quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
A near mid air for anyone is a CCIR for CENTCOM.

No. It's not. Not everyone is beholden to those rules. Again, THINK.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
Ergo, I asked what your personal threshold for comfort would be.

And I answered. You assume much not in evidence and attribute to me what I have not said; you also fail to read.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
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.

You may not.

It was not.

Again, you make a number of assumptions. The most recent experiences, within the last year.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
A near mid air for anyone is a CCIR for CENTCOM.

No. It's not. Not everyone is beholden to those rules. Again, THINK.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
Ergo, I asked what your personal threshold for comfort would be.

And I answered. You assume much not in evidence and attribute to me what I have not said; you also fail to read.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
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.

You may not.

It was not.

Again, you make a number of assumptions. The most recent experiences, within the last year.

I’m trying to have a civil conversation bro, but you were being super vague and telling me things like “think.” It’s not helpful, I obviously don’t understand what you’re trying to say because you aren’t being clear. I thought I paraphrased your threshold answer fairly but I did assume on your timeline because you aren’t forthcoming.

I spent my last two years as the chief of staff for a senior leader in NATO. One of my jobs was integration with CENTCOM among others. Because of my flying experience, I receive all of the commanders update briefings daily and I’ll tell you that if an RPA has a near mid-air with a manned asset (military, partner nation, contractor, commercial) it is something they want reported out there. By “they” I mean Gen Votel who I’ve previously worked for in his other commands. He will tell you RPAs are mission essential; that’s just a sidebar. Bottom line, yes near mid air collisions will be reported and yes I would know.

I am now flying again, and RPA integration is better than it was when I left the cockpit a few years ago. I personally feel safer flying in RPA congested airspace than civil GA congested airspace, and I do both. To me, that’s a good bench mark that this tech is “good enough” for the NAS. I’m interested in the conversation and in other perspectives, but I’m not interested in a passive aggressive back & forth.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
I spent my last two years as the chief of staff for a senior leader in NATO. One of my jobs was integration with CENTCOM among others. Because of my flying experience, I receive all of the commanders update briefings daily and I’ll tell you that if an RPA has a near mid-air with a manned asset (military, partner nation, contractor, commercial) it is something they want reported out there. By “they” I mean Gen Votel who I’ve previously worked for in his other commands. He will tell you RPAs are mission essential; that’s just a sidebar. Bottom line, yes near mid air collisions will be reported and yes I would know.

Therein lies your biggest roadblock to understanding. You really seem to think that the world is beholden to report to your organization. Newsflash; the world which does not belong to your organization doesn't report to it and has no reason, nor obligation to do so.

Not only does the vast majority of the flying world not report to CENTCOM and not use a CCIR...you'll find that the vast majority doesn't know the meaning of either one. Shocking.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:

I am now flying again, and RPA integration is better than it was when I left the cockpit a few years ago. I personally feel safer flying in RPA congested airspace than civil GA congested airspace, and I do both. To me, that’s a good bench mark that this tech is “good enough” for the NAS. I’m interested in the conversation and in other perspectives, but I’m not interested in a passive aggressive back & forth.

Your benchmark is that you feel good. How nice. Many of us do not. In our world, a single near-miss trumps a million far-misses.

You indicated that you're dropping in a Cessna Caravan at 80'. I'm familiar with much of the dropping world, and I do pilot certain operations at those altitudes, also dropping things; generally remotely piloted equipment isn't a problem at that altitude. Neither are general aviation aircraft. neither does the national airspace system have participating traffic at those altitudes, except in very few, limited busy terminal areas or class D airports.

You think you'd know about near mid-air's because you were a non-flying staffer reporting to General Votel...yet the flying world doesn't report to you or General Votel, nor particularly care about either. I have personal knowledge of numerous conflicts which were unreported, domestically and downrange. If you find that too vague, tough. If you don't know why it's vague, then I'd seriously question your qualifications to know.

You sound like a military aviator with very little civil experience, or experience in civil airspace outside of military operations; if this is the case, nothing wrong with the lack of experience, but one had best not project that to the belief that unmanned aircraft pose no hazard in the national airspace system, because it is not true.

Is there some reason you are being so antagonistic in this discussion? I’m genuinely curious how people view the situation and you seem to take my questions personally. It’s weird.

