Home » Air » The Struggle To Get UAVs Flying

The Struggle To Get UAVs Flying

By Colin Clark Tuesday, August 11th, 2009 3:13 pm
Posted in Air, Policy

The Pentagon and FAA finally seem to be moving toward resolution of one of the toughest policy issues facing unmanned aerial vehicles: where and when can they fly in civil airspace.

Last week’s collision between a helicopter and small plane over New York raises the stakes and reinforces the need for stringent UAV safety protocols, said several experts attending the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International conference here in Washington. They did not want to be identified. One expert said that last week’s crash “reinforces the fear” that an accident might occur between a UAV and a plane. The expert added that it would take only one collision between a UAV and a passenger plane “to set back things completely.”

Right now UAVs are largely useless in the United States and Europe because of the continuing impasse between understandably safety-minded civil air authorities and those who want to operate UAVs in civil air space. How important is it for the FAA and friends to come up with a solution to this problem? “Absolutely essential,” Gene Fisher, Northrop Grumman’s VP strike and surveillance systems, said when I asked him about the problem during a briefing at the AUVSI 2009 conference here in Washington.

Right now, as the Department of Homeland Security knows all too well, UAVs cannot fly in most civil airspace. When a Global Hawk or other assets are deployed to the border they must either operate in restricted airspace or have a manned aircraft fly with them. UAVs are easy to fly in a military zone. Aside from keeping clear of friendly aircraft, few restrictions hem unmanned vehicles in as they gather information or fire weapons.

So, faced with the likely prospect that the Air Force’s new UAV center at Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota would be faced with the rather embarrassing prospect of not being able to fly UAVs once they arrive, the two senators and one congressman from North Dakota sat down in February with representatives from the Pentagon, FAA and other government agencies and told them to come up with some answers. (In addition to the UAV center, the University of North Dakota is home to the Unmanned Aircraft Systems Center of Excellence, where pilots are trained to fly. They’ve just started what may be the first four-year degree course in UAVs.

That February meeting led to the creation of something called the Red River Working Group — one of 11 in existence — which the Pentagon believes is a test case for the military’s efforts to solve this problem. Air Force Lt. Col. Dallas Brooks, who is heading the Air Force’s efforts on this, said the working group works with the Joint Staff and the Joint Interagency UAS Working Group formed by the FAA to come up with answers. The interagency group includes the Defense Department, FAA and NASA.

Along with policy answers to the problem of letting UAVs fly in civil airspace there may be technical solutions. The most promising approach involves sense-and-avoid technology. Essentially, UAVs would use a combination of radar, algorithms and software to ensure that if they detect they are on a collision course they would take evasive action. One of the experts at the AUVSI conference said the best approach would be to require manned and unmanned aircraft to fly with sense-and-avoid technology. So far, the focus has been on equipping only UAVs with it.

Northrop’s Gene Fraser said that piloted planes, reliant on pilot’s eyes and the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) don’t really provide much of a safety margin and they should include sense and avoid technology. “If you are going to require sense and avoid on unmanned platforms that same technology should be included on a manned platform,” he said.

Whether the Red River efforts will actually lead to a solution appears uncertain at this point. Although Sen. Byron Dorgan and other members of the North Dakota delegation are pushing hard, one well informed source believes they are a useful addition to the chorus calling for a fix, but doubts they will be enough to overcome the FAA’s deep-seated concerns about the possibilities of a UAV colliding with a passenger plane.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

