Unmanned drone midair with C-130
09-16-2011, 02:39 PM
#21
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,044
Are you really basing your argument of what sense-and-avoid is based solely on gearjerk's post? I know that's internet forum standard, but really???? Did you notice the part of my post about these arguments based on emotion? People's distrust of the FAA is high, but are they that bad? No one is basing sense-and-avoid on TCAS, there is a difference in incorporating TCAS and RA resolution into sense-and-avoid and TCAS being the basis of sense-and-avoid.
In case you don't recognize, sense-and-avoid is a capability not a system. Sense-and-avoid certification will be based on mathematical probabilities and any sense-and-avoid will have to avoid midairs to at least the same standard as is currently available in manned aviation (BTW - it's currently not 100.0000000%). A certifiable system will have to be able to reduce the risk of a midair collision to a 10 to the negative something chance and it will likely take a combination of systems to make that happen.
In case you don't recognize, sense-and-avoid is a capability not a system. Sense-and-avoid certification will be based on mathematical probabilities and any sense-and-avoid will have to avoid midairs to at least the same standard as is currently available in manned aviation (BTW - it's currently not 100.0000000%). A certifiable system will have to be able to reduce the risk of a midair collision to a 10 to the negative something chance and it will likely take a combination of systems to make that happen.
Given the state of current technology, any sense-and-avoid will have to be based on something better than today's transponders...not all airplanes have them and many that do have old, barely functioning equipment.
I'm OK with a probability based criteria, but it has to be based on the WORST case, not the best case, or the average case.
The best case would be an airliner with new equipment which functions perfectly. The worst case would be an old biplane with no electrical system.
But if you use the average, the airliners would skew it so that a low-end GA with little or no transponder could be deep in the danger zone and his risk would be masked by all the airliners.
You cannot use transponder as part of the calculation because not everyone has it, and only high-end turbine aircraft have antennas to cover all quadrants.
I'm familiar with sense-and-avoid concepts but not aware of any which are ready for prime time.
09-16-2011, 08:43 PM
#22
Eats shoots and leaves...
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Didactic Synthetic Aviation Experience Provider
Posts: 849
After skimming all of this, I'll compromise.
I'm OK with sharing the airspace with unmanned drones on one small condition:
There is a device attached to the operator's station which immediate kills them if they have a midair. Bullet through the head, electrocution, decapitation, or crushed by a 10,000 pound weight (Wile E. Coyote - style), whatever. If I have to risk death from an incompetent operator, then they need to have the same chips on the table.
Takers?
I'm OK with sharing the airspace with unmanned drones on one small condition:
There is a device attached to the operator's station which immediate kills them if they have a midair. Bullet through the head, electrocution, decapitation, or crushed by a 10,000 pound weight (Wile E. Coyote - style), whatever. If I have to risk death from an incompetent operator, then they need to have the same chips on the table.
Takers?
09-16-2011, 11:25 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
They take all of the worst case examples to include mean time between failure, interdependencies, detection size limitations, detection range, probability of detection, closure rates, etc. of the individual systems and figure out the cumulative odds. Unfortunately, because the standard pilot response is "just say no" or some variant of bcrosier's response (which has no bearing on the real world no matter how many takers sign up on this board), pilot's are not involved in the process. In most every RPA in NAS discussion I have had, I've been the only pilot in the room - engineers and bureaucrats are making these decisions, and they are not under the impression that pilots own the NAS. Crazy, huh? It doesn't even strike tham as odd that pilots aren't represented. Since pilot's don't have a "no" vote, it's my opinion that they better be involved in what the "yes" requirements are.
