Think About it
-
- 2nd Dan
- Posts: 330
- Joined: May 2016
Think About it
Ok everyone maybe slightly off topic yet have gone over the majority of threads in the forum, new to the forum yet hopefully will make some sense.
From a background point of view I have been involved in global aerospace for almost 35 yrs and have flown various helis (mainly turbine) and the following is something to think about. Disclaimer straight up is that I that am not a pilot.
The world is a changing, pilots need to understand that. Knowing that and actually doing something about it will make all the difference, unfortunately the full size market is going to suffer massively in the coming years. If you think it will not occur it will be your peril. Seeing numerous posts about the dwindling full scale market place only cements this.
Pretending that everything is ok and putting your head in the sand get you no where. The UAV/UAS market is growing and heli skill sets are more in demand than fixed wing, AUS has the most simplistic rules regarding big (<150g airframes ) platforms and this makes for an enviroment that gives a huge comparative advantage over the rest of the world. Some may comment negativily in regards to the stupid quads and i completely agree, yet large scale 100kg + is a huge market.
With every re-adjustment there are always opportunities. Risking your life flying or sitting in a room flying, work it out for equal or more $$$.
Regards,
Gregory
From a background point of view I have been involved in global aerospace for almost 35 yrs and have flown various helis (mainly turbine) and the following is something to think about. Disclaimer straight up is that I that am not a pilot.
The world is a changing, pilots need to understand that. Knowing that and actually doing something about it will make all the difference, unfortunately the full size market is going to suffer massively in the coming years. If you think it will not occur it will be your peril. Seeing numerous posts about the dwindling full scale market place only cements this.
Pretending that everything is ok and putting your head in the sand get you no where. The UAV/UAS market is growing and heli skill sets are more in demand than fixed wing, AUS has the most simplistic rules regarding big (<150g airframes ) platforms and this makes for an enviroment that gives a huge comparative advantage over the rest of the world. Some may comment negativily in regards to the stupid quads and i completely agree, yet large scale 100kg + is a huge market.
With every re-adjustment there are always opportunities. Risking your life flying or sitting in a room flying, work it out for equal or more $$$.
Regards,
Gregory
Last edited by Gonsky on Mon Oct 31 2016, 11:52, edited 1 time in total.
'Mankind has a perfect record in aviation - we have never left one up there!'
- Evil Twin
- 3rd Dan
- Posts: 696
- Joined: Mar 2007
Re: Think About it
Gregory in a lot of ways I think you're right. However, I will apply this caveat. UAV/UAS could be the avenue for those that spend their hard earned cash but without any possible chance of a career in aviation ahead of them. That may well sound a tad callous but we are operating in an industry with a massive oversupply of pilots constantly incoming at the bottom. I imagine that as an industry we are training 10 pilots for every true opening. There is a chance that this could actually be the answer. Perhaps this is the 'Vietnam pilots retiring' sales pitch for the UAV industry. You could set yourself up in a very well equipped and slick operation for a fraction of the cost of a licence you may never use.
All jokes aside and not taking the pi55 but as I said at the start I think you're right in a lot of ways. Perhaps it is time we took a more abstract view of our industry.
All jokes aside and not taking the pi55 but as I said at the start I think you're right in a lot of ways. Perhaps it is time we took a more abstract view of our industry.
- hand in pants
- 4th Dan
- Posts: 1615
- Joined: Sep 2006
Re: Think About it
The Only thing that will bugger up the UAV industry, and it is an industry, will be the CAA and academics trying to get control of it.
CAA will want all sorts of stupid rules and the same checks and balances that they have imposed on pilots and operators of fixed wing and helicopters.
Academics, who have little or no idea of the industry will try to tell you that you need to do all sorts of courses, the majority of them nothing to do with aviation and are covered by simple "common sense", something they lack. These academics will have never seen, let alone operated a UAV, but they will be "experts" in their field. Just not in ours.
So while CAA isn't all that interested in the UAV industry it will thrive and I hope it does. UAV operations will conduct a lot of operations safer and cheaper than using helicopters. UAV's will not take over the industry, they won't be able to carry passengers, do fire fighting, lift heavy weights or any number of jobs that require the pilot to be there. UAVs will gain a serious foothold in this industry and we need to be supportive, not just slag it off as a bunch of idiots playing with toy helicopters.
