Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Military Technology

Unmanned Aircraft Will Test Air Traffic Control 144

Posted by samzenpus from the bumper-planes dept.
coondoggie writes "While the skies aren't exactly buzzing with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) just yet, experts are warning their explosive growth will require military and public officials to address the issue sooner than they might think. The four chiefs of service aviation and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) branches told the Army Aviation Association of America's unmanned aircraft symposium last week that the military should crystallize combat air control regarding UAVs, while domestic authorities must work out access and use of UAVs in domestic airspace. "I'm surprised we haven't had a collision yet," said Rear Adm. Joseph Aucoin, director of the Navy's aviation plans and requirements branch."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Unmanned Aircraft Will Test Air Traffic Control More

Unmanned Aircraft Will Test Air Traffic Control

Comments Filter:

  • Artificial Intelligence (Score:3, Funny)

    by nephridium ( 928664 ) on Thursday December 06, 2007 @04:16AM (#21594721)
    Obviously these self-guided planes need some accurate image recognition coupled with the ability to know the location and trajectory of any other aircraft in the area and adding an AI to process the information and accurately judge the situation. Sharing this information between all those drone via wireless network would be very effective as well. - A network in the sky... OMFG it's gonna be Skynet - it's inevitable! Goddammit Sarah Connor! You've been KILLING machines in three movies now. Stop screwing around and get the frickin job done!

    • Re:Artificial Intelligence (Score:4, Interesting)

      by cheater512 ( 783349 ) <nick@nickstallman.net> on Thursday December 06, 2007 @05:14AM (#21594983) Homepage
      Why not just stick radar on them? Or beam them radar images?
      Problem solved. No stupidly advanced image recognition system needed.

      • Why not just stick radar on them? Or beam them radar images?
        Problem solved. No stupidly advanced image recognition system needed.
        And then make the automatic collision avoidance sufficiently safe for all the other users of the airspace.
      • So then we'll only have them colliding with billion-dollar stealth bombers.
      • Why not just stick radar on them? Or beam them radar images?

        The current system with piloted aircraft does not require radar on each plane. It does not even require radar on the ground. You don't need radar in controlled airspace. If you tell a plan to fly at a certain speed and heading you can write that down on a post-it note and any time later you can computer where that airplan is based on speed, direction and last known location. This si exactly how air traffic control works. OK they do have groun
        • Good point. How about we speed up ADS-B deployment, and simply integrate it with the avionics onboard the automated aircraft? With ADS-B, they'll be able to "see" all the traffic in the sky like a person would be able to.
      • Are you one of those morons who see the word "radar" and think it magically sees everything around it?

        Radar is like using a flashlight and a telescope to see around you. It has to be aimed at each position. The farther away you want to see, the more powerful flashlight and telescope you need, and the longer it takes to build up an idea of what is out there. Plus it is pretty dang tricky to look behind you. AWACS planes with those huge circular radars on top have trouble looking straight up or down. Rad
        • We are talking about UAVs here.

          They only need short range radar for collision avoidance.
          Also the blind spots wouldnt be too much of a problem with reasonably intelligent software since it can track a plane going overhead (it cant be above it all the time).
          • Sorry, I didn't realize that being a UAV changed the laws of physics, nor that all planes always approached from ahead. My bad.
            • Why exactly cant they have 360 degree radar?

              Just because commercial airliners dont have it doesnt mean UAVs cannot.
              It adds a bit of weight but it would make a nice solid collision avoidance system.
              • Okay genius, explain to me how many radars you would mount and where. Consider that the closest ANY plane has to full coverage is the AWACS, and they don't have coverage above or below except at a sufficient distance for the cone of coverage to reach the ground.

                Remember, each radar sends out beams. Whether from a dish or electronically steered, they still send out beams. They don't fill the surrounding space with some kind of field that magically reports back disturbances in the force. They send out bea
    • Unmanned != self-guided.

      Now, as for the split between planes that are self-guided/follow a preset flight plan versus ones that are controlled by a remote operator, I have no idea.

    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Dudes, I have one acronym for you: TCAS. [wikipedia.org]
  • Maybe I'm being naive, but what is the purpose of having unmanned aircraft? For non-combat flights, the weight of the crew+support (500-1000 lbs perhaps) doesn't seem significant in comparison to that of the craft+fuel+systems (10,000 lbs from the example in the article). In combat flights, the latency in ground based fly-by-wire must be significant enough to warrent having in-craft crew surely.

