UAV Program

[RiverAux]

Not to mention that DHS and USAF already have people who are specifically trained to fly the darned things.

DHS would probably be OK, but USAF personnel, on duty, would likely violate the PCA operating in CONUS.  That is likely why there
was the push to put current and active military pilots in CAP uniforms for the surrogate program - best of both worlds.  Military skills without a PCA violation.

Just how would AF personnel operating UAVs for SAR violate PCA? 

[RADIOMAN015]

If you're planning on doing this as a fun learning experience and AE project, good on 'ye.

But if you're seriously going to take a run as something resembling a UAV that could operate like the big boys, I just don't see it.

The radio range of anything legal in the RC world would mean you'd have to basically be standing on the site you are surveying - handy in a gee-whiz way for a top-down look, but not all that useful.

The professional/commercial systems (UAV Helicopters) run in the $12K to $25K range depending upon the sensor package.   Probably the best use is when the cloud cover is too low for a CAP aircraft to see under so deployment of a UAV (in a rural/mountainous environment) would allow a quick look without sending a ground team there first.  It might even be technical feasible to use a "high bird" aircraft to control the UAV's. 

Again, it gets down to budget trade offs, do we sell some of the Cessna's to pay for this program?   OR can we get the AF to let us experiment with a few (similiar to the ARCHER program).    Do we use our current pilots (via retraining) or do we recruit retiring/separating US armed forces members who are already skilled in this activity?

From an aerospace education activity, there are units today that fly RC model aircraft, but I'm not sure if any use any helicopters.   Perhaps this could be another cadet special activity in the future to learn about these at Beale AFB CA?

This can be an exciting activity both for cadets & seniors! :clap:

RM   

[lordmonar]

Let me que you into some UAV history.

Back in the 80's the "big boys" were "looking into" UAV systems.....they all had multi million dollar R&D projects trying to build a really cool UAV system.

Then two Israilies....one a comm geek and the other a big time RC enthusiats put an off the shelf video camera into a more or less off the shelf large RC airplane and we suddenly had the RQ-2 Pioneer!

One of the Military's problems is that they don't just ask for what they need...the ask for everything and then some!

A cheap RC plane with maybe 1 hours endurnance and an operating radius of say 2 miles able to take off and land in 100m X100m clearing would give our ground teams a very distinct advantage when doing ground SAR.

There are off the shelf kits that do this right now within the less then $5K range.

[Krapenhoeffer]

Okay, so why would it be okay for CAP to fly UAVs in CONUS when in an AUX ON status, but not the AF.

When the AF is acting in the same capacity as CAP does during Law Enforcement assists, I don't believe that it is a violation of PCA.

Granted, I'm not a lawyer, so I'll leave the last word to the actual people with Juris Doctors... YMMV.

[lordmonar]

Not to mention that DHS and USAF already have people who are specifically trained to fly the darned things.

DHS would probably be OK, but USAF personnel, on duty, would likely violate the PCA operating in CONUS.  That is likely why there
was the push to put current and active military pilots in CAP uniforms for the surrogate program - best of both worlds.  Military skills without a PCA violation.

Nope....has nothing to do with PCA.
Other then that I cannot (as in not allowed) to say.

Any support to any Federal agency must be through an AFAM....ergo any support to the DHS will be okay via PCA.

[FARRIER]

http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20091021/COMMUNITY_NEWS/910209967/1007/NONE&parentprofile=1059

"Sheriff's office tests remote-controlled, unmanned mini copter for search, rescue operations"

[Earhart1971]

Saw an Electric T-28 RC Aircraft demo with a camera mounted on the nose of the aircraft. The whole outfit, antenna, Airplane, and not including the cost of the Laptop to fly it, cost 1400 bucks.  The electic RC aircraft are pretty trouble free and cheap.

[Senior]

What kind of endurance do the electric RC models have?
What altitude can you fly RC models before you break FAA rules,
or become a hazard to real aircraft?
What type of cameras can be installed in these models?  Can you
install cameras that transmit real time?
Does anyone have information about the Missouri project regarding
an UAV?

[Earhart1971]

What kind of endurance do the electric RC models have?
What altitude can you fly RC models before you break FAA rules,
or become a hazard to real aircraft?
What type of cameras can be installed in these models?  Can you
install cameras that transmit real time?
Does anyone have information about the Missouri project regarding
an UAV?

I am not the expert on the RC Electrics, but this Aircraft flew for 20 minutes, and the FAA does not like the RC s to fly out of visual range of the pilot on the ground. And the RC Airpark is the limit of where they can operate. I do think RC Aircraft with these cameras and the equipment would be a great program for Cadets to get involved with. The Camera was off the shelf, nothing special. Like the Camera on on a laptop.

[sardak]

or become a hazard to real aircraft?

Video of a real bi-plane hitting a 47% scale RC plane two weeks ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiAjN_xtE0s&feature=player_embedded
*************
Preliminary NTSB Report
NTSB Identification: CEN10LA487A
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, August 14, 2010 in Brighton, CO
Aircraft: SHPAKOW THOMAS SA 750, registration: N28KT
Injuries: Unavailable

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On August 14, 2010, approximately 1100 mountain daylight time, a Shpakow SA 750 bi-plane, N28KT, was substantially damaged when it collided with a radio controlled AJ Slick airplane, while performing a go-around at the Van-Aire Estates Airport, Brighton, Colorado. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The personal flight was being conducted under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 without a flight plan. The pilot and his passenger were not injured. The flight departed Centennial Airport, Denver, Colorado, approximately 1030 and was en route to Brighton, Colorado.