09-17-2011, 03:54 AM
#24
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,044
They take all of the worst case examples to include mean time between failure, interdependencies, detection size limitations, detection range, probability of detection, closure rates, etc. of the individual systems and figure out the cumulative odds. Unfortunately, because the standard pilot response is "just say no" or some variant of bcrosier's response (which has no bearing on the real world no matter how many takers sign up on this board), pilot's are not involved in the process. In most every RPA in NAS discussion I have had, I've been the only pilot in the room - engineers and bureaucrats are making these decisions, and they are not under the impression that pilots own the NAS. Crazy, huh? It doesn't even strike tham as odd that pilots aren't represented. Since pilot's don't have a "no" vote, it's my opinion that they better be involved in what the "yes" requirements are.
And us pilots have a ace in the hole. Our old nemesis the the media and the ignoramus public can be easily stirred into an emotional frenzy over this issue. They already view drones as part of a black CIA assassination conspiracy (which just this one time happens to be true
RPA's can eventually be flown in the NAS but they are going to need a real see-avoid-avoid system (whether it be based on EO, short-range radar, sonar, ESP, or white witchcraft doesn't really matter). It will need several features:
1) 360-degree protection. I know, all manned airplanes don't have that but some do and you may as well build it in from the start.
2) Automatic RA response (not dependent on the operator).
3) Cannot depend on systems on other aircraft, must be 100% self-contained. TCAS can be MEL-ed on an airliner, but that does not cause the cockpit windshields to black out. "their TCAS was MEL'ed" is not going to be acceptable excuse for an RPA pilot to take down an airliner "Ooops, crap man I can't believe that happened. Well, I'm gonna shut down now I gotta pick up the kids from daycare and then go shopping with my wife. I'll do the paperwork on Monday. Have a good weekend bro!"
I suspect such a system will need 360 degree (possibly scanning) EO and radar to account for IMC conditions. The EO would be a backup/supplement to the radar...it would not be acceptable to be single-point-safe on one sensing system while in manned airspace.
If you're a pilot and you start hearing about the RPA industry working to "massage" statistics to make transponder-based see-and-avoid look safe you had better start paying careful attention.
09-17-2011, 08:02 AM
#25
On Reserve
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: Free Agent in 2012 Pilot Draft
Posts: 19
Thanks for your rational thoughts!
When a F-16 shows up overhead, the guy on the ground doesn't get a warm fuzzy because someone is in that aircraft; he gets a warm fuzzy because there's a bomb or two hanging from the bottom of the aircraft. Given a consistent level of support, the guy on the ground wouldn't care about where the pilot sat as long as the weapons consistently get where they are supposed to when they are supposed to. The same goes to domestic RPA. As a matter of fact, due to endurance, difficulty of detection, etc, the RPA would become the preferred alternative given the same level of support. Technology is rapidly achieving a equivalent level of support.
... HogDriver, my experience says that you are overstating your claim. While HATRs are filed every day, HATRs involving USAF RPA that were solely the fault of the USAF RPA are exceedingly rare (I've done the research). What's the wrong freq in your story? In the stack, they're up either ROZ control, ISR coord, or fires as the situation warrants (or all three - trust me, JTACs and FSOs don't let RPAs fly around in the ROZ with no comms). In the stack, they are also assigned one altitude (not a block), fly that altitude with altitude hold on, and most often have to exit the stack to climb/descend - it's usually the fighter that's blowing through the RPA altitude. Outside the stack, they are monitoring the assigned CRC freq and may/may not talk on the freq based on restrictions from the controlling authority. In ALL cases, they are up with CRC and several other agencies on mIRC. Also in ALL cases, they are in contact with the appropriate agencies even though those agencies may or may not be the agencies you are in contact with - sometimes it's the SPINS or controlling agency policy to split control. Just because they supposedly weren't on the freq you would have liked, they weren't necessarily on the wrong freq. Additionally, the USAF RPA squawk all modes and they have both overt and covert external marking equipment. Tankers nearly being hit by fighters are still much more prevalent than fighters nearly being hit by RPA. If you'd like to point me to the HATRs you refer to, I'll send you my SIPR address.
...while I agree that gearjerk's ability to articulate his position is limited..
