Can Unmanned Aircraft Mix With Commercial Planes?

coondoggie writes "The Federal Aviation Administration this week signed a research and development agreement with GE Aviation to come up with a way to safely mix the burgeoning amounts of unmanned aircraft with commercial aviation. With this research the FAA and GE hope to accomplish an aviation first by completing the research to facilitate flight of an Unmanned Aircraft System with an FAA certified, trajectory-based flight management system. Integrating unmanned aircraft into the national airspace will be no easy task. The Government Accountability Office last year laid out the difficulties stating that routine unmanned aircraft access to national airspace poses technological, regulatory, workload, and coordination challenges."

Comments

No.

[RobVB]

I like the comforting feeling of knowing there's a pilot in the cockpit.

Re:No.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I like the comforting feeling of knowing there's a pilot in the cockpit.

I like the comforting feeling of knowing there's a pilot in the cockpit of the planes flying OVER me when I'm down here on the ground.

Re:No.

[Timothy Brownawell]

I like the comforting feeling of knowing there's a pilot in the cockpit.

Computers don't get heart attacks or fall asleep at the stick.

Re:No.

[qwijibo]

Do aircraft have fully autonomous co-computers that can recognize an unexpected fault and take full control of the plane? That's why commercial aircraft have co-pilots. A secondary system running the same code with the same flaws as the first doesn't cut it in this context.

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. You're simply scared of change. In 50 years time you WILL hear many people saying "Holy shit, they let PEOPLE fly these planes? I feel much safer without a human pilot."

Re:No.

[Jake73]

You haven't met enough pilots.

Re:No.

[FooAtWFU]

You: "No. I like the comforting feeling of knowing there's a pilot in the cockpit."

TFA: "Because unmanned aircraft have never routinely operated in the national airspace system, the level of public acceptance is unknown. One researcher observed that as unmanned aircraft expand into the non-defense sector, there will inevitably be public debate over the need for and motives behind such proliferation."

Looks like your attitude is one of the things they'll be studying, hmm?

Re:No.

[Deadstick]

Computers don't get heart attacks or fall asleep at the stick.

Or figure out how to make a successful landing in a river when the engines fill up with birds...

rj

Re:No.

[jamstar7]

TFA: "Because unmanned aircraft have never routinely operated in the national airspace system, the level of public acceptance is unknown. One researcher observed that as unmanned aircraft expand into the non-defense sector, there will inevitably be public debate over the need for and motives behind such proliferation."

I'm wondering why there's a need for drones to interfly commercial airspace here in the US, especially when that blog also had an article about the Air Force wanting to give drones enough machine intelligence to decide for itself whether deadly force is warranted. What could possibly go wrong with that? Are the new drones gonna be used in the much-publicised 'War' On Drugs or something?

Re:No.

[GoodNicksAreTaken]

GIS data collection such as aerial surveying like the "Bird's Eye View" on Bing or 7cm or smaller resolution for overhead views, high resolutions that satellites can't achieve. They also would have the ability to collect when their is cloud cover as drones can fly under the cloud cover. Throw the GPS coordinates on to an SD card with something like Ardupilot and have it fly the route taking images that can then be stitched together. GE as a huge defense contractor would primarily just want to sell them for spying on citizens. Why we need full size UAVs when radio control UAVs can accomplish anything you'd sanely want accomplish without a human at the controls is beyond me. I could see drones being used to fertilize crops but you'd be nuts to let large tanks of anhydrous ammonia fly around on their own.

Re:No.

[bschorr]

Sure, computers are completely reliable and never fai#&#(@(@ NO CARRIER

Re:No.

[cyphergirl]

I spent a brief part of my career writing code for avionics. A serious amount of testing goes into the code before the FAA will certify it to fly; you have to prove that you've executed every line of code, that every line of code does exactly what it is supposed to, and that there are no paths that are never executed. But even with all of the testing we did, we would occasionally get a value we completely didn't expect and crash the demo box. Lucky me, I was just writing code to encrypt ACARS... nothing that actually made the airplane fly (or not fly...).

