12 décembre 2019 | International, Aérospatial

Connected Cockpit: Inflight Internet Access—Safety Tool Or Hazard?

Connected Cockpit: Inflight Internet Access—Safety Tool Or Hazard?

James Albright

When we bought our current airplane, just over 10 years ago, I had a decision to make that I had never faced previously: Do we want access to the internet? Back then, the system of choice was expensive and slow, but since it would be useful for email and limited downloads, it was still worth considering. Interestingly, the passengers were strongly opposed. They regarded the airplane as their refuge from the world and a chance to unplug for several hours. While it would have been nice for we pilots to download weather products and flight plans, the system was so sluggish as to be of limited use. So, I decided against any internet access at all.

During the decade that followed, I heard from my more “connected” peers about pilots who quickly bring up social media accounts just a few minutes after the wheels are in the well. Some started out saying the internet was for flight-related purposes only, then they added access to online aviation magazines — that's flight related, isn't it? — and then came an aviation flick or two. After all, if “The Right Stuff” isn't aviation related, what is? A contract pilot friend of mine tells me of a pilot who became so engrossed in a “flight-related” video game, he was surprised by his aircraft's top of descent chime. As the years went on, I felt my original decision was vindicated. But I also realized there were times when having that internet connection would have saved me a last-minute divert or could have rescued us from an hours-long ATC delay.

And now that we are about to take delivery of another new airplane, I was faced with the same internet question. The passengers still wanted refuge from the connected world and the new systems were still very expensive, but the capability of the new equipment has improved dramatically. Not only can we now rapidly download weather and flight plans, but we can also view nearly real-time weather radar animations. Most of the aviation world has embraced the internet allowing us to negotiate slot times, adjust ETAs, arrange destination support, get maintenance help and do just about anything from the air that was once reserved for before takeoff or after landing. So, my decision this time was different. We will have broadband internet access in our new cockpit. The only thing left to do about that was to come up with a policy to avoid all those horror stories involving pilots disconnecting from their airplane as they connect to the World Wide Web.

The Regs

Relevant U.S. Federal Regulations point only to 14 CFR 121.542(d), which says “no flight crewmember may use, nor may any pilot in command permit the use of, a personal wireless communications device (as defined in 49 U.S.C. 44732(d)) or laptop computer while at a flight crewmember duty station unless the purpose is directly related to operation of the aircraft, or for emergency, safety-related or employment-related communications, in accordance with air carrier procedures approved by the administrator.” This doesn't apply to us in the non-Part 121 world, but what about using a company-provided “non-personal” device or something you could broadly classify as a “non-communications device.”

The FAA clarifies the prohibition in Vol. 79, No. 29 of the Federal Register (Feb. 12, 2014): The final rule does not require an ‘‘ownership'' test regarding the laptop computer or personal wireless communications device. It doesn't matter who owns the device. The Federal Register also retains a broad category of included devices because a list of specific devices would ignore the reality of evolving technology. This broad category includes, but is not limited to, devices such as cellphones, smartphones, personal digital assistants, tablets, e-readers, some (but not all) gaming systems, iPods and MP3 players, as well as netbooks and notebook computers.

It appears Part 121 crews are tightly restricted but the rest of us are not, unless we operators have come up with rules of our own. As a Part 91 operator, that responsibility fell on my shoulders. Advisory Circular 91.21-D, “Use of Portable Electronic Devices Aboard Aircraft,” guides Part 91 operators on how to ensure these devices can be used but is silent on the subject of internet access. Should I restrict my crews (and myself) or should that mystical concept of “pilot judgment” be allowed to rule the day? When I don't know what to do, my first step is to find out what everyone else is doing.

A Non-Scientific Poll

Most of the flight departments that I asked rely on sound pilot judgment when deciding when the internet can be accessed in the cockpit and for what purposes. How is that working out? Many claim no problems, at least no problems worth noting. But many others admit things have gotten out of hand. Those flight departments with set SOPs usually recognize critical phases of flight and the nature of the internet browsing as key factors in the when and what questions. But these are not the only factors.

Phases of flight. Most, but not all, SOPs recognized that internet browsing should be limited to non-critical phases of flight. Critical phases were usually defined as whenever below 10,000 ft. but sometimes included whenever the aircraft was in a climb or descent. While no canvassed operator included it, I thought I might consider short versus long flights or oceanic versus non-oceanic flights when deciding for or against internet usage.