...The technology is not dangerous, the technology operated by under-qualified personnel is, and pilots have given up this scope to those under-qualified personnel. Unfortunately, the Army is pushing for flying NCOs and the USAF is going to 18XX's, all with no previous flying experience. While I doubt the veracity of HogDriver's story, I do not doubt that the quickness of traditional pilots to eschew the technology will lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. As non-pilots operate aircraft, the risk goes up no matter where the operator sits. Yes, a non-pilot is dangerous even if he's sitting in the cockpit.
..This is a technology, policy, and procedure problem that needs to be solved with reason, not emotion.
... HogDriver, my experience says that you are overstating your claim. While HATRs are filed every day, HATRs involving USAF RPA that were solely the fault of the USAF RPA are exceedingly rare (I've done the research). What's the wrong freq in your story? In the stack, they're up either ROZ control, ISR coord, or fires as the situation warrants (or all three - trust me, JTACs and FSOs don't let RPAs fly around in the ROZ with no comms). In the stack, they are also assigned one altitude (not a block), fly that altitude with altitude hold on, and most often have to exit the stack to climb/descend - it's usually the fighter that's blowing through the RPA altitude. Outside the stack, they are monitoring the assigned CRC freq and may/may not talk on the freq based on restrictions from the controlling authority. In ALL cases, they are up with CRC and several other agencies on mIRC. Also in ALL cases, they are in contact with the appropriate agencies even though those agencies may or may not be the agencies you are in contact with - sometimes it's the SPINS or controlling agency policy to split control. Just because they supposedly weren't on the freq you would have liked, they weren't necessarily on the wrong freq. Additionally, the USAF RPA squawk all modes and they have both overt and covert external marking equipment. Tankers nearly being hit by fighters are still much more prevalent than fighters nearly being hit by RPA. If you'd like to point me to the HATRs you refer to, I'll send you my SIPR address.
...while I agree that gearjerk's ability to articulate his position is limited..
...The technology is not dangerous, the technology operated by under-qualified personnel is, and pilots have given up this scope to those under-qualified personnel. Unfortunately, the Army is pushing for flying NCOs and the USAF is going to 18XX's, all with no previous flying experience. While I doubt the veracity of HogDriver's story, I do not doubt that the quickness of traditional pilots to eschew the technology will lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. As non-pilots operate aircraft, the risk goes up no matter where the operator sits. Yes, a non-pilot is dangerous even if he's sitting in the cockpit.
..This is a technology, policy, and procedure problem that needs to be solved with reason, not emotion.
I thank you for your rational and well thought out arguments. I've taken some of the quotes from your posts and will address them from my viewpoint.
As far as a a guy on the ground getting a warm fuzzy from any aircraft with bombs overhead, I have to disagree. (Any ALOs or JTACs out there feel free to weigh in on this) Two weeks ago I was chatting with two JTACs in my squadron's bar about their recent experiences downrange. They said, in a nutshell, that they would much rather have manned aircraft overhead, but did acknowledge the UAV's limited abilities in the absence of manned aircraft. There are just things that a UAV pilot can't see. For example, a pilot can look outside and quickly see a white phosphorous mark from a JTAC (FAC(A) or impacts from another aircraft's weapons) without the need for the JTAC to derive high fidelity coordinates to slave the sensors to. When the guy on the ground is literally fighting for his life, and screaming on the radio for support, the UAV's need for specific data can be a big limfac.
My claim of number of near mid-airs is not an exaggeration. (Although I encourage the 10% truth requirement for all pilot stories!) We rarely filed HATRs with the UAVs, although I wish we would have more often. We would typically just call the JTAC or ASOC after we landed and give them the old, What the [bleep], over? They happened in all sorts of situations but the most infuriating times were when my formation was tasked to a specific area, with a specific JTAC, on a specific frequency, from the ATO, and inside an active ROZ. Nothing like hearing your young wingman say on the radio, with frustration and anger in his voice, "Holy [bleep], there's a [bleep]ing Pred here!" Me to JTAC- "Hey, do you know about a pred here?" Jtac-"Nope, let us check" Two minutes later they checked on the JTAC's freq. YGBSM. That's just one of my stories; I can't tell you how many times guys walked into Ops after a sortie saying "[bleep]ing Preds", followed with a similar story. The ability to deconflict ourselves from UAVs has improved somewhat with the availability of datalink, but I don't rely on it yet. You never know when some UAV has gone lost link and is flying who knows where with little regard for what is in front of it.