CAA will want all sorts of stupid rules and the same checks and balances that they have imposed on pilots and operators of fixed wing and helicopters.
Academics, who have little or no idea of the industry will try to tell you that you need to do all sorts of courses, the majority of them nothing to do with aviation and are covered by simple "common sense", something they lack. These academics will have never seen, let alone operated a UAV, but they will be "experts" in their field. Just not in ours.
So while CAA isn't all that interested in the UAV industry it will thrive and I hope it does. UAV operations will conduct a lot of operations safer and cheaper than using helicopters. UAV's will not take over the industry, they won't be able to carry passengers, do fire fighting, lift heavy weights or any number of jobs that require the pilot to be there. UAVs will gain a serious foothold in this industry and we need to be supportive, not just slag it off as a bunch of idiots playing with toy helicopters.
Hand in Pants, I'm thinking, my god, that IS huge!!!!!!!!
-
- 2nd Dan
- Posts: 330
- Joined: May 2016
Re: Think About it
https://www.casa.gov.au/aircraft/standa ... d-aircraft
Is not a bad start, the problem is and will always be the little quads that you can buy for 49$$ at any toy store. The larger size up to 150 kg and then over is a great space that can allow for good development. Funding and the like will keep a lot out of that space and therefore you should see some very good advances.
The situation now with multiple companies offering $29.95 courses is more of the issue, all operators should have to do the complete theory side of a PPL and more.
Don't discount what can be achieved with unmanned airframes 5 yrs ago we were using INS/GPS the size of shoe boxes, now they are the size of a matchbox. Transponders are now the same http://www.uavionix.com and the Sagetech units are top of the range and should be mandatory in all UAV/UAS. Size wise 6+ hours with 50 kg payloads from a rotary platform are easily achievable in the under 150 kg parameters set out by Casa.
When you look at the % of power and space used to support a human pilot in any air frame is far better utilised for cargo and the like. Having the pilot on the ground takes the human risk out of the loop, maybe not what the forum wants to hear but again this is a coming issue. Fire fighting is easily capable for unmanned systems and safer as well, from a $$ factor 10 UAV airframes would be cheaper than 1 full scale in outright and running cost, also 10 air frames equals 10 operators.
Also dedicated air frames for one particular use would not be required and this would also reduce massive costs for air frames to be sitting on the ground waiting for a particular task.
I was surprised to hear the 1 in 10 percentage in regards to training vs jobs this could easily be addressed in my above comments. I also think that serious operators would be more interested in hiring full on pilots with hours than game boy kids that got their license out of a cereal packet.
Regards,
Gregory
Is not a bad start, the problem is and will always be the little quads that you can buy for 49$$ at any toy store. The larger size up to 150 kg and then over is a great space that can allow for good development. Funding and the like will keep a lot out of that space and therefore you should see some very good advances.
The situation now with multiple companies offering $29.95 courses is more of the issue, all operators should have to do the complete theory side of a PPL and more.
Don't discount what can be achieved with unmanned airframes 5 yrs ago we were using INS/GPS the size of shoe boxes, now they are the size of a matchbox. Transponders are now the same http://www.uavionix.com and the Sagetech units are top of the range and should be mandatory in all UAV/UAS. Size wise 6+ hours with 50 kg payloads from a rotary platform are easily achievable in the under 150 kg parameters set out by Casa.
When you look at the % of power and space used to support a human pilot in any air frame is far better utilised for cargo and the like. Having the pilot on the ground takes the human risk out of the loop, maybe not what the forum wants to hear but again this is a coming issue. Fire fighting is easily capable for unmanned systems and safer as well, from a $$ factor 10 UAV airframes would be cheaper than 1 full scale in outright and running cost, also 10 air frames equals 10 operators.
Also dedicated air frames for one particular use would not be required and this would also reduce massive costs for air frames to be sitting on the ground waiting for a particular task.
I was surprised to hear the 1 in 10 percentage in regards to training vs jobs this could easily be addressed in my above comments. I also think that serious operators would be more interested in hiring full on pilots with hours than game boy kids that got their license out of a cereal packet.
Regards,
Gregory
'Mankind has a perfect record in aviation - we have never left one up there!'
