UAV Regulatory Development
07-31-2012 | 02:02 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44,847
Likes: 654
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
UAV Regulatory Development
This is interesting...
The U.S. Congress has mandated the integration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into civil airspace by 2015.
At Rockwell Collins, we see this as an exciting development and the "next big thing" in aviation. We realize there are issues that need to be addressed, such as flight safety and privacy, but we believe technology and good public policy will provide solutions.
Continued U.S. leadership and market growth will come from greater access to airspace. The opportunity to use UASs for a multitude of applications such as law enforcement, weather monitoring, disaster recovery, and cargo delivery will benefit the general public, the government, our industry and the global economy.
I would consider this slightly significant. But don't get too excited (or concerned). This is coming from congress, so it is almost certainly ill-considered, unfunded, and impractical.
The only way ways around see-and-avoid...
1) Mandate hideously expensive (also non-existent and non-certified) see-and-avoid sensing technology for UAVs. This won't happen because it would hurt the darling UAV industry that everyone loves so much. It would actually force them to pay their own price of admission rather than forcing everyone else to pay it for them.
2) Mandate an advanced (also very expensive and non-existant) super-TCAS for all aircraft. The UAV crowd would prefer this, but AOPA, ATA, NBAA, etc would scream bloody murder. ADS-B won't cut it, it's an airspace management system, not see and avoid. Current TCAS is not reliable enough, it's just another layer of defense not the end-all-be-all. This would force out old-school ASEL and anything without an electrical system due to cost (I can't imagine a robust super-TCAS for less than $50-80K per copy).
3) Integrate a complex patchwork of restricted airspace into the current system to clear out the bug-smashers in favor of UAS. AOPA, NBAA, etc will scream bloody murder. This is the only thing which is technologically feasible by 2015.
The U.S. Congress has mandated the integration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into civil airspace by 2015.
At Rockwell Collins, we see this as an exciting development and the "next big thing" in aviation. We realize there are issues that need to be addressed, such as flight safety and privacy, but we believe technology and good public policy will provide solutions.
Continued U.S. leadership and market growth will come from greater access to airspace. The opportunity to use UASs for a multitude of applications such as law enforcement, weather monitoring, disaster recovery, and cargo delivery will benefit the general public, the government, our industry and the global economy.
I would consider this slightly significant. But don't get too excited (or concerned). This is coming from congress, so it is almost certainly ill-considered, unfunded, and impractical.
The only way ways around see-and-avoid...
1) Mandate hideously expensive (also non-existent and non-certified) see-and-avoid sensing technology for UAVs. This won't happen because it would hurt the darling UAV industry that everyone loves so much. It would actually force them to pay their own price of admission rather than forcing everyone else to pay it for them.
2) Mandate an advanced (also very expensive and non-existant) super-TCAS for all aircraft. The UAV crowd would prefer this, but AOPA, ATA, NBAA, etc would scream bloody murder. ADS-B won't cut it, it's an airspace management system, not see and avoid. Current TCAS is not reliable enough, it's just another layer of defense not the end-all-be-all. This would force out old-school ASEL and anything without an electrical system due to cost (I can't imagine a robust super-TCAS for less than $50-80K per copy).
3) Integrate a complex patchwork of restricted airspace into the current system to clear out the bug-smashers in favor of UAS. AOPA, NBAA, etc will scream bloody murder. This is the only thing which is technologically feasible by 2015.
07-31-2012 | 02:46 PM
#2
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
General Atomics, the people behind the wildly successful Predator and Reaper drones, just scored two huge contracts this week.
One contract is $411 million for Gray Eagle systems, a derivative of the Predator drone. The second contract is for $120.6 million and will buy MQ-9 Reaper spares for the Air Force. They’ll also get ground support systems and spares.
One contract is $411 million for Gray Eagle systems, a derivative of the Predator drone. The second contract is for $120.6 million and will buy MQ-9 Reaper spares for the Air Force. They’ll also get ground support systems and spares.
07-31-2012 | 06:02 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,601
Likes: 0
From: CRJ FO
Well... If they incorporate drones into the more aerial application jobs (ie survey, patrol, pestilence spraying, etc...) there goes more of the jobs for low-time pilots. I don't think this will happen any time soon but I can see it happening eventually as the technology gets cheaper. In 10 to 20 years pilots might really be a "slow-dying breed".
07-31-2012 | 07:45 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
From: Student Pilot
they need to make a mandatory ADS-B technology for GA aircraft , integrated into foreflight or w/e system... I have a feeling pilots will be checking their tablets for uav traffic on the charts, something cool like color coded traffic symbols for diff types of aircraft.
08-01-2012 | 12:17 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
I'm more concerned with the fact that there are no real regulations out there today as it relates to:
1: When a UAS is unable to communicate with its controller, what is the recommended and absolutely required actions of the aircraft? If its to return to base, which base? What if there is insufficient fuel? Go to a body of water? Nearest field?
2: What is the level of encryption required for communicating with the UAS as well as what sort of authentication will be enforced?
3: What are the required auditing, power-on-calibration steps taken every time a UAS is booted to ensure its software has not been tampered with?
4: What is the required logging/data collection involved with the operation of the UAS? All air-to-ground instructions? What about logging/recording on the device itself (just like most aircraft)?
5: Will there be any out-of-band methods to control the UAS? What about just for simple return to base or automatic shutdown commands?
I'd love to see the above answered, but so far from my understanding each UAS vendor is very tight-lipped about their capabilities and hand-wave over some of the above items. Without any set standards on UAS, we're going to be in for an interesting time.
1: When a UAS is unable to communicate with its controller, what is the recommended and absolutely required actions of the aircraft? If its to return to base, which base? What if there is insufficient fuel? Go to a body of water? Nearest field?
2: What is the level of encryption required for communicating with the UAS as well as what sort of authentication will be enforced?
3: What are the required auditing, power-on-calibration steps taken every time a UAS is booted to ensure its software has not been tampered with?
4: What is the required logging/data collection involved with the operation of the UAS? All air-to-ground instructions? What about logging/recording on the device itself (just like most aircraft)?
5: Will there be any out-of-band methods to control the UAS? What about just for simple return to base or automatic shutdown commands?
I'd love to see the above answered, but so far from my understanding each UAS vendor is very tight-lipped about their capabilities and hand-wave over some of the above items. Without any set standards on UAS, we're going to be in for an interesting time.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
