Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) have certainly captured the attention of millions of Americans, aviation enthusiasts, governmental entities, and nearly everyone in between. Although the technology has already been integrated into a plethora of military applications, UAVs have already settled into select civilian applications. Perhaps one of the most well known civilian applications of the technology is the film industry in the United States. Smaller UAVs equipped with professional grade cameras are able to capture images from angles and heights previously out of reach or too dangerous to attempt. Although large scale films, such as Chappie, utilize drones, many amateur film makers are also using the devices to capture the perfect shot ("Five," 2015). Drones are also being employed to increase marketing efficiency. Marketing developers at AdNear use drones equipped with cell phone detecting equipment to capture data from people in the San Fernando Valley to direct personalized advertisements to cell phone owners below (Paganini, 2015). UAVs have even touched the academic and scientific communities across the country. Several universities, along with NASA, have developed drones capable of flying into hurricanes and other violent weather systems ("Five," 2015). The images and data collected by the drones, too dangerous to collect with a conventional aircraft, will help scientists learn more about hurricane development and forecasting. UAVs are also employed for agricultural purposes. Many farmers are purchasing the drones to survey their land, gather better topographical information, and in turn, adjust when they harvest as well as how they apply their chemicals (Doering, 2014).

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is currently the regulatory agency tasked with drone enforcement and regulation on the civilian end. As of late 2015, recreational drones weighing 250 grams through 55 pounds must be registered with the FAA ("UAS," n.d.). The FAA also maintains that penalties for failing to register or have proof of registration range from $27,500 in civil penalties and up to $250,000 in criminal penalties with a maximum of three years in jail. For commercial UAV applications, the process for registration is more than a quick online session and a $5 fee. Those who wish to operate the aircraft for commercial purposes must either apply for a Section 333 Exemption or Special Airworthiness Certificate, both of which require far more paperwork and time ("Civil," n.d.).

Although commercial drone applications have not quite blossomed, many companies are hiring drone pilots and engineers now to prepare for the UAV craze. Amazon and Facebook, for instance, are opening the gates for UAV operators and logistical engineers to bring their unmanned programs to life (Rooney, 2014). Rooney (2014) reveals that in the next 10 years, the UAV industry will create upwards of 100,000 jobs. He notes that although the market is still in its infancy, major players such as Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin are hiring UAV specialists from top universities across the country.  

With regard to military applications, UAVs have changed the overall utility of air support. Instead of sending a manned aircraft into a risky area, a UAV will gladly accept such missions without hesitation. The United States Air Force (USAF) typically uses the devices for high risk situations, including reconnaissance, bomb detection, surveying enemy troops, providing air support, and striking select targets ("Drones," 2012). Although the drones may cost $12 million each, many modern fighter aircraft in the military cost at least ten times as much (Ratnesar, 2013). In terms of effectiveness, Ratnesar (2013) also reveals that the civilian casualty rate for drone strikes is 17 percent compared to other military operations that range anywhere from 30 to 80 percent. Although these statistics are still unfortunate, it is clear that military UAV applications are more accurate, more effective, and result in fewer casualties than traditional military endeavors.

I do not foresee UAV aircraft integrating into the National Airspace System (NAS). I feel that the risk posed while operating around other commercial or recreational aircraft is too great to warrant such proposals. Today, UAV technology is not able to replace the critical thinking skills of a human pilot on-board an aircraft. Until this happens, it is too risky to place a gadget anywhere near other aircraft in the airspace system. The potential for losing a drone or a simple mistake by an amateur UAV pilot could wreak havoc for a commercial airliner. We have already seen drones penetrating restricted airspace, landing on the White House lawn, and disrupting emergency operations, to name a few (Paganini, 2015). The public, with knowledge of the threats posed by these small devices, will certainly object the idea of UAVs flying near passenger carrying aircraft, regardless of any inherent redundancies proposed in the integration processes. From a logistical standpoint, there is no infrastructure to facilitate UAV communication with Air Traffic Control (ATC), other pilots, and no airspace designated solely for drone operation. Although some integration plans call for an entire section of the NAS to be used for the sole purpose of drone operations, the high volume of air traffic already present will not be able to accommodate another special use airspace, especially in urban areas. Safe drone integration, with our current technology, is not feasible.