Permissible Uses. Everyone I asked agreed that using the internet for weather, air traffic delay information and other flight-related needs was acceptable. Some operators specified that “flight-related” meant pertaining only to that particular flight. Many allowed crewmembers to check personal email, but some restricted this to just a few minutes each hour. (One operator scheduled this so one pilot checks at the top of the hour, the other at the bottom.) Social media usage was specifically banned by some but not mentioned at all by others. A few specifically allowed pilots to use the internet to do a brief check of the news and sports. Those without any kind of internet policy admitted that some pilots would watch entire games or spend hours browsing on subjects completely unrelated to the flight in progress.

Most of the SOPs seem to deal with holding costs down more than reducing cockpit distractions. Streaming video is an obvious way to up the monthly charges, but other, more insidious expenses often play as big a role. One company found that its passengers were allowing software updates and other downloads that did not need to be done from 35,000 ft. Their typical passenger was boarding with three internet devices, each serving to monopolize the bandwidth, especially if an automatic company or device update was in progress. Although cabin SOP to reduce monthly charges is certainly useful, what I needed was an internet SOP for the cockpit crew.

The most complete SOP I found for internet usage by pilots is a hybrid approach that gives wide latitude during non-critical phases of flight but permits only flight-related activities otherwise:

“On aircraft equipped with inflight internet, flight crews must not allow the internet to become a distraction. Crews may connect their internet-enabled devices and may use the internet. Crew devices must not be utilized during any portion of a climb or descent unless they are being used for flight-critical functions such as checking weather, NOTAMs, etc. In these situations, one crewmember must be heads-up and dedicated to monitoring the aircraft. Playing games, watching movies or similar distracting activities are never authorized during climb, cruise or descent.”

When this policy was instituted a pilot asked about reading internet websites and was told only aviation-related websites were permitted. The pilot then cheekily commented that, “It is OK to be distracted as long as you were reading an article about removing distractions in the cockpit.”

I came away from this investigation wondering why there have not been any aviation accidents due to this kind of “distracted driving” that is illegal on the streets and highways of many states. I set out to prove a case against inflight internet browsing using the many, many aviation accidents that surely happened as a result of pilots distracted by a phone, iPad or other connected device.

Accidents: Real and Imagined

That list of many, many accidents turned out to contain just one. There must be more, but I found only one. On Aug. 26, 2011, a Eurocopter AS350 B2, operating under Part 135, impacted terrain following an engine failure near the airport in Mosby, Missouri. The helicopter experienced fuel exhaustion because the pilot departed without ensuring that the aircraft had an adequate supply of Jet-A. The investigation determined that the pilot engaged in frequent personal texting, both before and during the accident flight. He, the flight nurse, flight paramedic and patient were all killed as a result.

An addendum to that list might be the Oct. 21, 2009, flight of a Northwest Airlines Airbus A320 that continued on past Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (KMSP), its intended terminus. Early speculation was that both pilots fell asleep, but the NTSB later determined that they were using their laptop computers while discussing the airline's crew scheduling process. The NTSB report concluded, “The computers not only restricted the pilots' direct visual scan of all cockpit instruments but also further focused their attention on non-operational issues, contributing to a reduction in their monitoring activities, loss of situational awareness and lack of awareness of the passage of time.” They were only alerted to their situation when a flight attendant asked about their arrival time.

Although there has only been a single reported accident involving internet distraction, I suspected there have been many close calls. Yet a scan of thousands of NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System reports turned up only 243 incidents containing the word “internet” and of those only five involved distractions. And of those, three involved air traffic control towers or centers. The two pilot reports were both of captains complaining about their first officers.

Since there has been only one solitary accident from texting, cellphone use or internet access, should we conclude the risk is negligible? Or have we just been lucky all these years?

Internet Temptations

I've noticed a common theme among many cockpit internet users: Once allowed a limited number of acceptable uses, they gradually so expand the list that any limit becomes meaningless. I am worried about seeing this happen in my flight department because so many aviators I thought impervious to temptation have succumbed. The list of legitimate internet uses is a slippery slope indeed:

(1) Email and texts. It can't hurt to check now and then, especially considering many of these are work related. A message from a family member might be urgent. Or there may be a job opening you've been working on. Opportunity, they say, only knocks once.

