Air collision fears slow expansion of US drone use

[billh117]

Have you guys seen this ?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ha8RvErzxxZh6lD5UlADk-m0qstAD97OT03O0


Patrick I am sure you were at this meeting how come you didn't tell us about it? :D

Sorry just kidding.

Maybe Dean should stop working on IMU's and start working on sense and avoid. ;)

[tekrunner]

Everyday I'm reminded of the stupidity of human garbage working at the FAA. Confronting the Air Force, NASA, and Navy in addition to all of the transport companies (UPS, Fedex etc.) that want UAS is biting off more then even the FAA can chew.

[keithskye]

Everyday I'm reminded of the stupidity of human garbage working at the FAA. Confronting the Air Force, NASA, and Navy in addition to all of the transport companies (UPS, Fedex etc.) that want UAS is biting off more then even the FAA can chew.

While I'm no big fan of many of those I deal with in the FAA in my day job, I do understand their concerns, and I can tell you also that there are a hell of a lot more aircraft flying around at low level than most people would ever imagine. The business I have started and am building is focused on the large end of the UAS spectrum. As such, it's a no-brainer that the only way I and my partners are going to succeed is to make our system operate and "look" like a manned aircraft, period. Nothing less will do. So our project addresses all of the requirements that manned aircraft have to comply with, and that includes not only equipment and performance, but operational issues as well (IFR vs. VFR, etc.). Like anything else you may want to get involved in, whether it's racing cars or flying UAVs, there are rules and restrictions, and if you want to play in the sandbox, and especially if you are the "new" guy, you have to learn and play by those rules. If you can get involved deeply enough to put yourself in a position to have a say as to how those rules are written in the case of something new like this, then do so.

Here's a couple of questions to all you guys that want more freedom to fly your small UAS: what altitude and or range limitation would make you happy if you had more freedom to do what you wanted to within those limitations? What weight or size limit for the UAV would make you happy? In other words, if you could write the rules, where would you cap things, and how would you address all the manned aircraft that are free to fly almost anywhere? "Almost anywhere" meaning as long as they are at least 1000' above the highest obstacle that is within 2000' horizontally, in populated areas, and 500' from any person vehicle or structure in "unpopulated areas". If you really think about it, you can see that there is a LOT of low level airspace in which you could find a typical general aviation aircraft, and that's not even counting in the number of ultralights and gliders (which make me nervous as hell when I'm flying our company aircraft in and out of airports in remote areas, because from my perspective, they are almost invisible and could be anywhere).

I bet that if you added up every person on these forums and elswhere that seriously want the freedom to fly their small UAVs or fly their models via FPV, and compared that number against just the number of actual, registered general aviation aircraft owners (who are "current"), they'd be outnumbered at least 4 to 1, and I'm sure the number is much larger than that. I happen to be one of those general aviation pilots who fly for fun as well as for a living, and if it comes down to me against you where my freedom to fly is concerned, I'm going to vote for me. Let's face it, manned airplanes have been flying for over 100 years, and in the USA, we have more freedom to fly anywhere, any time than anyone else in the world. You are going to have a huge fight on your hands if you try to do anything that will impose any further restrictions on general aviation pilots than we're already having to deal with thanks to the TSA and Homeland Security, etc.

Am I concerned about running into a GWS Slowstick with a small camera on it? No, not in my Cessna or my Piper single. But even a Slow Stick t could do me some serious damage if I suck one into the engine of our company G-IV when I'm taking off or landing. Now, if it's bigger and heavier than a Slow Stick, the threat goes up quickly. I used to routinely fly at 250 knots indicated airspeed at altitudes as low as 3 or 4 thousand feet MSL, over the hills between Allentown, PA and Teterboro, NJ, re-positioning our company aircraft for a trip leaving from the NY area. Over some of the hilly areas, that's only 1500 to 2500 feet above the terrain on that route. I don't like to think about what it would be like to hit a 5 pound model at that speed in the Gulfstream, especially if it was primarily of composite construction. I had a good friend that was flying FPV more than 5 yrs ago, after he showed me a video he recorded of one of his flights, in which we both agreed his altitude during the flight was at least 2000 feet above the ground over his neighborhood, and only 4 miles from the nearest airport. I talked him into taking some flying lessons, and today he has his Private license and is an active pilot - and he doesn't fly FPV much above 400 feet anymore!

Anyway, I digress here. Just thought I'd share some of my thoughts with all of you as someone that not only enjoys every aspect of the RC hobby, but also looks at it from "the other side of the fence".

[Tom Harper]

Keith,

Good points. Rules and restrictions on UAVs are necessary - that doesn't mean they should be banned.

