You have a UAV at 9 'clock, three miles...

[Casey Wilson[_1_]]

....8,500 feet, westbound."

An East-West corridor exists between the southern boundaries of R-2508
and the northern foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains in Southern
California. At its western choke point near Palmdale, the corridor is about
15 NM wide. Fifty miles to the east, where it bends NE towards Las Vegas,
it opens up to about 30 NM. About half-way between those two points lies a
dry lake by the name of El Mirage - smack in the middle of the corridor. The
ILS approach slope to PMD [Palmdale] is slightly south of the center line of
the corridor on the west end.
El Mirage Flight test Facility is one of the busiest UAV test areas
in the US. It is a short hop from the field there to playing games with the
Air Force at Edwards AFB and just a slightly longer trek to boogie on up to
the Naval Air Warfare Center at China Lake.
I flew east and west through that corridor today on a junket with my
son for a $150 Patty Melt at Leonard's Cafe on KAPV, Apple Valley. During my
standard briefing from San Diego FSS, the briefer said NOTAMs were up for
UAV activity in the vicinity of El Mirage.
Being based at Inyokern [IYK] has subjected me to coping with Special
Use Airspace and the hazards of flying in the vicinity of kerosene burners
for almost my [admittedly short] entire flying history. My first call for
flight-following is typically within five miles of the airport, as soon as I
have established my first course line. The only exception to asking for
flight-following is if I am remaining in the pattern for any reason.
On this particular day, two UAVs were hauling around the area before
lunch and three while I was on the way back afterwards.
The UAV at my 9 o'clock, identified by Joshua Approach was at my
altitude and going in the same general direction. The ATC added that he had
direct contact with a chase plane that was with the UAV and the traffic was
no factor. I didn't feel any anxiety but I mentally armed my diving
right-turn spiral and continued on my way. I would liked to have gotten a
glimpse of the UAV and/or its chase, but the lighting and background masked
it.
UAVs are routinely tested in that small arena. Unless you pass through
on a weekend, holiday, or flex-Friday, your briefing will more than likely
include one or more NOTAMs regarding the tests. Altitudes vary from
ground-skimming to cranking on the turbos.
And with all the testing, and all the VFR traffic, and the countless
ILS practice runs, I can't find any hint of conflicts between UAVs and MAVs
[that's us in the Spam cans]. I feel that our ATC system and the UAV
controllers have their act together. I won't have any problem with UAVs
patrolling our borders as long as ATC is involved and unnecessary TFRs
aren't slung about like confetti.
On the other hand, I don't feel comfortable about them tooling over
populated areas. At least not until the reliability factor goes way up.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 18:09:18 GMT, "Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com>
wrote in <itIFg.143$hP6.26@trnddc04>:

>I can't find any hint of conflicts between UAVs and MAVs
>[that's us in the Spam cans].

Could that be a result of the escort aircraft with the UAVs?
Presumably the pilot of that aircraft is capable of complying with the
see-and-avoid regulation.

>I feel that our ATC system and the UAV controllers have their act together.
>I won't have any problem with UAVs patrolling our borders as long as ATC is
>involved and unnecessary TFRs aren't slung about like confetti.

I doubt the UAVs deployed to boarder patrol duty are escorted nor
equipped to comply with see-and-avoid regulations, so there are TFRs
around them.

> On the other hand, I don't feel comfortable about them tooling over
>populated areas. At least not until the reliability factor goes way up.
>

Of course, that's an issue. But who (what individual) will your
estate sue when a blind unmanned aerial vehicle downs your flight?

[John Doe[_2_]]

"Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com> wrote in message
news:itIFg.143$hP6.26@trnddc04...
> ...8,500 feet, westbound."
>

> On the other hand, I don't feel comfortable about them tooling over
> populated areas. At least not until the reliability factor goes way up.
>
>

Then stay on the ground.

They normally maintain heading and altitude much better than many of the
pilots I know.

[Jose[_1_]]

> [UAVs] normally maintain heading and altitude much better than many of the
> pilots I know.

So do cruise missles. I don't want to share the sky with them either.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Casey Wilson[_1_]]

"John Doe" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:itIFg.143$hP6.26@trnddc04...
>> ...8,500 feet, westbound."
>>
>
>> On the other hand, I don't feel comfortable about them tooling over
>> populated areas. At least not until the reliability factor goes way up.
>>
>>
>
> Then stay on the ground.
>
> They normally maintain heading and altitude much better than many of the
> pilots I know.

It isn't sharing the airspace that I'm concerned about.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 08:42:47 -0400, "John Doe" >
wrote in >:

>They normally maintain heading and altitude much better than many of the
>pilots I know.

And what about the times they or their operators do something
abnormal, and violate regulations? UAVs have no place in the NAS
without the ability to comply with the regulations that govern its
use.

[Casey Wilson[_1_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 08:42:47 -0400, "John Doe" >
> wrote in >:
>
>>They normally maintain heading and altitude much better than many of the
>>pilots I know.
>
> And what about the times they or their operators do something
> abnormal, and violate regulations? UAVs have no place in the NAS
> without the ability to comply with the regulations that govern its
> use.

