UAV See and Avoid

ColoPilot

ColoPilot

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Feb 2, 2012
Messages
604
Location
Colorado
Display Name
Display name:
ColoPilot
We keep hearing more and more about UAVs. The latest was in today's AOPA Aviation eBrief about "Two lawmakers are questioning the privacy implications of a program that would allow unmanned aircraft to fly beside commercial airplanes in U.S. airspace".

Privacy concerns (???) aside, I really don't understand how are UAVs going to mix with VFR traffic. I can understand IFR separation, but how is it going to work with VFR traffic -- only one aircraft will be "see and avoid". Will it be the VFR traffic's job to avoid the UAV?
 
At the moment, they're either in some kind of SUA, have spotters on the ground or have a following spotter aircraft.
Personally I think they should be equipped with active TCAS or ADS-B and allowed to fly in Class E and higher airspace. If your transponder or ADS-B is working, the UAVs would avoid you. If you aren't transponder-equipped, you assume separation responsibility. I think that's a fair compromise.
 
pericynthion said:
At the moment, they're either in some kind of SUA, have spotters on the ground or have a following spotter aircraft.
Personally I think they should be equipped with active TCAS or ADS-B and allowed to fly in Class E and higher airspace. If your transponder or ADS-B is working, the UAVs would avoid you. If you aren't transponder-equipped, you assume separation responsibility. I think that's a fair compromise.
Click to expand...
Let's see:
- UAV equipped with TCAS or ADS-B
- Manned aircraft equipped with transponder or ADS-B
What if the UAV was had TCAS and the manned aircraft had ADS-B or the UAV had ADS-B and the manned aircraft had a transponder?
 
Let's see, how does the crop duster, the medevac helicopter and even the RC pilot do this? It seems like many think the way to get along with UAV is for the manned aircraft to spend more money and assume more responsibility.
 
What about a suicide UAV tracking your ADSB and going after your aircraft. Some deranged idiot on the ground could program such without any immediate danger to himself...
 
skidoo said:
What about a suicide UAV tracking your ADSB and going after your aircraft. Some deranged idiot on the ground could program such without any immediate danger to himself...
Click to expand...

or spoofing. What good is ADS-B if there is not validation of the message?
 
They'll start designating special use airspace for UAVs. It'll start small, but will expand until the only place you can fly GA is Alaska.
 
Ron Levy said:
That's an unsupported personal opinion.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but personal opinions are what message boards are all about. Moreover, it is not in any way illogical to assume that the government will act in the future as it has in the past.
 
The 2012 AIM has something about UAV already. According to it, UAV pilots must also see an avoid.
 
Here's what I want to know. Can ATC pick up these UAV on their scope and give us a head's up, or what's the deal on that?
 
Tarheel Pilot said:
Here's what I want to know. Can ATC pick up these UAV on their scope and give us a head's up, or what's the deal on that?
Click to expand...
Depends on the UAV, how it's equipped, and the ground radar involved. That's why the FAA is proceeding very cautiously on this subject. For now, there should not be any UAV operations outside Restricted airspace without ATC knowing about it unless it complies with the FAA's guidelines on r/c model aircraft (the original UAV's).
 
pericynthion said:
At the moment, they're either in some kind of SUA, have spotters on the ground or have a following spotter aircraft.
Personally I think they should be equipped with active TCAS or ADS-B and allowed to fly in Class E and higher airspace. If your transponder or ADS-B is working, the UAVs would avoid you. If you aren't transponder-equipped, you assume separation responsibility. I think that's a fair compromise.
Click to expand...

I would think that giving it internal spherical coverage radar or IR/optical systems you could easily with current technology make a UAV autonomous 'See and Avoid' as well as ATC, TIS, and ADS-B visible.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
I would think that giving it internal spherical coverage radar or IR/optical systems you could easily with current technology make a UAV autonomous 'See and Avoid' as well as ATC, TIS, and ADS-B visible.
Click to expand...
It's a nice thought, and we probably have the basic technology, but you'd need all of it in each UAV (cost and weight issues, maybe drag, too), and a lot of work to prove the systems met the FAA's reliability standards. There's also the problem of making sure the UAV's are visible to human pilots at sufficient distance to be seen and avoided -- some of them are pretty small. All in all, I think we're a long way from autonomous UAV operations in the NAS. Even controlled UAV operations have a lot of risks, not the least of which is the potential for data link failure.
 
There was an article in this morning's Seattle paper about use of UAVs by the police. According to the article, they would fly no higher than 400' agl and would remain within sight of their ground controller. Not much of a threat unless the bad guy camps out on a runway's extended centerline.

