Experimental Certificate Granted UAV If MAC "Extremely Improbable"!

[Larry Dighera]

How do you feel about sharing the skies with this little, wingless
UAV?

HONEYWELL UNMANNED MICRO AIR VEHICLE OK'D FOR AIRSPACE OPERATIONS
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1056-full.html#197198)
Honeywell's unmanned Micro Air Vehicle

(https://www.honeywell.com/sites/portal?smap=honeywell&page=pressrel_detail&theme=T8&id=AD25D6E79-D64F-5D71-4611-787E60021B5F&catID=cat1b754a4-fb536f3d74-3e3e4447ab3472a0c2a5e5fdc1e6517d&c=n)
weighs 14 pounds, can fly as high as 10,500 feet, and zips along
at up to 50 knots. This week, the FAA gave the vehicle an
experimental airworthiness certificate, allowing it to fly in the
National Airspace System. The ducted-fan aircraft can take off or
land vertically and transition to sustained horizontal flight.
Applicants have to demonstrate to the FAA that a collision with
another aircraft or other airspace user is "extremely improbable,"
the agency said last year, when it issued policy guidelines

(http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20071800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/E7-2402.htm)
for operations of unmanned aircraft in the NAS. Honeywell's MAV
was recently chosen by the Miami/Dade County Police Department in
Florida for an experiment with the FAA to explore the use of small
aerial vehicles for law enforcement.



10,500 feet is not within the normal realm of model airplanes. As can
be seen in this video:
http://www.honeywell.com/sites/portal?smap=aerospace&page=mav_video&theme=T8
this 14 pound Micro Air Vehicle would not be welcome coming through an
aircraft windscreen or falling on the heads of the public in urban
areas for that matter. But fear not; the FAA has your safety clearly
protected in this memorandum (not even a regulation nor order): :-)



http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20071800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/E7-2402.htm
In response to this growing demand for public use unmanned
aircraft operations, the FAA developed guidance in a Memorandum
titled ``Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations in the U.S. National
Airspace System--Interim Operational Approval Guidance'' (UAS
Policy 05-01). In this document, the FAA set out guidance for
public use of unmanned aircraft by defining a process for
evaluating applications for Certificate(s) of Waiver or
Authorization (COA's) for unmanned aircraft to operate in the
National Airspace System. The concern was not only that unmanned
aircraft operations might interfere with commercial and
general aviation aircraft operations, but that they could also
pose a safety problem for other airborne vehicles, and persons or
property on the ground. The FAA guidance supports unmanned
aircraft flight activity that can be conducted at an acceptable
level of safety. In order to ensure this level of safety, the
operator is required to establish the Unmanned Aircraft System's
(UAS) airworthiness either from FAA certification, a DOD
airworthiness statement, or by other approved means. Applicants
also have to demonstrate that a collision with another aircraft or
other airspace user is extremely improbable as well as complying
with appropriate cloud and terrain clearances as required. Key to
the concept are the roles of pilot-in-command (PIC) and
observer. The PIC concept is essential to the safe operation of
manned aircraft. The FAA's UAS guidance applies this PIC concept
to unmanned aircraft and includes minimum qualifications and
currency requirements. The PIC is simply the person in control of,
and responsible for, the UAS. The role of the observer is to
observe the activity of the unmanned aircraft and surrounding
airspace, either through line-of-sight on the ground or in the air
by means of a chase aircraft. In general, this means the pilot or
observer must be, in most cases, within 1 mile laterally and 3,000
feet vertically of the unmanned aircraft. Direct communication
between the PIC and the observer must be maintained at all times.
Unmanned aircraft flight above 18,000 feet must be conducted under
Instrument Flight Rules, on an IFR flight plan, must obtain ATC
clearance, be equipped with at least a Mode C transponder
(preferably Mode S), operating navigation lights and / or
collision avoidance lights and maintain communication between the
PIC and Air Traffic Control (ATC). Unmanned aircraft flights below
18,000 feet have similar requirements, except that if operators
choose to operate on other than an IFR flight plan, they may be
required to pre-coordinate with ATC.

The FAA has issued more than 50 COA's over the past 2 years and
anticipates issuing a record number of COA's this year.

For more information, Memorandum on UAS Policy (05-01) and other
policy guidance is available at the FAA Web site:
http://www.faa.gov/uas



But I have some questions:

1. How does one prove that a collision with other aircraft is
"extremely improbable?"

2. To what standards is the PIC held; must s/he hold an airmans
certificate?

3. In the event of a MAC, how does the pilot of the downed
aircraft establish who is responsible for the MAC?


Perhaps there are some answers here:


http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/air/hq/engineering/uapo/
“… UAs are part of the future of aviation, and that future is on
our doorstep right now. The system is in place today to
accommodate the entry of new aircraft into the National Airspace
System; this is nothing new for the FAA. It is our day-to-day
business.”… “The FAA, working closely with the aviation industry,
will develop safety standards and operating procedures to ensure
their safe integration into the NAS.”
– Nick Sabatini,
Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety

Contact UAPO for more information about the UAS program, UAS
certifications and authorizations, or the COA application process.
http://www.faa.gov/contact_faa/?returnPage=M%2FWY%3FO%2BN%2D%249%20JJ%28P%2DEY9SE %29G%3DCIA%27FU0%22%5E%202%23GHZ%2EH8%2EY%3F7%28%3 F%5EF%23DCKJ%5DU%211%3B%0AGB%5B6%2A%5EE88%23%247K% 26%3FR%5E%27%21Z8%5C%29%3A1F%25NEAM%268T%26FN%22U% 27%28EIB%5D%3CZORA%29F2%0A&mailto=9%2A3%29%5CA%28%5F4%3FZD%3FXZ0GH%2E0MT%2CZR %40%29Q%27T4%288%5BP%20%20%0A&subject=715YN%5CYZ%2B49%40%5EKXA%2ENZ%3DZB8R%3FAXE %2FD%24L%20%0A


Or perhaps this FAA FAQ addresses the questions:

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/uas/uas_faq/
Do I need an experimental certificate for my UAS?

Yes, if you plan to fly your unmanned aircraft UA as civil
aircraft (§1.1). The FAA's current policy is to issue only special
airworthiness certificates to UAS's in the experimental category
for the purposes of research and development, crew training, or
conducting market surveys (§21.193).

No, if you are a hobbyist and intend to fly your model aircraft in
accordance with the guidance in Advisory Circular 91-57, Model
Aircraft Operating Standards.

No, if you intend to operate your UA as a public aircraft for the
purposes of governmental functions. In this case, the FAA's Air
Traffic System Operations and Safety Office (ATO-R) may issue a
Certificate of Authorization or Waiver (COA).

What does a special airworthiness certificate in the experimental
category allow me to do?

The operating limitations issued with this type of certificate
allow a UA to be operated only within the line of sight of an
observer, during daylight hours and when other aircraft are not in
the vicinity.

What should I do to receive a special airworthiness certificate in
the experimental category?

You should first contact Richard Posey in the FAA Production and
Airworthiness Division, AIR-200. He can answer your questions,
such as if your UA qualifies for a special airworthiness
certificate, what you would need to do to receive a special
airworthiness certificate, and when the FAA evaluation process
would begin. He can also send you additional information that is
unique to the unmanned aircraft airworthiness process.

Contact Richard Posey
Email
Phone: (202) 267-9538
Address:
Federal Aviation Administration
Production and Airworthiness Division, AIR-200 Room 815
800 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, DC 20591
Attn: Richard Posey
Has the FAA issued an airworthiness certificate to a UAS?

Yes. The FAA issued the first airworthiness certificate for UAS on
August 25, 2005.


Oh well, not much of substance there.

Perhaps there are some answers here:


http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/air/hq/engineering/uapo/map/
Unmanned Aircraft Program Office (UAPO)
Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap
The Unmanned Aircraft Program Office is developing a 5-year
roadmap for the introduction of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
into the National Airspace System. This collaborative effort will
specifically focus on defining related activities within the FAA,
Government Agencies, and industry. The UAS Roadmap will evaluate
the current state of UAS mission needs, forecast their near-term
demands on airspace capacity, and chart a strategic plan to safely
integrate their operations into the nation's airspace.

Public release of the UAS Roadmap is delayed pending FAA AVS
management team final review and approval.

Not only is there nothing here, but I don't see any provision for
stakeholder input. Oh well.....

Here's a photograph of the FAA UAS Certification Team who issued 17
UAV experimental certificates in 2007.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/air/hq/engineering/uapo/news/

And here are photos of some of the UAVs you'll be sharing the NAS
with:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/air/hq/engineering/uapo/news/jul-dec07/
Among them is the Honeywell's MAV:

On December 6, 2007, Mr. Jim Fote the San Antonio MIDO issued an
experimental certificate to Honeywell for their gMAV UAS. The gMAV
aircraft is a VTOL, ducted fan, that weighs approximately 18 lbs.
Honeywell is authorized to operate their UAS for the purposes of R
& D, crew training and market survey.

Honeywell will operate the gMAV on the property of the Laguna
Pueblo, New Mexico.

So the FAA seems to have restricted the Honeywell gMAV to a single
location.

Unfortunately, I don't see any TFRs in New Mexico here:
http://tfr.faa.gov/tfr2/list.html

That might mean that the Honeywell MAV is restricted to low level.

It would appear that there may be some restrictions placed on this UAV
for operations within the NAS and over the heads of people on the
ground:


http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/aaim/organizations/uas/coa/
Certificate of Authorization or Waiver (COA)
COA is an authorization issued by the Air Traffic Organization to
a public operator for a specific unmanned aircraft (UA) activity.
After a complete application is submitted, the FAA conducts a
comprehensive operational and technical review. If necessary,
provisions or limitations may be imposed as part of the approval
to ensure the UA can operate safely with other users.

That is good, but it doesn't answer my questions either.


https://www.honeywell.com/sites/portal?smap=honeywell&page=pressrel_detail&theme=T8&id=AD25D6E79-D64F-5D71-4611-787E60021B5F&catID=cat1b754a4-fb536f3d74-3e3e4447ab3472a0c2a5e5fdc1e6517d&c=n
The FAA certificate allows Honeywell’s gMAV Unmanned Aerial System
(UAS) to fly in the National Airspace System. The experimental
certificate was granted after a successful demonstration flight
for FAA officials at a remote site near Laguna, New Mexico.
Honeywell’s certificate is one of only four such certificates
granted for unmanned vehicles by the FAA.

No doubt there are some answers here, but I couldn't find them:

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/uas/reg/

The word 'unmanned' doesn't even appear in the DEFINITIONS AND
ABBREVIATIONS:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=a3a21673a5020d6763cfb10d068366d8&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.1.1&idno=14#14:1.0.1.1.1.0.1.1

So while it appears, that the Honeywell gMAV was recently chosen by
the Miami/Dade County Police Department to spearhead its experiment
with the FAA to explore use of small unmanned aerial systems for law
enforcement purposes
<http://www.atca.org/singlenews.asp?item_ID=5165&comm=0>, it is not
clear where those experiments will be conducted.

There are some clues here:

http://www.blogsofwar.com/2007/11/28/miami-dade-police-testing-uav/
Miami-Dade Police Testing UAV
This is all part of the same FAA test that got so much attention
here in Houston.

Miami-Dade police said only licensed pilots with the aviation unit
will operate the devices because the airspace in the county is so
busy.

Only the Miami-Dade police department and the Houston police
department were given permission by the FAA to experiment with the
drones.

“The capability of the unit is phenomenal,” said Miami-Dade
Detective Juan Villalba.

The unmanned aircraft will be used during SWAT team and tactical
operations, especially when officers need video of a heavily armed
suspect.

The Miami-Dade police department has not yet taken possession on
its drone, but the Houston police department has and is already
conducting tests.

So it would appear that despite the FAA's assertion that Honeywell
will operate the gMAV on the property of the Laguna Pueblo, New
Mexico, it will also be operated in Miami, and another UAV is
currently operating in Huston. These contradictions raise concerns
about the regulation of these UAVs in the NAS....

News stroy video here:

http://www.local10.com/news/14708354/detail.html#
High-Tech Drones Joining Miami Police Force
Unmanned Aircraft System Will Help SWAT Units

POSTED: 5:48 pm EST November 27, 2007


Leave it to the Texans to missrepresent the facts:


http://www.anomalytv.com/site/2007/11/23/houston-police-to-get-ticketing-drones-in-2008/
Video: Local 2 Investigates Captures Secret HPD Test On Tape

Houston Police to Get Ticketing Drones in 2008

Houston police contacted KPRC from the test site, claiming the
entire airspace was restricted by the Federal Aviation
Administration. Police even threatened action from the FAA if the
Local 2 helicopter remained in the area. However, KPRC reported it
had already checked with the FAA on numerous occasions and found
no flight restrictions around the site, a point conceded by
Montalvo.