My husband and I were at AirVenture checking out EFIS sytems for an experimental aircraft that we're building. We managed to crash one of them not once, but three times, just by pushing a few buttons in rapid sequence. Granted, they were experimental and didn't go through all of the testing, but every now and then you also hear about a certified system resetting in flight. In fact, a friend of ours recently had his certified EFIS go into a reboot loop while he was in flight due to a faulty database update; luckily he was flying VFR and had backup gauges, so he didn't need the EFIS. There are procedures in place to handle this, but there are also people present in the cockpit to follow them. This is why fly-by-wire scares me, and why it's still a Very Good Thing that commercial aircraft have co-pilots and manual flight systems as backups. There's just too much that can go wrong to be able to trust everything to fly itself -- sometimes you really need a human in the mix thinking "outside of the box" when the feathers start to fly. I think the Sioux City incident is a major example of that, despite how long ago it was.

Re:No.

[AnyoneEB]

A secondary system running the same code with the same flaws as the first doesn't cut it in this context.

That's why you build the computer systems with triple modular redundancy. Basically, you make three different systems which have the same job and they vote.

Of course, a human or two as another layer of redundancy is often a good idea.

Re:No.

[Obfuscant]

Why we need full size UAVs when radio control UAVs can accomplish anything you'd sanely want accomplish without a human at the controls is beyond me.

Radio control suffers from the same issue as fully automated UAVs.

The issue with them being in the airspace system is that much of the system is based on VFR -- visual flight rules. See and avoid. And even the parts that are always ATC controlled (Class A and B airspace) rely on see and avoid when the weather is clear. (It is not uncommon at all for an airplane approaching a very busy airport to be told something like "traffic 2 oclock, two miles", and then when the pilot says he has it in sight he's told "follow that aircraft".)

A radio control pilot cannot see anything other than what his camera is looking at right now. He can't swivel his head and see the Cessna 182 bearing down on him from the left as easily as a real pilot can.

I don't doubt that fully automated aircraft are at the level of sophistication where they can operate in a fully controlled environment, but we don't have many of those, if any. And we don't have ANY method I know of for ATC to issue emergency instructions to an unpiloted UAV, so they become essentially uncontrolled controlled systems.

Re:No.

[thenextstevejobs]

Are the new drones gonna be used in the much-publicised 'War' On Drugs or something?

There's a war on drugs in my apartment right now. And I am winning

Re:No.

[russ1337]

The FAA approach to aircraft software is loosely as follows (refer FAR 25.1309 as a starting point):

- When building the aircraft, as part of a wider safety program a System Safety Assessment is carried out on the system in question - This may be in accordance with SAE ARP 4754

- The SSA determines the required 'Design Assurance Level' of the system in question. - i.e a 'fly-by-wire' flight control is likely level A, and an inflight entertainment system might be level E.

- The system is then built, and the software developed using a suitable software lifecycle process (such as IEEE 12207).

- The Software is developed against an 'Assurance Standard' - most likely DO-178B. This requires various things to happen depending on the 'Level' of assurance required. If it is level A software (i.e for a flight control system), then there are lots of development and test requirements required (e.g full high-level requirement trace to low level requirements to hardware, with independence. - and full code coverage with testing of all inputs and outputs in every iteration). For something like an in flight entertainment (Level E), there are very little code / test requirements (to meet FAA regs - not passenger satisfaction!)

The FAA credit the (quite robust when followed) DO-178B process as the reason for so few software related accidents. Many examples of aircraft accidents the media attribute to 'software fault' is usually a hardware error providing incorrect input. - or a result of poor requirement definition up front.... (such as software had no requirement to disregard erroneous Angle of Attack data, causing severe pitch problems in an airbus.)

If you get into it, the FAA regulations around software are pretty safe. If you're in doubt, contact your local D.E.R.

Re:No.