(2) News. Wouldn't it be useful to know the president is showing up at or near your destination at about the same time? Indeed, there is a lot of news that can impact the success of your trip: blackouts, floods, earthquakes and forest fires, to name just a few. News can affect your livelihood as well. Just because you are flying doesn't mean your stock portfolio needs to suffer.

(3) Personal self-development. Some call it surfing and others call it browsing. Perhaps we can call it education. Why not spend those idle hours at altitude learning to be a better pilot? There are lots of good aviation websites and “e-zines” ready for that very purpose. Who couldn't benefit from a how-to in the most recent bow hunting magazine?

(4) Entertainment. A happy pilot is a safe pilot, everyone knows. (If they don't know that, they should.) As aviators we are professional multi-taskers and switching between a 4 DVD set of “Godfather” movies and your oceanic crossing post position plotting is child's play for any seasoned international pilot.

I am still a few months away from delivery of my new airplane, equipped with Ka-band high-speed internet. I am told we will be able to download a complete weather package with satellite imagery just as easily as we can stream the latest blockbuster from Hollywood. My initial attitude is to forbid anything remotely connected to entertainment or personal communications while in flight. But so many others have felt this way when starting out on the cockpit information superhighway and have given in. Will I be next?

Advantages of Cockpit Internet

The pilots of my flight department were starting to suspect that I had already made a decision about internet usage, focusing only on the negative. On our last flight to Europe, my cockpit partner wondered out loud how nice it would be to have real-time weather for the Continent. Flying from Florida to the Northeast, he wondered aloud about ground stops in the New York area. His hints were obvious, of course. But they had the intended effect. I needed to explore the pluses as well as the minuses.

Our flight department is paperless: Each pilot has an iPad with an international cellular account and we do not spare expenses when it comes to quality applications. There are a number of apps that we use during flight that would be even more useful if connected to the internet. We also use several websites that are only accessible with an active internet connection.

ARINCDirect. We do all of our flight planning through Collins' ARINCDirect application. The company's iPad app gives us access to updated winds, turbulence and icing reports; destination weather reports; updated NOTAMs; flight hazards; TFRs; and other reports we normally get before departure but never while en route. Having all of this real-time information can be a useful decision-making tool.

ForeFlight. Our favorite weather tool is the suite of imagery available in ForeFlight. Here you will find just about everything available in the U.S. government-provided weather sites, but they seem to download more quickly and getting to the page you want is easier. Weather charts are available for most of the Americas, Europe, the Atlantic and the Pacific.

MyRadar NOAA Weather Radar. If you are tracking a system along your flight path or at your destination, the MyRadar app is a good one to keep open because it updates quickly and the continuous loop gives a good sense of what the weather is doing and how it is moving.

Turbulence Forecast. This app is our “go-to” source of U.S. turbulence information. The information is available in some of the other applications, but this is a quick way to get it, if that is all you want.

We normally update these applications prior to engine start, so as to have the most recent information. We also use a number of internet websites that are only available to us through our cellular connections; they are inaccessible in flight without an internet connection. We frequently check http://www.faa.gov for airport status and delays. And when things in the national airspace get really messy, we check http://www.fly.faa.gov/ois/ for any ground stops or airspace flow

I was starting to soften on the subject of internet access, thinking maybe a very strict policy of only using a specified list of applications and websites might do the trick. On our way back from Europe last month I noticed the other pilot nod off once and I have to admit I felt the urge as well. We got a “Resume Normal Speed” message through data link, a first for us both, and that set off a mad scramble through our available resources to find out what it meant. Once we landed, I quickly found out — using the internet — that the ICAO EUR/NAT office had just released a new Ops Bulletin allowing “Operations Without an Assigned Fixed Speed (OWAFS) in the NAT.” (If you haven't heard of OWAFS, check out NAT OPS Bulletin 2019_001.)

Thinking about the flight, I realized that with an internet connection we could have taken advantage of the resume normal speed message. But I also realized that our bout of sleepiness was instantly cured by the task at hand. Having something engaging to do solved any drowsiness for the remainder of the flight. I remember more than a few oceanic crossings when the urge to nod off was cured by having an interesting discussion topic come up. Perhaps there was something to be said for allowing other types of internet access.

