Slashdot Mirror
FAA Adds a Study On Adding Drones To Commercial Aviation
coondoggie writes "Facing a number of technical challenges, the Federal Aviation Administration said today it added another research project designed to better understand how unmanned aircraft can be brought safely into the national airspace. The FAA set a two-year research and development agreement with Insitu (an independent subsidiary of Boeing) and the New Jersey Air National Guard that will help FAA scientists to study and better understand unmanned aircraft design, construction, and features. Researchers will also look at the differences in how an air traffic controller would manage an unmanned aircraft vs. a manned aircraft."
Only now they're not quite so goddamn funny.
Dog is my co-pilot.
But..but...why would our government want to spy on its own citizens???
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
"Why are you so against this military hardware used against our enemies? It's not like the government will be flying these things over its own citizens."
Fast forward a few years....
My first thoughts revolved around wondering what on earth one of those drones would be doing here.
But then I tried to think about it from an tech perspective and laid down my tin foil hat. There could actually be some really neat applications for unmmaned aircraft. Granted it's kind of crappy for the pilots in an already saturated market - but there could be some advantages.
Remember that?
Do you also remember that You Should Not Expect Privacy In A Public Place (TM)?
A few important points about this:
1. They are not talking about autonomous UAVs. These UAVs are essentially remote-controlled aircraft piloted by real pilots. I think some people assume these things think for themselves but that's not the case. Now that doesn't automatically discount concerns of safety, but "skynet" is not the case here.
2. This is not specifically for military only. Many uses for UAVs exist outside of military applications such as basic transport. Of course they'll use them for surveillance, but they already do that with aircraft. UAVs can simply linger longer because one pilot can take over during flight. Similar to how large aircraft do it now with redundant crew members.
Here's a thought for drone useage.
Several days after the Deepwater Horizon Well mishap started, why didn't we start tasking drones for continuous surface oil monitoring? Relay that back to home base, coordinate that information through some emergency agency, say FEMA , and redirect coastal fisherman, oil barges, and dispersion vessels/aircraft to fully handle the cleanup and oil salvage of that giant fiasco in the Gulf.
I know. I'm dreaming right? That kind of coordination could never be implemented in such a timely fashion.
Point is, there are civilian and government (non-military) uses for drones that can be justified. This use by the FAA isn't one of them. Rather than pump money into an already lucrative market, manless drones, why don't they update the radar, proximity and 'awareness' technology for the entire Flight Industry instead. Oh, that would just be another Corporate Bailout.
...on how confident we feel in the reliability of communications between the ground-based pilot and the aircraft in the sky. Theoretically, nothing stops ATC from controlling these aircraft like any other, as long as there is a human pilot somewhere who can be told what to do. Use the aircraft itself as a radio relay between ground-based pilot and ATC.
Modern fly-by-wire is essentially a remote control system anyway. All we are talking about is a wireless control link, along with video and flight data -- a full scale flight simulator (without the simulator).
The new risk is mostly loss of communications (possibly via DOS attack). Without a human pilot on board, terrorists might use rogue transmitters to disrupt communications. Can't wait until the MBAs determine that costs can be reduced by outsourcing remote pilot work to India. I can hardly wait to see the Youtube videos of ATC dealing with an Indian call center!
Thinking to the logical conclusion, things get really exciting when the unmanned aircraft are truly unpiloted. They might simply have a pre-programmed GPS route to follow, all the way down to entering the airport traffic pattern and an automatic instrument landing. ATC would need some way to redirect troublesome flights; essentially reprogramming them on the fly. Hacker attacks would be disastrous.
Americans, the new Civilian Casualties.
Hope is the currency of fools
Don't call my ass "nothing", you insensitive clod!
...in national airspace. They're called Airbuses.
Good evening. This is your Captain.
We are about to attempt a crash landing.
Please extinguish all cigarettes.
Place your tray tables in their
upright, locked position.
Your Captain says: Put your head on your knees.
Your Captain says: Put your head in your hands.
Put your hands on your hips. Heh heh.
This is your Captain--and we are going down.
We are all going down, together.
And I said: Uh oh. This is gonna be some day.
Standby. This is the time.
And this is the record of the time.
This is the time. And this is the record of the time.
Uh--this is your Captain again.