    • Re:Not sure of the reason for unmanned aircraft (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hxnwix ( 652290 ) on Thursday December 06, 2007 @04:19AM (#21594747) Journal
      It's easy for the next shift to take over the UAV terminal.
      It's not so easy for the next shift to take over the f16 cockpit.

      Also, UAVs are more expendable than ugly bags of mostly water, and ugly bags of mostly water tend to burst when they pull 25g turns...

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        "and ugly bags of mostly water tend to burst when they pull 25g turns..."

        OTOH, ugly bags of water continue to work when the radio link is severed.

    • Re:Not sure of the reason for unmanned aircraft (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Arimus ( 198136 ) on Thursday December 06, 2007 @04:20AM (#21594753)
      1. For recon work you can pack more sensor equipment in, you can configure the UAV to have extremely long loiter times, some can be made a lot smaller and cheeper than a manned craft.

      2. For combat craft the really big selling point is that when your fighter gets shot down you haven't lost several million pounds worth of trained crew in addition to several million pounds of aircraft... unmanned uav's can also pull alot higher G force than a traditional craft (ok the airframe can take it but the crew won't appreciate it).

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by EveLibertine ( 847955 )

        when your fighter gets shot down you haven't lost several million pounds worth of trained crew
        It sounds like the Royal Air Force has some ridiculously overweight pilots. It's no wonder they started employing UAV's.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by FredDC ( 1048502 )
      AFAIK the current line of operational UAV's aren't big enough to carry a human being. They are used on missions where regular manned airplanes would draw too much attention to themselves because of their size and the noize they make.

      They are used in Afganistan for example to spy on Taliban camps in the mountains and to bomb them. They are not detected by them, unless they fly very close. A regular airplane is spotted from much further away, by the time it's close enough to take pictures / drop bombs they ha
      • ***So, yes, UAV's do offer an advantage to manned aircraft. They can be made much smaller because they don't need to fit a human being inside them!***

        For terrorists, they will be a Godsend. Just imagine if just one of these ten cheap UAVs we have here makes it through, we can blow up a airliner or fighter on the ground at any airport in the world where we can get line of sight to the UAV. Or knock down most any bridge. Or blow up any oil refinery.

        And, I expect UAVs aren't limited to military applic

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by FredDC ( 1048502 )
          Damn, what a load of crap...

          Any invention can be turned to evil, we should just stop inventing stuff because it can always be perverted by someone!

          Excuse me now, I have to go to kitchen and get rid of all my knives 'cause they could be used to stab me...

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by bm_luethke ( 253362 )
      As of right now, many things.

      One is risk - like any non-locally human controlled craft we can send these into places we can not go due to us being fairly fragile. We simply do not have to worry that the pilots return alive.

      Another factor is that these aren't really taking the place of full aircraft. These are used to loiter around someplace we think someone is at, look for them, and kill them if they find them (or direct others to kill them, usually from a distance). It is trivial to keep them up in air as

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Vr6dub ( 813447 )

        no matter your opinion on if the Iraq war (or even war at all) is justified it should be obvious why any nation would want to be able to say only robots got blown up or damaged.

        Lets not forget the hundreds of billions of dollars required to wage war. Take (our) loss of life out of the equation but it still costs an ass load to go to war.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Yvanhoe ( 564877 )
      Safety ? Isn't half of the crashes due to human errors ?

      • Safety ? Isn't half of the crashes due to human errors ?
        Just pulling a figure out of the air: wouldn't that mean that half of crashes are due to mechanical errors?
        • "During 2004 in the United States, pilot error was listed as the primary cause of 78.6% [wikipedia.org] of fatal general aviation accidents, and as the primary cause of 75.5% of general aviation accidents over all."

          So, yeah, his made-up statistic was understating it. That said, autopilots won't be perfect either. But at least they're attentive.

        • Or weather. Or errors by people other than the pilot, which can include traffic controllers and other pilots.
      • Safety ? Isn't half of the crashes due to human errors ?

        Actually, most crashes are deemed "human error". But then again, they blame almost anything on human error. If the wings come off during straight and level flight, they may decide it's human error for failure to maintain positive control. Okay, that was not realistic but let me give you one.