I agree with your statement that the technology used in the hands of under qualified people makes it dangerous. I really don't like the current model we are using to train these folks. The new ones get a very limited exposure to actual flight. I would like to see a squadron of T-6s assigned to each UAV base so that pilots could go get some air under their butts, but that seems unlikely. Even the most experienced pilots, plucked from the seats of pointy nose jets, are likely to have their airmenship skills deteriorate, and possibly become unknowingly complacent, without getting into a no-kidding airplane from time to time. For me, this is the cornerstone of my dis-trust with UAVs.
I hope that this thread causes gear-jerk to go back to his UAV unit in outrage about some ignorant (or is it arrogant..probably both) a-hole pilot that thinks UAVs are not safe. Maybe it will start a discussion in UAV units about the rest of the world's UAV concerns and ways to address them, making all of us a bit safer.
Good flying!
09-17-2011, 11:45 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
Rickair, pilots will not get a vote, the bureaucrats will. Pilots will, as citizens equal to any other concerned individual, get to express their concerns and opinions to those bureaucrats through the NPRM process (maybe). Rest assured, you don't have a vote. You especially don't have a vote if you approach the process with your demands vs a willingness to contribute in a reasonable (as viewed by them) manner. Also, did you forget about the multitudes of large corporations, government agencies, law enforcement agencies, politicians who want jobs and manufacturing facilities in their district, etc who will mobilize on the other side?
Hog, note that I specifically did not reference the Hog in my example. While I have personally had discussions with several JTACs who have gotten to the point where they can think of many situations where they'd rather have a MQ-9 with a competent crew overhead than an F-16 (loiter time, persistent PID maintenance until a trigger is met, smaller chance of detection in rural environments, etc), I have yet to meet one who will trade away an A-10. However; when the technology exists to give an RPA of some form the same exact capabilities as an A-10 and the platform becomes proven and accepted, it to will begin to see favor amongst the troops. Even now, there are plenty of bad guys who are dead ONLY because they had an RPA over them; there are many examples of bad guys that were killed by A-10's only because an RPA was overhead to validate triggers or give point-outs to the Hog. No one asset is the end all be all in today's war with today's ROE, etc - even the Hog.
Unfortunately, while there are still limitations to the RPA (it's still only ground floor), many of the current capability advances they are getting are being negated by who the USAF is putting in these platforms. A capabilities increase brought on by an avionics/engine/weapons upgrade to the Hog would go unrecognized on the ground and under-utilized in battle if the USAF suddenly decided to lower the qualifications who sits in the seat of an A-10. Let's recognize that a JTAC, etc only has to be burned one time by an RPA crew for them to be hesitant to resort to any RPA for a very long time. In my discussions, I have discovered that EVERY RPA is a predator, even to the guys in theater.
As far as those HATRs that aren't filed, the lack of filing a HATR endangers operations as much as the RPA operations themselves. If there really is a problem out there, it can only be solved if the scope can be known and the cause can be determined. Unfortunately, word of mouth and anecdotes don't do a thing. Most leadership in the USAF is under the impression that the risk of mid-air with USAF RPA is not much greater than between manned assets given current operating restrictions (risk matrix when deciding to grant Mode waivers, increased separation requirements, etc). I actually do try to find these incidents because I need data to advocate solutions that are operational-based rather than A1-based such as the 18XX program. My job would be easier with such data because I could gain more momentum.
