UAV/UAS/Drone licenses and current / future use in CAP

[OldGuy]

What is the current status of Drone training and use in Civil Air Patrol?

What are your opinions about the future?

[Live2Learn]

What are your opinions about the future?

If CAP will continue to be relevant in the 21st C we have to accept that the days of human piloted aircraft have a short and waning future.  Lotsa things conspire to move our impressively large fleet of SE Cessna products to the status of historical curiosities.   AI flown aircraft with humans merely playing a token "backup" role look like a rapidly emerging reality.

[etodd]

Yes, the future of SAR is 'some type' of drones .... but not the little toy ones like the P4P I have now.  For SAR we will need something like a small version of a Predator drone. Able to fly for many hours, and can cover hundreds of square miles in a flight.

Having just one per Wing might suffice. Replace ten Cessnas with one 5 million dollar drone, and get the same work done. Thats where its headed. All the folks with their toy drones like mine need to chill out. Sure, there may be some limited uses for them in the interim, but long term, a Predator type drone with just one flying Squadron per Wing could handle the missions. 

(Of course I realize a Predator is MUCH more than $5 mill.  I'm talking about the future and a smaller version.)

[Commo]

For SAR we will need something like a small version of a Predator drone. Able to fly for many hours, and can cover hundreds of square miles in a flight.

Having just one per Wing might suffice. Replace ten Cessnas with one 5 million dollar drone, and get the same work done.

(Of course I realize a Predator is MUCH more than $5 mill.  I'm talking about the future and a smaller version.)

Last I heard, operating Predator drones is expensive.  So expensive, in fact, that to train the operators of the sensor packages, the USAF has a program to train the operators without burning flight time on their expensive drones.  What group assists the USAF with that now?  Civil Air Somethingorother?


Commo

[etodd]

For SAR we will need something like a small version of a Predator drone. Able to fly for many hours, and can cover hundreds of square miles in a flight.

Having just one per Wing might suffice. Replace ten Cessnas with one 5 million dollar drone, and get the same work done.

(Of course I realize a Predator is MUCH more than $5 mill.  I'm talking about the future and a smaller version.)

Last I heard, operating Predator drones is expensive.  So expensive, in fact, that to train the operators of the sensor packages, the USAF has a program to train the operators without burning flight time on their expensive drones.  What group assists the USAF with that now?  Civil Air Somethingorother?


Commo

You obviously did not ready my post slowly and methodically before you replied. LOL

I said smaller and in the future.  Meaning something much more sustantial than the toy drones like the P4P I own now.  And a big key toward it happening budget wise is that it could replace many, if not most of the Cessnas we use now.

I guess at that point we would still need a few cessnas to carry 'brass' around. But yes, SAR could be done with the upcoming large drones of the future.

And if it did come down to having one drone per state, or maybe two or three in Texas, the budget may just get so streamlined that the AF could fold SAR back into their umbrella, and leave CAP's mission to be solely Cadet oriented.

Who knows what the future may bring? Technology just might put us all "out of a job".

[PHall]

Yeah, Predator UAV's may be used in the future, but they won't be flown by CAP.
Many Air National Guard units now operate UAV's. And they're starting to use them on "State Missions" too.
Missions like Wildfire mapping and in a couple of cases, missing hiker searches.
Better enjoy those Cessnas we have now, because the missions they were brought for are going away slowly but surely.

[Capt Thompson]

If we did someday move to a long range sUAV, you would still need Cessna's to escort them from the airport to the grid, and someone would have to have visual contact at all times, under current law. So under that situation, a Cessna would escort the drone to the grid, and then fly around and watch it....why not just have the Cessna perform the search? Seems like a lot of wasted fuel to me.

[PHall]

If we did someday move to a long range sUAV, you would still need Cessna's to escort them from the airport to the grid, and someone would have to have visual contact at all times, under current law. So under that situation, a Cessna would escort the drone to the grid, and then fly around and watch it....why not just have the Cessna perform the search? Seems like a lot of wasted fuel to me.

The "Drone Escort Mission" probably won't last that long, advancing technology will probably put an end to it in a few years.

[SarDragon]

If we did someday move to a long range sUAV, you would still need Cessna's to escort them from the airport to the grid, and someone would have to have visual contact at all times, under current law. So under that situation, a Cessna would escort the drone to the grid, and then fly around and watch it....why not just have the Cessna perform the search? Seems like a lot of wasted fuel to me.

