Should CAP Start Training for UAV's?

[FARRIER]

      Not stealing RiverAux's thread. He actually brought up the wings used by ICE a few years back. I was even "yeah right" at that point. I owe RiverAux an apology for that. In my last few years in the Aerospace industry, there was so much being automated in the cockpit, that I was wondering where if any differences lied at that point. Getting to my point.

     Armed US troops carried smaller UAV's on their back and deployed them in the field. The only thing preventing us from doing so is the bill congress signed and RiverAux brought up in his post. Currently we are doing aerial photography. How much longer do you think that will last once UAV's are properly integrated into civil airspace.

     There were already civil uses of UAV's in photography in the real estate market that were put on hold because of Congresses bill. County SAR teams, if they are ready when the integration happens, do you think we will get called? There are also UAV hobbyist looking to break into the market as a business.

I would strongly suggest CAP start working with UAV's, both as Aerospace Education projects and ES projects, since the lines are becoming blurred. When the time comes, we can convince Congress and the Air Force that we are still viable at that point.

[NCRblues]

I would strongly suggest CAP start working with UAV's, both as Aerospace Education projects and ES projects, since the lines are becoming blurred. When the time comes, we can convince Congress and the Air Force that we are still viable at that point.

I am sorry to come across like this, but I really feel this in my heart...

CAP can not even decide what/when/how/why/where to ask the AF for new uniforms or any other number of things non-uniform related. What makes you think CAP can pull together and set up all new rules/regulations/SOP's for UAVs?

I believe a last minute race to the top for UAV's would devastate this organization. IMHO The infighting, back stabbing and outright deceit to see who gets to work with UAV's would deplete any hope CAP has to survive the coming budget crunch and political infighting that is already going on.

In my heart, and it breaks it to admit this, but I believe that CAP is only kept alive for feeding warm bodies into lackland/colorado springs. 

Lets all be very honest here, missions (all missions across the board) are down SIGNIFICANTLY. Would UAV's give us enough missions to sustain the life support? I doubt it...

[FW]

Unless you're thinking about enhanced RC model aircraft, CAP will most likely NOT be directly dealing with UAV's.  Cost's are prohibitive and, the National Guard is "chomping at the bit" to incorporate UAV's into their missions. I'm pretty sure the National Gaurd will get priority in this field. UAV's will be a cost effective way to deal with their role in Homeland Security and LE.  Things we can't do because of Posse Commitatus...

IMHO; if CAP has any chance to be relavent in this, we need to understand what we can do; given this new reality.  UAV's will be flying in US airspace soon.  It is a given.  With new ADS-B navigation technology, GA and the airlines will not need to worry about sharing the skies.  Yes, UAV's will be used by agencies for SAL/R and DR as well as some other of our missions (CD). We need to prepare for the future now.  Otherwise...  

[FARRIER]

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007MBSTBW

Emergency Unmanned Aircraft Systems [Kindle Edition]

[FARRIER]

http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/heres-the-page-for-local-diy

Here's the page for local DIY Drones fly/meetup groups.

[FARRIER]

http://www.civilianuav.com/

Civilian UAV's

[isuhawkeye]

so, whats the difference between a UAV and a remote controlled hekocopter or airplane.  are these just fancy names for things hobbiests have been doing for years?

[Eclipse]

I believe UAV's have autonomous capabilities when they lose connectivity, unlike your average DIY helo which runs into the 7-11.

[Spaceman3750]

I believe UAV's have autonomous capabilities when they lose connectivity, unlike your average DIY helo which runs into the 7-11.

Yes, UAV's have significant autonomous capabilities if disconnected. While the hobbyist's RC crashes into the nearest 7-11 or Circle K, the UAV will use Google Earth to determine all 7-11's in the area, then reference Yelp to figure out which one is most popular before choosing one to crash into and determining the best path to impact .

[isuhawkeye]

Thats interesting because I have seen a hobbiest remote controll plane that will return to the take off point and enter a hold patern if its RC signal is lost. 

Is that the only difference?