        Pilot takes off. During his climb out, the engine fails. His only option is a field in front of him. Pilot clips some bushes as he comes in low. The accident is dee

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Yvanhoe ( 564877 )
          Sorry, the figure I had in mind was about on-air collisions. "Human error" was supposed to include only pilots and air controllers, not control technicians. Thinking about it, maybe it was higher than 50%...
          • I understand. My point being, a mid-air between a UAV and a plane is likely to cite the pilot at error despite the fact he likely won't be. That's like citing pilots in error for bird strikes. The problem stems from UAV which should never be using general use airspace. And the solution to that is not to start an airspace-land-grab.

            AUVs simply should not be used in shared airspace until ADS-B is fully deployed, tested, and proven to be 100% reliable. And even then, serious consideration should be given to pr
      • While the majority of crashes are attributed to human error, it's not all pilot error - frequently some error is made in the ground-based maintenance process, air-traffic mis-guidance, etc. However, the thing that we don't have much data on is what percentage of safe flights were made only because the pilot was present when some significant mechanical problem arose. That said, one of the first things taught to any pilot is to remain calm during an unexpected situation - don't start reacting immediately -

    • It's not just the weight of crew you save (Score:5, Informative)

      by DFJA ( 680282 ) on Thursday December 06, 2007 @06:48AM (#21595309)
      For cargo planes at least, you can make a lot of savings if you don't have to support human survival on board. For example you don't need to pressurise the cabin (thus saving weight of air), nor provide toilets, sound insulation, heating systems, safety equipment etc.. With a redesign of plane you don't even need to provide standing room - you could fit cargo into a wing shape that didn't have the tube bit in the middle, thus making it more aerodynamic. You wouldn't be limited by how long people can tolerate being on board, so for cargo you could fly a plane say from England to New Zealand non-stop at a much slower speed, thus saving on fuel consumed, thus saving on weight of fuel you need to supply when you take off and so forth. It also becomes more economical to have smaller point-to-point cargo deliveries which don't incur the energy and handling costs of bringing a plane to land at a major hub, sorting the cargo onto an onward flight and shoving it back up in the air again.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by guisar ( 69737 )
        Not to mention comm electronics (beyond the control link). The crew, being on the ground, are likely to have much better situational awareness and not be quite so tired or distracted by food, each other, bad weather and so it.
    • I'm not sure if 'naive' is the right moniker to use. Not cynical enough maybe ? The charm of unmanned vehicles has nothing to do with shifts or logistics or payloads. It has everything to do with being able to rain down death on others with impunity, because you no longer have to defend loss of life to the 'homefront'. Note that the only solid number of casualties to come out of Iraq is the number of American servicemen / women that have died there. Casualties of the 'enemy' are not counted, much less repor

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bkr1_2k ( 237627 )
      First, there are plenty of places we send UAVs that we don't really want to send people. Despite what it seems like from an outside perspective, we try to minimize human casualties, especially our own. Downed pilots can be captured, used as a deterrent for other troops (either publicly or privately) and can provide a lot of information on CONOPS, technical details of aircraft, facilities and other plans. An unmanned aircraft can only provide information about itself if it is brought down. Some don't eve

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Pode ( 892717 )
      IAIFAUE (I Am In Fact A UAV Engineer), and the main way we pitch our products is that they do missions thta are too dull, dirty, dangerous, or expensive for human crews. For examples, flying in a circle for 10 hours watching the same spot waiting for someone to come out (dull) and flying a sampler through a cloud of stuff and determining that it is, in fact, nerve gas (dirty and dangerous).

  • Better than video games (Score:4, Funny)

    by Harmonious Botch ( 921977 ) * on Thursday December 06, 2007 @04:46AM (#21594857) Homepage Journal
    When there are traffic UAVs overhead, I think I'll go back to building RC aircraft, but this time with a cam and real weaponry.

  • long endurance UAVs (Score:5, Interesting)

    by azery ( 865903 ) on Thursday December 06, 2007 @04:55AM (#21594901)
    Some kind of UAVs are designed to fly for months, being controlled by a computer instead of being flown remotely by a pilot on the ground. (see e.g. http://www.qinetiq.com/home/newsroom/news_releases_homepage/2005/2nd_quarter/qinetiq_awarded_contract.html [qinetiq.com] ) In normal operation, these aircraft fly high above normally used airspace. Taking off can be done in special locations under special rules. Landing is more difficult. The real problem is however what happens in case of a crash.

