Birdstrike
Atlantic City
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2002
- Posts
- 13,334
To quote from the article, “A few years from now when you have a Federal Express going from Memphis to Tokyo with nobody on board, what will be the standards?” Think that's going to happen? With a "see and avoid" airspace system? 500 knots, no transponder, and unmanned - it's a cruise missile. They're already here in DoD and the commercial market is next. Once again technology is way out in front of the regulatory agencies. Should be interesting.
--------------------------------------------
Inside the Air Force
September 3, 2004
No Clear Consensus On Integrating UAVs Into National Airspace
Government and industry groups are moving quickly to form working groups for discussing how best to certify and integrate unmanned aerial vehicles into civilian airspace, but a consensus on priorities has yet to emerge, according to officials.
The UAV market has grown significantly since the late 1990s, mostly within the military and homeland security spheres. As the number of UAVs increases, operators want them to be given the same access to the National Airspace System (NAS) as piloted aircraft. Some military operators are upset with the requirement that they obtain a so-called certificate of authorization, or COA, from the Federal Aviation Administration every time they want to fly a UAV in the NAS, particularly during wartime.
On the other hand, pilots, especially general aviation operators, have expressed concern about safety issues with regard to communications and collision avoidance. Both positions will have to be considered by FAA officials, as they work to develop certification standards for UAVs.
One of the groups trying to work for UAV integration into the NAS is “Access 5,” which partners FAA with industry, NASA and the Defense and Homeland Security departments. Access 5 began meeting in May; it has been given five years to introduce High-Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) UAVs into the NAS.
“We want to operate remotely operated aircraft, or ROAs, routinely, safely, and reliably in the NAS,” Boeing’s Dave Buis, systems engineering and integration team leader for Access 5, told attendees at FAA’s “New Technologies Workshop” on Aug. 25. “To do this, we need to develop standards, regulations and policies for safe introduction” of UAVs into the NAS.
“We want to confer privileges to UAVs identical to piloted aircraft to the maximum extent possible, recognizing that all UAVs are not equal,” he said. “Safety performance equivalent to piloted aircraft is necessary.”
This is not an easy task, Buis stressed. He highlighted programmatic concerns -- like airworthiness, certification, air traffic management, and standards -- and regulatory concerns like FAA and International Civil Aviation Organization acceptance. There are also political concerns: How will U.S. officials and the international community manage the transition to accommodate UAVs?
Additionally, a number of concerns exist centered around certification standards, according to Buis.
Current UAVs operated by DOD use military certification standards for both safety and maintenance. The FAA has no strict certification rules for such aircraft in the NAS, and that is one reason new groups are being assembled to formulate a solution. The standards are expected to be worked on by a similar, and likely overlapping group, of aviation industry and government officials through a different forum -- RTCA Special Committee 203 on UAV integration. RTCA officials anticipate that the first meeting could be held as soon as October.
Another of the overriding concerns is how long the Pentagon will continue to abide by current UAV restrictions in the NAS, having to apply for a COA for each mission.
“This country is at war,” said John Walker, Access 5 director and co-chairman of RTCA’s SC-203. “DOD needs access now to fight and train for war. We also need UAV systems to secure our borders. Then comes commercial” UAV issues, he added.
Access 5 is vying to integrate UAVs into the NAS in a four-step phased program, said Buis. This includes routine operations of HALE UAVs at altitudes above Flight Level (FL) 400; altitudes above FL 180 with restrictions; altitudes above FL 180 and access to UAV-designated airports with emergency landings in restricted areas; and altitudes above FL 180 with access to UAV-designated airports, including emergency landings as necessary. The latter step is commonly known as “true file and fly” -- in which the operator files a flight plan in the same manner as a piloted aviation operation.
Buis stirred controversy at the meeting when he brought up the concept of UAVs operating as autonomous aircraft in a system with both cooperative and non-cooperative aircraft. One concern brought to his attention was that most GA aircraft lack transponders. Buis replied that anything that is non-transponding should be referred to as non-cooperative, but there could be sensors installed to detect UAVs and other aircraft lacking transponders.
These sensors were thought to be something similar to a non-Traffic-alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) device. This led to questions about whether the general aviation industry could afford to install the equipment. Buis said Access 5 has not progressed far enough to answer the question in its three months of existence. “Policies and procedures need to come first,” he said. “Then [we need to] demonstrate the technologies available that can work these procedures. TCAS is just one of the systems. The jury is still out on cost-effectiveness.”
Another GA industry official questioned the panel on whether all UAVs have transponders, and can see and avoid oncoming aircraft.
“For avoiding traffic, there are three methods, as a see-and-avoid system is not working and may take several years,” responded Steve Swartz, an FAA aviation safety inspector for avionics. “We use ‘in lieu-of’s’-- ground observers, ground-based radars, or chase planes to provide the clearing vector. For non-cooperative traffic, the radar needs to be skin paint -- observers need to be able to see it,” he said.
“There also needs to be some kind of two-way communication between the UAV and its ground communications source. The [UAVs] are almost exclusively with the military . . . and this system we’re not totally happy with,” Swartz added.