You know, I've got a funny feeling I've seen this all before.
Why? Cause I'm a caveman.
Why? Cause I've got eyes in the back of my head.
Why? It's the heat. Standby.
This is the time. And this is the record of the time.
This is the time. And this is the record of the time.
Put your hands over your eyes. Jump out of the plane.
There is not pilot. You are not alone. Standby.
This is the time. And this is the record of the time.
This is the time. And this is the record of the time.
The question is will they bother to get the encryption of the video and data feeds right one the domestic models or continue with the lousy comms methods already in place?
Also will the Police fly these, to hunt down dangerous criminals like they use Helicopters for now, or will they be flown by the same type of people that install Red Light speeding cameras, and just mail you tickets.
They are not talking about autonomous UAVs. These UAVs are essentially remote-controlled aircraft piloted by real pilots. I think some people assume these things think for themselves but that's not the case. Now that doesn't automatically discount concerns of safety, but "skynet" is not the case here.
Yes, but there was a time that we as a society wouldn't have even considered this. The main obvious use is domestic spying.
This is not specifically for military only. Many uses for UAVs exist outside of military applications such as basic transport.
Just what we need: remote controlled heavies tooling around the sky... Sure, commercial aircraft are almost there (take-offs and landings are largely automated), but there are so many variables, I'd like my pilot *ON* the aircraft, it makes them much more invested in successful problem solving, should a problem arise.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
But..but...why would our government want to spy on its own citizens???
If this happens, they can spy on me, but I can also launch a drone and spy on them. And to be truthful, the government and it's employees have a hell of a lot more to hide from me than I do from them...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Skynet jokes aside, drones are both useful and inevitable. And not only the winged ones. Look for a possible resurgence of blimps and airships in widespread use. Hang a radar on a blimp, park it at high altitude, and you have an instant radar system upgrade for air traffic control. Or for border patrol. Or for search and rescue. Etc etc etc. The uses for UAV's in the civilian sector are endless.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
So the government that cannot keep a UFO theorist with a hackbot out of their network wants to fly its airplanes by remote control, using the same technology that continues to mistakenly shoot innocent civilians. I'd feel more comfortable with a pilot on the plane, where he can actually take action if something goes wrong.
I'm sure Barbra Streisand is gonna love this idea!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/publications/oep/version1/reference/eram/
"The third and by far most complex step (ERAM Release 1) is the replacement of the Host Computer System with new software and hardware ... national deployment begins in FY 2009 and concludes in FY 2011"
and a lack of qualified workers to direct existing traffic, I don't think Skynet is happening anytime soon.
Can't really argue with that complaint, but isn't a lack of qualified people more likely to lead to the development of Skynet?
Thing is, military drones have no people on board. Passenger jets would have people on board.
Why would they do it? it's all about saving money, it's not in the interests of passengers.
How so? It certainly isn't reflected in their salaries. Maybe a few of the senior pilots make some good money, but the younger ones tend to earn a wage that well... frankly I'm surprised more of them don't point the nose to ground after realizing that the pilot lifestyle isn't nearly as fantastic as it was made out to be.
great, so we get some pimply faced angsty hackers flying jumbo jets into major eyesores instead of religious nutbars who are at least willing to die for their cause.
and what happens when one of these buzzards gets sucked up in the engine of a real plane?!!!
Oh goody, target practice!!
Smartest post in the whole thread.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
OTOH "when your rear is in the hot seat and death is riding you", people tend to act erratically (there were some catastrophes essentialy due to humans arguing with the machine...). And we can't be certain if knowing that you will surely survive any catastrophe is not actually at least as strong deterrent & motivation - after all, you know you will face the consequences if that was your fault.
One that hath name thou can not otter
Up, i say! up!
troll, off topic, and just as biased a site as fox news
Consider this a test-case for remote-controlled and later autonomous cars on roadways. The FAA and commercial carriers are going to have to figure out whose fault it is when a UAV collides with an airplane, and how to minimize that risk, and whatever they do (I suspect it's going to be a combination of onboard transponders that talk to each other mesh-style rather than relying on centralized air traffic control facilities, and liability caps on manufacturers of UAV's) will be likely to be adopted when the first fully autonomous vehicles appear.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
And we can't be certain if knowing that you will surely survive any catastrophe is not actually at least as strong deterrent & motivation - after all, you know you will face the consequences if that was your fault.