The "Drone Escort Mission" probably won't last that long, advancing technology will probably put an end to it in a few years.

A bunch of years ago, they said fibre would largely replace copper in the next few years. I'm still waiting. AT&T installed underground fibre in a couple of neighborhoods in San Diego about 20 years ago, mine being one of them, and the last time I drove by my old house, the cable was still sticking out of the conduit, unconnected. That was about six months ago.

I don't see drones replacing Cessnas any quicker.

[PHall]

If we did someday move to a long range sUAV, you would still need Cessna's to escort them from the airport to the grid, and someone would have to have visual contact at all times, under current law. So under that situation, a Cessna would escort the drone to the grid, and then fly around and watch it....why not just have the Cessna perform the search? Seems like a lot of wasted fuel to me.

The "Drone Escort Mission" probably won't last that long, advancing technology will probably put an end to it in a few years.

A bunch of years ago, they said fibre would largely replace copper in the next few years. I'm still waiting. AT&T installed underground fibre in a couple of neighborhoods in San Diego about 20 years ago, mine being one of them, and the last time I drove by my old house, the cable was still sticking out of the conduit, unconnected. That was about six months ago.

I don't see drones replacing Cessnas any quicker.

I've been doing a lot of fiber jobs for AT&T in Riverside and Corona, both aerial and underground.
What did you do to tick off AT&T?

[SarDragon]

Nothing. The entire neighborhood is like that. I've been an AT&T/Ma Bell customer all my life, so I doubt I would tick them off.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[PHall]

Nothing. The entire neighborhood is like that. I've been an AT&T/Ma Bell customer all my life, so I doubt I would tick them off.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

The fiber you're talking about was from the Broadband project. First thing SBC did when they took over was to pull the plug on this project.

[SarDragon]

It's still a "promised" technology advance that turned into vaporware. And where are our flying cars that we were supposed to have by now? This drone thing is maturing, but not as fast as expected, and not without the usual bureaucracy. I won't hold my breath.

[etodd]

If we did someday move to a long range sUAV, you would still need Cessna's to escort them from the airport to the grid, and someone would have to have visual contact at all times, under current law. So under that situation, a Cessna would escort the drone to the grid, and then fly around and watch it....why not just have the Cessna perform the search? Seems like a lot of wasted fuel to me.

The "Drone Escort Mission" probably won't last that long, advancing technology will probably put an end to it in a few years.

A type of ADS-B out (or something similar) being installed on the Predators will see the Escort Mission end probably Spring of next year. Yes, The Escort Mission is short lived now. If you haven't been, contact them to sign up for a week. Its fun. I think its full through December, but there are openings starting in January.

[JoeTomasone]

There are some potential and actual uses for drones in situations like Harvey.   Close-in damage assessment where a fixed-wing cannot loiter long enough or low/slow enough to get detailed enough imagery is one example.  Many platforms can be equipped with FLIR cameras and would be good to spot stranded/lost people.   Lastly, the time to get a drone in the air, gain useful imagery, land and be put away, and be examining the take is less time than it takes for a mission aircrew to be wheels-up, and at far less cost - essentially zero.   

The sheer number of drones can also be a force multiplier.    If someone requires an aerial inspection, you can get it done there and then rather than having to call in manned aircraft.

Now for the traditional CAP AP mission where miles of coastline need to be covered or where multiple targets need a quick assessment for priority and planning, fixed-wing is the way to go because of speed over the ground.    But if a bridge inspector needs to get a look at a strut to see how much damage it has sustained and is unable to get to it due to other damage, debris, or flooding, a drone can certainly do that job, where a fixed wing can't.   Right now, that inspection would have to wait, which delays getting the bridge re-opened versus formulating plans that can be ready to go as soon as conditions permit.

So drones won't be the end-all, be-all of SAR or anything remotely like that - but they do have a place.   They are another tool in the toolbox.

[SarDragon]

I just finished an article in the latest Smithsonian Air & Space magazine that discussed the future of drones in great detail.

Check it out.

[PHall]

There are some potential and actual uses for drones in situations like Harvey.   Close-in damage assessment where a fixed-wing cannot loiter long enough or low/slow enough to get detailed enough imagery is one example.  Many platforms can be equipped with FLIR cameras and would be good to spot stranded/lost people.   Lastly, the time to get a drone in the air, gain useful imagery, land and be put away, and be examining the take is less time than it takes for a mission aircrew to be wheels-up, and at far less cost - essentially zero.   