    Those aircraft are very low weight composite aircraft with very thight energy budgets. Due to the composite parts, they are invisible to primary radar. Due to the energy budget, they cannot install an SSR transponder. In other words, they are completely invisble in case something goes wrong. (in which you cannot trust the transponder anyhow)

    What you need in such case is a direct link to air traffic control to tell that your autonomious plane is lost so that they can clear a part of the airspace. Now, since your aircraft is no longer controlled by a "ground pilot", who is going to make the call?

    One alternative is to let the ground station relay the aircraft position to ATC centers (air traffic control centers). However, current ATC systems are not built to accept this information, especially not when the number of users of UAVs increases.

    • Due to the energy budget, they cannot install an SSR transponder.

      Ummm, maybe. They need power for communications anyway, and COTS mode C/A and mode S transponders are not designed for low power electrical systems, but they probably could be.

      What you need in such case is a direct link to air traffic control to tell that your autonomious plane is lost so that they can clear a part of the airspace. Now, since your aircraft is no longer controlled by a "ground pilot", who is going to make the call?

      I think the ground control position for the UAV needs to be outfitted as an aircraft. It should have HF/VHF communication capabilty, and possibly CPDLC so that it can communicate with ATC, even if the current state of the UAV is problematic.

      Additionally I think the UAV needs to have a set of reasonably safe degraded modes, eg, w

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by azery ( 865903 )
        Concerning the power budget: these type of aircraft are often solar powered. During night, they use stored energy and actually slowly dwirrel down. The next day, the climb again. Even at their lowest altitude, they stay well above commercial manned air traffic. In order to keep flying for months (without refuelling!) on solar energy, they are very low weight structures (in the referenced article, they state 27 kg.) A traditional aircraft transponder can be a few kilograms on it own. The problem with the g

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mpe ( 36238 )
          they are very low weight structures (in the referenced article, they state 27 kg

          Low in comparison to other flying machines. In comparison with the average bird it's rather heavy.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mpe ( 36238 )
        They need power for communications anyway, and COTS mode C/A and mode S transponders are not designed for low power electrical systems, but they probably could be.

        The transponder needs to be able to operate from the RAT and/or battery. Though I'm not sure how well TCAS would would work in the case of two "engine out" planes being on collision course.
    • What is giving this issue legs right now is the resistance of the Navy and Air Force (OMG! No more golf course warriors!) to the Army's emerging control of the UAV assets in its battlespace. It doesn't mean that what the Navy is saying is wrong, exactly, but they need to declare their agenda to provide a context for evaluating their statements.

      --
      phunctor
      • The Navy is safe as long as they still have ships to fly the UAVs off... the Air Force has the problems proving that it still has a purpose...

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by kextyn ( 961845 )
          Someone has to work on the aircraft and fly them (at least the current ones still have pilots.) There are also many flying jobs that will not be taken over by unmanned aircraft for a long time at least (cargo planes come to mind.) And the Air Force does a whole lot more than just flying planes.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mpe ( 36238 )
      The real problem is however what happens in case of a crash.
      Those aircraft are very low weight composite aircraft with very thight energy budgets. Due to the composite parts, they are invisible to primary radar. Due to the energy budget, they cannot install an SSR transponder. In other words, they are completely invisble in case something goes wrong. (in which you cannot trust the transponder anyhow)

      Maybe the solution is to work out a way of increasing the RCS of such a device.
      NB these things are danger

  • "Aircraft six-niner-niner, please go to 5,000 feet heading two-zero-fiver and assume your place in the holding pattern. We will have a landing slot for you in three-zero minutes. I say again, we will land you it three-zero minutes. Over."

    "This is Aircraft six-niner-niner.....I'll be back."

  • Unmanned Aircraft Will Test Air Traffic Control (Score:3, Insightful)

    by threaded ( 89367 ) on Thursday December 06, 2007 @05:04AM (#21594943) Homepage
    Yes, when something goes wrong, as it always does, they certainly will test air traffic control.
    • This is so incredibly screwed up that an article like this comes out and everyone is talking about ATC being screwed up.

