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)
____________________

OK, I am as pro military and pro national defense as any hawk out
there...

B U T, UAV's, remote control birds, missile launches, and especially
NINJA flights where two pair of MK1 eyeballs still killed an innocent
pilot, have no business in my airspace...

denny

"Denny" wrote in message


B U T, UAV's, remote control birds, missile launches, and especially
NINJA flights where two pair of MK1 eyeballs still killed an innocent
pilot, have no business in my airspace...

And how do those stats compare with non-military related MACs?

I'm not suggesting we just go adding stuff to the NAS just to see what
happens, but I haven't seen anything yet that demonstrates these devices and
policies increase the risk to the flying public (e.g., "me").

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

Denny wrote:
B U T, UAV's, remote control birds, missile launches, and especially
NINJA flights where two pair of MK1 eyeballs still killed an innocent
pilot, have no business in my airspace...

The "my airspace" is an assertion worthy of debate - and I'd say you are
over-reaching if you think use of airspace by manned aircraft supersedes
any other use. I'd say your declaration of "my airspace" as a reason to
prohibit UAVs is horribly wrong because of the following conditions:

(1) Airspace is a public commons. (So it is _not_ a fundamental axiom that
it is the domain only of pilots of manned aircraft.)

(2) Airspace is multipurpose. (It can have towers and buildings built up
into it. It can have tethered kites and tethered balloons in it, and the
like. So there are many others who desire use and access.)

(3) Airspace contains natural hazards that must be accommodated (e.g.
mountains, violent weather, wildlife, and so on.)

The owner of a manned aircraft should not per se be able to assert
"superior" rights over the owner an unmanned aircraft because access by
both should be founded on the underlying rights implicit in the concept of
a public commons.

To the extent that regulations might be applied, they should not prohibit
the rights of some to a public commons at the expense of others to that
same public commons. Instead, regulations for minimizing the hazards caused
by the sharing of a public commons like the national airspace should be
such that the burdens required for that "safe" sharing is itself equitably
shared. Prohibition of UAVs is absolutely not an equitable regulation.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:40:13 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:51:05 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:
How do you feel about sharing the skies with this little, wingless
UAV?

Appears to weigh about what a mature bald eagle would weigh (~14 lbs),
and has about the same altitude range (both about 10,000 ft).

Since there are a lot more eagles than UAVs, I'd be more worried about
an eagle strike than a UAV strike.

But an eagle's wingspan is between 72 to 90 inches
http://www.baldeagleinfo.com/eagle/eagle-facts.html, and they have
the ability to avoid aircraft. You'd have to have eyes better than
Yeager to see that little Honeywell UAV at two miles up, so you
couldn't count on the ground observer to see-and-avoid visually.

Hmmm. Better back up for me: I'm not clear now what the thrust of your
original post was.

Above, I'm refuting your assertion that the Honneywell UAV is as easy
to see-and-avoid as a Bald Eagle due to their difference in size.

My original post was a compilation of research wrapped in some
inquisitive points about the integration of the emerging UAV
technology into the NAS, and the FAA's role in drafting reasonable and
well engineered regulations to assure that all play together nicely.

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?

There is little question in anybody's mind that UAVs fall under the
FAA's regulatory authority. What distinguishes UAVs from manned
aircraft is their inability to comply with a fundamental cornerstone
of flight operations: see-and-avoid. I fully expect that shortcoming
to be overcome through technical means before long, but in the
meantime blind UAVs should not be flown outside of SUA, IMO.

With the UAV industry anxious to market their technology, largely
developed through Pentagon funding, to the civilian public, and
airspace becoming more congested and restricted daily, a prudent,
systems approach toward UAV integration seems necessary. From a
cursory examination of the current state of domestic UAV operations,
it seems to be progressing reasonably well.

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.

I'm not sure I completely understand your point. You're not saying
that the FAA shouldn't regulated UAVs flown in the NAS are you?

