Should There be Wireless Planes?

I think this will be a challenge.

We already have the new FAA Sport Pilot class of license which is designed to add new pilots to the current ranks of private pilots. The goal is to get more machinery up into the air.

Virtually none of the private aircraft have TCAS systems (Traffic Collision Avoidance Systems) and all rely on VFR (Visual Flight Rules) for spotting traffic.

UAS are virtually blind when it comes to spotting traffic. They operate in the same altitude envelope that private aircraft do (from hang gliders to multi-engine), which lack the TCAS responders needed to identify potential threats.

Depending on the airspace that they are operated in, the potential for a mishap is going to be higher.

I know that UAS are already gaining popularity for performing aerial photography as well as aerial inspection services for companies. The operational costs are cheap compared to manned aircraft and I would expect that trend to continue.

Not only Sport Pilot, but Recreational Pilot ratings have me concerned about aircraft density over populated areas. Not to mention traffic in the pattern.

But, considering the number of aircraft in the air at any time, flying is relatively safe.

My concern is that it's very hard to "un-ring" the bell, once they are in the air.

As the FAA control or try to control the worlds second largest air space, it is understandable that they would look at UAS as being part of the next wave of aircraft. I agree with everything that Hero said, it is very difficult so see small craft. As a private helicopter pilot, while training, someone had a remote control toy plane and decided it would be fun to buzz me while I was in low hover in a field practicing. We (the instructor and me) did not see this toy until it was right on us.

Is it off the point... not really, small private craft rely on line of sight or Visual flying rules (VFR) which means NOT flying by instruments, and TCAS is not installed as standard, so imagine if the toy is now a UAS....

A lot more research and I think defined areas for UAS will have to be set up, those areas would have to be away from established air traffic, built up areas, flight training areas etc....and the pilots would have to qualify first in fixed wing.

To get back on point and stir the pot a bit, this is an FAA that still supports manned aircraft without radios.

I think they need to be very, very careful with this!!!!

Forget crashes and safety.....................in the wrong hands, these would make an excellent delivery system for chemical/biological weapons.

This is a little off track, but weaponizing chemical and biological material is an extremely difficult feat, for one thing.

I agree, that these could be an interesting payload vehicle, but there are a lot of limitations and unlike a missile, they really do not have a good mechanism to release the payload in an effective way.

Military chemical and biological agents are orders of magnitude more effective than any crude system developed by terrorists. The likelihood would be a minimal impact (if any), but great fodder for Hollywood.

Using UAS to deliver explosives has its limitations, too, mainly mass or weight. Unless you are using exotic explosive material, the amount of payload available, even in a full-sized private aircraft, simply is not enough to do significant damage. Just look at IED car bombs, which typically are measured in thousands of pounds.

You're forgetting one thing AH.................we live in hyper-reactive America.

A small fleet of these things, combined with the threat alone, (no payload), could potentially throw every major US city into complete chaos.

So yes, I still believe we need to be very careful about who is able to get their hands on these cute little planes. They should never be something that is available to the general public. This is one of those cases where I believe that government scrutiny is a must.

they really do not have a good mechanism to release the payload in an effective way.

I don't suppose it would occur to the bad guys that crashing them might work.

I would respectfully disagree.

Please read a recent post I made at CR4 HERE regarding such things.

There is a lot more that I can say, but the post will give you a taste of why such an event is highly, highly unlikely.

By the way, simply crashing is not an effect way to dispense biological/chemical material, even weaponized material. There is so much more required and I don't have time to explain it all, so you might want to do some research if you really want to know more. It is fascinating stuff, but please don't try to draw too much attention doing it. ;-) We like you here.

I understand your point of view.

To oversimplify my point of view:

1) People can, and will panic easily, given the right set of circumstances.

2) People should not simply be able to go online or down to the local Walmart and purchase a drone airplane. Ever. (I'm not referring to the RC hobby planes. I'm talking about planes with real range.)

I could also be entirely off track. The blog title kind of leaves it all open to interpretation.

Drones COULD be ("crude"-drones,anyway) made from RC planes, imo. Some of the Ryan target-drones were 1/4-scale planes, used to train AA-gunners during WWII. Is 1/4-scale the largest type of "model" airplane? I think so.

Given the fact that the report says the FAA is expected to issue a proposed rule, governing a road map for UAS deployment, I predict that actual deployment is probably 10 years down the road.

Keep in mind that aircraft still use analog radios and do not use GPS, even though digital radios and GPS have both been around for decades. Your fears of deployment any time soon would be unfounded, in my opinion

GPS is in current aircraft all over the place. This includes GPS approved for the approach modes in landing, which is a highly critical mode.

I was working on a program to do that with private aircraft years ago and it it has been up and running for a long time.

Thanks for setting me straight. I need to get out more.

I stand by my contention that it will be years before we see UAS in common use.

Probably true.

Ground-Based Augmentation System (GBAS), a safety-critical system that augments the GPS Standard Positioning Service (SPS) and provides enhanced levels of service. It supports all phases of approach, landing, departure, and surface operations within the VHF coverage volume. GBAS provides the capability to service the entire airportwith a single frequency (VHF transmission) whereas ILS requires a separate frequency for each runway end.

GBAS CAT-I is seen as a necessary step towards the more stringent operations of CAT-II/III precision approach and landing. GBAS is expected to play a key role in modernization and in all-weather operations capability at CATI/II and III airports, terminal area navigation, missed approach guidance and surface operations.

I think GBAS is old stuff, but it looks like it is intended to compliment the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS). I don't think that system is actually operational.

What we were doing work on was the WAAS for Satellite Based Augmentation System (SBAS) so that GPS can be used for all phases of flight, including precision landing.

WAAS is a series of ground based stations that monitor the GPS signal for any atmospheric deviations in the GPS signal precision, then broadcast those deviations to geosynchronous WAAS satellites that, in turn, broadcast the correction data back to the GPS receivers in the aircraft.

When I was on the project there were two WAAS satellites that covered North America, Hawaii, and Alaska. Europe was working on the same type of system.

This is a very dangerous thing to do, and you won't get many people into an aircraft which has no pilot, and if they are only going to use these planes for cargo it will still be very dangerous, so they should tread carefully on this one!

Well, if they put people on the plane it won't be unmanned any more, would it? ;-)

Actually, the systems they are talking about are small aircraft (as small as an RC aircraft, but no bigger than a small private plane).

Their purpose would be aerial photography, surveillance, search and rescue (SAR), or other forms of sensing instrumentation.

They are not discussing automated commercial transport.

I thought that you already had these, they call them "Drones"! The police here in Britain use a small RC helicoper with four rotors to hover over a town center or anywhere else there might be trouble, these small helicopters (3 feet dia) have small TV cameras onboard, and a sound system (loudspeaker), so that the police can talk to those on the ground, so now we know that Big Brother really is here!

Yes, our community bough a UAV years ago, but have not been able to get FAA authorization to fly it.

In terms of regulation the US is way behind on drones compared to Europe and Australia specifically.

As currently envisioned in pending regulation there are only 'State' operators of UAVs, so the Forest Service, Customs, and the like.

However, I should mention there has been interest from cargo carriers.

Welcome aboard Flight 123 to Los Wages. We are proud to announce that this is the first commercial flight of an aircraft which has no aircrew at all. No pilot... No copilot... No Engineer... There is no reason to be concerned. In this aircraft, all systems are triple redundant, and the aircraft has been thoroughly tested. We assure you that absolutely NOTHING can go wrong... go wrong... go wrong... go wrong... go wrong...