It is reasonable to have limits on size and weight. A wing area of 14 sq ft and AUW of 14 pounds will cover most needs.

There are four points on the operation matrix:

1. Populated areas
2. Unpopulated areas
3. Visual contact within transmitter range
4. Beyond visual and transmitter range

Operating, in populated areas, within transmitter and visual range is no different than normal RC flying. I don't see that as an issue and believe it should be regulated by the AMA as a normal RC activity. Operating beyond transmitter and visual range should not be allowed in populated areas.

Operating beyond transmitter and visual range in unpopulated areas still requires restrictions. Staying within a cylinder of 2000 ft radius and 1000 ft altitude would cover most needs. Unpopulated means NO dwellings or paved roads.

The UAS population today is small compared to the number of private pilots. In 20 years that will no longer be the case. UAS will be in the majority. Now is the time to establish reasonable rules and regulations. It's going to happen - with or without the regulations.

[keithskye]

Tom,

I agree with you regarding the operation of a small UAS within visual range, though I would say that there needs to be a cap on the altitude, which you address with your opinion that 1000' AGL is reasonable. I won't argue with you there, either, though in remote areas, you can occassionally see aircraft operating below that altitude (I used to be a tour pilot way back when, and it was not uncommon to be crossing certain areas of terrain only a few hundred feet off the ground, and perfectly legal). Crop dusting, glider towing/flying and skydiving are all operations that often see airplanes on the deck or very low, and can be found nowhere near an "improved" or towered airport.

I don't know how many people here on these forums know this little tidbit of info, but FYI, most transport category aircraft have windshields designed to take a certain sized bird strike at certain speeds. Typically, the bird strike test uses a 5 pound chicken fired at the windshield with enough force to simulate the aircraft operating near it's maximum allowable speed down near 10,000 feet MSL. In some aircraft, the maximum speed allowable below certain altitudes is actually based on the test results. I bring this up because you mention a weight of 14 pounds all up. I don't like to think about hitting anything that weighs 14 pounds, especially if I'm doing 300 knots and I take it in the windshield. For sure that baby is going to come right through and probably take my head off and do some serious damage to the rest of the cockpit, too. A 14 pound model airplane is heavy enough to do some serious damage to many different parts of almost any aircraft you can think of. Not an issue if you can guarantee that it won't be anywhere a manned aircraft is flying, but how do you do that? Seriously?

As for numbers of UAS vs. general aviation aircraft, it's not just a question of the number of aircraft or rated pilots, but also the number of human beings inside those aircraft, and another factor is the number of people that potentially could be in those aircraft at any one time (seating capacity and payload). According to the DOT/FAA, as of the end of 2007, there were a total of 231,600 ACTIVE general aviation aircraft flying, of which the majority were used for purely personal, private flying (152,500). That's a lot of airplanes. Add in low flying helicopters, and airliners near major and not so major airports, and it gets even more interesting, especially if you talk about number of total "operations". Looking at it that way, I'll have to disagree with you that UAS, especially as a hobby, will ever come close to the numbers generated by full scale aircraft.

Like anyone else here, I enjoy flying FPV and its fun to play with a small UAV and have it fly around autonomously and take video, etc. Like many others here, I saw some obvious civilian applications for the technology many years ago, but I also saw the potential problems as well. There's never been much attention given or issue taken with even the guys operating for commercial purposes (RCAPA for instance) when the airborne system was being operated via direct radio control, just like any other RC model. But the reliability and safety aspects of fully autonomous flight is now under the scrutiny of the powers that be (its not just the FAA). For example, what do you do about the situation in which some really sharp kid builds one of those LEGO autopilot/UAVs and flies it out of the local park across the street from his family's home (and just a few miles from a major airport), launches it and it "glitches" and flies off straight toward the airport? I used to live in Simi Valley, CA and often flew lots of different RC models there locally as well as at the Apollo RC field (aka "the Basin"), just 2 miles from the end of 16R at Van Nuys (one of the world's busiest airports, in number of aircraft taking off and landing each hour). I stopped flying there after personally witnessing a friend's 17 pound turbine powered sport jet "lock out" on downwind, pointed straight at the airport and crusing along at about 300 feet and around 100mph. He got control back when it was just a speck that was starting to merge with the scenery at the airport boundry, and only because of his tremendous flying skill and great distance vision did he get it turned around and back to the field. That shook both of us up quite a bit, to say the least.

It's been said here at least once before, and I'll repeat it again: the first time a UAV, of any size, hits a manned aircraft in flight, that will be the end of anything that has to do with civilian UAV operations. And incidents like that witnessed on YouTube with the RC model video of the Virgin flight passing close by on its approach sure won't help matters.