I have chased down plenty of "pred" incidents that turned out to be another platform such as the Army Grey Eagle. If there are legitimate threats to aviation in theater, they must be characterized; my "educated" opinion after trying to chase down and prove the actual level of risk for a very long time is that I can't find that many JTACs or pilots that have actually had that many close calls with USAF RPA. There certainly are USAF RPA incidents out there and I have validated a few of them, but about 80% of the often quoted "a HATR a day" incidents turned out to be Army or small RPAs or controller/manned asset error. It's always easy to blame "the RPA" for any incident. For example, your ROZ story - USAF RPA contact the ROZ controller long before they get close to the ROZ and do not switch to the JTAC until directed by the FSO/ROZ controller (their rules, not the USAF's). In controlled airspace, the controlling agency doesn't let the RPA get close to the ROZ without clearance into the ROZ from the owner (RPA are in contact with several controlling agencies at once at all times). If they occupy your altitude upon ROZ entry, the ROZ controller gave them the wrong rundown because he and the JTAC are not on the same page, etc. - that is a more common occurrence than you'd think. If we are to convince the Army to have the RPA contact the JTAC first, we need the data to prove the requirement to do so.
Basically, it comes down to what everyone wants. If they want to just bag on RPA, they will feel happy and nothing will get done because the data to force change will never be presented. If they want solutions, they will research each incident and ensure that the proper authorities are aware so real, effective, and lasting solutions can be found.
Hog, note that I specifically did not reference the Hog in my example. While I have personally had discussions with several JTACs who have gotten to the point where they can think of many situations where they'd rather have a MQ-9 with a competent crew overhead than an F-16 (loiter time, persistent PID maintenance until a trigger is met, smaller chance of detection in rural environments, etc), I have yet to meet one who will trade away an A-10. However; when the technology exists to give an RPA of some form the same exact capabilities as an A-10 and the platform becomes proven and accepted, it to will begin to see favor amongst the troops. Even now, there are plenty of bad guys who are dead ONLY because they had an RPA over them; there are many examples of bad guys that were killed by A-10's only because an RPA was overhead to validate triggers or give point-outs to the Hog. No one asset is the end all be all in today's war with today's ROE, etc - even the Hog.
Unfortunately, while there are still limitations to the RPA (it's still only ground floor), many of the current capability advances they are getting are being negated by who the USAF is putting in these platforms. A capabilities increase brought on by an avionics/engine/weapons upgrade to the Hog would go unrecognized on the ground and under-utilized in battle if the USAF suddenly decided to lower the qualifications who sits in the seat of an A-10. Let's recognize that a JTAC, etc only has to be burned one time by an RPA crew for them to be hesitant to resort to any RPA for a very long time. In my discussions, I have discovered that EVERY RPA is a predator, even to the guys in theater.
As far as those HATRs that aren't filed, the lack of filing a HATR endangers operations as much as the RPA operations themselves. If there really is a problem out there, it can only be solved if the scope can be known and the cause can be determined. Unfortunately, word of mouth and anecdotes don't do a thing. Most leadership in the USAF is under the impression that the risk of mid-air with USAF RPA is not much greater than between manned assets given current operating restrictions (risk matrix when deciding to grant Mode waivers, increased separation requirements, etc). I actually do try to find these incidents because I need data to advocate solutions that are operational-based rather than A1-based such as the 18XX program. My job would be easier with such data because I could gain more momentum.
I have chased down plenty of "pred" incidents that turned out to be another platform such as the Army Grey Eagle. If there are legitimate threats to aviation in theater, they must be characterized; my "educated" opinion after trying to chase down and prove the actual level of risk for a very long time is that I can't find that many JTACs or pilots that have actually had that many close calls with USAF RPA. There certainly are USAF RPA incidents out there and I have validated a few of them, but about 80% of the often quoted "a HATR a day" incidents turned out to be Army or small RPAs or controller/manned asset error. It's always easy to blame "the RPA" for any incident. For example, your ROZ story - USAF RPA contact the ROZ controller long before they get close to the ROZ and do not switch to the JTAC until directed by the FSO/ROZ controller (their rules, not the USAF's). In controlled airspace, the controlling agency doesn't let the RPA get close to the ROZ without clearance into the ROZ from the owner (RPA are in contact with several controlling agencies at once at all times). If they occupy your altitude upon ROZ entry, the ROZ controller gave them the wrong rundown because he and the JTAC are not on the same page, etc. - that is a more common occurrence than you'd think. If we are to convince the Army to have the RPA contact the JTAC first, we need the data to prove the requirement to do so.