Would you please cite a reference to these incidents?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 16:38:01 GMT, "Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com>
wrote in <Jd0Gg.9778$u1.1872@trnddc05>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 08:42:47 -0400, "John Doe" >
>> wrote in >:
>>
>>>They normally maintain heading and altitude much better than many of the
>>>pilots I know.
>>
>> And what about the times they or their operators do something
>> abnormal, and violate regulations?
>
>>UAVs have no place in the NAS without the ability to comply with the
>>regulations that govern its use.
>
>Would you please cite a reference to these incidents?
>

Sure. Below are some examples of the many UAV loss of control
mishaps.

Don't forget, the UAV assumes its own navigation upon loss of control
from the ground. The UAV, incapable of complying with the
see-and-avoid regulation, then becomes a hazard to air navigation if
it is not operating in Restricted airspace.

If UAVs, in their current state of refinement, were capable of
operating within federal aviation regulations, they wouldn't need a
chase plane nor Restricted airspace.


http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0807Drones-Side-ON.html
Crash stirs debate on drone safety

Alan Levin
USA Today
Aug. 7, 2006 08:30 AM

The explosion nearly jolted Barbara Trent out of bed. At first she
thought someone had bombed the high-desert scrubland where she lives
in southern Arizona.

When daylight arrived a few hours later April 25, Trent and her
neighbors realized that what they heard wasn't a bomb at all. Instead,
an unmanned drone the government uses to monitor the nearby Mexican
border had slammed into a hillside near several homes.

The Predator B, which weighs as much as 10,500 pounds and has a
wingspan of 66 feet, had been crippled when its operator accidentally
switched off its engine. It glided as close as 100 feet above two
homes before striking the ground, says Tom Duggin, the owner of one of
the houses. advertisement

"I was very, very concerned," says Trent, whose house is about 1,000
feet from the crash site. "If it had hit my house, I'd be dead."

Flight issues

The crash of the Customs and Border Protection plane has been a
catalyst heating up the debate over whether it is safe to operate
unmanned aircraft in the nation's airways.

Thousands of unmanned aerial vehicles regularly ply the skies above
the war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. As pressure grows to put the
UAVs to use in the United States, federal officials and aviation
industry representatives are conducting highly technical discussions
on how unmanned aircraft should be regulated.

The debate also addresses the philosophy of what it means to fly. In a
sense, UAVs are the first example of robot-like devices being allowed
to roam the earth, says Massachusetts Institute of Technology aviation
professor John Hansman.

The questions they raise are profound. Can a machine replace the
skills of a veteran pilot? If there are no people aboard, should the
safety standards developed over the past 100 years for aircraft be
eased? Should a human controlling a drone from a desktop computer be
subject to the same standards as a traditional pilot?

"The increased use of unmanned aircraft by (the military) is certainly
challenging some of the long-held beliefs of organizations that have
worked aviation safety for a long time," says Dyke Weatherington, who
oversees UAV procurement at the Pentagon.

Safety precautions

In hearings before the House Aviation Subcommittee in March, Michael
Kostelnik, a retired general who heads Customs and Border Protection's
Air and Marine office, assured lawmakers that the agency's Predator
had robust backup systems to ensure safety.

"This redundant system works on all levels, from sensors to the flight
computer, and provides a triple-check system to protect the vehicle
and others in the airspace," said Kostelnik's written testimony.
....




http://www.aetc.randolph.af.mil/se2/torch/back/2003/0305/runway.htm
GROUND CREW’S INATTENTION
LEADS TO UNMANNED AIRCRAFT CRASH

LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. (ACCNS) — Investigators determined
that pilot error caused an Air Force RQ-1 Predator aircraft to
crash Oct. 25, nine miles west of Indian Springs Air Force
Auxiliary Field, Nev.

The Predator, an unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, was destroyed
upon impact. The loss is estimated at $3.3 million. No one was
injured. The aircraft was assigned to the 11th Reconnaissance
Squadron at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev.

According to an Air Combat Command accident investigation report
released last month, the primary cause of the accident was the
ground crew’s inattention to the aircraft’s altitude.

While trying to enter the Indian Springs flight pattern, the
aircraft was flown over mountainous terrain, obstructing the
datalink and causing the ground crew to lose electronic contact
with the aircraft.

Following failed attempts to regain the link, the pilot executed
emergency procedures designed to safeguard the aircraft; however,
the aircraft impacted mountainous terrain 16 seconds later.


http://www.af.mil/news/Feb2001/n20010202_0157.shtmlOfficials

02/02/01
Officials release RQ-1L Predator RQ-1L Predator accident report
the accident resulted from operator error.

the pilot -- who flies the aircraft from a ground control station
-- inadvertently cleared the primary control module's random
access memory. As a result, the Predator lost its data link
connection with the ground control station.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2003/02/mil-03021...
releases RQ-1 accident report

In-Depth Coverage

Released: Feb. 19, 2003

LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. (ACCNS) -- Air Force investigators
have determined that human error caused an RQ-1 Predator aircraft
to crash Sept. 17 at a classified forward-operating location in
Southwest Asia.

