On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 20:13:25 -0400, Andrew Gideon
wrote in ::

On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 16:54:53 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

[...]
So in the opinion of FAA officials there is no need for UAV operators to
prove that they can safely operate in the NAS? Pilots have [to] prove they
can't. That's a ridiculous attitude for the federal agency tasked with
making flight safe. The very least that Congress should mandate is that
the UAV operators bear _sole_ responsibility for an Mid Air Collision
that may occur.

What would that possibly mean?

It might mean a lot of things. It could mean your estate won't have
to make tort restitution to the passengers you have aboard when the
UAV fails to see-and-avoid your flight. Or it could mean that those
directly controlling the UAV may feel some personal responsibility for
their actions. It could mean that our government is back to passing
balanced legislation that is fair, equitable, and just. Little
things...

If I'm dead from a midair with a UAV, what
difference does it make to me if the UAV operator is held "responsible"?

If the UAV operator knows he will be held responsible for the hazard
his UAV poses to airline and GA public transportation, he may choose
to be more prudent than if he and his UAV are held harmless from
responsibility for the hazard to flight they cause.

[Unless by "responsible" you mean "dropped from an airplane w/o a chute".]

While not as equitable as the sentence you propose above, in this
case, I think the UAV operators' personal financial responsibility
would be sufficient to elevate their level of caution.

Here's a question for you: How many of the 7 people that comprise the
team that operate the UAV are currently required to possess a valid
airmans certificate an medical certificate?