Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Career Builder > Military
Unmanned drone midair with C-130 >

Unmanned drone midair with C-130

Search

Notices
Military Military Aviation

Unmanned drone midair with C-130

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-14-2011, 04:28 AM
  #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
USMCFLYR's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,839
Default Unmanned drone midair with C-130

I was in Killeen TX last week and they were using drones to monitor a fire just north of the town. More examples of the increased use of drones in today's NAS and the potenital for growth in the industry for those seeking employment after leaving the military with experience.

Predator drones go to work on domestic front - latimes.com

USMCFLYR
USMCFLYR is offline  
Old 09-14-2011, 02:28 PM
  #2  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,044
Default

The way this is going to play out...

The FAA, prompted by various special interests, will gradually make regulatory exemptions to "see-and-avoid" requirements rather than mandating a comprehensive (and hideously expensive) techn ical solution.

UAV's will become more common in NAS, right up until one of them creams an airliner, or a bizjet carrying hollywood royalty. Then the whole thing will be set back about 50 years.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 09-14-2011, 05:28 PM
  #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Perm11FO's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: MD11 Kitchen Bi*ch
Posts: 263
Default Umanned drone midair with C-130

With the continuing discussion of using UAVs for a variety of purposes in the skies, the debate on the safety of interfacing unmanned aircraft from manned aircraft rages on.

The government, seeing a way to perform certain missions (drug surveillance, military, etc.) at a significant cost savings says that UAVs are safe and can intermingle with manned aircraft at no loss of safety.

The attached article demonstrates how well this concept works. Let's remember that both the C-130 and the Army MQ-9 were military aircraft.

Military Cargo Plane Struck by Drone
Perm11FO is offline  
Old 09-14-2011, 05:39 PM
  #4  
veut gagner à la loterie
 
forgot to bid's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Default

Originally Posted by Perm11FO
With the continuing discussion of using UAVs for a variety of purposes in the skies, the debate on the safety of interfacing unmanned aircraft from manned aircraft rages on.

The government, seeing a way to perform certain missions (drug surveillance, military, etc.) at a significant cost savings says that UAVs are safe and can intermingle with manned aircraft at no loss of safety.

The attached article demonstrates how well this concept works. Let's remember that both the C-130 and the Army MQ-9 were military aircraft.

Military Cargo Plane Struck by Drone
Out of curiosity, do C-130s have TCAS? how about drones?

Now if this collision had happened on the ground then I'd say the military is beginning to look a lot like the civilian world.
forgot to bid is offline  
Old 09-14-2011, 05:49 PM
  #5  
On Reserve
 
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: Free Agent in 2012 Pilot Draft
Posts: 19
Default

Originally Posted by Perm11FO
the debate on the safety of interfacing unmanned aircraft from manned aircraft rages on

Military Cargo Plane Struck by Drone
Let's not mince words here.. UAVs are extremely dangerous to be out flying with other aircraft. In my 150+ missions in Afghanistan, I've had UAVs (Predator and Shadows) split my formation ten, yes TEN, times, almost causing a mid-air on each occasion. They are rarely on the right frequency and tend to fly around not talking to ANYBODY. And those are the ones being controlled by the Air Force. In this instance, it was a Shadow UAV, usually controlled by the Army, who tend to rely on the big sky theory more than most professional aviators would like. There is a definite reason they are not allowed to fly outside of Restricted airspace in the US, and I pray that they never are allowed to fly among the rest of us.

Unfortunately, bureaucrats think that these UAVs are the greatest inventions since sliced bread, which means they are not going away any time soon. It is only a matter of time until one of these things kills someone by accident, while the "pilot" goes to refill his coffee mug.
HogDriver is offline  
Old 09-14-2011, 06:47 PM
  #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
BDGERJMN's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: Walmart Greeter
Posts: 694
Default

Originally Posted by HogDriver
Let's not mince words here.. UAVs are extremely dangerous to be out flying with other aircraft. In my 150+ missions in Afghanistan, I've had UAVs (Predator and Shadows) split my formation ten, yes TEN, times, almost causing a mid-air on each occasion. They are rarely on the right frequency and tend to fly around not talking to ANYBODY. And those are the ones being controlled by the Air Force. In this instance, it was a Shadow UAV, usually controlled by the Army, who tend to rely on the big sky theory more than most professional aviators would like. There is a definite reason they are not allowed to fly outside of Restricted airspace in the US, and I pray that they never are allowed to fly among the rest of us.

