Slashdot Mirror
Unmanned Aircraft Pose US Airspace Problems
coondoggie writes to tell us that congressional watchdogs have called on Congress to create a body within the FAA to oversee unmanned aircraft development and integration. The group cited the rapidly growing unmanned aircraft community and is worried about the possible repercussions. "The GAO also called on the FAA to work with the Department of Defense, which has extensive unmanned aircraft experience, to issue its program plan. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assesses the security implications of routine unmanned aircraft access to commercial airspace, the GAO said. Even if all issues are addressed, and there are a number of critical problems, unmanned aircraft may not receive routine access to the national airspace system until 2020, the GAO concluded."
What are the major security implications of an unmanned aircraft?
"The group cited the rapidly growing unmanned aircraft community and is worried about the possible repercussions."
They are worried about the unmanned aircraft?! LOL! What about kids, here from Arkansas -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vOUoEGlnAk
Frightening perspectives.
It might crash (not saying it's more likely to do so than a manned one)
Particles, stuff that matters.
Well, assuming they're flying at the same thousands-of-feet altitudes as the other planes, and put in their own paths with nothing intersecting, just like the other planes, and given their own slot for landing in, just like the other planes, what's the big deal?
Is that women are flying them! Ahhh duck!!!
Let's see ... if you can buy a UAV or overrun the control station, then you can target anyone within the fuel range. You can easily crash into an airliner in takeoff, killing hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people. You cane easily spread chemical weapons, not so easy, but quite plausibly.
And that's the bullshit security implications. More importantly, though, you'll have unseeing devices sharing airspace with pink squishy things that won't see them (like me). UAV's, by nature, are generally smaller then manned aircraft. That makes them very difficult to see.
Consider the glider pilot. Let's say that he has a transponder. He's not required to, but he does. His transponder fails. Now, he's invisible to the the UAV. His airplane is painted the same color as the clouds (white) because fiberglass and heat don't work well together. His fiberglass airplane is invisible to radar. if the UAV's coming out of the sun, he's never going to see it, and it won't see him. A person would have seen him, but the UAV doesn't have a person looking out all the windows.
How does the military do it? We block off huge chunks of airspace and keep manned aircraft far away from the UAV's. Oh yeah, and the larger UAV's are driven by certified pilots. The Army has folsk who aren't pilots flying the,m, and crashes a *LOT* of them. The idea of joe cop flying a UAV is bad in every imaginable way. People on the ground, people in the air, privacy, it's just a can of worms.
RADAR - Seeing things that are small since like forever man
Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
The security concern is that someone grabs control of the unmanned aircraft, for example, by hacking into the datalink that controls the aircraft.
So let's get this straight...
We have a massive increase in the number of UAV flights. You know, because of the "terrorists". This is (allegedly) primarily to stop "terrorists" getting on board planes and turning them into giant fireballs that will fall on the population.
Now, these same UAV's are in danger of hitting planes and turning them into giant fireballs that will fall on the population.
I ask you, even if you believe in "terrorists", which is more dangerous: "terrorists", or your Government?
I don't have radar. Gliders don't have radar. ATC radar is very dependent on transponders, because they provide better information than raw ("primary") radar returns. If your radar is designed to track cooperative targets that are using transponders, it probably won't work as well without them.
Language students: Don't try to learn English here. This ain't it.
There seems to be a tacit assumption in posts thus far that unmanned craft will be flying willy-nilly through the commercial lanes. That's just not the case. UAVs have pilots controlling them through encrypted datalinks. The few that have or are proposed to have "autonomous operation" will do so at altitudes that are far above normal flight levels or in restricted zones. Even during autonomous operations, monitoring is continuous and a crew is standing by to take over flight operations. As far as Air Traffic Control is concerned, UAV in-flight emergencies will be handled just like piloted craft in-flight emergencies. Airspace will be cleared around the disabled or uncontrolled craft.
I'm much more concerned over the modernization of our air traffic control systems, than the impact of UAVs.
Invenio via vel creo
Yeah... what he said. ... just daring them to use one? What could possibly go wrong?
For fuck's sake. We are so worried that some radical muslim will take over a plane and fly it into the whitehouse that we are destroying the constitution. Now we want to put remote control airplanes in the sky
Oh wait, that's right, government pilots were flying the plane that hit the pentagon the first time. So, sure, nothing will go wrong.
Or perhaps we can just get insurance companies to cough up the dosh to pay for all the accidents? How much is the lives of 30 people worth? 50? 300?
On the other hand, there is no terrorist threat anymore, so this shouldn't work out so bad. Planning the date when it will be ok doesn't seem right... just work on it till you have the safety figured out. I'm certain that war games in the middle east have helped grow the knowledge for this.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Fibreglass amd carbon fibre reinforced plastic are so transparent to radar that they have been used to keep radar gear out of the weather for years. Gliders, birds, lots of things without metal in them don't show up.