The sheer number of drones can also be a force multiplier.    If someone requires an aerial inspection, you can get it done there and then rather than having to call in manned aircraft.

Now for the traditional CAP AP mission where miles of coastline need to be covered or where multiple targets need a quick assessment for priority and planning, fixed-wing is the way to go because of speed over the ground.    But if a bridge inspector needs to get a look at a strut to see how much damage it has sustained and is unable to get to it due to other damage, debris, or flooding, a drone can certainly do that job, where a fixed wing can't.   Right now, that inspection would have to wait, which delays getting the bridge re-opened versus formulating plans that can be ready to go as soon as conditions permit.

So drones won't be the end-all, be-all of SAR or anything remotely like that - but they do have a place.   They are another tool in the toolbox.

Drones do have a crew. MQ-9's have a pilot and a sensor operator that you still have to pay. By the time you figure in all of the support elements the cost per flight hour is not that different then a "manned" aircraft.

[JoeTomasone]

Drones do have a crew. MQ-9's have a pilot and a sensor operator that you still have to pay. By the time you figure in all of the support elements the cost per flight hour is not that different then a "manned" aircraft.

Sorry: Clarifying;  SUAS Quadcopters, not fixed wing Predators or Reapers.   Crew is one or two, cost = electricity to recharge batteries.

[PHall]

Drones do have a crew. MQ-9's have a pilot and a sensor operator that you still have to pay. By the time you figure in all of the support elements the cost per flight hour is not that different then a "manned" aircraft.

Sorry: Clarifying;  SUAS Quadcopters, not fixed wing Predators or Reapers.   Crew is one or two, cost = electricity to recharge batteries.

And the endurance on those is what? And does the power for the camera come out of that?

[etodd]

These discussions sure do go round and round. LOL

Yes, there will be some good uses for quadcopters. Not exactly sure how CAP will use them, but we will find something. Maybe.

• As others have mentioned, when a CAP airplane has located wreckage, its local responders who then take over. The local sheriff with his manned helicopter, the local police with their drone, and sheriff ground teams in Jeeps, etc.
• Damaged bridge assessment has been mentioned, but these state highway departments already are ramping up with their own drone inspection crews. They will say, thanks but no thanks to CAP.
• Once the CAP airplane has narrowed down the search, the state trooper, or city helicopter with Flir will be there to look for hot spots of people and/or engines.
• Etc.

Face it. Looks like our mission for the immediate future is AP of the type we are doing in Texas. Tens of thousands of photos being taken quickly by large aircraft.  When IC sees something critical, they will be sending in local responders for the close up look. Not some CAP guy with a drone. The CAP guy doesn't have a boat to get in range.

Hey ... maybe thats the answer. We need a CAP Navy. A fleet of boats to use in these floods from which to launch drones. I have my boating license and will volunteer to drive the boat. What uniform do I need for the CAP Navy? 

[JoeTomasone]

Drones do have a crew. MQ-9's have a pilot and a sensor operator that you still have to pay. By the time you figure in all of the support elements the cost per flight hour is not that different then a "manned" aircraft.

Sorry: Clarifying;  SUAS Quadcopters, not fixed wing Predators or Reapers.   Crew is one or two, cost = electricity to recharge batteries.

And the endurance on those is what? And does the power for the camera come out of that?

Around 25 minutes per battery for the model I fly, and yes, that includes the camera.   Quick landing to swap batteries and you're in the air again.  I can charge 3 batteries at one from my vehicle; with the 4 I have, that means that there's almost always at least one ready to go when the bird lands.   

Just judging by what I have seen from Texas thus far, there would seem to be plenty of targets that are inaccessible on foot but are well within SUAS distance from a dry location.   I don't know how many municipalities are already fielding drones or have contracts with aerial imaging companies, but most of the counties around me haven't even considered them yet - much less bought their own and got their staff Part 107 certificated. 

[PHall]

Another thing I've seen is a fair amount of blow back from people when it comes to Government Agencies using drones. And CAP is seen as a "Government Agency" by the public when we're helping during a major disaster. Mostly about privacy issues.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Why not place pontoons on the CAP planes?

Take photos, and if yo find something strange, get down in the water.

Maybe the sense of something new, adventurous will attract pilots...

