long term relevance of CAP's 550 airplane fleet in a world of ADS/B and AI Drone

[Live2Learn]

The new Chinese electric powered air taxi aircraft on display at the aviation electronics show seems like a real game changer.  What is the 10 to 20 year relevance of CAP SAR capacity in a world where aircraft piloted by artificial intelligence carry passengers, do high resolution imagery that is precise on track and in grid, are capable of all weather searches with very high POD, and generally operating with little or no risk to humans under conditions that are well beyond the capability of any (but a very few) flesh and blood pilots?  From what I read, the world is rapidly moving beyond the organization and its aviation operations.

[RiverAux]

If we can narrow down a plane's location to a relatively small area I suspect that the hundreds of drones operated by the National Guard are in the very near future going to displace CAP's fleet for airborne SAR. 

But, when we commonly face situations where we can't even narrow down which state an airplane has gone missing in, which isn't unusual for the early part of the search, and we need to cover thousands of square miles, then CAP is probably still going to be necessary. 

But, so long as drones have to be operated in line-of-sight, we're probably not going to be impacted very much. 

[Live2Learn]

... But, so long as drones have to be operated in line-of-sight, we're probably not going to be impacted very much.

I think this is the essence of the issue.  As artificial intelligence (AI) develops, which I expect will be quite rapidly, the line of sight tether will become irrelevant and unnecessary.  The Chinese self flying quad copter is an example of just one application of AI piloted vehicles.  I recently read of Uber, Google, Ford, and GM participation in collaborations in self driving (AI piloted) automobiles.  IMHO, it's much more complex to operate a ground vehicle safely via AI and sensors than an aerial vehicle because of the inherent ambiguity of the road (or unroaded!).

ADS/B (IN and OUT) appear to be a significant step toward the holy grail of 'Sense and Avoid', and without a doubt will likely offer some significant advantages under some scenarios.  "See and Avoid" is still an issue for non-participating aircraft, birds, drones, etc..   Whether seeing equals avoiding (at least from current bird strike stats) is problematic!

[FW]

^ Exactly, however I think our fleet will be "safe" for quite a while.  IMHO, technology will develop more quickly than public acceptance, and as a pilot flying an ATA, I'm content CAP has the continued capability of finding me if I don't make it to my intended destination.

[Holding Pattern]

If we can narrow down a plane's location to a relatively small area I suspect that the hundreds of drones operated by the National Guard

Why not operated by CAP?

If we are getting to the point of cheaper drones being commonplace, why are we resisting this idea?

[Live2Learn]

If we are getting to the point of cheaper drones being commonplace, why are we resisting this idea?

Cheaper, at least as effective as current methods (most likely a lot more effective), and with a lot less risk to people or really expensive equipment.  Isn't that the holy three grails of CAP SAR ops?

FWIW, I like to fly airplanes, so it'll be a sad day when I have to worry more about the risks of carpal tunnel and paper cuts than off airport landing sites....

[RiverAux]

If we can narrow down a plane's location to a relatively small area I suspect that the hundreds of drones operated by the National Guard

Why not operated by CAP?

If we are getting to the point of cheaper drones being commonplace, why are we resisting this idea?

Because the NG has equipment with much better capacity than anything we can currently operate or are likely to anytime soon and they are probably desperate to find some reason to practice using them in their states (after all they are supposed to be there to meet state needs). 

[Holding Pattern]

If we can narrow down a plane's location to a relatively small area I suspect that the hundreds of drones operated by the National Guard

Why not operated by CAP?

If we are getting to the point of cheaper drones being commonplace, why are we resisting this idea?

Because the NG has equipment with much better capacity than anything we can currently operate or are likely to anytime soon and they are probably desperate to find some reason to practice using them in their states (after all they are supposed to be there to meet state needs).

The CAP fleet is still cheaper than a UAV fleet to operate.

[Ned]

Because the NG has equipment with much better capacity than anything we can currently operate or are likely to anytime soon and they are probably desperate to find some reason to practice using them in their states (after all they are supposed to be there to meet state needs).

Remember that relatively few NG units will have UAV capability, and the few that do might be a hundred miles away.  And they are operated by a limited number of "part timers" like us, who may or may not be available on short notice.   And of the UAVs assigned to the Guard, many will actually be more expensive than a CAP aircraft on an hourly basis, especially when you factor in the salaries of the operators.  Who are not volunteers like us.

I don't see a "competitive threat" (if that is the right phrase) from the Guard or other military.  If there is competition for SAR / DR UAVs it will come from local first responders in larger, well-resourced departments like fire departments or sheriff departments in urban areas.  And CAP has always done most of our flying in rural, less developed areas.

