Experimental Certificate Granted UAV If MAC "Extremely Improbable"!

"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)
____________________