Curious about other's thoughts about the integration of Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) into the National Airspace System(NAS). The type aircraft would not be weaponized and not passenger carrying. They would be sensor carriers and able to remain aloft for more than 40 hours.

Such uses would be:

Security for major events (Super Bowl, Political/Presidential Conventions, Macy's Parade, summer beach events, etc)
Traffic Patrol (desolate roads, peak time use of major arteries, catastrophic events, etc)
Search for missing/bad persons
Major fires, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, etc
Infrastructure monitoring (power facilities, ports, pipelines)
Communications and broadcast (extension of comms in remotes areas)

However, the aircraft would also be able to perform other duties such as:

Crop/property damage/health
Snow pack/water availability
General municipal usage/needs
Aerial mapping


Most all the above either can be, or currently is, performed by manned aircraft (albeit not for the aloft durations an RPA can perform them). So if the aircraft are able to safely integrate with manned aircraft, what is your thought about your city/county/state employing the use of an RPA?

I'm a sub 300 hour private pilot and I stay low, slow and close to home. I fly out of Falcon Field in Mesa, AZ. McDonnell Douglas builds Apaches on the field, and some other interesting little (remote and autonomous) birds. I worry less about them then the dozens of flight school students buzzing about.

Seems like if the remote A/C are operating under IFR then they'd be relatively a non-issue. Under VFR, I would hope they would have adequate sensors for 'See and Avoid'.

It'll be interesting to see how this develops.

Todd

The military as well as private people already have these. Drones.

Civilian's use drones for aerial mapping, photography of real estate, yachts, events, etc.

Militaries and some sherriff's office have been using them. Broward Sherriff's office has had one for a while that they use for various things.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:
The military as well as private people already have these. Drones.

Civilian's use drones for aerial mapping, photography of real estate, yachts, events, etc.

Militaries and some sherriff's office have been using them. Broward Sherriff's office has had one for a while that they use for various things.

Those aircraft fly under a special use COA, within restricted airspace, or under 400 feet and within sight of the user (Small UAS - sUAS).

Also, they do not stay aloft for more than an hour or so (if that).

I am referring to an aircraft which is remotely piloted and can "file and fly" just phxtoad as does out of Falcon Field.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
Curious about other's thoughts about the integration of Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) into the National Airspace System(NAS).

Dead set against it.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
Curious about other's thoughts about the integration of Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) into the National Airspace System(NAS).

Dead set against it.

Why - can you articulate?

I think there's a queasiness about pilotless aircraft that will keep passengers off them for a long time (although I suspect not forever.) But how long until they get around to automating cargo aircraft.

Given the current state of technology, how hard would it be to take a plane like a 767 or 777 package freighter, and make it able to fly autonomously between Memphis and Anchorage, or Anchorage to Singapore?

The issue, in my opinion, is not safety, but privacy. Do I mind? Really not so much for specific uses, but (there’s always one) I can’t see a need for 40 hours use. I can’t imagine a need for surveillance that would require 5, 10, 20 or 40 hours of continuous operation. Your list is fairly broad, I can imagine several of them could be argued for positively, but some of it borders on “big brother” and the tinfoil hat folks as well as those legitimately concerned about privacy will rightly scream. Some of those, probably deserve a warrant process.

quote:

Originally posted by jbcummings:
The issue, in my opinion, is not safety, but privacy. Do I mind? Really not so much for specific uses, but (there’s always one) I can’t see a need for 40 hours use. I can’t imagine a need for surveillance that would require 5, 10, 20 or 40 hours of continuous operation. Your list is fairly broad, I can imagine several of them could be argued for positively, but some of it borders on “big brother” and the tinfoil hat folks as well as those legitimately concerned about privacy will rightly scream. Some of those, probably deserve a warrant process.

A few scenarios for long-endurance come to mind; Hurricane Rita, the fires in SoCal, Twin Towers on 9/11, events leading up to and during Coachella.

Also, travelling the length of the Alaskan Pipeline for terroristic/ATIFA activities.

Look up Argus, and see what surveillance would really be. And that's pretty old now. The government's probably come up with better.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:

A few scenarios for long-endurance come to mind; Hurricane Rita, the fires in SoCal, Twin Towers on 9/11, events leading up to and during Coachella.