      There are reconnaissance aircraft flying over us, spying on us. The Russian Bear isn't doing this. The Red Chinese are not doing this. The Islamic Fundamentalists are not doing this. Our own government is doing this. And we have become so blase about this that we can ignore it as a problem and blame ATC for not being ready to handle our own government's airborne domestic spying progra

  • Modernization (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mcrbids ( 148650 ) on Thursday December 06, 2007 @05:13AM (#21594981) Journal
    You do realize that, to fly an airplane, it's not even a requirement to have a radio?

    General aviation is a strange economic fluke - it's a cesspool like backwater of technology, seemingly frozen at its hey day in 1950 or so. The most popular plane flown today is largely identical to its 1956 ancestor - the only real difference is in the instruments on the panel, and even then, most planes are sold with classic "steam guage" instrumentation. Changes to the airframe and body are mostly cosmetic. [wikipedia.org]

    It's an industry largely paralyzed by lawyers. Recently, the parents of a 1000-jump skydiver sued the aircraft manufacturer when the pilot flew the plane into icy clouds and crashed the plane because the wing de-icing equipment was overwhelmed. It's like suing Chrysler because the driver of the car drove it into a brick wall at 90 MPH, and the seat belts just weren't quite enough. Except in this case, Cessna will probably have to settle.

    Private airplanes == Rich guys == $target.

    As a result, nobody wants to develop any new technology because the technology, even if demonstrably safer, will still be sued if it should ever fail. (which it would, eventually)

    If some kind of law was passed at the federal level so that aviation was held to sane liability standards, so that plane manufacturers actually had the free resources to develop better technology, then aviation would be more modern, cheaper, and safer for all.

    Really, why is it OK for planes to fly without even having a radio? It's almost 2008, we should have planes with full, digital situational monitors that tell the pilot about any looming threats. If you spend $500,000, you can have that today, but it should be costing somewhere around a couple grand. Since the entry point for aviation is around $20,000 for a basic, 2-seat plane, this is a big deal.

    If planes reliably had a situational-awareness monitor, UAVs would be a non-issue. We have the technology - your $300 Garmin has more than enough processing power for this and already has all the latitude/longitude/altitude information it needs to make this work.

    So, why not?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MichaelSmith ( 789609 )

      If planes reliably had a situational-awareness monitor, UAVs would be a non-issue. We have the technology - your $300 Garmin has more than enough processing power for this and already has all the latitude/longitude/altitude information it needs to make this work.

      Until a couple of years ago my dad flew tugs for a glider club here in Australia. Like me, he is an old hacker and spent some time working on a TCAS like system for the gliders. Its pretty much what you described. A COTS GPS and some simple communication gear.

      I was at the club with him one day and helped a pilot change a wheel on a glider. Its a one bolt job. Very simple. The pilot reminded me not to talk about it too much because they have to get a LAME out to do stuff like that. Maybe that profession i

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mattr ( 78516 )
        > The pilot reminded me not to talk about it too much

        Then why post it to Slashdot MichaelSmith?
    • You are right to an extent.
      The basic difference is this:
      Speed of innovation == ability to take risk.

      Humans have placed 3 things based on risk probability:

      Human Life (Least Risk to be taken), One's Property (Medium Risk to be taken), Other's property (max Risk to be taken).

      Which is why you have Hospital equipments and software written to the highest standards possible. And which is why Java is not certified for life-threatening applications like Nuclear power plants and like, while Java is approved for E*Tra

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by foobsr ( 693224 )
        Anything that could endanger life is subject to a high degree of verification which leaves little for innovation.

        Especially with regard to health care.

        Its similar to trains. What innovation we had since 1930s for Box Cars, etc?

        Yes. The world speed record [youtube.com] still is 574.8 km/h [slashdot.org].

        CC.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Skater ( 41976 )

        Its similar to trains. What innovation we had since 1930s for Box Cars, etc?

        What's wrong with box cars now that need improvement?

        And, perhaps you haven't noticed, but they have been getting larger over the years. Also, they're now made from lighter materials so they can carry more stuff. Granted the basic design is the same, but if it's working, what's the problem?

        Railroads aren't in the business of using stuff that doesn't work - if there was a problem with the classic box car, they'd either fix it or replace it with something else. There's too much money at stake to do anythi

      • Its similar to trains. What innovation we had since 1930s for Box Cars, etc?

        Actually lots and lots in Europe [wikipedia.org] and Japan [wikipedia.org].

        Rich.

