"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


FARs prescribe limits on how close to clouds a VFR flight may be, and
a certificated pilot is trained in recovery techniques.

Where in that report did it mention the flight plan type? You're either
making assumptions again or making another bad comparison.

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

Again, you posted these cites in response to a request for evidence of
"lackadaisical attention to safety". How does this provide such evidence?
For that matter, how is this any different from an IR pilot unaccustomed to
actual conditions suddenly finding himself coated in ice? Human error?
Yes. Additional safety concern? No.

As you will note, the maintenance personnel did not apply the same
diligence in maintaining the unmanned aircraft as is required by
regulation for manned aircraft.

How is this different from certificated A&P's working for, say, Alaska
Airlines? Or any number of similar NTSB reports for GA crashes. You still
haven't made the case that UAV's pose an inherent aviation safety risk.

Mechanical failure due to inadequate lubrication.

Yes, and a stripped bolt. That sort of poor maintenance practice is
not permitted manned aircraft.

"Not permitted," he says. See above. Humans make maintenance mistakes
regardless of aircraft type (manned or not). You still haven't made the
case that UAV's pose an inherent aviation safety risk.

No. It sounds like you failed to appreciate the operational errors
committed by the ground based UAV operators and maintenance personnel.

"Operational errors" like the hundreds (thousands?) of similar incidents
committed with manned aircraft. You still haven't made the case that UAV's
pose an inherent aviation safety risk.

By omitting the citations below, you publicly demonstrate your biased
thinking:

"Biased", eh? Like you're totally open-minded on this issue. You so full
of BS your eyes are brown.

You keep making the claim that UAV's pose a risk to manned aircraft.
However, even when asked for such evidence, you can't find a single incident
where a manned aircraft was threatened much less harmed by UAV's.

...the primary cause of the accident was the
ground crew's inattention to the aircraft's altitude.

No different from manned aircraft.

The operator has the camera pointing out the front of the plane,
but he really has lost a lot of situational awareness that a
normal pilot would have of where the ground is and where the
attitude of his aircraft is.

Actually, I did reference this one. See "difficulty landing". You left out
the critical context of your quote. See this (from your link):
"A good number of them were lost due to operator error, **since it is hard
to land the UAV.** The operator has the camera pointing out the front of the
plane, but he really has lost a lot of situational awareness that a normal
pilot would have of where the ground is and where the attitude of his
aircraft is."
[Emphasis added by me.]

Larry, don't bother calling me biased when you're not even *close* to
unbiased.


http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../19962521.html
May 17 crash of unmanned spy plane blamed on human error

"Human error" does not equate to "lackadaisical attention to safety." You
still have not proven that UAV's pose an inherent aviation safety risk.

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

Human error again, but not "lackadaisical attention to safety." You still
have not proven that UAV's pose an inherent aviation safety risk. (Note:
I'd venture to say this is a bad design feature. The pilot should not be
able to clear the UAV's RAM - especially if doing so can cause the UAV to
lose connectivity with ground control.)