[Gary Mortimer]

One of the big problems I see is that people want to leap straight to flight outside of VLOS and great altitudes.

The Cropcam, advertised all over the place takes its shots at 2100', I wish somebody would explain where in the world thats legal!!

Perhaps we should not have rushed to use the terms UAV and autopilot and kept with something like pilot assist, and have devices that do just that.

The ranting on the FPV forum about the Virgin Blue incident had to be seen to be believed.

Most armchair experts coming down on the side of what harm could it do!!

Keith is on the money, with the one strike and your out theory.

[Tom Harper]

I agree that we should draw the uav hobby into something that is useful and practical. Perhaps a 5 pound limit makes sense, especially if there is a precedent. A thousand feet altitude might have to come down to 400 feet. Two thousand feet lateral might better be 1000 feet. That's 3 1/2 miles. Should be enough.

Now that I am actually operating a model in AUTO mode I am not as cavalier about missions. I would not like to tramp over miles of desert trying to find this thing after a miscalculation of duration.

If rational UAV operation comes under the AMA than the first accident will not shut anything down.

BTW: If your friend had been flying with an AttoPilot his jet would not have headed for the airport. UAV is safer than RC. That's the real point.

[Jack Crossfire]

Ardupilot is the first time anyone has ever announced sales for an autopilot & it's produced at least Sixty Thousand dollars for $parkfun so far with the GPS, thermopile, radio, & the Ardupilot itself. That gives you an idea of the kind of revenue available without any regulations.

Legalize a little airspace usage & you're looking at enough revenue to fund a small economy without printing money.

[tekrunner]

Ardupilot is the first time anyone has ever announced sales for an autopilot & it's produced at least Sixty Thousand dollars for $parkfun so far with the GPS, thermopile, radio, & the Ardupilot itself. That gives you an idea of the kind of revenue available without any regulations.

Legalize a little airspace usage & you're looking at enough revenue to fund a small economy without printing money.


Exactly! If the FAA was out of the way you'd see sense and avoid technology prevalent by tomorrow afternoon. And the technology would exist solely as a result of the free market protecting their flying investments and not the gubermint pretending to be worried about our safety!

[fnev]

BTW: If your friend had been flying with an AttoPilot his jet would not have headed for the airport. UAV is safer than RC. That's the real point.

WOW!!!!!

[keithskye]

Exactly! If the FAA was out of the way you'd see sense and avoid technology prevalent by tomorrow afternoon. And the technology would exist solely as a result of the free market protecting their flying investments and not the gubermint pretending to be worried about our safety!

Hmmm... not trying to make waves here, but what sense and avoid technology are you talking about? I know that some really big name companies have been working on that for years and still don't have anything that is really useful or reliable, and their budgets are huge. Anything that does not reliably detect and track targets (especially those with very little relative motion or none at all) at ranges of at least 5 miles or better, is of no real use. Ask any pilot to try to spot something the size of a Cessna 172 (27 feet long, with a 36 foot wingspan) that is just a couple of minutes away (several miles and cruising at around 100 knots) and is coming right at you (no relative motion) in typical east coast visibilities and against typical background (trees, houses, buildings,etc.) and they can tell you that even when you know exactly where that traffic should be, often you don't see it until it is only a mile or less away (seconds). If "you" happen to be a small UAV, then to the pilot of that Cessna, "you" are basically invisible. And to ATC radar, you won't normally be visible at all as a primary target, especially if you are moving at speeds of less than say, 75 knots (ATC "declutters" their screen of primary targets below certain speeds so that they don't "paint" ground traffic, etc.). If you are small and flying slower than full scale aircraft, you better have a transponder operating onboard if you want ATC to see you and be able to call you out as traffic to other aircraft that may or may not be talking to them (no requirement to do so in VFR conditions, which can be really poor when you think of what 3 miles visibility really means).

If there is anything out there that is as good or better at visually acquiring and tracking all manner of airborne targets than the Mk I human eye coupled to that amazing computing device called the human brain, and is certified, please let me know. Hopefully, I can afford to buy it and use it in my project.

Here's a quote from an article on S&A:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
One of the challenges inherent in the design and construction of unmanned aerial vehicles is to establish the fundamental design and performance specifications for an airborne sense-and-avoid system. As its name implies, an S&A system would sense the presence of other aircraft in nearby airspace, and would take steps to divert the UAV from the other aircraft in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration requirements. A new standard developed by ASTM Committee F38 on Unmanned Air Vehicle Systems addresses the issues involved in designing S&A systems.

