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."

Comments

Security Implications? What Security Implications?

[Serious Lemur]

What are the major security implications of an unmanned aircraft?

oh the irony...

[owlnation]

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?

Responsible parties, flight plans, tracing

[davidwr]

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.

Re:Security Implications? What Security Implicatio

[bughunter]

I work for a small UAV manufacturer that supplies a lot of UAVs to the US military for squad-level reconaissance, and recent rulings have really become a burden on our R&D efforts.

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.

Almost the entire airspace is a "commercial lane".

[Nick Driver]

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.

Re:Security Implications? What Security Implicatio

[dargaud]

I hate to tell you but birds by themselves or in flocks do show up on radar. Indeed. I worked on experimental VHF atmospheric research radars, used to estimate the mass and position of clouds up so several hundred kms away and flocks of migratory birds did show nicely (but we couldn't easily tell between the two).