controllers are still using radars with "CAB" labels on them, even though the Civil Aeronautics Board was dissolved in 1958. Countless 'modernization' projects have been started and abandoned because the FAA can't seem to pull its head from its own ass. That cunt and a half Marion Blakey fucked things up to the point that we're virtually assured we won't see an automated system for several decades.

Even the most ambitious automated systems currently planned (Specifically 'Free Flight') would still require a controller at all times to fix potential conflicts and for liability issues.

no collision?

[rastoboy29]

He's surprised we haven't had a collision, yet?  Just how many of these suckers are we putting up every day?  Even in the warzone?

Re:no collision?

[DeeQ]

He's surprised we haven't had a collision, yet? Just how many of these suckers are we putting up every day? Even in the warzone? There are more than just these flying in the air.

Video of a near-miss

[Solandri]

Dunno if this video is real, but it sure looks like it is. Near miss between a UAV and an Airbus A300.

Re:Video of a near-miss

[celle]

"It's not a near miss, it's a near hit" --- George Carlin

It's not just the weight of crew you save

[DFJA]

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.

Re:It's not just the weight of crew you save

[guisar]

Not to mention comm electronics (beyond the control link). The crew, being on the ground, are likely to have much better situational awareness and not be quite so tired or distracted by food, each other, bad weather and so it.

Re:It's not just the weight of crew you save

[speederaser]

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..

Pressurizing the cabin does not cost weight in an airframe, it saves weight by adding stiffness. Think of a partially inflated baloon compared to one fully inflated - the fully inflated baloon retains its shape under loads that would collapse a baloon with less pressure. The weight savings aren't entirely free of course, you have to have pumps and filters and wiring and a way to provide power, etc. The added weight of air due to pressurization is negligible, problably less than a pound in a large airliner.

Another item is aerodynamics - it takes a lot of room to house the pilot(s) and all that gear, plus he needs to sit way up front where it messes up the airflow. If you replace the pilot with a few small boxes then the shape can be smoother and the plane can be a bit smaller too.

No toothpaste on the plane ...

[Titusdot Groan]

Let me get this straight:

I have to take off my shoes and leave my toothpaste at the gate when I fly but hundreds of hick sheriffs and other random yokels are going to be piloting sophisticated UAFs in the near future.

Is that correct?

Re:No toothpaste on the plane ...

[khakipuce]

Like a lot of posters in this topic so far, you seem to be assuming that UAVs need someone to fly them. They are uninhabited AUTOMINOUS vehicles. Mostly they are designed to be given a mission, which they execute themselves - e.g. a set of coordinates to fly around whilst carrying a camera. They are generally designed to fly the mission without any input from the ground because them may well be out of radio contact for some or most of the mission (e.g. herti )

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.

Re:No toothpaste on the plane ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, at least you'll die with your boots on...oh wait..

Re:No toothpaste on the plane ...

[Radar Penguin]

It would be possible except there is no such system in place. We use datalink to send instructions to equipped aircraft but it's hardly suitable for use in a crowded airspace. It would be like using e-mail when you need an instant reply.

Re:No toothpaste on the plane ...

[mpe]

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.

Unless these UAVs are fitted with transponders ATC (and other aircraft) have no way of knowing where they are or what they are doing. In which case a modified version of TCAS will probably keep them out of harm's way most of the time

There are already standard systems for controlling piloted aricraft (automated landings etc.)

In the case of a manned aircraft the final authority is with the pilot(s). Any instructions from ATC are not "orders". Even with an autoland system nothing prevents a pilot taking over and either landing manually or executing a "go around".

Re:No toothpaste on the plane ...

[NateTech]

Because things fail or UAV operators make mistakes, and then the UAV passes through airspace it was never intended to.

Sometimes all the way to the ground.

Report about Air Force Predator-B Crash in Arizona - This guy should have had his pilot's license suspended. Any real pilot pulls that kind of crap, they likely end up dead, but if they don't -- they aren't going to be flying for a while. I bet this kid was back flying his video game consoles the next day. You don't transfer controls to another pilot without them cross-checking them, and you don't transfer controls between CONSOLES without cross-checking them either. These are basic crew-coordination skills that aren't being followed here, not something difficult or "new"!

Mostly reckless and careless operation has already lost the Air Force some 25+ Global Hawks (out of 60+ in the fleet). Global Hawks aren't cheap, and they're not small either!

This idea that turning flight into a big video game doesn't have a psychological problem or two -- I'm not buying it. The kids grew up just hitting "Start" again if they crashed, but one of these things is going to come down somewhere very inappropriate and kill someone, sooner or later -- and that will be when they start training them to be real PILOTS.

UAV's are real airplanes and operators of them need to be fully licensed pilots, who understand the risks they're taking with not only the cheap UAV, but also with the lives of the others in the airspace around them, and on the ground below.

A certain amount less of the "gee this is a nifty RC plane" mentality and a little more of the "gee I am flying a 600 lb device that can easily kill someone if I am not paying attention to all of the factors of flying an aircraft" needs to happen in the giddy, slap-happy UAV industry.