[sardak]

Here are the differences
1. If you want to fly your RC/UAS/UAV as an individual hobbyist or recreationalist you declare it an RC model aircraft. You must fly it below 400 ft AGL, so your personal Predator will still [insert objective] out of someone, it just won't be a dot in the sky. And yes, RC model aircraft can be flown autonomously (methods are found at the links posted by Farrier), that is not the discriminator. If you're a hobbyist, then you just have to read FAA Advisory Circular AC91-57, published in 1981 (the dawn of personal computers). 

2. If you want to fly the same aircraft as a business or government,  then you are subject to FAA rules:
# Can a civilian company operate an UAS as part of a business?
Currently, civilian companies may not operate a UAS as part of a business without obtaining a Special Airworthiness Certificate - Experimental Category (SAC-EC). However, this SAC-EC is very limited in scope of operational use. Contact FAA for details or see FAA Order 8130.34.

# Who can receive a COA (Certificate of Waiver or Authorization) to fly a UA in the NAS?
Only public agencies operating an unmanned aircraft.

# What is a "Public Agency?"
Any agency that operates a public aircraft (14 CFR Part 1.1). If you receive funding from the federal government at some level, you are probably a "Public Agency." A public agency can never operate under the guidelines of Advisory Circular 91-57 (Model Aircraft Operating Standards). 

Civil Air Patrol is not a public agency - both the FAA and NTSB have determined that CAP is a business, i.e. Civil Air Patrol, Inc.

The FAA has lots of information about UAS operation (as posted in other CAP Talk threads on this subject):
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/aaim/organizations/uas/coa/faq/
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/aaim/organizations/uas/
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/aaim/organizations/uas/links/

Mike

[Eclipse]

Civil Air Patrol is not a public agency - both the FAA and NTSB have determined that CAP is a business, i.e. Civil Air Patrol, Inc.

What if we were operating military-owned equipment on an AFAM?

That's why our uniforms are gray, because so is our situation.

[bflynn]

What if we were operating military-owned equipment on an AFAM?

A Predator costs something like 10 million apiece.  "We" will never operate it on an Air Force or any other assigned mission.  I'd wager that nobody who hasn't been to extensive training will ever operate one.

Your grandchildren in CAP...maybe.

[bflynn]

When the time comes, we can convince Congress and the Air Force that we are still viable at that point.

With all respect, when the time comes that only UAVs are flying any more, there will be no mission for the CAP anymore because there will be no Civil Air anymore.  UAVs are not our friends, assuming you like to actually get in an airplane and not just play a video game at work.

I think that say is long, long off.  Mostly because there is little demand for UAVs today.  It makes no sense to replace a 3 man air crew with a 3+ man operator crew plus a 10 person support crew.  And I think General Aviation in this country will fight tooth and nail for the right to continue to exist.

[Eclipse]

What if we were operating military-owned equipment on an AFAM?

A Predator costs something like 10 million apiece.  "We" will never operate it on an Air Force or any other assigned mission.  I'd wager that nobody who hasn't been to extensive training will ever operate one.

Your grandchildren in CAP...maybe.

Tier III UAV's such as the MQ-1 are unnecessary for the types of missions we will be tasked with.
The systems we would use would be significantly less expensive such as the Wasp III or Gnat 750, both of which are 1/3 the cost of our current
aircraft, and less even then the senor balls in use today.

The capital cost of the airframes is generally the smallest cost of operations, with the training, salary and benefits of the operators being the
big piece of the pie, which CAP provides for "free".  Of course the odds are that by the time these become usable in the US, they will be fully autonomous
and programmed with an app.

[Spaceman3750]

At the Illinois SAR Council conference in October a company was hawking a SAR/DR quadcopter. That thing was purty, but it was also in the $100k+ range, and of course was not as capable as the Cessnas we have today.

[bflynn]

which CAP provides for "free".

A nice thought but I don't see how CAP will have anyone  qualified to offer this service.  Current AF UAV classes run about 15 weeks and a UAV operational team isn't just a pilot and someone watching them.  There is manpower involved in servicing the UAV, probably more in servicing and preparing the UAV than in actually flying it.  This would be equivilent to telling the AF that we can fly their F-22s for them.

Additionally, there's the issue of communciations with the UAV, currently exclusively sattelite if I recall.  This is the expensive side of the equation.  There is no need to have the control team even on the same continent as the UAV.  The AF can base their crews anywhere, the concept of a CAP wing taking geographic control of an area is meaningless.