The standard, ASTM F 2411, Specification for Design and Performance of an Airborne Sense-and-Avoid System, outlines specific parameters that are essential for any mechanical system that is designed to take the place of a human pilot while still maintaining a level of safety equivalent to that pilot. It also provides a single definition for equivalence that can be applied to all UAVs that require sense-and-avoid capability.

“By addressing these issues, the standard sets a performance threshold for the technology as well as the fundamental methods to prove compliance,” says Ryan Schaefer, senior systems engineer, SRA International, and member of Subcommittee F38.01 on Airworthiness. He also notes that the subcommittee welcomes any comments or participation from parties interested in this standard or others being developed.

"UAVs currently must operate in the National Airspace System with special authorization from the FAA. This permission, which is called a Certificate of Authorization, is contingent upon a list of requirements, one of which is that a UAV operator must provide a method to sense and avoid other aircraft. While this can be satisfied in a variety of ways — ground observers, radar coverage, or a manned chase plane — these methods are not always cost-efficient or mission-appropriate. Adding a sensor to the UAV platform is a viable solution, but no onboard sensor has yet been certified by the FAA for UAV sense-and-avoid."

“An S&A standard was needed for the industry to move forward, a standard to which all classes of UAV can demonstrate compliance,” says Schaefer. “This standard is a first step down the road of getting FAA approval for UAV S & A sensors and, ultimately, UAV ‘file-and-fly’ access to the national airspace similar to the process for manned aircraft.”

"Although initial users of the S&A specification will be within the UAV community, Schaefer says it was designed to address the overall problem of collision avoidance in national airspace. Because of this, Schaefer feels that the standard will also be useful to the manned aviation community to develop S&A systems that assist human pilots in avoiding mid-air collisions".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way, the government really does care about "our" safety, and I mean those of us in particular that fly airplanes and even more so, those that are passengers in aircraft, as well as people on the ground. And despite the regulations we have, the FAA regs give us far more freedom in flying than any other country in the world, so if you think the FAA are a pain, I invite you to fly or deal with the Aviation authorities in other countries. There may be more freedom for small UAV operations in other countries at the moment, but I don't think that will last, but that's just my opinion, which isn't worth much, I know.

[keithskye]

BTW: If your friend had been flying with an AttoPilot his jet would not have headed for the airport. UAV is safer than RC. That's the real point.

I agree that having an autopilot with "return to base" failsafe built in is a great thing to have, but like any other system onboard a model airplane, it takes up space, it needs power, and right now, it is not 100% reliable, and in some cases, it can be susceptible to or even cause conflict with other systems onboard the model. Like any other piece of electronic hardware, it can have problems, and like anything else that is software driven, again, it can have problems. And it does cost something, too, in more ways than just price.

I've been one of the "jet" crowd for a short time, and I know that many have been looking at the use of an autopilot system as a failsafe system, but the cost, size and integration with the normal RC system is an issue for the turbine guys. Most turbine models are so tight on space, that just trying to squeeze the necessary RC gear into the model is a big enough challenge, especially if you want some battery redundancy and you're trying to max your fuel capacity for a reasonable length of flying time.

And how well can most of the small autopilot systems fly something moving at 200mph (or more)? When we examine all the chatter on all the different autopilot forums regarding the programming and tweaking of any of the current systems people are using, for relatively slow flying models, its enough for a jet guy to shake his head and walk away. When someone designs and mass produces a reliable, small system that is plug and play for a turbine model, the turbine guys will jump all over it, even if its expensive, but until then, it's a nice idea but not practical.

[Tom Harper]

Keith,

"...how well can most of the small autopilot systems fly something moving at 200mph (or more)?"

Attopilot can probably do it better than a guy standing on the ground. Don't know about the other systems.

The sensors and wire runs are more of a practical issue than any possible interference caused by the autopilot, but that's not the point. The topic above is relative safety.

RC assist Old Timers fly at very high altitudes for an hour or so. They are at the vertical limit of visibility for the entire time. High performance gliders the same. Two hundred MPH deltas have to be considered dangerous. Giant scale models have crashed with an impact approaching that of full size aircraft (the infamous B52 crash). These activities are risky because the degree of control is questionable.

The goal of UAS is total, accurate control. That is safety. The issue is, how to make it's development acceptable to the regulating community.

[Jack Crossfire]

> Dean should stop working on IMU's and start working on sense and avoid.

Believe it or not, IMU's have been around since the 1940's in one form of another. He just has a way of getting people excited & dialed into any piece of technology no matter what it is or how old it is, & that would go a long way in proving sense & avoid technology to the FAA. A few more "simply CANNOT confuse this IMU!!!!!!!!" blog posts with IMU replaced with "sense & avoid" & your government would drop this issue like a bad habit.