Our Cockpit Internet SOP

Our team concluded that we should take advantage of the great situational awareness afforded by having internet access in the cockpit, as well as the ability to keep pilots from nodding off on those long oceanic trips. But we needed to avoid the distractions caused by keeping connected with email, text messages, sports, news and all other things pulling our brains out of the cockpit. We mulled this over and came up with our first cockpit internet SOP:

(1) Two types of cockpit internet usage are permitted: flight-related and non-flight related. Flight-related usage pertains to internet access that has a direct bearing on the trip currently in progress. This category includes downloading weather products, making passenger arrangements, adjusting subsequent flight plans or anything needed to assure the success of the current trip. Everything else, even if tied to company business or aviation, is considered non-flight related.

(2) No internet access is permitted during critical phases of flight, which we defined as any flight time below 10,000 ft. (except while in cruise flight with the autopilot engaged), or whenever within 1,000 ft. of a level-off, even above 10,000 ft.

(3) Non-flight-related internet access is only permitted during flights with more than 1 hr. in cruise flight, and is limited to 5 min. continuous time per pilot each hour.

(4) Any internet access (flight- or non-flight-related) can only be made by one pilot at a time and will be treated as if that pilot was absent from the flight deck. Before “departing,” the pilot flying (PF) will give a situational awareness briefing. For example: “The autopilot is engaged using long-range navigation. We are in cruise condition talking to New York center. You are cleared off.” Upon completion, the PF will again brief the returning pilot, e.g.: “There have been no changes to aircraft configuration or navigation, but we are now talking to Boston Center and have been given a pilot's discretion descent to flight level three two zero.”

(5) All internet-capable devices will be placed in “airplane mode” prior to engine start and will remain so until after engine shutdown. Audible notifications will be silenced for the duration of the flight. Pilots will ensure devices are not allowed to download software updates that may restrict internet bandwidth needed by the passengers or flight-related cockpit use.

(6) Crews will add a discussion of cockpit distractions to each day's post-flight critique. Our traditional “What's the DEAL?” check will become the “Were we IDEAL?” check:

I — Internet and other distractions: Did we live up to our SOP?

D — Departure: How did everything go from planning to wheels in the well?

E — En route: How was the en route portion?

A — Arrival: How did we handle the approach, landing and shutdown?

L — Logbook: Was there anything to report as far as maintenance or other record-keeping requirements?

So, the deed is done. We created our first cockpit internet SOP just in time to receive our new airplane. Not every flight department is this proactive. But even those that start with a well-intentioned internet SOP soon seem to abandon it because the lure of connectedness is too great. I hope to avoid this and have come up with a way to give us a “reality check” after we've grown accustomed to our new connected cockpit lives. We'll add inflight internet usage as a topic to our quarterly safety meetings.

In addition, I have asked each pilot to come up with a list of safety of flight risks that we “promise” to avoid. I will put these in a sealed envelope and one year after delivery we will see how we made out. I am hoping those risks remain avoided. If not, we may have to rethink all of this.