I don't see CAP ever playing in the UAV arena.

[Eclipse]

Yes, this is clearly a role CAP members are unqualified to perform:


(Launching a Wasp III)


Wasp III operator's console.

The whole system fits in a briefcase that is smaller than the ARCHER ground station, and can be manned by a single person.

[bflynn]

Hmmm, yes we could probably operate that. 

The Wasp has a 5 mile range and costs $50,000.  I just don't see a mission for it.

[Eclipse]

The Wasp III is one example of the micro UAV's the services have been implementing for the last 10 some years.

It is one of hundreds currently available, but with that said, a 5 km range would be extremely effective for CAP use.

Drop a ground team into the center of a disaster area, launch the UAV, and do a 3-mile circular photo survey, which could be
sent to the customer in minutes.

Put one system in each group of a given wing - at $50k each that would be less then the cost of one new 182, with significantly
better fast-spin aerial capability.  Most tornado DA's are relatively confined areas along a fairly coherent path, making a aerial
survey like this very effective.

[Spaceman3750]

The Wasp III is one example of the micro UAV's the services have been implementing for the last 10 some years.

It is one of hundreds currently available, but with that said, a 5 km range would be extremely effective for CAP use.

Drop a ground team into the center of a disaster area, launch the UAV, and do a 3-mile circular photo survey, which could be
sent to the customer in minutes.

Put one system in each group of a given wing - at $50k each that would be less then the cost of one new 182, with significantly
better fast-spin aerial capability.  Most tornado DA's are relatively confined areas along a fairly coherent path, making a aerial
survey like this very effective.

If I get qualified on one do I get to wear wings?

I want an entire fleet of those little things in the TED talk, mostly because I'm a geek.

[bflynn]

Hmmm....

3 miles circular survey?  You mean a circle with circumference = 3 miles?  That's a radius of just under 1/2 mile, it's not a great deal different than one of our current photo missions.  Except that you've taken the "Air" out of it and just made it Civil Patrol.  Knock yourself out with it, I'll just go flying...

There are all different sizes fo UAVs.  I won't claim that there are no missions, but I'm just not seeing it.  There is a trade off between size, cost, endurance and capabilities.  The smallest one is 50,000 and is a replacement for photo missions.  Don't forget that you still have to drive there. 

[Eclipse]

The smallest one is not $50k, the Wasp is $50k.  It is no longer the smallest, nor necessarily even the best, considering it is 10 years old, just one option used for the discussion.

A theoretical 3-mile range provides a radius of 3-miles and a circular survey with a diameter of 6 and a circumference (the important part) of 18 miles, and using the wasp as an example, that's at least a 2-sided survey.

An 18 mile survey is a pretty good patch to cover in about 30 minutes.  The gas probably costs less than $10.

[Eclipse]

catch me if you can -crazy Horst

The kinds of things being done, today. Does a nice job showing off the resolution and scope of a single, consumer-grade camera.
Also shows some of the risk of the platform.

[RiverAux]

With all respect, when the time comes that only UAVs are flying any more, there will be no mission for the CAP anymore because there will be no Civil Air anymore. 

Well, there basically is not a need right now for most of the small private airplanes that we spend most of our time looking for.  With the exception of Alaska and a few other places, small private airplanes are a luxury item that aren't really needed by anyone.  Yet, people buy, fly, and crash them anyway. 

[bflynn]

No, we don't need to fly airplanes, it's just fun to do.  As long as civilians can fly airplanes, we should. 

At some future date, it will probably no longer be possible and then we'd have to fly UAVs.  By that point, our services won't be needed anymore.  Adoption of UAVs hastens the end of civilian aviation.  I think that happens many, many years in the future.

As a pilot, I'm very concerned about sharing airspace with an airplane that can neither see nor avoid me.  Maybe when ADSB is fully adopted it will be different, but I think I'll still be concerned.

[FARRIER]

3 miles circular survey?  You mean a circle with circumference = 3 miles?  That's a radius of just under 1/2 mile, it's not a great deal different than one of our current photo missions.  Except that you've taken the "Air" out of it and just made it Civil Patrol.  Knock yourself out with it, I'll just go flying...