Basically, it comes down to what everyone wants. If they want to just bag on RPA, they will feel happy and nothing will get done because the data to force change will never be presented. If they want solutions, they will research each incident and ensure that the proper authorities are aware so real, effective, and lasting solutions can be found.
09-18-2011, 08:33 AM
#27
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,044
RPA took off so fast because it was created mostly by aviation outsiders who had a git er done attitude, enabled by wartime expediency and funding. The fact that most of the operations have been conducted in a combat zone further helped to sideline normal niceties such as safety and oversight.
But if you're going to grow up and play with the big boys, you're going to have to learn to play by the rules. Massaging some numbers and "calling it good" is not going to work in the domestic NAS. And you're not going to get to carve out millions of square miles of restricted airspace either.
I'm not negative about RPA's at all, my most most convenient aviation-fallback job would be in that industry and they are certainly useful for my current military project. But the industry is not going to grow on the civilian side unless some problems are solved. And to be honest I have met some RPA folks (industry, military, and drivers) who really don't get the fact that they cannot simply bluster their way into domestic airspace...a lot of over confidence based on past success in the sandbox and gross conceptual errors regarding the complexities of the NAS. You don't have to take my word for it... time will tell.
But if you're going to grow up and play with the big boys, you're going to have to learn to play by the rules. Massaging some numbers and "calling it good" is not going to work in the domestic NAS. And you're not going to get to carve out millions of square miles of restricted airspace either.
I'm not negative about RPA's at all, my most most convenient aviation-fallback job would be in that industry and they are certainly useful for my current military project. But the industry is not going to grow on the civilian side unless some problems are solved. And to be honest I have met some RPA folks (industry, military, and drivers) who really don't get the fact that they cannot simply bluster their way into domestic airspace...a lot of over confidence based on past success in the sandbox and gross conceptual errors regarding the complexities of the NAS. You don't have to take my word for it... time will tell.
09-18-2011, 02:42 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
.....And to be honest I have met some RPA folks (industry, military, and drivers) who really don't get the fact that they cannot simply bluster their way into domestic airspace...a lot of over confidence based on past success in the sandbox and gross conceptual errors regarding the complexities of the NAS. You don't have to take my word for it... time will tell.
Right now, industry includes GA, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing among others - I don't think they mistakenly "bluster" into anything. Military and drivers?????? - I doubt you have interacted with the MAJCOM and HQ staffs working the interagency issues. As far as the "drivers" go, they are mostly focused on the driving. By and large, NAS operations are not on their mind right now. How easy it is to quote your "experience" with these individuals and their motivations on an internet forum.
FWIW, I am not involved in getting RPA into the NAS; but my job in the USAF has me overlap with those that are and I have had to interact with those guys in an official capacity. I believe that all engaged players are VERY MUCH aware of the processes involved despite your characterization. Since it is not FAA's mandate to PREVENT anything from flying in the NAS (they determine the safety requirements of what does fly), it is only a matter of time.
09-18-2011, 03:50 PM
#29
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,044
You're right about one thing, I don't have to take your word. First, this board will solve nothing. Second, I highly doubt that you have had any significant interaction with "RPA folks (industry, military, and drivers)" outside of this board or anyone, for that matter, actively engaged in opening NAS for RPA, especially when we restrict our concerns with medium to large RPA.