Sur le même sujet

  • Boeing Is Refurbishing Harpoon Missiles for U.S. Navy Submarines

    11 février 2021 | International, Naval

    Boeing Is Refurbishing Harpoon Missiles for U.S. Navy Submarines

    Posted on February 9, 2021 by Richard R. Burgess, Senior Editor ARLINGTON, Va. — Boeing has begun work to return the Harpoon cruise missile to operational status in the U.S. Navy's submarine force after a more than 20-year absence. Boeing received an $10.9 million Naval Sea Systems Command contract late last month to refurbish 16 Harpoon missile capsules and four all-up rounds of encapsulated Block 1C Harpoon missiles for the Navy's submarines. Work is scheduled for completion by December 2022. The UGM-84A Harpoon Block 1C missiles will be integrated on the Navy's Los Angeles-class submarines. The UGM-84A is encapsulated to be fired from a torpedo tube and has a rocket booster to propel it above the surface of the water and into flight. “I am happy to report that we will have the first refurbished [Harpoon] missiles delivered to the fleet in [fiscal] ‘21,” said Rear Adm. Thomas Ishee, director of undersea warfare in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, speaking Nov. 7 at the Naval Submarine League's annual symposium in Arlington. In a demonstration in the 2018 Rim of the Pacific exercise, a Harpoon was fired from the Los Angeles-class attack submarine USS Olympia at a target ship, the first time one was fired from a U.S. Navy submarine since the UGM-84A Harpoons were withdrawn from the force in 1997. The UGM-84A is encapsulated to be fired from a torpedo tube and has a rocket booster to propel it above the surface of the water and into flight. “The Navy has a deep inventory of Harpoon Block IC missiles,” said Sally Seibert, director, Cruise Missile Systems at Boeing, in a statement. “These missiles can be refurbished and reintegrated into the fleet in a shorter timeframe, and at a fraction of the cost, compared to purchasing new missiles — and that is exactly what our team is doing.” The Harpoon cruise missile is a combat-proven, all-domain anti-ship missile used by the Navy and more than 30 international customers, a statement from Boeing said. “Evolving over the years to keep pace with emerging threats, the Harpoon Block II includes a GPS-aided guidance system that allows for autonomous, all-weather capability — and can execute both anti-ship and land-strike missions. The more advanced Harpoon Block II+ adds a data link that allows for in-flight targeting updates.” “The shelf life of the Harpoon missile allows us to maximize existing capability by bringing this weapon back to the submarine fleet,” Seibert said. “Customers who currently have Harpoon missiles in their inventory are prime candidates for refurbishments, or even upgrades, to add this extremely viable and cost-effective weapon to their arsenal.” Currently, more than 600 ships, 180 submarines, 12 different types of aircraft and several land-based launch vehicles across the world are integrated with Harpoon missiles, Boeing said. https://seapowermagazine.org/boeing-is-refurbishing-harpoon-missiles-for-u-s-navy-submarines/

