• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Now We Don't Need Pilots

If a safe and effective autonomous vehicle could be built, then a safe and effective lifting assistant should be a whole big bunch simpler.

But don't count on any real cost savings. Sperwer - the French-built UAV that we had in Afghanistan - was the most expensive aircraft in the whole CF fleet to operate, all costs included, per flying hour, even with a wingspan of only thirteen feet and a little Rotax snowmobile engine. No, it probably did not have to be, but it was.

We trained a whole new Flight, from scratch, every six months. That added to the cost considerably, but was really the only practical way at the time. It was also maintenance-heavy - a recovery without damage was unusual - and the loss rate was high. We wrote off six on my Roto (including one during the work-up period), at $2.5 million each, for various reasons and came very close to losing a few more, and previous Rotos had higher loss rates. We were concerned that our preceding Roto wasn't going to leave us any by the time that we got there.

We probably could have bought a small fleet of D-Model Kiowas or any of several similar machines on the market and operated them for less, with the added benefit of carrying reasonable armament. There is nothing more frustrating than watching juicy targets for hours and not being able to shoot them, and I'd rather be able to shoot them myself than guide somebody else in to do it for me.

UAVs are not cheap if one wants them to carry payloads of more than a few pounds, carry out complex tasks, and operate at any useful distance from an operator, and they are far less capable and flexible than manned machines. Control and video signals require line-of-sight between AV and Ground Control Station (GCS). That means either very tall directional antennae for the GCS and/or increased operating altitude for the AV or satellites. The tall antenna may be practical in major urban areas, but operating altitudes will be restricted by normal aviation requirements, and once the AV drops below rooftops to land, signals in both directions will be lost. Landing a large UAV autonomously in an urban environment at an accident scene, where situations can change rapidly, does not strike me as a good idea.

They sometimes decide to do odd things as well - like rudely wander off. I almost lost an AV one night early in my tour. The tracking symbol froze on the monitor and we had no idea when, exactly (probably no more than thirty seconds), that had occurred or how far the thing had flown. It is very, very difficult to navigate solely by the narrow view afforded by a camera (IR in that case) over terrain with almost no distinguishing landmarks. Afghan "countryside" or Canadian urban areas would not be much different for that purpose.
 
The ambulance drone in Reply #10 costs $1,000,000.

I suppose mass production could reduce that.

It transports one patient and one paramedic. Solo, without a partner.
By cutting the crew salaries and benefits in half, the savings could be significant.

I could see it showing a profit in a city with a high call volume. 

The transport paramedic would require help at the scene.  I never worked without my partner, so I can only guess how that would be.

In severe traffic congestion, response time and patient transport time to hospital would decrease.

Therefore, Unit Hour Utilization ( UHU = the number of transports divided by the total number of unit hours in the measurement interval ) would increase.
The higher the UHU, the more effective and efficient the system is considered to be.

Increase in UHU and decrease in salaries and benefits? I could see the taxpayers liking it.

I would hate to work on something like that without a partner.

Like I said above,
mariomike said:
So, to be on the safe side, I posted it in the Emergency Services forum.



 
mariomike said:
Urban ( non-military ) use of drones in severe traffic congestion.

Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxXjlxR7fhE

I've said this before, you keep ignoring.

If a aerospace vehicle has a pilot, it is not a drone.  Drone's are pre-programmed before launch, fly a pre-programmed flight profile, with no pilot interaction.  If is has a pilot, or requires a pilot, it is a RPA/UAS/UAV/etc, but not a drone.  Pretty simple concept, if you don't disregard reality.
 
Eye In The Sky said:
If a aerospace vehicle has a pilot, it is not a drone.  Drone's are pre-programmed before launch, fly a pre-programmed flight profile, with no pilot interaction.  If is has a pilot, or requires a pilot, it is a RPA/UAS/UAV/etc, but not a drone. 