Montalvo told reporters the unmanned aircraft would be used for
"mobility" or traffic issues, evacuations during storms, homeland
security, search and rescue, and also "tactical." She admitted
that could include covert police actions and she said she was not
ruling out someday using the drones for writing traffic tickets.

HPD leaders said they would address privacy and unlawful search
questions later.

South Texas College of Law professor Rocky Rhodes, who teaches the
constitution and privacy issues, said, "One issue is going to be
law enforcement using this and when, by using these drones, are
they conducting a search in which they'd need probable cause or a
warrant. If the drones are being used to get into private spaces
and be able to view where the government cannot otherwise go, and
to collect information that would not otherwise be able to
collect, that's concerning to me."

HPD Assistant Chief Vickie King said of the unmanned aircraft,
"It's interesting that privacy doesn't occur or searches aren't an
issue when you have a helicopter pilot over you and it would not
be used in airspace other than what our helicopters are used in
already."

She admitted that police helicopters are not equipped with cameras
nearly as powerful as the unmanned aircraft, but she downplayed
any privacy concerns, saying news helicopters have powerful
cameras as well.

The price tag for an unmanned aircraft ranges from $30,000 to $1
million each and HPD is hoping to begin law enforcement from the
air by June of 2008 with these new aircraft.


http://www.irnnews.com/news.asp?action=detail&article=20599&category=
Vaughn Fulton, Honeywell's small UAS programme manager:

The police department will operate the UAVs, and helicopter
pilots from its aviation unit have been trained to fly the gMAV.
"The demonstration will be in urban terrain, involving real
tactical operations," he says.

The 8.2kg (18lb) gMAV is Honeywell's second version of the
man-portable UAV. Compared with the original tMAV developed for
the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the gMAV has a
larger outside diameter housing twice the fuel and providing an
endurance exceeding 55min at sea level.

And in addition to the hazards that may be posed to NAS operations,
there is the issue of privacy:

http://alea.org/public/newsletters/07_11/index.aspx
Recent Rulings for Law Enforcement Use of UAVs
The National Institute of Justice, National Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Centers: Border Research Technology Center,
has recently released the following technical bulletin on law
enforcements use of UAS:

“Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), also known as UAVs, is a rapidly
emerging technology that has exceptional appeal to law
enforcement. UAS are considered aircraft. These aircraft can often
be flown autonomously and at great distances from the command
station. In addition, these aircraft can be very small and still
carry enough equipment to provide video downlink capabilities.

The operation of a UAS by a public agency, whether it is federal,
state or local law enforcement, is enforced by FAA regulations and
federal statutes. With the increase in use of UAS by the military
in overseas operations, there has been a significant increase in
the number of vendors both producing and marketing these same
units to law enforcement. Prior to purchasing or leasing a UAS,
please consider the following:

For a public aircraft operation, the FAA holds the position that a
Certificate of Authorization (COA) is required to operate UAS in
the national airspace. The FAA has stated publicly that COAs would
not be issued for use of a UAS over populated areas. Any law
enforcement agency operating a UAS will be required to establish
their own airworthiness for the UAS. The airworthiness
establishment is the responsibility of the agency and not the
vendor. Remember, any agency applying for and receiving a COA
assumes liability for the entire operation. While vendor
information may be used in deeming an aircraft airworthy, it
should not be the only information relied upon.

A vendor approaching a law enforcement agency offering to
demonstrate a UAS must have an experimental airworthiness
certificate issued by the FAA prior to the flight. A vendor cannot
rely upon an agency’s COA to fly the aircraft. COAs are only
issued for aircraft that qualify as “public” aircraft.

It is not anticipated that the FAA will amend their position on
the operations of UAS before the year 2010. However, there are two
key activities taking place that will push the airspace access
issue forward. The first is that the FAA has agreed to conduct two
test projects with major metropolitan police departments. One is
Miami/Dade (FL) and the other is the City of Houston (TX). Each of
these will provide valuable insight into the difficulties that may
exist in operating UAS in urban environments. The other activity
is the creation of new regulation for small UAS to fly in the
airspace. This recent development is just starting and will be the
genesis for getting small UAS flying in a majority of the U.S.
without a COA. Rulemaking can take time, however, so stick with
the COA process for the next year or two.”

The ALEA is committed to working with the FAA, NIJ, and others on
rules and regulations regarding the use of UAS by law enforcement,
and plans to participate in a NIJ forum on this subject during the
winter of 2007-2008.

Source: National Institute of Justice



http://www.politicalprecipice.com/
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Smokers Who Drop Butts to be Targeted by CCTV

British CCTV cameras are to be used to help catch smokers who
litter the streets with cigarette butts.

The littering problem has grown since the introduction of the
smoking ban with areas outside some pubs particularly hard hit.

Now Bradford Council has warned that it will use footage from its
CCTV system to identify and prosecute the culprits in the
worst-hit areas.



And there is always the question of missues by LEOs:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMaMYL_shxc&eurl=http://www.politicalprecipice.com/
UHP (Utah Highway Patrol) tasers man in front of pregnant wife and
baby over an alleged speeding ticket. Outraged? Call the Vernal,
Utah UHP Office and let them know!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkfkQcb45Lo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMpEr-MOSyk&feature=related

[gatt[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> How do you feel about sharing the skies with this little, wingless
> UAV?

The first time an aircraft collides with one, it's going to start sorting
itself out. If no such accident ever happens it's not really a problem.

-c

[WingFlaps]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> How do you feel about sharing the skies with this little, wingless
> UAV?
>

Unless it is given it's own airspace by ATC I'd say it's a very bad
idea. It should keep the hell out of uncontrolled airspace. With
almost no vision capability (i.e. TV is very limited compared to the
Mk1 eyeball) the UAV pilot won't see a converging 'craft easily. If
this is not carefully considered it will kill a VFR flight sooner or
later.

my 2c

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 22, 8:26*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> How do you feel about sharing the skies with this little, wingless
> UAV?
>

Unless it is given it's own airspace by ATC I'd say it's a very bad
idea. It should keep the hell out of uncontrolled airspace. With
almost no vision capability (i.e. TV is very limited compared to the
Mk1 eyeball) the UAV pilot won't see a converging 'craft easily. If
this is not carefully considered it will kill a VFR flight sooner or
later.

my 2c

Cheers

[Jim Logajan]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> How do you feel about sharing the skies with this little, wingless
> UAV?

Appears to weigh about what a mature bald eagle would weigh (~14 lbs), and
has about the same altitude range (both about 10,000 ft).

Since there are a lot more eagles than UAVs, I'd be more worried about an
eagle strike than a UAV strike.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:51:05 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> How do you feel about sharing the skies with this little, wingless
>> UAV?
>
>Appears to weigh about what a mature bald eagle would weigh (~14 lbs), and
>has about the same altitude range (both about 10,000 ft).
>
>Since there are a lot more eagles than UAVs, I'd be more worried about an
>eagle strike than a UAV strike.

But an eagle's wingspan is between 72 to 90 inches
<http://www.baldeagleinfo.com/eagle/eagle-facts.html>, and they have
the ability to avoid aircraft. You'd have to have eyes better than
Yeager to see that little Honeywell UAV at two miles up, so you
couldn't count on the ground observer to see-and-avoid visually.

[Jim Logajan]

"Neil Gould" > wrote:
> Recently, Jim Logajan > posted:
>
>> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>> How do you feel about sharing the skies with this little, wingless
>>> UAV?
>>
>> Appears to weigh about what a mature bald eagle would weigh (~14
>> lbs), and has about the same altitude range (both about 10,000 ft).
>>
>> Since there are a lot more eagles than UAVs, I'd be more worried
>> about an eagle strike than a UAV strike.
>>
> Eagles have excellent MkII eyeballs, and can at least participate in
> see-and-avoid.


http://www.birdstrike.org/

[Jim Logajan]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:51:05 -0000, Jim Logajan >
> wrote in >:
>
>>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>> How do you feel about sharing the skies with this little, wingless
>>> UAV?
>>
>>Appears to weigh about what a mature bald eagle would weigh (~14 lbs),
>>and has about the same altitude range (both about 10,000 ft).
>>
>>Since there are a lot more eagles than UAVs, I'd be more worried about
>>an eagle strike than a UAV strike.
>
> But an eagle's wingspan is between 72 to 90 inches
> <http://www.baldeagleinfo.com/eagle/eagle-facts.html>, and they have
> the ability to avoid aircraft. You'd have to have eyes better than
> Yeager to see that little Honeywell UAV at two miles up, so you
> couldn't count on the ground observer to see-and-avoid visually.

Hmmm. Better back up for me: I'm not clear now what the thrust of your
original post was. Was the intent to make a specific assertion (e.g. that
UAVs are sufficiently dangerous they should be carefully regulated) or just
throwing the subject open for discussion?

My own assertion is this: in any list of priorities that drive air safety,
regulation of UAVs is overkill and even takes time, money, and resources
away from dealing with higher probability risks.

[Jim Logajan]

"Neil Gould" > wrote:
> Eagles have excellent MkII eyeballs, and can at least participate in
> see-and-avoid.

Eagles have no concept of human "see-and-avoid" rules and would have no
reason to expect collision or confrontation with anything other than
another bird moving at their own speed. Here's a report that deals
directly with aircraft strikes with bald-eagles:

http://www.birdstrikecanada.com/Papers2007/Wright,%20Sandra%20-%20Bald%20Eagle%20Report.pdf

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jim Logajan > posted:

> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> How do you feel about sharing the skies with this little, wingless
>> UAV?
>
> Appears to weigh about what a mature bald eagle would weigh (~14
> lbs), and has about the same altitude range (both about 10,000 ft).
>
> Since there are a lot more eagles than UAVs, I'd be more worried
> about an eagle strike than a UAV strike.
>
Eagles have excellent MkII eyeballs, and can at least participate in
see-and-avoid.

Neil

[John T]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message

>
> Hmmm. Better back up for me: I'm not clear now what the thrust of your
> original post was. Was the intent to make a specific assertion (e.g.
> that UAVs are sufficiently dangerous they should be carefully
> regulated) or just throwing the subject open for discussion?
>
> My own assertion is this: in any list of priorities that drive air
> safety, regulation of UAVs is overkill and even takes time, money,
> and resources away from dealing with higher probability risks.

Go back and look at Larry's posts. I've never seen one from him in favor of
anything remotely military. He consistently posts articles (with no original
commentary to speak of) he considers to support his position that 1) MTRs
are inherently dangerous and 2) military UAV use is inherently dangerous.
He's never adequately supported his position other than to simply re-post
articles highlighting MACs or near-MACs related to these items. Pointing out
the obvious delta between such incidents related to MTRs/UAVs compared with
similar incidents near GA or even commercial airports/airways is irrelevant
to his point.

For a recent example of Larry's obvious anti-military bias, I point to his
recent suggestion that Boeing had been charged in an espionage case. Of
course, the accompanying article he postsed merely mentioned a former Boeing
consultant being charged, but that didn't prevent him from making his
assertion. The closest thing to a retraction was buried deep in a single
sub-thread.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Denny]

OK, I am as pro military and pro national defense as any hawk out
there...

B U T, UAV's, remote control birds, missile launches, and especially
NINJA flights where two pair of MK1 eyeballs still killed an innocent
pilot, have no business in my airspace...

denny

[John T]

"Denny" > wrote in message

>
> B U T, UAV's, remote control birds, missile launches, and especially
> NINJA flights where two pair of MK1 eyeballs still killed an innocent
> pilot, have no business in my airspace...

And how do those stats compare with non-military related MACs?

I'm not suggesting we just go adding stuff to the NAS just to see what
happens, but I haven't seen anything yet that demonstrates these devices and
policies increase the risk to the flying public (e.g., "me").

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Jim Logajan]

Denny > wrote:
> B U T, UAV's, remote control birds, missile launches, and especially
> NINJA flights where two pair of MK1 eyeballs still killed an innocent
> pilot, have no business in my airspace...

The "my airspace" is an assertion worthy of debate - and I'd say you are
over-reaching if you think use of airspace by manned aircraft supersedes
any other use. I'd say your declaration of "my airspace" as a reason to
prohibit UAVs is horribly wrong because of the following conditions:

(1) Airspace is a public commons. (So it is _not_ a fundamental axiom that
it is the domain only of pilots of manned aircraft.)

(2) Airspace is multipurpose. (It can have towers and buildings built up
into it. It can have tethered kites and tethered balloons in it, and the
like. So there are many others who desire use and access.)

(3) Airspace contains natural hazards that must be accommodated (e.g.
mountains, violent weather, wildlife, and so on.)

