Time to Start Rethinking Our Aerospace Education

[FARRIER]

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/widebody-freighters-could-be-piloted-remotely-within-15-years-369439/

"Pennington says one of air traffic management's major challenges for the near future will be managing UAVs, because they will be used in a significant proportion of civil and military operations.

He predicts this will start in commercial civil aviation via the freight operations of companies such as FedEx and UPS, which will use a single-pilot crew or pilot devices entirely from the ground."

With the speed of technology, 10 years ago is truly history. Lesson 19 of CAP's Introduction to Robotics is already being executed by an organization by Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) down to the elementary level.

Once the FAA figures out how to integrate UAV's into civil airspace, I would bet are aerial photography mission will diminish or will be gone. There are civil hobbyist looking to break into the SAR business, not including Sheriff's departments who have already started.

If we want to prepare youth for the future and insure our viability as an organization, we need a huge rethink of our aerospace training and mindset.

Respectfully,

[Майор Хаткевич]

I'd actually start focusing on what's going on in private space exploration. Seems a lot of fascinating development from more than one or two companies, but we barely hear about it.

[Eclipse]

Once the FAA figures out how to integrate UAV's into civil airspace,

No one who is in CAP today will see this. I'd say those joining in 2030 should start thinking about it.


There are civil hobbyist looking to break into the SAR business,[/quote]

There are plenty of whackers hobbyists trying to break into our missions now, they haven't had much luck.

I would not argue the world is changing, rapidly, and that will have ripple effects everywhere, but if the military has learned anything from the last 2-3 wars, you can do lots from the air, mostly lookin' and breakin', and we just need to insure we have a strong enough presence on the lookin' and helpin'  to stay relevent.

You could argue that SDIS, ARCHER, and now GIIEP were / are all goods first shots at new technology.  Unfortunately we made a number of procedure
mistakes which slowed adoption of what could have been good platforms, and the world shot past them while we argued about who was allowed to
fly the missions.

[bflynn]

Once the FAA figures out how to integrate UAV's into civil airspace, I would bet are aerial photography mission will diminish or will be gone. There are civil hobbyist looking to break into the SAR business, not including Sheriff's departments who have already started.

I would bet that integrating UAVs into civil airspace will take significantly longer than one would think.  First of all, we're talking about the FAA, which makes a glacier look fast.  But then there are also significant safety issues with a blind aircraft mixing in with general see-and-avoid VFR aircraft.

Certainly we can teach about UAVs.  But given the choice, I'd rather get the enjoyment from piloting a real airplane  than operate the controls of what amounts to a real-time video game.  Those people are not pilots to me, they are console operators.

[Eclipse]

Good News:  Vijay Kumar: Robots that fly ... and cooperate

Bad News (17 years and counting): Future War: Autonomous Drones and War Robots (Hunter Killers and Terminators)

[coudano]

It's time to start rethinking aerospace education for completely different reasons.
CAP's AE in general needs a violent shove into "modern" with a bent toward "future",
and a STEM-leaning or STEM-prep bent

The stuff that has just come out lately is better than nothing,
but it's still not quite "getting it" and AE on the whole is still fawning a lot over history imho

Lots of issues like finding people who can legitimately instruct, funding the equipment which often aint cheap, and figuring out how to appeal in common to an audience that ranges in age from 12 to probably 50's+


If CAP fails to do this I feel that it will slide even further into illegitimacy.
If CAP were to do it right, I think Aerospace has the ability to save the whole organization...

[Spaceman3750]

Wow .

[Eclipse]

Can we stop calling it "STEM"?

[Spaceman3750]

Can we stop calling it "STEM"?

Why? It's used all the time in education.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Can we stop calling it "STEM"?

Why? It's used all the time in education.

Not really...I had to google it.

What's wrong with just calling it Science? It applies to all of the components of STEM...

[Eclipse]

Can we stop calling it "STEM"?

Why? It's used all the time in education.

It's just another item on the buzzword bingo, and a lot of times used by people who don't actually understand what it really means.