Bob Gardner
 
Just look at how we miniaturize anything once we find a need. If we tell the engineers we need it, they will make it and improve it. It's already done at the university program level. It just needs real money.
 
bobmrg said:
There was an article in this morning's Seattle paper about use of UAVs by the police. According to the article, they would fly no higher than 400' agl and would remain within sight of their ground controller. Not much of a threat unless the bad guy camps out on a runway's extended centerline.

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...

No, but I cannot imagine the technology be so hamstrung in the future. I think anti collision technology will just be part of the price of the game. The question remains what level of certification of the system will be required.
 
The couple of UAV I have seen on TV looked small and painted white were very hard to see. They need to paint them orange.
Does a UAV pilot need a 3rd class medical or sport pilot cert? It would seem he needs something he is the PIC. What if he falls out in the middle of the flight who takes over and keeps the plane from crashing into an apartment building? We are not talking about a toy plane that weighs 5lb.
 
Foxhole said:
Does a UAV pilot need a 3rd class medical or sport pilot cert?
Click to expand...
At the moment, I believe the FAA is requiring all civilian UAV controllers to hold a CP with IR as a condition of the letters of authorization issued to UAV operators. Since that would mean they're exercising CP privilieges, that suggests they'd have to hold a Second Class medical.

The military has its own training and certification requirements. The Army uses enlisted UAV controllers who've been through Army UAV controller training. IIRC, the selection process tends to favor those with a lot of flight game experience. The Air Force is using primarily rated pilots who've been through USAF pilot training, but a couple of years ago they started training non-pilots through a special UAV flying school program. Word from inside the Air Force (senior officer in a UAV unit) is that unlike the "real pilots," it takes the purely UAV-trained operators 1-2 years supervised operational experience before they are safe for unsupervised flying. "Lack of situational awareness" is the phrase my friend used to describe the biggest problem. Years ago (Vietnam era), the USAF used navigators to control drones in combat operations from C-130's, and I believe that worked well, but I don't think they're doing that now. In all the military cases, the people involved have to meet military medical and physical fitness standards, which are in general more stringent than even a First Class medical.
 
Last edited:
I do not believe that UAVs should be under human physical control. All maneuvering should be autonomous. Mixing the two will assure you get the worst of both. This can all be done for little weight.
 
Henning said:
Just look at how we miniaturize anything once we find a need. If we tell the engineers we need it, they will make it and improve it. It's already done at the university program level. It just needs real money.
Click to expand...
reference?
 
Cap'n Jack said:
reference?
Click to expand...

Self driving truck programs, hell, self parking car technology you can buy right now. There are the hovering/maneuvering autonomous quad rotor construction projects.

Start here and keep going to see where You Tube takes you. Lots of interesting programs in autonomy.

 
The proposals in agriculture right now are for crop scouting with sensors that take in visual and various other light spectra, aerial application, adherence to federal regulations, mapping, various kinds of crop development analysis, livestock inspection and more. The systems being discussed at the university, government and farm level are small and maneuverable with short flight time and limited data storage capability. This will all change, of course.
My own personal concern is the local who gets a legal or illegal UAS and starts pursuing his own agenda. It can be used by activists to snoop on your livestock operation, by busybodies who want to know what your crop mix is, by the government to see if the bridge repair you did should have had COE approval and more.
 
jnmeade said:
The proposals in agriculture right now are for crop scouting with sensors that take in visual and various other light spectra, aerial application, adherence to federal regulations, mapping, various kinds of crop development analysis, livestock inspection and more. The systems being discussed at the university, government and farm level are small and maneuverable with short flight time and limited data storage capability. This will all change, of course.
My own personal concern is the local who gets a legal or illegal UAS and starts pursuing his own agenda. It can be used by activists to snoop on your livestock operation, by busybodies who want to know what your crop mix is, by the government to see if the bridge repair you did should have had COE approval and more.
Click to expand...

With many ULV chemical applications such as with various blights, you could put a 450hp 6 or eight cyl (720 with water jackets ala Rotax) Personally I think the TCM system is the better FI system for EFI primary because the high pump combined with mixture and throttle give you a pretty manual/mechanical limp-able/tunable power to keep a triple redundant fully manual on an emergency electric pump if your engine driven HP pump(s) (150psi is low for EFI) for a double redundant/failsafe EFI system takes. (I'd say an HP mechanical pump and electric back up) 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. It'll allow ground or central command, whomever has the better view to say "target down starboard and aft" or what ever the approach dictates, and the UAV attacks formation with all friendly forces having an encoded transponder "OFF" button that cancels any UAV targeting for FF, or at least makes a major effort. BTW, I'm for hire for developmental ideas.;)

When they say 'mapping mission', we're talking about replacing the mapping asset that brought us the SVT and 3D seafloor database; the Space Shuttle. This is going to require a high altitude reciprocating rocket engine and high efficiency prop to do.
 
