UAV See and Avoid

Do you seriously have to tear apart a post like that? Just stating I'm wrong doesn't help me at all anyways. No I don't know a ton about it, that's why I said that I was posting what I know. I'm okay with being corrected, but don't just say I'm wrong, tell me why. If you shot down every piece of information on this website from people who just stated what they thought, then this place wouldn't be any fun. You are correct in that my information does not cover everyone. I left out ultimatum words like "Everyone." But I do know that many of the UAV pilots are pilots, why, because I give GA recurrent training to one every few months! If you want to sit and include every UAV pilot, then yes you are correct, most small UAV pilots are probably not FAA pilots but I don't know for sure. UAV pilots don't get recurrent training? wow...I'd hate to be in the air with those guys. Stating that I shouldn't post on things I don't know about is kinda rude. I never claimed to know everything about UAVs, if I did, I'd be a UAV pilot but I do like to put what I know up for debate.
 
MitchB said:
Would you get on an airliner - or better - would you pay to sit on an Airliner without a pilot in the cockpit? Would you let your children? Would you do it 20 years from now? Do you think you are unique in that opinion?
Click to expand...

Yes I would, I would trust a triple redundant system designed for autonomy long before I would trust an airline pilot; airline pilots are the main point of failure anymore. I know for a fact I am not unique in my opinion, at this point I'm probably close to an even split among the non pilot population with the number growing with every idiot pilot induced accident.

I think pilots are highly delusional about their place and value anymore.
 
You can program this job to be autonomous right now easily; it'll save a lot of lives in Ag and Fire Attack and be much more effective.
Click to expand...

I definitely disagree with that, and wouldn't care to be the man on the fireline with the UAV dropping in close quarters in a strong wind; that's something that really needs an experienced hand, rather than an algorithm. A miss can kill someone; automated firefighting might actually lead to an increase in fatalities.

Yes I would, I would trust a triple redundant system designed for autonomy long before I would trust an airline pilot; airline pilots are the main point of failure anymore.
Click to expand...

Modern automation and computer control can do some wonderful things, and for some missions such as point A to point B on a clear, calm day, one might even go so far as to say it would be okay. I don't know many in the paying public that are willing to make such a ride without human judgement up front, and I don't know a single soul who does it for a living who'd agree. Not because each is afraid for their job: none of us are. We're not worried in the least. We simply know enough about the job to see the extreme fallacy in the idea. It's one of those things that might sound good on paper, but isn't a very wise idea on practice.

The ones that can be flown with a joystick are flown by the highest ranking officers.
Click to expand...

They're all remotely piloted (hence the term RPV, or remotely piloted vehicle), and all operated by various types of controllers, and in most cases, are not only flown not by the highest ranking officer (what has rank to do with the price of tea in China??), but by just the opposite. If you're not familiar with Switchblade yet, you will be in the upcoming months or year. It really belies your impression of who is operating the UAV, and what's to be done with it.

Many UAVs are far more predictable than most pilots I've come across.
Click to expand...

It's very common for some of the unmanned platforms to not be within a thousand feet of where they think they are; I've spent enough time around them in the air to know that for a fact. It's seldom that I've encountered them where they claim to be. They also don't necessarily do what they claim to do. I was at a forward operating base location one night where one crashed on the base; it lost link and didn't do what it was advertised to do. The wreckage was sitting behind my hangar area for a month. Predictable? By whom?
 
I still say when the engineer who designs a passenger carrying UAV climbs aboard, only then will we even close to having a workable system.

And said engineer must not be a crazy zealot but someone with a lot to lose in areas of their life outside of the insane focus they'll have to bring to the table to design the thing in the first place.

Ironically though, we've been building space-going UAVs that carry humans for a long time now.

Hand-flying a spacecraft isn't the accepted way to handle launch nor re-enter for anyone other than Scaled Composites/Virgin Galactic. In their case, at least for the test vehicles, the human was cheaper than automation.
 
denverpilot said:
I still say when the engineer who designs a passenger carrying UAV climbs aboard, only then will we even close to having a workable system.
Click to expand...

Well you can check that block.

Boeing's unmanned Little Bird (ULB) helicopter demonstrator successfully completed its first flight in September 2004 and the first autonomous take-off and landing was carried out in October 2004. During this phase of testing an on-board test pilot monitored the helicopter's performance but did not actively fly the aircraft. The first truly unmanned flight was completed in July 2006.
Click to expand...

I understand that a "test pilot" is not "the engineer" but I don't think it's likely they will line up all of the engineers that worked on the project and cherry pick those with the most to lose and tell them to go fly.
 
Last edited:
Nope. The crash test dummy doesn't count. I was serious about the engineer.

Lots of companies make engineers release things they do not think are ready for prime time.

No need to cherry pick. Lead engineer on each subsystem gets a ride. ;)
 
You won't find me buying a seat, regardless of whether the engineer climbs on board.
 
