If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
You have a UAV at 9 'clock, three miles...
....8,500 feet, westbound."
An East-West corridor exists between the southern boundaries of R-2508 and the northern foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains in Southern California. At its western choke point near Palmdale, the corridor is about 15 NM wide. Fifty miles to the east, where it bends NE towards Las Vegas, it opens up to about 30 NM. About half-way between those two points lies a dry lake by the name of El Mirage - smack in the middle of the corridor. The ILS approach slope to PMD [Palmdale] is slightly south of the center line of the corridor on the west end. El Mirage Flight test Facility is one of the busiest UAV test areas in the US. It is a short hop from the field there to playing games with the Air Force at Edwards AFB and just a slightly longer trek to boogie on up to the Naval Air Warfare Center at China Lake. I flew east and west through that corridor today on a junket with my son for a $150 Patty Melt at Leonard's Cafe on KAPV, Apple Valley. During my standard briefing from San Diego FSS, the briefer said NOTAMs were up for UAV activity in the vicinity of El Mirage. Being based at Inyokern [IYK] has subjected me to coping with Special Use Airspace and the hazards of flying in the vicinity of kerosene burners for almost my [admittedly short] entire flying history. My first call for flight-following is typically within five miles of the airport, as soon as I have established my first course line. The only exception to asking for flight-following is if I am remaining in the pattern for any reason. On this particular day, two UAVs were hauling around the area before lunch and three while I was on the way back afterwards. The UAV at my 9 o'clock, identified by Joshua Approach was at my altitude and going in the same general direction. The ATC added that he had direct contact with a chase plane that was with the UAV and the traffic was no factor. I didn't feel any anxiety but I mentally armed my diving right-turn spiral and continued on my way. I would liked to have gotten a glimpse of the UAV and/or its chase, but the lighting and background masked it. UAVs are routinely tested in that small arena. Unless you pass through on a weekend, holiday, or flex-Friday, your briefing will more than likely include one or more NOTAMs regarding the tests. Altitudes vary from ground-skimming to cranking on the turbos. And with all the testing, and all the VFR traffic, and the countless ILS practice runs, I can't find any hint of conflicts between UAVs and MAVs [that's us in the Spam cans]. I feel that our ATC system and the UAV controllers have their act together. I won't have any problem with UAVs patrolling our borders as long as ATC is involved and unnecessary TFRs aren't slung about like confetti. On the other hand, I don't feel comfortable about them tooling over populated areas. At least not until the reliability factor goes way up. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
You have a UAV at 9 'clock, three miles...
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 18:09:18 GMT, "Casey Wilson" N2310D @ gmail.com
wrote in itIFg.143$hP6.26@trnddc04: I can't find any hint of conflicts between UAVs and MAVs [that's us in the Spam cans]. Could that be a result of the escort aircraft with the UAVs? Presumably the pilot of that aircraft is capable of complying with the see-and-avoid regulation. I feel that our ATC system and the UAV controllers have their act together. I won't have any problem with UAVs patrolling our borders as long as ATC is involved and unnecessary TFRs aren't slung about like confetti. I doubt the UAVs deployed to boarder patrol duty are escorted nor equipped to comply with see-and-avoid regulations, so there are TFRs around them. On the other hand, I don't feel comfortable about them tooling over populated areas. At least not until the reliability factor goes way up. Of course, that's an issue. But who (what individual) will your estate sue when a blind unmanned aerial vehicle downs your flight? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
You have a UAV at 9 'clock, three miles...
"Casey Wilson" N2310D @ gmail.com wrote in message news:itIFg.143$hP6.26@trnddc04... ...8,500 feet, westbound." On the other hand, I don't feel comfortable about them tooling over populated areas. At least not until the reliability factor goes way up. Then stay on the ground. They normally maintain heading and altitude much better than many of the pilots I know. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
You have a UAV at 9 'clock, three miles...
[UAVs] normally maintain heading and altitude much better than many of the
pilots I know. So do cruise missles. I don't want to share the sky with them either. Jose -- The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
You have a UAV at 9 'clock, three miles...