Last edited:
What I can not fully understand is why UAVs are operating in our airspace at all?

Do our fellow citizens need such surveillance?

Are UAVs accident proof?

That one that went down in Iran was probably something that could never happen here, right?

So, if we fully cooperate with the idea of UAVs operating in our airspace for surveillance purposes on Americans, will we also cooperate when it is decided to arm them? Will we even be able to play a part in such a decision?

What is the biggest threat to the safety of Americans, the people who are being watched, or the two thousand or more pounds of unmanned aerial surveillance equipment?

What if it only weighed fifty pounds? Would that hurt if it hit you?


-John
 
Last edited:
I have cross-posted similar comments in a couple of aviation forums...but I know there are some really smart pilots here, so...

I am pretty staunchly against any type of UAV in the civil airspace. I don't include the current RC aircraft - under 400', within line of site of the operator. No problem there.

But when we think about larger remote or autonomous vehicles in the airspace with other aircraft, that doesn't seem like it can be done safely. If it could conclusively be demonstrated that "Sense and Avoid" was even better than "See and Avoid", I would be ok with that. My concern is only safety.

But it would have to take into account all of the Part 103 ultralights, balloons, gliders, Piper Cubs, Champs, etc. that have no electrical systems, are virtually invisible on radar, and they will never have transponders, ADSB-Out, etc. Many (most?) don't have or need any kind of radio.

I have not heard much conversation about any of these types of situations. A remotely operated camera system seems wholly inadequate, given expected delays of several seconds. And it cannot depend on any technology that the aforementioned aircraft do not have.

And to borrow a comment from the UCAP guys - what about failure modes?

I would love to hear more about "Sense and Avoid", or anything else related to sharing airspace with aircraft that are almost invisible to all but the human eyeball.

Best regards, all,

Larry Overstreet
 
What about ATC? With FF or just listening to Approach, I hear a lot of "type unknown" reports. Will there be some way for ATC to know the approaching aircraft is a drone and warn of that?
 
What I can not fully understand is why UAVs are operating in our airspace at all?

Do our fellow citizens need such surveillance?
Click to expand...

UAV operations along the borders are part of border surveillance and protection and various bases around the US presently use aerial surveillance of varying types. Aerial surveillance at other locations such as Cape Canaveral and Washington DC is done on a regular basis; it's not a matter of surveilling civilians, but of national security.

Surveillance involves much more than simply looking at people or equipment. There are many other aspects of surveillance that make the concept of keeping an aircraft on station for extended periods of time a very attractive proposition.

Are UAVs accident proof?
Click to expand...

No, they are not.

That one that went down in Iran was probably something that could never happen here, right?
Click to expand...

Don't believe what you see on CNN, and certainly don't believe what Iran tells the world.

Personally I have grave concerns over the widespread use of UAV's, and have a fair amount of experience operating in close proximity to large numbers of them. In one location, over the course of a year, I averaged about three near-mid airs regularly at night, with UAV's. Presently I have frequent TCAS RA's with UCAV and UAV/UAS aircraft in certain locations. I don't like them. Having worked the manned side of what they do, I know that manned aircraft can do considerably more for less money, and can do it better. There are certainly valid uses for UAS/UAV platforms; I don't question the value, but I still don't like them, and we used to fly the same missions for less cost to to the taxpayer, a higher success rate, greater reliability, with much larger situational awareness (crew peripheral vision accounts for a greater probability of catching activity outside that which is being surveilled; been there and done that).

UAV's are here to stay; expect their use to increase substantially.
 
John Baker said:
That one that went down in Iran was probably something that could never happen here, right?
Click to expand...
If you mean the one that was supposedly hacked and landed safely in Iran by the hackers... of course not.
Here they would hack it and crash it into something. :rolleyes2:
 
I am loathe to get into this, but will to attempt to provide some truths to the GA public.

I have worked with UAVs, primarily with the DoD side of the house for almost seven years. I am now a retired Naval Aviator, and have made my living as a UAV consultant for the last three years.

