Unmanned Aircraft Pose US Airspace Problems

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."

oh the irony...

So let's get this straight...

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

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".

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.

Given that practically all airspace in the US, except for very small amounts of restricted and proh

Re:

If you know much about the state of UAVs these days, research and development is going mainly into autonomous vehicles.

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 exi

See & Avoid

See & Avoid is the process that aircraft in the US use to keep from running into one another. Only a small percentage of aircraft flying in the US at any given time are operated under positive radar control. The rest are all out there with pilots who are on the look out for other aircraft. With a UAV and a manned aircraft in the same area you have only one able to see & avoid. Cutting in half the effectivness of the process.

What about Open Source UAVs?

We run an open source UAV community at DIYDrones [diydrones.com]. We fly under RC rules (under 400 feet, etc) and our aircraft (fixed wing and helis) are typically under 3-4 pounds. We even have some UAVs with Lego Mindstorms autopilots!

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

It might crash (not saying it's more likely to do so than a manned one)

Re:Security Implications? What Security Implicatio

It might crash (not saying it's more likely to do so than a manned one)

A lot of Predators have crashed in both the US and Iraq and Afghanistan. This is probably the main reason these "watchdogs" spoke up. I've heard a big problem with the Predator is that the pilot station likes to randomly reboot during flight. You really feel comfortable with that flying over your house?

More than half of the 90 Predators fielded have been lost, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley said this month. Another Predator crashed Friday in Afghanistan.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/01/AFpredcrash070126/

Re:

You are asking me if I am comfortable with having a 15 meter wide killing machine in my vicinity?

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

Well, assuming they're flying at the same thousands-of-feet altitudes as the other planes, and put in their own paths with nothing intersecting, just like the other planes, and given their own slot for landing in, just like the other planes, what's the big deal?

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.

Re:Security Implications? What Security Implicatio

Let's see ... if you can buy a UAV or overrun the control station, then you can target anyone within the fuel range. You can easily crash into an airliner in takeoff, killing hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people. You cane easily spread chemical weapons, not so easy, but quite plausibly.

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.

Re:

RADAR - Seeing things that are small since like forever man

Re:

I don't have radar. Gliders don't have radar. ATC radar is very dependent on transponders, because they provide better information than raw ("primary") radar returns. If your radar is designed to track cooperative targets that are using transponders, it

Re:

Fibreglass amd carbon fibre reinforced plastic are so transparent to radar that they have been used to keep radar gear out of the weather for years. Gliders, birds, lots of things without metal in them don't show up.

Re:

I hate to tell you but birds by themselves or in flocks do show up on radar.

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

Re:

I hate to tell you but birds by themselves or in flocks do show up on radar.

Indeed. I worked on experimental VHF atmospheric research radars, used to estimate the mass and position of clouds up so several hundred kms away and flocks of migratory birds did show nicely (but we couldn't easily tell between the two).

Re:Security Implications? What Security Implicatio

Fibreglass amd carbon fibre reinforced plastic are ... transparent to radar... Gliders, birds, lots of things without metal in them don't show up.

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.

Re:Security Implications? What Security Implicatio

I work for a small UAV manufacturer that supplies a lot of UAVs to the US military for squad-level reconaissance, and recent rulings have really become a burden on our R&D efforts.

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.

Re:

Yes, but when have you ever known a Federal bureaucracy (or Congress itself, for that matter) to make such fine distinctions. It's a much safer approach (politically speaking) to simply ban/over-regulate everything in a given category and worry about the e

Re:

As a 48 yo grandmother, techie and feminist I find that offensive. I've been a programmer since 1974, mostly writing C code, and I am sick of hearing this garbage. I think you'll find that you are a dinosaur, as most readers are more enlightened than you.

Re:

As a 48 yo grandmother, techie and feminist I find that offensive. I've been a programmer since 1974, mostly writing C code, and I am sick of hearing this garbage. I think you'll find that you are a dinosaur, as most readers are more enlightened than you.

I call shenanigans. Your /. id isn't low enough!

Re:

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. Th

Re:

Mhmm, although its "funny" to laugh at them now, and I agree that its excessive (although its a Gun Show, so thats expected)...

When Martial Law breaks out, you'l be wishing you had made friends with them...

Re:

It's a bunch of adults overseeing children, not a bunch of children just given weapons and told to go have fun.

Re:

while I agree the video is frightning, there is something specific with unmanned vehicules (or aircrafts): who is bearing the legal responsability?

Well its kind of like strapping timed bomb to a dog and then dropping him off at the shopping mall. Obviously