The owner of a manned aircraft should not per se be able to assert
"superior" rights over the owner an unmanned aircraft because access by
both should be founded on the underlying rights implicit in the concept of
a public commons.

To the extent that regulations might be applied, they should not prohibit
the rights of some to a public commons at the expense of others to that
same public commons. Instead, regulations for minimizing the hazards caused
by the sharing of a public commons like the national airspace should be
such that the burdens required for that "safe" sharing is itself equitably
shared. Prohibition of UAVs is absolutely not an equitable regulation.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:40:13 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:51:05 -0000, Jim Logajan >
>> wrote in >:
>>
>>>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>>> How do you feel about sharing the skies with this little, wingless
>>>> UAV?
>>>
>>>Appears to weigh about what a mature bald eagle would weigh (~14 lbs),
>>>and has about the same altitude range (both about 10,000 ft).
>>>
>>>Since there are a lot more eagles than UAVs, I'd be more worried about
>>>an eagle strike than a UAV strike.
>>
>> But an eagle's wingspan is between 72 to 90 inches
>> <http://www.baldeagleinfo.com/eagle/eagle-facts.html>, and they have
>> the ability to avoid aircraft. You'd have to have eyes better than
>> Yeager to see that little Honeywell UAV at two miles up, so you
>> couldn't count on the ground observer to see-and-avoid visually.
>
>Hmmm. Better back up for me: I'm not clear now what the thrust of your
>original post was.

Above, I'm refuting your assertion that the Honneywell UAV is as easy
to see-and-avoid as a Bald Eagle due to their difference in size.

My original post was a compilation of research wrapped in some
inquisitive points about the integration of the emerging UAV
technology into the NAS, and the FAA's role in drafting reasonable and
well engineered regulations to assure that all play together nicely.

>Was the intent to make a specific assertion (e.g. that
>UAVs are sufficiently dangerous they should be carefully regulated) or just
>throwing the subject open for discussion?

There is little question in anybody's mind that UAVs fall under the
FAA's regulatory authority. What distinguishes UAVs from manned
aircraft is their inability to comply with a fundamental cornerstone
of flight operations: see-and-avoid. I fully expect that shortcoming
to be overcome through technical means before long, but in the
meantime blind UAVs should not be flown outside of SUA, IMO.

With the UAV industry anxious to market their technology, largely
developed through Pentagon funding, to the civilian public, and
airspace becoming more congested and restricted daily, a prudent,
systems approach toward UAV integration seems necessary. From a
cursory examination of the current state of domestic UAV operations,
it seems to be progressing reasonably well.

>My own assertion is this: in any list of priorities that drive air safety,
>regulation of UAVs is overkill and even takes time, money, and resources
>away from dealing with higher probability risks.

I'm not sure I completely understand your point. You're not saying
that the FAA shouldn't regulated UAVs flown in the NAS are you?

[Denny]

OK guys... Just remember that 'my' VFR airspace requires -by precedent
and case law established regulations. Established by the attorney(s)
for the FAA/DOT no less- that all users within it are required to be
able to actively "see and avoid"...
A guy peering at computer screens from far and away does not meet
necessarily meet the definition - esp. in 3 miles and haze...
The Ninja boys were in 'my' airspace in violation of several regs -
including flying much faster than they could see and avoid...
An autonomous UAV <with todays technology> cannot see and avoid, and
depends upon MY seeing and avoiding it.. The UAV operator is in
clearly violation of the regulatory requirement of see and avoid...

Now we can debate whether The FAA Administrator can revise the rules
at her whim and choice at the behest of other branches of
government... Certainly she can <at the moment> because "I" do not
have the regulatory authority to override her... But a Federal Judge
does... The hopeful glimmer in this mess is that the courts have shown
increasing willingness in the past decade to override the unilateral
decisions of various regulatory branches of the government who have
historically felt that they are above the law - Coast Guard, DOJ, HSA,
CIA, , Pentagon, AG of the USA, and the President of the United States
just recently...
I have to believe that a determined series of due process appeals to
the FAA, followed by a federal suit when the FAA inevitably says they
can do anything they want, is more likely to have the courts side with
the GA users, in the end, who are physically threatened by the
presence of vehicles in the airspace that cannot uphold their end of
the requirement to 'see and avoid', than it is to uphold willy nilly
insertion of non conforming vehicles into, precedent and case law
established, see and avoid VFR airspace...

denny

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 07:30:52 -0500, "John T"
> wrote in
>:

>"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message

>>
>> Hmmm. Better back up for me: I'm not clear now what the thrust of your
>> original post was. Was the intent to make a specific assertion (e.g.
>> that UAVs are sufficiently dangerous they should be carefully
>> regulated) or just throwing the subject open for discussion?
>>
>> My own assertion is this: in any list of priorities that drive air
>> safety, regulation of UAVs is overkill and even takes time, money,
>> and resources away from dealing with higher probability risks.
>
>Go back and look at Larry's posts. I've never seen one from him in favor of
>anything remotely military.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Don't get me wrong; those brave, young enlisted US citizens on the
front lines have my deepest respect and pity. But the military is all
about destruction, not construction. I don't support destruction, or
those who believe they're above the law.

>He consistently posts articles (with no original commentary to speak of)
>he considers to support his position that 1) MTRs are inherently dangerous

Unfortunately, I've never seen you cite any independent source that
refutes those opinions.

I often prefer to post objective INFORMATION, in instead of subjective
opinion. I'm hoping readers can draw their own conclusions without
being led. Apparently you are unable to perceive the hazard caused by
military flights operating at nearly twice the velocity permitted
civil aircraft within the NAS. If you have forgotten the funicular in
Europe or the many MACs in which high-speed military aircraft hit
civil aircraft while on MTR, and the military blamed the civil pilot,
you need to do some reading.

You should try citing independent sources to bolster your OPINIONS if
you expect your arguments to be viewed as credible.

>and 2) military UAV use is inherently dangerous.

It's not the military UAVs that concern me. They fly in restricted
airspace.

It's the stampede toward the commercialization of military UAVs that
lack the facility to comply with FAA regulations that the rest of us
NAS users must follow. It's not okay to permit those UAVs to operate
outside of restricted airspace until they are able to comply with the
fundamental mandate of aerial navigation, see-and-avoid, just so that
some aerospace contractor who received Pentagon funding to develop
their produces on with our tax money can cash in on the
commercialization of non-compliant UAV technology, IMNSHO.

If you think that's okay, perhaps you can provide a reasonable
explanation of your position.

>He's never adequately supported his position other than to simply re-post
>articles highlighting MACs or near-MACs related to these items. Pointing out
>the obvious delta between such incidents related to MTRs/UAVs compared with
>similar incidents near GA or even commercial airports/airways is irrelevant
>to his point.

It's a different subject.

So you're saying, that there's no need to address the potential hazard
posed by integrating UAVs into the NAS or reassess the hazard posed by
MTRs, because more hazardous situations exist? That's not a very
compelling argument, John. You can do better than that, can't you?

>For a recent example of Larry's obvious anti-military bias, I point to his
>recent suggestion that Boeing had been charged in an espionage case. Of
>course, the accompanying article he postsed merely mentioned a former Boeing
>consultant being charged, but that didn't prevent him from making his
>assertion. The closest thing to a retraction was buried deep in a single
>sub-thread.

You'll have to explain to me how that constitutes "anti-military
bias." It looks more like bias against a rogue corporation that has
employed criminal tactics to secure Pentagon contracts and swindle you
and me out of tax revenue to me. Apparently your pro-military bias
has clouded your ability to comprehend what I wrote.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:18:21 -0800 (PST), Denny >
wrote in
>:

>OK guys... Just remember that 'my' VFR airspace requires -by precedent
>and case law established regulations. Established by the attorney(s)
>for the FAA/DOT no less- that all users within it are required to be
>able to actively "see and avoid"...
>A guy peering at computer screens from far and away does not meet
>necessarily meet the definition - esp. in 3 miles and haze...

That's why there has always been a requirement for a chase-plane in
UAV operations within the NAS in the past. While it doesn't address
the lack of control possible with a malfunctioning UAV, and it's
potential hazard to those on the ground, it's a reasonable and prudent
mandate at this stage of UAV development.

>The Ninja boys were in 'my' airspace in violation of several regs -
>including flying much faster than they could see and avoid...

The Ninja flight leader, Parker failed to comply with so many
regulations, it's criminal in my opinion, but the military saw to it
that he was punished for the death of a fellow Cessna 172 pilot;
General Rosa gave him a verbal reprimand. :-(

>An autonomous UAV <with todays technology> cannot see and avoid, and
>depends upon MY seeing and avoiding it.. The UAV operator is in
>clearly violation of the regulatory requirement of see and avoid...

That's why they need to be restricted exclusively to operating within
Restricted airspace until they can comply. But they shouldn't be
given indiscriminate chunks of airspace in which to pursue their
commercial profits. They should have to purchase those TFRs, IMO.
Otherwise, we're going to be dodging a lot more TFRs before long.

>Now we can debate whether The FAA Administrator can revise the rules
>at her whim and choice at the behest of other branches of
>government... Certainly she can <at the moment> because "I" do not
>have the regulatory authority to override her...

Actually, at the moment there is no FAA administrator, only an acting
administrator, unless Bobby Sturgell has been confirmed:
http://www.kxmc.com/News/Politics/207027.asp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVvfhZKIqKY


>But a Federal Judge does... The hopeful glimmer in this mess is that
>the courts have shown increasing willingness in the past decade to
>override the unilateral decisions of various regulatory branches of
>the government who have historically felt that they are above the law
> - Coast Guard, DOJ, HSA, CIA, , Pentagon, AG of the USA, and the
>President of the United States just recently...

Are you referring to this:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/04/navy.sonar.ap/
The Navy must follow environmental laws placing strict limits on
sonar training that opponents argue harms whales, despite
President Bush's decision to exempt it, a federal judge ruled
Monday.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6868/full/415106a.html
The US Navy has admitted that its use of a high-intensity sonar
system caused a rash of whale strandings and deaths in March 2000.

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Oct/09/ln/ln07a.html
High-powered sonar from Navy ships appears to be giving whales and
other marine mammals a version of the bends, causing them to
develop dangerous gas bubbles in some vital organs and blood
vessels, to beach themselves and die, according to a study
published today in the journal Nature. ...

The low-frequency sonar that the Navy now wants to use around the
globe operates at the sound level used by the largest, and some of
the most endangered, whales.

The whales stranded in the Canary Islands are beaked whales, the
same kind as those killed in a similar stranding in the Bahamas in
2000. Beaked whales are relatively small whales that dive deeper
than most to feed on squid.

The Navy initially said that its sonar had no connection with the
2000 stranding, but a later inquiry ruled out all other
possibilities and concluded the sonar most likely caused the
animals to die.

Several of the Bahamas whales also were studied by scientists, who
found large internal hemorrhages around the animal's ears. ...


>I have to believe that a determined series of due process appeals to
>the FAA, followed by a federal suit when the FAA inevitably says they
>can do anything they want, is more likely to have the courts side with
>the GA users, in the end, who are physically threatened by the
>presence of vehicles in the airspace that cannot uphold their end of
>the requirement to 'see and avoid', than it is to uphold willy nilly
>insertion of non conforming vehicles into, precedent and case law
>established, see and avoid VFR airspace...
>
>denny


We can hope, but when there's money involved ....

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> But the military is all about destruction

Nope. The military mission isn't all about destruction.


> I don't support destruction, or
> those who believe they're above the law.

Neither do I.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 14:59:57 -0500, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:


>> But the military is all about destruction
>
>Nope. The military mission isn't all about destruction.

I've not seen a bomb or gun used other than do cause destruction, have
you?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 14:59:57 -0500, Bob Noel
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>
>>> But the military is all about destruction
>>
>>Nope. The military mission isn't all about destruction.
>
> I've not seen a bomb or gun used other than do cause destruction, have
> you?
>

I have


Bertie

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> those brave, young enlisted US citizens on the
> front lines have my deepest respect and **pity**.

'Nuff said on that.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:17:32 -0500, "John T"
> wrote in
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>>
>> those brave, young enlisted US citizens on the
>> front lines have my deepest respect and **pity**.
>
>'Nuff said on that.


So not only do you lack the verbal skills to articulate a defense for
your personal attack, but you arrogantly modify my work without notice
nor apology. You can do better than, can't you John?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:17:32 -0500, "John T"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>>>
>>> those brave, young enlisted US citizens on the
>>> front lines have my deepest respect and **pity**.
>>
>>'Nuff said on that.
>
>
> So not only do you lack the verbal skills to articulate a defense for
> your personal attack, but you arrogantly modify my work without notice
> nor apology. You can do better than, can't you John?
>
>

Why don't you komplain to his employer, netttkop?


