A question for the professionals

Started by MikeD, February 17, 2010, 04:53:02 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 All
User actions

Short Field

#20
February 19, 2010, 05:12:01 AM
How do you control it?  Visually and line of sight for the radios?  Out of visual range with telemetry? I really don't know the specs of the new SUAVs.
SAR/DR MP, ARCHOP, AOBD, GTM1, GBD, LSC, FASC, LO, PIO, MSO(T), & IC2
Wilson #2640

MikeD

#21
February 19, 2010, 05:37:28 AM
Quote from: Short Field on February 19, 2010, 05:12:01 AM
How do you control it?  Visually and line of sight for the radios?  Out of visual range with telemetry? I really don't know the specs of the new SUAVs.

The small ones have a radio uplink/downlink plus video, with a few mile range, and also can use a GPS-based autopilot plus nifty things like a loss of link mode (go here, or go here and land if you loose radio contact).

I'm going to try a slight course correction/cat herding attempt here.  I don't see this as something CAP would see for a long time, and it's not something even an agency like FEMA could (legally) use right now. I'm just curious, from the point of view of our members who work for responder agencies as a day job, if it would be useful if they could be flown legally. 

Now the idea of an RC airplane set of eyes in the sky for ground team members sounds like a different but also fun topic...  >:D

Short Field

#22
February 19, 2010, 06:46:24 AM
I tend to be very cynical about the "easy" fixes or "cheap" tech advances due to years and years of contractors trying to sell us "new and improved" products.  Once you got past the sunshine being blown up your posterior, most tended to have real problems using them operationally.  It is all about the details at the nuts and bolts level.
SAR/DR MP, ARCHOP, AOBD, GTM1, GBD, LSC, FASC, LO, PIO, MSO(T), & IC2
Wilson #2640

MikeD

#23
February 19, 2010, 07:06:29 AM
Quote from: Short Field on February 19, 2010, 06:46:24 AM
I tend to be very cynical about the "easy" fixes or "cheap" tech advances due to years and years of contractors trying to sell us "new and improved" products.  Once you got past the sunshine being blown up your posterior, most tended to have real problems using them operationally.  It is all about the details at the nuts and bolts level.

Hey, you can trust us.  We're the gov'met and we're here to help  >:D

Major Lord

#24
February 19, 2010, 07:54:27 AM
I like the idea of a low cost R/C aircraft that carries an ELT direction finder with downlinked telemetry. A ground team could carry it in their vehicle or even in a pack and improve their detection range dramatically.

Major Lord
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

raivo

#25
February 19, 2010, 08:12:22 AM
Might be slightly off-topic, but a lot of the concern I hear when it comes to domestic UAV/UAS use by government agencies has to do with fear of Big Brother-type worst case scenarios.

CAP Member, 2000-20??
USAF Officer, 2009-2018
Recipient of a Mitchell Award Of Irrelevant Number

"No combat-ready unit has ever passed inspection. No inspection-ready unit has ever survived combat."

TACP

#26
February 19, 2010, 08:17:36 AM
Quote from: Major Lord on February 19, 2010, 07:54:27 AM
I like the idea of a low cost R/C aircraft that carries an ELT direction finder with downlinked telemetry. A ground team could carry it in their vehicle or even in a pack and improve their detection range dramatically.

Now I completely agree with this. If we could cost effectively develop a UAV direction finder it would be fantastic. With the small hand-launched units the only issue would be weight ratio.

Flying Pig

#27
February 19, 2010, 05:08:36 PM Last Edit: February 19, 2010, 05:12:02 PM by Flying Pig
Quote from: TACP on February 18, 2010, 06:11:30 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on February 18, 2010, 05:39:10 AM
Quote from: Flying Pig on February 18, 2010, 05:17:37 AM
Quote from: TACP on February 18, 2010, 02:51:34 AM
The volume of traffic in a disaster area can be easily deconflicted by a ground controller. Air force does it all the time in combat situtations, where a JTAC can sometimes have Helos, UAVs, and Fixed Wing on station at the same time. Lateral and Altitude deconfliction are easily implimented and very effective.

.....And this is where you come in right?  I call it "CAPTAC"  YEEEEEEES!!!  Say it with me..  I can only imagine what that ribbon and badge might look like.  Should we start a new thread? >:D
Flying Pig.......hold on tight.....CAP guys ARE getting JFAC training!

I need a source for that... I'm not going to say it's impossible, but that would be a training and FAA regulation nightmare.
Where are we getting JTAC Training??  I was a Forward Observer in the Marines myself, hardly a anything close to a JTAC, but I had worked with a few JATCs TACP's or whatever they were.  They were Air Force guys.  All I knew is that I was a Marine and they were inferior! >:D  Actually, it was a pretty darn impressive use of multiple radios and map work.  I think those guys must have had a couple extra hands I didnt see.  We were training on calling in A-10's, AV-8s and AH-1's and coordinating that with mortars and Arty.  So exactly who getting the training and where?  I am signed up for the Predator program, and nobody has said anything about that type of training.  And Im sure its not going to be an online course.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 All
User actions