Re: [SystemSafety] RE : Drone Airprox Video

From: Peter Bernard Ladkin < >
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 12:11:45 +0200


There must be a lot going on behind the scenes that we don't know.

German defence Minister de Maziere is quoted in my local newspaper this morning as saying that he regrets not taking more managerial control earlier; that he was informed about potential certification difficulties on 1 March 2012 but also informed that they could be solved.

So, if this is straightforward and not a gloss for the press and the parliamentary opposition, it means that someone "authoritative" was effectively telling him a year ago that they were in the process of solving sense-and-avoid and would soon be done.

As you point out, it seems implausible that anyone with even a passing familiarity with the engineering could say such a thing.

PBL Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, University of Bielefeld and Causalis Limited

On 6 Jun 2013, at 11:34, "RICQUE Bertrand (SAGEM DEFENSE SECURITE)" <bertrand.ricque_at_xxxxxx

> I don't understand how EADS Cassidian can have underestimated the issue of the flight in non segregated airspace.
>
> There is are at least 2 European programs on "sense and avoid" and on the consequences (legal, technical, etc...) of introducing UAVs in non segregated airspace, and this since around 2004/2005.
>
> The simple participation to the workgroups, or even easier, querying of the progress done, clearly show the quantity of work to be done, a realistic (remote) schedule for the whole operation and how the Eurohawk can (or can't) fit in the global picture.
>
> The apparent recent discovering of this issue is thus very surprising. Sense and avoid certified equipment, in association with an evolution of regulations are pre-requisites in the project. Nobody could ignore this since the very beginning...
>
> My company is involved in the same business at a lower level. We even don't try to propose to the market an UAV out of segregated airspace and keep the option to put a pilot in the plane, just because of regulation, much more than of technical issues for which we have solutions but no legal framework !
>
> Bertrand Ricque
>
> Date d'envoi : mardi 4 juin 2013 09:13
> À : systemsafety_at_xxxxxx > Objet : [SystemSafety] Drone Airprox Video
>
> On 4 Jun 2013, at 06:12, Robert Dorsett <rdd_at_xxxxxx

>> http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/drohne-luna-bundeswehr-verheimlicht-beinahe-crash-mit-airbus-a-903337.html

>
>
> In 2004, the German armed forces had an airprox with one of their Luna drones and an Ariana A300 with about 100 passengers over Kabul. The drone passes just under the left wing, or slightly outboard, and loses control in the wake. The incident is on the video from the drone, in four frames: a speck, nearer, passing, control-loss.
>
> The incident and video has contemporary political significance.
>
> The "video" has been on YouTube for three years, apparently, with a question whether it is a hoax or not. It isn't a hoax , say Der Spiegel, who have identified it as a take from an incident which was classified as secret by the German military.
>
> It is topical because the EuroHawk, a development of Northrop-Grumman's Global Hawk which was ordered by the German military, has recently been cancelled, ostensibly because of the difficulties of obtaining certification for flight in civil airspace. One of the certification difficulties is that the EuroHawk is not equipped with appropriate collision-avoidance kit (an ACAS-type device).
>
> Those of us who partly live a life of the mind have few problems understanding the sequence: lack-of-collision-avoidance -> lack of see-and-avoid -> big problems in mixed airspace, as J McD pointed out a little while ago in the exchange relating to Aberporth. Others closer to the political action apparently need to see an incident in order to understand the issue, and this sequence of frames was it.
>
> There is a Spiegel video accompanying the article, narrated in German by Gerald Traufetter, who wrote the large cover-page article on automated flight systems in civilian airliners and consequent pilot-in-the-loop problems a few years ago for which Martyn Thomas and I were interviewed.
>
> Gerald points out the rapid evolution from speck to almost-collision, in three frames (the fourth shows the drone pointed at the ground, upset by the downwash and turbulence around the wingtip of the A300). He says, correctly, that it leaves the ground-based pilot almost no time to react. This is what all pilots (well, most of us) know about airproxes. Think of yourself trying see-and-avoid while keeping your eyes closed two seconds out of every three (reduce that by at least an order of magnitude for drone sampling, but it's hard to blink your eyes that fast).
>
> Apparently the video was persuasive, thank heavens.
>
> Chris Johnson gave a talk on issues with unmanned aircraft in civilian airspace at SAFECOMP in Vienna in 2010. His talk, last of the day, ended with three-quarters of an hour of discussion and Chris being quite tired. His talk was riper than his paper, which I had reviewed and highly recommended. Chris was concerned inter alia that the US was short of pilots for its Afghan supply chain and had apparently been considering equipping C-5s with remote-piloting kit, and flying them into Prestwick, which is not so far away from where he lives and works.
>
> I guess I am very happy to see that the issues, about which we were concerned three years ago that they were not being taken seriously enough, are indeed being taken seriously. The article links to an earlier article from 14 May about the cancellation of the EuroHawk. 5 of them were going to be acquired at a cost of €1.2bn. A "Full Scale Demonstrator" had been built at a cost of €508m, of which about half went into the airframe and half into the electronics, which was in large part European (Cassidian, amongst others). It was flown to Europe from the US in Summer 2011, and apparently there were difficulties doing so because of airspace protection, and that is when the first questions arose. Apparently the Luftwaffe estimates it would cost €500-600m more to certify, and others estimate more like €800m.
>
> PBL
>
> Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, University of Bielefeld and Causalis Limited
>
>
>
>
> Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, University of Bielefeld and Causalis Limited
> #
> " Ce courriel et les documents qui lui sont joints peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou ayant un caractère privé. S'ils ne vous sont pas destinés, nous vous signalons qu'il est strictement interdit de les divulguer, de les reproduire ou d'en utiliser de quelque manière que ce soit le contenu. Si ce message vous a été transmis par erreur, merci d'en informer l'expéditeur et de supprimer immédiatement de votre système informatique ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents qui y sont attachés."
> ******
> " This e-mail and any attached documents may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, copying of this e-mail and any attachments thereto or use of their contents by any means whatsoever is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and all attached documents from your computer system."
> #



The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Received on Thu Jun 06 2013 - 12:11:54 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Apr 25 2019 - 11:17:05 CEST