Drones versus The Rest of Us

[Jay Honeck]

One of the great things about owning and operating an aviation themed hotel is that I get to meet pilots from all walks of life, with all sorts of experiences. After ten years, I *thought* I had met and heard them all, from Blackbird pilots and astronauts to the guy who flies the restored Boeing Model 40C.

Well, tonight one of our drive-in guests started signing the pilot's logbook we keep in the lobby. This is USUALLY a sign that the poor guy has lost his medical, or the economy has driven him out of flying -- or, sometimes, the weather just forced him into the 0' AGL flight to the island.

It's always a sensitive topic to broach -- so I asked "What're you flying nowadays?", figuring that was gentle enough.

"An RQ-7A" was his immediate response, without even looking up. Hmmm... I'm pretty good with aircraft, and usually can't be stumped -- but this guy had me. So, I said "I'm familiar with the RV-7A, but not the RQ-7A -- what's that?"

He chuckled. "Military drone." Ah-ha! I laughed, and told him that was cheating! His wife thought THAT was funny, and she went on to tell me all of his ratings, and what he's flown, and that he's a CFII, A&P, and IA! Wow!

I figured he was one of the Predator drivers out of Corpus (we deal with a TFR for them over the Southern tip of the island every day), but, no, he flies the RQ-7A out of the back seat of a highly modified Humvee in Afghanistan! Wow -- amazing stuff.

After a bit of chit chat, I broached the possibly sensitive topic of drones in the national airspace. As most of us know, this issue has become a hot one, with the FAA wanting to let drones share the airspace with the rest of us.

So I got right to it, and asked him what he thought about the issue? His response was quite interesting, and one I had never thought of before: "Require all drone pilots to be commercially rated, and hold them to the same enforcement standards as any other commercial pilot."

"Okay", I responded -- but "what about see-and-avoid?" How are you going to stay visually separated from VFR traffic?

He just chuckled at that one. Between him and his weapons officer, he said, he would see and avoid us LONG before we became an issue. As he put it "We've got tools on board that make your Mark One eyeballs seem pretty substandard."

Infrared, for one. He can see our heat signature long before we're in visual range. Multiple cameras, and multiple screens, for another. His view of the world from inside that Humvee is better than what we can see sitting in the actual aircraft. And, of course, they have TCAS, too.

It was a fascinating conversation, and I must admit that I feel MUCH better about drones in general, and sharing the airspace with them.

 

[gismo]

One of the great things about owning and operating an aviation themed hotel is that I get to meet pilots from all walks of life, with all sorts of experiences. After ten years, I *thought* I had met and heard them all, from Blackbird pilots and astronauts to the guy who flies the restored Boeing Model 40C.

Well, tonight one of our drive-in guests started signing the pilot's logbook we keep in the lobby. This is USUALLY a sign that the poor guy has lost his medical, or the economy has driven him out of flying -- or, sometimes, the weather just forced him into the 0' AGL flight to the island.

It's always a sensitive topic to broach -- so I asked "What're you flying nowadays?", figuring that was gentle enough.

"An RQ-7A" was his immediate response, without even looking up. Hmmm... I'm pretty good with aircraft, and usually can't be stumped -- but this guy had me. So, I said "I'm familiar with the RV-7A, but not the RQ-7A -- what's that?"

He chuckled. "Military drone." Ah-ha! I laughed, and told him that was cheating! His wife thought THAT was funny, and she went on to tell me all of his ratings, and what he's flown, and that he's a CFII, A&P, and IA! Wow!

I figured he was one of the Predator drivers out of Corpus (we deal with a TFR for them over the Southern tip of the island every day), but, no, he flies the RQ-7A out of the back seat of a highly modified Humvee in Afghanistan! Wow -- amazing stuff.

After a bit of chit chat, I broached the possibly sensitive topic of drones in the national airspace. As most of us know, this issue has become a hot one, with the FAA wanting to let drones share the airspace with the rest of us.

So I got right to it, and asked him what he thought about the issue? His response was quite interesting, and one I had never thought of before: "Require all drone pilots to be commercially rated, and hold them to the same enforcement standards as any other commercial pilot."

"Okay", I responded -- but "what about see-and-avoid?" How are you going to stay visually separated from VFR traffic?

He just chuckled at that one. Between him and his weapons officer, he said, he would see and avoid us LONG before we became an issue. As he put it "We've got tools on board that make your Mark One eyeballs seem pretty substandard."

Infrared, for one. He can see our heat signature long before we're in visual range. Multiple cameras, and multiple screens, for another. His view of the world from inside that Humvee is better than what we can see sitting in the actual aircraft. And, of course, they have TCAS, too.