- hand in pants
- 4th Dan
- Posts: 1615
- Joined: Sep 2006
Re: Think About it
Gregory, agree with almost all you say.
However it will take a while before they develop and use a UAV that will lift 600 - 700 litres of water commonly used on a fire.
Observation, yes, IR mapping yes, dropping crews into hot spots, no, dropping water on hot spots, no. The time may come, but there are too many hurdles to do it in the near to mid future.
However it will take a while before they develop and use a UAV that will lift 600 - 700 litres of water commonly used on a fire.
Observation, yes, IR mapping yes, dropping crews into hot spots, no, dropping water on hot spots, no. The time may come, but there are too many hurdles to do it in the near to mid future.
Hand in Pants, I'm thinking, my god, that IS huge!!!!!!!!
-
- Gold Wings
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Sep 2015
Re: Think About it
Mustering is one job i cant see being done with even the most sophisticated drone.
Way too much 'pilot instinct' to be preplaced with a circuit board.
Way too much 'pilot instinct' to be preplaced with a circuit board.
-
- 2nd Dan
- Posts: 330
- Joined: May 2016
Re: Think About it
Swarm logic in regards to mustering would be something that is easily achievable. 5 to 10 platforms running in a swarm would be able to do it. They would be working as a group and don't need to be physically large, lidar or ultrasonic systems for avoidance and a centralised CACS hub so that individual platforms could return and fast charge or fuel up always leaving a certain number in the field.
I have never looked at fire fighting yet after a quick think a 200 litre platform would suffice due to the fact it would have a smaller footprint and the ability to get closer to the hot spots. Turbulence would be an issue but again multiple systems would be faster and again a centralised hub for water collection and the like. A tandem layout with 4.5 mtr disks would be more than enough running off a 1000 cc air/liquid cooled engine.
Regards,
Gregory
I have never looked at fire fighting yet after a quick think a 200 litre platform would suffice due to the fact it would have a smaller footprint and the ability to get closer to the hot spots. Turbulence would be an issue but again multiple systems would be faster and again a centralised hub for water collection and the like. A tandem layout with 4.5 mtr disks would be more than enough running off a 1000 cc air/liquid cooled engine.
Regards,
Gregory
'Mankind has a perfect record in aviation - we have never left one up there!'
- havick
- 4th Dan
- Posts: 1300
- Joined: Jun 2007
Re: Think About it
Hi Gregory,
200lt drops for firefighting wouldn't really work, even if they were in quick succession as the majority of aerial firefighting requires the volume and tank head pressure to break through the canopy an punch through to the ground. That's not to say they couldn't serve another purpose if integrated and managed correctly.
For info, a helicopter operator I previously worked for prior to moving overseas has successfully been operating drones to complement business their model. The one thing I did notice was that the drones weren't taking work away from the helicopters, they were picking up work that they wouldn't have otherwise been doing with a full size machine.
I used to be dead against drones, but it wasn't until I saw them filling niche's at the company that I mentioned above that made me change my tune.
200lt drops for firefighting wouldn't really work, even if they were in quick succession as the majority of aerial firefighting requires the volume and tank head pressure to break through the canopy an punch through to the ground. That's not to say they couldn't serve another purpose if integrated and managed correctly.
For info, a helicopter operator I previously worked for prior to moving overseas has successfully been operating drones to complement business their model. The one thing I did notice was that the drones weren't taking work away from the helicopters, they were picking up work that they wouldn't have otherwise been doing with a full size machine.
I used to be dead against drones, but it wasn't until I saw them filling niche's at the company that I mentioned above that made me change my tune.
Last edited by havick on Tue Nov 1 2016, 05:14, edited 2 times in total.
"You'll have to speak up, I'm wearing a towel."
-
- Gold Wings
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Sep 2015
Re: Think About it
Swarm logic?
Common logic is hard enough to find among pilots as it is.
Till the drone can read a cows mind from 1/2 a mile 200' foot up to stay 10 steps ahead, i dout there will be apractical use.
Its not about size, numbers or sound, its simple ' right place right time'.
Common logic is hard enough to find among pilots as it is.
Till the drone can read a cows mind from 1/2 a mile 200' foot up to stay 10 steps ahead, i dout there will be apractical use.
