quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
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.

Technology is almost there. Between current ADS-B/TCAS systems for cooperative aircraft and a sensors (either radar, optical, or a combo of both) for non-cooperative, the systems are almost there. (The latter is the hurdle it may seem).

A good read is Integration of Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the National Airspace Roadmap, by the FAA. Describes how they are working toward implementation by 2020 and challenges faced.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
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.

I disagree. Your opinion was mine a few years ago. At this point, the tech is very good.

I guess the first question is what level of integration within the NAS are we talking about? 500 AGL dodging crop dusters is very different than flying from Nellis to Eglin at altitude. And my understanding is the military wants to do the latter, not the former.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:

I guess the first question is what level of integration within the NAS are we talking about? 500 AGL dodging crop dusters is very different than flying from Nellis to Eglin at altitude. And my understanding is the military wants to do the latter, not the former.

You're obviously not a crop duster.

quote:

Originally posted by phxtoad:
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.

Boeing. Not McDonnell Douglas anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:

I guess the first question is what level of integration within the NAS are we talking about? 500 AGL dodging crop dusters is very different than flying from Nellis to Eglin at altitude. And my understanding is the military wants to do the latter, not the former.

You're obviously not a crop duster.

No I’m human.

I’ve dodged many of them between 50 and 500 AGL. They’re not always scraping tree tips.

Precisely, and aerial navigation is not relegated to jet airways; it's perfectly legitimate and found at 500 AGL when ferrying to a field or performing other aerial work; imposing safety hazards to aerial operations at 500' and below is a valid concern. You may not think so if you're not an ag aviator or if you don't engage in aerial work at low altitudes, but those of us who do find it to be a big concern.

We had numerous groundings of fire operations in the last few years due to unmanned intrusions in fire traffic areas, and encounters with unmanned aircraft, while tankers, helicopters, air attack, and lead/asm aircraft were enroute to fires.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
Precisely, and aerial navigation is not relegated to jet airways; it's perfectly legitimate and found at 500 AGL when ferrying to a field or performing other aerial work; imposing safety hazards to aerial operations at 500' and below is a valid concern. You may not think so if you're not an ag aviator or if you don't engage in aerial work at low altitudes, but those of us who do find it to be a big concern.

We had numerous groundings of fire operations in the last few years due to unmanned intrusions in fire traffic areas, and encounters with unmanned aircraft, while tankers, helicopters, air attack, and lead/asm aircraft were enroute to fires.

I regularly engage in all manner of low altitude air work. Today I was doing drops from a modified caravan at 80’ AGL. I’m not sure what you are saying above, but I have a lot of aviation experience over several years and a lot of that experience is close integration with modern RPAs. I regularly fly with them in air stacks.

Im telling you the technology has matured to the point where sharing airspace with an RPA is indistinguishable from flying closely and deconflicting with manned aircraft. We aren’t talking about camera carrying drones you buy for a few hundred bucks; the ones folks are using to hazard aircraft. We’re talking about sophisiticated systems capable of transmitting on multiple radios and navigating complicated airspace. What’s the objection?

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
We aren’t talking about camera carrying drones you buy for a few hundred bucks; the ones folks are using to hazard aircraft.

Neither am I.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
We’re talking about sophisiticated systems capable of transmitting on multiple radios and navigating complicated airspace.

So am I.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
What’s the objection?

Read!

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
We aren’t talking about camera carrying drones you buy for a few hundred bucks; the ones folks are using to hazard aircraft.

Neither am I.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
We’re talking about sophisiticated systems capable of transmitting on multiple radios and navigating complicated airspace.

So am I.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
What’s the objection?

Read!

Ok, I wanted to make sure we were discussing the same thing. Let me ask you, what is your experience with the types of RPAs we are discussing? Because these arent the ones inadvertently encroaching on fire fighting areas. Those can’t currently operate outside restricted areas in the NAS, hence the purpose of this thread.