It was a fascinating conversation, and I must admit that I feel MUCH better about drones in general, and sharing the airspace with them.

Jay, there are drones and there are drones. The high tech military ones aren't likely to cause a threat to you or me (unless the pilot intends that) as long as they remain under control. IOW the primary threat from this type is likely control malfunctions and/or hacking (remember the one that landed in Iran?). But there are lots of agencies looking eagerly at unmanned aircraft for a variety of functions and few if any will have the sophisticated means of detecting other traffic that the RQ-7 comes with.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Jay, there are drones and there are drones. The high tech military ones aren't likely to cause a threat to you or me (unless the pilot intends that) as long as they remain under control. IOW the primary threat from this type is likely control malfunctions and/or hacking (remember the one that landed in Iran?). But there are lots of agencies looking eagerly at unmanned aircraft for a variety of functions and few if any will have the sophisticated means of detecting other traffic that the RQ-7 comes with.

Well, then, obviously one solution would be to REQUIRE that all drones have the same sophisticated "see and avoid" technology?

 

[BillTIZ]

Interesting comment from the drone pilot.
More interesting when you talk to F-15 pilots that share that Afgahistan airspace and the near misses they have with the Raptors and Predators. The RQ pilot may have sensors to see others coming, but are slow to move, are not always talking to ATC or AWACS.

We have drone pilots in my flying club. Former F-16, F-15, B-1 and C-17 pilots now flying the RQ-x.

I like his comments to require Commercial Ratings. The first RQ pilots had to have military pilot wings or Civlian Commercial and Instrument ratings. Now they are graduation military RQ pilots that have never left the ground. Not all "mission" pilots are qualified for takeoff and landing, that's a seperate qualification.

I'm sure you thanked him for his service. Operating from the back of a humvee is tough duty.

 

[bqmassey]

Why not keep them on an IFR plan?

 

[BillTIZ]

Jay, there are drones and there are drones. The high tech military ones aren't likely to cause a threat to you or me (unless the pilot intends that) as long as they remain under control. IOW the primary threat from this type is likely control malfunctions and/or hacking (remember the one that landed in Iran?). But there are lots of agencies looking eagerly at unmanned aircraft for a variety of functions and few if any will have the sophisticated means of detecting other traffic that the RQ-7 comes with.

Agreed, the local Sherrif's SWAT team that pulls a quad copter out of the truck and starts flying over a "police action" is not looking for air traffic. He shouldn't get above a few hundred feet, but when they set up next to an airport, that can be an issue. And then someone jams his signal and he loses control and the quad copter goes zinging off into the family auto.

 

[BillTIZ]

Why not keep them on an IFR plan?

IFR, still need to see and avoid in VMC. Airway MEA or min vector altitudes may be too high.

 

[bqmassey]

Agreed, the local Sherrif's SWAT team that pulls a quad copter out of the truck and starts flying over a "police action" is not looking for air traffic. He shouldn't get above a few hundred feet, but when they set up next to an airport, that can be an issue. And then someone jams his signal and he loses control and the quad copter goes zinging off into the family auto.

I was reading an article a week or two ago about people that are using gas-powered RC helicopters, the same kind you might see at any RC airpark, for very low-level aerial photography (like real estate stuff under 100ft). The FAA determined they were operating an aircraft commercially, asserted that they own everything above ground level, and is attempting to put a stop to it.

 

[DouglasBader]

He just chuckled at that one. Between him and his weapons officer, he said, he would see and avoid us LONG before we became an issue. As he put it "We've got tools on board that make your Mark One eyeballs seem pretty substandard."

Infrared, for one. He can see our heat signature long before we're in visual range. Multiple cameras, and multiple screens, for another. His view of the world from inside that Humvee is better than what we can see sitting in the actual aircraft. And, of course, they have TCAS, too.

Perhaps he believes that, but I doubt it. He knows differently, and I'll tell you unabashedly that it's completely untrue.

I've had far too many near mid-air's in Iraq and Afghanistan with UAV/UCAV/UAS to believe anything else.

Most of the thin they're not where they say they are, not where they think they are, and often they can't stay within a thousand feet of the altitude they think they're holding. I see it all the time.

His view from inside his control module is far worse than a manned platform. All the ISR and other platforms out there see with infrared and other means, but a manned platform has peripheral vision and sees a lot more. I routinely saw explosions or flashes or movement that was outside the field of view of the camera; a predator or other aircraft misses that entirely, and isn't looking for other aircraft.