[Live2Learn]

While not "drones" the concept of fully autonomous machines is discussed here.  As is historically the 'big push', development is spearheaded by military applications.  http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41035201  It's an interesting read.  The neural network tech is way newer than my ancient education.  Any comments on stability of the programming, and the potential for unforeseen bugs (in the biological sciences we'd call them "mutations")?  In layman's terms, this sure looks like an adaptive code that would potentially lead down unforeseen and unforeseeable back alleys.

[PHall]

Why not place pontoons on the CAP planes?

Take photos, and if yo find something strange, get down in the water.

Maybe the sense of something new, adventurous will attract pilots...

We have float planes Luis. They're in Alaska. Research my friend, research...

[Luis R. Ramos]

I know about those, but they are on one wing only. I meant nation-wide. Read between lines, my friend.

[SarDragon]

Ditch the happy pills, d00d.

There's too much crap hidden under the surface of the water to even consider landing a float plane in flooded areas. Muddy water is a big red flag to float plane pilots.

[Luis R. Ramos]

I guess we need to include a disclaimer with all messages.

Disclaimers to identify if the message is sarcasm. If the message is in jest. If the poster is upset, and if upset, at someone in CAPTalk, or at a particular situation outside of CT.

My messages re the floatplanes were in jest!

[SarDragon]

Read on my phone, answered on my computer. The smilies don't always show up on my phone.

[Mitchell 1969]

[. quote author=Luis R. Ramos link=topic=22413.msg406716#msg406716 date=1504539008]
Why not place pontoons on the CAP planes?

Take photos, and if yo find something strange, get down in the water.

Maybe the sense of something new, adventurous will attract pilots...


[/quote]

You mean, something as "adventurous" as landing on a flooded street or football field with unseen cars and debris just inches below the surface?

And...who's paying for the seaplane ratings?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[etodd]

And...who's paying for the seaplane ratings?

Yep.  Lets go back to my comment on page one ... the CAP Navy. Probably most of us good old boys have a boating license. We just need some jon boats with the CAP logo on the side and a drone heliport attached to the bow. 

[Luis R. Ramos]

Those jon boats you mention, are those akin to those swamp boats?

Wow!

Instant aircraft carriers! What do we call them?

CVAP?

[stillamarine]

Those jon boats you mention, are those akin to those swamp boats?

Wow!

Instant aircraft carriers! What do we call them?

CVAP?

The USS He Who Shall Not Be Named?

[Luis R. Ramos]

No, maybe a less controversial figure.

So that we do not confuse them with US Navy commissioned ships, we could name them as neighborhoods of states.

USS Rego Park and USS Arverne, for instance. Two neighborhoods in Queens, NY.

[etodd]

Those jon boats you mention, are those akin to those swamp boats?

Yeah ... scratch that. Needs to be air boats for sure.

Saw a photo posted today of a car roof that is now visible in Texas. Previously just under water enough that the boat didn't see it. The propeller dug a hole in the car roof and then broke off.  So the photo shows the propeller still stuck in the roof.  LOL

[PHall]

Those jon boats you mention, are those akin to those swamp boats?

Yeah ... scratch that. Needs to be air boats for sure.

Saw a photo posted today of a car roof that is now visible in Texas. Previously just under water enough that the boat didn't see it. The propeller dug a hole in the car roof and then broke off.  So the photo shows the propeller still stuck in the roof.  LOL

Now that's going to be an "interesting" insurance claim! 

[Live2Learn]

Those jon boats you mention, are those akin to those swamp boats?

Yeah ... scratch that. Needs to be air boats for sure.

Saw a photo posted today of a car roof that is now visible in Texas. Previously just under water enough that the boat didn't see it. The propeller dug a hole in the car roof and then broke off.  So the photo shows the propeller still stuck in the roof.  LOL

Now that's going to be an "interesting" insurance claim! 

Who is at fault?  The car's owner because the vehicle was "allowed" to become a submerged hazard to navigation, or the boat owner who failed co realize, then mitigate the potential damage to submerged personal property?  CAP Navy might not be the best use of limited resources. 

[Luis R. Ramos]

With swamp boats, that damage would not have happened. A swamp boat would just slide over it. Remember swamp boats have a big propeller at the back, and steers with big rudders behind the propeller.

I know someone is going to find something!

In any event, if a car is completely submerged, it is declared a total loss by the insurance companies. And the propeller damage is a certain sign that it was completely submerged.