I hate to tell you but birds by themselves or in flocks do show up on radar.
While they were testing the prototypes for what would become the F-117 lockhead engineers had the model on a stand and were trying to locate the model on radar. Suddenly it showed up clear, when they looked up there was a bird standing on the model. The F-22 has been compared to having the radar cross section of small birds.
Fiberglass is transparent to radar and microwaves though.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Also consider that UAV driver (pilots fly in their birds, not from a bench) may not be aware of restricted airspace, and fly into areas that the military expects to be clear. The FAA and military have had this trouble with ultralights for years, since ultralights don't require a pilot's license, their pilots often are unaware of the restricted airspace concept
Well, there's your problem right there. We gotta find a way to put metal in them pesky birds. Most people would immediately suggest putting metal in bird feed but I think we need to encourage our winged friends to adopt the fashion trend of body piercing.
"Where's my other sock?" - A. Einstein
Here's a reasonable proposal:
* Areas below a certain altitude will remain unregulated by the FAA except near airports and within a very short distance of official heliports and helipads, and then only at altitudes that affect aircraft. Localities can regulate them if needed to address local issues, such as flying near power lines or near government buildings, requiring failsafes (see below), requiring operator training, prohibiting certain activities such as commercial or private-investigation photography without permission of the photographee or landowner or in the case of private investigators, a license from the state or locality, etc.
* In the FAA-regulated zones, all aircraft must have a "responsible party" and either a human at the helm or an FAA-certified autonomous controller. This "responsible party" will have at least a modicum of training and will have flight privileges that match his training. All such aircraft over a certain weight or which, when flying, have more than a certain momentum or kinetic energy or which carry more than a certain amount of combustible fuel must have a "failsafe" in case the controller loses control. The failsafe will be designed to make sure the plane doesn't cause damage to other aircraft or to objects on the ground if it loses contact with its controller. Typically, this will be something like "activate emergency beacon, cut all engines, and deploy chute." The emergency beacon is there to tell other aircraft the vehicle is out of control and to assist in recovery when it lands.
* In FAA-regulated zones all vehicles will have a transponder so they can be easily seen by radar and other aircraft at all times.
* Below the FAA-regulated altitude, transponders are recommended but not required. Transponders can assist in the recovery of a lost or crashed aircraft.
Some will argue that the FAA should be able to take remote-control of unmanned aircraft in case of an emergency. This will be a political issue. I can see this in a limited case, where the FAA sends "no go" instructions to the aircraft directing it to not enter restricted territory based on current events, airport proximity, or restrictions based on the controller's limited training. However, I don't like the idea of the FAA being able to hijack a plane, even an unmanned one.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Loss of communications. If you lose comms in a manned aircraft, the pilot follows his flight plan as filed until he regains comms or is able to take appropriate action to land safely. If you lose comms with an unmanned aircraft, depending upon its programming, it may or may not follow a flight plan, avoid other aircraft, and/or land safely.
The biggest "security implication" perceived by the FAA is interference with air traffic. However, the FAA lumps all UAVs into one category, from the Predator on down to tiny biomimetic dragonflys. This makes it nearly impossible for us to test fly our new products, without hauling a truckload of gear up to the nearest military test range.
And contrary to the belief of many, very few UAVs are armed. Only two US UAVs in operation carry payloads. The rest carry cameras.
I can see the fnords!
See & Avoid is the process that aircraft in the US use to keep from running into one another. Only a small percentage of aircraft flying in the US at any given time are operated under positive radar control. The rest are all out there with pilots who are on the look out for other aircraft. With a UAV and a manned aircraft in the same area you have only one able to see & avoid. Cutting in half the effectivness of the process.
Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
Photography by low-lying aircraft is a boon for real-estate agents, developers, and land-use planners. It's also a boon to private investigators and others with a darker agenda.
Small UAVs can also make good couriers if you want to beat street traffic, although electronic transmission and things like 3D-fax machines lessen the need for this.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/01/AFpredcrash070126/
There seems to be a tacit assumption in posts thus far that unmanned craft will be flying willy-nilly through the commercial lanes. That's just not the case.
Given that practically all airspace in the US, except for very small amounts of restricted and prohibited airspace, is a "commerical lane" by default, your argument is void. UAV's *are* flying "willy-nilly" thru Class G, Class E, and even Class D airspace and it is becoming an topic of serious safety concern for not only general aviation and commercial aviation, but also for military aviation too.
I've heard of at least one case where a law enforcement agency blunderingly flew their UAV right across a US Air Force Base where T-38 jet training operations were in progress.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
If you know much about the state of UAVs these days, research and development is going mainly into autonomous vehicles. Human controllers are definitely in the loop, defining waypoints, orbits, and so forth, but they aren't being flown directly by pilots, unlike the current crop of *military* UAVs that are in operation right now. The goal of UAVs is to have the plane take off, fly a particular mission, do something, and then fly back and land. All without a pilot controlling it. This isn't some future thing. This is what UAVs in research labs are doing right now.