No, the UAV doesn't see you before you see them. They don't see you at all. They're looking for targets on the surface, not for you. I've never had a case of a UAV taking evasive action for me, but I've done it plenty of times for them.

That UCAV is looking through a toilet paper tube and a small field; they're not seeing you unless they're looking directly at you. Fat chance of that.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Perhaps he believes that, but I doubt it. He knows differently, and I'll tell you unabashedly that it's completely untrue.

I've had far too many near mid-air's in Iraq and Afghanistan with UAV/UCAV/UAS to believe anything else.

Most of the thin they're not where they say they are, not where they think they are, and often they can't stay within a thousand feet of the altitude they think they're holding. I see it all the time.

His view from inside his control module is far worse than a manned platform. All the ISR and other platforms out there see with infrared and other means, but a manned platform has peripheral vision and sees a lot more. I routinely saw explosions or flashes or movement that was outside the field of view of the camera; a predator or other aircraft misses that entirely, and isn't looking for other aircraft.

No, the UAV doesn't see you before you see them. They don't see you at all. They're looking for targets on the surface, not for you. I've never had a case of a UAV taking evasive action for me, but I've done it plenty of times for them.

That UCAV is looking through a toilet paper tube and a small field; they're not seeing you unless they're looking directly at you. Fat chance of that.

A sobering assessment, for sure.

Before talking to our guest, I had figured that flying a drone must be a lot like flying our Kiwi flight simulator, but with more sensors (TCAS, infrared). Even with a 103" main screen, and a side screen, you couldn't fly formation with another plane unless you kept it in the exact center of the (side) screen. If it drifted off-screen, finding it again was a real *****, due to lack of peripheral vision.

Sounds like I wasn't too far off -- although the RQ-7A apparently has three screens. You would think that would help?

 

[darrell]

I've never had a problem seeing UAVs in A-stan...but then again I only fly at night, and you'd (literally) have to be blind to not see their overt lighting under goggles. During the day, I can see how i might be a little harder to spot them.

 

[RotorAndWing]

As most of us know, this issue has become a hot one, with the FAA wanting to let drones share the airspace with the rest of us.

Your newspaper background is coming through again.

The FAA was given a directive by Congress to develop the regulations to allow drone usage in the NAS. It was not the FAA deciding to implement drones as you are alluding.

 

[DouglasBader]

I've never had a problem seeing UAVs in A-stan...but then again I only fly at night, and you'd (literally) have to be blind to not see their overt lighting under goggles. During the day, I can see how i might be a little harder to spot them.

Not everyone there is using NVG's, and very, very few people in the continental US are using them.

Even so, it's axiomatic that the UAV isn't looking for you, no rid it seeing you.

The UAV is there to search and illuminate, designate, target, or observe objects on the surface, and it's there that the UAV is focused.

There are other reasons that UAV's are often not seen, and for which they present a major traffic conflict, which need not be discussed here.

 

[Anthony]

There are other reasons that UAV's are often not seen, and for which they present a major traffic conflict, which need not be discussed here.

Well, I for one would like to discuss anything that "presents a major traffic conflict" because it's my *ss up there.

So, I guess there is some super secret stealth device that enables invisibility? I am also concerned with the very small "drones" that are being operated by whatever agency, or individual. They may be small, but getting hit by one could ruin your entire day.

 

[ClimbnSink]

UAVs not looking where they are going, pilots with glass cockpits not looking where they are going, I don't see a difference.

 

[tonycondon]

will their TCAS and Infrared detect my non-transponder equipped glider?

 

[dell30rb]

UAVs not looking where they are going, pilots with glass cockpits not looking where they are going, I don't see a difference.

Except the pilot with a glass cockpit has a little more incentive than the UAV to look around.

 

[Alexb2000]

UAVs not looking where they are going, pilots with glass cockpits not looking where they are going, I don't see a difference.

Sounds like jealousy to me. Don't lie, you know you want one so bad you can taste it.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Sounds like jealousy to me. Don't lie, you know you want one so bad you can taste it.

Not at all. I'm a helicopter and glider pilot and have nothing but disdain for instrument flight, round gauges or TV. Might as well drive a submarine if you aren't going to look out the window.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Well, I for one would like to discuss anything that "presents a major traffic conflict" because it's my *ss up there.

So, I guess there is some super secret stealth device that enables invisibility? I am also concerned with the very small "drones" that are being operated by whatever agency, or individual. They may be small, but getting hit by one could ruin your entire day.

This is my concern, too.

We are one of the few areas of the continental U.S. that deals with drones daily. They fly Predators out of Corpus Christi Naval Air Station, 25 miles South of our airport, and they have a permanent TFR over the South end of our island.

