Drones To Be Certificated For GA?

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 19:42:59 -0700 (PDT), Schiffner wrote:

On Apr 19, 5:21*pm, Why BeeDee wrote:
On Apr 19, 7:15*pm, Schiffner wrote:





On Apr 19, 5:07*pm, Why BeeDee wrote:

On Apr 19, 6:50*pm, Schiffner wrote:

Not really, the only market that is remotely viable for drones would
be transoceanic flights. Domestically things are too crowded unless
they flew well over 50,000...and that's only practical if you fly
coast2coast.

I wouldn't be so sure about that:

FAA Pressed to Allow Drone Flights in U.S

(CBS/AP) *Unmanned aircraft have proved their usefulness and
reliability in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now the
pressure's on to allow them in the skies over the United States.

The Federal Aviation Administration has been asked to issue flying
rights for a range of pilotless planes to carry out civilian and law-
enforcement functions but has been hesitant to act. Officials are
worried that they might plow into airliners, cargo planes and
corporate jets that zoom around at high altitudes, or helicopters and
hot air balloons that fly as low as a few hundred feet off the ground.

On top of that, these pilotless aircraft come in a variety of sizes.
Some are as big as a small airliner, others the size of a backpack.
The tiniest are small enough to fly through a house window.

The obvious risks have not deterred the civilian demand for pilotless
planes. Tornado researchers want to send them into storms to gather
data. Energy companies want to use them to monitor pipelines. State
police hope to send them up to capture images of speeding cars'
license plates. Local police envision using them to track fleeing
suspects.

Like many robots, the planes have advantages over humans for jobs that
are dirty, dangerous or dull. And the planes often cost less than
piloted aircraft and can stay aloft far longer.

"There is a tremendous pressure and need to fly unmanned aircraft in
(civilian) airspace," Hank Krakowski, FAA's head of air traffic
operations, told European aviation officials recently. "We are having
constant conversations and discussions, particularly with the
Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, to
figure out how we can do this safely with all these different sizes of
vehicles."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6579920.shtml

bah, how else to get rid of civil aviation? The government has been
working towards that goal for 50 years...

I tend to agree. I'm sure there isn't a day goes by that some brainiac
at the FAA doesn't pass some time wondering how many beer cans could
be made out of the 200,000+ aircraft registered in the USA.

Sad to say...

I have secret planes in case of lottery. Mr. Rutan will be getting a
call...nothing new, nothing off the shelf either. ;^)

I'm buying a fake drone...that I can pilot. Fools them all

hierophant wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:26:27 -0000, wrote:

hierophant wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:43:50 -0000, wrote:

In rec.aviation.piloting hierophant wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:59:01 -0400, vaughn wrote:

"hierophant" wrote in message
...
My concern is that this certification will lead to the
temporarypermanent closing of airspace ala Nevada. Imagine if
general air over cities, coastlines, borders and the potential impact
of smaller airfields.

Agree. The drone folks would love to simplify and cheapen things for themselves
by 1) grabbing airspace and 2) by forcing the owners of all other planes to
install transponder equipment so that drones can cheaply "see" them. When a
drone is able to "see and avoid" just like a human pilot, then no special
airspace will be necessary. That is the standard we should insist on. Until
then, we should hold their feet to the fire. Video "see & avoid" technology is
coming, and may someday be cheap enough to go in any well-equipped airplane. ..

Vaughn

I had not thought about the see-avoid issue; this might give drones
freer realm in general airspace. Which is better? See-avoid drones
competing for any of our airspace or limited airspace for blind
drones?

A pickle.

Not really.

Drones have very limited utility in the US as a whole so I highly doubt
there will ever be many of them flying in general airspace other than
near the borders.

For testing and such the military already has restricted areas and MOAs
suitable for that.

And if a drone could ever see and avoid as well as the average 172 pilot,
there wouldn't be any realistic reason they couldn't fly with everything
else.

However, that is a big "if".

In the meantime, I wouldn't find a "mode C veil" along the boarder
objectionable.

Jim, there limited utility is being sought by major cities such as LA,
NYC, Atlanta and Chicago by local police.

Yeah, I know.

There will always be the techno-nerds that want the latest technology with
no regard to whether or not that technology is applicable to the problem
at hand.

UAVs (especially the armed ones) are very good for military type surveillance
but not really that good, if usefull at all, for civilian surveillance in
some place like LA.

UAVs will not replace a helicopter with a spot light and an officer in the
air telling the cops on the ground the perp is running south down the alley
toward 1st street.

What would the cops do with a UAV in this instance, fire a missle at the perp?

Ha! It's more about intimidation than useful surveillance.

An unarmed UAV is not going to intimidate a street criminal and domestic
UAV's will never be armed unless the Constitution goes away.

Also these things are not cheap and with todays budgets likely, even if
UAVs were approved for cop use, it would come down to either the UAV or
the helicopter, and the cops aren't going to give up their helicopters.