Its not about size, numbers or sound, its simple ' right place right time'.
-
- 2nd Dan
- Posts: 330
- Joined: May 2016
Re: Think About it
On the fire side i have never thought of it and hence not really up to speed, I will look into it further and revert.
The initial point of this thread was to attempt in a round about way to gauge exactly what you hinted on and that is the UAV side can complement the full side industry. One of my other companies has been involved in bespoke UAV design and manufacturing for almost 20 yrs and the focus was always large scale one off airframes for specific theatres.
I am back in Aus after 30 yrs and potentially looking to bring 3 of my designs ( 100~200 kg fixed/rotary) into the market place, I was interested to see if there could be any blow back from pilots who could think they would be taking jobs. Market research so to speak.
Nothing is confirmed at this time yet I feel there could be a very good synergy with the heli community.
Regards,
Gregory
The initial point of this thread was to attempt in a round about way to gauge exactly what you hinted on and that is the UAV side can complement the full side industry. One of my other companies has been involved in bespoke UAV design and manufacturing for almost 20 yrs and the focus was always large scale one off airframes for specific theatres.
I am back in Aus after 30 yrs and potentially looking to bring 3 of my designs ( 100~200 kg fixed/rotary) into the market place, I was interested to see if there could be any blow back from pilots who could think they would be taking jobs. Market research so to speak.
Nothing is confirmed at this time yet I feel there could be a very good synergy with the heli community.
Regards,
Gregory
'Mankind has a perfect record in aviation - we have never left one up there!'
- havick
- 4th Dan
- Posts: 1300
- Joined: Jun 2007
Re: Think About it
I definitely think there's merit in what you're suggesting, it's a matter of finding that niche (not to be captain obvious).
The 200kg payload market is an interesting one, particularly if you can have it operating with approval for beyond line of sight.
I'm not %100 familiar with the RPAS regs, but the biggest thing you've got going for you is the ability to very quickly adapt new technology (sensor packages or other hardware) without extensive/expensive modifications and approvals (EO's or STC's) that piloted helicopters require. So you have the ability to be reactive to market forces and changes in technology.
The 200kg payload market is an interesting one, particularly if you can have it operating with approval for beyond line of sight.
I'm not %100 familiar with the RPAS regs, but the biggest thing you've got going for you is the ability to very quickly adapt new technology (sensor packages or other hardware) without extensive/expensive modifications and approvals (EO's or STC's) that piloted helicopters require. So you have the ability to be reactive to market forces and changes in technology.
"You'll have to speak up, I'm wearing a towel."
-
- 2nd Dan
- Posts: 330
- Joined: May 2016
Re: Think About it
You make good points the only comment I can make is that I have never been involved with sensor or payload integration other than very specific UAS whereas the client was extremely concise, SAR, designator, phased arrays for example.
I use the term "platform" as that is what I provide. I provide virtual payload dimensions, or hard points with weight tables. Highly filtered Mil-spec power supply for potential payloads and a vision system. It is then up to the client to customise to their liking. May sound unusual yet has always worked, getting involved with payload integration is a PITA. In most cases there is zero revenue and months of time wasted.
The other point is that I am not an operator, I am a manufacturer and under CASA structures I can fly on my own property with zero requirements other than notification in regards to my airframes. My testing property will be in 3~5000 acres which is more than enough for me to play around. Becoming a operator is not of interest, I make platforms. I am sure if i do go ahead it will not be difficult to team up with an operator that can offer customised solutions based on my platforms to end users.
The final point is that the flight manuals/procedures and models will be available in X-plane for simulation free of charge. That way anyone with the specified minimums will be able to get up to speed for zero outlay other than throttle and joystick controls. I see no point in charging for instruction as it will guarantee a supply of pilots the moment we go live.
Regards,
Gregory
I use the term "platform" as that is what I provide. I provide virtual payload dimensions, or hard points with weight tables. Highly filtered Mil-spec power supply for potential payloads and a vision system. It is then up to the client to customise to their liking. May sound unusual yet has always worked, getting involved with payload integration is a PITA. In most cases there is zero revenue and months of time wasted.