[Spaceman3750]

Can we stop calling it "STEM"?

Why? It's used all the time in education.

It's just another item on the buzzword bingo, and a lot of times used by people who don't actually understand what it really means.

This is CAP - we're great at buzzword bingo.

"The FRO says he's go to WMIRS and release our B12 sortie, but he pointed out that our MO hasn't completed ORM-I and should probably do that before the upcoming SUI or else the IG won't be happy. The GT we're coordinating with has their EFJ on CC1 and the 109 says their GTL is Bagodoughnuts."

[4fhoward]

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=12862.msg233519#msg233519

[bflynn]

It's time to start rethinking aerospace education for completely different reasons.
CAP's AE in general needs a violent shove into "modern" with a bent toward "future",
and a STEM-leaning or STEM-prep bent

Have you considered that changing the focus of CAP AE to a tech/science/math basis will require CAP to abandon it's current audience for AE and seek an entirely new audience?

Without resorting to it not being modern, what is wrong with CAP AE? 

[Eclipse]

Can we stop calling it "STEM"?

Why? It's used all the time in education.

It's just another item on the buzzword bingo, and a lot of times used by people who don't actually understand what it really means.

This is CAP - we're great at buzzword bingo.

"The FRO says he's go to WMIRS and release our B12 sortie, but he pointed out that our MO hasn't completed ORM-I and should probably do that before the upcoming SUI or else the IG won't be happy. The GT we're coordinating with has their EFJ on CC1 and the 109 says their GTL is Bagodoughnuts."

Don't get me wrong, I love CMJ^®, but this particular phrase just grates me for some reason, and as I said, probably because it it used incorrectly
a lot, or by people with an agenda unrelated to actually increasing the very education they are theoretically espousing.

"CMJ and Colorful Military Jargon^®" are registered trademarks of eClipseco Mining and Heavy Machinery Consortium.  All Rights Reserved.  Let eClipseco service all of your rhetoric and propaganda needs!

[RiverAux]

Well, I would hope that CAP is constantly re-thinking our AE program (such as it is).  By its very nature it is something that doesn't remain static. 

[Spaceman3750]

Well, I would hope that CAP is constantly re-thinking our AE program (such as it is).  By its very nature it is something that doesn't remain static.

Oh, I don't know about that; Bernoulii's principle hasn't changed in awhile...

[RiverAux]

Well, I think our program expands a bit beyond basic principles of AE int other areas that do change quite a bit.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Well, I would hope that CAP is constantly re-thinking our AE program (such as it is).  By its very nature it is something that doesn't remain static.

I picked up a CAP AE book from 1963 I think on eBay. It had WAY more than what the 6 modules have...

[coudano]

Can we stop calling it "STEM"?

Probably not, since everyone else calls it that.
When it's time to write grants, and attract instructors (and students), and try to pass what CAP does as legitimate and relevant to outside things like colleges and employers, that's a word you want to be using.

Have you considered that changing the focus of CAP AE to a tech/science/math basis will require CAP to abandon it's current audience for AE and seek an entirely new audience?

What do you think CAP's current audience for AE is? (other than the captive audience of people that have to pass tests)
I think changing from no audience to any audience at all is  probably a good move.  I think that not /wasting/ the captive audience we do have is probably a good move.

Without resorting to it not being modern, what is wrong with CAP AE?

The lack of modernity is the primary gripe.  What we push as "important aerospace" stuff is history which is rapidly becoming more and more dusty.  I agree that there is value in studying where we have come from, however air power doctrine is NOT where we have been, it's where we are going and need to go.

It lacks hands on inquiry based laboratory (well I guess you could try to pawn AEX off as that, but really?)

AE needs the same quantum leap that ES got with the ESCP and ops quals online,
and that CP got with the phase based leadership expectations

Do you think that the aerospace program as it exists accomplishes the mandated aerospace mission of CAP?  Does it do it in the same context that it was intended in 1941 and since?

Does it do it effectively?
Is that effect maximized?

