Slashdot Log In
Unmanned Aircraft Pose US Airspace Problems
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Sat May 17, 2008 07:29 AM
from the just-what-we-need-more-governmental-bodies dept.
from the just-what-we-need-more-governmental-bodies dept.
coondoggie writes to tell us that congressional watchdogs have called on Congress to create a body within the FAA to oversee unmanned aircraft development and integration. The group cited the rapidly growing unmanned aircraft community and is worried about the possible repercussions. "The GAO also called on the FAA to work with the Department of Defense, which has extensive unmanned aircraft experience, to issue its program plan. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assesses the security implications of routine unmanned aircraft access to commercial airspace, the GAO said. Even if all issues are addressed, and there are a number of critical problems, unmanned aircraft may not receive routine access to the national airspace system until 2020, the GAO concluded."
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: First All-Drone USAF Air Wing 242 comments
bfwebster writes "Strategy Page reports that the United States Air Force has announced its first air wing that will consist entirely of unmanned craft. The 174th Fighter Wing has flown its last manned combat sorties; its F-16s will be entirely replaced by MQ-9 Reapers. Reasons cited include costs (maintenance and fuel) and the drone's ability to stay in the air up to 14 hours, waiting for a target to show itself."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
oh the irony... (Score:5, Interesting)
We have a massive increase in the number of UAV flights. You know, because of the "terrorists". This is (allegedly) primarily to stop "terrorists" getting on board planes and turning them into giant fireballs that will fall on the population.
Now, these same UAV's are in danger of hitting planes and turning them into giant fireballs that will fall on the population.
I ask you, even if you believe in "terrorists", which is more dangerous: "terrorists", or your Government?
Unmanned != Unpiloted (Score:3, Insightful)
There seems to be a tacit assumption in posts thus far that unmanned craft will be flying willy-nilly through the commercial lanes. That's just not the case. UAVs have pilots controlling them through encrypted datalinks. The few that have or are proposed to have "autonomous operation" will do so at altitudes that are far above normal flight levels or in restricted zones. Even during autonomous operations, monitoring is continuous and a crew is standing by to take over flight operations. As far as Air Traffic Control is concerned, UAV in-flight emergencies will be handled just like piloted craft in-flight emergencies. Airspace will be cleared around the disabled or uncontrolled craft.
I'm much more concerned over the modernization of our air traffic control systems, than the impact of UAVs.
Almost the entire airspace is a "commercial lane". (Score:3, Interesting)
Given that practically all airspace in the US, except for very small amounts of restricted and prohibited airspace, is a "commerical lane" by default, your argument is void. UAV's *are* flying "willy-nilly" thru Class G, Class E, and even Class D airspace and it is becoming an topic of serious safety concern for not only general aviation and commercial
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually I do, quite a bit. I design them.
And no, it's not. The autonomy part is fairly easy and the control algorithms already exist.
Autonomy =/= unpiloted. There's still a pilot, the operator still has a stick and a HUD, he just doen't need to continually correct heading, airspeed, pitch, and throttle for changes in wind conditions, updrafts, etc.
Very, very few UAVs will be "un
See & Avoid (Score:4, Informative)
What about Open Source UAVs? (Score:3, Informative)
Given that these are basically toys created by amateurs, it's going to be really hard to regulate them. That's why we want the FAA to create a de minimus regulatory category (under 3 pounds, under 1,000 feet, away from built-up areas, airports, etc), similar to what the FCC did with open access wireless spectrum. Otherwise, we're going to completely kill innovation in the independent commercial sector by creating an impossible regulatory burden.
Re:Security Implications? What Security Implicatio (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Security Implications? What Security Implicatio (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/01/AFpredcrash070126/
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, no I am not.
Unless it provides me with a scan of the immediate surroundings showing all enemies on my minimap.
Re:Security Implications? What Security Implicatio (Score:5, Informative)
Loss of communications. If you lose comms in a manned aircraft, the pilot follows his flight plan as filed until he regains comms or is able to take appropriate action to land safely. If you lose comms with an unmanned aircraft, depending upon its programming, it may or may not follow a flight plan, avoid other aircraft, and/or land safely.
Parent
Re:Security Implications? What Security Implicatio (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's the bullshit security implications. More importantly, though, you'll have unseeing devices sharing airspace with pink squishy things that won't see them (like me). UAV's, by nature, are generally smaller then manned aircraft. That makes them very difficult to see.
Consider the glider pilot. Let's say that he has a transponder. He's not required to, but he does. His transponder fails. Now, he's invisible to the the UAV. His airplane is painted the same color as the clouds (white) because fiberglass and heat don't work well together. His fiberglass airplane is invisible to radar. if the UAV's coming out of the sun, he's never going to see it, and it won't see him. A person would have seen him, but the UAV doesn't have a person looking out all the windows.
How does the military do it? We block off huge chunks of airspace and keep manned aircraft far away from the UAV's. Oh yeah, and the larger UAV's are driven by certified pilots. The Army has folsk who aren't pilots flying the,m, and crashes a *LOT* of them. The idea of joe cop flying a UAV is bad in every imaginable way. People on the ground, people in the air, privacy, it's just a can of worms.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
While they were testing the prototypes for what would become the F-117 lockhead engineers had the model on a stand and were trying to locate the model on radar. Suddenly it showed up clear, when they looked up there was a bird standing on the model. The F-22 has been compared to having the radar cross section of small birds.
Fiberglass is transparent to radar and microwaves though.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Security Implications? What Security Implicatio (Score:4, Funny)
Well, there's your problem right there. We gotta find a way to put metal in them pesky birds. Most people would immediately suggest putting metal in bird feed but I think we need to encourage our winged friends to adopt the fashion trend of body piercing.
Parent
Re:Security Implications? What Security Implicatio (Score:5, Interesting)
The biggest "security implication" perceived by the FAA is interference with air traffic. However, the FAA lumps all UAVs into one category, from the Predator on down to tiny biomimetic dragonflys. This makes it nearly impossible for us to test fly our new products, without hauling a truckload of gear up to the nearest military test range.
And contrary to the belief of many, very few UAVs are armed. Only two US UAVs in operation carry payloads. The rest carry cameras.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Look, its a joke.
The poster was making fun of the possible wordplay that "unmanned" did not necessarily mean robotic, it could have been women flying them. Now comedic timing is a difficult thing. Surely my statement above was not a funny description. The article stated that there was a serious problem with unmanned aircraft so there was already a sense that these unmanned craft were a bad thing because they were unmanned. There's an existing stereotype (certainly from a time when few women drove and rare
Re: (Score:2)
When Martial Law breaks out, you'l be wishing you had made friends with them...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well its kind of like strapping timed bomb to a dog and then dropping him off at the shopping mall. Obviously they aren't going to say "The terrorist dog blew himself up along with the bystanders... Case closed!"
Same thing with a UAV, someone had to build it and someone had to tell it either via programming or remote control to go blow someone up.
Really, its just