That said, CAP should have started standing up our UAV capability long ago.  But remember, our airframe funding is based on existing mission taskings and projections by our AF colleagues.  Its been a couple of years, but the last time I spoke the AFNORTH commander on CAP UAV employment, he pointed out that we currently have no missions or taskings that require UAVs, so there is no money for us to purchase them.  But if we receive missions that can / should be done with UAVs, then this problem will solve itself.

Those generals are smart guys.

[Holding Pattern]

Because the NG has equipment with much better capacity than anything we can currently operate or are likely to anytime soon and they are probably desperate to find some reason to practice using them in their states (after all they are supposed to be there to meet state needs).

Remember that relatively few NG units will have UAV capability, and the few that do might be a hundred miles away.  And they are operated by a limited number of "part timers" like us, who may or may not be available on short notice.   And of the UAVs assigned to the Guard, many will actually be more expensive than a CAP aircraft on an hourly basis, especially when you factor in the salaries of the operators.  Who are not volunteers like us.

I don't see a "competitive threat" (if that is the right phrase) from the Guard or other military.  If there is competition for SAR / DR UAVs it will come from local first responders in larger, well-resourced departments like fire departments or sheriff departments in urban areas.  And CAP has always done most of our flying in rural, less developed areas.

That said, CAP should have started standing up our UAV capability long ago.  But remember, our airframe funding is based on existing mission taskings and projections by our AF colleagues.  Its been a couple of years, but the last time I spoke the AFNORTH commander on CAP UAV employment, he pointed out that we currently have no missions or taskings that require UAVs, so there is no money for us to purchase them.  But if we receive missions that can / should be done with UAVs, then this problem will solve itself.

Those generals are smart guys.

Query:
If I held sufficient bake sales (and filled out the paperwork on them!) to have sufficient funds for our squadron to build, certify, maintain, and launch a UAV for missions, would we be able to get authorization to use it on missions?

[Live2Learn]

Query:
If I held sufficient bake sales (and filled out the paperwork on them!) to have sufficient funds for our squadron to build, certify, maintain, and launch a UAV for missions, would we be able to get authorization to use it on missions?

IMHO, it's not the current fleet of small, tethered drones that are CAP's future competition... though our actual "finds" in SAR are not anywhere near the potential for a high elevation drone with state of the art equipment.  It's the AI guided and flown devices that are capable of learning, precision flying, and long times aloft.  Sense and avoid isn't really that far off in multiples of five year hardware and three year software cycles.

So, perhaps the answer for the current generation of 45 minute devices:  maybe.  Something that might be an interesting adaptation of the currently required tether would be to operate a current generation small surveillance/reconnaissance device from a circling aircraft over high probability areas where it might be challenging to get a person on the ground with the necessary line of sight connection.  I've not heard, read, or seen video reports of that being done yet for fire recon, SAR, or other civil purposes.  Maybe someone in the industry might chime in???

[Tim Day]

While CAP Cessna 182s flown by unpaid aircrews are less expensive than the fully-burdened rate of Predators operated by USAF officers, I'm not sure that cost comparison holds up to the potential for emergent volunteers bringing their <5lb quadcopters equipped with quad-HD EO/IR cameras - and it won't be long before someone figures out how to network a bunch of quadcopter-transportable VHF receivers so we can geo-locate on a beacon. Apps that process quad-HD video and look for anomalies that could be tracks, wreckage, or other sign aren't far off, either.

These cameras already come tagged with GPS coordinates. Hasty (reflex) tasks could be done much more quickly with a quadcopter than on foot, assuming good weather.

That, more than the AI, long-endurance, UAS will be where we should see drones used in SAR, at least in the now-term. CAP offers a unique capability in that we understand both airspace and SAR operations.

[Garibaldi]

I'm not a pilot kind of guy, but I've read somewhere that quad-copters and the like are very much subject to the whims of air currents. Hard to control in unkind conditions.

I'm an advocate for using them on ground teams, to supplement the capability.

[Flying Pig]

One limiting factor more than cost will be politics.  many states have laws restricting the use of UAVs for LE purposes.  Most Sheriffs are responsible for SAR as well.  Although there are provisions to allowing it for SAR uses.   FL has the "Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act".  We get well intentioned volunteers continually pitching the "Im cheaper than your helicopter and Im a volunteer" trying to get used on LE missions.  The best one was a guy with a quad copter who stated "My quad copter can do anything your helicopter can do."  Well.... someone wasnt very informed about what our helicopter can do.