In emergency services, they are commonly known as drones.
https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=YQ_ZWNimBaeC8QevuIzIDQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=%22ambulance+drone%22&*&spf=64

"An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), commonly known as a drone, is an aircraft without a human pilot aboard. UAVs are a component of an unmanned aircraft system (UAS); which include a UAV, a ground-based controller, and a system of communications between the two. The flight of UAVs may operate with various degrees of autonomy: either under remote control by a human operator, or fully or intermittently autonomously, by onboard computers."
http://www.icao.int/Meetings/UAS/Documents/Circular%20328_en.pdf

Which is why I posted in the Emergency Services forum, rather than Rotorheads. But, my post was moved here. 






 

Attachments

  • demic-say-hello-to-the-ambulance-drone-saving-lives-one-10651993.png
    demic-say-hello-to-the-ambulance-drone-saving-lives-one-10651993.png
    138.5 KB · Views: 316
mariomike said:
In emergency services, they are commonly known as drones.
https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=YQ_ZWNimBaeC8QevuIzIDQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=%22ambulance+drone%22&*&spf=64

"An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), commonly known as a drone, is an aircraft without a human pilot aboard. UAVs are a component of an unmanned aircraft system (UAS); which include a UAV, a ground-based controller, and a system of communications between the two. The flight of UAVs may operate with various degrees of autonomy: either under remote control by a human operator, or fully or intermittently autonomously, by onboard computers."
http://www.icao.int/Meetings/UAS/Documents/Circular%20328_en.pdf

Some emergency services refer to APCs as *tanks* too.  There still not tanks.  I now there is a lot of folks who call things like a Reaper or a BAMS-D a drone, but it is being flown and sensors operated in a GCS somewhere.  I know, a pet peeve of mine, just like people calling APCs *tanks* irked me when I was in a green DEU.

Which is why I posted in the Emergency Services forum, rather than Rotorheads. But, my post was moved here.

Ya, kind of annoying eh?

Back to the topic...

Has anyone considered the fact the enemy isn't likely going to just let you fly these things around and not try to disrupt your automated little plan?

How would you counter a GPS jamming environment for a true drone UAS?  What about the use of tactical EMP weapons?
 
Eye In The Sky said:
I now there is a lot of folks who call things like a Reaper or a BAMS-D a drone, but it is being flown and sensors operated in a GCS somewhere. 

Emergency services communicate directly with the public on calls. I usually found it best to spare them the jargon, and use simple words they can understand.
Even if technically incorrect.

 
mariomike said:
Emergency services communicate directly with the public on calls. I usually found it best to spare them the jargon, and use simple words.

Mods, perhaps this can be merged with this discussion regarding EMS communications topics, seems more fitting a place than a ROTORHEAD airlift discussion. 

http://army.ca/forums/threads/123553.0.html

Also for reference: 

https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=how+should+ems+communicate+with+the+public&*&spf=64

and

https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=how+should+ems+communicate+with+the+public+toronto+ontario&*&spf=373

Eye In The Sky said:
Back to the topic...

Has anyone considered the fact the enemy isn't likely going to just let you fly these things around and not try to disrupt your automated little plan?

How would you counter a GPS jamming environment for a true drone UAS?  What about the use of tactical EMP weapons?
 
Eye In The Sky said:
Mods, perhaps this can be merged with this discussion regarding EMS communications topics, seems more fitting a place than a ROTORHEAD airlift discussion. 

I posted in the emergency services forum.

It was moved to ROTORHEADs.

Loachman said:
I've merged mariomike's thread with this one, as there are enough similarities.
 
Eye In The Sky said:
Emergency services communicate directly with the public on calls. I usually found it best to spare them the jargon, and use simple words.
Mods, perhaps this can be merged with this discussion regarding EMS communications topics, seems more fitting a place than a ROTORHEAD airlift discussion. 

...or the fact that it's an ambulance drone that doesn't need to communicate directly with dispatch does relate a bit to the merged topic.  Perhaps enough similarity that we can try keeping it here for now.

Back to Chris' original query:  I figure that somewhere back towards the introduction of the autopilot, there were white silk scarf wearing aviators (I'm mentally picture Lord Flashheart* at the moment) talking down the capability and why there will never be an aircraft that can fly itself.  More people than they know themselves have probably touched down in a CAT 3C autopiloted aircraft, and not guessed that the plane landed fully automated and was even taxiing in to the gate entirely on its own.  Supervised, yes, but one day, it won't be.