  • F-35 Lightning II: A 21st century concept

    5 décembre 2019 | International, Aérospatial

    F-35 Lightning II: A 21st century concept

    by Alan Stephenson The F-35 Lightning II is not only a fifth-generation fighter aircraft, but a 21st century tooth-to-tail concept. I recently had the privilege to join a Canadian media trip sponsored by Lockheed Martin to visit the F-35 production facility in Fort Worth, Texas, as well as the 63rd Fighter Squadron, at Luke Air Force Base, Ariz., which is responsible for F-35 pilot training. Industry executives and F-35 operators presented detailed briefings on the latest aircraft improvements, maintenance concepts and operational considerations, as well as a tour of the production line and an up-close look at the aircraft itself. Without a doubt, the F-35 system represents a progressive leap in technology and life cycle management. Design concept Although some have questioned the very idea of a “fifth-generation” designation, the F-35 is the result of an evolutionary process in the design of low-observable (stealth) fighter aircraft for the United States Air Force (USAF). It draws upon the experiences of creating and operating the F-117 Nighthawk and the F-22 Raptor fighters. The lessons learned went beyond simply enhancing aircraft performance; the F-35 ameliorates fundamental life cycle cost issues through leveraging emerging technologies and leading-edge concepts to maximize readiness, logistic and maintenance efficiencies. In effect, the F-35 is built for sustainment. The fighter aircraft makes use of a modular avionics architecture with fusion technology, rather than a federated architecture where Line Replaceable Units (LRU or “black boxes”) are placed in a sequence. In this manner, maintainers no longer need to remove the first and second boxes to replace the third; they simply replace an easily accessible modular LRU. Roughly 95 per cent of the LRUs are first line removeable and virtually all first line maintenance functions are accessible through the weapons bay doors, nose wheel well, and behind panels that can be opened and closed without causing any low observable skin repairs. Ease of maintenance is further achieved from simple redesigns such as a front-hinged canopy that facilitates ejection seat removal without the need to remove the canopy. ALIS, the state-of-the-art Autonomic Logistics Information System, provides real-time digital information that also significantly reduces maintenance demands. “ALIS integrates a broad range of capabilities including operations, maintenance, prognostics, supply chain, customer support services, training and technical data,” according to Lockheed Martin. Maintenance staff can quickly determine the health of the aircraft upon landing through Prognostic Health Management (PHM) and quickly resolve any anomalies, increasing the serviceability rate and minimizing technician fault-finding time through fewer maintenance steps. PHM is a maintenance system that monitors the actual condition of an aircraft to decide what maintenance needs to be done. As all aircraft fleet operators know, unscheduled maintenance and lack of spare parts increases manpower demands and decreases aircraft availability. ALIS is designed to reduce maintenance hours, increase readiness, and decrease labour related costs by offering greater control in sustainment functions and providing actionable information to military decision-makers. Cost drivers From an initial reported cost of over US$100 million, the per-unit costs for the F-35 have fallen to US$77.9 million for Lot 14 fighters. The nine-nation co-operative development and the economies of scale of 12 current customers have greatly contributed to bringing life cycle costs closer to those of contemporary fourth-generation fighters. Costs have been lowered in assembly of the aircraft through use of an automated production line, designed to produce 180 aircraft per year, which has seen a 75 per cent reduction in “touch-labour” since 2010. Each aircraft is personalized by purchase order, allowing all three models to be produced in tandem, and unlike other fighters, the jet is essentially combat-ready when it leaves the production facility, having complete indigenous offensive and defensive avionic suites. With respect to sustainment, the F-16 had 24 different stovepipes supporting worldwide operations. ALIS logistics functions are networked with all F-35 users and supports a consolidated global supply chain that aggressively sources and produces the most cost-effective parts available, making them available as required and thereby minimizing costly inventory. A mandated Reliability and Maintainability (R&M) program has established metrics within automated processes designed to ensure constant systemic evaluation and facilitate continuous improvements that lower support costs and expedite fleet upgrades. At a reported six hours of maintenance per flight hour, the F-35A is at the forefront of fighter operations. Conscious design features such as internal weapons carriage and the use of pneumatic (air pressure) weapons ejection rather than explosive cartridges has significantly reduced maintenance personnel hours required to clean and service fourth generation weapons delivery systems. Another example of manpower savings occurs in routine checks on the fuel tanks and valves, where only one F-35 technician with a Portable Maintenance Aide (a laptop computer the technician connects to the F-35) is now required to conduct the same task that requires six maintainers to perform on the F-16. In manpower savings alone, anecdotal evidence suggests a 60 per cent reduction in personnel to perform routine maintenance functions. Operations At the flight line, significant changes have occurred to USAF military occupations and employment through innovative maintenance developments such as the Blended Operational Lightning Technician (BOLT) and the Lightning Integrated Technicians (LIT) programs. The BOLT program combines six USAF technical trades into two streams. The Air Vehicle stream includes crew chiefs, fuels, and low observable technicians, while the Mission Systems stream focuses on avionics, weapons, and egress trades. This streaming not only economizes manpower but allows deployed operations to be conducted with a smaller personnel footprint. In addition, the LIT program was introduced to increase maintenance efficiencies and effectiveness by integrating these two streams into one co-ordinated team through establishing commonality in training and dedicating each team to a single aircraft. The low observability of the F-35 is more than just a means to penetrate adversary defences; it is a “nose-to-tail” concept that increases performance and survivability from reduced drag and a low platform electromagnetic signature. The embedded antennas in the radar absorbent skin, internal fuel tanks and weapons carriage, and full line-of-sight radar reflection blockage not only help define the F-35 as a fifth-generation fighter, but the addition of an advanced sensor suite with sensor fusion, an electro-optical Distributed Aperture System (DAS) electronic warfare suite and networked enabled operations cement the fifth-generation classification. The Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar is a computer-controlled array antenna in which individual radar beams can be electronically steered to point in different directions without moving the antenna. This feature allows the F-35 to perform multiple functions such as detecting, tracking, and attacking airborne targets while simultaneously countering or attacking ground-based radar systems. When combined with the embedded sensors and advanced CNI (communications, navigation, identification) capabilities, the F-35 becomes an ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) as well as a command and control (C2) platform. These radical innovations elevate the F-35 from a tactical fighter to an operational asset with strategic value. The F-35, with commonality shared amongst its three variants, can perform air-to-air, air-to-surface, electronic attack, ISR gathering, and localized C2 roles during a single mission. Tactically, the increase in situational awareness allows F-35 pilots to fly farther apart and with more individual freedom, changing the manner in which fourth-generation fighters are employed. Operationally, a flight of F-35s flying missions in the Arctic can also provide localized ISR and C2 functions in a region devoid of such assets. Additionally, the F-35 requires fewer operational support platforms such as AWACS, Joint STARS and stand-off electronic warfare aircraft to conduct combat operations. The F-35 could be considered a strategic asset that would allow Canada to offer NATO the flexibility of employing Canada's fighter commitment strategically to support either the traditional northern flank or send its assets to central Europe. In either case, eight NATO nations will already have their own F-35 infrastructure in place to operationally facilitate Canadian integration. Conclusion Given the innovative design, leading-edge avionics suites, automated production line, networked sustainment program, globalized supply chain, and fundamental changes to how air forces conduct business, it is hard to argue that the F-35 is not only a fifth-generation fighter, but that the F-35 system is a transformational 21st century concept. The F-35 is more than a simple multi-role fighter, it is multi-mission platform. There are indeed identified problems as the F-35 program matures that are part of the evolution of any new platform. However, with the weight of the U.S. government and 12 customer nations, the chances are that these challenges will be resolved satisfactorily. With the cost to own an F-35 fighter in the same range as other fighter aircraft on the market today, the real discriminators are in the costs to operate and the value-added to military operations. Alan Stephenson (Col ret'd) holds a PhD from Carleton University and is a former CF-188 pilot with 3,600 hours flying fighters. He is currently an aviation consultant and a Fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. https://www.skiesmag.com/news/f-35-lightning-ii-a-21st-century-concept/