The other point is that I am not an operator, I am a manufacturer and under CASA structures I can fly on my own property with zero requirements other than notification in regards to my airframes. My testing property will be in 3~5000 acres which is more than enough for me to play around. Becoming a operator is not of interest, I make platforms. I am sure if i do go ahead it will not be difficult to team up with an operator that can offer customised solutions based on my platforms to end users.
The final point is that the flight manuals/procedures and models will be available in X-plane for simulation free of charge. That way anyone with the specified minimums will be able to get up to speed for zero outlay other than throttle and joystick controls. I see no point in charging for instruction as it will guarantee a supply of pilots the moment we go live.
Regards,
Gregory
'Mankind has a perfect record in aviation - we have never left one up there!'
-
- Silver Wings
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Jul 2011
Re: Think About it
My 2 cents.
There is definitely merit for remotely piloted aircraft operating at night on fires conducting operations such as aerial incendiary, line scan mapping and incident progression monitoring for Incident Management Teams which will provide more accurate data to oncoming crews. During night time operations there is no other risk to manned aviation. The problem as always lies with CA$A and certification. As said above the technology is getting better and better literally by the day and it is truly amazing what these machines can achieve.
Will this happen in the next 5 years in Australia? Maybe.............
Below is a link to a video of testing an unmanned K-Max for firefighting in the States which I am lead to believe was very successful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OKVaGd7lVs
Cheers
J R
There is definitely merit for remotely piloted aircraft operating at night on fires conducting operations such as aerial incendiary, line scan mapping and incident progression monitoring for Incident Management Teams which will provide more accurate data to oncoming crews. During night time operations there is no other risk to manned aviation. The problem as always lies with CA$A and certification. As said above the technology is getting better and better literally by the day and it is truly amazing what these machines can achieve.
Will this happen in the next 5 years in Australia? Maybe.............
Below is a link to a video of testing an unmanned K-Max for firefighting in the States which I am lead to believe was very successful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OKVaGd7lVs
Cheers
J R
-
- 3rd Dan
- Posts: 601
- Joined: May 2010
Re: Think About it
Most helicopters are multi purpose, so no need for dedicated airframes sitting on the ground, just like UAV's.
Even in New Zealand i have been on fires where 400ltrs of water doesn't even touch the ground, it is simply too hot/windy for such a small volume to make a difference and Australia gets even hotter... A lot of fire fighting requires the pilot to decide where to start and stop the water placement, or if they are going to hit the same tree as last time, or move on. Also when bucketing having a water hole the size that the Kmax was working out of would be heaven.
Currently the drones don't have the capability, speed or Intelligence to replace a pilot.
For spraying or fertiliser operations the computers can probably fly a straight line, but until one can do the job without disturbing the stock, then they won't be replacing pilots either. Also they have a long way to go before they can accurately judge wind drift etc.
And logging, construction etc, still a long way away before a drone can do it as quickly, safely and "cheaply" as a manned helicopter.
Even in New Zealand i have been on fires where 400ltrs of water doesn't even touch the ground, it is simply too hot/windy for such a small volume to make a difference and Australia gets even hotter... A lot of fire fighting requires the pilot to decide where to start and stop the water placement, or if they are going to hit the same tree as last time, or move on. Also when bucketing having a water hole the size that the Kmax was working out of would be heaven.
Currently the drones don't have the capability, speed or Intelligence to replace a pilot.
For spraying or fertiliser operations the computers can probably fly a straight line, but until one can do the job without disturbing the stock, then they won't be replacing pilots either. Also they have a long way to go before they can accurately judge wind drift etc.
And logging, construction etc, still a long way away before a drone can do it as quickly, safely and "cheaply" as a manned helicopter.
-
- 2nd Dan
- Posts: 330
- Joined: May 2016
Re: Think About it
"Currently the drones don't have the capability, speed or Intelligence to replace a pilot."
They do actually as they have a pilot flying them. Autonomous airframes are completely different and that was the point of the thread, UAS need good pilots.
Regards,
Gregory
They do actually as they have a pilot flying them. Autonomous airframes are completely different and that was the point of the thread, UAS need good pilots.
Regards,
Gregory
'Mankind has a perfect record in aviation - we have never left one up there!'
- AgRattler
- 1st Dan
- Posts: 247
- Joined: Oct 2009
Re: Think About it
"Risking your life flying or sitting in a room flying, work it out for equal or more $$$"
Drive Colin Mcrae's rally car or play it on play station....