And what about the possibility of the remote pilot ditching and making a run for it? At least with the local pilot they'd need to parachute out of the plane. In this case, Jim takes a coffee break and never comes back.
1. Keep the things in positive controlled airspace at all times. 2. Minimize the amount of positive controlled airspace.
The Air Force has at least a couple of incidents of no comms from a Predator/Reaper back to home base. The a/c is supposed to circle and reestablish, or eventually fly back towards home base. One in Afghanistan apparently went off by itself and wouldn't respond. They had to send a manned F-16 to shoot it down.
I'll be damned if I get on a plane that is remote controlled by someone somewhere else. If that plane is going down I want those flying the plane to go down with me. This ain't some neat out sourcing opportunity for airlines to put pilots in India sitting behind a desk. Bitches be crazy. I'd be running off a plane if the pilot came on during taxi saying this plane is remotely flown. Trust me, when your rear is in the hot seat and death is riding you, you tend to care a lot more about what the hell is going on. I can tell the FAA real fast and save them money, NWIH! Now if they want to run just cargo planes as drones, that's fine.
Agreed, if we are going down, the captain needs to go down with his ship! Cargo plane drones and spy plane drones, fine. In fact, I'd prefer not to have someone killed for flying cargo.
This is your captain, YX7-281B. Filthy humans, you are instructed to wear your seatbelt at all times in case of sudden deceleration. Failure to comply with these directions will result in cabin depressurization and abrupt deplaning of the offender. If you look to your right, you will see the burning remains of your civilization. Ha. Ha. That's a little robot humor, folks.
I put on my robe and wizard hat..
total information awareness and...
Bonus, murder by remote control.
Lets see, vile butchers like Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obamma will have these at their disposal against US citizens... just look at all those dead who were in wedding parties (and funerals for the dead from wedding parties hit by drones) in Afganistan and Pakistan, since Bush Jr. and Obama got these new toys, for answer to, "what could possibly go wrong?"
Trust me, when your rear is in the hot seat and death is riding you, you tend to care a lot more about what the hell is going on.
And? Do you really think how much the pilot cares has anything to do with how likely you are, as a passenger, to survive a crash?
I can pretty much guarantee you that in every fatal crash (with the exception of suicides a la 9/11) the pilot cares a great deal. I mean, he really, really doesn't want to die. And yet somehow, this caring fails to translate into survival.
It doesn't matter how much the pilot cares; it matters how well he does his job. Now, I will agree that in general, people who care about their jobs do better than those who don't, and so a caring pilot will, over the course of a career in the cockpit, tend to do better at developing the skills to prevent a fatal crash. But the same can be said of a UAV pilot sitting at a desk. When the crash is happening, when split-second decisions can make the difference between life and death for a hundred or more people ... at that point, it's a little late for how much anyone cares to make a difference.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
You'd have to be a spectacular sort of psychopath to not be fully engaged with saving the plane you are remotely controlling when it has lots of people on it. It's just not an issue. The reliability of the technology is the real issue, and that is what this study is studying.
Let me preface my comments by saying I'm actually on one of the teams working on this problem at the FAA Tech Center, and that I was actually there during the signing ceremony yesterday (though I was mostly just annoyed by the loud music coming from the lobby interrupting my work and turned down the opportunity to take a bus ride to go see the ScanEagle fly). While we're excited they're loaning us two ScanEagles, we're already pretty deep into studying this problem. My group is on our third (or is it fourth?) simulation study right now, and we're ramping up for a gigantic one that will study a mix of GA, Commercial and about four to six UAS systems in a mixed-use airspace around the January timeframe. So now that we've gotten that out of the way, I'd like to address some of your comments. :)
Actually there are significant differences between controlling a UAS and a normal aircraft for an ATC. First and foremost is that it's a pilot's responsibility to see after the safety of his or her plane at all times, even if that means disobeying a directive from ATC. UAS pilots just aren't capable of this. They literally can't look out the window and see if they're going to run into someone or something. They also may be controlling more than one system at a time, which is something you never have to worry about in a "normal" ATC scenario. On top of this it seems that UAS operators may or may not be instrumented rated, which means they're not always trained for flying in controlled civilian airspace.