[Big Hairy Ian]

If you read the Wiki page on Sioux City flight 232 you'll see that the issue has occurred several times with the crew finding the same solution each time. However on only one occasion has a plane suffered the same catastrophic failure and landed successfully which was the 2003 DHL A320 that lost all hydrolics when it was struck by a misile shortly after taking off from Baghdad Airport.

Where's the issue?

[Ryukotsusei]

I don't see the problem in this. As long as you give the aircraft a simple AI (planes practically fly themselves anyway), and a pre-set route, they should be fairly predictable. A simple in-the-air navigation system for collision avoidance and you're set.

Re:Where's the issue?

[ColdWetDog]

I don't see the problem in this. As long as you give the aircraft a simple AI (planes practically fly themselves anyway), and a pre-set route, they should be fairly predictable. A simple in-the-air navigation system for collision avoidance and you're set.

But OTHER aircraft might not be so predictable. TFA mentions, for example, gliders. They don't file flight plans. They're too small to carry much in the way of radar or other collision avoidance devices. Both UAVs and gliders tend to fly at low altitudes. Traffic can get very complex, very fast.

Besides, there is no such thing as a "simple" collision avoidance system. They're hard to do (mentioned, oddly enough, in TFA).

Re:Where's the issue?

[MichaelSmith]

My dad flies gliders and glider tug aircraft. One of the problems he told me about is that military pilots like to fly along a rail line close to an airfield where the gliders fly. They don't care that they are cutting through the circuit for an airfield. UAVs would at least follow instructions when transiting through these areas.

Re:Where's the issue?

[stinkytoe]

UAV's also have weight issues. The shadow, the one mentioned in the article, doesn't have any kind of radar, heck it doesn't even have brakes. This is due to the very reliable but fairly weak engine it uses. It's internal computer basically only handles the inertial nav system, the communications, and maintains straight and level flight. The ground control station makes all the actual decisions. If the AV loses contact with the GCS, it's preprogrammed either to return to a predesignated coordinate and fly a loiter pattern (hopefully getting signal back again on the way), or to deploy it's parachute.

In other words, nevermind avoiding another aircraft, this thing will fly into a mountain if allowed to fly itself. I believe that the reason that this aircraft is the one being selected for FAA approval is because of it's reliability at doing it's job even with it's limitations, not because of it's feature set. My unit, and many others, have never crashed one of these UAV's. Other UAV's, even more sophisticated ones, fall out of the sky all the time. While the shadow is not perfect, it is definately going to be the benchmark in the future for how rugged and simple versus how feature rich a UAV needs to be.

Re:Where's the issue?

[nmg196]

The problem with gliders is that they like to fly extremely close to each other in thermals. If you fitted any kind of collision avoidance system, it would be going off permanently.

Pilots Union/Lobby?

[Nethemas the Great]

Some how I think the technological aspects will be the least burdensome to implement...

Auto Pilot

[Drakin020]

Heck with the way things are now, the Auto Pilot can nearly land a plane by itself.

The idea isn't too far off, but to an extent, we already have an "Auto flying" system currently in use.

Re:Auto Pilot

[Anonymous Coward]

Google "procerus kesterel" "piccolo cloudcap" "papparazi uav". these can all autoland. we've been flying a kestrel with the ability to consistently hit a 3" circle on the runway with a 100lb plane going 15mph at touchdown. yeah bigger planes go faster, but they have larger control surfaces to compensate...

Re:Auto Pilot

[EchaniDrgn]

Auto landing has been around since the 70s. I remember a full page newspaper ad announcing that "Auto-landing is here." IIRC, in order to be able to prove their Auto-pilot is capable of auto-landing the airlines are required to have periodic auto-landings done. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland

Re:The end of private aviation

[Darkness404]

No, it won't. The one thing about technology is it starts expensive, gets cheaper and cheaper then a new breakthrough comes in and makes things more expensive and the cycle starts again. Just look at hard drives, they started incredibly expensive for a small amount of storage, then they started getting higher capacity and cheaper and cheaper, then the cycle is starting again with SSDs where just a few years ago even 32 GB was -very- expensive.

