Badin vs. Fredericktown
Miamisburg graduation 2012
Valley View vs. Greenville
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2010 > June > 20 > Entry
Kevin Riley: Can Dayton soar with UAV industry?
If you believe at least some of the hype, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) will eventually fill the skies.
The advances in remotely piloted aircraft have come fast and furious, and the Dayton region wants a place in what’s expected to be a huge industry.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates put UAVs in the news in 2008 during a speech at Air University at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., when he slammed military leaders for being too slow to use UAVs in Iraq and Afghanistan. The situation changed quickly.
Since then, the remotely piloted systems have gotten more public attention as cutting-edge military weapons that can perform high-risk duty without jeopardizing pilots’ lives. UAVs were also called into duty to survey the damage in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and lately they’ve been used to patrol the U.S.-Mexico border.
But there are many more uses, beyond the needs of military and government agencies.
The Federal Aviation Administration says 50 U.S. universities, companies and organizations are developing 155 UAV designs. Popular Science says more than 1,500 UAVs are being built around the world.
UAVs could be used for aerial photography and mapping, surveying land, monitoring crops, battling forest fires, even for watching weather and traffic.
The growth industry could be good for Dayton.
The Air Force Research Laboratory, which is headquartered at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, has developed some of the key technologies to making UAVs viable — and AFRL is central to their future.
Of course, AFRL’s job is to serve Air Force and military needs. But companies that want to use the technology in the private sector will be hanging around the base’s gates.
There are challenges to widespread use of the technology. One is how to manage their presence in the country’s air space.
The Federal Aviation Administration is responsible for air safety and for the complex system of setting the rules for where aircraft can fly. When any of us get on a plane, we count on the FAA’s system to keep us safe; so do private pilots, helicopter users and even the military.
If thousands of UAVs are buzzing around, will the skies be too dangerous? It’s one thing for a UAV to fly over a war zone in Afghanistan, it’s a different matter for dozens to be over New York City. The FAA, a large, slow-to-change federal bureaucracy is being cautious.
In November, FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt told an aviation industry group: “As of today, unmanned aircraft systems are not ready for seamless or routine use yet in civilian airspace. Without a pilot who can look and scan to the left and the right — just the way you and I do when we’re backing out of a parking space — there’s a perceived level of risk that the American public isn’t ready for.”
Experts seem to agree that the FAA is years away from figuring this out.
So where does the Dayton region fit in?
First, the ambition is to make the region a center for the UAV industry. That likely means that we’d need research, testing and production capabilities.
AFRL already provides the core research, and it seems that we could attract and grow companies to build the UAVs. (Co-Operative Engineering Services, based in Xenia, develops and builds UAVs of 100 pounds or smaller.)
One barrier is identifying a good place to fly and test UAVs nearby.
The FAA requires special permission to fly a UAV, except in “restricted” air space. We don’t have airspace designated that way, so AFRL and others pack them up and test UAVs elsewhere.
One idea is to use the airport in Wilmington. That proposal has some traction because of the suitability of the site and the emotion around DHL’s devastating departure. The Buckeye and Brush Creek military flying area over rural Highland and Adams counties is another possibility.
Hopes are that the FAA will see trying out such an idea as a first step in solving its larger problem with UAVs coming into general use. The AFRL is a leader in “sense and avoid” technology, which is central to settling safety concerns.
In any case, our region and its leaders need to stay on the UAV bandwagon and push for the air space to test them.
Permalink | Comments (8) | Post your comment |
Tweet
Comments
By Dan
June 21, 2010 8:37 AM | Link to this
Even giving you the wide lattitude of “thousands” of UAV’s in the sky…They won’t be built here. The build facilities already exist out in California. right next door to an empty desert that is rather perfect for testing. The only thing that can really exist here is the labs and the acquisition community. BTW, both of those organizations are already banging away. The UAV isn’t the goldmine for unemployed Dayton factory workers that you think it is.
By Max
June 21, 2010 9:04 AM | Link to this
Kevin, Gates’ remarks in 2008 were carefully worded criticisms of the CIA running UAV - mainly Predator - Ops in Afghanistan. Gates wanted ‘full’ miliatry (Air Force) control so this was more of a DOD (openly funded) vs. CIA (black funding) feud. Also, we have to remember the early days of the Afghan war Pakistan would not allow us across their border and airspace; hence, the CIA run ops. As for local testing and development of UAV’s the main problem confronting the FAA is airspace accomodating both commercial and general aviation. While not the most crowded and managed well by air traffic control, the southern Ohio airspace would be drastically filled in the below 10,000 ft altitudes with the addition of UAV’s. Some of the gains you mention, mapping, disaster monitoring, agriculture, etc., are currently being done by satelite image systems. Not mentioned is the extreme interest expressed by law enforcement. Open surveillance is already under debate with personal privacy/liberty issues at the forefront. While it is an attractive prospect that any new industry be located in Ohio, this one may be more a product of wishful thinking. There is, afterall, a reason why Wright-Pat doesn’t do any real testing locally of the aircraft projects developed; that’s why there are places like Edwards AFB in California. It literally takes an act of congress for the FAA to create new special use airspace. But, that doesn’t mean UAV’s couldn’t built here and sent to Kittyhawk, NC, to test…..I think that idea worked once before.
By Max
June 21, 2010 9:11 AM | Link to this
DAN: Good point. I don’t see the UAV industry hiring from local workforce pools; it’s a specialized industry basically located on the West Coast. It also requires less skilled workers than, say, required to built an airliner.
By Max
June 21, 2010 9:43 AM | Link to this
Kevin, I can only imagine the frustration which must take place at the DDN editorial staff meetings in finding something positive for Ohio and this region. I do have to give you folks credit, you are doing your job more so than the state and local commissions in proposing possibilites. That, in my opinion, is the problem as opposed to what DDN specifically examines. That the local ‘Indians’ are getting restless goes without saying and while the anger of your readership is often misdirected as anger usually is, therhas to be a point where the Dayton area stops the ‘death of 1,000 cuts’ and come to terms with it cannot be what it was, it cannot continue with the status quo, and accept we can take care of our local problems first without dependence upon outside employers who, historically, have shown their indifference to the communities who extended tax abatements for their presence. The concept of ‘city’ today is considerably different than 100 years ago. Even the abstract connection between Cincinnati, Columbus, and Dayton as conjoined centers of business is being endangered with Dayton only having the I-75/I-70 intersection being its only asset. If, then, Dayton becomes just a ‘road house’ stop along a major transportation artery, then there is something positive there. We can become the BEST roadhouse in the nation. This opens local industries in intertainment, micro-breweries, theme parks, etc., to entice people to stop, and, eventually, return to a Dayton which retooled after industry left. We’re down but we have talent and still have a work ethic in place. We may still have the carryovers of leadership who look at Dayton through the rear view mirror. One thing I think most would agree with is we can’t rely on government at any level to do it for us. Should Dayton and its surrounding areas recover, we MUST learn the lessons of our relationship with corporations of the past. It may be a wise attitude for the local commissions to adopt the novel idea that coporations and the community are partners; that means each pays their fair share in support of a work and cultural environment in which people can live rather than just survive.
By Bo
June 21, 2010 1:56 PM | Link to this
A helpful editorial. I do hope FAA will be able to resolve safety concerns and smartly enable remotely piloted aicraft to operate in the national airspace system, to include identifying dedicated blocks of temporarily restricted airspace for research and development. Given AFRL’s mission, having dedicated airspace nearby for testing only makes sense.
By Christian Louboutin Sale
June 24, 2010 1:34 AM | Link to this
I locate this article from google,it’s sheer usable for me,I upright collect these infomation.I have subscribe the newsletter,do these articles have copyright limit? can I register them in my blog?
By best registry cleaner
November 27, 2010 10:08 AM | Link to this
wow.. i’m very enjoy reading your post. great.
By Haven
May 17, 2011 6:20 AM | Link to this
Excellent post.Thanks. -www.clippingimages.com