Regardless.... politics will be the biggest hurdle.

[Holding Pattern]

One limiting factor more than cost will be politics.  many states have laws restricting the use of UAVs for LE purposes.  Most Sheriffs are responsible for SAR as well.  Although there are provisions to allowing it for SAR uses.   FL has the "Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act".  We get well intentioned volunteers continually pitching the "Im cheaper than your helicopter and Im a volunteer" trying to get used on LE missions.  The best one was a guy with a quad copter who stated "My quad copter can do anything your helicopter can do."  Well.... someone wasnt very informed about what our helicopter can do.

Regardless.... politics will be the biggest hurdle.

This might be a circumstance where that federal umbrella of CAP will help us be more usable in those states.

[Flying Pig]

Im not sure what provisions the act gas regarding that.  I just know law enforcement cant be done in FL using a drone without a search warrant but SAR can.  So it probably doesnt even come into play. 

[Live2Learn]

One limiting factor more than cost will be politics.  many states have laws restricting the use of UAVs for LE purposes.  Most Sheriffs are responsible for SAR as well.  Although there are provisions to allowing it for SAR uses.   FL has the "Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act".  We get well intentioned volunteers continually pitching the "Im cheaper than your helicopter and Im a volunteer" trying to get used on LE missions.  The best one was a guy with a quad copter who stated "My quad copter can do anything your helicopter can do."  Well.... someone wasnt very informed about what our helicopter can do.

Regardless.... politics will be the biggest hurdle.

This might be a circumstance where that federal umbrella of CAP will help us be more usable in those states.

Depending upon whether the drone is considered a 'public use' or other enterprise different regulations would likely apply.  IMHO, Whether CAP can, could, or would field UAS for SAR or DR is a very political question that is not solvable at Squadron, Wing, or Regional levels.  In any case, such devices could very likely have far greater cost than might be raised by bake and rummage sales.  Likewise, it seems very probable that the standards for training and proficiency would likely greatly exceed those of a recreational drone operator.

[RiverAux]

The cost depends on who is paying.  To the state government's point of view, using CAP for SAR is 100% free (assuming they get an AFAM).  I really don't know where the funds come from that would be used to pay for NG troops to operate drones.  Well, 95% of NG funds come from the feds, but I don't know about such operational missions.

IF the funds for the NG to operate drones for operational missions are coming from federal pot directly rather than from the state pot, then there is every incentive for the NG to get involved.

And keep in mind that while we may be thinking of the giant Predator drones, the smaller drones that may be similar to what CAP could use itself will be permeating the NG as well. 

[Holding Pattern]

One limiting factor more than cost will be politics.  many states have laws restricting the use of UAVs for LE purposes.  Most Sheriffs are responsible for SAR as well.  Although there are provisions to allowing it for SAR uses.   FL has the "Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act".  We get well intentioned volunteers continually pitching the "Im cheaper than your helicopter and Im a volunteer" trying to get used on LE missions.  The best one was a guy with a quad copter who stated "My quad copter can do anything your helicopter can do."  Well.... someone wasnt very informed about what our helicopter can do.

Regardless.... politics will be the biggest hurdle.

This might be a circumstance where that federal umbrella of CAP will help us be more usable in those states.

Depending upon whether the drone is considered a 'public use' or other enterprise different regulations would likely apply.  IMHO, Whether CAP can, could, or would field UAS for SAR or DR is a very political question that is not solvable at Squadron, Wing, or Regional levels.  In any case, such devices could very likely have far greater cost than might be raised by bake and rummage sales.  Likewise, it seems very probable that the standards for training and proficiency would likely greatly exceed those of a recreational drone operator.

This is why I carefully couched my query in the form of: "Assume I manage to overcome those difficulties. Would I be able to then launch?"

I'd hate to sell 50 of my world famous $5000 cookies, build a fixed wing UAV with multispectral cameras, train up some pilots on flying the thing, train up some scanners on using the cameras, only to find out that "No, you cannot use this awesome UAV of life-saving, because CAPR 39-1 doesn't have an explanation of what uniform to wear when flying UAVs."

Hence why I'm trying to identify IN ADVANCE the problems one would come across after one solves those problems of funding, equipment, and training: I'm not going to waste my time baking $5000 cookies until I know the investment will be appreciated by CAP. 

[sardak]

I really don't know where the funds come from that would be used to pay for NG troops to operate drones.  Well, 95% of NG funds come from the feds, but I don't know about such operational missions.