[Live2Learn]

With swamp boats, that damage would not have happened. A swamp boat would just slide over it. Remember swamp boats have a big propeller at the back, and steers with big rudders behind the propeller.

I know someone is going to find something!

In any event, if a car is completely submerged, it is declared a total loss by the insurance companies. And the propeller damage is a certain sign that it was completely submerged.

So it must be the prop in the water at fault.   And the owner of the boat that put it there.  :O   Isn't tooling about in boats what Congress funds the CGAUX to do?

[etodd]

  Isn't tooling about in boats what Congress funds the CGAUX to do?

I would really like to know how many people, dogs, property are being hauled out of the waters in Texas with the 'good old boy network' of guys who just grabbed their bass boats and started looking. The news is filled with images of this. I wonder if they will get any credit in the end? I'd bet any gov't agency is refusing to keep track of those. LOL

[EMT-83]

I'm willing to bet that none of the Cajun Navy cares one bit about who gets credit for anything. The people who were there know what happened, as does just about everyone in the country with a pulse.

[SarDragon]

^^^^^

This. Texans takin' care of Texans. I doubt the Florida bubbas will be as accommodating.

[LSThiker]

I wonder if they will get any credit in the end? I'd bet any gov't agency is refusing to keep track of those. LOL

I have yet to meet anyone that seems to care whether they get credit or not.  I definitely do not expect (nor do I care) to get any credit for the people I helped out of a car during Harvey.  It is not that any gov't agency is refusing, rather just too many to accurately keep track of considering there is no real records.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Etodd, the following link is to a photo of a swamp boat used to evacuate a resident after Katrina...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airboat#/media/File:FEMA_-_14511_-_Photograph_by_Jocelyn_Augustino_taken_on_08-30-2005_in_Louisiana.jpg

[stillamarine]

^^^^^

This. Texans takin' care of Texans. I doubt the Florida bubbas will be as accommodating.

Uh Floridians are just as willing to help their statesmen after a natural disaster. We have a little practice doing it.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Or those in Louisiana, if we believe the description in the URL of the photo I posted...

[etodd]

Etodd, the following link is to a photo of a swamp boat used to evacuate a resident after Katrina...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airboat#/media/File:FEMA_-_14511_-_Photograph_by_Jocelyn_Augustino_taken_on_08-30-2005_in_Louisiana.jpg

Plenty of room at the front for a drone lauch pad.  I'm ready to join the CAP Navy as boat pilot or drone pilot. 

[Luis R. Ramos]

A launch pad and underneath, a hangar for another drone. Two drone pilots, a boat operator, or captain. in the hangar, space for several batteries being charged at once.

Pretty cool!

[Fubar]

The Red Cross apparently has an active drone program already:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmMsl9hEoIk

Interesting idea keeping it tethered to the ground.

[etodd]

Interesting idea keeping it tethered to the ground.

As long as its tethered, the FAA doesn't regulate it. No Part 107 needed even for commercial ops. Its like a tethered blimp that photographers have been using for many years.

[Mitchell 1969]

Interesting idea keeping it tethered to the ground.

As long as its tethered, the FAA doesn't regulate it. No Part 107 needed even for commercial ops. Its like a tethered blimp that photographers have been using for many years.

I still think it weird to see references to FAR Part 107, do a double take and remind myself that it no longer covers AVSEC.

And time marches on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[etodd]

As long as its tethered, the FAA doesn't regulate it. No Part 107 needed even for commercial ops. Its like a tethered blimp that photographers have been using for many years.

And I was wrong. The FAA clarified that awhile back. A self-powered object like a drone, is covered under the UAS rules, tethered or not.

[sardak]

"A team of University of Colorado engineers has developed a new drone "swarming" technology, which allows a single operator to control multiple unmanned aircraft simultaneously. This may help cover more ground, or air, while monitoring hiking areas and natural preserves marked by vast and rugged landscapes.

"The CU team, in collaboration with the Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, spent three weeks in August testing this new technology at the Pawnee National Grassland northeast of Greeley. The project was granted the first-ever approval by the Federal Aviation Administration to allow multiple aircraft to be manned by a single pilot.

"Having multiple drones in the air, coordinating with one another to track the same target, will allow for multiple angles to triangulate exactly where the [radio beacon] signal is coming from — whether it be a lost hiker or a tagged mountain lion," [Associate Professor Eric] Frew said."

