New congress, same old tune, inaccurate

Hasn't been keeping up.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinio...ecommendations

On Jan 12, 7:58*am, Frank Whiteley wrote:
Hasn't been keeping up.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinio...1/17-years-faa...

I wouldn't pay too much attention to the Washington Examiner, they
have been rather shrill over this favorite hobby horse for some
while. Glider/aircraft collisions are hardly the worst thing to worry
about.

I personally am much more concerned about UAVs that are being used
more and more along our borders and likely soon elsewhere. We've had
a few lost and out of control in the past year or two and it's only a
matter of time before we have a more serious accident than we've had
already.

Mike

On Jan 12, 6:28*am, Mike the Strike wrote:
On Jan 12, 7:58*am, Frank Whiteley wrote:

Hasn't been keeping up.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinio...1/17-years-faa...

I wouldn't pay too much attention to the Washington Examiner, they
have been rather shrill over this favorite hobby horse for some
while. *Glider/aircraft collisions are hardly the worst thing to worry
about.

I personally am much more concerned about UAVs that are being used
more and more along our borders and likely soon elsewhere. *We've had
a few lost and out of control in the past year or two and it's only a
matter of time before we have a more serious accident than we've had
already.

Mike

However, they do deliver print copies to all of the elected
representative offices.

I agree, I think that's a real concern along the southern border.
There's a pretty strong lobby to get these into state, county, and
local police use. A large part of North Dakota airspace is already
UAV enabled I believe, but that's for military use and maybe for
border patrol training. I don't see UAV as an NTSB searchable field
yet and don't recall any FAA prelims since the one hit the telephone
pole here in Colorado.

Frank

On Jan 12, 6:05*pm, Frank Whiteley wrote:
On Jan 12, 6:28*am, Mike the Strike wrote:





On Jan 12, 7:58*am, Frank Whiteley wrote:

Hasn't been keeping up.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinio...1/17-years-faa....

I wouldn't pay too much attention to the Washington Examiner, they
have been rather shrill over this favorite hobby horse for some
while. *Glider/aircraft collisions are hardly the worst thing to worry
about.

I personally am much more concerned about UAVs that are being used
more and more along our borders and likely soon elsewhere. *We've had
a few lost and out of control in the past year or two and it's only a
matter of time before we have a more serious accident than we've had
already.

Mike

However, they do deliver print copies to all of the elected
representative offices.

I agree, I think that's a real concern along the southern border.
There's a pretty strong lobby to get these into state, county, and
local police use. *A large part of North Dakota airspace is already
UAV enabled I believe, but that's for military use and maybe for
border patrol training. *I don't see UAV as an NTSB searchable field
yet and don't recall any FAA prelims since the one hit the telephone
pole here in Colorado.

Frank

Compared to a 1,000 lb glider, a 30,000 lb fully-fueled Predator is a
pretty nasty flying bomb. Still, you don't hear folks talking much
about the incident where a stray Predator shut down Tucson airspace
before auguring into someone's back yard near Nogales a year or so
ago. And there have been plenty of other crashes and mishaps.

No, it's us and our dangerous gliders that need more restrictions!

Mike

Is there any new information on how these UAVs identify themselves to
other aircraft? Do they carry a transponder that a PCAS could pick up?
Is their position known to ATC? In other words, do we know better now
how they fit in with "see and be seen"?

-John

On Jan 12, 12:13 pm, Mike the Strike wrote:
Compared to a 1,000 lb glider, a 30,000 lb fully-fueled Predator is a
pretty nasty flying bomb. Still, you don't hear folks talking much
about the incident where a stray Predator shut down Tucson airspace
before auguring into someone's back yard near Nogales a year or so
ago. And there have been plenty of other crashes and mishaps.

No, it's us and our dangerous gliders that need more restrictions!

On Jan 12, 9:36*am, jcarlyle wrote:
Is there any new information on how these UAVs identify themselves to
other aircraft? Do they carry a transponder that a PCAS could pick up?

install FLARM in all of them and then insist their operators to
subsidize the purchase and installation of FLARM in VFR GA
aircraft :-)

-Tom

On Jan 12, 11:13*am, Mike the Strike wrote:
Compared to a 1,000 lb glider, a 30,000 lb fully-fueled Predator is a
pretty nasty flying bomb. *

Actual max gross weight of the MQ-1 Predator is 2300lbs. The bigger
MQ-9 Reaper is up to 10,000 lbs.

Both are pretty sure to carry transponders, so military jets can avoid
them in combat areas.

The UAV operators are probably talking to ATC when they are not in
restricted areas (UHF/VHF in the UAV with a SATCOM relay).

The military users of UAVs are just as concerned about midairs (well,
maybe slighly less concerned, since it's only money to them...).

Still not something you want to run into, but PowerFLARM should help.

Kirk

All Predators and Reapers have transponders with mode C, and maintain
2-way radio communication with ATC (with a phone as backup). Military
Predators and Reapers do all of their training within Restricted
airspace; when they must transit the national airspace to travel to
their operating areas, they do so under an IFR flight plan above FL
180. They cannot "see and avoid" in the common sense of the phrase, so
VFR flight in the NAS is not done. Kirk's estimates on weight are
fairly accurate.

