deadline passed - please disregard

John Brady · Post by **John Brady** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:10 am

The consultation on the 3 new UAV danger areas to the south of the Salisbury Plain danger area complex finishes on Monday 29 September. Details are on the consultation link from the homepage.

Please respond as we need support to enable us to sort out the extra low level danger area around Bosconbe Down. Details are on the consultation link from the homepage.

Thanks,

John

Steve Brown · Post by **Steve Brown** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:34 am

I have no wish to be irresponsible and would of course avoid a Danger Area ref live firing, etc etc. A Danger Area should surely be just that - dangerous to enter due to risks that cannot be assessed or mitigated against by the pilot.

However UAVs are visible flying objects that could be viewed as a conventional flying risk that is less risky than (say) flying IMC in Class G open FIR.

Granted only the former of VFR 'see & be seen' is applicable with a UAV, but is it necessary to have a Danger Area created for this? How about a AIAA.

Otherwise wouldn't this philosophy of asking for a DA for UAVs suggest that it is too dangerous for UAVs to ever fly in open FIR (or other airspace for that matter)

David White · Post by **David White** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:39 pm

It's worth noting that there is an error in the LAA article; the segregated airspace proposal starts from a base of FL80, not FL60 as printed.

This error is repeated on the LAA consultation webpage.

Summary document available here.

steveneale · Post by **steveneale** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:11 pm

Steve, I think I read the reason why the airspace is being proposed is because CAA quite sensibly won't allow these things in the open FIR at the moment. While none of us like to see any more airspace lost, at FL80+ this is probably one that won't effect us much. Perhaps we could make a case for it's return when these things ARE let loose on us. No escape then. "1984" the final chapter.

iancallier · Post by **iancallier** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:48 pm

My worry is this is just the start. in the future every little UAV operator will clamour for an 'instant zone' like the police do now. Nothing to do with the event but to stop the newspapers filming.
imc 3713

Dave Hall · Post by **Dave Hall** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 5:54 pm

I'd say flying in an area with UAVs around would be potentially dangerous - few have the size or visibility of a light aircraft, and I suspect the military ones won't be painted bright orange!

However, I have to admit that I've never flown privately at the dizzy heights of 8000', so it is unlikely to affect me personally.

J.C. · Post by **J.C.** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:04 am

Its all very well to say that the danger only starts at 8000 ft but is this a responsible attitude?
This effectively means we are encouraged to fly below these (experimental) aircraft.
Surely if one of these has an engine failure or (even worse,a mid air between two of them) will all the bits stay above 8000ft ?

Dave Hall · Post by **Dave Hall** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 11:42 am

Fair point JC. You would think they could use their huge existing area for anything they want. They've got it up to 50,000' anyway - about 4,000 cubic miles of airspace.

steveneale · Post by **steveneale** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 12:27 pm

True Dave but there is nobody but the odd squady to practice spying on there. I think this is more an issue for people living underneath rather than us, especially if they like al fresco bonking

John Brady · Post by **John Brady** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:19 am

I understand that there is likely to be only one UAV to start with and I am waiting for MOD to confirm that the base has moved from Upavon (the UAV needs a hard runway which Upavon does not have) to Boscombe Down. That would require a low level danger area around Boscombe (not detailed in the consultation) which may present significant issues for operations at local airfields. Further details to follow when I get an answer from MOD.

John

Andrew Leak · Post by **Andrew Leak** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:18 pm

Currently the UAV activity will not be based at Upavon. As I am Upavon based, 2008 would have been the year we would have lost our freedom as the runway construction was due to start in June. According to the MOD (after spending shed loads of money on planning and consultation) Upavon will be too costly to build a runway, therefore the next available airfield with a ready made runway is Boscombe. However, due to the closure of Upavon garrison (Trenchard Lines) in 2010 (subject to this budget and that of course), there is still a possibilty that a runway for UAV's could be located at Upavon in the next 5 years or so, we as a club and service personnel etc think that the future for the airfield at EGDJ will be safe for the foreseeable future.