Full story: http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/ci_31286472/cu-boulder-team-taps-drone-technology-help-track

Mike

[blackrain]

Was talking to an Air Force pilot who formerly flew manned aircraft and now operates UAVs (full size Reaper as I recall) and he felt that they could replace most of the fixed wing aircraft working Harvey with the capabilities that he could fit on and in his military UAVs. I couldn't argue that it was the future of a lot of things aerial imagery wise. You could easily launch them them reasonably far from the disaster and beam the imagery easily anywhere in the country including the government agencies headquartered in D.C. Though that does raise its own Big Brother implications which is a whole another discussion. Are/were they flying over the areas devastated by the disaster (s)? Can't say but honestly wouldn't really surprise me as they have been used already over fires out west.  I see bandwidth and spectrum capacity as a limiting factor in the future. As said before UAVs are to GWOT what the helicopter was to Viet Nam. Agree our CAP piloting days are numbered for most missions. 

[etodd]

Was talking to an Air Force pilot who formerly flew manned aircraft and now operates UAVs (full size Reaper as I recall) and he felt that they could replace most of the fixed wing aircraft working Harvey with the capabilities that he could fit on and in his military UAVs. I couldn't argue that it was the future of a lot of things aerial imagery wise. You could easily launch them them reasonably far from the disaster and beam the imagery easily anywhere in the country including the government agencies headquartered in D.C. Though that does raise its own Big Brother implications which is a whole another discussion. Are/were they flying over the areas devastated by the disaster (s)? Can't say but honestly wouldn't really surprise me as they have been used already over fires out west.  I see bandwidth and spectrum capacity as a limiting factor in the future. As said before UAVs are to GWOT what the helicopter was to Viet Nam. Agree our CAP piloting days are numbered for most missions.

Bingo.  I've been in the control rooms standing behind the pilots and camera operators of Predators and seen the incredible visuals they can get, and the huge area they can cover. One Predator/Reaper type of UAV could have done the work of the 24 C-182s flying over Houston and been sending back live video instantly the whole time. Yes, something like that is the future.

[Alaric]

Interesting idea keeping it tethered to the ground.

As long as its tethered, the FAA doesn't regulate it. No Part 107 needed even for commercial ops. Its like a tethered blimp that photographers have been using for many years.

I still think it weird to see references to FAR Part 107, do a double take and remind myself that it no longer covers AVSEC.

And time marches on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because of my job whenever I see FAR I immediately thing they are referring to the Federal Acquisition Regulations

[Holding Pattern]

Was talking to an Air Force pilot who formerly flew manned aircraft and now operates UAVs (full size Reaper as I recall) and he felt that they could replace most of the fixed wing aircraft working Harvey with the capabilities that he could fit on and in his military UAVs. I couldn't argue that it was the future of a lot of things aerial imagery wise. You could easily launch them them reasonably far from the disaster and beam the imagery easily anywhere in the country including the government agencies headquartered in D.C. Though that does raise its own Big Brother implications which is a whole another discussion. Are/were they flying over the areas devastated by the disaster (s)? Can't say but honestly wouldn't really surprise me as they have been used already over fires out west.  I see bandwidth and spectrum capacity as a limiting factor in the future. As said before UAVs are to GWOT what the helicopter was to Viet Nam. Agree our CAP piloting days are numbered for most missions.

Bingo.  I've been in the control rooms standing behind the pilots and camera operators of Predators and seen the incredible visuals they can get, and the huge area they can cover. One Predator/Reaper type of UAV could have done the work of the 24 C-182s flying over Houston and been sending back live video instantly the whole time. Yes, something like that is the future.

By that logic wouldn't one surrogate predator be able to do that work?

[etodd]

Bingo.  I've been in the control rooms standing behind the pilots and camera operators of Predators and seen the incredible visuals they can get, and the huge area they can cover. One Predator/Reaper type of UAV could have done the work of the 24 C-182s flying over Houston and been sending back live video instantly the whole time. Yes, something like that is the future.

By that logic wouldn't one surrogate predator be able to do that work?

No ... wouldn't have the range and time aloft capability a real Predator (or something a little downsized) does.  But will not happen any time soon I'm sure. Politics will take the place of practicality and technical ability for a few more years. The AF can't just buy a few Predator type UAS, set them up for SAR, sell off CAP's Cessna inventory, hand out retirement award certificates to folks at CAP Hdqrs ... all in one swoop.

These things take time ....