The Predator, which is an unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, was
destroyed upon impact. The loss is estimated at $3.2 million. No
one was injured in the accident. The aircraft was assigned to the
11th Reconnaissance Squadron at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev.

According to an Air Combat Command accident investigation report
released today, the primary cause of the accident was that the
pilot unintentionally flew the aircraft into a hazardous cloud.

The pilot lost communication with the aircraft several times, but
was able to re-establish communication twice. However, the
aircraft failed to respond to the pilot’s commands, indicating the
flight control computers were disabled by the hazardous weather
conditions


http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/predator.htm
As of 31 October 2001 the Air Force had received a total of 68 air
vehicles, and had lost 19 due to mishaps or losses over enemy
territory, including four over enemy territory in Kosovo. A good
number of them were lost due to operator error, since it is hard
to land the UAV. The operator has the camera pointing out the
front of the plane, but he really has lost a lot of situational
awareness that a normal pilot would have of where the ground is
and where the attitude of his aircraft is.

The CIA has a small number of the armed drones. Newer versions of
the Predator, at $4.5 million each, are being produced at a rate
of about two aircraft a month.


http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2002/Oct-31-Thu-2002/news/1996...
Thursday, October 31, 2002
Las Vegas Review-Journal

May 17 crash of unmanned spy plane blamed on human error

Investigators have blamed the May 17 crash of an unmanned Predator
spy plane in Southwest Asia on human error, saying one of the
plane's tail control mechanisms had been improperly assembled by
the manufacturer, according to an Air Force statement Wednesday.

The remote-controlled RQ-1 Predator was assigned to Nellis Air
Force Base's 15th Reconnaissance Squadron in Indian Springs.

The plane, which had been deployed as part of the 386th
Expeditionary Group, went down "near a classified forward
operating location" in Southwest Asia, said the statement from Air
Combat Command headquarters at Langley Air Force Base, Va.

The loss of the plane made by General Atomics of San Diego is
valued at $3.3 million, the statement said.

Air Force investigators determined that incorrect assembly of the
"right tail plane control servo" was the sole cause of the
accident, the statement said.

A spokesman for Air Combat Command said Air Force officials are
still probing Friday's crash of a Predator during a training
mission near Indian Springs. That plane was assigned to Nellis'
11th Reconnaissance Squadron.


http://www2.acc.af.mil/accnews/aug01/01267.html
Released: Aug. 16, 2001

RQ-1 Predator accident report released

The RQ-1 Predator is a medium-altitude, long-endurance unmanned
aerial vehicle system. The Predator is a system, not just an
aircraft. The fully operational system consists of four air
vehicles (with sensors), a ground control station, a Predator
primary satellite link communication suite and 55 people.
(Courtesy photo)

LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. (ACCNS) -- Officials investigating the
March 30 crash of an RQ-1L Predator unmanned aerial vehicle have
determined the accident resulted from operator error.

According to the Accident Investigation Board report released
today by Air Combat Command, the Predator experienced an icing
problem and the pilot was unable to maintain control of the
aircraft.

The Predator, which belonged to the 11th Reconnaissance Squadron
at Nellis AFB, Nev., was supporting the Kosovo Stabilization
Force. There were no injuries or fatalities. The Predator was
destroyed upon impact.

According to the report, the pilot recognized the icing problem,
but failed to immediately execute critical checklist steps for
pitot static system failure. The pitot static system uses air and
static pressure to determine the aircraft’s altitude and airspeed.
There is also substantial evidence that nonuse of the pitot static
heating system was a substantially contributing factor in this
mishap.


http://www2.acc.af.mil/accnews/dec99/990383.html
Released: December 23, 1999

RQ-1 Predator accident report released

LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, VA. (ACCNS) -- Officials investigating the
April 18 crash of an RQ-1 Predator unmanned aerial vehicle near
Tuzla Air Base, Bosnia, have determined the accident resulted from
a combination of mechanical and human factors.

The Predator, which belonged to the 11th Reconnaissance Squadron
at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., was returning from a
reconnaissance mission over Kosovo in support of Operation Allied
Force. It was destroyed upon impact.

According to the Accident Investigation Board report released Dec.
22 by Air Combat Command, the Predator experienced a fuel problem
during its descent into Tuzla. Upon entering instrument
meteorological conditions and experiencing aircraft icing, the
Predator lost engine power.

The two Predator pilots, who control the aircraft from a ground
station, executed critical action procedures but were unable to
land the aircraft safely. It crashed in a wooded area four miles
south of Tuzla AB.

According to the report, the pilots' attention became too focused
on flying the Predator in icing and weather conditions they had
rarely encountered. The report also cites lack of communication
between the two pilots during the flight emergency as a cause of
the accident.

For more information, please contact the Air Combat Command Public
Affairs office at (757) 764-5994 or e-mail .

http://www2.acc.af.mil/accnews/apr01/01127.html
Released: April 13, 2001

Predator accident report released

LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. (ACCNS) -- An RQ-1K Predator unmanned
aerial vehicle crashed Oct. 23 in Kosovo as a result of mechanical
failure, according to accident investigators.