  • Autonomous Firefighting Drone

    12 mars 2019 | International, Aérospatial, Sécurité

    Autonomous Firefighting Drone

    Working with mentors from Sikorsky, three University of Connecticut engineering seniors are translating their classroom education to the field. Electrical engineering majors Kerry Jones and Joshua Steil, and computer engineering major Ryan Heilemann, are collaborating to build and program an autonomous firefighting drone to battle blazes without a pilot's guidance. “In the world today there's a high prevalence of forest fires, like in California, but the problem is of how to safely put out these fires,” says Steil. “So our project, in essence, is to see if we can start putting out fires without a human driver.” Once finished, the drone will carry a thermal imaging camera to identify a fire, object avoidance technology to steer clear of any obstacles, and a softball-sized fire-extinguishing ball that will be dropped over the flames. The system's technology will be tied together through coding language developed by the students, and will operate based on inputted coordinates. While their drone will only be able to put out a campfire-size blaze, the project is meant to prove that this technology is possible, so that much bigger technology can be engineered in the future, says Heilemann. “The idea is that in the future, on a larger scale, there can be a fleet of unmanned helicopters that can go out and put out forest fires, thereby lowering loss of life,” says Steil. While drones are currently used by fire departments across the country, all of them so far have a pilot who navigates the drone from a distance, and most are used for observation, not fire suppression. “The autonomy definitely makes it different,” says Jones, “and the fire-extinguishing ball, for sure.” Teams in previous years have worked on similar projects with Sikorsky, which provided some guidance on what has worked and what has not. The team looked back on previous projects' reports, including last year's team, which was the first to integrate firefighting capabilities into the drone. While the previous team to work on this project used small thermal sensors called thermopile array sensors, Heilemann says these sensors required the previous drone to be only about six feet from the flames, which was too close for real-world applications. His team decided to use an infrared camera, which allows for more distance from the flames. This year's team had the added benefit of working on their project in UConn's brand new 118,000 square-foot Engineering and Science Building, which features three engineering floors filled with faculty and labs focused on robotics, machine autonomy, and virtual and augmented reality. At Sikorsky, the team is working with a recent UConn School of Engineering alum, Jason Thibodeau, deputy manager of Sikorsky's Flight Controls and Autonomous Systems Department. “He's really helpful. We have phone meetings every Monday, and we tell him what's going on, what we're struggling with, and he reasons with us,” says Jones. Adds Heilemann, “He really wants us to figure our way through issues we have, instead of just giving us a direct solution.” Working with Sikorsky also introduced the UConn seniors to new career options. Jones has accepted an offer with Sikorsky after she graduates, in their autonomy lab as part of their Rotary and Mission Systems department. Steil has accepted a job offer with Sikorsky's parent company, Lockheed Martin, in Massachusetts after graduation. “Working with Sikorsky definitely sparked a greater interest looking into the company as a whole,” he says. Heilemann also decided to go into the aerospace industry, and has found a job doing control and diagnostics at another aerospace company. Most importantly, the collaboration was a chance to get some experience with a top company. “In this project, I get to learn so much about Sikorsky and what they do,” says Steil, “and having a company like that so close to home and have them be our sponsor is definitely an added benefit.” https://dronescrunch.com/autonomous-firefighting-drone/

Toutes les nouvelles