I don't have an issue for example travelling in a TOTALLY automated light rail shuttle (I'm thinking at the very least of the little ones at LHR's T3 as an example).  It's only a matter of time before automated travel is STATISTICALLY safer than pilot-flown (and crashed) aircraft.  Whether its the milambudrone in Chris' first post, or hitching a ride with an already autonomous USMC K-Max helidrone, there will be a time when it is simply accepted for what it is.

If humans were infallible and never misjudged things aviation, then sure, there might never be a compelling case for automation.  We all know that homo sapiens are but a wee bit less than perfect, though.

If it was me and there were no MH-60 Pave Hawk for hours and a trip in MILAMBUDRONE was the best chance to get to help fast, frig it....I'd be IN! ;D

Regards
G2G


* - Lord Flashheart...WOOF, WOOF!
edc827b532186ad33a10313a61bba573.jpg
 
And, the whole EMP, GPS-jammer counter-UAS system that the enemy is sure to have (they exist now...)...thoughts on how that will unfold?
 
With respect EITS but how much of your old Lockheed Electra's kit, or even a CF-18's kit, would survive a concerted EMP attack?  Recognizing the difficulty of answering that question in a non-secure environment.

Having said that, the whole modern universe is at risk with electronic warfare.  Personally I think that GPS has reached the end of its useful life militarily. It can be jammed, spoofed or shot down. The replacement has to be some combination of knowing exactly where that mountain top is on the horizon, which is possible thanks to the surveying legacy GPS has given us, and where I am relative to your Aurora.
 
Well, that's my point.  [Regardless of what year the Aurora rolled off the line ('79, '80 maybe) the kit inside it isn't that old.  (Historical fact...the Aurora was never a P3 or Electra on the inside...it was a Viking at birth  ;D, but all of that is long gone)]   

What aircraft, or systems, would survive EMP?  What system will replace GPS...is there one?  When will it be operational?

GPS jamming is fairly significant on todays 3 dimensional battlespace.  You're saying we need to replace it, and maybe we do.  I am saying, its what we have to use now so lets talk reality.  Otherwise, we can dismiss any weapon or countermeasure out there because we know we are going to have *shields* a la the Starship Enterprise any day now.'

If you are going to plan these things flying around, GPS guided as the article says if not flown by UAV pilot, then you have to have a backup for that.  Think of how easy it would be for a terrorist in NYC, lets say, to start blanking out GPS signals over XX part of the city, with these UAS air ambulances flying around and then into tall buildings, with glass and debris raining down on the people walking around below.

When you talk about a system, etc it is often helpful to think of that system from the enemy standpoint; *how can I use this against them, how can I make this fail when they need it the most?*

Caps & Lims;  You have to look at the Lims.  Military and civilian uses in this day at age.  The Twin Towers weren't true military targets, yet they were targets and were taken down.  The enemy doesn't limit his list of targets to military ones because he isn't for a military success.  You dump billions, maybe more, across a country into UAV emerg services, across all the US, lets say.  How many do I have to take out in *your* cities, that cause death and fear, before the whole thing is a waste of money because no one will use it or the civil/political masters of the day won't rely on them because a few were taken out?

Now, I've bled oodles of money out of your *whatever level of government* and left you with technologically advanced paper weights.  Everyone assumes these UASs, even ones intended for civie use, are going to be fine and dandy.  The enemy will use anything if given the chance.

Someone has to play the Devils Advocate.

 
Or, two minutes from landing at (military combat scenario) a pre-programmed GPS location, an IED explodes leaving a massive crater or (civilian urban scenario) a panicked crowd surges across it and has nowhere to go, what does the drone (yes, correct use of the term in this case) do?

We are a long way from building an artificial brain with enough flexibility to react to rapidly changing complex situations. We have yet to build either a UAV or a GCS (Ground Control Station) that provides any semblance of peripheral vision that will permit operating in close-in complex situations. Maybe someday. Not tomorrow. And they won't be cheap.