The Predator is an unmanned reconnaissance aircraft used to survey
battlefields and return video footage and radar data. The accident
happened about 180 miles southeast of Tuzla Air Base, Bosnia,
where the aircraft was based. The Predator was part of an
Operation Joint Forge reconnaissance mission over Kosovo and was
assigned to the 11th Reconnaissance Squadron, Nellis Air Force
Base, Nev.

According to Air Combat Command's Accident Investigation Board
report released Thursday, the accident resulted from mechanical
failure in the UAV's propeller control system. Investigators found
substantial evidence indicating errors during maintenance on the
propeller control system on Sept. 28 played a critical role in the
accident. Evidence showed that certain components of the propeller
assembly were not adequately lubricated; in addition, a key bolt
was stripped and had not been tightened properly. These errors
likely led to the accident, according to the lead investigator.

[Casey Wilson[_1_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 16:38:01 GMT, "Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com>
> wrote in <Jd0Gg.9778$u1.1872@trnddc05>:
>
>>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 08:42:47 -0400, "John Doe" >
>>> wrote in >:
>>>
>>>>They normally maintain heading and altitude much better than many of the
>>>>pilots I know.
>>>
>>> And what about the times they or their operators do something
>>> abnormal, and violate regulations?
>>
>>>UAVs have no place in the NAS without the ability to comply with the
>>>regulations that govern its use.
>>
>>Would you please cite a reference to these incidents?
>>
>
> Sure. Below are some examples of the many UAV loss of control
> mishaps.
>
> Don't forget, the UAV assumes its own navigation upon loss of control
> from the ground. The UAV, incapable of complying with the
> see-and-avoid regulation, then becomes a hazard to air navigation if
> it is not operating in Restricted airspace.
>
> If UAVs, in their current state of refinement, were capable of
> operating within federal aviation regulations, they wouldn't need a
> chase plane nor Restricted airspace.

Thanks, Larry. You probably won't agree, but I'm going to pose that all
your examples support my side.
First, none of the mishaps you cited involved any potential hazard to
other aircraft, even when they wandered out of their operating arenas. With
the exception to those in foreign theaters, my bet is that ATC knew, as
close as transponder accuracy would allow, the exact position of the UAV --
and could have provided ample warning to any other aircraft.
Second, those (albeit, few) incidents that occurred outside SUA support
my statement that I'm not in favor of flying them over populated areas. In
other words, NIMBY until the reliability goes way up.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 18:15:56 GMT, "Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com>
wrote in <wF1Gg.19367$uV.3365@trnddc08>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 16:38:01 GMT, "Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com>
>> wrote in <Jd0Gg.9778$u1.1872@trnddc05>:
>>
>>>
>>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 08:42:47 -0400, "John Doe" >
>>>> wrote in >:
>>>>
>>>>>They normally maintain heading and altitude much better than many of the
>>>>>pilots I know.
>>>>
>>>> And what about the times they or their operators do something
>>>> abnormal, and violate regulations?
>>>
>>>>UAVs have no place in the NAS without the ability to comply with the
>>>>regulations that govern its use.
>>>
>>>Would you please cite a reference to these incidents?
>>>
>>
>> Sure. Below are some examples of the many UAV loss of control
>> mishaps.
>>
>> Don't forget, the UAV assumes its own navigation upon loss of control
>> from the ground. The UAV, incapable of complying with the
>> see-and-avoid regulation, then becomes a hazard to air navigation if
>> it is not operating in Restricted airspace.
>>
>> If UAVs, in their current state of refinement, were capable of
>> operating within federal aviation regulations, they wouldn't need a
>> chase plane nor Restricted airspace.
>
> Thanks, Larry. You probably won't agree, but I'm going to pose that all
>your examples support my side.

Unfortunately, UAVs maintaining heading and altitude much better than
many of the pilots you know has very little to do with aviation
safety.

> First, none of the mishaps you cited involved any potential hazard to
>other aircraft, even when they wandered out of their operating arenas.

If you believe that an aircraft incapable of complying with federal
regulations requiring their operators to see-and-avoid do not
constitute a hazard to aerial navigation within the NAS, you might
consider suggesting to the FAA, military, and airlines that regulation
§ 91.113 (b) be rescinded. :-)

>With the exception to those in foreign theaters, my bet is that ATC knew, as
>close as transponder accuracy would allow, the exact position of the UAV --
>and could have provided ample warning to any other aircraft.

Please describe how ATC would warn NORDO flights of the runaway, blind
UAV.

Please describe how ATC knowing the position of a runaway, blind UAV
would prevent the UAV from impacting a balloon (typically flown
NORDO).

>Second, those (albeit, few) incidents that occurred outside SUA support
>my statement that I'm not in favor of flying them over populated areas. In
>other words, NIMBY until the reliability goes way up.

So, it is the unreliability of UAVs that concerns you, not the fact
that today's UAVs operating outside of Restricted airspace are
incapable of complying with federal regulations?

How would you feel if a fellow pilot were incapable of complying with
federal regulations; would you expect the FAA to grant him an
exemption to his responsibility to see-and-avoid?

[Stubby]

Casey Wilson wrote:
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 08:42:47 -0400, "John Doe" >
>> wrote in >:
>>
>>> They normally maintain heading and altitude much better than many of the
>>> pilots I know.
>> And what about the times they or their operators do something
>> abnormal, and violate regulations? UAVs have no place in the NAS
>> without the ability to comply with the regulations that govern its
>> use.
>
> Would you please cite a reference to these incidents?
>
>
I believe you must show us what exempts UAVs from the FARs.

[[email protected]]

Be very careful here...

Saying UAV's can't be operated safely in the vicinity of VFR general aviation
has two solutions...

1)eliminate VFR general aviation...

2)Eliminate UAV's

In todays political climate given this choice it's not clear who would loose....


I think it would be much more productive to discuss what changes could be done
to operate safely together.

A UAV will never be able to do see and avoid in the same way a pilot can, that is
byond the state of the art for the forseeable future. Stubbornly asking that they do so
is counter productive and will lead back to the origional choice offered above.
(Vision system in the real world with all its variations are technically a very hard problem)


Some possible solutions:

All UAV's must operate in class A airspace with controled coridors to take off and land.


All air vehicles must cary a transponder or position reporting device.
If the government wants to fly UAV's make them pay for the position reporting deivces.
Some really good work has been done in this area for gliders...


What other solutions give us equavalent safety?


Paul

[Stubby]

The third choice is operate UAVs on IFR flight plans, which is what they do.

wrote:
> Be very careful here...
>
> Saying UAV's can't be operated safely in the vicinity of VFR general aviation
> has two solutions...
>
> 1)eliminate VFR general aviation...
>
> 2)Eliminate UAV's
>
> In todays political climate given this choice it's not clear who would loose....
>
>
> I think it would be much more productive to discuss what changes could be done
> to operate safely together.
>
> A UAV will never be able to do see and avoid in the same way a pilot can, that is
> byond the state of the art for the forseeable future. Stubbornly asking that they do so
> is counter productive and will lead back to the origional choice offered above.
> (Vision system in the real world with all its variations are technically a very hard problem)
>
>
> Some possible solutions:
>
> All UAV's must operate in class A airspace with controled coridors to take off and land.
>
>
> All air vehicles must cary a transponder or position reporting device.
> If the government wants to fly UAV's make them pay for the position reporting deivces.
> Some really good work has been done in this area for gliders...
>
>
> What other solutions give us equavalent safety?
>
>
> Paul
>

[Peter R.]

Stubby > wrote:

> The third choice is operate UAVs on IFR flight plans, which is what they do.

That does not guarantee separation from VFR aircraft, however.

--
Peter

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 11:40:24 -0700, wrote in
>:

>Be very careful here...
>
>Saying UAV's can't be operated safely in the vicinity of VFR general aviation
>has two solutions...
>
>1)eliminate VFR general aviation...

(Eliminating VFR general aviation operations does nothing to protect
IFR flights from UAV MAC hazards. In VMC, all pilots are required to
see-and-avoid.)

>2)Eliminate UAV's

Surely there are other better choices than the two you have provided.

>In todays political climate given this choice it's not clear who would loose....

Are you suggesting that I abandon air safety and capitulate to
corporate clout? No thanks.

What is right is right. What is wrong is wrong. It's pretty clear to
me. If the FAA found it prudent to require see-and-avoid in VMC,
anything less compromises air safety.

>I think it would be much more productive to discuss what changes could be done
>to operate safely together.

Either UAVs need to be capable of complying with federal see-and-avoid
regulations, or they need to be operated within restricted airspace
(or followed by a chase plane with a pilot capable of complying with
the see-and-avoid regulation). Or UAVs need to be equipped with a
system that provides the _equivalent_ of see-and-avoid capability.

But even if those measures are followed (as they are currently), that
doesn't overcome the loss of control issues facing UAVs.

>A UAV will never be able to do see and avoid in the same way a pilot can, that is
>byond the state of the art for the forseeable future.

I'm sure you believe that, but before I can swallow it, I'd need to
see some supporting evidence. Further, I don't care if UAVs use
visible light to comply with see-and-avoid; they just need to be
capable of maneuvering out of the path of another aircraft in time to
avoid it by whatever means.

Many UAVs are small and hence more difficult for a pilot to spot than
a conventional aircraft. To my mind, that puts the onus on the UAV
operators/manufacturers to do something about the potential hazard
they pose in joint use airspace.

Because UAVs were developed for military use, there likely hasn't been
significant R&D funding expended on traffic deconfliction systems.
That needs to change before UAVs are routinely flown in the NAS.

>Stubbornly asking that they do so is counter productive and will lead back to the origional choice offered above.

Okay. So you're saying that UAV operators should be allowed to
violate federal regulations, so that UAV manufacturers can reap a
profit at the expense of public safety?

>(Vision system in the real world with all its variations are technically a very hard problem)
>
Then perhaps another solution would be more appropriate. Radar has
been suggested. Lidar might work.
>
>Some possible solutions:
>
>All UAV's must operate in class A airspace with controled coridors to take off and land.
>

While that is a creative suggestion, it might cause the floor of Class
A airspace to be made lower. And it does nothing to overcome UAV loss
of control situations.

>
>All air vehicles must cary a transponder or position reporting device.

This will force Champ and Cub owners out of the air.

> If the government wants to fly UAV's make them pay for the position reporting deivces.

Please describe the type of position reporting devices to which you
are referring. ADS-B?* TCAS? What?

> Some really good work has been done in this area for gliders...

Have you got a link to information about that?

>
>What other solutions give us equavalent safety?
>

The DOD coerced DOT into permitting military operations in excess of
250 knots below 10,000', and look how that turned out.

The NAS is a coherent system, that has been designed so that it works.
When parts of it are arbitrarily changed without regard for the
consequences of those changes, air safety suffers.

Just wait until a UAV inevitably collides with an airliner, or a
runaway UAV crashes into a school yard. Then this issue will get some
serious attention.



* http://adsb.tc.faa.gov/ADS-B.htm
Aircraft (or other vehicles or obstacles) will broadcast a
message on a regular basis, which includes their position (such
as latitude, longitude and altitude), velocity, and possibly
other information. Other aircraft or systems can receive this
information for use in a wide variety of applications. Current
surveillance systems must measure vehicle position, while ADS-B
based systems will simply receive accurate position reports
broadcast by the vehicles.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:53:33 -0400, Stubby
> wrote in
>:

>The third choice is operate UAVs on IFR flight plans, which is what they do.

Please explain how operation under IFR in VMC relieves a flight from
complying with federal see-and-avoid regulations.

[[email protected]]

>This will force Champ and Cub owners out of the air.
I can see the headlines now:

Spoiled antique airplane owners complaining about new safety requirments.

An easy solution is a blanket notam prohibiting flight without a working Mode C
transponder, for any area where UAV's are to operate.



>Have you got a link to information about that?
Start here:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/keepitsoaring/nsw2005/img/OzFLARM1.pdf#search=%22Glider%20GPS%20traffic%20de tection%22


>Just wait until a UAV inevitably collides with an airliner, or a
>runaway UAV crashes into a school yard. Then this issue will get some
>serious attention.

General aviation has done both of the above, UAV's have not. (Yet)
Based on your argument I think we should immediatly ban General aviation!


Just saying over and over that the UAV has to do see and avoid is not going to make it
happen or make it possible. UAV's are just too capable and too attractive as technology to
go away, we need to start having a real discussion about what can be done to
coexist or we are going to loose.

Realize there are really two arguments going on here...

1)UAV's are too unreliable and thus dangorous.
I agree with this statement completly, however they will get better
and the reliability will improve. Be careful when arguing risks, arguing about
risks you don't understand or that are unfamiliar can easily lead us astray.
The world is not a risk free place, if you really are worried about your
personal safety then you outght to start working to ban teenage drivers
and old drivers for they kill far more people on a daily basis than any potential
UAV incident. Otherwise your comments just look reactionary.

2)UAV's must do see and avoid. This is just not going to happen.
They can do the equavalent with mode C transponders and
possibly the GPS survalince described in the link above.

Paul

[soxinbox[_1_]]

How does having a mode C transponder help me see the UAV or the UAV "see"
me? It allows ARTCC to see us both, but not us to see each other.
Did you mean a mode S transponder??

If the government is willing to pay to install a GNS530 with ADS-B in every
aircraft so that we can see the UAV's, than I will gladly do all the seeing
and avoiding, and let the UAV's fly blind. This may however counteract any
economic advantages that the UAV's have.

I also don't see the great economic advantage to using the UAV in the first
place. You are replacing a 300k observation plane with a multi million
dollar UAV, and replacing a highly trained Cessna pilot with a room full of
highly trained UAV operators. It's a plan only a government could love.

> wrote in message
...
>
>>This will force Champ and Cub owners out of the air.
> I can see the headlines now:
>
> Spoiled antique airplane owners complaining about new safety requirments.
>
> An easy solution is a blanket notam prohibiting flight without a working
> Mode C
> transponder, for any area where UAV's are to operate.
>
>
>
>>Have you got a link to information about that?
> Start here:
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/keepitsoaring/nsw2005/img/OzFLARM1.pdf#search=%22Glider%20GPS%20traffic%20de tection%22
>
>
>>Just wait until a UAV inevitably collides with an airliner, or a
>>runaway UAV crashes into a school yard. Then this issue will get some
>>serious attention.
>
> General aviation has done both of the above, UAV's have not. (Yet)
> Based on your argument I think we should immediatly ban General aviation!
>
>
> Just saying over and over that the UAV has to do see and avoid is not
> going to make it
> happen or make it possible. UAV's are just too capable and too attractive
> as technology to
> go away, we need to start having a real discussion about what can be done
> to
> coexist or we are going to loose.
>
> Realize there are really two arguments going on here...
>
> 1)UAV's are too unreliable and thus dangorous.
> I agree with this statement completly, however they will get better
> and the reliability will improve. Be careful when arguing risks, arguing
> about
> risks you don't understand or that are unfamiliar can easily lead us
> astray.
> The world is not a risk free place, if you really are worried about your
> personal safety then you outght to start working to ban teenage drivers
> and old drivers for they kill far more people on a daily basis than any
> potential
> UAV incident. Otherwise your comments just look reactionary.
>
> 2)UAV's must do see and avoid. This is just not going to happen.
> They can do the equavalent with mode C transponders and
> possibly the GPS survalince described in the link above.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[BTIZ]

>
> I also don't see the great economic advantage to using the UAV in the
> first place. You are replacing a 300k observation plane with a multi
> million dollar UAV, and replacing a highly trained Cessna pilot with a
> room full of highly trained UAV operators. It's a plan only a government
> could love.
>

In combat.. you have a semi disposable observation platform that has long
loiter time and that can also provide laser targeting information (and some
have shot missiles at moving ground targets and hit them).. and you have
kept the "jellyware" (a.k.a. human life form) safely on the ground and not
flying over enemy territory. Combat by remote control is a good thing.