Re:The end of private aviation

[RetroGeek]

For the first generation or so.

Then it will be put on a single chip and mass produced. Look at cell phones. The first ones used discrete circuits and were big and heavy.

ATC...

[Omega Hacker]

I'd love to have them get a proper air-traffic control system in place that can safely handle the load of piloted planes we have, first. Only after that would it be prudent to look at bringing UAVs into the mix.

Re:Self Destruct!

[Fluffeh]

The unmanned aircraft should carry a self-destruct radio reciever and manned aircraft would carry a low-power transmitter.

If an unmanned aircraft comes within 1 mile of a commercial flight, it self destructs!

The transmitter could be a cheap $10 piece of equipment.

Problem. Solved. What could possibly go wrong?

All the unmanned aircraft at airports suddenly go BOOOM!! when the switch is turned on?

Weddings & Funerals

[Anonymous Coward]

These unmanned planes are especially dangerous to people attending a wedding or a funeral.

I learned this by reading about the war in Afghanistan.

Re:Weddings & Funerals

[Ungrounded Lightning]

These unmanned planes are especially dangerous to people attending a wedding or a funeral.

Especially when the guests are firing into the air in celebration or salute.

Re:Self Destruct!

[treat]

Actually, that's not too far from the truth.

An unmanned aircraft can survive much higher stresses than manned aircraft, so you could essentially make the unmanned aircraft drop out of the sky rather than collide. Maybe it can pull a 300G turn to avoid the collision. It's sensor package and avionics would react much faster than those controlled by humans.

Not according to FAA officials, says the article:

FAA officials also point out that TCAS computes collision avoidance solutions based on characteristics of manned aircraft, and does not incorporate unmanned aircraft's slower turn and climb rates in developing conflict solutions.

Not sure what the BFD is

[oodaloop]

Baghdad is hands-down the most complicated airspace in the world, with multiple simultaneous UAVs at any given time, plus rotary-wing and fixed-wing assets flying constantly, some which are engaging in real-world operations, like dropping bombs. The deconfliction that needs to be done with assets that are collecting, assets that are targeting, assets picking up or dropping off troops, Iraqi commercial aircraft, VIP aircraft, ad nausem is just mind-boggling. The ATC there does this every day. Why is flying one UAV in the US that big a deal?

Re:Not sure what the BFD is

[MartinSchou]

The ATC there [Baghdad] does this every day. Why is flying one UAV in the US that big a deal?

Because if something goes wrong in the USA, the airplanes in question will be landing on US citizens and not Iraqi ones.

Re:Not sure what the BFD is

[oodaloop]

If something goes wrong in Iraq, a multi-million dollar platform is lost, US pilots are killed (if it collides with a manned aircraft), and the US has to deal with bad publicity, pressure from Iraqi politicians, recovery of classified equipment in potentially hostile territory, etc. It's not like there are no repercussions if they crash a UAV into something. I understand it's different from flying in the US, but let's not act like theses are problems that no one has ever worked on. I skimmed the article and didn't find any mention of learning from the many years the military has of flying UAVs, let alone in civilian airspace.

Re:Not sure what the BFD is

[petermgreen]

The military has a somewhat different attitude to safety than civilian operations. The reason for this is pretty obvious, when one of the major risks is being killed by an enemy stuff that reduces that risk is worthwhile even if it increases other risks.

The civilian authorities in (reasonablly) peaceful countries OTOH are working from a different standpoint. UAVs are simply an extra risk to them which does not reduce any other risk. That means LOTs of beuracracy and risk assesment before they are approved.

Plus it won't be just one UAV, they need to make regulations that will accomodate a general increase in UAV use.

Re:Not sure what the BFD is

[hax4bux]

You might start w/this little NTSB report about a UAV in the national airspace system.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060509X00531&key=1

Already been tried, and didn't go so well.

