need help fast, need info on why UAV better then manned

[dalbert02]

I have an emergency project and I need your help. I am putting a presentation together for the fire department where I work on UAVs. I need info or links to why UAVs are better then manned vehicles. Specifically, I remember some aircraft crashing recently where the search team died but the hiker was later found alive. I googled, but didn't find much. Anything like that would be appreciated. Thank you VERY much!
-dave

[mlbco]

Dave,

You've stumbled upon a dark little secret! In many applications, current UAV's are not better than manned aircraft. As the task becomes more dangerous or requires extensive time aloft, or flight in difficult conditions, a UAV may be safer. In general, UAVs are more likely to crash and currently cost more money to operate than many manned aircraft for missions like the one you mentioned. This will change in the future, but for now the UAV is not the obvious choice if cost is the primary issue. If pilot safety is the primary concern and there are unlimited funds, a UAV is a great choice. You'll need to provide more information on your mission to know if a UAV is the way to go.

My previous statements assume equivalent sensor systems on both vehicles. In many cases a UAV has an advantage because it is carrying the correct sensors for the job (i.e. EO/IR cameras, SAR, etc..)

Here are some press releases on how a NASA owned UAV was helpful for firefighters:

http://www.aviation.com/php/video/player.php?video_id=071024-Ikhana
http://www.pulseplanet.com/dailyprogram/dailies.php?POP=4096

Of course, our tax dollars paid for this PR show and there was no comparison with data that manned aircraft provided. Flying a Predator over a forest fire is not going to cost effective, we'll need different technologies to make this dream a reality.


Steve

[dalbert02]

Thanks Steve. I understand where you are coming from. I would like to demonstrate how UAVs could be better (in terms of life safety and hopefully costs) for search and rescue, wild land fire assesments, and possibly as a rapidly elevated aerial platform (ARMY REAP) for eye-in-the-sky or mobile radio-repeater-in-the-sky. I included the NASA predator activites in my presentation, thanks.

MLB - MLB - where do I know that name?

I know, I have an MLB (SpyPlanes.com) sticker on my laptop that I recieved at AUVSI in Orlando!

-dave

[CenTexFlyer]

Dave,

I have a few powerpoints you'd be welcome to if you like. You can remove the logo and use the content. I presented to DHS and have my usual run of the mill ppt. It's there....

[ghee-grose]

Dave, you may be thinking about the accident that happened here in Alabama. A hiker/hunter was lost in the Bankhead National Forest. They chose to assist the search with a Med-Flight helicopter. It got dark, the helicopter was operating with a search light, they got too low and the tail rotor clipped a tree and it spun in... killing the crew of 3. The hiker/hunter was found alive.

This was a sad case because they shouldn't have been in the air doing that search. No S&R dog teams were even called in to do the initial search. Instead they send in a Med-Flight chopper...not a good call on that one.

Steve, I would have to disagree with the statement "UAVs cost more money to operate than many manned aircraft". I actually work in the Program Office for Unmanned Aircraft Systems and see all of the Army's UAV platforms managed out of here (Redstone Arsenal). There are several UAVs that would be much more cost effective than a helicopter manned with 3 or 4 people.

Most S&R flights are done with UH-60 Blackhawks. These are very costly to own/operate/maintain.

The Army's RQ-11 Raven is a man-packed, electric powered, small UAV that is very capable of S&R missions. They use it daily in Iraq and Afghanistan doing many missions beyond typical S&R. One person is all it takes to carry, assemble, fly, and maintain a Raven. It operates on renewable power... batteries. It has optical cameras as well as IR for night searches. It is quite indestructible too.

The majority of flight time in Iraq is done by Unmanned Aircraft. 53% to be exact for FY07. Trust me, I've seen the slides in weekly meetings. :D

Unmanned aircraft repeatedly report higher operational readiness numbers than manned aircraft.

And this is just one type of UAV.

[kd7ost]

There are times where small low cost UAV's provide information that would not normally be fourth coming. In my Ag work the exact same concept applies. Yes you can get the same images from a full scale plane, but that would limit the end users from having access. While it's true that flying a global hawk is not cheaper than manned on forest fires, it is also true that flying a modified model plane (small UAV) is more cost effective in short ranges than hiring a Cessna. It depends on the critical nature of the reason for use as well. Lost child, pull out the stops and get a helicopter in the air. Minor or unknown HAZMAT spills on the freeway, use a powered glider with camera to have a look. Or for continued look after full scale makes an initial assessment. Having the ability to put a small low cost UAV in the air will allow firefighters and police to see situations where they may not get any full scale support. It fills a gap.

It is also much easier to get nadir (Real vertical) photo's from a UAV. Most full scale aircraft are not set up for that unless specially designed FAA approved camera mounting looks through a hole in the fuselage or mounts outside. Not many manned aircraft have that set up. When looking out the window of a plane or helicopter at an oblique angle, you see across the nap on the terrain. Tree's, shrubs, automobiles, buildings, even crops like corn need to be looked straight down upon to see what is in there or just on the other side. (Unless you fly around it and put eyes on it. Once you start to look over it at an angle, you might be looking right at your target and never know it.

I think UAV's should be used in closer range for quick search scenarios especially in remote area’s where manpower is limited but the need for information exceeds what you can get on the ground alone.