"John Doe" wrote in message . .. "Casey Wilson" N2310D @ gmail.com wrote in message news:itIFg.143$hP6.26@trnddc04... ...8,500 feet, westbound." On the other hand, I don't feel comfortable about them tooling over populated areas. At least not until the reliability factor goes way up. Then stay on the ground. They normally maintain heading and altitude much better than many of the pilots I know. It isn't sharing the airspace that I'm concerned about. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
You have a UAV at 9 'clock, three miles...
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 08:42:47 -0400, "John Doe"
wrote in : They normally maintain heading and altitude much better than many of the pilots I know. And what about the times they or their operators do something abnormal, and violate regulations? UAVs have no place in the NAS without the ability to comply with the regulations that govern its use. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
You have a UAV at 9 'clock, three miles...
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ... On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 08:42:47 -0400, "John Doe" wrote in : They normally maintain heading and altitude much better than many of the pilots I know. And what about the times they or their operators do something abnormal, and violate regulations? UAVs have no place in the NAS without the ability to comply with the regulations that govern its use. Would you please cite a reference to these incidents? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
You have a UAV at 9 'clock, three miles...
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 16:38:01 GMT, "Casey Wilson" N2310D @ gmail.com
wrote in Jd0Gg.9778$u1.1872@trnddc05: "Larry Dighera" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 08:42:47 -0400, "John Doe" wrote in : They normally maintain heading and altitude much better than many of the pilots I know. And what about the times they or their operators do something abnormal, and violate regulations? UAVs have no place in the NAS without the ability to comply with the regulations that govern its use. Would you please cite a reference to these incidents? Sure. Below are some examples of the many UAV loss of control mishaps. Don't forget, the UAV assumes its own navigation upon loss of control from the ground. The UAV, incapable of complying with the see-and-avoid regulation, then becomes a hazard to air navigation if it is not operating in Restricted airspace. If UAVs, in their current state of refinement, were capable of operating within federal aviation regulations, they wouldn't need a chase plane nor Restricted airspace. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...s-Side-ON.html Crash stirs debate on drone safety Alan Levin USA Today Aug. 7, 2006 08:30 AM The explosion nearly jolted Barbara Trent out of bed. At first she thought someone had bombed the high-desert scrubland where she lives in southern Arizona. When daylight arrived a few hours later April 25, Trent and her neighbors realized that what they heard wasn't a bomb at all. Instead, an unmanned drone the government uses to monitor the nearby Mexican border had slammed into a hillside near several homes. The Predator B, which weighs as much as 10,500 pounds and has a wingspan of 66 feet, had been crippled when its operator accidentally switched off its engine. It glided as close as 100 feet above two homes before striking the ground, says Tom Duggin, the owner of one of the houses. advertisement "I was very, very concerned," says Trent, whose house is about 1,000 feet from the crash site. "If it had hit my house, I'd be dead." Flight issues The crash of the Customs and Border Protection plane has been a catalyst heating up the debate over whether it is safe to operate unmanned aircraft in the nation's airways. Thousands of unmanned aerial vehicles regularly ply the skies above the war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. As pressure grows to put the UAVs to use in the United States, federal officials and aviation industry representatives are conducting highly technical discussions on how unmanned aircraft should be regulated. The debate also addresses the philosophy of what it means to fly. In a sense, UAVs are the first example of robot-like devices being allowed to roam the earth, says Massachusetts Institute of Technology aviation professor John Hansman. The questions they raise are profound. Can a machine replace the skills of a veteran pilot? If there are no people aboard, should the safety standards developed over the past 100 years for aircraft be eased? Should a human controlling a drone from a desktop computer be subject to the same standards as a traditional pilot? "The increased use of unmanned aircraft by (the military) is certainly challenging some of the long-held beliefs of