The Air Force, as an aerospace force, includes UAV's. The platform still has fixed wings and a propulsion system, or a rotor system which operates under flight principals.

Things to look at, UAV's, depending upon their size, may not need an airport. A ground team with a UAV, which is closer, possibly respond quicker? Also the training is less intensive. The Air Force only requires applicants for the program to have a private pilots license. The Army, their training modules are something similar to video gaming.

The Iraq and Afghanistan Wars had shown light on this technology. The genie is out of the bottle. SAR agencies will not need to own Cessna's or helicopters to get into SAR. The UAV's just decreased the cost of entry into this business.

Respectfully,

[bflynn]

Well, we disagree.  I don't know that a van going 55 mph on the roads can deploy faster than an airplane at 120 mph (~110 kts) or that video surveillance from a UAV can replace photographic missions, but you never know.

I think back to the last photographic mission we had here, related to tornados.  I can't see someone flying a UAV along a 75 mile track and returning it to base, certainly not one that costs less than a Cessna.  As I've said before, perhaps there are missions that it's appropriate for, but I'm not seeing them.

[Майор Хаткевич]

catch me if you can -crazy Horst

The kinds of things being done, today. Does a nice job showing off the resolution and scope of a single, consumer-grade camera.
Also shows some of the risk of the platform.

The angle of the camera that captured the retrieval at around 2 Minutes was perfect!

[SarDragon]

Well, we disagree.  I don't know that a van going 55 mph on the roads can deploy faster than an airplane at 120 mph (~110 kts) ...

I get a page for UDF at 0100. At 0115, I'm out the door. Do a 5 min "preflight" of the vehicle, and I'm deployed. I can usually brief via radio or cell phone.

Aircrew gets the same page. Thirty minutes later they might all be at the airport. An hour later, the plane is preflighted, and the weather and mission have been briefed. Maybe two hours after the page, the plane is airborne.

I have a 100 minute head start. That's how.

[lordmonar]

I think that say is long, long off.  Mostly because there is little demand for UAVs today.  It makes no sense to replace a 3 man air crew with a 3+ man operator crew plus a 10 person support crew.  And I think General Aviation in this country will fight tooth and nail for the right to continue to exist.

I'm sorry I have to say that you don't know what you are talking about.
I right now this instant am sitting here support UAV operations and UAVs are very much in demand!

As for the sense in replacing a 3 man in aircraft crew with a UAV crew and their support team:
1. Longer operations.....you can't change out a crew in flight with a "real" plane....but you can do it all day long on a UAV.
2. Safer operations.....your plane crashes, someone take a shot at you, you get sick in flight....no lives are lost.
3. Cheaper aircraft....because no lives are at stake...you need less redundancy, no life support equipment, smaller airframes.
4.  Better performance.....todays top fighers are still limited in performance based on the limitations of the human body.  No bodies...then it is simply a matter of what the airframe can stand.

I agree that maybe our grandchildren will be the one in a UAV CAP.....but it will happen.

[lordmonar]

No, we don't need to fly airplanes, it's just fun to do.  As long as civilians can fly airplanes, we should. 

At some future date, it will probably no longer be possible and then we'd have to fly UAVs.  By that point, our services won't be needed anymore.  Adoption of UAVs hastens the end of civilian aviation.  I think that happens many, many years in the future.

As a pilot, I'm very concerned about sharing airspace with an airplane that can neither see nor avoid me.  Maybe when ADSB is fully adopted it will be different, but I think I'll still be concerned.

I don't see how adopting the UAV will end civil aviation.
Like you said...people will continue to fly because the like it.
Just because the military and maybe someday the airliners are flying unmanned aircraft....has little or not impact on civil aviation.
UAV pilots will still want to fly the real thing and so will the civil community in general.
If anything is going to kill civil aviaiton is will be gas prices.  It is getting harder and harder to pay to fly yourself around these days.

[Eclipse]

And I think General Aviation in this country will fight tooth and nail for the right to continue to exist.

I agree, they will, and it won't matter once they become irrelevant.

Habadashers, Buggy Whip Makers, Typewriter Manufacturers, Film Camera Manufacturers, etc., etc., all had their day, but once they were unnecessary fell by the wayside or were reduced to niche markets for hobbyists. 