	War Pony August 15th, 2009 at 12:17 am “… the toughest policy issues facing unmanned aerial vehicles: where and when can they fly in civil airspace.“ … btw, this violates the Posse Comitatus Act federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 18, 1878. And, “They’ve just started what may be the first four-year degree course in UAVs“ … actually, they are flown by enlisted computer techies, you know, joy-stick geeks/gamers. This STINKS of TYRANNY and doesn’t bode well for the US Citizens. Throw in HR 645 (Internment Camps) — now operational, and Homeland Security handed over to DOD (no FOIA ’cause National Security) with eavesdropping satellites and I’d say we are in for quite a police-state round up. Martial law will mean it’s time for the revolution according to the unorganized militia (codified in law)! Did you catch that they are manning the camps with MOS: Internment Resettlement Specialists and FEMA has solicited bids to bring their camps up to speed? I’d give us about 3 months.
	D August 18th, 2009 at 5:05 pm this violates the Posse Comitatus Act federal law Military jets fly in civil airspace all the time for training and military operations. actually, they are flown by enlisted computer techies, you know, joy-stick geeks/gamers. Depending on the service and the vehicle, UAVs are operated by qualified military pilots. The benefits of UAV-specific training that avoid the costs of full manned vehicle training are still being weighed by the different services.
	Musket 104 August 20th, 2009 at 4:03 pm good article. The FAA is extremely wary of anything without a pilot in the civil (read “their”) airspace. The main thing is that he FAA wants to be absolutely certain of where that UAV /RPV is at all times. Wiht a manned aircraft, the pilot can look at the cockpit Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) displays, interpret warnings, and take action to avoid collision. A method for the UAV pilot, many miles away from the aircraft to do the same thing. I’d wager not a lot of brain-power has been focused on development of a 100% reliable communications system to enable constant real-time interpretation of TCAS info by the UAV pilot. A FAA Air Route Traffic aaocntrol Center (ATTCC), in whose sector the UAV is flying, has to be able to communicate with an RPV operator a thousand or two miles away. If the RPV has an emergency, doe does it thread itself through the layers of civil airspace to get to somewhere it can land? The FAA can wave the “Safety of Flight” flag and the USAF had better be ready to pay for doing exactly what the FAA wants.
	Cole August 20th, 2009 at 7:34 pm Considering how many people die in automobile accidents and in small private plane crashes each year compared to the number of mid-airs, I’m not sure this is as much of a potential airspace concern as the FAA may believe. The above and following views are completely my own opinion. The NY mid-air involved two pilots with see-and-avoid eyeballs and they could not avoid a mid-air. But you would think they should have been under positive control instead of allegedly talking to his girlfriend…my opinion, regardless of whether it was uncontrolled airspace. Reference border UAS flight, couldn’t they make the border regions military airspace in a particular band of altitudes? All private and commercial pilots would be required to avoid those altitudes within say 10 miles of the Canadian and Mexican borders and at an established distance off shore. I would also place all take-off and landing locations within that border region/shoreline and establish similar restricted airspace for launch and recovery. The UAS operator could also view TCAS displays in their ground control stations and react accordingly. Now it appears all UAS operators of certain size unmanned aircraft will require private pilot licenses. But suspect, IMHO, that the Army, would not want to operate UAS off of military installations (without a chase plane) in the U.S. except to assist support for natural disasters. In those rare instances, a temporary flight restriction could be implemented restricting UAS to a particular altitude blocks that civil aircraft would avoid…plus air traffic control authorities would generally be in that vicinity for positive control and to advise private/commercial flights about the temporary restricted airspace, as required. The remaining time, you would believe that most CONUS UAS training could occur in both simulators and on military installations. The USAF and Navy have unique challenges with their respective versions of Global Hawk, UCAV, and Reaper/Predator. But not sure there is a need for 11 working groups to solve this. Will have to ask my FAA brother-in-law about it, as he is also an Army Guard pilot. Obviously there is commercial traffic in Iraq and Afghanistan and over the ocean and somehow they make it work. But the Services could also read the tea leaves and figure out that the airspace reason alone is probably why you would always want manned piloted cargo/passenger flights and manned/unmanned teams for fighters and sophisticated UAS…thus creating your own accompanying chase plane. I can frankly never envision the day or bandwidth when paying passengers would board an unmanned commercial airliner or Soldiers etc would be flown on an unmanned C-17 or UH-60. The airspace problem just cements that concern.