References

Civil operations. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.faa.gov/uas/civil_operations/

Doering, C. (2014, March 23). Growing use of drones poised to transform agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/03/23/drones-agriculture-growth/6665561/

Drones: What are they and how do they work? (2012, January 31). Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-10713898

Five awesome uses for drone technology. (2015, November 17). Retrieved from http://phys.org/news/2015-11-awesome-drone-technology.html

Paganini, P. (2015, March 31). Why civilian drone use is a risky business. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/03/31/why-civilian-drone-use-is-risky-business.html

Ratnesar, R. (2013, May 23). Five reasons why drones are here to stay. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-05-23/five-reasons-why-drones-are-here-to-stay

Rooney, B. (2014, November 26). Drone pilot wanted: Starting salary $100,000. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/25/news/drone-pilot-degree/

UAS registration Q&A. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/faqs/

       

A Tiring Battle: Pilot Rest

In February, 2009, a small commuter aircraft crashed near Buffalo, New York. The flight, operated by Colgan Airlines, was piloted by an extremely fatigued crew. The first officer was even sick, and regularly commuted from the east coast to the west coast just to begin her work day. The families of the 50 people who perished were outraged, lobbying congress to immediately take action to change the industry and prevent other accidents from pilot fatigue.

In addition to increasing the minimum flight requirements for airline pilots, rest rules and regulations for commercial pilots were also revised in the wake of the Colgan Airlines accident. The new regulations require airline pilots to have at least ten hours of rest between their shifts, eight hours of which must be used for uninterrupted sleep (Trejos, 2014). Trejos (2014) also reveals that airline pilots are now limited to eight or nine hours of flight time and nine to fourteen hour duty periods, depending on when they are scheduled to fly as well as how many time zones the pilots will cross. The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Michael Huerta, reveals that these new rules provide, "pilots enough time to get the rest they really need to safely get passengers to their destinations" ("Feds," 2011). The previous generation of rest regulations required pilots to have have a minimum of only eight hours between flying shifts with no requirement for uninterrupted sleep (Trejos, 2014). In other words, the previous regulations allowed pilots to use their eight hours to eat, shop, and explore, instead of appropriating some of the time for sleep only.

Interestingly, cargo pilots were excluded from the new pilot rest regulations, which took effect in January, 2014. While airline pilots are only allowed up to nine hours of flight time, cargo pilots are able to fly for up to sixteen hours (Pegues, 2015). Not only are cargo pilots working longer hours, but they are typically flying during night hours; the critical time period when the body is seeking sleep. Pegues (2015) also describes a report from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) which reveals that the air cargo industry would lose $13.6 billion and 7,000 jobs if the same rest rules for airline pilots were implemented. Consequently, major cargo carriers like UPS are trying to prevent the rules from taking effect while pilot unions at these companies are lobbying the FAA to implement them. The cargo pilot unions argue that cargo pilots face the same fatigue as airline pilots, and that the safety repercussions are just as serious (Trejos, 2014).

I think that cargo pilots have been excluded from these rules for purely monetary reasons. I think that the major cargo companies in the United States convinced congress that it would simply cost them too many jobs and too much money to implement the changes. Since cargo aircraft do not carry passengers, the public and congress perceive less risk. What they fail to realize is that a cargo aircraft plummeting to the ground is just as catastrophic as a passenger aircraft accident. The FAA seems to be united with these cargo carriers, as they note implementing the rules would cost cargo carriers another $214 million ("Feds," 2014).  

I do not agree with cargo carriers and the FAA on this issue. Cargo pilots are just as fatigued, if not more fatigued, than airline pilots. They are operating the same equipment, conducting the same job, and flying to the same airports as airline pilots, just with fewer occupants on-board. The fact that fewer lives are at stake on cargo aircraft is not an excuse. A large commercial aircraft, cargo or passenger, can wreak havoc on any city or industrial area. It makes no difference if the aircraft is full of people or packages; fatigue is still a danger for cargo pilots. I feel the FAA has done a poor job of managing this issue from a safety standpoint, valuing lost jobs and cost over real safety hazards.

From a pilot perspective, I think cargo pilots would welcome the new rest rules. A better rested pilot is more apt to perform optimally in every flying scenario. Especially given the fact that cargo pilots are flying through the night hours, the extra rest time would significantly increase the amount of quality sleep that these pilots could get. The bottom line is that cargo pilots are dealing with the same hazards and duties as airline pilots, and thus should be allotted the same rest regulations to promote safety across the board.

References

Feds extend pilots' rest time to avoid fatigue. (2011, December 21). Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/feds-extend-pilots-rest-time-to-avoid-fatigue/

Pegues, J. (2015, February 24). Investigation: Why are cargo pilots excluded from new rest rules? Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/investigation-why-are-cargo-pilots-excluded-from-new-rest-rules/

Trejos, N. (2014, January 3). New pilot fatigue rules go into effect this weekend. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2014/01/03/pilot-fatigue-mandatory-rest-new-faa-rules/4304417/