On Apr 7, 10:36*am, jcarlyle wrote:
Hi, Mike,

Your previous thread's points regarding control unreliability, system
expense and grabbing of airspace are well taken. But I was aiming at a
different question than you we *what can we glider pilots do to
protect ourselves, given that UAV use is increasing and is now
encroaching into unexpected areas like forests?

I'm gratified to learn that the new Predators have transponders - at
least someone might have a fighting chance with a PCAS. But I'm really
doubting that a 4 pound MTOW UAV will have a transponder! Even if the
damn thing doesn't get above 250 feet, if we don't know that it's
being used and it doesn't have a transponder some ridge runner might
be in for a real unpleasant surprise.

Are there some FAA regulations that govern the use of UAVs?

-John

On Apr 7, 1:02 pm, Mike the Strike wrote:



John:

You obviously missed my earlier thread on this subject. *In the first
test along the Arizona/Mexico border, operators lost control of a
Predator, which then autonomously flew north out of control. *Tucson
air space was shut down, but fortunately, the errant UAV turned south
before crashing in the back yard of a farmhouse near Nogales.
Predators (or at least their control systems) have not been known for
their reliability.

Many of us are concerned, not just for the incursion on our airspace,
but by the use of horrendously expensive and unreliable technologies.
The Predator unmanned programs are much more expensive than the manned
aircraft they are replacing and many of us are unconvinced they will
be cost effective.

Ground-based solutions can be deployed - how about a fence, vibrations
sensors, tower-mounted cameras. *All cheaper and more effective.

However, budgets have been allocated to buy more Predators for both
the Mexican and Canadian borders. *At least they have transponders so
you can see them coming!

Mike- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have "Flown" the early Predator. The pilot (on the ground), can see
and identify other aircraft miles away in the area the UAV is flying.
N numbers are readable long miles away. On most missions the Predator
is so high that not many planes can fly at that level. After 30,000
flights in lots of planes and gliders, except near testing sites I
would say the threat is nil. There are NOTAMS posted for test flights.
The optics are so good they do not have to fly in general aircraft
airspace. The see and be seen ability exceeds nearly all pilots in
flight.
When Predator test pilots trained, they also trained in gliders. They
can travel far after an engine failure.

Who would be threatened by a 6 ft model airplane at 200 ft flying over
gang areas? They are built so light, they might not even break a
window if it hit. These things are not cheap due to the optics and
electronics and the manpower to use them. They are not a "Big Brother"
threat, unless you are trying to escape a felony attempt.

It may become so much of a threat that model airplanes may not be
allowed to fly. What a tragedy it would be for the Feds to over
regulate airspace in "the interests" of safety because ghosts may be
flying and accidents that threaten people on the ground are few and
far between. I believe that class G airspace is not very regulated as
of now. There are regs in reference to minimum safe altitudes, but as
of now, it applies to airplanes being flown by pilots in command.

Police helicopters often fly below the minimums. They rarely fly where
I'm going. I would not want to stop them.

Most low altitude and low speed UAVs have a fuel limit that only
allows short time flights. The threat to people on the ground is much
less than the threat of a criminal intent on harming you.

Use a little reason and rational thought. Unless you, your self want
to threaten people with harm, you have nothing to fear. If you want to
aid and abet criminal activities, I would think of you as one of them.
Rest easy and enjoy the best freedom of action and opportunities that
are found no where else in the world.

Who me worry? Not one minute. Fred Robinson