I was confused by your earlier post because your objections referenced unsophisticated drones not RPAs. So I did read, but am still unclear on the nature of your objection. You say it’s based on experience, but not experience with the systems we are talking about?

Edited to add: I know border patrol and homeland security use a version of the RQ9 which is similar to the Air Force MQ9. However these drones are unsophisticated and datalinks are very different than what the military uses. If you are talking about those aircraft, realize the systems architecture has been heavily neutered and is equivalent to the shitty RPAs we worked around a decade ago. Current tech is mature, but not something you would see outside a restricted area in the US.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:


Ok, I wanted to make sure we were discussing the same thing. Let me ask you, what is your experience with the types of RPAs we are discussing? Because these arent the ones inadvertently encroaching on fire fighting areas. Those can’t currently operate outside restricted areas in the NAS, hence the purpose of this thread.

This is not correct.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
I was confused by your earlier post because your objections referenced unsophisticated drones not RPAs.

I said nothing of unsophisticated drones, nor did I use the word "drones." I did not reference "unsophisticated drones," nor did I infer them.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
So I did read, but am still unclear on the nature of your objection.

Clearly you did not.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:

Edited to add: I know border patrol and homeland security use a version of the RQ9 which is similar to the Air Force MQ9. However these drones are unsophisticated and datalinks are very different than what the military uses. If you are talking about those aircraft, realize the systems architecture has been heavily neutered and is equivalent to the shitty RPAs we worked around a decade ago. Current tech is mature, but not something you would see outside a restricted area in the US.

The majority of my inflight encounters, including numerous near mid-air collisions, occurred with military unmanned assets in military areas, many outside the US. Based on the exceptionally frequent and exceptionally close encounters with a number of those aircraft, many of whom were NOT where they were supposed to be, I have a very strong objection to incorporation of military assets in civil airspace.

I have been unimpressed with the ability of military unmanned assets in and out of military environments, and as previously stated, the performance of those aircraft in the most basic observation roles proved less than stellar.

When unmanned assets have reported, I've often encountered them at least a thousand feet from their reported altitude.

The closest near-miss I experienced with one was at a location overseas in a combat zone, and we passed within about six feet.

quote:

Technology is almost there.

Almost isn't good enough in aviation.

Guppy when did you have those experiences? As I mentioned in my first post, many of us had similar experiences attempting strike integration with RPAs between 2008 and 2012. Pre-2008 they were truly bad.

Nobody is having those near mid airs today (scan eagle and other smaller drones not included) or if they are, those events aren’t making daily commander update briefs. And near mid-air is a CCIR for CENTCOM commander.

How about this: what capability benchmark would you want to see before you were comfortable with these flying in the NAS?

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
Guppy when did you have those experiences? As I mentioned in my first post, many of us had similar experiences attempting strike integration with RPAs between 2008 and 2012. Pre-2008 they were truly bad.

Nobody is having those near mid airs today (scan eagle and other smaller drones not included) or if they are, those events aren’t making daily commander update briefs. And near mid-air is a CCIR for CENTCOM commander.

How about this: what capability benchmark would you want to see before you were comfortable with these flying in the NAS?

AC, you are being a good sport, but I wouldn't waste your breath. sns3 is being intentionally vague.

The capabilities of the modern armed forces MQ-9 Reaper and RQ-4 Global Hawk have improved dramatically in the last few years just as you described, and are significantly more advanced than the MQ-1/RQ-1 Predators that sns3 says he encountered over IRAQ. From another post on here:

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
I had more near mid-air collisions with Predators (and other) in Iraq than the rest of my career put together.
The air was thick with ISR over there, a great deal of it unmanned.

https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...210029044#7210029044

quote:

Originally posted by Brett B:

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
Guppy when did you have those experiences? As I mentioned in my first post, many of us had similar experiences attempting strike integration with RPAs between 2008 and 2012. Pre-2008 they were truly bad.

Nobody is having those near mid airs today (scan eagle and other smaller drones not included) or if they are, those events aren’t making daily commander update briefs. And near mid-air is a CCIR for CENTCOM commander.