[TheModelEskimo]

I tried this once, in a comic book I wrote. It didn't really work so well and several commercial airliners crashed. Oh and a terrorist hacked into one of the drones. I wouldn't recommend following this route unless you are using it as a violent plot device.

Re:Self Destruct!

[MichaelSmith]

Huh? Why would unmanned craft have slower climb/turn rates than manned craft? Presumably they would be greater, since there are no squishy bags of meat on board that get uncomfortable while pulling a G or ten.
Anyone know?

Probably an artificial constraint so that interactions with other aircraft are not made worse. What if the UAV does a sharp turn into the path of a different aircraft, faster than its TCAS can react? Also many UAVs are currently remotely piloted, which leads to slower reactions.

Yes, but not right away.

[antirelic]

I'm up in the air about this one. The US military is probably one of the biggest consumers of unmanned air craft, and has been using them extensively for quiet some time in Afghanistan. For the most part, the highlights scream "success", but I dont really trust the news for two reasons. One, the media is untrustworthy. Two, the military does not benefit by releasing news of drone failures (opsec issue and all, for those crazy left wing anti military whack jobs make of it what you will).

I'd be more inclined to support this if the military released unclassified reports on all of its unmanned UAV activities. Yes, UAV is not nearly the same as "commercial airliner" but its a good step in the right direction. The military can probably provide mountains of information on the outcome of thousands upon thousands of flights and all sorts of variable problems they have encountered (from mechanical to signal). This will be another area where military tech and military experience directly and dramatically impacts commercial applications of new technology.

Unmanned flight is going to happen. Not if, but when. This will occur with commercial cargo transports first (FedEx, UPS, etc), where saving money on "human support systems" will go a long way to reduce costs, improve route times, increase the amount of flights to be made, etc.. It only makes sense.

Re:Self Destruct!

[petermgreen]

My guess is that because they don't have to worry about the safety of the occupants and they know the exact weight they would cut the margins finer on the power.

I'm sure you could build a uav with manouverability better than a fighter jet but for the majority of work UAVs do you want a plane that is optimised for other things (low speed flying, range, time in the air etc).

IIRC airliners are designed to have enough power that they can limp home with a whole engine down (though thier range is considerably reduced).

It will take a lot more.

[lsdi]

I'm a pilot (A320 rating) and a software developer for a major brazilian airline. Unmaned aircrafts are remote controlled. Airbus and Boeing NG airplanes can, in fact, fly with almost no human intervention. But they only do that with very very specific scenarios and cannot solve any situation that is not predicted. In fact, there is no auto-pilot in the market right now that can keep a plane flying with 26kts+ of wind, it cannot predict the wind movement because it just can't learn how the wind gusts are behaving. 26kts winds are nothing, any private pilot can land a cessna skylane with that situation. IRS systems fail, VOR/NDB usually fail, ILS also. It is NOTuncommon to a pilot land a plane "tech-blind". That's just a simple scenario, there are thousands of situations where learning stuff on the spot is required. There is no computer in the market right now that can predict a wind-shear, thing that barely experienced pilots can. Students try to make a car drive by itself and that thing usually is too slow, unreliable, and just do wrong things. It will take decades of AI development to make a computer actually fly an airplane. Yes, I'm a A320 pilot and software developer, if you are too skeptical I can send my code you can check on ANAC website (FAA-like in brazil).

Re:It will take a lot more.

[Renraku]

Unmanned planes would be easier to do than unmanned cars.

We already have very good automation software for UAVs that can take off, survey, inspect, and land, mostly unassisted. If assistance is needed, such as to fire weapons, or in the event of an emergency or other engagement, it can be handled by remote by the operator. I'd expect these planes would be similar. Maybe hire some pilots and train them in unmanned systems, to handle emergencies. A human element in the system is about necessary, since it would be unreasonable to program in every possible scenario and outcome.