If it's a SAR mission, they can fly under an AFRCC mission number just like us. They sometimes fly on the same mission number as CAP. I can recall one mission where the Guard completed their portion of the mission and called AFRCC to close out. When I called in to close out CAP, the controller told me they had already closed the mission, not noticing that CAP and the Guard were both flying.

And keep in mind that while we may be thinking of the giant Predator drones, the smaller drones that may be similar to what CAP could use itself will be permeating the NG as well.

Correct, the Guard has Predators, Reapers, Shadows and Ravens.

Mike

[RRLE]

FL has the "Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act". 

Here it is Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act

Note this:

(3) PROHIBITED USE OF DRONES.—
(a) A law enforcement agency may not use a drone to gather evidence or other information.

There are other prohibitions and I see no listed exception for SAR. So if you fly over PersonX's property and take a photo for any purpose ("other information") have you violated the Florida statute?

There is already one case pending in Florida regarding a homeowner who shot down a drone over his property. I think he was charged with the illegal discharge of a firearm. His defense is the Florida self-defenses of "stand your ground" and the Castle Doctrine. From what I remember about the case, the drone flyer had been warned repeatedly about flying a drone low over the shooters property. The flyer often did this when the shooter's wife was outside. No outside agency was willing to intervene. So one fine day he shot it down. Part of the shooter's self-defense claim is that drones can be armed and he had a reasonable expectation of harm as well as a violation of his property and privacy rights.

I live in Florida and if I was on the shooter's jury, I would vote for acquittal. I also expect this case to just disappear. I don't think anyone is going to want a trial over it.

[RRLE]

Here is the first news story about a similar KY case:

Hillview man arrested for shooting down drone; cites right to privacy

and here is the outcome - love that judge -

Judge rules man had right to shoot down drone over his house

[LSThiker]

An interesting quick read article about drone finding missing person:
http://mashable.com/2014/07/23/drone-saves-life-missing-man/#yrbY.nb2Rgqj

FAA allowed a special case drone for SAR:
http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/217393-faa-allows-police-to-use-drone-in-missing-person-search

http://fox40.com/2015/07/30/drone-used-in-search-for-missing-bay-area-teacher/
http://www.abc10.com/story/news/local/2015/07/30/ca-national-guard-drone-used-in-search-for-missing-man-in-el-dorado-national-forest/30914587/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/05/29/drone-operators-assist-search-and-rescue-efforts-after-devastating-floods-in-texas/

There is already an "organization" (do not know the legitimacy" of this group):
http://sardrones.org

[Live2Learn]

If Federal public use would the cases mentioned above be relevant?  Public use operation under a COA (Certificate of Authorization) is equivalent to a commercial permit on steroids.  Federal supremacy, if under an AFM, especially over Federal, State, or Tribal lands - which is where a high proportion of SAR and DR flights occur - would have minimal issues with overflying private property even if that was a concern.  I think the thread is mixing constraints on private recreational UAS ops and OPS conducted under an FAA blessing for public or commercial use.  The questions may not yet be ripe for a focused discussion on a forum like CAPTALK.  We all know that seeking a sound interpretation of any law or reg might be better sought elsewhere... 

[Flying Pig]

FL has the "Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act". 

Here it is Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act

Note this:

(3) PROHIBITED USE OF DRONES.—
(a) A law enforcement agency may not use a drone to gather evidence or other information.

There are other prohibitions and I see no listed exception for SAR. So if you fly over PersonX's property and take a photo for any purpose ("other information") have you violated the Florida statute?

There is already one case pending in Florida regarding a homeowner who shot down a drone over his property. I think he was charged with the illegal discharge of a firearm. His defense is the Florida self-defenses of "stand your ground" and the Castle Doctrine. From what I remember about the case, the drone flyer had been warned repeatedly about flying a drone low over the shooters property. The flyer often did this when the shooter's wife was outside. No outside agency was willing to intervene. So one fine day he shot it down. Part of the shooter's self-defense claim is that drones can be armed and he had a reasonable expectation of harm as well as a violation of his property and privacy rights.

I live in Florida and if I was on the shooter's jury, I would vote for acquittal. I also expect this case to just disappear. I don't think anyone is going to want a trial over it.

You missed the SAR exemption?

(c) If the law enforcement agency possesses reasonable suspicion that, under particular circumstances, swift action is needed to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or the destruction of evidence, or to achieve purposes including, but not limited to, facilitating the search for a missing person.