No contest. Have you ever thought some of us might enjoy flying for a living? There is a place for drones but I can't see myself ever giving up flying to drive a drone
Ill get my pizza delivered by one but thats about it.
Drive Colin Mcrae's rally car or play it on play station....
No contest. Have you ever thought some of us might enjoy flying for a living? There is a place for drones but I can't see myself ever giving up flying to drive a drone
Ill get my pizza delivered by one but thats about it.
Redlining in neutral
-
- 2nd Dan
- Posts: 330
- Joined: May 2016
Re: Think About it
I completely understand the flying aspect as I love flying too. I also used to love weaving until that SOB Jacquard built a mechanical loom and myself and my Tuesday arvo weaving group were all screwed.
The point of this thread was to find like minded individuals in the helicopter community in regards to the potential of UAS. The thread did just that and through comments and PM's I can now look to further my thoughts with those people from the industry and go from there. I don’t do things by half and want the input from industry, this is not my first rodeo.
Flying is great when someone else owns the heli and you get paid, yet do you think they make economic decisions based on hard operating costs or your love of flying? That could be said for owner operators as well.
Thinking that nothing will ever change has claimed more jobs and more so entire industries and will continue to do so.
Regards,
Gregory
The point of this thread was to find like minded individuals in the helicopter community in regards to the potential of UAS. The thread did just that and through comments and PM's I can now look to further my thoughts with those people from the industry and go from there. I don’t do things by half and want the input from industry, this is not my first rodeo.
Flying is great when someone else owns the heli and you get paid, yet do you think they make economic decisions based on hard operating costs or your love of flying? That could be said for owner operators as well.
Thinking that nothing will ever change has claimed more jobs and more so entire industries and will continue to do so.
Regards,
Gregory
'Mankind has a perfect record in aviation - we have never left one up there!'
-
- 3rd Dan
- Posts: 601
- Joined: May 2010
Re: Think About it
Darkstar1966 wrote:They do actually as they have a pilot flying them. Autonomous airframes are completely different and that was the point of the thread, UAS need good pilots.
So what would be the point of using a UAS without a pilot, rather than a helicopter?? Is there a big cost saving? Or are you trying to remove the pilot from a perceived risky situation?
I don't know if technology has quite got there for some of the more interesting jobs we do.
And i don't think that drones have the "lift capability" at a reasonable cost, compared to a helicopter. All they have at the moment for actual water bombing, is you take a helicopter, stick a mod in it that costs as much again, so that it can fly remotely, and then go and drop water slower than a piloted machine...
And i would love to go head to head against that Kmax, and see who could deliver more water per hr, at a cheaper $/ltr, and more accurately.
-
- 2nd Dan
- Posts: 310
- Joined: May 2010
Re: Think About it
SuperF wrote:Darkstar1966 wrote:They do actually as they have a pilot flying them. Autonomous airframes are completely different and that was the point of the thread, UAS need good pilots.
So what would be the point of using a UAS without a pilot, rather than a helicopter?? Is there a big cost saving? Or are you trying to remove the pilot from a perceived risky situation?
I don't know if technology has quite got there for some of the more interesting jobs we do.
And i don't think that drones have the "lift capability" at a reasonable cost, compared to a helicopter. All they have at the moment for actual water bombing, is you take a helicopter, stick a mod in it that costs as much again, so that it can fly remotely, and then go and drop water slower than a piloted machine...
And i would love to go head to head against that Kmax, and see who could deliver more water per hr, at a cheaper $/ltr, and more accurately.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-mr5I657GU/youtube]
We are only seeing what is declassified at the moment, autonomous machines will take over from pilots.
Super F, when you stop for food/toilet/sleep. That Autonomous Kmax keeps on rolling. It will win on the water delivery.
- hand in pants
- 4th Dan
- Posts: 1615
- Joined: Sep 2006
Re: Think About it
For me, I think we need to separate drones, (smallish machines with 3 or 4 or more rotor systems) from remotely piloted helicopters, (bigger machines, up in the thousand kilos types of things). I say, two completely different things. The drone, any drone can operate, the remotely operated helicopter, takes a pilot to operate.
Hand in Pants, I'm thinking, my god, that IS huge!!!!!!!!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests