PDA

View Full Version : Would you trust this????



Ari707
2006-03-31, 01:13 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Pilotless planes could be the "next great step forward" in aviation, or a new safety hazard in already crowded skies, a House panel was told Wednesday.

Since 1997, unmanned aircraft have been used in U.S. airspace primarily by the military. But now the government wants to fly more of them to patrol the nation's borders, catch criminals, monitor the environment and assist in disaster relief.

Some companies think pilotless planes have a vast commercial potential for uses that range from crop dusting to weather prediction.

"The development and use of unmanned aircraft is the next great step forward in the evolution of aviation," Nick Sabatini, the Federal Aviation Administration's associate administrator for aviation safety, told the House aviation subcommittee.

But Sabatini didn't disagree with private pilots who say there's no proof that they can operate safely.

The FAA has two basic safety concerns, he said: What happens if the operator on the ground loses contact with the aircraft, and the need for technology to enable aircraft to detect and avoid other aircraft.

Last year, the FAA allowed two unmanned aircraft to be tested for commercial use. Sabatini said 50 other kinds of unmanned aircraft will be approved for flight tests this year.

Robert Owen, a professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, said the military and private industry want the FAA to fly pilotless planes in U.S. airspace.

"Congress needs to encourage the FAA to streamline and energize its process for granting certificates of authorization for military and commercial operations under appropriate restrictions," Owen said.

The FAA's reluctance to approve unmanned aircraft for commercial reasons "is probably the industry's No. 1 grievance," Owen said.

The military is also chafing under the FAA's restrictions.

Now, when the military or the government wants to fly a pilotless plane in civilian airspace, the FAA allows it to operate over unpopulated areas and be observed by someone on the ground or in a "chase" aircraft.

"We want the Department of Defense to have the same access to the national airspace as commercial aviation," said Dyke Weatherington, deputy of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems Planning Task Force for the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense.

Andrew Cebula, spokesman for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, told lawmakers there hasn't been any testing or demonstration that unmanned aircraft can operate safely in the same airspace as manned aircraft. They can't see and avoid other aircraft, and they can't respond to air traffic controllers' instructions, Cebula said.

One difficulty in regulating pilotless planes is their variety, Sabatini said.

There are drones, which are programmed to fly by themselves, and there are remotely piloted vehicles, which are actively flown by a ground control operator. Some weigh less than a pound, and others have a longer wingspan than a Boeing 737.

Cebula said the FAA must issue new regulations about unmanned aircraft because of already existing confusion over what's allowed.

The sheriff's department in Gaston County, North Carolina, for example, recently announced it would fly unmanned aerial vehicles for law enforcement purposes. Alarmed pilots told the FAA, which told the sheriff's department it couldn't fly unmanned aircraft over a congested area because it wasn't safe, Sabatini said.

The agency restricts the airspace along the U.S.-Mexico border so that pilotless planes operated by Customs and Border Protection agents can look for people entering the country illegally.

But Cebula said that causes problems for pilots. The flight restrictions begin at 12,000 feet, and pilots sometimes have to fly that high to make radio contact with air traffic controllers.

Lawmakers were reviewing the government's authority to oversee the safety of unmanned aircraft in civilian airspace.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

T-Bird76
2006-03-31, 01:24 PM
I'd feel safer with Ray Charles then no pilot at all.

Midnight Mike
2006-03-31, 01:37 PM
Things change, who knows, if technology catches up, I would feel safe.

Let's look at some changes that have taken place over the years:

Horse & buggy, to the automobile.

Pony Express to the current mail system.

Mail System to electronic mail system (email)

Hand crank on the Model T type car, to the automobile that requires a key.

Candle to the light bulb

Refrigerator units used to be kept cold by blocks of ice, to the modern day electric refrigerator.

Bartering of goods & services, to coins, to cash, to checks, to credit cards, to an electronic debit system.

Aircraft that required multi engines to aircraft that have one.

I am sure that people in the 50's would have never imagined that we would be flying "2" Engined aircraft across the Atlantic or Pacific.

Telephone technology has changed over the years, look at the old fashioned crank telephone to the modern day telephone that fits in your ear.

T-Bird76
2006-03-31, 01:45 PM
But Mike most of those still have humans controlling them to some extent. A plane flying at 40,000 feet above the Rockies and knowing Microsoft is flying the plane doesn't leave me feeling very safe.

Midnight Mike
2006-03-31, 01:54 PM
But Mike most of those still have humans controlling them to some extent. A plane flying at 40,000 feet above the Rockies and knowing Microsoft is flying the plane doesn't leave me feeling very safe.

Computers are just about flying the aircraft now, auto-pilot, auto-landing, FMS.....

We are talking about future computer technology, not now......

RDU-JFK
2006-03-31, 02:09 PM
A long time ago there was talk about automated NYC subways and such, and they experimented with the 42nd Street Shuttle being automated, and it caught fire (although probably employee sabatoge). As long as the subways have operators, airplanes will have pilots.

Tom_Turner
2006-04-01, 12:47 AM
If you live or work in a high rise, you go up and down on elevators nearly every day which are basically automated.

Granted, its not 40,000 feet, but by the fourth floor or so it really doesn't matter, you're basically just an egg in a carton.

Matt Molnar
2006-04-01, 02:07 AM
A good way to judge would be to check out the number of Predator aircraft that have crashed due to causes other than hostile fire. Unfortunately, I'm sure no such number has ever been published. I think the technology exists to fly these things safely, it's just a question of how expensive it is and how much the price will come down in the future. Same goes for the NYC Subway, a lot simpler than flying a plane, but the technology is available, it's just so prohibitively expensive that the subway will probably be using motormen for the next 40-100 years.