Robot Planes to Track Weather and Climate

coondoggie writes "The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration this week announced a $3 million, three-year program that to test the use of unmanned aircraft to measure hurricanes, arctic and Antarctic ice changes and other environmental tasks. The agency said the drone aircraft would be outfitted with special sensors and technology to help NOAA scientists better predict a hurricane's intensity and track, how fast Arctic summer ice will melt, and whether soggy Pacific storms will flood West Coast cities. Starting this summer, unmanned aircraft will take instruments on research flights that are too dangerous or too long for pilots and scientists."

Comments

But...

[floydman]

Robots lie
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/19/0258214

Robot planes

[pipatron]

So these will be fully equipped with robotic snakes as well?

Announcing themselves?

[mcrbids]

So, there I am... flying along in my rented Cessna 172, with a couple kids in the back, touring a local mountain range and making the kids squeal by stalling the plane every so often so that it suddenly drops a few hundred feet...

How am I supposed to know that there's a UAV nearby? It's not like a UAV will announce, in a friendly tone: "Orland Traffic, UAV N301A 4 thousand feet, 3 miles southeast, heading 140, Cessna in sight, no factor.". (Note: UAV == "Unmanned Air Vehicle") For those who don't know, this call means:

Orland Traffic = the airport in question. Click here if you are curious.

UAV N301A = the type of aircraft, and the registration number.

4 thousand feet = the altitude of the aircraft at the time of call.

3 miles southwest = where the airplane is relative to the airport in question (Orland)

Heading 140 = what direction the plane is travelling. In this case, East of due south. (it's heading away from Orland airport, but crossing due south)

Cessna in sight = I see the plane that was just mentioned on the airwaves.

No factor = I couldn't hit it if I wanted to.

A UAV is controlled by a COMPUTER which has no concept of instruction like what I just gave. It could announce itself in some fashion digitally, which would mean that planes that have digital "situational awareness" systems with RADAR and XM Satellite weather might display them just fine - but many planes don't even have a RADIO! (planes with no radio do not fly over major cities - you'd be shocked at how much airspace this still allows)

How could this possibly work? Until there's a consistent, legally defined way for civil aircraft to know that there's a UAV nearby, this is a non-starter. But no way has been declared, and (as of last summer) it has not even been announced to pilots as a possibility. I don't even have the OPTION of knowing where these UAVs might be.

So when I hit a UAV, am I supposed to sue the Federal Govt? (assuming I live to tell about it)

I sense severe stupidity at work, here, and this is not my sig line. UAVs are not a problem, but they have NOT been incorporated into the existing (human/pilot based) aviation system. This is a slow disaster in the making. When an unannounced UAV hits a private plane filled with a happy, loving family, who is to blame for their deaths?

Re:Announcing themselves?

[nguy]

Most UAVs fly high enough so that there's no chance of a collision. When they fly in regular air space, UAVs avoid you.

Re:Announcing themselves?

[bronney]

When they fly in regular air space, UAVs avoid you.

Not in Soviet Russia.

Re:Announcing themselves?

[docbombay]

Although the article talks about "automated" unmanned vehicles, the only way that any of the vehicles mentioned in this article are fully automated is in systems responsible for gathering data, *not* navigation or maneuvering. In fact, an FAR clarification notice posted a few years ago http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/uas/reg/media/frnotice_uas.pdf states that the only way that an unmanned vehicle is allowed to fly in the United States is if it is in control (albeit remotely) by a human pilot-in-command, and under constant watch by a human observer, "either through line-of-sight on the ground or in the air by means of a chase aircraft". In controlled airspace, there must also be "communication between the PIC and Air Traffic Control (ATC)".

Re:Announcing themselves?

[CompMD]

There's nothing that says these NOAA UAVs will be flying in US airspace, because right now it is still illegal. The only places in the US that UAV can fly are restricted airspaces. There's no "severe stupidity" at work here. There's only your knee-jerk, think-of-the-"happy, loving family" reaction to technologies you are clearly unfamiliar with.

If I were you, I wouldn't try to thrill the kids by inducing a stall in your 172 in a mountain range. Air currents in a mountain range are such that you could easily find yourself flipped over or finding new and exciting ways to attempt to control your aircraft.

in related news...

[RuBLed]

...the robots would utilize an efficient means of communication, this network would be vastly aware of not only local but also the global climate and weather. It was now codenamed SkyNet. ...

but this is great, for example, in a hurricane, the sattelites base its data on what it sees (visual, thermal, radar, etc) but these vehicles could go more "local" and experience events or phenomenon occuring that sattelites cannot detect. It's like placing a man in there that lived to tell the tale. (and not lie)