I’d be happy to discuss my qualifications in detail since it is germane to the discussion at hand, is there something specific you want to know? The caravan gig is new for me. My previous background is SOF ISR & strike. I brought up the staffing issue with CENTCOM because it directly applies to my base opinion: that current military RPA technology is good enough to fly safely in the national airspace. Yes I know there are plenty of people flying that don’t report to CENTCOM however the RPA assets I am talking about do report to CENTCOM and if they have a near mid air they will report it to CENTCOM; can’t hide it. So if that’s happening regularly with the tech I’m saying is safe to fly in NAS, then yea, I’d know.

I don’t want to assume anything since you are so sensitive about assumptions, although you leave me little option with your lack of detail. But it sounds like you are referencing various data masked programs. Obviously that discussion is a non starter. I really don’t know where to go here, you have your opinion and I have mine so we will just agree to disagree. If you would expand on your specific experiences it would be helpful for me to understand your viewpoint, but if you don’t want to then no worries.

No NO NO

Drones have no skin in the game!

Even the lowley Cessna 150 has a pilot that knows his chances are not good in any midair collision.

Drone pilot just goes Ooooops! Then goes home!

quote:

Originally posted by SIGSense:

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

After 2010, and in the restricted airspace, 93% of the Near Mid Air Collisions (NMAC) were a result of the manned aircraft flying outside of his/ her profile and being "uncooperative." 6.5% of the NMAC were both aircraft out of their profile (most all the unmanned aircraft were flying a predetermined lost-link, emergency mission), 0.5% of the reported NMACs were a result of the unmanned aircraft flying a lost-link emergency mission AND the mission was incorrectly entered (ie, pilot error by the unmanned PIC).

Of the unreported NMACs, it is thought/ hypothesized, the manned aircraft PIC was in error and choose it was best not to report said error.

You said you didn't report yours - why?

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
You said you didn't report yours - why?

I was not the PIC, but a mission CO on an ISR platform flying out of KAF. The RPA/UAV was flown by OGA, so they do what they want. These incidents were NOT CONUS.

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.

Ah come on guppy, they might get that high if it was a long way back to their load station with terrain / obstruction in between.

On an emotional level, it would be nice to be the only one flying, a lot less worry about traffic. On a realistic level, if that were the case it might be hard to find services.

I would probably have more heartburn about the privacy aspects than the safety aspects but I have zero experience with UAS. That opinion could certainly change with a near midair collision (NMAC) or two though.

I suspect that, like driverless cars, they are coming, whether we like it or not. How long it is going to take, how much blood it will cost, I suspect only time will tell.

The NY Air Guard (174ATKW) routinely operates the MQ-9 Reaper out of a commercial airport, Hancock Field in Syracuse.

https://www.airnav.com/airport/KSYR

https://www.174attackwing.ang.af.mil/

This general info does not address the airspace integrations issues:

The Air National Guard base was the first in the nation to operate Reaper drones, and the first to receive permission to take off and land at a commercial airport, Syracuse Hancock International Airport.

Complete article:

https://www.syracuse.com/polit...e-hancock-field.html

Air Force will station new Reaper drones at Syracuse Hancock Field

Posted Mar 15, 2019

By Mark Weiner | mweiner@syracuse.com

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Air Force has decided to expand its squadron of MQ-9 Reaper drones based at the home of the 174th Attack Wing at Syracuse’s Hancock Field.

Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson approved sending an extra four aircraft, two mobile ground control stations and new training equipment to the New York Air National Guard base.

The new drones and equipment are expected to arrive as early as this month, according to U.S. Rep. John Katko, whose office was informed of the decision by Air Force officials on Thursday.

Air Force officials told Katko that the new aircraft and equipment will allow the base to almost double the number of Reaper drone pilots and sensor operators trained at Hancock Field from 45 to 85 per year.

The Air Force will spend $23.7 million combined for the upgrades at Hancock Field and March Air Reserve Base in California, which also will receive four new aircraft and mobile ground control stations.

The 174th Attack Wing uses the Hancock Field base north of Syracuse to remotely pilot MQ-9 Reaper drones on combat and surveillance missions over Afghanistan.

The Air National Guard base was the first in the nation to operate Reaper drones, and the first to receive permission to take off and land at a commercial airport, Syracuse Hancock International Airport.

The base also serves as an Air Force maintenance and training facility for drone crews. Those crews maintain a squadron of eight Reaper drones at Hancock Field.