According to a video of the accident and multiple witnesses, the radio controlled airplane was maneuvering over runway 12. The bi-plane is seen flying from the north to south in straight and level flight when the radio controlled airplane climbs directly into the bi-planes flight path. The bi-plane was able to land without further incident. An examination of the airplane revealed that the left lower wing spar was crushed aft.
***************

And the forum discussions:
Posted by the RC plane's owner: http://www.flyinggiants.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56037
Another: http://forums.jetcareers.com/general-topics/113249-rc-plane-real-plane-collide-over-runway.html
And from a UAS/UAV website discussing the implications:
http://www.suasnews.com/2010/08/636/large-scale-model-and-fullsize-aircraft-collison-underline-need-for-detect-sense-and-avoid/
Make sure you watch the "re-enactment" video on this last site.

Mike

[Flying Pig]

We were tasked just to provide pilots. the contractor would have provided the hardware.  FAA regulations states that you must have a real pilot fly a UAV.

It turns out if was cost prohibitive, and believe it or not it was cheaper to fly a real plane and crew.

So because Im a pilot somehow makes me qualified to fly a UAV?

[tsrup]

sardak,

thanks for posting the link to the forum...

I just wasted about 2 hours of my life reading it...   

[Earhart1971]

I saw the collision Video, looks like the Aerobatic Pilot had to be OUT OF HIS MIND doing a High Speed pass at a RADIO CONTROLLED Aircraft Airshow at this airport. 

[tsrup]

I saw the collision Video, looks like the Aerobatic Pilot had to be OUT OF HIS MIND doing a High Speed pass at a RADIO CONTROLLED Aircraft Airshow at this airport.

radio controlled at an active airport with no established notam?  read the forum...

[Earhart1971]

The PILOT should have been able to SEE the EVENT, it looked like OSHKOSH for RCs, Reading Notams is fine, how about just checking the airport out visually, before you do a LOW, HIGH SPEED PASS? And by the way, the Pilot  knew there were RCs, by Radio Call, did you watch the video and listen to the conversations? 100% Pilot error!

[tsrup]

The PILOT should have been able to SEE the EVENT, it looked like OSHKOSH for RCs, Reading Notams is fine, how about just checking the airport out visually, before you do a LOW, HIGH SPEED PASS? And by the way, the Pilot  knew there were RCs, by Radio Call, did you watch the video and listen to the conversations? 100% Pilot error!

And the RC pilots inability to follow the regulations governing the operations he was conducting?  I think AMA is very clear about it's see-and-avoid policy.  What if the pilot didn't have a radio, as would be allowed at an untowered class G airport?  And what qualifies the dude with the radio to control aircraft?

Not saying that the pilot wasn't in error at all, just that the RC pilot was just as guilty.
Things are rarely shades of 100%..

[Earhart1971]

The PILOT should have been able to SEE the EVENT, it looked like OSHKOSH for RCs, Reading Notams is fine, how about just checking the airport out visually, before you do a LOW, HIGH SPEED PASS? And by the way, the Pilot  knew there were RCs, by Radio Call, did you watch the video and listen to the conversations? 100% Pilot error!

And the RC pilots inability to follow the regulations governing the operations he was conducting? 

The RC Pilot was flying a Demo in the Air Show. The Big Airplane Pilot was 100% at fault, failed to avoid a slower aircraft doing an Airshow Demo. End of Story. No shades of Gray. You could equate it almost to a Bird Strike! Is the Bird at fault? Secondary, fault could go to the Airshow guy on the radio.

[HGjunkie]

[Flying Pig]

On a serious note.  Having been exposed to UAV's (real ones like the Predator) on a law enforcement level, and what they plan on expanding into, I would HIGHLY encourage cadets to consider it a career either as a pilot or a sensor operator.  Frankly I think I would rather be a sensor operator except for the part about not being an officer.  It definitely the wave of the future for covert surveillance.  This FAA thing will be sorted our soon, and old crusty surveillance pilots like myself will be sitting on the ground wondering why we arent getting calls. 

[tsrup]

The PILOT should have been able to SEE the EVENT, it looked like OSHKOSH for RCs, Reading Notams is fine, how about just checking the airport out visually, before you do a LOW, HIGH SPEED PASS? And by the way, the Pilot  knew there were RCs, by Radio Call, did you watch the video and listen to the conversations? 100% Pilot error!

And the RC pilots inability to follow the regulations governing the operations he was conducting? 

The RC Pilot was flying a Demo in the Air Show. The Big Airplane Pilot was 100% at fault, failed to avoid a slower aircraft doing an Airshow Demo. End of Story. No shades of Gray. You could equate it almost to a Bird Strike! Is the Bird at fault? Secondary, fault could go to the Airshow guy on the radio.

there's no sense arguing it here, there's 38 pages of it on the RC forum.