Jan Miller

12/10/12

Research Paper

Air Dominance: From Pilot to Automation

It’s a bird, it’s a plane, no it’s a robot. An unmanned aircraft system that is

capable of flight may be above your head right now. These coveted machines are

known by many names, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), drones, or remote controlled

aircrafts. Propeller or turbine driven aircraft, without pilots, that can fly over long

distances and use radio waves to communicate with an operator on the ground via

satellites. If and when they lose communication with the ground operator, and it does

happen frequently, the system goes into an automatons mode where the computer on

board does the decision making for that duration of flight.

Commercial flights have been brought down more times than once by birds that

weight less than 40 pounds. One may be able to find evidence of that at the bottom of

the Hudson River. UAVs are generally smaller, faster, and quieter than conventionally

piloted aircraft

. They have been used to help fight wars, do research in areas inaccessible by

humans, and surveillance, all without a pilot in the aircraft. Some UAVs can be hand

launched, giving them an advantage over CPA that require runways to lift-off and take-

off from. Should this bring a desire to integrate the unmanned aircraft into our national

airspace system (NAS)?

UAVs have been around longer than one might think. A pilotless aircraft was

made in 1918 that could carry a 250 pound warhead named the Kettering Bug (KB).

The bug just kept circling around the airfield, and before all the “bugs” were worked out,

World War 1 had ended (Degaspari). The Kettering Bug wasn’t done yet and got to see

action in another War, dropping bombs on 11 missions. KBs basic design was used to

create a two man crew that would bail out of the plane; the bug would then proceed into

enemy territory being flown via radio control from another aircraft, and drop bombs on

the enemy (Degaspari). A true tool of war, created to advance air superiority without

pilots, all 11 missions were unsuccessful. What do we do when something doesn’t

work? That’s right, fix it and the UAVs have been advancing more and more since. With

a new war, comes a brand new UAV design. A jet powered UAV was used in the

Vietnam War to do reconnaissance stealth missions. It was a successful aircraft for an

unsuccessful war. The name of this blitzkrieg surviving bird was the Ryan Firebee

(RFB), and is still in use today (Davies). The RFB was such a successful stealth

operation that the UAV now has a commanding role in the United States Air Force

(USAF).The USAF has been training more drone operators than pilots since March

2011. (Lochbihler). A good percentage of commercial pilots come from military training

and there is a lower, mandated retirement age for airline pilots. New Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) regulations coming out in the future are going to make it very

difficult for civilian pilots by increasing the mandated flight hour time for commercial

pilots to 1500 hours. By the way, each hour costs a civilian a little over a hundred

dollars an hour while military pilots log thousands of flight hours with each mission. Are

we headed for a pilot shortage or are the pilots getting kicked out of the cockpit for a

ground job? The talk heard around the hangar… the future cockpits will be designed for

one man to operate the controls that currently have crews of two or more pilots. The

main pilot of these flights would be the unmanned aircraft system (UAS) while the

person on board monitors the sky while pushing a button or two. The source of this is a

conversation was myself, a charter pilot and another hangar operations employee,

whom is also a student here at MSUD and holds a private pilot’s license, had, and is

only speculation.

The sophisticated UAVs of today are capable of flying at high altitudes, for long

periods of time. The unmanned aircraft use global positioning systems (GPS) to

maintain contact with an operator on the ground. Two separate experiments conducted

by 32 and 24 participants, some of whom were licensed pilots, engaged in an

unmanned aerial vehicle simulation in a lab. The results of the tests prove that the

UAVs were unreliable in the simulations (Dixon and Wickens). The computer on the

UAV does not have an equivalent level of safety (ELOS) of that of a CPA. Would you

share the road with taxis or an even scarier scenario, eighteen-wheelers, that have no

driver behind the wheel and have unreliable safety tests in the lab? The freedom of the

government to use spy drones on its own people will escalate if the FAA allows the use

of civilian and military drones to be integrated into our airspace; the safety of people in

manned aircraft, and on those on the ground, will be compromised as well. The

Department of Defense (DOD) is flying drones along US boarders and in designated

areas that are against FAA regulations. The FAA oversees all rules and operations in

the NAS. They are being pressured by the DOD to relax on the rules of integration to

the point where the FAA wants to resign its position in the responsibility for introducing

an untested and unreliable UAV into our NAS. The FAA has to compose the rules that

will safely incorporate the UAVs and are being pressured by the president of the US as

well. There is an extreme necessity for aircraft separation while in flight, and drones

aren’t capable to “see and avoid” other aircraft (Dillingham). A pilot is capable of using

simple scan techniques, almost the same way a driver of an automobile avoids other

cars, and navigates to avoid the other aircraft. With a UAV, it becomes way more

complex than just looking around.

With cameras, that have infrared technology onboard, a UAV will have the ability

to see inside your home and what room your in and what you are doing. Sounds like a

good way for parents to make sure their kids are doing their homework. Currently there

are no regulations on UAVs concerning the data collected, and how they use it

pertaining to the surveillance information amassed by the drones (Dillingham). The

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) could fly a drone high above our heads and spy on all

the American people, infringing on our civil liberties, and the victims wouldn’t even know

that they are being watched. Here is what’s to come, by Swanson:

The first order of business under the act is

to establish six sites within a year where the military and

others can fly unmanned aircraft in the vicinity of regular air

traffic in order to demonstrate that it can be done safely.

The government is fighting itself on this battle. On one front is the FAA fighting

for a safe sky and the other is the DOD wanting the ability to send up data collecting

machines into our NAS. According to the United States Government Accountability

Office (GOA), currently the use of drones in the U.S. include, but, not limited to, the law

enforcement, monitoring or fighting fires, data collection by the FAA, weather research,

and border patrol (Dillingham). The GOA reports the obstacles that need to be rectified

in integrating UAVs into NAS such as, the FAA authorizing certain entities to operate

UAVs (Dillingham). A myriad of safety issues would arise from these conditions. If the

FAA allows one entity to fly over a certain area, how and who would be able to

distinguish one aircraft from another? And how would they know who was flying it?

It all starts out as a good idea, used for a beneficial purpose but what about the

repercussions that are involved? Throw some money at the project, and that’s how they

get you onboard. Ben Gielow, general counsel for the industry group Association for

Unmanned Vehicle Systems International states, “There is a huge potential market for

civilian and commercial uses of unmanned aircraft systems” (Jansen). That is a bit

misleading, the costs of operations seem to be lower to start with, however they need

more money to keep them operating. But wait, the real money being thrown at the

development into integrating UAVs with CPAs comes from contractors being funded by

the DOD (Swanson). Basically the money is coming from a war machine that is focusing

aerial tactics, spying, within its own borders, placing everyone at risk, in the name of

protection. Just because we can incorporate something into our daily lives, should we?

Sure it’s nice to have that new, shiny piece of technology; and who wouldn’t want

to “play” with a remote controlled aircraft. There are designated parks and airspace for

those whom want to “play” and partake in the hobby of flying radio controlled (r/c)

aircraft. The designated air space that is being used for drone testing has a nationwide

airspace for 63 individual businesses, including military, police, even universities

(Swanson). Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University has a B.S. degree in unmanned

systems science to train future pilots on these aircraft (Tallman.p28). The students will

graduate out of these programs as private pilots to keep the safety of operations in the

NAS up to standards. These regulations that are made by the FAA, whom are

responsible for regulating the NAS, are very strict and usually end up being the butt of a

joke between pilots because of the exorbitancy of some of the redundant regulations

that are in place to keep the skies safe.

Since there hasn’t been a successful program developed to provide ELOS in

integrating an unmanned aerial system (UAS) that can provide aircraft separation, the

programs at the universities that are designing UAVs, don’t have any FAA regulations to

guide them, and the university programs are developed in conjunction with the DOD

(Tallman.29). Is anyone noticing a pattern here? It seems that The Department of

Defense has got their dirty hands dipped into most of the programs that are going to

help clutter the skies with machines. They are doing it in the name of security, not

safety. Since 1918 the Department of Defense (DOD) has placed over 10 billion dollars

investing in the UAV program (Degaspari). Tanks were created for War as well;

however they are not integrated into a complex aerial network that our NAS is made up

of.

Let us now focus on the infringing of our rights debate. Our airspace, blanketed

by cameras with wings, shouldn’t be used by marketers of big corporations, to give out

locations of favorable target selling points (masses of people) at the risk of all those

below, by flying an overhead drone with a real-time camera attached to it. It is also nice

to send in a robot into uninhabitable and remote areas, where humans can’t or prefer

not to go, to do research. On the other hand, pilots can do a more thorough job, with all

the sophisticated equipment, to do the exploring, than that of an unmanned aerial

vehicle and have the safety and reliability of a trained pilot at the controls. Besides a

rogue UAV could possibly fly several hundreds of miles before crashing into the ground,

smashing something or someone.

So why switch from tested and true pilots to unreliable unmanned aircraft? First

off, anyone can do it, which isn’t a good thing. Researchers want to send field biologist

out to conduct ecological research and monitor natural resources using modified military

aircraft drones (Watts, et al.). What is the benefit of sending up a modified bomber to

that of a single prop airplane? The biologist can launch the plane by himself or herself,

saving time and money, however the biologist that is operating the UAV is lightly trained

in the use of the machine. If communication is lost, which is common, it could send this

previously used death machine, on an aerial rampage. Secluded areas that aren’t

routes for manned aircrafts are currently being used to fly UAVs to practice their

maneuvers, to do research, and even border patrol by homeland security; however,

they still can lose connection between the operator and machine causing a manned

flight or a family picnicking that’s in its path, to have a really bad day. The amount of

emergencies that can occur while an aircraft is in flight is multitudinous. And, having an

operator who is not a qualified pilot would not have the ability to handle all those

emergencies.

The second reason that has been given for the benefit of using a UAV instead of

a piloted aircraft is money. They don’t have to pay as much in fuel or the other operating

costs of using a manned aircraft. They are currently learning that the operational costs

of an unmanned aircraft are not as cheap as predicted. The program that is currently

being operated by U.S. Customs and Border Protection that implements drones into the

U.S.-Mexico border patrol isn’t going as well as planned. Besides having a UAV crash

into a hillside near some homes their operational costs are more than what was

expected. Current conditions require over 170 people to operate one Predator drone for

24 hours (Swanson). They also require an hour of maintenance per hour of flight and

are frequently unable to fly due to weather complications (Bennett). Without the pilot

onboard scanning the environment in real time, the UAVs aren’t as effective either. The

previous year the unmanned aircraft involved in the border patrol snatched up 7,600

pounds of marijuana that was valued at $19.3 million. Compare that to the aircraft with

pilots flying the border missions who helped seize 148,000 pounds of cocaine worth

$2.8 billion (Bennett). Homeland Security has spent more than $250 million on domestic

drones. With a simple comparison of numbers, the UAVs are costing the taxpayers

more money, with fewer results, than that of the piloted aircraft.

The third reason is one briefly discussed previously, which is the ability to launch

a UAV without the use of a runway. A pilot and the controls that he uses and the

environment he is in, air, temperature all contribute to more weight, which in turn

requires a bigger aircraft that needs a runway to take-off. The fact that a UAV can be

hand launched can also create a plane that has no identity. A faceless assassin is and

will be created. Being hit by one may seem like a dubious scenario, but if you

incorporate them into our airspace, commercialize them, not put strict rules onto whom

can fly them like the FAA does for licensed pilots, than everyone is going to take

advantage of a drone and operate one. Anyone would be able to purchase an R/C

aircraft for $1,000 to $10,000, strap a bomb to it, and attack a building or commercial

airliner with the makeshift device. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA)

hasn’t taken any action in examining the threat of a ravager using a drone, now or in the

near future, on U.S. soil, to wreak havoc (Dillingham). With the easily launched drone,

compared to an aircraft requiring a runway that is mandated and enforced by TSA and

the FAA to allow only qualified and competent pilots to fly, the argument for a “launch

anywhere” scenario would be the compromised safety of pretty much everyone. The

United States isn’t the only country to have military grade drones. A few headlines read

around the world available from Lexis Nexis… “Columbia Announces Air Force

Procurement Plans”, “Turkey Said to Return Israeli-Made Drones, Asks for

Compensation”, “Iran to Build Long Range Drones”, “Poland Wants Armed UAVs” …

They should all give thanks to the RFBs success in Vietnam. Let us not forget the fourth

reason for military applications, stealth and surveillance. Do UAVs really need to be

integrated above our heads? These machines that were once used for target practice

are currently being flown and tested in our airspace and they aren’t even effective at

collision avoidance.

To detect and avoid other aircraft by a UAV is not as efficient as a capable pilot

keeping his head on a swivel. The window of vision displayed on a screen cannot

compare to the view an airborne pilot. It is harder to determine a situation when you are

not encompassed with all the information that is available. The UAVs incorporate two

recognized control systems. There is the self-explaining line of sight system and the

trickier one uses a data link between the operator and the UAV via satellites. The data

link does break during operations but most of the time it reconnects with the operator.

When there is a larger area between the operator and the drone, there can be some lag

time as well (Davies). Computers aren’t currently able to have a complex decision

making process as efficiently as a competent pilot. A great deal of misfortunate events

can occur in our strenuous airspace during a lag or a lost link. The GOA’s report that

came out this July concluded that UAVs could not detect sense or avoid other aircraft

(Dillingham). Think about operating a car with a remote and computer screen compared

to actually driving a car. A person can do it, but there are many complications that can

occur, especially on a busy highway. Our airspace is one of the busiest in the world.

Today the UAVs operate as exceptions to the rules (Dillingham). Most new, advanced

UAVs can break away from some regulations that manned aircraft must adhere to. For

example, without the need for oxygen or the ability to withstand more extreme

conditions, UAVs can climb to higher altitudes.

Did the great nation of the United States get as enthralled watching Armstrong

touch foot on the moon or the wheels of a rover with a camera that first rolled on to the

planet Mars? People want to see another person succeed at doing something new and

spectacular, not some machine. Getting there, we are going to have to send a human

up that mountain, to get the full experience of what might come. Sure it is nice to do the

testing and research that could make it possible for a man or woman to be able to

expand our horizons and National Aeronautical Space Administration (NASA) is

coordinating with the DOD and FAA to develop smarter aircraft to do just that. Man has

not developed a life-sustaining space craft to go to Mars, however we can send up a

robot. If you have seen the slow-moving footage of NASAs Mars Science Laboratory

(MSL), it would be hard to differentiate between an alien planet and our own. Drones

can do quite a bit but a person can experience even more. With the technology now,

they may send the Mars Rover to a desert in Arizona, and believe they are on another

planet. There is only a limited amount of information available that we can acquire from

a display screen that a machine captures with a camera compared to a human that is

actually enveloped in the environment and what they can observe. Much of the data

could possibly be misinterpreted as well, sending the exploration mission backwards or

worse.

These machines are not all bad, and have many potentially awesome capabilities

paving a way to a distant future where a man or woman may be seen taking a step on

another world. However, why place these fascinating instruments just above our heads?

Could it better our way of life? There is a double edged sword that comes with them and

will take very thorough research to incorporate them above our heads that won’t bring

about bigger problems. Again they are machines created for war. In fact Obama’s

administration is still vexed on whether or not drone attacks, on threats to the United

States, should be used as a last resort and many other countries agree that drone

strikes are not acceptable. (Shane 19A) Drones are a great tool used by the DOD and

the CIA to police the world. Not only is the pilot the judge, he or she is also the

executioner. The United Nations (UN) plans are having a convention next year, in

Geneva, to investigate the drone strikes committed by the US (Shane 19 A). This

meeting should have taken place years ago. Many innocent lives have been taken by

drone strikes, and not during time of war. Who is going to police the police?

Our country is not at war with ourselves. Why are we spending our tax dollars on

robots that were created for war, to be integrated into our NAS? Not only are they

violating our fourth amendment but the DOD is doing so at a cost to our safety as well.

The age is here, preparation is at a premium. The proper solution to this would have to

include the American people to amalgamate more with our representatives. Our

government is created to serve us, not enslave us and we can do something about it.

Our future and our children’s future depend on our voice now. Hold your elected officials

accountable for their actions. With knowledge comes power; it is too easy to sit back

and watch your government do everything for you. The more Americans that get

involved, the louder our voices will be heard. The less we are involved, the fewer

questions will be asked, by the public, giving the government a bigger playground on

how they do their business and our privacy and safety becomes their responsibility.

Then the military can do with it how they please, leaving us out of the loop. Our vision of

the skies shouldn’t be cluttered with cameras watching our every move.

Works Cited

Bennett, Brian. “On Mexican Border, Drones Have Not Proved Their Worth.” The

Washington Post. (May 6, 2012 Sunday): LexisNexis Academic. Web date

accessed: 10/06/12

Davies, Sean. "Uavs In The Firing Line." Engineering & Technology (17509637) 6.8

(2011): 34-36. Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 Oct. 2012.

Degaspari, John. "Look, Ma, No Pilot!." Mechanical Engineering 125.11 (2003): 42.

Academic Search Premier. Web. 12 Nov. 2012.

Dillingham, Gerald L. Ph.D. "UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS: Use In The National

Airspace System And The Role Of The Department Of Homeland Security." GAO

Reports (2012): 1. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 6 Oct. 2012.

Dixon, Stephen R., and Christopher D. Wickens. “Automation Reliability In Unmanned

Aerial Vehicle Control: A Reliance-Compliance Model Of Automation

Dependence In High Workload.” Human Factors 48.3 (2006): 474-486. Academic

Search Premier. Web. 9 Oct. 2012

Fulton, Neale L., et al. "Definition Of An Airworthiness Certification Framework For Civil

Unmanned Aircraft Systems." Safety Science 49.6 (2011): 871-885. Academic

Search Premier. Web. 12 Nov. 2012.

Jansen, Bart. "FAA Directed to Make (Air)Space for Drones." USA Today n.d.:

MasterFILE Premier. Web. 6 Oct. 2012.

Works Cited

Lochbihler, Barbara. "America's Questionable Drone Wars". The Daily Star (Lebanon).

(November 13, 2012 Tuesday ): 960 words. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date

Accessed: 2012/11/15.

Shane, Scott. “Use of Unmanned Drones”. The Sunday Denver Post 25 Nov. 2012:

A1&19. Print

Swanson, David. "Drones In U.S. Flight Paths: What Could Go Wrong?." Humanist 72.4

(2012): 6. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 13 Nov. 2012.

Tallman, Jill W. “Remote Control”. Flight Training. Dec. 2012:28-29. Print

Watts, Adam and Scott Bowman and Amr Abd-Elrahman and Ben Wilkinson and John

Perry and Youssef Kaddoura and Lee Kyuho. “Unmanned Aircraft Systems

(UASs) for Ecological Research and Natural Resource Monitoring (Florida).”

Ecological Restoration 26.1 (2008): 13-14. Web. 15 September 2012.