Bertie

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> You can do better than, can't you John?

Only with those worthy of the effort.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Phil J]

On Feb 21, 1:26*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> How do you feel about sharing the skies with this little, wingless
> UAV?
>
> * * HONEYWELL UNMANNED MICRO AIR VEHICLE OK'D FOR AIRSPACE OPERATIONS
> *(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1056-full.html#197198)

AFAIK, military UAVs are designed primarily for military
surveillance. Hopefully there won't be much call for that within U.S.
airspace. That leaves training, which can be done in RAs or MOAs with
appropriate cautions issued. I would expect the military to be pretty
careful about this. The last thing they want is the kind of publicity
they would get from a UAV causing the crash of a civilian aircraft
with civilian deaths.

Phil

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 17:42:52 -0500, "John T"
> wrote in
>:

>
>Only with those worthy of the effort.

So you're just another hit and run artist, huh? And I fell for it. I
had thought you were better than that. Oh well....

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 17:42:52 -0500, "John T"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>
>>Only with those worthy of the effort.
>
> So you're just another hit and run artist, huh? And I fell for it. I
> had thought you were better than that. Oh well....
>

Buddha would probably try and troll you. nobody likes netkkkops.


Bertie

[John T]

"Phil J" > wrote in message

>
> AFAIK, military UAVs are designed primarily for military
> surveillance. Hopefully there won't be much call for that within U.S.
> airspace. That leaves training, which can be done in RAs or MOAs with
> appropriate cautions issued. I would expect the military to be pretty
> careful about this. The last thing they want is the kind of publicity
> they would get from a UAV causing the crash of a civilian aircraft
> with civilian deaths.

While I agree with your publicity comment, it appears this UAV will be a
civilian operation. The article implies the UAV in question will be used by
the Miami/Dade County police department in an experiment with the FAA.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Feb 23, 11:09*pm, "John T" > wrote:
> "Phil J" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
> > AFAIK, military UAVs are designed primarily for military
> > surveillance. *Hopefully there won't be much call for that within U.S.
> > airspace. *That leaves training, which can be done in RAs or MOAs with
> > appropriate cautions issued. *I would expect the military to be pretty
> > careful about this. *The last thing they want is the kind of publicity
> > they would get from a UAV causing the crash of a civilian aircraft
> > with civilian deaths.
>
> While I agree with your publicity comment, it appears this UAV will be a
> civilian operation. The article implies the UAV in question will be used by
> the Miami/Dade County police department in an experiment with the FAA.
>
> --
> John Thttp://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyerhttp://sage1solutions.com/products
> NEW! *FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
> ____________________

Didn't LA county Sheriff's Department try to do this same thing a
while back?

Wil

[John Godwin]

William Hung > wrote in

:

> Didn't LA county Sheriff's Department try to do this same thing a
> while back?

I do recall that the Monterey Park PD (east of L.A.) tried ultralights.

--

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >> But the military is all about destruction
> >
> >Nope. The military mission isn't all about destruction.
>
> I've not seen a bomb or gun used other than do cause destruction, have
> you?

<sigh>, the military is not ALL about bombs and guns. Think defense. Do you
remember one of SAC's missions?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Phil J]

On Feb 23, 10:09*pm, "John T" > wrote:
> "Phil J" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
> > AFAIK, military UAVs are designed primarily for military
> > surveillance. *Hopefully there won't be much call for that within U.S.
> > airspace. *That leaves training, which can be done in RAs or MOAs with
> > appropriate cautions issued. *I would expect the military to be pretty
> > careful about this. *The last thing they want is the kind of publicity
> > they would get from a UAV causing the crash of a civilian aircraft
> > with civilian deaths.
>
> While I agree with your publicity comment, it appears this UAV will be a
> civilian operation. The article implies the UAV in question will be used by
> the Miami/Dade County police department in an experiment with the FAA.
>
> --
> John Thttp://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyerhttp://sage1solutions.com/products
> NEW! *FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
> ____________________

Oops. I missed that sentence. Well I suppose one option would be to
put some really bright strobes on it, and keep it under 500 feet AGL.

Phil

[John T]

"Phil J" > wrote in message

>
> Well I suppose one option would be to
> put some really bright strobes on it, and keep it under 500 feet AGL.

I also suspect the majority of the UAVs used by police departments would be
at low altitudes in areas unlikely to be travelled by most GA aircraft.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:32:32 -0500, "John T"
> wrote in
>:

>"Phil J" > wrote in message

>>
>> Well I suppose one option would be to
>> put some really bright strobes on it, and keep it under 500 feet AGL.
>
>I also suspect the majority of the UAVs used by police departments would be
>at low altitudes in areas unlikely to be travelled by most GA aircraft.

We can hope that the final version of the Honeywell MAV will be
equipped with some conspicuity enhancement if it is flown in the realm
of full size aircraft. But it seems the police want to fly them over
the heads of urban dwellers. What is the safeguard against this UAV
hitting someone in the event of an engine or guidance or control
failure or fuel exhaustion? I am unable to imagine a safeguard
against that sort of scenario.

[Phil J]

On Feb 24, 1:32*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:32:32 -0500, "John T"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
> >"Phil J" > wrote in message
>
>
> >> Well I suppose one option would be to
> >> put some really bright strobes on it, and keep it under 500 feet AGL.
>
> >I also suspect the majority of the UAVs used by police departments would be
> >at low altitudes in areas unlikely to be travelled by most GA aircraft.
>
> We can hope that the final version of the Honeywell MAV will be
> equipped with some conspicuity enhancement if it is flown in the realm
> of full size aircraft. *But it seems the police want to fly them over
> the heads of urban dwellers. *What is the safeguard against this UAV
> hitting someone in the event of an engine or guidance or control
> failure or fuel exhaustion? *I am unable to imagine a safeguard
> against that sort of scenario.

There is that risk, but there is the same risk with GA and commercial
aircraft flying overhead. Compared to human-carrying aircraft, the
number of UAVs is going to be pretty small. Adding UAVs just makes a
tiny change in a very small risk.

Phil

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> But it seems the police want to fly them over
> the heads of urban dwellers. What is the safeguard against this UAV
> hitting someone in the event of an engine or guidance or control
> failure or fuel exhaustion? I am unable to imagine a safeguard
> against that sort of scenario.

Larry, you're not asking reasonable questions. To demonstrate, let's change
just a couple words and see how you would respond:

"What is the safeguard against a GA plane hitting someone in the event of an
engine or guidance or control failure or fuel exhaustion?"

I'll point to the recent crash in Sanford, FL and two crashes in Leesburg,
VA in the last several years as quick and ready evidence not flattering to
GA. The NTSB database has many more.

We're not talking about automated systems here. Humans are at the controls
of the UAVs and the planes. I'll grant it's harder for the UAV pilot to
avoid ground structures due to limited field of vision, but the size and
speed of the UAVs also make the risk they present much lower than that of
our GA planes.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:32:00 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

>>"Phil J" > wrote in message

>>>
>>> Well I suppose one option would be to
>>> put some really bright strobes on it, and keep it under 500 feet AGL.
>>
>>I also suspect the majority of the UAVs used by police departments would be
>>at low altitudes in areas unlikely to be travelled by most GA aircraft.
>
> We can hope that the final version of the Honeywell MAV will be
> equipped with some conspicuity enhancement if it is flown in the realm
> of full size aircraft. But it seems the police want to fly them over
> the heads of urban dwellers. What is the safeguard against this UAV
> hitting someone in the event of an engine or guidance or control
> failure or fuel exhaustion? I am unable to imagine a safeguard
> against that sort of scenario.

You can fly smallish RC (model) aircraft and get all the surveillance you
want. Why this one?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Feb 24, 2:56 pm, Phil J > wrote:
> On Feb 24, 1:32 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:32:32 -0500, "John T"
> > > wrote in
> > >:
>
> > >"Phil J" > wrote in message
> >
>
> > >> Well I suppose one option would be to
> > >> put some really bright strobes on it, and keep it under 500 feet AGL.
>
> > >I also suspect the majority of the UAVs used by police departments would be
> > >at low altitudes in areas unlikely to be travelled by most GA aircraft.
>
> > We can hope that the final version of the Honeywell MAV will be
> > equipped with some conspicuity enhancement if it is flown in the realm
> > of full size aircraft. But it seems the police want to fly them over
> > the heads of urban dwellers. What is the safeguard against this UAV
> > hitting someone in the event of an engine or guidance or control
> > failure or fuel exhaustion? I am unable to imagine a safeguard
> > against that sort of scenario.
>
> There is that risk, but there is the same risk with GA and commercial
> aircraft flying overhead. Compared to human-carrying aircraft, the
> number of UAVs is going to be pretty small. Adding UAVs just makes a
> tiny change in a very small risk.
>
> Phil

When a human pilot is on board, there is a strong incentive for not
crashing. Unless the pilot is suicidal, we can expect the pilot to do
everything humanly possible to avoid crashing. That same incentive
does not exist in UAVs. The worst thing that can happen to a UAV crash
pilot is that he may lose his job, not his life. No matter how
conscientious the UAV pilot may be, there is a huge difference between
paying for your mistakes with your life vs facing disciplinary action.

I am fully in support of unmanned airplanes, but it is far too early.
We need something more reliable than see-and-avoid that is equally
effective for human pilots and UAV pilots. Perhaps when ADS-B or
something similar becomes proven and stable, it may be safer. But it
is far too early to be mixing UAVs with human pilots right now.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:56:20 -0800 (PST), Phil J
> wrote in
>:

>On Feb 24, 1:32*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:32:32 -0500, "John T"
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>> >"Phil J" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>> >> Well I suppose one option would be to
>> >> put some really bright strobes on it, and keep it under 500 feet AGL.
>>
>> >I also suspect the majority of the UAVs used by police departments would be
>> >at low altitudes in areas unlikely to be travelled by most GA aircraft.
>>
>> We can hope that the final version of the Honeywell MAV will be
>> equipped with some conspicuity enhancement if it is flown in the realm
>> of full size aircraft. *But it seems the police want to fly them over
>> the heads of urban dwellers. *What is the safeguard against this UAV
>> hitting someone in the event of an engine or guidance or control
>> failure or fuel exhaustion? *I am unable to imagine a safeguard
>> against that sort of scenario.
>
>There is that risk, but there is the same risk with GA and commercial
>aircraft flying overhead.

Not exactly. Human piloted aircraft must remain 1,000' feet above
congested areas, and within gliding distance of a landing site. This
UAV doesn't glide, and the police department intends to fly it at low
level. So to say that this UAV poses the same hazard as manned
aircraft isn't very accurate, IMO. Are you a pilot?

>Compared to human-carrying aircraft, the number of UAVs is going to
>be pretty small.

I fully expect to see the NAS crowded with UAVs once they get it all
worked out. What gives you the idea that there won't be many of them?

>Adding UAVs just makes a tiny change in a very small risk.
>
>Phil

Huh? Can you explain that statement a little for me? I'm not sure
what "tiny change" and "very small risk" to which you are referring.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:02:40 -0500, "John T"
> wrote in
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>>
>> But it seems the police want to fly them over
>> the heads of urban dwellers. What is the safeguard against this UAV
>> hitting someone in the event of an engine or guidance or control
>> failure or fuel exhaustion? I am unable to imagine a safeguard
>> against that sort of scenario.
>
>Larry, you're not asking reasonable questions.

I don't agree. You are aware that the Honeywell MAV is solely
dependent on the continuous operation of its ducted fan for support,
right?

>To demonstrate, let's change just a couple words and see how you would respond:
>
>"What is the safeguard against a GA plane hitting someone in the event of an
>engine or guidance or control failure or fuel exhaustion?"

FAA regulations mandate that human piloted aircraft must remain 1,000'
feet above congested areas, and within gliding distance of a landing
site. This UAV doesn't glide, and the police department intends to
fly it at low level. We're talking about two different classes
(apples/oranges) of vehicles; comparing them doesn't seem valid to me.

>I'll point to the recent crash in Sanford, FL and two crashes in Leesburg,
>VA in the last several years as quick and ready evidence not flattering to
>GA. The NTSB database has many more.

I'm not familiar with those. If you're going to cite them as
supporting your assertion, perhaps you'll be kind enough to relate
their specifics, or provide links. Thank you.

But personally, I don't believe it's valid to compare UAVs with the
majority of current aircraft operating in the NAS, because it doesn't
seem UAV operations are being held to the same standards, nor do they
have the same capabilities or potential consequences to their
operators. Further, the FAA doesn't even permit model aircraft to
operate like the police departments intend to use UAVs:


http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1ACFC3F689769A56862569E70077C9CC?OpenDocument&Highlight=91
3 0 OPERATING STANDARDS.
a. Select an operating site that is of sufficient distance from
populated areas. The selected site should be away from noise
sensitive areas such as parks, schools, hospitals, churches, etc.

