Who's At Fault in UAV/Part91 MAC?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

How does the military's use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle intend to
comply with the Part 91 See-And-Avoid mandate? Will there be new
Restricted Areas imposed along the border, or will the UAVs be flown
in Positive Control Airspace?


Did you read the item before posting your message? There is no altitude
reference outside of Class A airspace, so presumably see-and-avoid is not an
issue. Yeah, they've got to climb through Class E airspace to get to Class
A, but I'd assume that'll be done in a restricted area.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

How does the military's use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle intend to
comply with the Part 91 See-And-Avoid mandate? Will there be new
Restricted Areas imposed along the border, or will the UAVs be flown
in Positive Control Airspace?


Did you read the item before posting your message? There is no altitude
reference outside of Class A airspace, so presumably see-and-avoid is not
an
issue. Yeah, they've got to climb through Class E airspace to get to
Class
A, but I'd assume that'll be done in a restricted area.

And in case of mechanical failure when the plane has to descend
into the VFR altitudes? Don't you think the rest of us are entitled to
be "seen-and-avoided"?

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
nk.net...

And in case of mechanical failure when the plane has to descend
into the VFR altitudes? Don't you think the rest of us are entitled to
be "seen-and-avoided"?


A mechanical failure would make it an aircraft in distress. An aircraft in
distress has the right-of-way over all other air traffic.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
nk.net...

And in case of mechanical failure when the plane has to descend
into the VFR altitudes? Don't you think the rest of us are entitled to
be "seen-and-avoided"?


A mechanical failure would make it an aircraft in distress. An aircraft
in
distress has the right-of-way over all other air traffic.

Indeed. But it makes it *more dangerous*, which is why Larry's
post is relevant, even if UAV's are supposedly confined to Class A
airspace.

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
nk.net...

Indeed. But it makes it *more dangerous*, which is why Larry's
post is relevant, even if UAV's are supposedly confined to Class A
airspace.


It makes it *more dangerous* only in the sense that more traffic makes
flying more dangerous. Any aircraft can have a mechanical failure that
affects it's ability to maintain altitude and/or maneuver. It's not *more
dangerous* simply because it's a UAV.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
nk.net...

Indeed. But it makes it *more dangerous*, which is why Larry's
post is relevant, even if UAV's are supposedly confined to Class A
airspace.


It makes it *more dangerous* only in the sense that more traffic makes
flying more dangerous. Any aircraft can have a mechanical failure that
affects it's ability to maintain altitude and/or maneuver. It's not *more
dangerous* simply because it's a UAV.

It is if the pilot can't scan for traffic or search for a suitable emergency
landing site.

In any case, an aircraft "in distress" is only allowed to violate the
FAR's as far as necessary to deal with the emergency. I'd have
a hard time proving reasonable violation of "See and Avoid" in the
simple case of engine failure. You're proposing that these UAV's
can simply ignore this rule because they're supposed to be in class
A all the time.

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
nk.net...

It is if the pilot can't scan for traffic or search for a
suitable emergency landing site.


Is the UAV pilot not able to scan for traffic or search for a suitable
emergency landing site?



In any case, an aircraft "in distress" is only allowed to violate the
FAR's as far as necessary to deal with the emergency. I'd have a
hard time proving reasonable violation of "See and
Avoid" in the simple case of engine failure.


We're not talking about violating any FARs.



You're proposing that these UAV's
can simply ignore this rule because they're supposed to be in class
A all the time.


I proposed nothing at all like that.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
nk.net...

And in case of mechanical failure when the plane has to descend
into the VFR altitudes? Don't you think the rest of us are entitled to
be "seen-and-avoided"?


A mechanical failure would make it an aircraft in distress. An aircraft
in
distress has the right-of-way over all other air traffic.


A lot of good that will do you when the military doesn't inform civilian
authorities and thus you have no idea an unmanned drone is rapidly
descending on you.

There is no way unmanned aircraft can mix with all others and not have some
reduction in safety. The questions are just how much of a reduction, what
can be done to mitigate the danger, and regulations which do not penalize GA
pilots for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I imagine these UAVs will be common in the future, maybe even extending to
pilot-less GA and commercial aircraft. How much this industry grows will in
some part be determined by it's safety record. A few bad incidents will
slow or stop progress in this direction so I would hope the companies
involved have the foresight and intelligence to do the proper engineering
and risk analysis to keep incidents from happening. I also hope their
solution to assuring safety is not a legislative one where they manage to
convince Washington to prohibit GA aircraft from operating anywhere near one
of these things.

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
. net...

A lot of good that will do you when the military doesn't inform civilian
authorities and thus you have no idea an unmanned drone is rapidly
descending on you.


They're not drones.



There is no way unmanned aircraft can mix with all others and not
have some reduction in safety. The questions are just how much of
a reduction, what can be done to mitigate the danger, and
regulations which do not penalize GA pilots for being in the wrong
place at the wrong time.


If operations are confined to Restricted Areas and Class A airspace they're
not mixing with all others.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
. net...

A lot of good that will do you when the military doesn't inform civilian
authorities and thus you have no idea an unmanned drone is rapidly
descending on you.


They're not drones.



There is no way unmanned aircraft can mix with all others and not
have some reduction in safety. The questions are just how much of
a reduction, what can be done to mitigate the danger, and
regulations which do not penalize GA pilots for being in the wrong
place at the wrong time.


If operations are confined to Restricted Areas and Class A airspace
they're
not mixing with all others.

Their operations are not confined to restricted areas and Class A
airspace.