So, too, will general aviation, and also most likely ground vehicles as we know them today.

[Spaceman3750]

I think that say is long, long off.  Mostly because there is little demand for UAVs today.  It makes no sense to replace a 3 man air crew with a 3+ man operator crew plus a 10 person support crew.  And I think General Aviation in this country will fight tooth and nail for the right to continue to exist.

I'm sorry I have to say that you don't know what you are talking about.
I right now this instant am sitting here support UAV operations and UAVs are very much in demand!

As for the sense in replacing a 3 man in aircraft crew with a UAV crew and their support team:
1. Longer operations.....you can't change out a crew in flight with a "real" plane....but you can do it all day long on a UAV.
2. Safer operations.....your plane crashes, someone take a shot at you, you get sick in flight....no lives are lost.
3. Cheaper aircraft....because no lives are at stake...you need less redundancy, no life support equipment, smaller airframes.
4.  Better performance.....todays top fighers are still limited in performance based on the limitations of the human body.  No bodies...then it is simply a matter of what the airframe can stand.

I agree that maybe our grandchildren will be the one in a UAV CAP.....but it will happen.

I'm not sure I would want to be part of a CAP where operations take place from a windowless basement instead of in the real world where our targets are.

[lordmonar]

Well, we disagree.  I don't know that a van going 55 mph on the roads can deploy faster than an airplane at 120 mph (~110 kts) or that video surveillance from a UAV can replace photographic missions, but you never know.

I think back to the last photographic mission we had here, related to tornados.  I can't see someone flying a UAV along a 75 mile track and returning it to base, certainly not one that costs less than a Cessna.  As I've said before, perhaps there are missions that it's appropriate for, but I'm not seeing them.

Here is the cost savings.

a.  The UAV could fly a full 20+ hours in one sortie.
b.  The video/imagry is real time

For bunch of censsnas to fly the same profile you would need two or three of them with two crews each.  You would have to buy the imagry equipment and the downlink equipment.

CAP one day may be out of a job....once the National Guard starts getting UAVs in a big way and the FAA works out the rules for sharing the uncontrolled air space and the demand for UAV over seas drops off (i.e. the wars end).

An MQ-1 costs around $2.4M....most of that cost is in the sensor ball.  A full four bird CAP with ground control station and satellite termal runs around $10M.

To match this sort of capability with CAP type aircraft you are still looking at some pretty big numbers...once your add the sensor and satellite package to your six C-182's.  Then you are going to have to man and maintain them.....all expensive.

Like I said....this is not going to happen tommorrow.....probably will not happen in the next 10 years....but IMHO it will happen.

[Spaceman3750]

So, too, will general aviation, and also most likely ground vehicles as we know them today.

Bow to your robot overlords .

[Eclipse]

I'm not sure I would want to be part of a CAP where operations take place from a windowless basement instead of in the real world where our targets are.

Right - because that's the purview of the Comm Guys "More Hot Pockets mom!"

[RiverAux]

Like I said....this is not going to happen tommorrow.....probably will not happen in the next 10 years....but IMHO it will happen.

I think that we're going to be out of business in terms of aerial photography following major disasters (such as the recent oil spill) in less than 5 years.  Sure, the local county administrator or state might occasionally ask us to take some photos for their powerpoint presentations, but in terms of actual damage assessment and monitoring, we're not long for this world. 

I think we're probably safe for most missing airplane searches for 10+ years.  If the search area is extremely small or if you really want to focus on the traditional high probability areas near airports, the UAVs might take over much sooner.  But, when you've got half the county, or even half the state to search, CAP will still have a job for quite a while. 

However, we may want to start thinking about integrating these into our missions.  It will be interesting to see how those joint missions are set up.  For those states where CAP has traditionally been allowed to take the lead in lost aircraft SAR, we might see the NG take over. 