>We're not talking about automated systems here. Humans are at the controls
>of the UAVs and the planes.

Will those humans operating UAVs hold airmen certificates? Will those
humans be exposed to losing their lives if their piloting causes a MAC
or crash? It's a lot different that manned aircraft.

John, I know you're a bright guy if you're making a living as an
independent consultant, but for some reason it seems like you aren't
truly appreciating the issue. Did you read any of the information in
my original article in this thread? Or is it me? Is there something
I'm overlooking?

>I'll grant it's harder for the UAV pilot to avoid ground structures due to
>limited field of vision,

It is my understanding, that currently the FAA requires a ground
observer or a chase plane, in addition to the person controlling the
UAV, so the UAV pilot doesn't have to have complete situational
awareness; but the team does, of course.

>but the size and speed of the UAVs also make the risk they present much
>lower than that of our GA planes.

That depends on the particular UAV under discussion. The Honeywell
MAV does not glide, so it can't comply with:


http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=706cd1ed29be0c67ff1f98f61fbf8d60&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14
CFE Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may
operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an
emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on
the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town,
or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an
altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a
horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above
the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas.
In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500
feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.


So my question is, why should a UAV, that lacks a human occupant who
is exposed to harm in the event of a mishap (unlike UAV operators who
are not aboard the UAV obviously), and lacks the capabilities to
comply with current FARs, be permitted to violate current FARs?

It doesn't make any sense to me, but I'll bet it has everything to do
with potential corporate profit. If true, that not a good reason to
increase the risk to the public, IMNSHO.

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> ...and within gliding distance of a landing site.

Which regulation are you quoting here?

I can think of many metro areas (not to mention wilderness) where 1000' will
not put you anywhere near a suitable landing site but, of course, *any* site
receiving an aircraft becomes a landing site.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Jim Logajan]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> What distinguishes UAVs from manned
> aircraft is their inability to comply with a fundamental cornerstone
> of flight operations: see-and-avoid.

"See-and-avoid" is not a fundamental cornerstone of flight ops; at least
not by my definition of "fundamental". A specific counterexample appears to
be unmanned free balloons, which cannot meaningfully engage in "see-and-
avoid" yet are not limited to SUA. (At least I don't believe so.)

If you think existing aspects of Part 101 should be applied and otherwise
modified to SUA operations in the NAS I'd agree with you.

>>My own assertion is this: in any list of priorities that drive air
>>safety, regulation of UAVs is overkill and even takes time, money, and
>>resources away from dealing with higher probability risks.
>
> I'm not sure I completely understand your point. You're not saying
> that the FAA shouldn't regulated UAVs flown in the NAS are you?

No.

[Jim Logajan]

Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> When a human pilot is on board, there is a strong incentive for not
> crashing. Unless the pilot is suicidal, we can expect the pilot to do
> everything humanly possible to avoid crashing. That same incentive
> does not exist in UAVs. The worst thing that can happen to a UAV crash
> pilot is that he may lose his job, not his life. No matter how
> conscientious the UAV pilot may be, there is a huge difference between
> paying for your mistakes with your life vs facing disciplinary action.

There are a class of unmanned operations covered by Part 101, "MOORED
BALLOONS, KITES, UNMANNED ROCKETS AND UNMANNED FREE BALLOONS" wherein it
has always been the case that the instinct for self-preservation was never
a motivation for safe operation of those craft. Yet none of them are
outright banned so I don't see why Part 101 can't be modified to include
UAVs.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:03:51 -0500, "John T"
> wrote in
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>>
>> ...and within gliding distance of a landing site.
>
>Which regulation are you quoting here?


http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=706cd1ed29be0c67ff1f98f61fbf8d60&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14
CFE Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may
operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an
emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on
the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town,
or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an
altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a
horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above
the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas.
In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500
feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.


>
>I can think of many metro areas (not to mention wilderness) where 1000' will
>not put you anywhere near a suitable landing site but, of course, *any* site
>receiving an aircraft becomes a landing site.

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>>
>>>
>>> ...and within gliding distance of a landing site.
>>
>> Which regulation are you quoting here?
>
> http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=706cd1ed29be0c67ff1f98f61fbf8d60&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14
> CFE Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
> PART 91-GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
> § 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Your entire quote was: "Human piloted aircraft must remain 1,000' feet above
congested areas, and within gliding distance of a landing site."

Your justification for that was a description of minimum altitudes, not a
restriction to be withing gliding distance of a landing site.

Is there another reg stipulating such a restriction?

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> FAA regulations mandate that human piloted aircraft must remain 1,000'
> feet above congested areas, and within gliding distance of a landing
> site. This UAV doesn't glide, and the police department intends to
> fly it at low level. We're talking about two different classes
> (apples/oranges) of vehicles; comparing them doesn't seem valid to me.

Larry, you're either more obtuse than I give you credit for or you're just
trying to fan the flames of some arbitrary argument in an effort to pump a
modicum of on-topic discussion into this forum.

I'll trust for the moment it's the latter, but I still have to ask: Do
helicopters not qualify for GA status? Do they glide? Do their flight
characteristics differ substantially from this UAV?

See the other sub-thread regarding your claim of a requirement to be within
gliding distance of a landing site. I have yet to see the evidence of
anything but a restriction on altitudes.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 22:05:16 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> What distinguishes UAVs from manned
>> aircraft is their inability to comply with a fundamental cornerstone
>> of flight operations: see-and-avoid.
>
>"See-and-avoid" is not a fundamental cornerstone of flight ops; at least
>not by my definition of "fundamental".

"See-and-avoid" is fundamental for VMC operations of aircraft.
Consider the NORDO Cub. There's nothing separating him from other
flights except his situational awareness and perhaps the
Big-sky-theory (fortune).

>A specific counterexample appears to
>be unmanned free balloons, which cannot meaningfully engage in "see-and-
>avoid" yet are not limited to SUA. (At least I don't believe so.)

Thanks for the input. It shows you can think outside the box, but I'm
not sure paragraphs 'd' and 'e' supports your point however:


http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=857b7c57c93da90a7cb88171e340af15&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.15&idno=14#14:2.0.1.3.15.4
Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 101—MOORED BALLOONS, KITES, UNMANNED ROCKETS AND UNMANNED
FREE BALLOONS
Subpart D—Unmanned Free Balloons

§ 101.33 Operating limitations.
No person may operate an unmanned free balloon—

(a) Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, below 2,000 feet above the
surface within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of
Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an
airport;

(b) At any altitude where there are clouds or obscuring phenomena
of more than five-tenths coverage;

(c) At any altitude below 60,000 feet standard pressure altitude
where the horizontal visibility is less than five miles;

(d) During the first 1,000 feet of ascent, over a congested area
of a city, town, or settlement or an open-air assembly of persons
not associated with the operation; or

(e) In such a manner that impact of the balloon, or part thereof
including its payload, with the surface creates a hazard to
persons or property not associated with the operation.


Recall, the Dade County and Houston police departments intend to
operate the Honeywell MAV over their metropolitan areas to support
SWAT teams and issue traffic citations, so that would probably
necessitate their operation below 1,000'. And if the MAV engine quits
over a populated area, it wouldn't be able to comply with paragraph
'e' either.

>If you think existing aspects of Part 101 should be applied and otherwise
>modified to SUA operations in the NAS I'd agree with you.
>

I hadn't even considered Part 101. How would you propose to modify
Part 101?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:11:05 -0500, "John T"
> wrote in
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>>
>>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...and within gliding distance of a landing site.
>>>
>>> Which regulation are you quoting here?
>>
>> http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=706cd1ed29be0c67ff1f98f61fbf8d60&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14
>> CFE Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
>> PART 91-GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
>> § 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
>
>Your entire quote was: "Human piloted aircraft must remain 1,000' feet above
>congested areas, and within gliding distance of a landing site."
>
>Your justification for that was a description of minimum altitudes, not a
>restriction to be withing gliding distance of a landing site.
>

Well, when I fly low over Los Angeles, I take gliding distance into
consideration, but you've managed to find a nit. If that is the only
one you found, is it safe to assume you agreed with the remainder of
my follow up article?

>Is there another reg stipulating such a restriction?

I'm not sure.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:22:11 -0500, "John T"
> wrote in
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>>
>> FAA regulations mandate that human piloted aircraft must remain 1,000'
>> feet above congested areas, and within gliding distance of a landing
>> site. This UAV doesn't glide, and the police department intends to
>> fly it at low level. We're talking about two different classes
>> (apples/oranges) of vehicles; comparing them doesn't seem valid to me.
>
>Larry, you're either more obtuse than I give you credit for or you're just
>trying to fan the flames of some arbitrary argument in an effort to pump a
>modicum of on-topic discussion into this forum.
>

Well, it does seem that we are talking past each other. I assure you,
I'm sincere in my discussion of this subject for its own value. I'm
genuinely concerned that UAVs may become a hazard if there is not
input from all NAS stakeholders into the FAA's rulemaking.

>I'll trust for the moment it's the latter, but I still have to ask: Do
>helicopters not qualify for GA status? Do they glide? Do their flight
>characteristics differ substantially from this UAV?
>

Helicopters are capable of controlled flight (autorotation) in the
event of a power failure. The Honeywell MAV also flies in the event
its power plant fails: like a piano. :-)

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> Well, when I fly low over Los Angeles, I take gliding distance into
> consideration, but you've managed to find a nit. If that is the only
> one you found, is it safe to assume you agreed with the remainder of
> my follow up article?

Not in the least. However, it does demonstrate you haven't formed a logical
opinion, but rather attempted to back up an emotional response. There's
nothing inherently wrong with emotion, but it does tend to fly in the face
of logic.

>> Is there another reg stipulating such a restriction?
>
> I'm not sure.

I submit you should be before stating otherwise.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> The Honeywell MAV also flies in the event
> its power plant fails: like a piano. :-)

Do you have a cite for that? Or is this just another assertion?

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:53:25 -0500, "John T"
> wrote in
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>>
>> The Honeywell MAV also flies in the event
>> its power plant fails: like a piano. :-)
>
>Do you have a cite for that? Or is this just another assertion?

You haven't read the research material in my initial article in this
thread. Have a look at it, and see if you don't agree with my
assertion.

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Feb 24, 6:58*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:53:25 -0500, "John T"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
> >"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>
>
> >> The Honeywell MAV also flies in the event
> >> its power plant fails: like a piano. *:-)
>
> >Do you have a cite for that? Or is this just another assertion?
>
> You haven't read the research material in my initial article in this
> thread. *Have a look at it, and see if you don't agree with my
> assertion.

Think A-La-Cirrus.

Wil

[Phil J]

On Feb 24, 3:07*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:56:20 -0800 (PST), Phil J
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 24, 1:32*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:32:32 -0500, "John T"
> >> > wrote in
> >> >:
>
> >> >"Phil J" > wrote in message
> >>
>
> >> >> Well I suppose one option would be to
> >> >> put some really bright strobes on it, and keep it under 500 feet AGL..
>
> >> >I also suspect the majority of the UAVs used by police departments would be
> >> >at low altitudes in areas unlikely to be travelled by most GA aircraft..
>
> >> We can hope that the final version of the Honeywell MAV will be
> >> equipped with some conspicuity enhancement if it is flown in the realm
> >> of full size aircraft. *But it seems the police want to fly them over
> >> the heads of urban dwellers. *What is the safeguard against this UAV
> >> hitting someone in the event of an engine or guidance or control
> >> failure or fuel exhaustion? *I am unable to imagine a safeguard
> >> against that sort of scenario.
>
> >There is that risk, but there is the same risk with GA and commercial
> >aircraft flying overhead. *
>
> Not exactly. *Human piloted aircraft must remain 1,000' feet above
> congested areas, and within gliding distance of a landing site. *This
> UAV doesn't glide, and the police department intends to fly it at low
> level. *So to say that this UAV poses the same hazard as manned
> aircraft isn't very accurate, IMO. *Are you a pilot?
>
> >Compared to human-carrying aircraft, the number of UAVs is going to
> >be pretty small. *
>
> I fully expect to see the NAS crowded with UAVs once they get it all
> worked out. *What gives you the idea that there won't be many of them?
>
> >Adding UAVs just makes a tiny change in a very small risk.
>
> >Phil
>
> Huh? *Can you explain that statement a little for me? *I'm not sure
> what "tiny change" and "very small risk" to which you are referring.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Feb 24, 5:13 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> > When a human pilot is on board, there is a strong incentive for not
> > crashing. Unless the pilot is suicidal, we can expect the pilot to do
> > everything humanly possible to avoid crashing. That same incentive
> > does not exist in UAVs. The worst thing that can happen to a UAV crash
> > pilot is that he may lose his job, not his life. No matter how
> > conscientious the UAV pilot may be, there is a huge difference between
> > paying for your mistakes with your life vs facing disciplinary action.
>
> There are a class of unmanned operations covered by Part 101, "MOORED
> BALLOONS, KITES, UNMANNED ROCKETS AND UNMANNED FREE BALLOONS" wherein it
> has always been the case that the instinct for self-preservation was never
> a motivation for safe operation of those craft. Yet none of them are
> outright banned so I don't see why Part 101 can't be modified to include
> UAVs.

