25 years ago, they were called Remotely Piloted Vehicles or RPV’s. It was a step up from Drone which was the term used during the Viet Nam war and before. There were variations of course…
NASA called them Remotely Operated Aircraft (ROA) for a while. The good thing is that there was not much confusion. DoD named the technology, and we all jumped on the bandwagon. Even later when RPV was changed to Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) to indicate a higher level of autonomy, the terminology was never confused. The acronym was defined and everyone knew what it meant. There were come variations during the 1990’s too. I like the attempt at political correctness with the Uninhabited Combat Air Vehicle. It didn’t catch on. Later it became the Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV), the first term to define armed UAS.
A few years ago, the terminology changed again to UAS. Somehow the change from UAV to UAS was confusing to people, especially the media. Only one letter changed in the acronym, but two words changed. As defined by DoD in JCS Pub 1-02, and the FAA, UAS stands for Unmanned Aircraft System. The word Aerial was changed to Aircraft to indicate a shift in the thinking of what these systems are and should be. For the FAA it meant that the regulations by which we fly these systems apply as they do with any aircraft. For many years there was a sort of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” mentality in the FAA about the RPV’s and UAV’s that were being flown around the country. Companies that are well known today were taking their unmanned aircraft to the nearest open space and testing their systems. The FAA had not declared that the “Vehicles” were aircraft and that the rules of Title 14 CFR apply. That all changed in 2005. DoD wanted to stress the System aspect of the UAS as well. It’s not just the airframe, but the ground station and datalink too.
The reasons for the change from UAV to UAS were laid out, but a great deal of confusion remained. Was it Unmanned AERIAL System or Unmanned AIRCRAFT System?
I recall a discussion with some people who had just started a new company and I indicated they had used the terminology incorrectly. That did not go over very well, I can tell you.
Are we going to change to Remotely Piloted Aircraft in the future as the US Air Force is doing? I hope so. We still require a pilot at the controls, especially if the aircraft is armed. It would remove the confusion around UAS too.
In the mean time, the official terminology is Unmanned Aircraft System. But don’t rely on the media or me for the right answer. Look it up! Even Wikipedia has it correct now. Go to Joint Publication 1-02 and see for yourself.
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/dod_dictionary/
[Editor’s Comment: It should be noted that UAS (Unmanned Aircraft System) is now the official term adopted by ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization), EUROCONTROL, EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency), JARUS (Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems), the majority of the national civil aviation authorities (including FAA), as well as the world’s two principal international standards organizations, RTCA and EUROCAE. The acronym UAS in invariant (in plural it does NOT take an additional “s”). ]
Mark Ballinger has been an unmanned aircraft pilot for 25 years and still refuses to be called the operator.
Mark Ballinger, Chief UAS Pilot, Raytheon Missile Systems
Sir,
Yes what’s in a name, but why would Remotely Piloted Vehicle be a step up from Drone? Indeed their technology has gone up the ladder, but so have aircraft over an even longer period of time and nobody has deemed necessary to change that name in favour of an acronym. When the word “drone” was first used, it was adopted by almost every nation in the rest of the Western world, including the French and the Germans. The abominable acronyms that followed just added to an incredible list used by the Administration, while the rest of the world still uses the good an noble word “drone”. We’ll pass on the misunderstandings caused by the absurd proliferation of acronyms (people don’t even remember their meaning), but many, including at least two American generals, have pointed to the fact that the word “unmanned” is totally wrong, with one of the generals adding that this “one of the main reason why they crash”. It is quite a relief to see that magazines like Armada, DTI and now even IDR revert to the less absurd word “drone”.
I believe the terms we use for our products reflect our desires to make them more attractive, to more accurately specify their character (especially whatever we consider an improvement) and finally, to communicate quickly and clearly. This name morphing mainly serves to create a cloud of terms and concepts within which the actual objects are almost completely obscured, and that last goal if concision is lost. The current evolution of truly autonomous, yet swarm-capable devices reminds us that the ultimate development (at least in our current conception) of this way of getting things done will still be much like the Old English drān (traceable back to the Greek tenthrēnē for wasp)
which refers to a male bee whose sole function is to fertilize the queen, except our drones have stingers. I like the term ‘uninhabited’ to indicate that no human is actually on-board the craft. Still, we all know the joke that Aeronautical engineers make weapons, while civil engineers make targets, and now that our minions can function like an attack dog or a hunting falcon, perhaps some refinement in terminology is warranted. Lets ask Agent Smith from the Matrix.
I would not debate that the morphing of the terminology has confused the issue. The term Drone is fine if that is what the regulatory agencies call them. But they don’t. As this technology matures standards organizations are getting together to define the elements. This never happened before. Most are now using Unmanned Aircraft System. So why is it so hard for people to use that term correctly? Are they afraid to admit that if the device flies it is an aircraft? Makes you wonder…
Super Mr. Anderson:-);
For me, all of them can be better understood as AI Agents:-). That is the only way software and hardware entities can be put together without human intervention. So yet to generalize let´s call them Robotic Agents, I believe it is a good term. An air-drone, a ground vehicle, a water vehicle, a underwater vehicle, is an Agent (this word involves even the Pilot as one Operator would like to be named:-). That is, to this end, all robots are Agents, with AI of course, in order to find the reason of things, as myself…
[]s, Smith.