And UAVs suffer mishaps too, either due to the same human factors that affect both onboard and offboard crews (coupled, in the case of the latter, severely reduced situational awareness) or equipment shortfalls. What happens when an autonomous machine encounters a situation not envisaged by its designer?

Automated short-distance rail transit systems are comparatively simple. Automated full-sized trains weighing up to 25000 tons being hauled by two or more 200-ton locomotives across thousands of kilometres of mainly single-track mainline (requiring meets at passing sidings) through three-dimensional urban and wilderness terrain and subject to washouts, landslides, weather, and a host of other lesser factors, are not.

Automated aircraft departing from and arriving at known locations that can be reasonably guaranteed as clear and safe and following specific routes are relatively simple too. Police, ambulance, and most military aircraft operations are not so simple.

I'd not want to be a passenger on any autonomous aircraft unless my life absolutely depended upon it.

Ever.
 
Loachman said:
I'd not want to be a passenger on any autonomous aircraft unless my life absolutely depended upon it.

Ummmm, isn't that the aspect being discussed specifically?  MILAMBUDRONE ???
 
Yes, but the initial "helicorpster" concept posted had no capacity for patient care so I do not count that one as viable. I was referring to mariomike's ambulance with onboard attendant. I'd not want to be a patient on it if there was any other option, and I'd definitely not want to be the attendant.

At least the patient only has to risk his or her life once per round trip, and the second half of the round trip would be the safer one - leaving the scene of mayhem, chaos, and unknown hazards for a known and hazard-free dronopad.

I'll wait for the transporter beams, thanks.
 
Loachman said:
Yes, but the initial "helicorpster" concept posted had no capacity for patient care so I do not count that one as viable. I was referring to mariomike's ambulance with onboard attendant. I'd not want to be a patient on it if there was any other option, and I'd definitely not want to be the attendant.

At least the patient only has to risk his or her life once per round trip, and the second half of the round trip would be the safer one - leaving the scene of mayhem, chaos, and unknown hazards for a known and hazard-free dronopad.

I'll wait for the transporter beams, thanks.

Your grandchildren will appreciate your caution...  Half a mo' though!  Will you be around to have children?  >:D

With respect to pilots sitting on their hands while the plane is automatically landed - Thank god the door to the cockpit is locked and I can't see her sweat.  Ultimately I want to know that somebody that understands the situation is sharing my fate.
 
Good2Golf said:
...or the fact that it's an ambulance drone that doesn't need to communicate directly with dispatch does relate a bit to the merged topic.  Perhaps enough similarity that we can try keeping it here for now.

Loachman said:
I was referring to mariomike's ambulance with onboard attendant. I'd not want to be a patient on it if there was any other option, and I'd definitely not want to be the attendant.

Neither would I.

I don't care so much if it's on land, on water ( we have a Marine division ) or in the air. It's the working alone part that would bother me.

An average Unit hour Utilization ( UhU ) of .5 is generally considered an urban paramedic's physical and mental breaking point.
And that's with a partner. 

My guess is that HQ would try to double the UhU with "ambulance drones" ( sorry, call them what you will ). I like "Corpster"  ;D
They probably could too, because they can avoid the severe traffic congestion that is delaying street response and transport times.

To justify the cost, my guess is that HQ would be trying to prove that they were saving twice as many lives at half the cost in wages and benefits.

A one wo/man ambulance would probably be a dream come true for some of them.  :)

 
mariomike said:
My guess is that HQ would try to double the UhU with "ambulance drones" ( sorry, call them what you will ). I like "Corpster"  ;D

If it has no human operator, onboard or off, and therefore operates autonomously, it is correctly called a drone.

For comparison purposes, how much does a regular ambulance cost?
 
Loachman said:
For comparison purposes, how much does a regular ambulance cost?

I wouldn't know. But, it's expensive to ride in them.

"A ride in an ambulance in Winnipeg sits at $522."
http://globalnews.ca/news/2914642/the-cost-to-ride-a-winnipeg-ambulance-how-far-will-your-external-coverage-go/

 
Maybe there's a new line for Uber.
 
Back
Top