Tristar said:
Do you seriously have to tear apart a post like that? Just stating I'm wrong doesn't help me at all anyways. No I don't know a ton about it, that's why I said that I was posting what I know. I'm okay with being corrected, but don't just say I'm wrong, tell me why. If you shot down every piece of information on this website from people who just stated what they thought, then this place wouldn't be any fun. You are correct in that my information does not cover everyone. I left out ultimatum words like "Everyone." But I do know that many of the UAV pilots are pilots, why, because I give GA recurrent training to one every few months! If you want to sit and include every UAV pilot, then yes you are correct, most small UAV pilots are probably not FAA pilots but I don't know for sure. UAV pilots don't get recurrent training? wow...I'd hate to be in the air with those guys. Stating that I shouldn't post on things I don't know about is kinda rude. I never claimed to know everything about UAVs, if I did, I'd be a UAV pilot but I do like to put what I know up for debate.
Click to expand...
Just keep in mind that "UAV" is a very broad term -- and your experience with what the Airforce has for UAVs is not the concern of most people. The concern are UAVs being operated by various civilian companies...local law enforcement...etc where they have pretty much no rules or training.

A "UAV" might be a Predator..or a "UAV" might be a modified RC airplane running a mobile os being operated by Lincoln PD on an iPad.
 
The Scan Eagle is hugely popular overseas and I would expect this particular vehicle (or something in its same class) to be the majority of what end up all over the place with various local entities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_ScanEagle

ScanEagle carries a stabilized electro-optical and/or infrared camera on a light-weight inertial stabilized turret system integrated with communications range over 100 km, and flight endurance of 20+ hours. ScanEagle has a 10-foot (3 m) wingspan and can fly up to 75 knots (139 km/h), with an average cruising speed of 60 knots (111 km/h). Block D aircraft featured a higher resolution camera, a custom-designed Mode C transponder and a new video system. A Block D aircraft, flying at Boeing's test range in Boardman, Oregon set a type endurance record of 22 hours, 8 minutes.

ScanEagle needs no airfield for deployment. Instead, it is launched using a pneumatic launcher patented by Insitu as the "SuperWedge" launcher. It is recovered using the "SkyHook" retrieval system, which uses a hook on the end of the wingtip to catch a rope hanging from a 30 to 50-foot (15 m) pole. This is made possible by a high-quality differential GPS units mounted on the top of the pole and UAV. The rope is attached to a shock cord to reduce stress on the airframe imposed by the abrupt stop.
Click to expand...

The emphasis placed above is mine.

Watching this thing "land" is an interesting sight.
 
Tristar said:
Many UAVs are far more predictable than most pilots I've come across. I can't claim to know much about them but from what I know, UAVs are mostly automatic anyways. They actually design them to be idiot proof. Everything it does is a designed function, not really a joystick. The ones that can be flown with a joystick are flown by the highest ranking officers. Pilots have to be certificated like we do and then given special training to fly their particular aircraft. They're constantly being trained to higher standards and don't go for months without training like many pilots do. If none of this puts you at ease, think of it another way; by the time these pilots and aircraft are put into our airspace there will be an easy transition. Nothing as big and sophisticated as those UAVs will jump into your class B airspace anytime soon. Yes it may be within the next ten years but it won't be tomorrow. Plus, I have a feeling they'll be put on an IFR military flight plan anyways. They don't randomly go out to the practice area and do stalls where no one knows where they're at. I can't say I'm too worried about it.

p.s. I visited an R/C field the other day and talked to one of the pilots. He was telling me about how he lost his R/C plane one day and someone called him a month later and said he found it in the next county....how does THAT make you feel!
Click to expand...


The UAV pilots in my former squadron were all enlisted. You couldn't be a UAV pilot above E-4. But you also had to pass the flight physical like every other Army Aviator does.
 
Last edited:
Watching this thing "land" is an interesting sight.
Click to expand...

I've seen that happen many times. It works amazingly well, too. There are several other interesting recovery systems, though the final results for the Switchblade delivery system may put them all to shame. The old saying that any landing you can walk away from is a good one...doesn't apply here.
 
jesse said:
Just keep in mind that "UAV" is a very broad term -- and your experience with what the Airforce has for UAVs is not the concern of most people. The concern are UAVs being operated by various civilian companies...local law enforcement...etc where they have pretty much no rules or training.

A "UAV" might be a Predator..or a "UAV" might be a modified RC airplane running a mobile os being operated by Lincoln PD on an iPad.
Click to expand...

Point made
http://wtop.com/120/2882193/Gov-Drones-over-Va-great-cites-battlefield-success
 
Modern automation and computer control can do some wonderful things, and for some missions such as point A to point B on a clear, calm day, one might even go so far as to say it would be okay. I don't know many in the paying public that are willing to make such a ride without human judgement up front, and I don't know a single soul who does it for a living who'd agree. Not because each is afraid for their job: none of us are. We're not worried in the least. We simply know enough about the job to see the extreme fallacy in the idea. It's one of those things that might sound good on paper, but isn't a very wise idea on practice.
Click to expand...

Look at the advances in technology over the last 20 years and look at the direction everything is going. NextGen is not stopping and there is only one final outcome apparent when one looks at the combined picture of everything happening today. My bet will be on having autonomous airliners in 20 years.
 
My bet is on riding the greyhound a lot more, if that happens. I might even get a ten-speed.
 
DouglasBader said:
My bet is on riding the greyhound a lot more, if that happens. I might even get a ten-speed.
Click to expand...

I would get on an airliner with a retarded monkey watching the autopilot long before I'd get on Greyhound again...:rofl::rofl::rofl: I doubt I'll have to worry though, looks like I'll own the 310 forever.;)
 
I would get on an airliner with a retarded monkey watching the autopilot long before I'd get on Greyhound again.
Click to expand...

You've most likely already done that if you've bought a commercial airline ticket.

I like 310's. Great light twins. I spent a lot of time tooling around the country in them; they're probably my favorite light piston twin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top