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.