Obviously we don't fly in the TFR (and there is really no reason to, since there's nothing on that end of the island), but we do fly near it every time we fly. Predators are pretty big, but I've still never spotted one yet. This may simply mean that they aren't flying when I fly, but how would we know?

I HOPE Corpus Approach is keeping the drone pilots apprised of my position, but, again, who knows? I hear Approach talking to military pilots on every flight (we have a LOT of military training activity here), so who knows -- maybe one of them has been a drone pilot? No real way to tell them apart, on the radio.

I hope this all works itself out. Hitting a drone -- even a "little" one like the RQ-7A -- could take down any Spam Can pretty easily.

 

[Dr. O]

The biggest issue with local police/etc. departments flying them is the macho man at the controls...

 

[Jim Logajan]

will their TCAS and Infrared detect my non-transponder equipped glider?

You mean if you insist on flying one of these; probably not:

 

[BillTIZ]

I was reading an article a week or two ago about people that are using gas-powered RC helicopters, the same kind you might see at any RC airpark, for very low-level aerial photography (like real estate stuff under 100ft). The FAA determined they were operating an aircraft commercially, asserted that they own everything above ground level, and is attempting to put a stop to it.

The current FAA regs are correct. RC aircraft of any type are "home hobbiest" and governed by the AMA. Start making $$ off that RC and it is a commercial operation and now a UAS, flying over property on the ground and requires an N number, airworthy cert, pilot certifications and other dual redundancy control and safety aspects.

 

[DouglasBader]

So, I guess there is some super secret stealth device that enables invisibility?

You guess wrong, but it still doesn't change the fact that there are reasons that need not (and cannot) be discussed here. The reasons are irrelevant. The result is not.

 

[Jim Logajan]

The current FAA regs are correct. RC aircraft of any type are "home hobbiest" and governed by the AMA. Start making $$ off that RC and it is a commercial operation and now a UAS, flying over property on the ground and requires an N number, airworthy cert, pilot certifications and other dual redundancy control and safety aspects.

The statute authorizing the existence of the FAA limits it authority to "navigable" airspace. Not everything above the ground qualifies as navigable.

 

[Anthony]

You guess wrong, but it still doesn't change the fact that there are reasons that need not (and cannot) be discussed here. The reasons are irrelevant. The result is not.

You brought it up pal.

 

[DouglasBader]

You brought it up pal.

I'm not your pal, and no, I did not bring it up.

I brought up the fact that there are reasons that UAV's aren't seen and for which they're not easily detected. The reasons themselves shall not be discussed and are irrelevant. What is relevant is that you may not see them, they usually (read: virtually never) won't see you. The reasons are myriad and irrelevant to the fact that you won't see them most of them time and most of the time they won't see you.

 

[BillTIZ]

The statute authorizing the existence of the FAA limits it authority to "navigable" airspace. Not everything above the ground qualifies as navigable.

According to the FAA, from what I understand, everything above the ground is navigable airspace. Including that police helicopter dragging his skids through the tree tops, or that crop duster killing Mosquitos over the city.

 

[DouglasBader]

According to the FAA, from what I understand, everything above the ground is navigable airspace. Including that police helicopter dragging his skids through the tree tops, or that crop duster killing Mosquitos over the city.

That's absolutely correct. In fact, I know an ag operator who cut down power lines and made the statement that they represented hazards to aerial navigation.

 

[Palmpilot]

You brought it up pal.

I'm surprised that a patriotic American such as yourself is trying to get someone to reveal information that is probably classified on a public message board.

 

[Jim Logajan]

According to the FAA, from what I understand, everything above the ground is navigable airspace. Including that police helicopter dragging his skids through the tree tops, or that crop duster killing Mosquitos over the city.

The courts have denied such a broad definition for "navigable airspace" - as far back as 1946 in United States v. Causby they found in that case "the superadjacent airspace at this low altitude is so close to the land that continuous invasions of it affect the use of the surface of the land itself." The court further noted, "it is obvious that if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run." So that there are portions of airspace that are not considered navigable.

The definitions have changed some over time, so that they are somewhat more inclusive, but the courts seem to have put up some ultimate barriers to FAA overreach in their authority. The courts appear to have established that the FAA will never be able to write regulations that affect your right to toss paper airplanes in your living room or even in your yard, among other things.

Other cases that are relevant:

Matson v. United States
Bennett v. United States
United States v. Helsey

 

[Anthony]

I'm surprised that a patriotic American such as yourself is trying to get someone to reveal information that is probably classified on a public message board.