Oh and then there's the fact there are still many areas in US Airspace that have no radar coverage whatsoever. Yes, I'm serious. ATC depends on pilot reports in those areas. In the future we'll be practically eliminating radar for en-route ATC environments in favor of a satellite based solution like ADS-B.
And the final difference which the article actually touches on is that what we're simulating is a future airspace: one where we've moved on to trajectory-based operations. Currently an aircraft in controlled airspace moves along airways (or jetways), which are like one-lane highways that go from one point to another. This is why some people always see a lot of flights over their house, there's one or more airways crossing over it. Air traffic control's main responsibility is to make sure no aircraft comes within a certain distance of any other aircraft along these airways (usually five miles in an en-route environment, though that can vary based on conditions and aircraft types). At the traffic levels we're expecting in 10-25 years, this system breaks down.
In the future, aircraft will fly more direct routes to their destination (instead of navigating a graph of nodes via one-way connections), and ATC will be modeling their trajectories in four dimensions to make sure those safety bubbles are magically maintained. We haven't even finished figuring out how this will work for manned aircraft, much less when you add UAS to the mix (though a UAS will probably keep to their plotted flight plan better than a manned aircraft, but I digress). That many UASes and manned aircraft sharing airspace and traveling in all different directions is a scary thought right now, but that's why we're being so serious about simulating these things and developing very strict procedures for how it will be run.
In most cases, though, with a modern fly-by-wire system the pilot has significantly better situational awareness, response time, and contro
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Your life is already in the hands of the air traffic controllers, who are already sitting on the ground looking at screens. Not sure how this would be any different.
-Xoltri
This has nothing to do with pilotless commercial aircraft and everything to do with accommodating the CIAs predator drones which will soon be bombing the homes of any American citizen who still believes in freedom or private enterprise
1) The UAV pilots on the ground must be required to hold an airman's certificate with an instrument rating.
2) The UAV itself must be equipped with at minimum, a regular mode-C transponder, and squawking a discrete code.
3) The UAVs must be flown on instrument flight plans, because they are severely lacking in the "see and avoid" capability that's required for VFR flight.
4) Atfer steps 1 thru 3 are fully implemented, the UAVs are now fully participating in the NAS just like rest of the pilots who are not necessarily able to see the other aircraft (that is the IFR flights) and thus need external monitoring, controls and rules to provide positive separation of these aircraft in flight.
5) ???
6) Profit.
Forgot to include the obvious...
2a) The UAV must also be equipped with proper COM radios and audio uplink so the pilot can stay in contact with all ATC facilities wherever the UAV is operating.
Now, the flight recorder data from numerous crashes caused by human error show the tendency of humans to panic when they think they're going to die, and when the pilot panics and pulls up the nose (because aiming your nose at the ground is precisely the kind of thing that causes mortal fears to scream loudly in your head) causing the aircraft to stall (because what the pilot really really really needed to do right then was point his nose at the ground at pick up some airspeed so the plane didn't stall) and crash and die, I'm sure you're rest smugly in heaving knowing that although you just died in a perfectly survivable situation, at least the pilot died with you (whereas you all would have lived if he hadn't been in mortal panic at the time he was required to keep a cool head and fly the plane competently rather than like someone in mortal panic).
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
And what about the possibility of the remote pilot ditching and making a run for it? At least with the local pilot they'd need to parachute out of the plane. In this case, Jim takes a coffee break and never comes back.
In which case Jim is now a fugitive from the law, strongly suspected of mass murder. Not such a hot idea for Jim.
there were some catastrophes essentialy due to humans arguing with the machine...
And there have been other casualties where the humans were right. Specifically, I am thinking of an Airbus incident in India (IIRC) where they encountered turbulence at night in IFR (instrument flight rules) conditions and all three of the flight computers decided the airplane couldn't possibly be in the flight attitude the sensors reported, and therefore rebooted. At the same time. The cockpit went dark and the flight controls stopped responding until the computers were back on-line...meanwhile, the airplane was out of control in turbulence. Maybe I'm biased, but human >> computer, IMHO.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Do you insist that your surgeon have a gun to his head while he operates on you?