Unfortunately, bureaucrats think that these UAVs are the greatest inventions since sliced bread, which means they are not going away any time soon. It is only a matter of time until one of these things kills someone by accident, while the "pilot" goes to refill his coffee mug.
Hog your point is well taken, but how many times have you been in the CAS stack and had another FTR split a section or have a near miss in an ALTRAV or Exit/Entry points to a restricted area or warning area or on a low level with GA traffic. It happens more than we think IMHO. I think the broader point here is that technology exists to be able to operate UAV/UAS fairly safely in parts of the NAS or in military use airspace. Still though its a tough nut to crack when we start opening up the aperture in terms of who can operate those systems and where. It will be interesting to see how the FAA integrates those caps/lims into the fold, when they do.
BDGERJMN is offline  
Old 09-14-2011, 07:13 PM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
Default

What a great statement :"The use of drones is a new phase of aviation, and there are growing pains," I think a drone hitting an aircraft is more than "growing pains."
iceman49 is offline  
Old 09-14-2011, 08:25 PM
  #8  
Line Holder
 
Humidityblows's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2011
Posts: 76
Default

About a year ago, I was enroute to KBUR upper teens, southwest of KEDW. Got a TCAS TA and ATC didn't even mention anything. I did hear ATC talking to someone with a callsign- drone ###.
Humidityblows is offline  
Old 09-15-2011, 08:13 AM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Position: Hoping for any position
Posts: 2,520
Default

Originally Posted by BDGERJMN
Hog your point is well taken, but how many times have you been in the CAS stack and had another FTR split a section or have a near miss in an ALTRAV or Exit/Entry points to a restricted area or warning area or on a low level with GA traffic. It happens more than we think IMHO. I think the broader point here is that technology exists to be able to operate UAV/UAS fairly safely in parts of the NAS or in military use airspace. Still though its a tough nut to crack when we start opening up the aperture in terms of who can operate those systems and where. It will be interesting to see how the FAA integrates those caps/lims into the fold, when they do.
This is true, other traffic, especially formations have caused some problems crossing airways in the AOR but not nearly the number of times I've had a UAV cross while I was on short final to some field in Afghanistan. Typically they are not on TCAS and like Hog said, talking to no one. They are so small and rarely have any lights on for obvious reasons that we were much more concerened about a mid air with a UAV than we were about getting shot at. Sorry Army guys, but the helo guys are just as bad. Nothing like being on short final to ORBI and have 2 UH-60s cross directly in front of you. At least they were squawking so we picked them up in time. We heard about the C-130 incident about 3 weeks ago the day it happened and when we saw the pics we were shocked the crew and plane survived. I know they (UAVs) serve a purpose but damn they scare me when I'm out there.
fishforfun is offline  
Old 09-15-2011, 11:57 AM
  #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Elliot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: "Prof" button manipulator
Posts: 1,685
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777
The way this is going to play out...

The FAA, prompted by various special interests, will gradually make regulatory exemptions to "see-and-avoid" requirements rather than mandating a comprehensive (and hideously expensive) techn ical solution.

UAV's will become more common in NAS, right up until one of them creams an airliner, or a bizjet carrying hollywood royalty. Then the whole thing will be set back about 50 years.
Sorry Rickair, but that's "not the way it's going to PLAY OUT", as you say.

I was at General Atomics just last year, and they have a project in the works, to petition the FAA for the increased safety of the NAS, to allow "sense & avoid" procedures for the larger RPV's. (i.e. Q-1's, Q-4's, & Q-9's). The premise behind an authorization such as this would be that the aircraft's transponder, with altitude encoding, would alert both the manned and unmanned asset of an external threat, allowing everyone to act accordingly.

Thanks for playing,

GJ
Elliot is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Flameout
Military
32
03-05-2010 12:21 PM
FredDriver
Military
138
07-01-2009 06:07 PM
KnightFlyer
Cargo
49
10-11-2007 01:14 PM
nightrider
Cargo
23
09-27-2007 05:26 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices