The plan to operate unmanned military aircraft on certain days in flight corridors south and east of Fairbanks is an "accident looking for a place to happen," according to the director of operations for Warbelow's Air Ventures.
The proposal for the flight corridors is one of the ideas in the military plan to extend training areas for the Army and Air Force. The Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex is considering numerous proposals for expanded training areas, with routes for robotic planes one of them. The corridors would only be used during military training exercises when robotic planes are required, according to the JPARC website.
The planes are used by the military for reconnaissance and surveillance and getting access to the training ranges south and east of Fairbanks.
The flight corridors, which would be used intermittently by robotic planes, have been a particular source of worry to some local pilots.
That's because pilots said they were told at a public meeting that the planes would not have transponders and would not be picked up by air traffic controllers.
There is considerable confusion about this situation. The JPARC public relations office said Thursday that the robotic plane type that would be used in Alaska today, known as the Shadow, is equipped with a Mode C Transponder.
But a spokeswoman for the office said that pilots were told that the military does not know what planes might be used in the future and how they might be equipped. She said members of the public were told this is a topic they could address in their responses to the plan.
This vague comment may have been the source of a failure to communicate.
Legislators who are experienced pilots also said they believed the robotic planes would be operating in a "stealth" mode in and out of Fairbanks. The objections to the robotic aircraft were one of the main reasons why the Senate unanimously approved a resolution Wednesday saying the proposal would "significantly interfere with air traffic into and out of Fairbanks . . ."
The only way to clarify this situation is for the military to make it clear as part of the training area proposal that robotic planes will not be flying without equipment that allows them to clearly identified and tracked by air traffic control.
That aviation professionals in the Fairbanks area received mixed signals and interpreted the rules this way is sufficient evidence that the JPARC office should issue a clarification. The Legislature should also be brought up to speed.
The corridors would range from about six miles wide to about 9 miles wide and extend from 3,000 feet above ground level to 18,000 feet above the ground. One would be directly south from Fairbanks through the Tanana Flats, while others would be from Fort Wainwright to Eielson Air Force Base, Eielson to the Tanana Flats and from Eielson to the Donnelly Training Area south of Delta.
Mike Morgan, director of operations for Warbelow's Air Ventures, testified earlier this week that the military should revise the plan and fly robotic planes out of Fort Greely, not out of Fairbanks.
"I'm very reluctant to accept a descent into Fairbanks knowing that these things can be flying without being able to be advised or warned by ATC (air traffic control) of an impending problem," Morgan said.
He said "we will be flying on instruments descending through these corridors with no way at all to be warned of unmanned vehicles coming through the same civil air space."
He made the comments Tuesday during a hearing on a plan to ask the military to extend the comment period on the "scoping" work now taking place for the draft Environmental Impact Statement.
The comment period has been extended by JPARC to Feb. 18, but the Legislature is asking that it be extended for 30 more days.
Leif Wilson, director of operations for 40 Mile Air in Tok, said he has flown in the large “military operations areas” for many years and it is critical to take a careful look at these proposals now in the early stages.
“Safety is a huge issue and having operated in existing very large MOAs for the last 15 years and having had three very close calls with military aircraft, I think some additional time so that people that are going to operate in these areas, trying to hunt in these areas, have time to put in comments, find out about it,” he said.
Lt. Gen. Dana Atkins testified Tuesday that he doesn't think the comment period will be extended past Feb. 18 because there are contractors at work on the plan and there is not enough money to make it a longer period. He also said that it was the University of Alaska Fairbanks, which has started to test unmanned aircraft, that said there should be flight corridors for this purpose.
In rejecting the idea of an extended comment period now, Atkins said that this is early in the process and there will be time for additional public comments as the plans are developed.
JPARC said that primary considerations in the proposal are "the corridors must be in controlled airspace, the expected impact on civil air traffic must be minimal and the corridors must be within radio and radar coverage."
Here is a explanation from the military on the proposed flight corridors for the unmanned aircraft.
This is the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex home page on which public comments can be made.
www.globalsecurity.org/military/.../mil-090909-mcn02.htm
FAI averages (according to the FAA website) just over 2500 per week with both runways.