[FARRIER]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/jsp_includes/articlePrint.jsp?headLine=How%20UAVs%20Will%20Change%20Aviation%20&storyID=news/bca0610p1.xml

"In researching this report, we heard of studies by major cargo airlines involving optionally piloted freighters, supposedly crewed on transoceanic flights by a single pilot, or none at all."

[FARRIER]

http://himpunanmahasiswamesinunsyiah.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/airborne-autonomous-collaborative/

Brandon Basso and Joshua Love are Ph.D. candidates in mechanical engineering at the University
of California at Berkeley. J. Karl Hedrick is the James Marshall Wells Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Berkeley, specializing in nonlinear control, automotive control systems, and aircraft control.

Sumber :  http://memagazine.asme.org/Articles/2011/April/Airborne_Autonomous.cfm

[sardak]

This is from a letter to the editor in Tuesday's (March 27, 2012) Los Angeles Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/27/opinion/la-oe-villasenor-license-domestic-drones-20120327
*********
President Obama signed a sweeping aviation bill in February that will open American airspace to "unmanned aircraft systems," more commonly known as drones...Drone proliferation also raises another issue that has received far less attention: the threat that they could be used  to carry out terrorist attacks.

So what can we do to reduce the risk? One good place to start is the "model aircraft" provision in the new aviation law, which allows hobbyists to operate drones weighing up to 55 pounds with essentially no governmental oversight. The law allows recreational drones to be operated in accordance with "community-based" safety guidelines established by a "nationwide community-based organization." The inclusion of this language was a lobbying victory for model airplane enthusiasts. But is it  really in the broader national interest?

It is not. One of the hallmarks of an effective national antiterrorism policy is consistency. The hobbyist exception is glaringly inconsistent with our overall approach to antiterrorism. By what logic, for example, do we prevent airline passengers from taking 8-ounce plastic water bottles through security checkpoints, while permitting anyone who so desires to operate a 50-pound, video-guided drone, no questions asked?

The overwhelming majority of the people in the model airplane and drone hobbyist community would never consider carrying out a terrorist attack. Yet the same could be said for the overwhelming majority of airline passengers, all of whom are subject to the same rules about what can be taken through airport security checkpoints.

Given the realities of the world we live in, it doesn't seem unreasonable to require all civilian U.S. operators of drones [to include model aircraft] capable of carrying a significant payload to obtain a license.

The writer, John Villasenor is a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a professor of electrical engineering at UCLA.
***********
For those who don't know and won't look, the Brookings Institution, located in Washington, DC, is, from it's website: "proud to be consistently ranked as the most influential, most quoted and most trusted think tank" and UCLA is the University of California, Los Angeles.

Forgot to add the link to the reply from the President of the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA): http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2012/03/29/ama-president-bob-brown-responds-to-la-times-op-ed-piece/

Mike

[sardak]

Here's the status of where the FAA is with regards to step 1 in allowing sUAS (small UAS, under 55 lbs) into the National Airspace System.  http://regs.dot.gov/rulemakings/201203/report.htm#7

Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS)  Status: Red
Popular Title: Small Unmanned Aircraft
RIN 2120-AJ60
Stage: NPRM
Previous Stage:None
Abstract: This rulemaking would enable small unmanned aircraft to safely operate in limited portions of the national airspace system (NAS). This action is necessary because it addresses the novel legal or policy issues about the minimum safety parameters for operating recreational remote control model and toy aircraft in the NAS. The intended effect of this action is to develop requirements and standards to ensure that risks are adequately mitigated, such that safety is maintained for the entire aviation community.
Rulemaking Project Initiated: 07/28/2009

To Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Originally scheduled: 2/3/2011  New Projected Date: 4/9/2012
Publication Date in the Federal Register for Public Comment: 3/10/2011  New Projected Date: 7/23/2012
End of Public Comment Period: 7/14/2011  New Projected Date: 10/23/2012

Mike

[FARRIER]

I'm going to have to check my other sources, but the US is actually the most hindering when it comes to UAS/UAV research. Other countries have been more liberal (in the classic sense) when it comes to research and use, even at and below the 55 pound level.