Actually, I think the fact everyone is looking at the cargo planes as being a real leap. Yes, they are carrying just boxes, but guess what...they are some of the largest equipment in the sky. And guess what someone with bad intent can do with a very large airplane. Not sure if the bigger deal would be a commuter size plane with passengers crashes in the middle of nowhere due to a "glitch" or a 777 sized airplane being crashed into the middle of a city. Pick your poison, but I don't see the drones becoming a part of the industry for quite awhile, if ever.

 

How will these UAVs taxi around ORD, JFK, ATL, etc? What about departing off RWY 1 in DCA? Does the CIA want drones flying around the White House? How are engine failures indicated? Will it be detected quickly enough at a airport like DCA? What about security issues? How will we protect airplanes against that?

And who will pay for it all? Can our current airspace system handle UAV airliners? What about lawyers? Can we convince lawyers that liability costs wouldn't be through the roof?

 

UAVs would be a lot of short term cost for long term savings. Everyone knows that airlines operate exactly opposite to that. Its never going to happen. Our system isn't set up for it and nobody is going to pay the bill to update the planes, airports, ATC system, regulations, etc to do it. There just isn't a reason too.

Look at the Air Force - pioneers of UAVs and a budget much bigger than the airline industry. What are they flying? 50 yearold KC-135s. 40 yearold C-5s. With flight engineers and all that too.

FedEx is still flying planes with flight engineers. Delta is busy buying old planes because they can be had for cheaper than the new efficient ones.

Paying a little bit here and there to keep old technology working is a hallmark of the aviation industry. Its not going to change. We'll see new propulsion technology before we see unpiloted airliners.

 

We actually have an example. The RQ4 that lost comms and had a TCAS incident with a United A320 over KBAB. The FAA grounded the program for about 2 months. 2007 or so? Suspiciously all of the articles about it in the local papers are unsearchable.

 

Johnso,

All good questions, & I will answer each when opportunity permits. I'm posting via iPhone on Interstate, so my thoughtful response will be slightly delayed.

Drive safe,

GJ

 

Blastoff,

Good discussion, but many problems (holes) in your argument. (e.g. crew experience, squadron policies violated while lost comm., poor verbal comm. w/ TRACON [Beale Sqd. has representative present whenever an RQ-4 is present in the NAS], etc.)

Good day,

GJ

 

Is it -20 in forks yet??

 

Not quite, but I expect it to be soon!! (Guess: three weeks!!)

 

You made my point. There is still a profound human element in the technology, something worth dealing with from a military perspective. I think it's cost prohibitive from an airline, FAA, and especially liability insurance standpoint to manage these issues on the scale of a national transportation system. At some point decision makers have to ask, "what exactly is the problem we are solving" while incurring additional risk, while viewed in the current context of the safest decade in US airline history.

Your argument of "holes" is one from an engineering perspective that is biased to ignore human application, the engineers would argue that they'll get the hardware and programming right, minimize the opportunity for managerial errors. In operations and IT management (the real world), my argument is directly applicable. The fact of the matter is a UAV lost separation with a civil aircraft. And even in the context of battlespace--the biggest threat to my aircraft and crew in the sandbox is an off-course or off-altitude UAV that has a very limited ability to "see-and-avoid."

 

Gear... the fact is that the UAVs are still staffed from the ground with a commensurate amount of pilots/engineers that currently operate them already.... just with much greater expense and much higher risk.

Its a great thing in a combat zone where youre getting shot at and the chance of loss of human life is much greater, but for normal civilian operations I dont see how that canbe justified.