You are correct that none of them are banned, but I believe the items
described in Part 101 requires notification to the FAA, and a NOTAM
will be issued. If the UAV is going to operate with a NOTAM advisory,
then I have no problem with their operation. Somehow I suspect that
will not be the case because most UAVs are for surveillance and covert
operations.

[Phil J]

On Feb 24, 3:07*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >There is that risk, but there is the same risk with GA and commercial
> >aircraft flying overhead. *
>
> Not exactly. *Human piloted aircraft must remain 1,000' feet above
> congested areas, and within gliding distance of a landing site. *This
> UAV doesn't glide, and the police department intends to fly it at low
> level. *So to say that this UAV poses the same hazard as manned
> aircraft isn't very accurate, IMO. *Are you a pilot?

I'm a student pilot. Does that qualify me to have an opinion
according to you Larry? Every machine flying overhead constitutes a
risk to people on the ground. It's a very small risk, but it's there
whether it's manned or not. You can argue that this UAV is more of a
risk. That may be true, but we really don't know just how reliable it
is. And the real question is how many of them there are going to be,
and where are they going to fly. Those are both unknowns. IF it gets
to a point where people are getting hurt by these things, you can bet
the politicians will rush to hold hearings to demonstrate their
concern, and new regulations will probably follow.

>
> >Compared to human-carrying aircraft, the number of UAVs is going to
> >be pretty small. *
>
> I fully expect to see the NAS crowded with UAVs once they get it all
> worked out. *What gives you the idea that there won't be many of them?

I don't expect this. My guess is these things will only be deployed
when there is a known risk that law enforcement wants to pursue. I
don't think that will mean a sky full of them. What makes you think
that our airspace will be crowded with them?

>
> >Adding UAVs just makes a tiny change in a very small risk.
>
> >Phil
>
> Huh? *Can you explain that statement a little for me? *I'm not sure
> what "tiny change" and "very small risk" to which you are referring.

For any given person on the ground, there is a very small risk that an
airplane is going to fall on them. Adding UAVs means a tiny increase
in this very small risk.

As long as we are talking about lives and risk, what about the
benefits of the police using UAVs? Catching criminals and taking them
off the streets will save lives. Being able to pursue cars from the
air without having to resort to a high-speed chase will save lives. A
patrol car could carry one of these UAVs in the trunk, and if a
suspect takes off in a car the UAV could be dispatched to follow,
rather than chasing with the patrol car.

Phil

[Jim Logajan]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>If you think existing aspects of Part 101 should be applied and
>>otherwise modified to SUA operations in the NAS I'd agree with you.
>
> I hadn't even considered Part 101. How would you propose to modify
> Part 101?

Since it already includes regulations on other unmanned aircraft Part 101
seems the natural place to insert regulations on UAVs. Unfortunately I
don't have time to write up a coherent set of proposed changes to Part 101
that might satisfy both our concerns - and even if I did I don't see how it
would serve any useful purpose other than a thought exercise.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:45:28 -0800 (PST), Phil J
> wrote in
>:

>> I fully expect to see the NAS crowded with UAVs once they get it all
>> worked out. *What gives you the idea that there won't be many of them?
>
>I don't expect this. My guess is these things will only be deployed
>when there is a known risk that law enforcement wants to pursue. I
>don't think that will mean a sky full of them. What makes you think
>that our airspace will be crowded with them?
>

Well, I've done some research. This story indicates that UAVs will
haul cargo:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11250026
That might fill the skies alone.

There is information about some UAV applications available here:
http://www.uavm.com/uavapplications.html
General Commercial Applications
Meteorology see also Weather 1, 2, 3
Hurricane Monitoring see also 1, 2
Cryospheric Research - Arctic and Antarctic
Civil Engineering
Bridge Inspection
Scientific Research see also 1, 2, 3, 4
Transmission Line Inspection
Pipeline Inspection see also 1, 2
HAZMAT Inspection
Epidemic Emergency Medical Supply see also 1, 2, 3, 4
Traffic Monitoring
Aerial Surveying
Damage Assessment
Insurance Claim Appraisal
Real Estate Marketing
Golf - Resort Marketing
Stadium Event Monitoring
ConcertSecurity
Sports Video
Runway Inspection
Corridor Mapping
Virtual Tours
Landmark Inspection
Precision Agricultural - Wildlife and Land Management
Coffee Harvest Optimization
Vigor Mapping and Frost Mitigation
Crop Disease Management see also 1, 2, 3
Corn Precision AG Studies see also 1
Herd Tracking and Management
Entomology
Forestry Inspection
Fisheries Management
Species Conservation
Wildlife Inventory
Mineral Exploration
Remote Aerial Survey
Forest Fire Surveillance
Forest Fire Mapping
Volcano Monitoring
Remote Aerial Mapping
Oil Spill Tracking
Snow Pack Avalanche Monitoring
Ice Pack Monitoring
Poaching Patrol

More here:
http://www.uavm.com/images/NASA_UAV_Capabilities_Assessment-2004.pdf

Have you done ANY UAV research yourself personally, or you just
providing your own unsupported personal opinions?

[Jim Logajan]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Well, I've done some research. This story indicates that UAVs will
> haul cargo:
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11250026
> That might fill the skies alone.
>
> There is information about some UAV applications available here:
> http://www.uavm.com/uavapplications.html
[ List elided for brevity. See web site. ]

That same list of _potential_ applications also applies to airships. So
there is at least one counter-example proving that potential doesn't
necessarily translate into real world application.

Furthermore, UAVs/UASs have been around since WW I. So in a sense their own
history is another counter-example showing their alleged advantages have
not translated into civilian applications on a large or even moderate
scale.

So what recent technical or economic cusp was recently crossed that
suddenly makes UAVs sufficiently viable in any of those applications that
would cause the skies to be filled with them?

[Phil J]

On Feb 25, 10:41*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:45:28 -0800 (PST), Phil J
> > wrote in
> >:
>
> >> I fully expect to see the NAS crowded with UAVs once they get it all
> >> worked out. *What gives you the idea that there won't be many of them?
>
> >I don't expect this. *My guess is these things will only be deployed
> >when there is a known risk that law enforcement wants to pursue. *I
> >don't think that will mean a sky full of them. *What makes you think
> >that our airspace will be crowded with them?
>
> Well, I've done some research. *This story indicates that UAVs will
> haul cargo:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11250026
> That might fill the skies alone.
>
> There is information about some UAV applications available here:http://www..uavm.com/uavapplications.html
> General Commercial Applications
> Meteorology see also Weather * 1, *2, *3
> Hurricane Monitoring see also *1, *2
> Cryospheric Research - Arctic and Antarctic
> Civil Engineering
> Bridge Inspection
> Scientific Research see also 1, *2, *3, *4
> * * * * Transmission Line Inspection
> * * * * Pipeline Inspection see also 1, 2
> HAZMAT Inspection
> Epidemic Emergency Medical Supply see also 1, 2, 3, 4
> Traffic Monitoring
> Aerial Surveying
> Damage Assessment
> Insurance Claim Appraisal
> Real Estate Marketing
> Golf - Resort Marketing
> Stadium Event Monitoring
> * * * ConcertSecurity
> * * * Sports Video
> Runway Inspection
> Corridor Mapping
> Virtual Tours
> Landmark Inspection
> *Precision Agricultural - Wildlife and Land Management
> Coffee Harvest Optimization
> Vigor Mapping and Frost Mitigation
> Crop Disease Management see also 1, 2, 3
> Corn Precision AG Studies *see also 1
> Herd Tracking and Management
> Entomology
> Forestry Inspection
> Fisheries Management
> Species Conservation
> Wildlife Inventory
> Mineral Exploration
> Remote Aerial Survey
> Forest Fire Surveillance
> Forest Fire Mapping
> Volcano Monitoring
> Remote Aerial Mapping
> Oil Spill Tracking
> Snow Pack Avalanche Monitoring
> Ice Pack Monitoring
> Poaching Patrol
>
> More here:http://www.uavm.com/images/NASA_UAV_Capabilities_Assessment-2004..pdf
>
> Have you done ANY UAV research yourself personally, or you just
> providing your own unsupported personal opinions?

I'm beginning to see why some people on this group find you so
obnoxious, Larry. I was responding to your original post which had to
do with law enforcement use of UAVs. But since you brought it up,
most of the uses you mentioned take place in remote locations like
forests, mountains, rivers, over the ocean, or in the arctic. Are you
seriously saying that those applications constitute a threat to people
on the ground? Some of your applications would involve flying over
populated areas. But I notice you didn't respond to my point about
the government changing regulations if and when UAVs do become a
problem. Nothing is set in stone here, Larry. If there is a problem
you can bet the politicians and bureacrats will want to jump on it.
It's in their own self-interest to do so because it's a way for them
to demonstrate how much they care about us. Right now UAVs represent
an application with a lot of potential. If we shut it down before we
even try it because something MIGHT go wrong, how do we know what it
might accomplish?

I noticed you also didn't respond to my point about the benefits of
law enforcement use of UAVs either. They aren't doing this just for
fun. They are trying to accomplish something for the public good.
Frankly your reaction strikes me as similar to that of the people who
don't want any more general aviation airports built, or want the
existing ones shut down. One of the complaints of people who live
near these airports is that there is a danger from aircraft crashing
on their houses. The risk to these people is actually very small, but
they try to use it to get rid of those noisy, bothersome airplanes
anyway.

Phil

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:01:29 -0800 (PST), Phil J
> wrote in
>:

>On Feb 25, 10:41*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:45:28 -0800 (PST), Phil J
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>> >> I fully expect to see the NAS crowded with UAVs once they get it all
>> >> worked out. *What gives you the idea that there won't be many of them?
>>
>> >I don't expect this. *My guess is these things will only be deployed
>> >when there is a known risk that law enforcement wants to pursue. *I
>> >don't think that will mean a sky full of them. *What makes you think
>> >that our airspace will be crowded with them?
>>
>> Well, I've done some research. *This story indicates that UAVs will
>> haul cargo: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11250026
>> That might fill the skies alone.
>>
>> There is information about some UAV applications available here:http://www.uavm.com/uavapplications.html
>> General Commercial Applications
>> Meteorology see also Weather * 1, *2, *3
>> Hurricane Monitoring see also *1, *2
>> Cryospheric Research - Arctic and Antarctic
>> Civil Engineering
>> Bridge Inspection
>> Scientific Research see also 1, *2, *3, *4
>> * * * * Transmission Line Inspection
>> * * * * Pipeline Inspection see also 1, 2
>> HAZMAT Inspection
>> Epidemic Emergency Medical Supply see also 1, 2, 3, 4
>> Traffic Monitoring
>> Aerial Surveying
>> Damage Assessment
>> Insurance Claim Appraisal
>> Real Estate Marketing
>> Golf - Resort Marketing
>> Stadium Event Monitoring
>> * * * ConcertSecurity
>> * * * Sports Video
>> Runway Inspection
>> Corridor Mapping
>> Virtual Tours
>> Landmark Inspection
>> *Precision Agricultural - Wildlife and Land Management
>> Coffee Harvest Optimization
>> Vigor Mapping and Frost Mitigation
>> Crop Disease Management see also 1, 2, 3
>> Corn Precision AG Studies *see also 1
>> Herd Tracking and Management
>> Entomology
>> Forestry Inspection
>> Fisheries Management
>> Species Conservation
>> Wildlife Inventory
>> Mineral Exploration
>> Remote Aerial Survey
>> Forest Fire Surveillance
>> Forest Fire Mapping
>> Volcano Monitoring
>> Remote Aerial Mapping
>> Oil Spill Tracking
>> Snow Pack Avalanche Monitoring
>> Ice Pack Monitoring
>> Poaching Patrol
>>
>> More here:http://www.uavm.com/images/NASA_UAV_Capabilities_Assessment-2004.pdf
>>
>> Have you done ANY UAV research yourself personally, or you just
>> providing your own unsupported personal opinions?
>
>I'm beginning to see why some people on this group find you so
>obnoxious, Larry.