Anything that wants to join the U.S. Airspace in serious numbers needs to be flown by folks who show RESPECT to the others in the airspace in their actions. Proper training, authorization, and awareness -- like we real pilots have always been required to have -- are necessary.

Just because something CAN fly autonomously, doesn't mean it's smart or safe to do so. Usually that choice is made because it's cheap. Not because it's the smartest solution to whatever problem the UAV-pushing company has come up with.

Just like computers, technology doesn't fix human problems. Needing UAV's to patrol cities by police forces means you have something inherently wrong in the cities that needs fixing, not a UAV crashing into someone's backyard every few months.

Drop the sexist language, please

[ajs318]

This is the 21st Century. The word is unstaffed, not unmanned.

Re:Drop the sexist language, please

[bucky0]

It's not sexist. Part of the reason I enjoy speaking English more than, say, Portuguese or German (languages I'm also fluent in) is because there's no gender. Declining nouns/articles all the time in those other languages is a bitch, don't bring it here.

My mailman happens to be a woman. Mailman does't have gender, so that works out fine.

Re:Drop the sexist language, please

[JaredOfEuropa]

My mailman happens to be a woman.

In that case it's a "femailman" (according to Bart Simpson anyway).

Re:Drop the sexist language, please

[Johnny5000]

Why do death penalty advocates mostly oppose abortion while vegans mostly support it?

Because death penalty advocates eat babies, not fetuses.

Re:Drop the sexist language, please

[sgt_doom]

Also, what's the comparison? There is no comparison...it is strictly relativistic. Such arguments make no sense to anyone with above-average abstract intelligence. I guess that's why they all voted for that mentally-handicapped clown in the White House - and no, I don't believe retards should be prez.....

McDonalds coffee

[Anonymous Coward]

Suing the airline manufacturer for pilot error is almost as bad as some greedy little old lady filing a frivolous lawsuit againt McDonalds after she spills hot coffee in her own lap. Almost, but not quite.

georgewellian doublespeak highest since adolph..

[Anonymous Coward]

was 'fighting' 'terrorism' (also his favorite 'enemy'), & vaporizing entire populations. talk about meat tenderizers? it could never happen here (complete with unending propaganda, storm troopers, gestapo & death & dismemberment camps) in the gooed ol' us of a, as we are a peace loving benevolent type of folks?

if that's not enough, now we need to be alert on our trip to disneyland that our plane doesn't crash with unmanned spybot drones, possibly due to drunken/overworked airline pilots/flight controllers, these are the daze?

fortunately, this turn of events is outlined in the manual, so it's no big surprise?

as for wildlife, & an atmosphere, who needs 'em, whilst yet another 'glorious victory' is within our grasp?

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead greed/fear/ego based personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

You make no sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Visit Iraq Body count web site, and you won't be in the dark about death totals anymore.

"I personally think that everybody that is in politics and that votes for a war would have to immediately join the frontline troops in that war or retract their votes"

Makes as much sense as having those vote who vote fund dogcatchers actually spend time catching dogs, or those who vote to fund stem cell research actually have to spend hours in the lab looking over data. That is: no sense at all.

Substituting children? It already is not permitted.

Re:You make no sense

[jacquesm]

dog catchers are not generally putting their lives in harms way. That's a comparatively easy thing to decide for someone else (if history is any guide) but is hard to decide for yourself because you may end up paying the ultimate price.

No, that's wrong

[c6gunner]

I can assure you that no "hick sheriffs and other random yokels" will be flying any University Affiliated Facilities.

Not wrong, but there IS an agenda here

[phunctor]

What is giving this issue legs right now is the resistance of the Navy and Air Force (OMG! No more golf course warriors!) to the Army's emerging control of the UAV assets in its battlespace. It doesn't mean that what the Navy is saying is wrong, exactly, but they need to declare their agenda to provide a context for evaluating their statements.

--
phunctor

Re:Not wrong, but there IS an agenda here

[advocate_one]

The Navy is safe as long as they still have ships to fly the UAVs off... the Air Force has the problems proving that it still has a purpose...

Re:Not wrong, but there IS an agenda here

[kextyn]

Someone has to work on the aircraft and fly them (at least the current ones still have pilots.) There are also many flying jobs that will not be taken over by unmanned aircraft for a long time at least (cargo planes come to mind.) And the Air Force does a whole lot more than just flying planes.

mouse army

[kieran]

I can't help wondering if the people starting the OLPC project have read Neal Stephenson's "The Diamond Age"...

Re: Unmanned Aircraft Will Test Air Traffic Contro

[yoder]

This is so incredibly screwed up that an article like this comes out and everyone is talking about ATC being screwed up.

There are reconnaissance aircraft flying over us, spying on us. The Russian Bear isn't doing this. The Red Chinese are not doing this. The Islamic Fundamentalists are not doing this. Our own government is doing this. And we have become so blase about this that we can ignore it as a problem and blame ATC for not being ready to handle our own government's airborne domestic spying program.