I was just trying to clarify what he meant, and find out how to see and avoid. I did NOT want any national security secrets revealed.

I am surprised someone as concerned about absolute safety for everyone as you isn't concerned about UAV's that can not be seen.

 

[Anthony]

I'm not your pal, and no, I did not bring it up.

I brought up the fact that there are reasons that UAV's aren't seen and for which they're not easily detected. The reasons themselves shall not be discussed and are irrelevant. What is relevant is that you may not see them, they usually (read: virtually never) won't see you. The reasons are myriad and irrelevant to the fact that you won't see them most of them time and most of the time they won't see you.

Well did you or didn't you? So, I should just shut up, and not care about why something can not be seen, after you so coyly brought it up, and that you are SO privileged to have knowledge others don't.

What a crock.

 

[DouglasBader]

I am surprised someone as concerned about absolute safety for everyone as you isn't concerned about UAV's that can not be seen.

I'm very concerned about see and avoid. I don't like UAV's. I hate them with a purple passion, both for their safety element, and for the fact that they're competition.

Well did you or didn't you? So, I should just shut up, and not care about why something can not be seen, after you so coyly brought it up, and that you are SO privileged to have knowledge others don't.

No, you needn't shut up. You can rabble on all you like about the irrelevant, but it won't change the fact that your whining won't get for you what you want.

If you had a need to know, and if you had a clearance, you'd already know. That you don't is evidence enough that it need not be discussed. If you had a need to know and the applicable clearance to do so, you'd understand why, too. Because you don't, that's all that need be discussed.

UAV's do not see other traffic. Depending on the mission, function, and design of the UAV traffic you will generally not see the UAV. That's what you need to know. That in many cases, the function of the UAV is to see surface targets, but to not be seen, that you need to know. That they're operating in your area is good information. That they're operating in the USA now in more places than you think; that you should know. Beyond that, it's up to the user agency to divulge details about the mission and actions of their aircraft.

UAV operations in the continental USA will be much more regulated and routine than UAV operations in other areas, never the less, special use UAV operations, because of their nature and tactics, will operate in unpredictable ways that will make them difficult to find or see. For the most part, for IFR operations, you'll have TCAS and a means to avoid: for VFR traffic not talking, you may not.

There are certain letter agencies that utilize UAV's who do not talk to anybody.

As far as "privileged," you can be too. Give up life as you know it, head overseas, and get the same experience in Iraq or Afghanistan, and see it for yourself. If you call that privileged, then more power to you. It doesn't change the fact that you have no need to know, and until you put yourself in a position to do so, all the whining in the world won't change that.

 

[Bob Noel]

If you had a need to know, and if you had a clearance, you'd already know. That you don't is evidence enough that it need not be discussed. If you had a need to know and the applicable clearance to do so, you'd understand why, too. Because you don't, that's all that need be discussed.

In a public forum, you simply don't know who knows and who doesn't know classified information.

 

[bqmassey]

As far as "privileged," you can be too. Give up life as you know it, head overseas, and get the same experience in Iraq or Afghanistan, and see it for yourself. If you call that privileged, then more power to you. It doesn't change the fact that you have no need to know, and until you put yourself in a position to do so, all the whining in the world won't change that.

Is that an easy thing to do without experience in UAS/UAVs?

 

[DouglasBader]

In a public forum, you simply don't know who knows and who doesn't know classified information.

Quite right, which is why one doesn't discuss what need not be discussed, and also why those who need to know the information already know it. Those who do not will keep asking the same questions, and will not get what they want.

Is that an easy thing to do without experience in UAS/UAVs?

No, it is not.

Then again, go fly in the same airspace, doing the same mission, and you'll have plenty of exposure to them. You need not fly them to come to understand their limits, capabilities, and hazards.

 

[darrell]

I just got done flying under an 8500' UAV ceiling tonight. I.e. there were so many UAVs that the nearby controlling tower was just telling everyone to stay under their "floor".

 

[gismo]

That's absolutely correct. In fact, I know an ag operator who cut down power lines and made the statement that they represented hazards to aerial navigation.

I have a neighbor (we live on a lake) who made the statement that fishermen who sit in their boat close to her dock and shore represented a danger to her children (the fishermen might come ashore and harm the kids). Just because someone feels threatened doesn't mean a real threat exists or that one should be able to eliminate all perceived risks.

 

[DouglasBader]

Apparently you haven't spent much time at low altitudes, but I have, and I can say that for those of us who do fly at low altitudes, towers, power lines, windmills, and other obstacles are definitely hazards to aerial navigation.