organizations that have worked aviation safety for a long time," says Dyke Weatherington, who oversees UAV procurement at the Pentagon. Safety precautions In hearings before the House Aviation Subcommittee in March, Michael Kostelnik, a retired general who heads Customs and Border Protection's Air and Marine office, assured lawmakers that the agency's Predator had robust backup systems to ensure safety. "This redundant system works on all levels, from sensors to the flight computer, and provides a triple-check system to protect the vehicle and others in the airspace," said Kostelnik's written testimony. .... http://www.aetc.randolph.af.mil/se2/...305/runway.htm GROUND CREW’S INATTENTION LEADS TO UNMANNED AIRCRAFT CRASH LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. (ACCNS) — Investigators determined that pilot error caused an Air Force RQ-1 Predator aircraft to crash Oct. 25, nine miles west of Indian Springs Air Force Auxiliary Field, Nev. The Predator, an unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, was destroyed upon impact. The loss is estimated at $3.3 million. No one was injured. The aircraft was assigned to the 11th Reconnaissance Squadron at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev. According to an Air Combat Command accident investigation report released last month, the primary cause of the accident was the ground crew’s inattention to the aircraft’s altitude. While trying to enter the Indian Springs flight pattern, the aircraft was flown over mountainous terrain, obstructing the datalink and causing the ground crew to lose electronic contact with the aircraft. Following failed attempts to regain the link, the pilot executed emergency procedures designed to safeguard the aircraft; however, the aircraft impacted mountainous terrain 16 seconds later. http://www.af.mil/news/Feb2001/n2001...shtmlOfficials 02/02/01 Officials release RQ-1L Predator RQ-1L Predator accident report the accident resulted from operator error. the pilot -- who flies the aircraft from a ground control station -- inadvertently cleared the primary control module's random access memory. As a result, the Predator lost its data link connection with the ground control station. http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...3/02/mil-03021... releases RQ-1 accident report In-Depth Coverage Released: Feb. 19, 2003 LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. (ACCNS) -- Air Force investigators have determined that human error caused an RQ-1 Predator aircraft to crash Sept. 17 at a classified forward-operating location in Southwest Asia. The Predator, which is an unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, was destroyed upon impact. The loss is estimated at $3.2 million. No one was injured in the accident. The aircraft was assigned to the 11th Reconnaissance Squadron at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev. According to an Air Combat Command accident investigation report released today, the primary cause of the accident was that the pilot unintentionally flew the aircraft into a hazardous cloud. The pilot lost communication with the aircraft several times, but was able to re-establish communication twice. However, the aircraft failed to respond to the pilot’s commands, indicating the flight control computers were disabled by the hazardous weather conditions http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell...s/predator.htm As of 31 October 2001 the Air Force had received a total of 68 air vehicles, and had lost 19 due to mishaps or losses over enemy territory, including four over enemy territory in Kosovo. A good number of them were lost due to operator error, since it is hard to land the UAV. The operator has the camera pointing out the front of the plane, but he really has lost a lot of situational awareness that a normal pilot would have of where the ground is and where the attitude of his aircraft is. The CIA has a small number of the armed drones. Newer versions of the Predator, at $4.5 million each, are being produced at a rate of about two aircraft a month. http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho...2002/news/1996... Thursday, October 31, 2002 Las Vegas Review-Journal May 17 crash of unmanned spy plane blamed on human error Investigators have blamed the May 17 crash of an unmanned Predator spy plane in Southwest Asia on human error, saying one of the plane's tail control mechanisms had been improperly assembled by the manufacturer, according to an Air Force statement Wednesday. The remote-controlled RQ-1 Predator was assigned to Nellis Air Force Base's 15th Reconnaissance Squadron in Indian Springs. The plane, which had been deployed as part of the 386th Expeditionary Group, went down "near a classified forward operating location" in Southwest Asia, said the statement from Air Combat Command