I don't know why. I provide you a lot of credible information in
response to your question, but you apparently choose to ignore it. I
find that frustrating.

>I was responding to your original post which had to
>do with law enforcement use of UAVs.

If you look at what you wrote, you'll find that you asked:

"What makes you think that our airspace will be crowded with
them?"

I provided you with information that supports my position, but you
interpret it as obnoxious. I'm afraid I just don't understand you.
You want an answer, and when you get it, you're unhappy and go off on
some tangent.

If UAVs are employed to haul freight, you can bet the sky will be full
of them. Did you even visit this link?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11250026


I've got a question or two for you:

How long have you been a student pilot?

Have you soloed yet?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:


>>I'm beginning to see why some people on this group find you so
>>obnoxious, Larry.
>
> I don't know why.

I do.

And I keep telling you! No charge!

Bertie
>
>

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:

>
> So what recent technical or economic cusp was recently crossed that
> suddenly makes UAVs sufficiently viable in any of those applications that
> would cause the skies to be filled with them?

Not that I think it is going to happen but the answer is computers.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:18:00 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> Well, I've done some research. This story indicates that UAVs will
>> haul cargo:
>> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11250026
>> That might fill the skies alone.
>>
>> There is information about some UAV applications available here:
>> http://www.uavm.com/uavapplications.html
>[ List elided for brevity. See web site. ]

[Thank you for snipping the list; it is in the deja.com database now,
so there's no need to clutter things up with it again.

I include a lot of the research material I find in my articles for
several reasons:

1. Web-page content tends to become unavailable as it ages.

2. It makes it easier for the reader to view background material.

3. It is independently created, and thus not viewed as my
opinion.

4. It lends credibility to the validity of the subject.

5. It remains in the deja.com Usenet archive for decades
facilitating further research.

For those reasons, I wish others would adopt the practice of quoting
credible source material in their articles, including URLs. ]

>
>That same list of _potential_ applications also applies to airships. So
>there is at least one counter-example proving that potential doesn't
>necessarily translate into real world application.

Listen to the NPR podcast at the link above before you reach that
conclusion.

>Furthermore, UAVs/UASs have been around since WW I. So in a sense their own
>history is another counter-example showing their alleged advantages have
>not translated into civilian applications on a large or even moderate
>scale.
>
>So what recent technical or economic cusp was recently crossed that
>suddenly makes UAVs sufficiently viable in any of those applications that
>would cause the skies to be filled with them?

Like I said before, the UAV manufacturers received Pentagon
development money and contracts for UAVs. Now they are seeking a
larger market than just the military. NASA has also assisted the
domestic UAV thrust. Do some research of your own if you truly want
to know what's going on with UAVs. I think you'll be surprised.

As technology advances, more applications and business opportunities
arise. Radar has been around for a while too, but it's only recently
been applied to trapping automobile speeders. Robots have been around
for a long time too, so I guess by your reasoning Detroit had no
reason to employ them for automobile manufacturing, right? :-)

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:37:33 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
> wrote in
>:

>Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>>
>> So what recent technical or economic cusp was recently crossed that
>> suddenly makes UAVs sufficiently viable in any of those applications that
>> would cause the skies to be filled with them?
>
>Not that I think it is going to happen but the answer is computers.

Right, small, lightweight computers, and GPS, solid-state gyros, high
frequency RF and satellite communications, ... The technology exists
now, but like a lot of innovative products, the market takes time to
develop.

The Wright brothers weren't able to interest the US Army in their
Flyer until five years after it flew despite the fact that they were
using aerial reconnaissance during the Civil War (lookup Thaddeus
Lowe, grandfather of Pancho Barnes), IIRC. Who in 1908 would have
thought there would be ~5,000 aircraft in flight over the CONUS at any
given time as there are today. Unmanned transportation systems are
gaining popularity. Consider the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system
in San Francisco, and this recent contract:
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-1811622_ITM

[Phil J]

On Feb 25, 1:40*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:01:29 -0800 (PST), Phil J
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 25, 10:41*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:45:28 -0800 (PST), Phil J
> >> > wrote in
> >> >:
>
> >> >> I fully expect to see the NAS crowded with UAVs once they get it all
> >> >> worked out. *What gives you the idea that there won't be many of them?
>
> >> >I don't expect this. *My guess is these things will only be deployed
> >> >when there is a known risk that law enforcement wants to pursue. *I
> >> >don't think that will mean a sky full of them. *What makes you think
> >> >that our airspace will be crowded with them?
>
> >> Well, I've done some research. *This story indicates that UAVs will
> >> haul cargo:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11250026
> >> That might fill the skies alone.
>
> >> There is information about some UAV applications available here:http://www.uavm.com/uavapplications.html
> >> General Commercial Applications
> >> Meteorology see also Weather * 1, *2, *3
> >> Hurricane Monitoring see also *1, *2
> >> Cryospheric Research - Arctic and Antarctic
> >> Civil Engineering
> >> Bridge Inspection
> >> Scientific Research see also 1, *2, *3, *4
> >> * * * * Transmission Line Inspection
> >> * * * * Pipeline Inspection see also 1, 2
> >> HAZMAT Inspection
> >> Epidemic Emergency Medical Supply see also 1, 2, 3, 4
> >> Traffic Monitoring
> >> Aerial Surveying
> >> Damage Assessment
> >> Insurance Claim Appraisal
> >> Real Estate Marketing
> >> Golf - Resort Marketing
> >> Stadium Event Monitoring
> >> * * * ConcertSecurity
> >> * * * Sports Video
> >> Runway Inspection
> >> Corridor Mapping
> >> Virtual Tours
> >> Landmark Inspection
> >> *Precision Agricultural - Wildlife and Land Management
> >> Coffee Harvest Optimization
> >> Vigor Mapping and Frost Mitigation
> >> Crop Disease Management see also 1, 2, 3
> >> Corn Precision AG Studies *see also 1
> >> Herd Tracking and Management
> >> Entomology
> >> Forestry Inspection
> >> Fisheries Management
> >> Species Conservation
> >> Wildlife Inventory
> >> Mineral Exploration
> >> Remote Aerial Survey
> >> Forest Fire Surveillance
> >> Forest Fire Mapping
> >> Volcano Monitoring
> >> Remote Aerial Mapping
> >> Oil Spill Tracking
> >> Snow Pack Avalanche Monitoring
> >> Ice Pack Monitoring
> >> Poaching Patrol
>
> >> More here:http://www.uavm.com/images/NASA_UAV_Capabilities_Assessment-2004.pdf
>
> >> Have you done ANY UAV research yourself personally, or you just
> >> providing your own unsupported personal opinions?
>
> >I'm beginning to see why some people on this group find you so
> >obnoxious, Larry. *
>
> I don't know why. *I provide you a lot of credible information in
> response to your question, but you apparently choose to ignore it. *I
> find that frustrating. *

No, Larry, it's not your information that is obnoxious. It's your
condescending attitude. It's exhibited right here in your words: >
>> Have you done ANY UAV research yourself personally, or you just
providing your own unsupported personal opinions?

>
> >I was responding to your original post which had to
> >do with law enforcement use of UAVs. *
>
> If you look at what you wrote, you'll find that you asked:
>
> * * "What makes you think that our airspace will be crowded with
> * * them?"
>
> I provided you with information that supports my position, but you
> interpret it as obnoxious. *I'm afraid I just don't understand you.
> You want an answer, and when you get it, you're unhappy and go off on
> some tangent.

Yeah. I replied to the information you posted. I find it frustrating
that you continue to ignore the points I have been making, Larry.
*
>
> If UAVs are employed to haul freight, you can bet the sky will be full
> of them. *Did you even visit this link?http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11250026

NOTE: I am responding specifically to that information here, Larry.
That article is about UAVs that are the equivalent of commercial
airliners. Do you really think the FAA is going to approve such a
thing without making damn sure it is reliable and safe? If anything,
most pilots complain that the FAA over-regulates, not under-
regulates. Do you feel like the FAA under-regulates aviation in this
country?

>
> I've got a question or two for you:
>
> * * How long have you been a student pilot?
>
> * * Have you soloed yet?

I haven't soloed yet, though I am close. Is that a requirement for
posting here? Please explain to me how my number of training hours is
relevant to a discussion on UAVs.


Phil

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:46:44 -0800 (PST), Phil J
> wrote in
>:

>
>> If UAVs are employed to haul freight, you can bet the sky will be full
>> of them. *Did you even visit this link?http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11250026
>
>NOTE: I am responding specifically to that information here, Larry.
>That article is about UAVs that are the equivalent of commercial
>airliners. Do you really think the FAA is going to approve such a
>thing without making damn sure it is reliable and safe?

What is your experience in dealing with the FAA? If you have, you'd
find it prudent to monitor their activities. At least that's my
experience.

>If anything,
>most pilots complain that the FAA over-regulates, not under-
>regulates. Do you feel like the FAA under-regulates aviation in this
>country?

I believe those who have crafted the regulations over the years have
made every effort to provide a well integrated system based on sound
engineering and tempered with real-life experiences, with the
exception of their necessity to violate their own regulations in order
to accommodate the military and other governmental agencies.

>>
>> I've got a question or two for you:
>>
>> * * How long have you been a student pilot?
>>
>> * * Have you soloed yet?
>
>I haven't soloed yet, though I am close. Is that a requirement for
>posting here?

The only REQUIREMENTS for posting articles to this newsgroup are those
you choose to impose on yourself. Usenet relies upon self-governance,
and gateway terms of service policies to maintain its organization.

>Please explain to me how my number of training hours is
>relevant to a discussion on UAVs.
>

See, that's the sort of problem I'm having with your responses. I
said nothing about the NUMBER of hours you might have. I asked how
long you have been a student pilot.

I just had the feeling that you lacked depth in your knowledge of
aviation, so I thought I'd ask.

[Phil J]

On Feb 26, 1:22*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> See, that's the sort of problem I'm having with your responses. *I
> said nothing about the NUMBER of hours you might have. *I asked how
> long you have been a student pilot.
>
> I just had the feeling that you lacked depth in your knowledge of
> aviation, so I thought I'd ask. *

And there's the thinly veiled ad hominem you've been working yourself
up to since my first post on this thread. I've been following the
world of aviation for the past 40-some years. I'm only a newcomer to
actually flying the plane. It's a waste of time talking to you,
Larry.

Phil

[Jim Logajan]

Phil J > wrote:
> On Feb 26, 1:22*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>> See, that's the sort of problem I'm having with your responses. *I
>> said nothing about the NUMBER of hours you might have. *I asked how
>> long you have been a student pilot.
>>
>> I just had the feeling that you lacked depth in your knowledge of
>> aviation, so I thought I'd ask. *
>
> And there's the thinly veiled ad hominem
[ ... ]

Lot of that going around - only it's not so thinly veiled. ;-)

It also appears to have elements of an "appeal to authority," which is a
logical fallacy.

Locus ab auctoritate est infirmissimus ("The argument from authority is
the weakest.") - Thomas Aquinas

[Phil J]

On Feb 26, 9:09*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Phil J > wrote:
> > On Feb 26, 1:22*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> >> See, that's the sort of problem I'm having with your responses. *I
> >> said nothing about the NUMBER of hours you might have. *I asked how
> >> long you have been a student pilot.
>
> >> I just had the feeling that you lacked depth in your knowledge of
> >> aviation, so I thought I'd ask. *
>
> > And there's the thinly veiled ad hominem
>
> [ ... ]
>
> Lot of that going around - only it's not so thinly veiled. ;-)
>

Ain't that the truth!

> It also appears to have elements of an "appeal to authority," which is a
> logical fallacy.
>

If ya can't beat the argument, ya gotta try to beat the arguer, right?

Phil

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 04:42:36 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>>If you think existing aspects of Part 101 should be applied and
>>>otherwise modified to SUA operations in the NAS I'd agree with you.
>>
>> I hadn't even considered Part 101. How would you propose to modify
>> Part 101?
>
>Since it already includes regulations on other unmanned aircraft Part 101
>seems the natural place to insert regulations on UAVs. Unfortunately I
>don't have time to write up a coherent set of proposed changes to Part 101
>that might satisfy both our concerns - and even if I did I don't see how it
>would serve any useful purpose other than a thought exercise.