BT

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:32:42 -0700, wrote in
>:

>
>>This will force Champ and Cub owners out of the air.
>
>I can see the headlines now:
>Spoiled antique airplane owners complaining about new safety requirments.
>
>An easy solution is a blanket notam prohibiting flight without a working Mode C
>transponder, for any area where UAV's are to operate.
>

I can see that you are frustrated by some aircraft being certified
without electrical systems, but to characterize their owners as
'spoiled' is a bit presumptuous, in my opinion.

Perhaps UAV manufacturers would be willing to fund the installation of
the safety equipment UAV operation would impose on the owners of
aircraft certified without electrical systems. Or do you feel it
would be just and equitable for aircraft owners to foot the bill for
the privilege of enabling blind UAVs to share the NAS with us?

Your 'easy solution NOTAM' is certainly another option, but it fails
to display any concern for other NAS stakeholders, and reveals an
arrogant attempt to place corporate revenue over the rights and safety
of those stakeholders. It's another blatant airspace grab. It
excuses UAV manufactures for failing to design and spend the necessary
capital to produce a product capable of meeting the regulatory
obligations of NAS users.

If UAVs are going to function in harmony with the current NAS users,
it is incumbent on their developers to invest the time and money
necessary to enable their designs to operate within federal
regulations. Anything less is corporate hubris.

>
>>Have you got a link to information about that?
>Start here:
>http://www.users.bigpond.com/keepitsoaring/nsw2005/img/OzFLARM1.pdf#search=%22Glider%20GPS%20traffic%20de tection%22

(I was unable to access the PDF file. It may be due to a problem on
my computer.)

>
>>Just wait until a UAV inevitably collides with an airliner, or a
>>runaway UAV crashes into a school yard. Then this issue will get some
>>serious attention.
>
>General aviation has done both of the above, UAV's have not. (Yet)
>Based on your argument I think we should immediatly ban General aviation!
>

General Aviation has been plying the skies since December 17, 2003.
When was the first UAV certified?

>
>Just saying over and over that the UAV has to do see and avoid is not going to make it
>happen or make it possible.

Prescient, huh? :-)

>UAV's are just too capable and too attractive as technology to go away,

Agreed. And I never suggested that UAVs go away. I'd just prefer
that we all operate in compliance with the same federal regulations. I
hope you don't think that is unreasonable.

>we need to start having a real discussion about what can be done to
>coexist or we are going to loose.

I'm in sympathy with your urging to discuss coexistence. Isn't that
what we are doing here?

But I do not agree, that we should be motivated to engage in that
discussion by fear of 'loosing' or fear based on anything else. (You
meant 'losing,' right?)

>Realize there are really two arguments going on here...
>
>1)UAV's are too unreliable and thus dangorous.
>I agree with this statement completly, however they will get better
>and the reliability will improve.

UAVs were developed to operate in the combat theater, not the NAS.
Before they can be allowed to operate in the NAS, they need to be able
to meet the regulatory requirements that all other users must meet, or
rewrite the regulations (in a sensible way consistent with systems
analysis theory). Anything else is irresponsible and negligent.

UAV unreliability is an issue that I would expect to improve over
time.

However, the cost differential between operating a $13-million UAV and
its ground-based crew of seven compared to a pilot and a suitably
equipped Cessna 182 will never support UAV operations for border
patrol missions. It's an audacious government/corporate boondoggle
supported by the DOD and Executive branch; it's the nose of Big
Brother's domestic spying camel slipping under the tent. :-)

>Be careful when arguing risks, arguing about
>risks you don't understand or that are unfamiliar can easily lead us astray.
>The world is not a risk free place, if you really are worried about your
>personal safety then you outght to start working to ban teenage drivers
>and old drivers for they kill far more people on a daily basis than any potential
>UAV incident. Otherwise your comments just look reactionary.

My comments _are_ reactionary. I am reacting to the penchant DOD has
for breaking the DOT's well engineered National Airspace System. I'm
reacting to the undue influence corporations exert on legislators, and
the unconstitutional actions of the Executive branch. And instead of
backing away from the issue, I prefer to confront it directly.

>2)UAV's must do see and avoid. This is just not going to happen.
>They can do the equavalent with mode C transponders and
>possibly the GPS survalince described in the link above.
>

Until UAVs demonstrate the equivalent of see-and-avoid capability, or
the NAS is redesigned and the necessary and equitable regulatory
modifications made, UAVs need to be separated from other air traffic
operating in the NAS.