headquarters at Langley Air Force Base, Va. The loss of the plane made by General Atomics of San Diego is valued at $3.3 million, the statement said. Air Force investigators determined that incorrect assembly of the "right tail plane control servo" was the sole cause of the accident, the statement said. A spokesman for Air Combat Command said Air Force officials are still probing Friday's crash of a Predator during a training mission near Indian Springs. That plane was assigned to Nellis' 11th Reconnaissance Squadron. http://www2.acc.af.mil/accnews/aug01/01267.html Released: Aug. 16, 2001 RQ-1 Predator accident report released The RQ-1 Predator is a medium-altitude, long-endurance unmanned aerial vehicle system. The Predator is a system, not just an aircraft. The fully operational system consists of four air vehicles (with sensors), a ground control station, a Predator primary satellite link communication suite and 55 people. (Courtesy photo) LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. (ACCNS) -- Officials investigating the March 30 crash of an RQ-1L Predator unmanned aerial vehicle have determined the accident resulted from operator error. According to the Accident Investigation Board report released today by Air Combat Command, the Predator experienced an icing problem and the pilot was unable to maintain control of the aircraft. The Predator, which belonged to the 11th Reconnaissance Squadron at Nellis AFB, Nev., was supporting the Kosovo Stabilization Force. There were no injuries or fatalities. The Predator was destroyed upon impact. According to the report, the pilot recognized the icing problem, but failed to immediately execute critical checklist steps for pitot static system failure. The pitot static system uses air and static pressure to determine the aircraft’s altitude and airspeed. There is also substantial evidence that nonuse of the pitot static heating system was a substantially contributing factor in this mishap. http://www2.acc.af.mil/accnews/dec99/990383.html Released: December 23, 1999 RQ-1 Predator accident report released LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, VA. (ACCNS) -- Officials investigating the April 18 crash of an RQ-1 Predator unmanned aerial vehicle near Tuzla Air Base, Bosnia, have determined the accident resulted from a combination of mechanical and human factors. The Predator, which belonged to the 11th Reconnaissance Squadron at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., was returning from a reconnaissance mission over Kosovo in support of Operation Allied Force. It was destroyed upon impact. According to the Accident Investigation Board report released Dec. 22 by Air Combat Command, the Predator experienced a fuel problem during its descent into Tuzla. Upon entering instrument meteorological conditions and experiencing aircraft icing, the Predator lost engine power. The two Predator pilots, who control the aircraft from a ground station, executed critical action procedures but were unable to land the aircraft safely. It crashed in a wooded area four miles south of Tuzla AB. According to the report, the pilots' attention became too focused on flying the Predator in icing and weather conditions they had rarely encountered. The report also cites lack of communication between the two pilots during the flight emergency as a cause of the accident. For more information, please contact the Air Combat Command Public Affairs office at (757) 764-5994 or e-mail . http://www2.acc.af.mil/accnews/apr01/01127.html Released: April 13, 2001 Predator accident report released LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. (ACCNS) -- An RQ-1K Predator unmanned aerial vehicle crashed Oct. 23 in Kosovo as a result of mechanical failure, according to accident investigators. The Predator is an unmanned reconnaissance aircraft used to survey battlefields and return video footage and radar data. The accident happened about 180 miles southeast of Tuzla Air Base, Bosnia, where the aircraft was based. The Predator was part of an Operation Joint Forge reconnaissance mission over Kosovo and was assigned to the 11th Reconnaissance Squadron, Nellis Air Force Base, Nev. According to Air Combat Command's Accident Investigation Board report released Thursday, the accident resulted from mechanical failure in the UAV's propeller control system. Investigators found substantial evidence indicating errors during maintenance on the propeller control system on Sept. 28 played a critical role in the accident. Evidence showed that certain components of the propeller assembly were not adequately lubricated; in addition, a key bolt was stripped and had not been tightened properly. These errors likely led to the accident, according to the lead investigator. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
You have a UAV at 9 'clock, three miles...