Well, you could provide a paper for this NTSB UAV meeting:


NTSB TO HOLD SAFETY FORUM ABOUT UNMANNED AIRCRAFT
http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2008/080303.html
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1065-full.html#197303)
The growing use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in the National
Airspace System is raising a number of safety concerns, and the
NTSB said this week it will address them all in a three-day forum,
April 29 to May 1, in Washington, D.C. The forum will provide an
opportunity for the board and interested parties to discuss
issues such as regulatory standards, perspectives of current UAS
operators, certification and airworthiness, perspectives of
current users of the National Airspace System (that would be all
of us), and future UAS applications. The forum is a result of the
safety board's investigation into the crash of a Predator B
unmanned aircraft near Nogales, Ariz., in April 2006. "The Nogales
accident* surfaced a number of important questions that need to be
addressed if UAS's are to operate safely in the National Air
Space," said board member Kitty Higgins, who will chair the forum.
The Board's investigation of the Nogales accident resulted in 22
safety recommendations to address deficiencies associated with the
civilian use of unmanned aircraft. "We are very interested in the
military's experience with UAS's, training of pilots, maintenance
of the aircraft, communication with Air Traffic Control and
oversight of UAS operations by public-use agencies and other
operators," Higgins said.

Or we could each write one or the group could contribute their
thoughts for a group submission.




http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2008/080303.html
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 3 , 2008 SB-08-07

NTSB TO HOLD SAFETY FORUM ON UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington, D.C. - The National Transportation Safety Board will hold
a three-day forum on the safety of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS).
The forum will be convened April 29 to May 1 in the NTSB Board Room
and Conference Center in Washington. The forum will provide an
opportunity for the Board and interested parties to understand the
safety implications presented by the growing use of UAS in the
National Airspace System.

Issues addressed will include:

- Regulatory standards,
- Integration with the National Airspace System,
- Perspectives of current UAS operators,
- Design, certification and airworthiness,
- Human factors,
- Future UAS applications and perspectives of current
users of the National Airspace System.

The forum is a result of the Safety Board's investigation into a
Predator B unmanned aircraft that crashed near Nogales, Arizona, in
April 2006. The Board's October 2007 meeting on this accident
resulted in 22 safety recommendations to address deficiencies
associated with the civilian use of unmanned aircraft.

"The Nogales accident surfaced a number of important questions that
need to be addressed if UAS's are to operate safely in the National
Air Space," said Board Member Kitty Higgins, who will chair the forum.
"We are very interested in the military's experience with UAS's,
training of pilots, maintenance of the aircraft, communication with
Air Traffic Control and oversight of UAS operations by public use
agencies and other operators."

The forum will include representatives from the military, industry,
the FAA, and government agencies involved in UAS operations.
Interested members of the aviation community and general public are
encouraged to attend. A forum agenda will be announced by press
release in mid-April.

Representatives from the UAS industry are invited to set up display
booths and unmanned aircraft vehicle scale models that demonstrate
unmanned aircraft systems and technologies. Display space is limited
and will be allocated on a first-come, first served basis.

Organizations interested in setting up a display should contact Mr.
Daniel Bartlett at the NTSB at with their
specific requirements no later than March 28, 2008. Requests for
display space after this date cannot be accommodated.

A live and archived webcast of the forum will be available on the
Board's web site at www.ntsb.gov.

NTSB Public Affairs: Peter Knudson (202) 314-6100







* http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060509X00531&key=1
NTSB Identification: CHI06MA121.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please
contact Records Management Division
14 CFR Public Use
Accident occurred Tuesday, April 25, 2006 in Nogales, AZ
Probable Cause Approval Date: 10/31/2007
Aircraft: General Atomics Predator B, registration: None
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
The unmanned aircraft (UA), a Predator B, collided with the terrain
following a loss of engine power while patrolling the southern U.S.
border on a Customs and Border Protection (CPB) mission.

The UA's takeoff was delayed due to the inability to establish a
communication link between the UA and Pilot Payload Operator (PPO)-1
console during initial power-up. After troubleshooting the problem, an
avionics technician switched the main processor cards between PPO-1
and PPO-2. Personnel who were maintaining the unmanned aircraft system
(UAS) stated there were very few spare parts purchased with the UAS,
which is why they switched the main processor cards instead of
replacing the card in PPO-1. The link was subsequently established,
and the flight was initiated.

The flight was being flown from a ground control station (GCS), which
contained two nearly identical control consoles: PPO-1 and PPO-2.
Normally, a certified pilot controls the UA from PPO-1, and the camera
payload operator (typically a U.S. Border Patrol agent) controls the
camera, which is mounted on the UA, from PPO-2. Although the aircraft
control levers (flaps, condition lever, throttle, and speed lever) on
PPO-1 and PPO-2 appear identical, they may have different functions
depending on which console controls the UA. When PPO-1 controls the
UA, movement the condition lever to the forward position opens the
fuel valve to the engine; movement to the middle position closes the
fuel valve to the engine, which shuts down the engine; and movement to
the aft position causes the propeller to feather. When the UA is
controlled by PPO-1, the condition lever at the PPO-2 console controls
the camera's iris setting. Moving the lever forward increases the iris
opening, moving the lever to the middle position locks the camera's
iris setting, and moving the lever aft decreases the opening.
Typically, the lever is set in the middle position.

Console lockup checklist procedures indicate that, before switching
operational control between the two consoles, the pilot must match the
control positions on PPO?2 to those on PPO-1 by moving the PPO-2
condition lever from the middle position to the forward position,
which keeps the engine operating. The pilot stated in a postaccident
interview that, during the flight, PPO-1 locked up, so he switched
control of the UA to PPO-2. In doing so, he did not use the checklist
and failed to match the position of the controls on PPO-2 to how they
were set on PPO-1. This resulted in the condition lever being in the
fuel cutoff position when the switch to PPO-2 was made, and the fuel
supply to the engine was shut off.

With no engine power, the UA began to descend. The pilot realized that
the UA was not maintaining altitude but did not immediately identify
that the condition lever was in the fuel cutoff position. The pilot
and avionics technician decided to shut down the entire system and
send the UA into its lost-link profile, which is a predetermined
autonomous flightpath, until they could figure out what the problem
was. After the system was shut down, the UA descended below line of
sight (LOS), and communications could not be reestablished. The UA
began to fly its lost-link profile as it descended to impact with the
terrain.

When the UA lost engine power, it began to operate on battery power.
On battery power, the UA began to shed electrical equipment to
conserve electrical power. In doing so, electrical power to the
transponder was shut down. This resulted in air traffic control not
being able to detect a Mode C transponder return for the UA as it
descended below the bottom of the temporary flight restricted
airspace. The primary radar return was also lost when the UA descended
below the LOS in the mountainous area.

The investigation revealed a series of computer lockups had occurred
since the CBP UAS began operating. Nine lockups occurred in a 3-month
period before the accident, including 2 on the day of the accident
before takeoff and another on April 19, 2006, 6 days before the
accident. Troubleshooting before and after the accident did not
determine the cause of the lockups. Neither the CBP nor its
contractors had a documented maintenance program that ensured that
maintenance tasks were performed correctly and that comprehensive
root-cause analyses and corrective action procedures were required
when failures, such as console lockups, occurred repeatedly.

Review of the CBP's training records showed that the accident pilot
had recently transitioned from flying the Predator A to flying the
Predator B and had only 27 hours of Predator B flight time. According
to the CBP, the pilot was given verbal approval to fly its Predator B
with the caveat that the pilot's instructor would be present in the
GCS when the pilot was flying. This verbal approval was not standard
practice for the CBP. The instructor pilot was in another building on
the airport and did not enter the GCS until after it was shut down and
the UA entered the lost-link procedure.

The investigation also revealed that the CBP was providing a minimal
amount of operational oversight for the UAS program at the time of the
accident.



The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The pilot's failure to use checklist procedures when switching
operational control from PPO-1 to PPO-2, which resulted in the fuel
valve inadvertently being shut off and the subsequent total loss of
engine power, and lack of a flight instructor in the GCS, as required
by the CBP's approval to allow the pilot to fly the Predator B.
Factors associated with the accident were repeated and unresolved
console lockups, inadequate maintenance procedures performed by the
manufacturer, and the operator's inadequate surveillance of the UAS
program.

Full narrative available
>NTSB Identification: CHI06MA121.
>The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
>14 CFR Public Use
>Accident occurred Tuesday, April 25, 2006 in Nogales, AZ
>Probable Cause Approval Date: 10/31/2007
>Aircraft: General Atomics Predator B, registration: None
>Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
>The unmanned aircraft (UA), a Predator B, collided with the terrain following a loss of engine power while patrolling the southern U.S. border on a Customs and Border Protection (CPB) mission.
>
>The UA's takeoff was delayed due to the inability to establish a communication link between the UA and Pilot Payload Operator (PPO)-1 console during initial power-up. After troubleshooting the problem, an avionics technician switched the main processor cards between PPO-1 and PPO-2. Personnel who were maintaining the unmanned aircraft system (UAS) stated there were very few spare parts purchased with the UAS, which is why they switched the main processor cards instead of replacing the card in PPO-1. The link was subsequently established, and the flight was initiated.
>
>The flight was being flown from a ground control station (GCS), which contained two nearly identical control consoles: PPO-1 and PPO-2. Normally, a certified pilot controls the UA from PPO-1, and the camera payload operator (typically a U.S. Border Patrol agent) controls the camera, which is mounted on the UA, from PPO-2. Although the aircraft control levers (flaps, condition lever, throttle, and speed lever) on PPO-1 and PPO-2 appear identical, they may have different functions depending on which console controls the UA. When PPO-1 controls the UA, movement the condition lever to the forward position opens the fuel valve to the engine; movement to the middle position closes the fuel valve to the engine, which shuts down the engine; and movement to the aft position causes the propeller to feather. When the UA is controlled by PPO-1, the condition lever at the PPO-2 console controls the camera's iris setting. Moving the lever forward increases the iris opening, moving the lever to
the middle position locks the camera's iris setting, and moving the lever aft decreases the opening. Typically, the lever is set in the middle position.
>
>Console lockup checklist procedures indicate that, before switching operational control between the two consoles, the pilot must match the control positions on PPO?2 to those on PPO-1 by moving the PPO-2 condition lever from the middle position to the forward position, which keeps the engine operating. The pilot stated in a postaccident interview that, during the flight, PPO-1 locked up, so he switched control of the UA to PPO-2. In doing so, he did not use the checklist and failed to match the position of the controls on PPO-2 to how they were set on PPO-1. This resulted in the condition lever being in the fuel cutoff position when the switch to PPO-2 was made, and the fuel supply to the engine was shut off.
>
>With no engine power, the UA began to descend. The pilot realized that the UA was not maintaining altitude but did not immediately identify that the condition lever was in the fuel cutoff position. The pilot and avionics technician decided to shut down the entire system and send the UA into its lost-link profile, which is a predetermined autonomous flightpath, until they could figure out what the problem was. After the system was shut down, the UA descended below line of sight (LOS), and communications could not be reestablished. The UA began to fly its lost-link profile as it descended to impact with the terrain.
>
>When the UA lost engine power, it began to operate on battery power. On battery power, the UA began to shed electrical equipment to conserve electrical power. In doing so, electrical power to the transponder was shut down. This resulted in air traffic control not being able to detect a Mode C transponder return for the UA as it descended below the bottom of the temporary flight restricted airspace. The primary radar return was also lost when the UA descended below the LOS in the mountainous area.
>
>The investigation revealed a series of computer lockups had occurred since the CBP UAS began operating. Nine lockups occurred in a 3-month period before the accident, including 2 on the day of the accident before takeoff and another on April 19, 2006, 6 days before the accident. Troubleshooting before and after the accident did not determine the cause of the lockups. Neither the CBP nor its contractors had a documented maintenance program that ensured that maintenance tasks were performed correctly and that comprehensive root-cause analyses and corrective action procedures were required when failures, such as console lockups, occurred repeatedly.
>
>Review of the CBP's training records showed that the accident pilot had recently transitioned from flying the Predator A to flying the Predator B and had only 27 hours of Predator B flight time. According to the CBP, the pilot was given verbal approval to fly its Predator B with the caveat that the pilot's instructor would be present in the GCS when the pilot was flying. This verbal approval was not standard practice for the CBP. The instructor pilot was in another building on the airport and did not enter the GCS until after it was shut down and the UA entered the lost-link procedure.
>
>The investigation also revealed that the CBP was providing a minimal amount of operational oversight for the UAS program at the time of the accident.
>
>The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
>
>The pilot's failure to use checklist procedures when switching operational control from PPO-1 to PPO-2, which resulted in the fuel valve inadvertently being shut off and the subsequent total loss of engine power, and lack of a flight instructor in the GCS, as required by the CBP's approval to allow the pilot to fly the Predator B. Factors associated with the accident were repeated and unresolved console lockups, inadequate maintenance procedures performed by the manufacturer, and the operator's inadequate surveillance of the UAS program.
>
>Full narrative available
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI06MA121&rpt=fa
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI06MA121&rpt=fi