Another concern is the alleged proliferation of military infringements of UAV use in the NAS without a COA issued by the FAA. A GA manufacturing company official said he has heard reports of GA pilots being intercepted by military UAVs south of Albuquerque, NM, in the Rio Grande Valley. “Are there any guidelines to know that [GA aircraft] are being intercepted by UAVs so they don’t get the hell scared out of them?” the company official asked.
“We need more information,” said Swartz. “Any UAVs operating in the NAS must operate under a COA. They shouldn’t be flying out there at random. The military can fly in restricted and military airspace, but if going out of it, it has to abide by the FAA. Intercepts, by the way, are illegal.”
The question of what constitutes a UAV may also be part of any discussion for the Access 5 and RTCA groups. “It doesn’t seem like an adequate level of safety to provide the see-and-avoid concept at 500 to 600 knots,” said an FAA flight standards official in the audience. “How can we impose the see-and-avoid concept?”
Walker said that such questions are for the FAA to answer, before asking the FAA official one of his own. “500 knots? What’s that? A tomahawk missile?” For the record, the FAA official said it was.
A Coast Guard officer also said the see-and-avoid issue poses problems. “There is not a single solution to see-and-avoid,” he said. “Our credibility will be slammed if our UAVs take out a civilian aircraft. Our job is to save lives, not take them.”
Noise represents still another concern for UAV use. One GA industry official asked if UAVs are likely to have to operate under radar coverage in the future, as more operations could cause complaints about these aircraft “buzzing” over neighborhoods.
“If there is a business opportunity to use these [UAVs] like other aircraft, and procedures are in place, then why should we limit them?” replied Mike Gallagher of Aviation Support Associates. “If the FAA said it was only allowing UAVs to fly FL 180 to FL 200, would it be any different if we limited GA that wanted to fly in those altitudes?”
Walker said that the primary concern should be how to deal with safety implications in a quickly changing NAS.
Burt Rutan of Mojave, CA-based Scaled Composites, and designer of the first successful manned, commercial spacecraft that was launched in June, said the “revolution in aviation we face . . . is trying to go farther into space.”
In a few years FAA’s Air Traffic Organization Chief Operating Officer Russ Chew is going to have “problems getting landing rights for a sub-orbital” aircraft at McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas, NV, Walker said. The procedures designed for UAVs “need to be solved from the standpoint of safety,” he added.
Walker said interested observers need to understand that the commercial UAV sector is just emerging -- and is likely to provide services in the area of wireless communications, agriculture, and cargo in the future.
“A few years from now when you have a Federal Express going from Memphis to Tokyo with nobody on board, what will be the standards?” he asked.
--Joe Singleton
--------------------------------------------
Inside the Air Force
September 3, 2004
No Clear Consensus On Integrating UAVs Into National Airspace
Government and industry groups are moving quickly to form working groups for discussing how best to certify and integrate unmanned aerial vehicles into civilian airspace, but a consensus on priorities has yet to emerge, according to officials.
The UAV market has grown significantly since the late 1990s, mostly within the military and homeland security spheres. As the number of UAVs increases, operators want them to be given the same access to the National Airspace System (NAS) as piloted aircraft. Some military operators are upset with the requirement that they obtain a so-called certificate of authorization, or COA, from the Federal Aviation Administration every time they want to fly a UAV in the NAS, particularly during wartime.
On the other hand, pilots, especially general aviation operators, have expressed concern about safety issues with regard to communications and collision avoidance. Both positions will have to be considered by FAA officials, as they work to develop certification standards for UAVs.
One of the groups trying to work for UAV integration into the NAS is “Access 5,” which partners FAA with industry, NASA and the Defense and Homeland Security departments. Access 5 began meeting in May; it has been given five years to introduce High-Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) UAVs into the NAS.
“We want to operate remotely operated aircraft, or ROAs, routinely, safely, and reliably in the NAS,” Boeing’s Dave Buis, systems engineering and integration team leader for Access 5, told attendees at FAA’s “New Technologies Workshop” on Aug. 25. “To do this, we need to develop standards, regulations and policies for safe introduction” of UAVs into the NAS.
“We want to confer privileges to UAVs identical to piloted aircraft to the maximum extent possible, recognizing that all UAVs are not equal,” he said. “Safety performance equivalent to piloted aircraft is necessary.”
This is not an easy task, Buis stressed. He highlighted programmatic concerns -- like airworthiness, certification, air traffic management, and standards -- and regulatory concerns like FAA and International Civil Aviation Organization acceptance. There are also political concerns: How will U.S. officials and the international community manage the transition to accommodate UAVs?
Additionally, a number of concerns exist centered around certification standards, according to Buis.
Current UAVs operated by DOD use military certification standards for both safety and maintenance. The FAA has no strict certification rules for such aircraft in the NAS, and that is one reason new groups are being assembled to formulate a solution. The standards are expected to be worked on by a similar, and likely overlapping group, of aviation industry and government officials through a different forum -- RTCA Special Committee 203 on UAV integration. RTCA officials anticipate that the first meeting could be held as soon as October.