How about this: what capability benchmark would you want to see before you were comfortable with these flying in the NAS?

AC, you are being a good sport, but I wouldn't waste your breath. sns3 is being intentionally vague.

The capabilities of the modern armed forces MQ-9 Reaper and RQ-4 Global Hawk have improved dramatically in the last few years just as you described, and are significantly more advanced than the MQ-1/RQ-1 Predators that sns3 says he encountered over IRAQ. From another post on here:

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
I had more near mid-air collisions with Predators (and other) in Iraq than the rest of my career put together.
The air was thick with ISR over there, a great deal of it unmanned.

https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...210029044#7210029044

Good post, agreed. Cheers Brett.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Technology is almost there.

Almost isn't good enough in aviation.

There's a good read by the FAA (Roadmap for the UAS integration into the NAS ; or something similar). Expect 2020 to be the year, if not sooner.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:


How about this: what capability benchmark would you want to see before you were comfortable with these flying in the NAS?

The benchmark will be substantially higher than the myriad failures I've seen by unmanned assets thus far, and whether it's working in close concert with them domestically, intrusions by them in fire traffic areas or enroute (and yes, they are found outside restricted areas, as you KNOW), or numerous encounters in Iraq, Afghanistan and a number of other locations downrange, to current encounters at places such as FHU (etc), it the benchmark will be adequate demonstration that shows better than has been demonstrated thus far. In short, it will take a damn long time to convince me otherwise.

A near mid-air for you might be a CCIR for CENTCOM. Most of them that I've encountered have been UNREPORTED. Think.

When a mid-air occurs, the remotely piloted vehicle becomes an expense, and the operator goes home for a peanut butter sandwhich, with no skin in the game.

Of some of us is extracted a higher price, and it's all in.

I've zero use for unmanned assets domestically and not much abroad. They're a menace.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

I've zero use for unmanned assets domestically and not much abroad. They're a menace.

This. Twice in my life I was almost killed by a drone while flying above 10K AGL, by someone flying that very drone from more than 9000 miles away.

quote:

Originally posted by SIGSense:

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

I've zero use for unmanned assets domestically and not much abroad. They're a menace.

This. Twice in my life I was almost killed by a drone while flying above 10K AGL, by someone flying that very drone from more than 9000 miles away.

How long ago; last year or a decade ago?

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:


How about this: what capability benchmark would you want to see before you were comfortable with these flying in the NAS?

The benchmark will be substantially higher than the myriad failures I've seen by unmanned assets thus far, and whether it's working in close concert with them domestically, intrusions by them in fire traffic areas or enroute (and yes, they are found outside restricted areas, as you KNOW), or numerous encounters in Iraq, Afghanistan and a number of other locations downrange, to current encounters at places such as FHU (etc), it the benchmark will be adequate demonstration that shows better than has been demonstrated thus far. In short, it will take a damn long time to convince me otherwise.

A near mid-air for you might be a CCIR for CENTCOM. Most of them that I've encountered have been UNREPORTED. Think.

When a mid-air occurs, the remotely piloted vehicle becomes an expense, and the operator goes home for a peanut butter sandwhich, with no skin in the game.

Of some of us is extracted a higher price, and it's all in.

I've zero use for unmanned assets domestically and not much abroad. They're a menace.

A near mid air for anyone is a CCIR for CENTCOM. If you’ve been involved in unreported near mishaps, maybe you should have reported them?

You may have no use for unmanned aircraft, but they are a mission essential weapon in the war on terror with tens of thousands of enemy kills to their name. We could not have crushed ISIS without them. Integration of unmanned aircraft within the national airspace is a certainty, it will happen eventually. Ergo, I asked what your personal threshold for comfort would be. If I may paraphrase, your reply is “they’d have to be better than when I had experience with them” which seems like a while ago. I think the tech would meet your threshold nowadays, but we can agree to disagree. Good discussion, cheers.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
How long ago; last year or a decade ago?

1st time: summer of 2014
2nd time: summer of 2016