    • I agree. I also think the bureaucracy of the FAA is much to blame for the slow development of technology. Glass cockpits [wikipedia.org] that offer a digital display instead of traditional instruments have just recently become a reality.

      The FAA is extremely slow to approve any kind of new technology, and they seem very reluctant to force upgrades of old tech and old rules (like the "No radio" requirement in certain not-very-busy airspace classes). It's like Microsoft's upgrade from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 where they l

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kabocox ( 199019 )
      Really, why is it OK for planes to fly without even having a radio?

      Maybe cause they are too busy flying to listen to the music on the radio...

      Well, why don't you have a radio in your car telling the cops, DOT, or any central government entity exactly where you are, and plan on going. It's 2007 we could require and have it done in less than 5 years if we really wanted to.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mpe ( 36238 )
      Recently, the parents of a 1000-jump skydiver sued the aircraft manufacturer when the pilot flew the plane into icy clouds and crashed the plane because the wing de-icing equipment was overwhelmed. It's like suing Chrysler because the driver of the car drove it into a brick wall at 90 MPH, and the seat belts just weren't quite enough. Except in this case, Cessna will probably have to settle.

      WTF!

      Private airplanes == Rich guys == $target.
      As a result, nobody wants to develop any new technology because the

    • Re:Modernization -No (Score:2, Insightful)

      by markk ( 35828 )
      Ah... I would have to disagree. Have you looked at the current fleet of modern GA planes? They are mainly composite construction now. Structurally the "average" GA airplane today is almost nothing like it was 40 years ago. Avionics of course are absolutely new with weather and GPS. Aerodynamic designs are based on wing plans from the 80's or early 90's usually now. In back country craft the landing gear designs and/or materials are very new.

      What you said about old designs is like saying cars are the way th

    • Re:Modernization (Score:5, Informative)

      by (H)elix1 ( 231155 ) * <slashdot.helix@nOSPaM.gmail.com> on Thursday December 06, 2007 @11:54AM (#21597783) Homepage Journal
      Really, why is it OK for planes to fly without even having a radio? It's almost 2008, we should have planes with full, digital situational monitors that tell the pilot about any looming threats. If you spend $500,000, you can have that today, but it should be costing somewhere around a couple grand. Since the entry point for aviation is around $20,000 for a basic, 2-seat plane, this is a big deal.

      You assume the aircraft has electrical power. I've got a 1962 Stitts that does not have an electrical system. You start it the old fashion way - spin the prop. Cost me ~6.5, with a couple thousand more in maintenance to fly a 100 hp, two seat, tail dragger that has its aerobatics rating. Next time I resurface the wings, I'll probably run wiring for lights. I just cannot afford (weight) an alternator. The extras are nice - but the moment you buy anything 'aviation' grade, you tend to shell out 2-3 times what one would think you might pay. I'd reply back - why are bicyclist allowed to bike on a street without a drivers license? Why aren't all cars all wheel drive? Just like a radio, in some conditions you don't need it. Flying is not so different from boating. Most areas follow some simple rules. You don't take a canoe into a major port...

      So anyhow - I don't have my instrument rating, so I fly below 10,000' in good weather - VFR (visual flight rules) airspace. This is my worry about the UAV's - they damn well better keep those things in IFR airspace. They can be hard to spot in the air - much like a glider. You get the wrong angle, and you could be in for a surprise if you are not diligent in scanning the sky. Commercial aircraft are equipped with the transponder, radio, etc. Personal aircraft - not so much. Either way, the pilot is ultimately responsible. An autonomous drone scares the hell out of me. A remotely piloted drone is troubling, as the odds they will look at their cameras for oncoming traffic as intensely as somebody who's life *depends* on it is slim.

      (One final note - while I do lust after a glass cockpit, the altimeter and other gages tend to work on air pressure. The old displays might be analog, but digital display or not - it is the same data source that worked in the 50's)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by vinn01 ( 178295 )
        There is no such thing as IFR airspace. You're probably thinking of positive airspace, (positive control airspace) class A Airspace - 18000-60000 feet. (Flight Level 180-600). All aircraft at these altitudes must be under positive control and in contact with ATC.

        If they are testing spy UAV's, they will likely be up in Class A.