Another of the overriding concerns is how long the Pentagon will continue to abide by current UAV restrictions in the NAS, having to apply for a COA for each mission.
“This country is at war,” said John Walker, Access 5 director and co-chairman of RTCA’s SC-203. “DOD needs access now to fight and train for war. We also need UAV systems to secure our borders. Then comes commercial” UAV issues, he added.
Access 5 is vying to integrate UAVs into the NAS in a four-step phased program, said Buis. This includes routine operations of HALE UAVs at altitudes above Flight Level (FL) 400; altitudes above FL 180 with restrictions; altitudes above FL 180 and access to UAV-designated airports with emergency landings in restricted areas; and altitudes above FL 180 with access to UAV-designated airports, including emergency landings as necessary. The latter step is commonly known as “true file and fly” -- in which the operator files a flight plan in the same manner as a piloted aviation operation.
Buis stirred controversy at the meeting when he brought up the concept of UAVs operating as autonomous aircraft in a system with both cooperative and non-cooperative aircraft. One concern brought to his attention was that most GA aircraft lack transponders. Buis replied that anything that is non-transponding should be referred to as non-cooperative, but there could be sensors installed to detect UAVs and other aircraft lacking transponders.
These sensors were thought to be something similar to a non-Traffic-alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) device. This led to questions about whether the general aviation industry could afford to install the equipment. Buis said Access 5 has not progressed far enough to answer the question in its three months of existence. “Policies and procedures need to come first,” he said. “Then [we need to] demonstrate the technologies available that can work these procedures. TCAS is just one of the systems. The jury is still out on cost-effectiveness.”
Another GA industry official questioned the panel on whether all UAVs have transponders, and can see and avoid oncoming aircraft.
“For avoiding traffic, there are three methods, as a see-and-avoid system is not working and may take several years,” responded Steve Swartz, an FAA aviation safety inspector for avionics. “We use ‘in lieu-of’s’-- ground observers, ground-based radars, or chase planes to provide the clearing vector. For non-cooperative traffic, the radar needs to be skin paint -- observers need to be able to see it,” he said.
“There also needs to be some kind of two-way communication between the UAV and its ground communications source. The [UAVs] are almost exclusively with the military . . . and this system we’re not totally happy with,” Swartz added.
Another concern is the alleged proliferation of military infringements of UAV use in the NAS without a COA issued by the FAA. A GA manufacturing company official said he has heard reports of GA pilots being intercepted by military UAVs south of Albuquerque, NM, in the Rio Grande Valley. “Are there any guidelines to know that [GA aircraft] are being intercepted by UAVs so they don’t get the hell scared out of them?” the company official asked.
“We need more information,” said Swartz. “Any UAVs operating in the NAS must operate under a COA. They shouldn’t be flying out there at random. The military can fly in restricted and military airspace, but if going out of it, it has to abide by the FAA. Intercepts, by the way, are illegal.”
The question of what constitutes a UAV may also be part of any discussion for the Access 5 and RTCA groups. “It doesn’t seem like an adequate level of safety to provide the see-and-avoid concept at 500 to 600 knots,” said an FAA flight standards official in the audience. “How can we impose the see-and-avoid concept?”
Walker said that such questions are for the FAA to answer, before asking the FAA official one of his own. “500 knots? What’s that? A tomahawk missile?” For the record, the FAA official said it was.
A Coast Guard officer also said the see-and-avoid issue poses problems. “There is not a single solution to see-and-avoid,” he said. “Our credibility will be slammed if our UAVs take out a civilian aircraft. Our job is to save lives, not take them.”
Noise represents still another concern for UAV use. One GA industry official asked if UAVs are likely to have to operate under radar coverage in the future, as more operations could cause complaints about these aircraft “buzzing” over neighborhoods.
“If there is a business opportunity to use these [UAVs] like other aircraft, and procedures are in place, then why should we limit them?” replied Mike Gallagher of Aviation Support Associates. “If the FAA said it was only allowing UAVs to fly FL 180 to FL 200, would it be any different if we limited GA that wanted to fly in those altitudes?”
Walker said that the primary concern should be how to deal with safety implications in a quickly changing NAS.
Burt Rutan of Mojave, CA-based Scaled Composites, and designer of the first successful manned, commercial spacecraft that was launched in June, said the “revolution in aviation we face . . . is trying to go farther into space.”
In a few years FAA’s Air Traffic Organization Chief Operating Officer Russ Chew is going to have “problems getting landing rights for a sub-orbital” aircraft at McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas, NV, Walker said. The procedures designed for UAVs “need to be solved from the standpoint of safety,” he added.
Walker said interested observers need to understand that the commercial UAV sector is just emerging -- and is likely to provide services in the area of wireless communications, agriculture, and cargo in the future.
“A few years from now when you have a Federal Express going from Memphis to Tokyo with nobody on board, what will be the standards?” he asked.
--Joe Singleton
