Originally Posted by rickair7777

My guess...rather than requiring #2 up front, the FAA (under congressional pressure) will grant waivers and relaxations to see-and-avoid for UAVs. As they proliferate, they'll take out a few manned airplanes, including perhaps an airliner. The resulting backlash will ground or severely restrict the UAV fleet for several years while they implement #2.

Originally Posted by rickair7777

The integration is going to involve an exemption for see-and-avoid. There is no suitable technical alternative at this time. There are two possible approaches to see-and-avoid substitute for UAVs...

First off ADS-B and Next-Gen will not solve see-and-avoid for UAVs. They were not designed for that.

1) Enhanced TCAS, possibly based on ADS-B. ADS-B would probably have to be modified to accommodate this. Anyone who has used TCAS knows that it's far from reliable...sometimes it just doesn't "see" other aircraft, probably due to antenna placement. This is OK, since TCAS is a backup to see-and-avoid and ATC separation...but it's not good enough to be a primary defense. A reliable TCAS-like solution would be expensive and would require retrofit on at least 121/135 aircraft and maybe all aircraft. The alphabet groups will not be happy about subsidizing a massive ATC system upgrade just for the convenience of UAV proponents, and presumably they'll prevail.

2) Self-contained sensors within the UAV to give see-and-avoid equivalent capability against any aircraft, even one without a transponder. This probably makes the most sense but would require multiple, expensive (and heavy) sensors on each UAV, probably a combination of electro-optic and radar, capable of scanning large sectors. The UAV crowd will probably fight having to implement a robust solution since if you start piling on a lot of weight it starts to defeat the point of unmanned.

3) Leverage materials and electronics advances to miniaturize and soften UAVs to the point where they can't really hurt a manned airplane (ie nerf-drone). This might eventually work for many, but not all applications.

My guess...rather than requiring #2 up front, the FAA (under congressional pressure) will grant waivers and relaxations to see-and-avoid for UAVs. As they proliferate, they'll take out a few manned airplanes, including perhaps an airliner. The resulting backlash will ground or severely restrict the UAV fleet for several years while they implement #2.

Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy

I believe they lost all the fuel in that tank. They knew all right. But yes, the Herk is one tough piece of machinery.

Originally Posted by LowSlowT2

I was being only a wee bit sarcastic.

There's more than a couple things in that mess that could've wreaked havoc with the plane as everything runs through the leading edge...

Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy

I'm sorry I didn't mean it that way either. The Herk is built like an A-10. They just don't build them like that anymore.

If I was going to be hitting anything in flight, that's what I would want to be in. I watched a show on the 737 and business jet mid-air over Brazil. Hard to believe that a business jet's winglet sliced through a 737's wing, but it did.