Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NS shows how its done.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    His issue was that (a) the airspace system had allowed seperate aircraft to conflict, ie, the tanker's airspace is normally kept free of aircraft that are not actively involved in refuelling (b) in the case of the near-miss, the UAV operator was clearly not situation-aware, ie, he did not realise how close he was to other aircraft (c) the spinning UAV was either an inflight system failure that caused it to stall and spin or the UAV pilot lost control. Apart from that, I'm quite sure the F15 pilot will get a job after he leaves, as the maturity of the UAV is still ahead of us.

    regards
    GttC

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Tadpole View Post
      Not without getting over the biggest stumbling block of them all, the IAA!!!
      Unless of course you want to operate below 400ft and within 500m or line of sight which ever is less!!
      There is of course segregated airspace but for so many reasons its impractical.
      What regulation would the IAA have over the naval service airborne assets?

      Comment


      • #48
        National aviation authorities have full regulation of military aviation, although military certification is less stringent than the civilian equivalent.

        However dubious the figures quoted, the onus is on the operator to prove non interference with civil aviation. A very easy ask in Irish airspace.

        Tadpole, can you elaborate on those numbers?

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by balkanhawk View Post
          What regulation would the IAA have over the naval service airborne assets?
          The IAA is responsible for the management of Irish airspace (including the Restricted, Military Operating and Danger areas).

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by DeV View Post
            The IAA is responsible for the management of Irish airspace (including the Restricted, Military Operating and Danger areas).
            The naval service don't always operate in Irish Airspace, in particular off the SW and NW coast.


            Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

            Comment


            • #51
              True of the NW (not so much the SW, but the E, SE) but it is still significant - http://www.iaa.ie/files/2008/images/...3_IAA_map2.jpg
              Last edited by DeV; 10 September 2011, 12:03.

              Comment


              • #52
                Look at your flight lanes.


                Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Looking at my map It's all class G airspace out there. Responsible for your own separation when vfr. That would not inhibit the navy wishing to deploy a uav if needed for operations. Liaison with the iaa would be useful but not absolutely essential.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by balkanhawk View Post
                    Looking at my map It's all class G airspace out there. Responsible for your own separation when vfr. That would not inhibit the navy wishing to deploy a uav if needed for operations. Liaison with the iaa would be useful but not absolutely essential.
                    Separation with a very small, purposefully hard to see, with a small radar cross-section UAV?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by DeV View Post
                      Separation with a very small, purposefully hard to see, with a small radar cross-section UAV?
                      And an empty sky......


                      Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Looking at my map It's all class G airspace out there. Responsible for your own separation when vfr. That would not inhibit the navy wishing to deploy a uav if needed for operations. Liaison with the iaa would be useful but not absolutely essential.
                        It absolutely inhibits UAV operations. UAVs in any civil airspace must have the same 'sense and avoid' capability as good as a standard piloted aircraft.
                        As you say
                        Responsible for your own separation when vfr.
                        except that a UAV without sense and avoid cannot provide its own separation.
                        No UAV is currently fitted with a viable sense and avoid system.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          What is the incedence of R.C aircraft striking Commercial aircraft? Because that is what we are talking about here. Line of sight control of small drones. Not UAV Predators flown from the bunker in Abbeyshrule.


                          Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            I cant believe the negativity here

                            I was at the commissioning on friday and spoke at length to some people there who know what the navy want.

                            I fully support the development and use of UAVs here and personally think most of the concerns are laughable for what were talking about using...
                            "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
                            "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by morpheus View Post
                              I cant believe the negativity here

                              I was at the commissioning on friday and spoke at length to some people there who know what the navy want.

                              I fully support the development and use of UAVs here and personally think most of the concerns are laughable for what were talking about using...
                              +1

                              Thank you.


                              Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Sorry guys but this isn't negativity, its realism.

                                I have already stated that the Navy will have no problem operating under radio control regulations but that is below 400' and less then 500m or line of sight whichever is LESS.

                                Now, what exactly is the usefulness of a UAV that's only 500m from the vessel? A good pair of binos will do the same job. I can understand the usefulness in an Army role for looking over a hill or behind obstacles such as walls or buildings, but the Navy dont have that issue, at least not one that can be solved with a 500m range.
                                IF you want to expand past 500m then you are into UAV regulations in civil airspace. It really is as simple as that.
                                I fully support the Navy in their efforts but they need to be realistic in what can be achieve and how to do it. There is no point building a BLOS system without first engaging with the airspace regulators, its not like flying the RC helicopters for tracking exercises. Meanwhile there's no point spending time and effort of a system that is of no practical maritime use, even if its to assist a commercial company because maritime testing would be pointless.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X