Wow.

Banning them is the correct answer!

[Anonymous Coward]

Private aviation is the exclusive province of the overly wealthy. There's no reason these self-absorbed douchebags should be able to pollute the environment with their aerial SUV while the rest of us get treated like criminals at the airport. Ground em now and forever, and STOP THE NOISE!

Tell that to the kid with the BIG belly

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to the kid with the BIG belly. Son, your belly won't hurt after you get a look at this OLPC. OLPC? Why, it's better than food. You can use it to surf the net, you can use it to do your spreadsheet calculations, you can use it for your x-mas mailing list, and yes, you can even sell it for parts to get some money to fed that funky belly of yours.

It's my contention

[bondjamesbond]

It's my contention that the last U.S. fighter pilot has already been born. There will always be pilots, because we humans like to fly, but the last tactical air support/combat air support pilot for the U.S. has been born.

Re:It's my contention

[vinn01]

There will always be pilots for bombing and cargo delivery.

I agree with you that the air support role has greatly diminished. Also, the current "axis's of evil" don't have large fighter plane fleets. That puts a crimp in any reason for the U.S. to train a lot of fighter pilots (at great expense).

Balloons

[Detritus]

Doesn't the FAA already have procedures in place for unmanned research balloons? I'd think the issues would be similar.

Re:Modernization -No

[markk]

Ah... I would have to disagree. Have you looked at the current fleet of modern GA planes? They are mainly composite construction now. Structurally the "average" GA airplane today is almost nothing like it was 40 years ago. Avionics of course are absolutely new with weather and GPS. Aerodynamic designs are based on wing plans from the 80's or early 90's usually now. In back country craft the landing gear designs and/or materials are very new.

What you said about old designs is like saying cars are the way they were 50 years ago...
There are a lot of old planes flying yet and the industry almost died about 20 years ago, but technology revived it, and GA is probably the least stagnant of all of aviation in terms of introducing new tech.

"If planes reliably had a situational-awareness monitor, UAVs would be a non-issue. We have the technology - your $300 Garmin has more than enough processing power for this and already has all the latitude/longitude/altitude information it needs to make this work." That BS, what you are asking for is something we can't even do reliably in 2-dimensions on the ground, and might be worse than nothing if people stop using their eyes and looking for the millions of current "UAV"s that are currently out there - geese, etc. that could destroy your plane.

Its ok for planes to fly without a radio because they are in airspace and conditions where they can safely do so. What do you care then?

Giant RC airplanes in the Sky

[MM_LONEWOLF]

What is a UAV but a remote-control airplane, albeit much more expensive, complicated, and less likely to be in the control of a 10 year old. As such, it would make sense that it wouldn't need regualtion under the FAA, unless it was extremely large.

Re:Giant RC airplanes in the Sky

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? You think it's the presence of the pilot in the craft that makes the difference if the craft should be under FAA regulation? Take the same pilot, put him on the ground and magically the craft is just a toy and no longer a potential participant in a mid-air collision? Wow, how your comment got modded even to 1 is beyond me.

One Small Acronym VFR

[dropkick_the_puppy]

you got it... all current UAV's Run VFR or Visual Flight Rules when they are in the states or over Civilian(non Combatant Areas) and they are required to stay under a 10K foot ceiling every aircraft has to "Maintain VFR" when in the 0-10k foot Altitude range.

Fear is the problem

[DrYak]

No reason why similar systems cannot be used on UAVs.

There's a big reason called fear.
In the typical post 9/11 scaremongering, you can bet that at least several paranoid idiots will be afraid that if UAV has a facility to give its position and can react to instruction sent by aircraft controllers,
there will surely be some pedo-terror-pirates that will use it to subvert the system and drive the UAVs into collision with some target, think of the children !
Or something along these lines.

So what else is new?

[ibm1130]

This has been recognised as a problem for many years. NASA's aeronautics side was going to look at UAV operations in the National Airspace (NAS) under a program called ACCESS-5 (IIRC). ACCESS-5 was canceled sometime after early 2005 though.

Oh yes it will

[A nonymous Coward]

The OLPC is premised on the fact that it replaces expensive hand me down textbooks with digital info. Right now, most third world textbooks are hand me downs from other countries, likely not in their native language, out of date, and beaten up.

The OLPC has digital textbooks. Not only can all textbooks be carried back and forth on that five mile walk between home and school, but the only hurdle to being up to date and in the native language is the initial writing, not the cost of printing and the cost of distributing.

This is a HUGE gain financially, and having the possibility of up to date books in the native language is beyond a price comparison.

The OLPC is a win even if you ignore the advantage of inquisitive minds exploring far beyond what is in textbooks.

My solution

[metrometro]

Treat it like bandwidth: give the UAVs 5000-5500 feet, and tell the passenger traffic not to cruise there. Then let the UAVs smack into each other all they want. You still have risk during a passenger aircraft "pass through" and while the UAVs climb to cruise altitude, but that's easier to manage than a fly-wherever-you-want policy.