The 2007 stats for Chicago O'Hare are about 662,000 movements. Due to prevailing winds from the West to North West, 09/27 and 10/28 landings and departures allow for 3 runways in use at a time. This equals about 12,730 per week and around 4244 per runway per week.
As to the military running Kandahar, it is being operated by afghan controllers under NATO supervision (for safety). I am sure that if they can deal with that amount of air density while training of 3rd world controllers is going on, I think ours can handle a couple of UAVs.
Fact: Kandahar airport is in a war zone. Traffic at the airport is military. The military controls and coordinates the air traffic.
---------
Under those circumstances, no problem. Are those the circumstances we have, or want to have, in Alaska?
MORE FOR THE MACHINE AND SCREW THE PEOPLE!
These things need to be operated in the existing Restricted Areas.
Honestly over the last 15 years the Military has been the proverbial camel with it's nose under the tent. Every year a new bus load arrives with some crazy new ideas to pursue and joe public is stuck trying to hang into what we have. Remember all the happy promises made by Colonel Whoever when W-612 was established?, remember all the promises when the Delta MOA/ATCAA were established? How about when the entire Yukon MOA Complex was made permanent? Let's dig out the hollow assurances we heard back then and compare them to General Thisyear's recent statements.
Same game, year after year. The UASs are new twist, but the goal is the same.
If the Directors of Operations for Warbelow's and 40-Mile open their dusty copies of the Alaska Supplement to pages 332-333, they'll find 5 UAS corridors in Alaska.
The JPARC proposal calls for two new corridors and modifications to an existing corridor.
Dermot and the "experts" he quotes tend to lead the reader to believe these corridors are new and will severely impact flying and flight safety. In reality, UAS corridors have already been established. Apparently the corridors have had so little impact I doubt the Warbelow's or 40-mile DOs knew of their existence.
Sorry, but I will shake my head at your misdirection. If this is all so new, why are there already UAV corridors in the Alaska Supplement, and a Letter of Agreement with the FAA?
Fact: Kandahar airport has some of the highest traffic for a single runway airfield in the world (over 5,000 movements per month). UAVs operate in and around Kandahar every day with no incident.
Fact: All of the MOAs are only open for limited times, and anyone can ask to fly through a restricted area. Many times, I have transitioned R-2202 or R-2205 by calling Eielson or Fort Wainwright Range control on the radio, or through ANC Center as the VFR sectional says. Even Fairbanks Radio can pass the information to you. If it isn't in use, I have always been granted permission, or given deconfliction measures for what was going on.
Even when I was flying as a military aviator, I heard Air Logistics Bell 206 call Range Control for updates many times. Sorry, I try to fly the friendly skies too.
There isn't a history of UAV events because operating UAVs in the US National Airspace System is entirely new. I believe there was a mid air collision in Iraq between a UAV and an Air Carrier aircraft in 2006.
There is a long history of manned military aircraft spilling out of their designated airspace, and creating collision hazards for other system users.
Islandliver.
The difference between a VFR aircraft and a UAV is that the VFR aircraft has a pilot looking out the window, the UAV does not.
Here's where the FAA is on it:
http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=6287
The military has vast areas of restricted airspace already blocked to public access, they should learn to fly the UASs in those areas before they start dodging in and out of civil traffic.
Thanks again Dermot.
Thank you for your candor, and your research. I feel that there is no need for everyone to be up in arms when most aviators consider it a non-issue.
Jonpauls,
I must say, your last comment almost made me fall out of my chair. Your are right, the bad guys DO have a problem with them. On the flip side, while flying in our national airspace, they utilize transponders, position lights, and anti-collision lights just like manned aircraft.
Islandliver,
You are correct about the radio and transponders for private aircraft, however, we are talking more about the IFR traffic. Although VMC, the UAS operate like an IFR aircraft. The private airplanes stay well away from IFR traffic. When you are eyes inside, on the instruments, there is no "see and avoid".
Our pilots seem to forget there is currently no requirement for a private aircraft to radio their approach or even to have a radio on board the aircraft. I guess you can see those aircraft in your path by while you could not see a simialr military aircraft.
Are there any statistics or documented history on safety, or encroachment, or other problems with unmanned flights?
I don't think the transponder issue is relevant here since the aircraft are externally controlled and monitored. I do not know if the civilian side can see these craft so that their presence is disclosed to the wider world. I would think they shouldn't since that that the nature of the spooky side of our defense strategy. I will say that pilot less aircraft are occasionally seen in use in other parts of the country and the world without significant reported problems-except by the target.
I have put your questions to the JPARC office and incorporated the responses above. Thanks for helping clarify this situation.
It appears that mixed and confusing signals were given at a meeting or meetings when JPARC said that the existing robotic aircraft to be used, the Shadow, is equipped with a transponder, as you point out.
But pilots were also told that the military does not know what future planes might or might not have in this regard or what operational procedures might be. Therefore, according to JPARC, those making comments were told that this was an item they should address.
That aviation professionals in Alaska did not get a clear explanation of this basic safety issue demonstrates why JPARC needs to issue a clarification to the Alaska Air Carriers Association.
Thanks
Dermot - just because you correctly quote someone does not make the information true and correct.
These RPAs do have a transponder, they do show up on radar, Anchorage Center and/or Fairbanks Approach will be able to provide deconfliction to IFR aircraft and should be able provide the same to VFR aircraft participating in flight following.
The MOA will be active certain times of the day during exercises. Up to two, four-hour time blocks per day for the proposed MOA addition and RPA corridors. This IS NOT A PERMANENT restricted area as some want folks to believe.
I've flown both military and civilian aircraft extensively in the interior. The proposal really doesn't add much airspace. It WILL NOT affect VFR operations, which are predominant in this area. The JPARC expansion WILL let our military "train like they fight" with minimal to no impact on civilian flying.
Please take some time to check facts before you write your articles. You do the public no service when you regurgitate incorrect information. At best you mis-inform, at worst, you inflame.
Second, any UAS capable of actually flying in those corridors (having the endurance to) has a transponder with mode 3A/C.
Yukonace: I totally understand your problems with these, but these systems are operated by the Army, not the Air Force. They do indeed have transponders. Check out the following link https://transportation.wes.army.mil/tsmcx/docs/uasig.pdf It contains the LOA information regarding UAS use by the Army for the FAA.
Dermot, I have no doubt that you have read the documents, however, I am quite familiar with the local flight area, the JPARC, and these UAS. Please feel free to do a google search and find the capabilities of the RQ-7b Shadow and the Grey Eagle. You will see that they do actually have transponders, and CAN be seen on radar.
Yota99714, as you might see in the link above, the original agreement with the FAA was for them to have either a ground spotter, or a chase aircraft. The UAS are supposed to climb to altitude within controlled or restricted airspace prior to entering their route.
The bigger issue is that a UAS climbing to altitude within the Ladd Class D airspace is problematic to approaches, feeders, and missed approach procedures that utilize the Chena NDB.
I never stated that the corridor placement is great, or doesn't need improvement, I just wanted to bring some answers to light.
So, how's the deficit doing?
This is another mistaken or only partially-true statement from Akrodman1969.
UAV's equipped with synthetic aperture radar (SAR) can see through clouds and even sandstorms.
Eielson has completed an environmental assessment and findings of no significant impact for the following proposed actions...
...To implement infrastructure improvements to meet mission needs within the base developed area...
These include those planned and anticipated to fulfill mission needs and those supporting Red Flag Alaska.
Copies can be viewed at Noel Wein Library (GREAT FOR SALCHANS). Sounds like it's part of the bigger military MOAs proposal that's open for comment thru the 18th.
COMMENT PERIOD IS THRU FEBRUARY 20th, 2011.
To comment or for more information, contact:
Ruth Forrester, Base Environmental Planner
354 CES/CEAO
2310 Central Ave Ste 100
Eielson AFB, AK99702
ph 377-3365
There are no web links or sites attached to this article.
Q: Putting transponders on their unmanned craft shouldn't even be a point of discussion, it should be standard operating practice. /Q
Amen to that, esp given that most small civilian aircraft fly ESE along the Tanana; directly through the proposed UAV corridors I've seen. I live almost directly east of Blair Lakes, so have a pretty good feel for the light air traffic and Eielson's 31 approach for military traffic.
Q: BTW, whats wrong with the unmanned military aircraft having escorts? /Q
It rather defeats the purpose of UNmanned aircraft; hence transponders aboard them would be helpful for monitoring UAV flightpaths. My plugged nickel.