Dan

[lvspark]

I only fly model aircraft, so this may not apply to your question, but have used them several times in police and "smaller" fire situations.
Biggest thing that stood out in my use was I could buzz around a situation snapping pics, with the guy on the ground telling me at the same time exactly what he wanted to see, then land, view pics on laptop and print for distribution or planning purposes all within a couple minutes. Most of all the same could be done with manned aircraft except for getting the pics on the ground in such a timely manner. O.k. maybe a heli could get the pics on the ground as fast, but there goes the cost factor.. Also a small electric rc plane is not as disruptive to ground operations or local residents.
Quick
Quiet
Cheap
Effective

[CenTexFlyer]

Having been on several hundred searches using our Spectra UA, I'd be happy to compare costs with full size. We also fly wildland fires providing realtime forward observation for the IC, leaving the full size aircraft to the job they do so well.... dropping fire retardant or water.

Contrary to what many of those pilots think, we are not trying to take their jobs. We are trying to allow them the focus to do their job.

[dalbert02]

@ centex - yes, please, anything you could send me would be appreciated. I got your email and will reply. I could not write back yesterday as I was working 24hr shift

@ghee-gross, I have been to many NDIA seminars when working as a contractor for MICOM project based in Redstone. Any slides, pics, or anything you wish to share that I could use to help support my mission? albertd AT miamidade DOT gov Thanks!

@Dan, I value your expience and accomplishments. Thank you very kindly for your thoughts and opinions.

@lvspark, any pics of fires you could share? See email above. Thank you!

I have been given the tentative go ahead with my project. I am in contact with Miami Dade PD who will be testing a Honeywell MAV this summer. I am torn between a cheap tethered balloon to prove a concept and eliminate the COA hassle and going with a more robust system. A UAV that can do real work will need to be untethered and require the elusive COA.

Thank you everyone,

-dave

[ghee-grose]

I will email you what I can Dave.

The Honeywell MAV huh... I've seen that dude fly a few times. It's a nice concept for its purpose. The Army (FCS, Future Combat Systems to be exact) is going with a newer version of the MAV... now called the G-MAV.

The MAV has been fielded and is the war in Iraq... being used by 25ID, Stryker guys.

[gwenhastings]

Hi all
I have started a new topic thread in FPV to develop design and operational guidelines for Public Safety FPV/UAV operations as an adjunct to other Public Safety Air Operations.

Police and Fire ops are both slated to be covered.

All guidelines/designs developed there under will be licensed under Creative Commons or GPL licensing to insure their availability to all without cost.

I invite ALL constructive comments, advice, experiences EXCEPT for those of the kind of "its NOT allowed".

(to answer that question,FAA/FCC operations waivers WILL be applied for when air experimentation advances to more than hobby type airworthiness/equipment checks or equipment evaluations.)


And to answer the question of why UAV than manned craft for fire/public safety observation/planning?(besides the budgetary concerns/comparison for operational costs and losses)

a FPV/UAV instead of a manned craft frees up manned craft(generally a very scarce resource for most municipalities) for actual rescues and means a lessened risk of injuries/death for service personel, ie I certainly dont care if a UAV is lost, it hurts the pocket book only!

I care very much about loss of human life however and want to see the use of FPV/UAV(s) for public safety operations where feasible.

As to cost concerns I believe the FPV/UAV should be slow enough/ low enough in mass/rugged enough to handle landing by deliberately stalling/crashing into the ground from 2-3 ft in altitude. Think a amped up Pocket Combat Wing(Edgerc) or a Continental Locust(again by EdgeRC)(flying foam block) or mini zagi type designs.

Extremely field repairable materials such as EPP, Elapor/Arcell that can be repaired with not more than a heat gun, boiling water, or a hot melt glue gun should take precedence here. the flying component of the system should have a cost of no more than 1k(not 30k) to manufacture/fabricate by RC hobbyist types.

kind regards
gwen hastings
ps my guidelines WONT be developed in time for your request and your input/needs could be quite valuable for the intent of those guidelines(as well as the input of other .gov users).

[mlbco]

Ghee-grose,

I agree that the military has an entirely definition of cost and utility than almost any other potential UAV user. Very few non-military users can afford to toss Ravens into the dirt at $30K per aircraft regardless of how "indestructible" they are. The Army cost model has little bearing on other applications when the mighty US taxpayer funded DOD budget is not available. I would not base a realistic business model on any claims from the battlefield, because the true costs are almost impossible to discern from the released data.

In my work I often hear about the official public statements regarding military UAV performance vs the actual experience on the ground. I have no doubt that UAVs have made a big difference in warfare. I doubt most of the claims for official release on how cost effective the UAVs have been because the real stories are normally not told in public in anything less than the best possible light. I have many foreign customers who are more open in their assessments and have been burned when purchasing multi-million dollar UAV systems that fail to live up to their claims. Here's a recent example from Canada where a well established system isn't really performing well and has resulted in confusion over whether to lease or buy a replacement:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=295985

Either way, the customer pays a hefty bill.

Steve

[ghee-grose]

Dave, you may be thinking about the accident that happened here in Alabama. A hiker/hunter was lost in the Bankhead National Forest. They chose to assist the search with a Med-Flight helicopter. It got dark, the helicopter was operating with a search light, they got too low and the tail rotor clipped a tree and it spun in... killing the crew of 3. The hiker/hunter was found alive.

This was a sad case because they shouldn't have been in the air doing that search. No S&R dog teams were even called in to do the initial search. Instead they send in a Med-Flight chopper...not a good call on that one.



This accident was pretty costly... not just with greenbacks either.