I was on those fires, for a long time last year. Long endurance surveillance isn't what's needed on those fires, and the role is taken by air attack personnel (ATGS), leads, and ASM's. Experienced firefighters who can look the fire over with wide peripheral vision, not the toilet-tube view of the typical UAV observation. That said, Predators were used on some operations, and fire operations were shut down several dozen times due to UAV intrusions on the airspace.

I had more near mid-air's with UAV's, largely predator-type aircraft, overseas, than with any other aircraft during my entire career. They're a menace. They also did a much poorer job of ISR and surveillance; not uncommonly during vehicle pursuits and other such work like simply following a column, they'd lose their target and need to be replaced with manned assets.

I don't like them. They're dangerous, less effective, and ridiculously expensive.

I am against having them mixed in with the NAS

special use airspace, I'm OK with that

MOA's - I'm ok with that too

but until they can see and avoid, they have no reason to be in the NAS with VFR traffic

just because you can doesn't mean you should

I do realize technology marches along. I also wonder, what does this pilotless plane do when a good sized ‘standing lenticular’ cloud is along the path, dead ahead? This won’t be on radar, since no precipitation. It also has the potential for severe turbulence.

I’m sure things like this are part of the discussion, just like the driverless cars. Those forecast charts from 6 hours prior will be useless.

In due time, maybe so.

A lot of those events listed include TFRs for non participating aircraft, which is an entirely different conversation, altogether! So it's mostly a moot point as the airspace is already controlled and monitored. The others would mostly be covered by existing drone regulations: airspace and altitude restrictions, operator certification, etc. I'm mostly concerned with the privacy aspect as well. Who is operating them, what data are they collecting, and who is monitoring the operations/data to ensure compliance with applicable privacy laws?

I'm 100% ok with it. The technology is mature enough. I already operate around all manner of RPA- everything from small low altitude sensor drones to medium altitude MQ9 RPAs to high altitude/long endurance ISR RPAs like RQ4 and others. When we started integrating regularly with these guys in 07 they sucked. By 2012 they were much better but you still had reliability issues.

At this point, the tech is mature and they are completely ready to fly in the NAS. The military flies in highly congested VFR & IFR airspace with these things all the time and it's just as safe as flying around manned aircraft.

I'd ask folks who are against it, what actual expertise do you have working with and around these systems? Are your critiques based on knowledge or assumptions?

for us civilians, we have no expertise dealing with them - hence I don't want them anywhere near me

as for other VFR aircraft, at least I know there is a pilot in control - may be marginally competent, but at least its a pilot

I have ZERO faith in drones mixed in with the NAS

they want to fly, give them block airspace above 40,000 feet and have at it

quote:

Originally posted by Puckpilot78:
A lot of those events listed include TFRs for non participating aircraft, which is an entirely different conversation, altogether! So it's mostly a moot point as the airspace is already controlled and monitored.

What do you mean?

When operating inside a TFR in the Fire Traffic Area, congested with up to 30 aircraft, all uncontrolled, low visibility in smoke, moderate to severe or greater turbulence, close to terrain in canyons and mountainous areas, and a high workload, the last thing one needs is a damn unmanned aircraft busting through or operating.

Things like say, pipeline monitoring, where its flying over the owner's property, for the most part - who cares, unless it causes an issue for aviation, in some way.

Same with doing long-haul freight flying over the oceans- though, again, I do not know enough about aviation to comment on whether or not a computer is capable of flying that distance, without on-board assistance.

Over populated areas, though... There are some real privacy concerns, which we need to address through privacy laws - and, presuming these devices are larger, some real safety issues.

HPD was trying to get a predator drone, when I lived in Houston, over the protests of the chopper pilots (According to them, Houston's airspace is very busy).

HPD crashed it, while training, on TV. The drone burst into a large fire, on impact. The reporters mentioned the probable consequences of such a crash occurring downtown, and HPD did not get their large drone.

I have had enough close calls with airplanes that had flight crew onboard; I really do not like the idea of flying in airspace with unmanned aircraft, just as I do not want driverless vehicles sharing the same highway that I'm driving on.

The tech isn’t mature enough.

It’s good for what we currently use it for, long duration armed ISR in places you don’t want to put a live body.

But for high tempo, dynamic flight environments, it’s unsuited to playing well with others - time lag, inability to visually acquire things outside of a very narrow FOV, etc.