I won't address the argument of whether UAVs are better than manned A/C (for some missions they absolutely are), or whether they are cheaper to the taxpayer (if they weren't why would now have purchased thousands..?).
Let me say this - we have not parked any MIL A/C to replace them UAVs. UAVs are additive to the fight. They provide additional capabilities that were not affordable (both $$$ and manpower) to our current conflict.

I am first a pilot. I am not now, nor will ever be a proponent of replacing pilots with machines. Some missions - fighter, passenger carry, as quick examples - will never be done without pilots for obvious reasons.
But others are very well suited to unmanned systems, because manned flying has limits, and pilots (and all the systems needed to carry pilots) cost money....

As far as UAVs in the US airspace, yes it's coming. Thank Congress, not the FAA if you are opposed.
The FAA has actually been very reasonable in their approach. One of the reasons UAVs are not here already is because (so I'm told by my FAA contacts) is to protect you (well, me too now...) guys - GA. The other fliers in the US - Airlines and MIL almost always fly very definitively: positive radar control, IFR flight plans, and or in very defined Airspace (restricted areas, TCAs, etc). GA on the other hand spends alot of time VFR, lower altitudes, no flight plan, and less experience overall.
Be happy the FAA is trying to do what's best for us. I assure they would be doing more but they are horribly under-funded. A Google search of FAA funding will reveal much. Note: Don't mistake my words to mean I'm a friend of the FAA. I made my living for over 20 years in the cockpit both as a MIL pilot and Airline guy, and they made my life miserable at times for no good reason...

See and Avoid systems for UAVs: This the Holy Grail. At present there is no System that replaces the human eyeball. There are great strides being made, but we're not there yet. Yes, TCAS-esque systems are avail and work well, but they work better when used with eyeballs.

I can assure you that any UAV flown above 400 ft will be required to carry a minimum of a Mode-C transponder, and will have a discreet squawk and be able to be seen by ATC. I'm sure there will be unique codes for UAVs so any pilot will get definitive traffic calls. Those Systems are already in use and work well aboard UAVs.

I'm going to stop here. There are many good posts above as to uses and foibles of UAVs. Wrap your mind around the fact that they are coming in the next 3-5 years if not sooner. I suggest you all keep an open mind, and not glue yourself to one piece of information.
I'll answer questions if there is something specific...
 
Some missions - fighter, passenger carry, as quick examples - will never be done without pilots for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

Wanna give odds on that statement? :popcorn: I give both of those less than 20 years to be a reality.
 
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!
 
Last edited:
A friend flies 'em for the Border Patrol. He says they're a real PITA to land in a crosswind since there's zero kinetic feel and the controls are slightly delayed.

Watching the centerline drift away on the video and waiting for it to come back apparently suuuuucks. ;)

I don't believe he ever got past a solo endorsement in a C-150. I'll have to ask him what certifications he has nowadays. He may have been a Private Pilot prior to getting hired. Will check.
 
Tristar said:
Many UAVs are far more predictable than most pilots I've come across.
There is no factual basis for this.

I can't claim to know much about them but from what I know, UAVs are mostly automatic anyways.
There are too many varieties to make such a broad definition

They actually design them to be idiot proof.
Nothing can withstand the forces of an idiot.

Everything it does is a designed function, not really a joystick.
Wh-what..?

The ones that can be flown with a joystick are flown by the highest ranking officers.
That is just nonsense. Posting mis-information like this just bad.

Pilots have to be certificated like we do and then given special training to fly their particular aircraft.
You - like almost everyone who knows nothing about UAVs are assuming every UAV is a Predator UAV. Please do some reading / research before posting mis-information.

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.
That is just nonsense. Posting mis-information like this just bad.

Nothing as big and sophisticated as those UAVs will jump into your class B airspace anytime soon.
They are already have. Just in very small numbers and only when given Special Airspace Authoity by the FAA.

Yes it may be within the next ten years but it won't be tomorrow.
Wrong again.

Plus, I have a feeling they'll be put on an IFR military flight plan anyways.
MIL UAVs will be. But all the Civilian operated UAVs will not. Very soon they will greatly outnumber the MIL UAVs. They'll be right out there with the rest of us.

They don't randomly go out to the practice area and do stalls where no one knows where they're at.
Stalls are for PILOT proficiency. UAVs don't need to do stalls.
QUOTE]

Henning said:
Wanna give odds on that statement? :popcorn: I give both of those less than 20 years to be a reality.
Click to expand...

I'll give you any odds you want - including some free advice: Don't bet in a game you don't know.

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...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top