That being said, it'd be a lot cheaper to ditch an unmanned aircraft than it would be to ditch an airliner. Collision alarm going off due to a 747 heading towards the drone? Have the drone pull a 400G turn until there isn't a threat anymore. Worst case scenario, trigger an explosive to blow it out of the sky.

Re:It will take a lot more.

[Aviation Pete]

Have the drone pull a 400G turn until there isn't a threat anymore. Worst case scenario, trigger an explosive to blow it out of the sky.

Who ever rated this nonsense "Insightful"?

The laws of physics don't change just because there is no pilot in the plane to observe them. Higher performance (= climb and turn rate) come at a price. You CAN design an UAV for higher performance, but then it needs big wings and a large engine.
Before it can pull 400g, it needs to create lift 400 times it's weight force. And withstand the stresses involved. With current materials and technology, 400g is a pipe dream.

Re:The end of private aviation

[BiggerIsBetter]

The one thing about technology is it starts expensive, gets cheaper and cheaper then a new breakthrough comes in and makes things more expensive and the cycle starts again.

The one thing about certified aviation electronics is that they generally DON"T get cheaper and cheaper. It's a limited market and the costs involved in certification are high.

this won't spell the end of private aviation, but don't think you'll get a transponder for $100 any time soon...

sure they can mix!

[Tumbleweed]

They'll mix in approximately the same way as chocolate and peanut butter in a Reese's peanut butter cup.

*smash*

"Hey, you got people parts in my drone!"
"You got drone parts in my people!"

Mmmm!

Unmanned trains? Sure. Planes? Not so much.

That's not to say that flying planes can't be made vastly easier. NASA's "Highway in the Sky" program is encouraging the development of some pretty nifty stuff. Think about the computer display in the Nostromo from Alien. The view of the flight path the pilot simply keeps it within the optimal path, no problem for most situations. But it's those unusual situations you gotta have the real deal for.

Take-offs are optional...

[bschorr]

...landings are mandatory.

I want a pilot, or airline official, on the plane that I'm on. Why? Because I want the person who makes the decision about whether or not the plane takes off to have THEIR butt on that plane too. I don't want the decision made in an office building 1,000 miles away by somebody who knows they're going home whether the plane lands wheels up or wheels down.

Soutwest Flight 1 0 0 9er, to Sun Baked Tower,

[LifesABeach]

Over.

Southwest Flight 1 0 0 9er to Sun Baked Tower requesting I L S approach, over.

Sun Baked Tower to Southwest Flight 1 0 0 9er, you are cleared for runway 2 2 Left, maintain altitude 2 5 0 0, at 2 7 5 over.

Southwest Flight 1 0 0 9er, requesting Short Final to runway 2 2 Right, over.

Sun Baked Tower to Southwest Flight 1 0 0 9er, that is a negative, there is Light Aircraft using that runway. You are directed to runway 2 2 Left.

Southwest Flight 1 0 0 9er, that's a negative Tower, I see no Light Aircraft Transponder emissions, am turning Short Final now.

SOUTHWEST FLIGHT 1 0 0 9ER YOU ARE TURNING INTO LIGHT AIRCRAFT, VEER AWAY, VEER AWAY!!!

Southwest Flight 1 0 0 9er, wheels on the ground, encountered light turbulence on short final approach.

SOUTHWEST FLIGHT 1 0 0 9ER YOU HAVE COLLIDED WITH 3 LIGHT AIR CRAFT!!!

Southwest Flight 1 0 0 9er, I am not experiencing any difficulties, no need to Roll the Crash.

This isn't about safety, it's about freedom.

[professorguy]

We can argue all day whether the planes are SAFE. I'm sure they can be made safe enough eventually.

But the important point here is: THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO DEPLOY MILITARY EQUIPMENT AGAINST U.S. CITIZENS ON DOMESTIC SOIL.

The details of the technology are secondary to this violation of Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. And, again, we can argue about how much of the act is still available to citizens, but the real point is LET'S NOT GIVE UP ANY MORE!