Should CAP Start Training for UAV's?

[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. "