[FARRIER]

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42136.pdf

U.S. Unmanned Aerial Systems

[FARRIER]

http://www.vuse.vanderbilt.edu/~adamsja/Papers/GoodrichSSRRCameraReady.pdf

"Using a Mini-UAV to Support Wilderness Search and Rescue: Practices for Human-Robot Teaming

Throughout the paper, we use information obtained from subject matter experts from Utah County Search and Rescue, and report experiences and "lessons learned" from a series of trials using human-robot teams to perform mock searches. "

[754837]

No, we don't need to fly airplanes, it's just fun to do.  As long as civilians can fly airplanes, we should. 

Just a reminder, CAP pilots & other members are civilians, not members of the military.  It is dangerous to forget this point.

[SarDragon]

Huh?

Could you elaborate on that?

[bflynn]

No, we don't need to fly airplanes, it's just fun to do.  As long as civilians can fly airplanes, we should. 

Just a reminder, CAP pilots & other members are civilians, not members of the military.  It is dangerous to forget this point.

I think you missed the meaning behind that.  We are all civilians.  As long as we're allowed to fly, we should fly and not operate UAVs.  Flying is fun. 

[a2capt]

I have a 100 minute head start. That's how.

Yupper-uppers...
Someone I know took Southwest to Las Vegas from San Diego Lindbergh. We left our driveways at the exact same time.
I picked them up curbside at McCarran after making two turns in the traffic pattern abeam the terminal.

Interstate 15 beat Victor 394.

Then we went to Steak 'n Shake, and went back home.

[bflynn]

I have a 100 minute head start. That's how.

Yupper-uppers...
Someone I know took Southwest to Las Vegas from San Diego Lindbergh. We left our driveways at the exact same time.
I picked them up curbside at McCarran after making two turns in the traffic pattern abeam the terminal.

Interstate 15 beat Victor 394.

Then we went to Steak 'n Shake, and went back home.

Lol, that's no surprise.  I had to fly last month to a place 500 milesaway.  I left home at 2pm and arrived at 1am.  Air Flynn would have gotten me there in about 4 hours....at about 2.5 times the cost   It happens all the time.

[peter rabbit]

On page 17 of the new Volunteeer magazine, Lt Gen Clarke is quoted as saying CAP should rethink its position on unmanned aircraft/vehicles/systems and add that to our portfolio.

[RADIOMAN015]

On page 17 of the new Volunteeer magazine, Lt Gen Clarke is quoted as saying CAP should rethink its position on unmanned aircraft/vehicles/systems and add that to our portfolio.

I noted that also.  I'm wondering IF he sees the use at more of a tactical level, with smaller aircraft and helos rather than what the USAF or USA are currently flying.  It would be interesting to get a better interpretation of what he meant.

My wing was talking about this 2 1/2 years ago but it never went anywhere.  They were fooling around with some ground based robot models, but from my standpoint we are the Civil AIR Patrol, and it stands to reason we should be directing our efforts on the flying side of this with a progression for both cadets & seniors, flying different types of r/c aircraft & helos.  Some squadrons currently have large model r/c aircraft they are flying that probably could be equipped with some sort of a camera.  There's examples on the internet of hobbyists using aircraft & helicopters radio controlled to take pictures/videos, so it can be done.

Actually in 2011 the AF was going to train more UAV pilots than fighter & bomber pilots combined see:  http://www.npr.org/2011/11/29/142858358/drone-pilots-the-future-of-aerial-warfare   
 
RM

[blackrain]

Pretty interesting article about all the domestic users of UAVs. The Electronic Frontier Foundation made a FOIA request to the FAA for a list of UAV operators in the US.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/04/faa-releases-its-list-drone-certificates-leaves-many-questions-unanswered

[FARRIER]

On page 17 of the new Volunteeer magazine, Lt Gen Clarke is quoted as saying CAP should rethink its position on unmanned aircraft/vehicles/systems and add that to our portfolio.

Hopefully that was more than just a suggestion behind doors.

[Flying Pig]

As soon as the AF starts footing the bill for CAP members to operate UAVs Im sure the qualification badge will be soon to follow.  Until then CAP doesnt have the resources to have them. 

[bassque]

Just go to school where they are training UAV operations.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134376/Is-drone-neighbourhood-Rise-killer-spy-planes-exposed-FAA-forced-reveal-63-launch-sites-U-S.html

[SARDOC]

I would think the WASP III would be a great alternative to the money we are spending on the GIIEP program if we can transmit live full motion video.