Customs Predator B's have to be flown with a manned aircraft chase
plane at all times in order to meet "see and avoid" criteria, and do
so both inside and outside class A airspace. To me, this is the
epitome of waste (defeats the purpose of UAV's and is well over twice
the cost of a single aircraft with a sensor ball, AKA MC-12)... not to
mention the several-fold increased risk of midair with the aircraft
flying chase. I digress.

Losing an aircraft in other than landing or takeoff is increasingly
rare. If the signal is lost between the UAV and operator, it will fly
back into the vacinity of the home airfield on a pre-programmed, pre-
coordinated route.

I can't speak for other UAV's, but the Predator family does not
warrant the scepticism levied by the masses. Though I can understand
where it's coming from. UAV's are a new concept, and very little is
publicly released.

I flew the Predator for 5 years and have a close friend who chases
Predators around with customs.

If anyone has any other BASIC questions about their operation with
regard to the NAS and manned aircraft, please ask.

Mark

On Jan 13, 9:33*am, Ferstlesque wrote:
All Predators and Reapers have transponders with mode C, and maintain
2-way radio communication with ATC (with a phone as backup). Military
Predators and Reapers do all of their training within Restricted
airspace; when they must transit the national airspace to travel to
their operating areas, they do so under an IFR flight plan above FL
180. They cannot "see and avoid" in the common sense of the phrase, so
VFR flight in the NAS is not done. Kirk's estimates on weight are
fairly accurate.

Customs Predator B's have to be flown with a manned aircraft chase
plane at all times in order to meet "see and avoid" criteria, and do
so both inside and outside class A airspace. To me, this is the
epitome of waste (defeats the purpose of UAV's and is well over twice
the cost of a single aircraft with a sensor ball, AKA MC-12)... not to
mention the several-fold increased risk of midair with the aircraft
flying chase. I digress.

Losing an aircraft in other than landing or takeoff is increasingly
rare. If the signal is lost between the UAV and operator, it will fly
back into the vacinity of the home airfield on a pre-programmed, pre-
coordinated route.

I can't speak for other UAV's, but the Predator family does not
warrant the scepticism levied by the masses. Though I can understand
where it's coming from. UAV's are a new concept, and very little is
publicly released.

I flew the Predator for 5 years and have a close friend who chases
Predators around with customs.

If anyone has any other BASIC questions about their operation with
regard to the NAS and manned aircraft, please ask.

Mark

There appears to be little reason (except political ones) to use an
expensive large UAV like the Predator on our domestic borders when the
same job could be done with less manpower and lower cost using manned
aircraft. There is enough published data to show the operational cost
of the Predator far exceeds that of any manned aircraft typically used
on similar photo missions. Also, their controllability,
communications and reliability have not historically been stellar,
even if these are improving.

The future probably lies in smaller, lightweight autonomous drones.

We masses (who, by the way, pay for these things) justifiably get
nervous when they get out of control and auger into our back yards!

Mike

The

Mark, Kirk,

Many thanks for the information on Predator and Reaper UAVs. It's nice
to know that those flying near the national border with a PCAS have a
chance to detect and avoid one of these UAVs.

Do either of you (or anyone else) know anything about the family of
smaller, lighter UAVs that are being proposed for use by the Forest
Service and others for detecting pot fields and forest fires? Do these
also carry transponders? If the "big boys" don't comply with see and
avoid, I assume there's no chance these little guys will, either.

My concern is an encounter with a small UAV while running along the
Appalachian ridges.

-John

Ferstlesque wrote:
All Predators and Reapers have transponders with mode C, and maintain
2-way radio communication with ATC (with a phone as backup). Military
Predators and Reapers do all of their training within Restricted
airspace; when they must transit the national airspace to travel to
their operating areas, they do so under an IFR flight plan above FL
180. They cannot "see and avoid" in the common sense of the phrase, so
VFR flight in the NAS is not done. Kirk's estimates on weight are
fairly accurate.

Customs Predator B's have to be flown with a manned aircraft chase
plane at all times in order to meet "see and avoid" criteria, and do
so both inside and outside class A airspace. To me, this is the
epitome of waste (defeats the purpose of UAV's and is well over twice
the cost of a single aircraft with a sensor ball, AKA MC-12)... not to
mention the several-fold increased risk of midair with the aircraft
flying chase. I digress.

Losing an aircraft in other than landing or takeoff is increasingly
rare. If the signal is lost between the UAV and operator, it will fly
back into the vacinity of the home airfield on a pre-programmed, pre-
coordinated route.

I can't speak for other UAV's, but the Predator family does not
warrant the scepticism levied by the masses. Though I can understand
where it's coming from. UAV's are a new concept, and very little is
publicly released.

I flew the Predator for 5 years and have a close friend who chases
Predators around with customs.

If anyone has any other BASIC questions about their operation with
regard to the NAS and manned aircraft, please ask.

Mark