You can bet that the next generation of military UAVs are definitely unmanned and pilot-less, though not uncontrolled, agreed.
With commercial companies getting into UAV stuff for civilian purposes (monitoring land and crops, mapping developments for a contractor or something, etc), the FAA is probably right to worry. I am concerned that the FAA's typical over concern will negatively impact the hobby field where UAVs are being developed and flown at low altitudes for fun by quite a few rc computer hackers[1]. So many neat things are being done by hobbyists [2] and it would a real shame if the FAA shut them all down overly ridiculous concerns like terrorism.
[1] http://www.rcgroups.com/uav-unmanned-aerial-vehicles-238/
[2] http://paparazzi.enac.fr/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
Yes, but when have you ever known a Federal bureaucracy (or Congress itself, for that matter) to make such fine distinctions. It's a much safer approach (politically speaking) to simply ban/over-regulate everything in a given category and worry about the economic fallout later. It's the same hysteria-driven non-thinking that puts Estes model rockets in the same class as military weapons.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
So the solution seems to be quite simple: unmanned aircrafts should not be allowed to fly in civilian airspace unless they are able, when the communication is lost, to follow a flight plan, avoid other aircraft and land safely.
I don't trust the US government much, but frankly, I don't buy those conspiracy hypotheses.
It's far more comforting to believe that a great powerful conspiracy was required to take down the towers than a couple dozen whackjobs with pocket knives.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
There are lots of people who like putting metal in birds. Of course, the birds don't tend to fly after the "implantation" process, but ...
You are asking me if I am comfortable with having a 15 meter wide killing machine in my vicinity?
No, no I am not.
Unless it provides me with a scan of the immediate surroundings showing all enemies on my minimap.
Particles, stuff that matters.
We run an open source UAV community at DIYDrones. We fly under RC rules (under 400 feet, etc) and our aircraft (fixed wing and helis) are typically under 3-4 pounds. We even have some UAVs with Lego Mindstorms autopilots!
Given that these are basically toys created by amateurs, it's going to be really hard to regulate them. That's why we want the FAA to create a de minimus regulatory category (under 3 pounds, under 1,000 feet, away from built-up areas, airports, etc), similar to what the FCC did with open access wireless spectrum. Otherwise, we're going to completely kill innovation in the independent commercial sector by creating an impossible regulatory burden.
What a terrible burden. You have to test fly in a designated area. Like any other experimental aircraft.
For all the questions about reliability, the main problem is going to be easier access to airspace, more aircraft at lower altitudes & increased noise.
Let's see ... if you can buy a UAV or overrun the control station, then you can target anyone within the fuel range. You can easily crash into an airliner in takeoff, killing hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people. You cane easily spread chemical weapons, not so easy, but quite plausibly.
You can also do this using a truck...
Consider the glider pilot. Let's say that he has a transponder. He's not required to, but he does. His transponder fails. Now, he's invisible to the the UAV. His airplane is painted the same color as the clouds (white) because fiberglass and heat don't work well together. His fiberglass airplane is invisible to radar.
Such a glider is also going to be invisible to ATC and aircraft with their own radars.
if the UAV's coming out of the sun, he's never going to see it, and it won't see him. A person would have seen him, but the UAV doesn't have a person looking out all the windows.
A human pilot may be able to see a glider. Depending on how it's approaching and if the pilot is looking out of the window.
Fibreglass amd carbon fibre reinforced plastic are so transparent to radar that they have been used to keep radar gear out of the weather for years.
Including radar systems on aircraft. The covering on many aircraft is made of just such materials.
Gliders, birds, lots of things without metal in them don't show up.
Birds will show up in large flocks. But the typical radar system is going to be set up to ignore anything with a small RCS.
The biggest "security implication" perceived by the FAA is interference with air traffic. However, the FAA lumps all UAVs into one category, from the Predator on down to tiny biomimetic dragonflys.
Whilst birds are considered a danger to aviation, a not especially large bird can cause serious damage to an aircraft or engine. I'm unware of an insect causing problems to an aircaft in flight. Indeed the only insect related accident appears to have been due to one building a nest in a pitot.
And contrary to the belief of many, very few UAVs are armed. Only two US UAVs in operation carry payloads. The rest carry cameras.
The glass in a camera is likely to be harder than the bones in a bird. Not healthy for jet engines!
Are these drones, that can spy on Government sites? Or even carry dangerous bombs? With the internet, and data tunneling, one could actually steer a drone while being in the far east.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
There's no doubt an obvious answer to this question that I'm overlooking, but regarding clouds vs. birds - couldn't you just have looked at the Doppler shift of the reflected signal?
We did use doppler, but clouds also travel at high speed at those altitudes. And the resolution was very low. It was more from analysing the paths that we could tell the difference. This radar is still on but I'm not working on it anymore.
Non-Linux Penguins ?