[blackrain]

Bingo.  I've been in the control rooms standing behind the pilots and camera operators of Predators and seen the incredible visuals they can get, and the huge area they can cover. One Predator/Reaper type of UAV could have done the work of the 24 C-182s flying over Houston and been sending back live video instantly the whole time. Yes, something like that is the future.

By that logic wouldn't one surrogate predator be able to do that work?

No ... wouldn't have the range and time aloft capability a real Predator (or something a little downsized) does.  But will not happen any time soon I'm sure. Politics will take the place of practicality and technical ability for a few more years. The AF can't just buy a few Predator type UAS, set them up for SAR, sell off CAP's Cessna inventory, hand out retirement award certificates to folks at CAP Hdqrs ... all in one swoop.

These things take time ....

Forget fuel reserve my bladder reserve can't come close to competing. As anyone whose done highbird knows bathroom break is last on the preflight checklist as well as judicious liquid consumption while airborne. Speaking of highbird, Global Hawk has a BACN (Battlefield Airborne Communications Node) package for communication relay and I can see highbird easily done by a UAV and possibly one of the first of our missions done by UAVs. Loiter time is how they establish patterns of life in the area in the foreign environment being quiet enough to often go unnoticed by those on the ground. While they don't now have Hellfires on board stateside UAVs I could imagine a few well placed strikes with the video posted to YouTube would be a huge deterrent to looters.

[Commo]

Forget fuel reserve my bladder reserve can't come close to competing.

Gatorade provides multipurpose bottles for this purpose.  Hydration first, then re-used for... umm... un-hydration?

I don't recommend the lemon-lime flavor.

Long convoys, long flights.  It's simple, it works, and for safety: it helps maintain proper hydration.

Commo

[Майор Хаткевич]

Long convoys, long flights.  It's simple, it works, and for safety: it helps maintain proper hydration.

And in a Charlie Foxtrot, it helps to re-hydrate again! 

[etodd]

Gatorade provides multipurpose bottles for this purpose.  Hydration first, then re-used for... umm... un-hydration?

Not a recommended practice when you have both sexes in the plane. Keep it zipped up. 

[blackrain]

Forget fuel reserve my bladder reserve can't come close to competing.

Gatorade provides multipurpose bottles for this purpose.  Hydration first, then re-used for... umm... un-hydration?

I don't recommend the lemon-lime flavor.

Long convoys, long flights.  It's simple, it works, and for safety: it helps maintain proper hydration.

Commo

Actually...I have used a Gatorade bottle on long convoys. Wider opening was/is a plus. I also seem to recall some time ago Flying Pig suggested a Clorox bottle filled with Kitty Litter

[Commo]

Gatorade provides multipurpose bottles for this purpose.  Hydration first, then re-used for... umm... un-hydration?

Not a recommended practice when you have both sexes in the plane. Keep it zipped up. 

it's not a preferred practice regardless of who's in the plane; that's not the point.  Among adults, there's courtesy, professionalism, and necessity.  If/when you're in that situation, everyone else looks somewhere else.

Mission and safety (hydration) are first.  Whether I'm in a convoy or on a glacier with three rope teams, both genders just show some professionalism, turn away, and admire the sunrise / crevasse / stars.

Back to CAP... this is nothing that should be done with cadets present, but why would cadets be on a 4+ hour flight? 

Gatorade bottles are easier for the men, of course.  No argument there that guys have it easy.

Commo

[PHall]

Gatorade provides multipurpose bottles for this purpose.  Hydration first, then re-used for... umm... un-hydration?

Not a recommended practice when you have both sexes in the plane. Keep it zipped up. 

it's not a preferred practice regardless of who's in the plane; that's not the point.  Among adults, there's courtesy, professionalism, and necessity.  If/when you're in that situation, everyone else looks somewhere else.

Mission and safety (hydration) are first.  Whether I'm in a convoy or on a glacier with three rope teams, both genders just show some professionalism, turn away, and admire the sunrise / crevasse / stars.

Back to CAP... this is nothing that should be done with cadets present, but why would cadets be on a 4+ hour flight? 

Gatorade bottles are easier for the men, of course.  No argument there that guys have it easy.

Commo

You underestimate the skills and determination of our female service members. They've put way more thought into this then you ever will.

[SarDragon]

There are devices/appliances that women can use quite efficiently for said purpose.

When I have been faced with the Gatorade bottle situation (only twice as I recall), I draped a jacket over my head and nether area, did my thing, and got about business.