So I'm afraid it's... think Boscombe Down - think UAV! Things may still change of course, as for the FL80 limitation, the craft need to get to that height first...the initial flights were to be accompanied by a Tornado, so its anyone's guess what boundaries they are going to impose.

Fly safe..

G-SIPA

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:04 am

why don't they do this testing out over the sea ?

If a UAV is incapable of being safely climbed out to working altitude, then the danger is to folks on the ground, so airborne excusion areas seem worthless.

All the operational performance work will occur at higher altitudes so it does not matter where the testing is done - so they should do it out at sea - only 10 minutes flying time to the south

I am puzzled why they should need to do any operational testing. If A380 pilots can be trained to fly in a hangar with no windows, then all the UAV development can obviously be done in computer simulation. Salisbury Plains is hardly a good substitute for Afganistan.

The more you think about it the more ridiculous the need for this airspace becomes.

Andrew Leak · Post by **Andrew Leak** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 11:56 pm

Pete, I respect your viewpoint in this, but we have had this conversation with the MOD for quite some time now, in fact concerns were raised from villagers in Upavon who felt that the whole operation was a dangerous escapade from start to finish. However, the British Army operates smaller variants of the craft, a little bigger than a model aircraft and quite capable of flying with long endurance to remain effective in the battlefield. In defence of both my flying club and the MOD it would not be feasable to carry out UAV manouevers over the sea, or any expanse of water come to that as the idea of UAV is of reconnaissance over land to spot the enemy in the landscape for the sole strategic purpose. Arguably, if the enemy were bobbing around in boats it wouldn't take much to spot them and we could send in the navy to apologize or something!

My club was under the shadow of the project for what felt like years and seemed likely that it would go ahead and fragment or destroy the club, thankfully the bean counters thought otherwise and we are still here. For the safety factor though, you may be correct, over water the UAV won't hit anything but the sea - their usefulness as a multi-million pound investment would be seriously flawed in this perspective.

A waste of money or clever gesture in saving pilots lives? or is it just another exercise in saving money instead of training new aircrew? Remember, the function of UAV is not just spotting, but in the US, the MQ-1 Predator is already equipped as a weapons platform...food for thought, indeed!

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 2:07 pm

if these things are so small, then the need for 200 cubic miles of airspace to learn to fly them is all the more ridiculous.

An earlier post stated they were at Boscombe Down cos they need a long runway and tornado trackers, so I suspect that we have 2 different projects being deliberately interlaced to confuse the regulators.

If the salisbury plain DA is for wee UAVs why in hell can't they learn to fly them on a rugby pitch in Colchester, the smaller an RC ( in most cases ) the more difficult to fly, if they are talking observation experience, all that can be done in MS Flight do-dah, probably a damn sight better bit of 3D realism than anything EADS or whoever will ever come up with.

Look at what will actually be happening with these UAVs,
one squaddy sitting in a caravan will remote pilot the thing, a second bloke will twiddle a joy stick to point the camera at interesting objects, when he sees something, he will poke matey in the ribs and say "have a butchers at that". The "pilot" will waggle his joystick, and direct the UAV down. Now give me a good reason why all this training cannot be done in a simulator.

If the reasons for needing real airspace are about "operational effectiveness", you have got to go try these things out somewhere hot and dusty - Middle Wallop - I don't think so

David White · Post by **David White** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:43 pm

Pete wrote:if these things are so small, then the need for 200 cubic miles of airspace to learn to fly them is all the more ridiculous.

The consultation material describes UAVs of 450kg. I think Colchester's Rugby pitch might struggle!

Also, if all the testing is done in a simulator, what they'd be testing would be the simulator, not the aircraft and actual system.

As for Tornado accompaniment, this isn't described in the docs, which show the climb to FL80+ being accomplished within the existing Salisbury Plain Deltas - which of course go down to the ground.

It really is worth reading the Consultation material - there's an awful lot there that will inform this thread.