There isn’t anything unmanned about most Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV). There is a real, live human being attached (wirelessly) to that airborne craft.
That’s why General Aviation News will from now on refer to them as Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA). And we’re not the only ones weighing in on this discussion.
Like flavors of ice cream, there a numerous avenues of aviation that inspire people in different ways. To many, open cockpit, rag-wing taildragger is the only way to go. For others, the practicality and efficiency of zooming through the sky at 500 mph is how the blood gets pumping. While others visualize the invisible columns of atmosphere that is the lifeblood of soaring. Different strokes for different folks.
Who among us can say my way is best?
To be certain, RPAs suffer from a poor public perception. But I find it ironic when I hear “skin-in-the-game, real pilots” criticize RPAs in the way non-pilots criticize full-scale aviation.
Many pilots, in response to broad-brush criticism will circle the wagons and defend aviation. Chief among our defensives is, “You don’t understand what aviation is.” Well, do those “real airplane” pilots criticizing RPA truly understand what it is? I wonder.
As I’ve said before, I’m excited about what RPAs will bring to full-scale aviation. The sensor development that makes flying a flock of RPAs in an enclosed room without a collision will translate up to human-occupied aviation and make our world a safer place. Of that, I have no doubt.
I could go on, but won’t. And I’m certain my words and promotion of an acronym has done little sway those who vehemently oppose RPAs, but that’s OK. Just know that if it goes airborne, it is part of the aviation family you love.
And as the rules and regulations get written, and re-written, I think it best we all subscribe to the “Golden Rule.” Safe aviating everyone, regardless of where you sit.
The FAA has established the name to be Unpiloted Arial Systems (UAS). This is the term that will be used in regulations, licensing, and any other substantive document. Name gaming for personal presence seldom improves communication. In this case the logic given is not worthy of this publication nor its audience. Yes, some portion of UAS devices do rely on an active operator in the control loop to sustain flight. These are most likely to be in the hobbits/toy market not in a commercial application. A hand on control is a small and shrinking portion of even that market. By in large all commercial UAS devises have autonomous capability. Current and emerging applications rely heavily on the ability to precisely fly a preprogramed route. Those applications involving an operator commanding the platform in flight put the operator “on the loop” not “in the loop” To use the term “Remotely Piloted” is as inaccurate as one can possibly be in describing these devices.
Hard to believe no one challenged my error.
The proper FAA designation for these devices is:
“Unmanned Aircraft Systems” (UAS)
http://www.faa.gov/uas
Most RPVs have an autonomous capability with remote pilot inputs used as suggestions to the autopilot in a manner similar to the fly-by-wire cockpits. That still makes them UAVs. By the definition as described in the article, they would comply most of the time as heavy RC aircraft. That is misleading.
Another significant difference is that the remote pilot is still on the ground and the RF links often times fail, usually because the vehicle is out of range from the remote pilot. Often times this is part of the flight plan for the UAV to go “over the horizon” to perform it’s task, then return to within RF range for the pilot.
To integrate this type of vehicle into the national airspace system, they will need see and avoid technology. ADS-B and transponders aren’t going to cut it if they are in the same airspace as piloted aircraft. Remember, even the 2020 ADS-B mandate only requires ADS-B out for aircraft primarily in control areas and there will always be the non-electric Cubs, Champs, etc with no transponders or ADS-B.
Yes, the RPV/UAV/UAS/Drones have a lot to offer and have a lot commercial backing. But integrating them into the national airspace system is a complex arduous task that is going to take some serious forethought and planning to cover all contingencies to avoid killing pilots.