Right now, industry includes GA, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing among others - I don't think they mistakenly "bluster" into anything. Military and drivers?????? - I doubt you have interacted with the MAJCOM and HQ staffs working the interagency issues. As far as the "drivers" go, they are mostly focused on the driving. By and large, NAS operations are not on their mind right now. How easy it is to quote your "experience" with these individuals and their motivations on an internet forum.
FWIW, I am not involved in getting RPA into the NAS; but my job in the USAF has me overlap with those that are and I have had to interact with those guys in an official capacity. I believe that all engaged players are VERY MUCH aware of the processes involved despite your characterization. Since it is not FAA's mandate to PREVENT anything from flying in the NAS (they determine the safety requirements of what does fly), it is only a matter of time.
Right now, industry includes GA, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing among others - I don't think they mistakenly "bluster" into anything. Military and drivers?????? - I doubt you have interacted with the MAJCOM and HQ staffs working the interagency issues. As far as the "drivers" go, they are mostly focused on the driving. By and large, NAS operations are not on their mind right now. How easy it is to quote your "experience" with these individuals and their motivations on an internet forum.
FWIW, I am not involved in getting RPA into the NAS; but my job in the USAF has me overlap with those that are and I have had to interact with those guys in an official capacity. I believe that all engaged players are VERY MUCH aware of the processes involved despite your characterization. Since it is not FAA's mandate to PREVENT anything from flying in the NAS (they determine the safety requirements of what does fly), it is only a matter of time.
Unlike yourself I'm not directly involved with the white house working to bringing RPAs to the NAS, but I am on staff at a large COCOM which is up to it's ears in RPA, and have done consulting for the flights ops sector of the UAV industry. So I'm in certainly in a position to have an informed opinion. You don't have to agree with it but don't tell me I'm talking out of my butt. Your buddy Gearjerk is the one who's doing that.
The reason I jumped into this in the first place was because gearjerk was spouting off...with all of your credentials, you should recognize that for what it is
If you actually agree with him, well then I start to wonder about your alleged experience...are you implying that you're a military officer, maybe a senior one? Really?But you're right, nothing will get solved here. Out.
09-18-2011, 05:42 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
I am not involved in transitioning RPA operations into the NAS - my current role gives me the opportunity to interact with those that are. I was actually concerned when I discovered that, as I looked back over several interactions with them, I was the only pilot represented. I was the only person challenging certain aspects such as their belief that there should be even more transition to automation and away from pilot in the loop, etc. Despite the belief otherwise, they have the data that automation equals more reliability - if it weren't so, there wouldn't be a transition to all of this flight deck automation and fly-by-wire on manned aircraft. Unlike that analogy I used where doctors are at the forefront of the adaptation of new technology, in this case pilots are not - they have deferred to the engineers and bureaucrats because RPA are beneath them as far as I can tell.
It is notable that I have yet to advocate RPA operations in the NAS, the mere fact that I don't jump on the bandwagon of "no, you can't do that" apparently makes me an advocate. Strange me for thinking that a rational approach to this concept is warranted because the ideological naysayers will be relegated to the sidelines. My comments have always been focused on ONLY the METHOD that people, including groups such as ALPA, have elected to respond to the concept. I scoff the fantasyland opinion that this is the time for pilot groups to "just say no". On every other issue such as Age 65, etc. the mantra has been "we have to be a player to be relevant", but that doesn't apply here? On something so critical, all relevant parties had better stay engaged in productive ways in order to ensure that their concerns are incorporated.
Rickair, I like how you say "that if you say it's fact, it is". When able I support my statements with verifiable facts other than someone else's uninformed post. They are always available to be challenged. My motivations on this thread are the same as they often are on other threads - I see people throw out uninformed opinion and call it fact with nothing to back it up. Opinion is actually OK when it's thoughtful and expressed as opinion. But, when it is alleged to be fact, I like to play fact-checker. For example....