[john smith]

In article <CAtGg.302$8J2.180@fed1read11>,
"BTIZ" > wrote:

> >
> > I also don't see the great economic advantage to using the UAV in the
> > first place. You are replacing a 300k observation plane with a multi
> > million dollar UAV, and replacing a highly trained Cessna pilot with a
> > room full of highly trained UAV operators. It's a plan only a government
> > could love.
> >
>
> In combat.. you have a semi disposable observation platform that has long
> loiter time and that can also provide laser targeting information (and some
> have shot missiles at moving ground targets and hit them).. and you have
> kept the "jellyware" (a.k.a. human life form) safely on the ground and not
> flying over enemy territory. Combat by remote control is a good thing.

So, are you saying the United States of America is hostile territory?

[[email protected]]

>However, the cost differential between operating a $13-million UAV and
>its ground-based crew of seven compared to a pilot and a suitably
>equipped Cessna 182 will never support UAV operations for border
>patrol missions. It's an audacious government/corporate boondoggle
>supported by the DOD and Executive branch; it's the nose of Big
>Brother's domestic spying camel slipping under the tent. :-)


This is a false argument.
comare like to like.
A 182 does not have anywhere near the sensor capability of a modern
UAV. Compare the UAV with something similar like a U2.
Even the U2 does not have the capability to transmit the status in
real time.

The 182 can not loiter at 15Kft beyond where people of interest notice
them. the 182 can not stay aloft for 24 hours at a time.

Maybe we need to develop a piloted survalence aircraft with the
capability of a military UAV, but I think that the UAV will be more
cost effective.

Not all UAV's cost 13M either, see the recent demo of the 3.5K UAV by
the LAPD.

I have no commercial interest in UAVs just a desire not to loose
access to the airspace as a private pilot.
I do have some experience with non commercial UAV like technology....
my project:: http://www.rasdoc.com/splinter/solar2004.htm


Paul (Same as pbreed but from home instead of from work)

[Jay Beckman]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article <CAtGg.302$8J2.180@fed1read11>,
> "BTIZ" > wrote:
>
>> >
>> > I also don't see the great economic advantage to using the UAV in the
>> > first place. You are replacing a 300k observation plane with a multi
>> > million dollar UAV, and replacing a highly trained Cessna pilot with a
>> > room full of highly trained UAV operators. It's a plan only a
>> > government
>> > could love.
>> >
>>
>> In combat.. you have a semi disposable observation platform that has long
>> loiter time and that can also provide laser targeting information (and
>> some
>> have shot missiles at moving ground targets and hit them).. and you have
>> kept the "jellyware" (a.k.a. human life form) safely on the ground and
>> not
>> flying over enemy territory. Combat by remote control is a good thing.
>
> So, are you saying the United States of America is hostile territory?

Been to the Mexican border recently?

HUMVEEs with .50 caliber machine guns escorting the coyotes and the drug
runners (oh, but they aren't Mexican military...wink/wink...)

Uh, yeah, I'd call that a hostile situation.

Jay B

[john smith]

In article >,
wrote:

> Not all UAV's cost 13M either, see the recent demo of the 3.5K UAV by
> the LAPD.

You mean the one that didn't work?

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 20:42:19 -0700, wrote in
>:

>
>>However, the cost differential between operating a $13-million UAV and
>>its ground-based crew of seven compared to a pilot and a suitably
>>equipped Cessna 182 will never support UAV operations for border
>>patrol missions. It's an audacious government/corporate boondoggle
>>supported by the DOD and Executive branch; it's the nose of Big
>>Brother's domestic spying camel slipping under the tent. :-)
>
>
>This is a false argument.
>comare like to like.
>A 182 does not have anywhere near the sensor capability of a modern
>UAV.

That is why I qualified my suggestion of a Cessna 182 platform with
the phrase 'suitably equipped.'

>Compare the UAV with something similar like a U2.
>Even the U2 does not have the capability to transmit the status in
>real time.

With a pilot observer, perhaps there would be no necessity for that.
If not, the same technology as installed on the UAV might be employed.

>The 182 can not loiter at 15Kft beyond where people of interest notice
>them.

Why not? A Skylane has a service ceiling of 18,100 ft.* And a Turbo
Skylane maintains full rated powerplant power to 20,000'.

>the 182 can not stay aloft for 24 hours at a time.

Three of them can, and it would save millions and millions compared
with a UAV.

>Maybe we need to develop a piloted survalence aircraft with the
>capability of a military UAV, but I think that the UAV will be more
>cost effective.
>
>Not all UAV's cost 13M either, see the recent demo of the 3.5K UAV by
>the LAPD.

If you're referring to the UAV the LA Sheriff's Department is
attempting to test, it's valued at $30K. There are probably range
issues that would interfere with it fulfilling the border patrol
mission. I object to its blind operation in joint use airspace also.

>I have no commercial interest in UAVs just a desire not to loose
>access to the airspace as a private pilot.
>I do have some experience with non commercial UAV like technology....
>my project:: http://www.rasdoc.com/splinter/solar2004.htm
>

Now, that is impressive. Bravo!

>Paul (Same as pbreed but from home instead of from work)



* http://skylane.cessna.com/spec_perf.chtml