OK guys... Just remember that 'my' VFR airspace requires -by precedent
and case law established regulations. Established by the attorney(s)
for the FAA/DOT no less- that all users within it are required to be
able to actively "see and avoid"...
A guy peering at computer screens from far and away does not meet
necessarily meet the definition - esp. in 3 miles and haze...
The Ninja boys were in 'my' airspace in violation of several regs -
including flying much faster than they could see and avoid...
An autonomous UAV with todays technology cannot see and avoid, and
depends upon MY seeing and avoiding it.. The UAV operator is in
clearly violation of the regulatory requirement of see and avoid...

Now we can debate whether The FAA Administrator can revise the rules
at her whim and choice at the behest of other branches of
government... Certainly she can at the moment because "I" do not
have the regulatory authority to override her... But a Federal Judge
does... The hopeful glimmer in this mess is that the courts have shown
increasing willingness in the past decade to override the unilateral
decisions of various regulatory branches of the government who have
historically felt that they are above the law - Coast Guard, DOJ, HSA,
CIA, , Pentagon, AG of the USA, and the President of the United States
just recently...
I have to believe that a determined series of due process appeals to
the FAA, followed by a federal suit when the FAA inevitably says they
can do anything they want, is more likely to have the courts side with
the GA users, in the end, who are physically threatened by the
presence of vehicles in the airspace that cannot uphold their end of
the requirement to 'see and avoid', than it is to uphold willy nilly
insertion of non conforming vehicles into, precedent and case law
established, see and avoid VFR airspace...

denny

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 07:30:52 -0500, "John T"
wrote in
:

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
0

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.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Don't get me wrong; those brave, young enlisted US citizens on the
front lines have my deepest respect and pity. But the military is all
about destruction, not construction. I don't support destruction, or
those who believe they're above the law.

He consistently posts articles (with no original commentary to speak of)
he considers to support his position that 1) MTRs are inherently dangerous

Unfortunately, I've never seen you cite any independent source that
refutes those opinions.

I often prefer to post objective INFORMATION, in instead of subjective
opinion. I'm hoping readers can draw their own conclusions without
being led. Apparently you are unable to perceive the hazard caused by
military flights operating at nearly twice the velocity permitted
civil aircraft within the NAS. If you have forgotten the funicular in
Europe or the many MACs in which high-speed military aircraft hit
civil aircraft while on MTR, and the military blamed the civil pilot,
you need to do some reading.

You should try citing independent sources to bolster your OPINIONS if
you expect your arguments to be viewed as credible.

and 2) military UAV use is inherently dangerous.

It's not the military UAVs that concern me. They fly in restricted
airspace.

It's the stampede toward the commercialization of military UAVs that
lack the facility to comply with FAA regulations that the rest of us
NAS users must follow. It's not okay to permit those UAVs to operate
outside of restricted airspace until they are able to comply with the
fundamental mandate of aerial navigation, see-and-avoid, just so that
some aerospace contractor who received Pentagon funding to develop
their produces on with our tax money can cash in on the
commercialization of non-compliant UAV technology, IMNSHO.

If you think that's okay, perhaps you can provide a reasonable
explanation of your position.

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.

It's a different subject.

So you're saying, that there's no need to address the potential hazard
posed by integrating UAVs into the NAS or reassess the hazard posed by
MTRs, because more hazardous situations exist? That's not a very
compelling argument, John. You can do better than that, can't you?

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.

You'll have to explain to me how that constitutes "anti-military
bias." It looks more like bias against a rogue corporation that has
employed criminal tactics to secure Pentagon contracts and swindle you
and me out of tax revenue to me. Apparently your pro-military bias
has clouded your ability to comprehend what I wrote.

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:18:21 -0800 (PST), Denny
wrote in
:

OK guys... Just remember that 'my' VFR airspace requires -by precedent
and case law established regulations. Established by the attorney(s)
for the FAA/DOT no less- that all users within it are required to be
able to actively "see and avoid"...
A guy peering at computer screens from far and away does not meet
necessarily meet the definition - esp. in 3 miles and haze...