[sardak]

From the August 2015 BoG minutes:
CAP believes there is a role for mini-UAVs to augment existing capabilities for emergency services missions at low altitudes, primarily below 500 feet above the ground.
-- This will fill the gaps when CAP aircraft may not be able to fly due to weather.
-- Provides more opportunities for ground teams to support imagery collection missions.
CAP has a test project that was started with DHS Science and Technology Directorate to develop a mini-UAV for operational mission use.
-- In the first phase of this project training curriculum and operational kit was developed for two units in Louisiana Wing. They have worked since March of 2014 on this, and have reported success, but have also made it clear that dedicated training is definitely required.
-- The second phase is being developed to field similar capabilities in each of CAP's 8 regions, providing training, equipment and assistance in developing local Certificates of Authorization (COA) over the next year, once FAA rules are hopefully finalized.
-- 1AF/A3 has offered assistance with COA coordination, advocacy and mission approval guideline development while we work phase two.
-- CAP expects to have limited mission capability available in FY17, and will consider expanding to additional wings as resources are available
Some wings have indicated that they have state agencies interested in providing CAP mini-UAV resources. CAP is not opposed to supporting these and gaining additional experience
-- CAP has discussed options with its insurance carrier, and knows what they will require
-- Operations will be limited to mission uses from safe locations where members are not exposed to excess risk like SAR and DR activities; CD and HLS activities in the field where members may be dangerously close to law enforcement activity will not be allowed.
-- Mission UAV use once coordinated will be approved through the NOC.

Underline and bold added by me. I think the bold phrase is the driver to what happens.

Mike 

[Holding Pattern]

Where do I locate the minutes, for my future reference? A google search just took me to assorted PDFs, and the knowledgebase sent me to the bottom of the eservices page, where if the link is still there, I'm skipping right over it.

[PHall]

Where do I locate the minutes, for my future reference? A google search just took me to assorted PDFs, and the knowledgebase sent me to the bottom of the eservices page, where if the link is still there, I'm skipping right over it.

e-services

[Holding Pattern]

Where do I locate the minutes, for my future reference? A google search just took me to assorted PDFs, and the knowledgebase sent me to the bottom of the eservices page, where if the link is still there, I'm skipping right over it.

e-services

Under which tab?

[sardak]

Left column, National Agenda/Meeting Minutes.

Mike

[Live2Learn]

The Washington Post has picked up the thread.  Driverless cars, airplanes, boats, ships, buses, trucks...  and implications for both employment and the economy at large.   https://theconversation.com/in-a-driverless-future-what-happens-to-todays-drivers-51973   The metaphor of horseless carriages takes on new meaning and personal importance when it's applied to pilotless planes   http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130502-pilotless-planes-plan-to-take-off.

Of course, pilotless (read that also as 'operatorless') SAR/DR aircraft - "robotic drones" - would soon follow.  Why have an operator when the artificial intelligence never sleeps, makes far fewer errors, is incredibly precise, ever vigilant?

[Live2Learn]

The Washington Post has picked up the thread.  Driverless cars, airplanes, boats, ships, buses, trucks...  and implications for both employment and the economy at large.   https://theconversation.com/in-a-driverless-future-what-happens-to-todays-drivers-51973   The metaphor of horseless carriages takes on new meaning and personal importance when it's applied to pilotless planes   http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130502-pilotless-planes-plan-to-take-off.

Of course, pilotless (read that also as 'operatorless') SAR/DR aircraft - "robotic drones" - would soon follow.  Why have an operator when the artificial intelligence never sleeps, makes far fewer errors, is incredibly precise, ever vigilant?  Never have a labor relations problem, wages?  What are those?  Bathroom breaks and holidays off???  Huh?

[Holding Pattern]

The "AI" isn't anywhere near that level yet. Most systems still need a Mk1 Eyeball to review incoming data.

[Live2Learn]

The "AI" isn't anywhere near that level yet. Most systems still need a Mk1 Eyeball to review incoming data.

Operative word:  "yet".  I don't disagree in any way that AI hasn't quite arrived.  But... while the Mk2 Eyeball is the current state of technology it will soon (on January 1, 2020 to be exact) be augmented (significantly) by required ADS/B, followed by other tech enhancements in the near future.  When several articles in the popular media discuss Federal efforts to harmonize 'driverless' vehicles, major car manufacturers invest very large sums in R&D beyond the concept stage, and the US military (and our primary competitors) are serious considering fully automated battle fields in 3-10 years, the historical 'horse' already has it's nose well outside of the barn door.

FWIW, the original topic of the thread is unchanged.  The phrase "long term relevance" is not where we are now, nor in the next year or two.  The clearly foreseeable future?  That's another matter.