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ... On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 16:38:01 GMT, "Casey Wilson" N2310D @ gmail.com wrote in Jd0Gg.9778$u1.1872@trnddc05: "Larry Dighera" wrote in message . .. On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 08:42:47 -0400, "John Doe" wrote in : They normally maintain heading and altitude much better than many of the pilots I know. And what about the times they or their operators do something abnormal, and violate regulations? UAVs have no place in the NAS without the ability to comply with the regulations that govern its use. Would you please cite a reference to these incidents? Sure. Below are some examples of the many UAV loss of control mishaps. Don't forget, the UAV assumes its own navigation upon loss of control from the ground. The UAV, incapable of complying with the see-and-avoid regulation, then becomes a hazard to air navigation if it is not operating in Restricted airspace. If UAVs, in their current state of refinement, were capable of operating within federal aviation regulations, they wouldn't need a chase plane nor Restricted airspace. Thanks, Larry. You probably won't agree, but I'm going to pose that all your examples support my side. First, none of the mishaps you cited involved any potential hazard to other aircraft, even when they wandered out of their operating arenas. With the exception to those in foreign theaters, my bet is that ATC knew, as close as transponder accuracy would allow, the exact position of the UAV -- and could have provided ample warning to any other aircraft. Second, those (albeit, few) incidents that occurred outside SUA support my statement that I'm not in favor of flying them over populated areas. In other words, NIMBY until the reliability goes way up. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
You have a UAV at 9 'clock, three miles...
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 18:15:56 GMT, "Casey Wilson" N2310D @ gmail.com
wrote in wF1Gg.19367$uV.3365@trnddc08: "Larry Dighera" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 16:38:01 GMT, "Casey Wilson" N2310D @ gmail.com wrote in Jd0Gg.9778$u1.1872@trnddc05: "Larry Dighera" wrote in message ... On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 08:42:47 -0400, "John Doe" wrote in : They normally maintain heading and altitude much better than many of the pilots I know. And what about the times they or their operators do something abnormal, and violate regulations? UAVs have no place in the NAS without the ability to comply with the regulations that govern its use. Would you please cite a reference to these incidents? Sure. Below are some examples of the many UAV loss of control mishaps. Don't forget, the UAV assumes its own navigation upon loss of control from the ground. The UAV, incapable of complying with the see-and-avoid regulation, then becomes a hazard to air navigation if it is not operating in Restricted airspace. If UAVs, in their current state of refinement, were capable of operating within federal aviation regulations, they wouldn't need a chase plane nor Restricted airspace. Thanks, Larry. You probably won't agree, but I'm going to pose that all your examples support my side. Unfortunately, UAVs maintaining heading and altitude much better than many of the pilots you know has very little to do with aviation safety. First, none of the mishaps you cited involved any potential hazard to other aircraft, even when they wandered out of their operating arenas. If you believe that an aircraft incapable of complying with federal regulations requiring their operators to see-and-avoid do not constitute a hazard to aerial navigation within the NAS, you might consider suggesting to the FAA, military, and airlines that regulation § 91.113 (b) be rescinded. :-) With the exception to those in foreign theaters, my bet is that ATC knew, as close as transponder accuracy would allow, the exact position of the UAV -- and could have provided ample warning to any other aircraft. Please describe how ATC would warn NORDO flights of the runaway, blind UAV. Please describe how ATC knowing the position of a runaway, blind UAV would prevent the UAV from impacting a balloon (typically flown NORDO). Second, those (albeit, few) incidents that occurred outside SUA support my statement that I'm not in favor of flying them over populated areas. In other words, NIMBY until the reliability goes way up. So, it is the unreliability of UAVs that concerns you, not the fact that today's UAVs operating outside of Restricted airspace are incapable of complying with federal regulations? How would you feel if a fellow pilot were incapable of complying with federal regulations; would you expect the FAA to grant him an exemption to his responsibility to see-and-avoid? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? | Rick Umali | Piloting | 29 | February 15th 06 04:40 AM |
Four States and the Grand Canyon | Mary Daniel or David Grah | Soaring | 6 | December 6th 04 10:36 AM |
"Cleared Straight-In Runway X; Report Y Miles Final" | Jim Cummiskey | Piloting | 86 | August 16th 04 06:23 PM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
Across Nevada and Part Way Back (long) | Marry Daniel or David Grah | Soaring | 18 | July 30th 03 08:52 PM |