And what about the possibility of the milkman poisoning breakfast eaten by your usual pilots, in a way that shows results when they are long into the flight?
Seriously, it's that kind of argument. You're looking for something absolutely temper-proof?... Tough luck, this is not a good Universe for you...
One that hath name thou can not otter
This ain't some neat out sourcing opportunity for airlines to put pilots in India sitting behind a desk.
Bangalore, we have a problem!
Eventually, commercial planes will be unpiloted - pilots are expensive. I'm guessing this will be a good test of that eventuality.
Lots of reasons why this isn't likely in the near future, ranging from legal to psychological.
Consider that we do not yet have driverless cars. Consider also that the list of driverless train lines is less than 2 dozen in number. I'd guess that automating a train that runs on rails is a significantly easier problem than automating a plane.
Even when there are pilots present, the computer getting false readings or over-riding the pilot input incorrectly has contributed to several crashes. Just watch MayDay/Air Crash Investigation some time.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Now if they want to run just cargo planes as drones, that's fine.
So you're fine if it falls on you, or your family or just your house, as long as you're not in it?
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Welcome to flight 345 Newark to San Francisco.
"Your pilot for today's flight is Sheila Wells, and she's located in Oklahoma City, though during today's flight in a couple hours she will be driving to the day-care center to pick up her kids. Co-pilot is Joe Smith in Miami, who is also piloting a terrorist hunter north of Kabul, and watching drug runners from two drones over Michoacan.
"Your plane is programmed to ascend to an altitude of 35,000 feet and stay there through central California, and will be traveling at a speed of 525 mph.
"Your fight attendants are the very capable team located in Sao Paulo, Brazil, so please let them know via your blue intercom button if there's anything you need.
"Sit back and watch the safety instruction video.
"Thank you for flying with us, and enjoy the flight."
Blue Screen of Death takes on a whole new meaning. When things take a absolute crap, there has to be a well trained humans onboard with current skills to save the aircraft from certain doom. I want to know how they can guarantee UAVs will see and avoid in all directions when mixing in lower air space traffic when it's having onboard system failures and with other aircraft also having system failures. Mode C was great, I'm sure the new GPS they want installed in every aircraft in the coming years will be great too but they all will fail, usually at the worst times and the system has to be made to handle it. I don't think they have the tech to handle it and keep it from shutting down general aviation by adding even more cost burden to the pilots. If you can't keep general aviation alive and producing pilots and the US DoD is shutting down pilot programs in order to fund UAV pilot training, where is the hero pilots to save the 757 when both engines flame out from bird strikes going to come from? Oh, it'll be automated too?
Lets keep the UAVs out of normal airspace and keep them well away from populated areas less they are equal to an ultralite category that can take off or land without a normal airport.
They think it might be hard to take a plane hostage, if say the means to operate the thing is elsewhere, say in a secure facility.
'twas a time once, when a pilot made the better part of six figures. Those days are GONE GONE GONE nowadays. Pilots make less than programmers, one of many reasons I'd never want to be a commercial pilot. The biggest expense in an airliner (by FAR) is the fuel. With pilot + copilot making combined less than $100,000 per year and working like dogs for that, pilots are actually a very small part of the expenses for your average airliner.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Professional pilots build-up experience in General Aviation, ofttimes Cargo, until they qualify for Airline Transport Pilot status with the airlines.
If those GA flights no longer have pilots aboard, where will future ATPs build time?
Regards;
You realize, of course, that the first thing to be impacted by this will be GA, especially Cargo. This will cause logged flight hours, and therefore experience, to drop.
How will this impact both the number and average competency-level of our next crop of Airline Transport Pilots?
Poorly, I suspect.
Regards;
F the airline industry. http://www.midwesthsr.org/
How those other lowlife posters can dare hurting your feelings?!
You're definatelly biased, you're repeating some urban myth. There was no such accident ("reboot"? Are you trying so hard to kid yourself?)
The only thing even remotely close to what you describe was two cases of Autralian A340 rapidly changing altitude in one spot; at cruising speed (when any airplane would be travelling on autopilot), certainly due to faulty inputs from Northrop Grumman sensors, possibly due to one US installation for communication with subs...
And MFD blackouts are a separate issue, happening from time to time everywhere.
One that hath name thou can not otter