        If they are testing UAV's for battlefield use, they will likely be flown at the lowest altitudes possible which still avoid ground fire. That will place them at about the same altit
        • Instrument flight rules (IFR) vs visual flight rules. I should have said class E airspace. Anything over 10k' requires oxygen, so yes... technically you could get something up that high, 10,000 feet is a practical limit. Odds are, if something has O2 or a pressurized cabin, it will have an electrical system.

          I'm thinking of the Police drones rather than the version (and activities) they use on the non-civilian side. A prop based drone like they are playing with in Houston [click2houston.com] would probably fly in my airspa

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by cameldrv ( 53081 )
            Gliders don't have an engine driven electrical system, yet commonly go over 10k with oxygen.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mcrbids ( 148650 )
        This is an old thread, hopefully you'll check your post history.

        First off, let me start by saying I'm an avid aviation fan. I love flying, and am a private pilot with current medical. I fly (generally) a few times per month, in a rented Cessna 172.

        You assume the aircraft has electrical power. I've got a 1962 Stitts that does not have an electrical system. You start it the old fashion way - spin the prop. Cost me ~6.5, with a couple thousand more in maintenance to fly a 100 hp, two seat, tail dragger that ha
    • Not to be insensitive, but... this guy had skydived 1000 times, but couldn't figure out what to do when he found himself wearing a parachute in a plane that was going down?

  • no collision? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rastoboy29 ( 807168 ) *
    He's surprised we haven't had a collision, yet?  Just how many of these suckers are we putting up every day?  Even in the warzone?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by DeeQ ( 1194763 )

      He's surprised we haven't had a collision, yet? Just how many of these suckers are we putting up every day? Even in the warzone?
      There are more than just these flying in the air.

  • Video of a near-miss (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Thursday December 06, 2007 @05:37AM (#21595073)
    Dunno if this video is real, but it sure looks like it is. Near miss between a UAV and an Airbus A300 [youtube.com].

  • No toothpaste on the plane ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Titusdot Groan ( 468949 ) on Thursday December 06, 2007 @07:00AM (#21595353) Journal

    Let me get this straight:

    I have to take off my shoes and leave my toothpaste at the gate when I fly but hundreds of hick sheriffs and other random yokels are going to be piloting sophisticated UAFs in the near future.

    Is that correct?

    • I can assure you that no "hick sheriffs and other random yokels" will be flying any University Affiliated Facilities.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by khakipuce ( 625944 )
      Like a lot of posters in this topic so far, you seem to be assuming that UAVs need someone to fly them. They are uninhabited AUTOMINOUS vehicles. Mostly they are designed to be given a mission, which they execute themselves - e.g. a set of coordinates to fly around whilst carrying a camera. They are generally designed to fly the mission without any input from the ground because them may well be out of radio contact for some or most of the mission (e.g. herti [baesystems.com])

      As for the air traffic control issue there is

      • It would be possible except there is no such system in place. We use datalink to send instructions to equipped aircraft but it's hardly suitable for use in a crowded airspace. It would be like using e-mail when you need an instant reply.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mpe ( 36238 )
        As for the air traffic control issue there is no reason that ATC cannot control a UAV in the way that they contol other aircraft in civilian airspace - but instead of talking to it on the radio, send it a message to change course/altitude.

        Unless these UAVs are fitted with transponders ATC (and other aircraft) have no way of knowing where they are or what they are doing. In which case a modified version of TCAS will probably keep them out of harm's way most of the time

        There are already standard systems f

      • No reason why similar systems cannot be used on UAVs.

        There's a big reason called fear.
        In the typical post 9/11 scaremongering, you can bet that at least several paranoid idiots will be afraid that if UAV has a facility to give its position and can react to instruction sent by aircraft controllers,
        there will surely be some pedo-terror-pirates that will use it to subvert the system and drive the UAVs into collision with some target, think of the children !
        Or something along these lines.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by NateTech ( 50881 )
        Because things fail or UAV operators make mistakes, and then the UAV passes through airspace it was never intended to.

        Sometimes all the way to the ground.

        Report about Air Force Predator-B Crash in Arizona [air-attack.com] - This guy should have had his pilot's license suspended. Any real pilot pulls that kind of crap, they likely end up dead, but if they don't -- they aren't going to be flying for a while. I bet this kid was back flying his video game consoles the next day. You don't transfer controls to another pilot
  • Doesn't the FAA already have procedures in place for unmanned research balloons? I'd think the issues would be similar.

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein

Close