That's why there has always been a requirement for a chase-plane in
UAV operations within the NAS in the past. While it doesn't address
the lack of control possible with a malfunctioning UAV, and it's
potential hazard to those on the ground, it's a reasonable and prudent
mandate at this stage of UAV development.

The Ninja boys were in 'my' airspace in violation of several regs -
including flying much faster than they could see and avoid...

The Ninja flight leader, Parker failed to comply with so many
regulations, it's criminal in my opinion, but the military saw to it
that he was punished for the death of a fellow Cessna 172 pilot;
General Rosa gave him a verbal reprimand. :-(

An autonomous UAV with todays technology cannot see and avoid, and
depends upon MY seeing and avoiding it.. The UAV operator is in
clearly violation of the regulatory requirement of see and avoid...

That's why they need to be restricted exclusively to operating within
Restricted airspace until they can comply. But they shouldn't be
given indiscriminate chunks of airspace in which to pursue their
commercial profits. They should have to purchase those TFRs, IMO.
Otherwise, we're going to be dodging a lot more TFRs before long.

Now we can debate whether The FAA Administrator can revise the rules
at her whim and choice at the behest of other branches of
government... Certainly she can at the moment because "I" do not
have the regulatory authority to override her...

Actually, at the moment there is no FAA administrator, only an acting
administrator, unless Bobby Sturgell has been confirmed:
http://www.kxmc.com/News/Politics/207027.asp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVvfhZKIqKY


But a Federal Judge does... The hopeful glimmer in this mess is that
the courts have shown increasing willingness in the past decade to
override the unilateral decisions of various regulatory branches of
the government who have historically felt that they are above the law
- Coast Guard, DOJ, HSA, CIA, , Pentagon, AG of the USA, and the
President of the United States just recently...

Are you referring to this:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/04/navy.sonar.ap/
The Navy must follow environmental laws placing strict limits on
sonar training that opponents argue harms whales, despite
President Bush's decision to exempt it, a federal judge ruled
Monday.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/415106a.html
The US Navy has admitted that its use of a high-intensity sonar
system caused a rash of whale strandings and deaths in March 2000.

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/ar.../ln/ln07a.html
High-powered sonar from Navy ships appears to be giving whales and
other marine mammals a version of the bends, causing them to
develop dangerous gas bubbles in some vital organs and blood
vessels, to beach themselves and die, according to a study
published today in the journal Nature. ...

The low-frequency sonar that the Navy now wants to use around the
globe operates at the sound level used by the largest, and some of
the most endangered, whales.

The whales stranded in the Canary Islands are beaked whales, the
same kind as those killed in a similar stranding in the Bahamas in
2000. Beaked whales are relatively small whales that dive deeper
than most to feed on squid.

The Navy initially said that its sonar had no connection with the
2000 stranding, but a later inquiry ruled out all other
possibilities and concluded the sonar most likely caused the
animals to die.

Several of the Bahamas whales also were studied by scientists, who
found large internal hemorrhages around the animal's ears. ...


I have to believe that a determined series of due process appeals to
the FAA, followed by a federal suit when the FAA inevitably says they
can do anything they want, is more likely to have the courts side with
the GA users, in the end, who are physically threatened by the
presence of vehicles in the airspace that cannot uphold their end of
the requirement to 'see and avoid', than it is to uphold willy nilly
insertion of non conforming vehicles into, precedent and case law
established, see and avoid VFR airspace...

denny


We can hope, but when there's money involved ....

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

But the military is all about destruction

Nope. The military mission isn't all about destruction.


I don't support destruction, or
those who believe they're above the law.

Neither do I.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 14:59:57 -0500, Bob Noel
wrote in
:


But the military is all about destruction

Nope. The military mission isn't all about destruction.

I've not seen a bomb or gun used other than do cause destruction, have
you?