It seemed to me that you were basing your one post entirely on gearjerk's claims that GA was going with a TCAS-based approach, that's not fact. You supposedly consult to the RPA industry, but you did not comment on any of the ACTUAL sense-and-avoid solutions being considered? You work for the COCOM, but you said that RPA operations were totally unsafe in theater, that's not fact. As a matter of fact, the COCOMs don't think that's fact either. The COCOMs focus on getting as much ISR and keeping as much ISR in theater as possible - even RPA ISR. I doubt your "consulting" to the COCOM involves actual RPA operations because they don't really care how it's done as much as they care that it is done. The COCOM has nothing to do with how RPA fly in their theater, it's up to the MAJCOMs to make the actual RPA operations happen. The ability to throw out acronyms only makes you look like an expert to those who don't know better. Etc, etc, etc....
As far as agreeing with gearjerk's post, I don't think so; I didn't respond to his post directly because it wasn't a contribution to the discussion at hand as much as it was an attempt to incite.
Sorry to rain on your parade. It's funny that, for a topic supposedly so critical to the safety of aviation (according to even some on this board and groups like ALPA), no one is willing to engage further than: repeating rumors as fact, using inappropriate examples as a basis of why they are correct, and making statements that infer that they "own" or have exclusive rights to the NAS. Unfortunately, every one of those arguments will be easily overcome by the advocates.
Copy, you're out - bon voyage. These threads usually die out anyway when it devolves into facts and reasonable discussion anyway. Not to worry, there are plenty of other unsubstantiated rant threads on this board.
It is notable that I have yet to advocate RPA operations in the NAS, the mere fact that I don't jump on the bandwagon of "no, you can't do that" apparently makes me an advocate. Strange me for thinking that a rational approach to this concept is warranted because the ideological naysayers will be relegated to the sidelines. My comments have always been focused on ONLY the METHOD that people, including groups such as ALPA, have elected to respond to the concept. I scoff the fantasyland opinion that this is the time for pilot groups to "just say no". On every other issue such as Age 65, etc. the mantra has been "we have to be a player to be relevant", but that doesn't apply here? On something so critical, all relevant parties had better stay engaged in productive ways in order to ensure that their concerns are incorporated.
Rickair, I like how you say "that if you say it's fact, it is". When able I support my statements with verifiable facts other than someone else's uninformed post. They are always available to be challenged. My motivations on this thread are the same as they often are on other threads - I see people throw out uninformed opinion and call it fact with nothing to back it up. Opinion is actually OK when it's thoughtful and expressed as opinion. But, when it is alleged to be fact, I like to play fact-checker. For example....
It seemed to me that you were basing your one post entirely on gearjerk's claims that GA was going with a TCAS-based approach, that's not fact. You supposedly consult to the RPA industry, but you did not comment on any of the ACTUAL sense-and-avoid solutions being considered? You work for the COCOM, but you said that RPA operations were totally unsafe in theater, that's not fact. As a matter of fact, the COCOMs don't think that's fact either. The COCOMs focus on getting as much ISR and keeping as much ISR in theater as possible - even RPA ISR. I doubt your "consulting" to the COCOM involves actual RPA operations because they don't really care how it's done as much as they care that it is done. The COCOM has nothing to do with how RPA fly in their theater, it's up to the MAJCOMs to make the actual RPA operations happen. The ability to throw out acronyms only makes you look like an expert to those who don't know better. Etc, etc, etc....
As far as agreeing with gearjerk's post, I don't think so; I didn't respond to his post directly because it wasn't a contribution to the discussion at hand as much as it was an attempt to incite.
Sorry to rain on your parade. It's funny that, for a topic supposedly so critical to the safety of aviation (according to even some on this board and groups like ALPA), no one is willing to engage further than: repeating rumors as fact, using inappropriate examples as a basis of why they are correct, and making statements that infer that they "own" or have exclusive rights to the NAS. Unfortunately, every one of those arguments will be easily overcome by the advocates.
Copy, you're out - bon voyage. These threads usually die out anyway when it devolves into facts and reasonable discussion anyway. Not to worry, there are plenty of other unsubstantiated rant threads on this board.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