About the only realistic domestic use for UAVs is things like pipline
patrol, and that would hardly be a problem for GA.

They're talking border patrol but your point is well made.

Again border patrol could be simply implemented by putting a mode C veil for
a few miles around the border.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Apr 21, 5:42*am, wrote:
hierophant wrote:
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:26:27 -0000, wrote:

hierophant wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:43:50 -0000, wrote:

In rec.aviation.piloting hierophant wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:59:01 -0400, vaughn wrote:

"hierophant" wrote in message
...
My concern is that this certification will lead to the
temporarypermanent closing of airspace ala Nevada. Imagine if
general air over cities, coastlines, borders and the potential impact
of smaller airfields.

Agree. *The drone folks would love to simplify and cheapen things for themselves
by 1) grabbing airspace and 2) by forcing the owners of all other planes to
install transponder equipment so that drones can cheaply "see" them. * When a
drone is able to "see and avoid" just like a human pilot, then no special
airspace will be necessary. *That is the standard we should insist on. *Until
then, we should hold their feet to the fire. *Video "see & avoid" *technology is
coming, and may someday be cheap enough to go in any well-equipped airplane. *..

Vaughn

I had not thought about the see-avoid issue; this might give drones
freer realm in general airspace. Which is better? See-avoid drones
competing for any of our airspace or limited airspace for blind
drones?

A pickle.

Not really.

Drones have very limited utility in the US as a whole so I highly doubt
there will ever be many of them flying in general airspace other than
near the borders.

For testing and such the military already has restricted areas and MOAs
suitable for that.

And if a drone could ever see and avoid as well as the average 172 pilot,
there wouldn't be any realistic reason they couldn't fly with everything
else.

However, that is a big "if".

In the meantime, I wouldn't find a "mode C veil" along the boarder
objectionable.

Jim, there limited utility is being sought by major cities such as LA,
NYC, Atlanta and Chicago by local police.

Yeah, I know.

There will always be the techno-nerds that want the latest technology with
no regard to whether or not that technology is applicable to the problem
at hand.

UAVs (especially the armed ones) are very good for military type surveillance
but not really that good, if usefull at all, for civilian surveillance in
some place like LA.

UAVs will not replace a helicopter with a spot light and an officer in the
air telling the cops on the ground the perp is running south down the alley
toward 1st street.

What would the cops do with a UAV in this instance, fire a missle at the perp?

Ha! It's more about intimidation than useful surveillance.

An unarmed UAV is not going to intimidate a street criminal and domestic
UAV's will never be armed unless the Constitution goes away.

Also these things are not cheap and with todays budgets likely, even if
UAVs were approved for cop use, it would come down to either the UAV or
the helicopter, and the cops aren't going to give up their helicopters..

About the only realistic domestic use for UAVs is things like pipline
patrol, and that would hardly be a problem for GA.

They're talking border patrol but your point is well made.

Again border patrol could be simply implemented by putting a mode C veil for
a few miles around the border.

Imagining the cost of patrolling your Mexico/USA border the UAV's
would be cost effective in detecting those crossing the border..

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 19:01:07 -0600, Daryl wrote:

On 4/19/2011 6:12 PM, Mark IV wrote:
On Apr 19, 5:14 pm, wrote:
On 4/19/2011 3:02 PM, hierophant wrote:



On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:55:54 -0600, Daryl wrote:

On 4/19/2011 2:07 PM, hierophant wrote:
Appears so

http://www.gatheringspot.net/news-article/general-discussion/lobbying...

The article originally had a picture of a non-drone SR-71 Blackbird
which was removed. ???

My concern is that this certification will lead to the
temporarypermanent closing of airspace ala Nevada. Imagine if
general air over cities, coastlines, borders and the potential impact
of smaller airfields.

Your Cite is nothing more than a Political statement. Drones are
on the way, get over it.

Daryl, calm down. First, it is an opinion not a "cite" and one that
I only partially share. Second, the fact that drones are coming is
self-evident.

Do you have your PPL?

You needed to say that in the original post. It looked like it
was a political statement or an anti government statement.

Actually I have PTSD. Shall I go off the meds? Saying that I
should go on my meds doesn't work over here. Of course, maybe I
should. There are a few people that need messing up.

Daryl,
"Heirophant" is a bonafied asshole and troll.

He previously went under the name Ari Silverstein.

Posting in a primarily Military Group as a troll is probably not
such a good idea.

That JEW got my Bellsouth account canceled, why? A simple death
threat, that's all.

Where's the Feds, Jewball? as to Federal employees...no one can get
within a quarter mile of me without a warrant. I'm very hard to access
and my critter cameras record everything that happens around here.

All I said was:

"Call your attorney. Call the FBI. Hunt me down. And when you do, be
sure and let's get a comprehensive list and copy of all these posts
which I've supposedly authored. There are hundreds of them.

He also brags that he's been forging my identity in "Pilots of
America" for 6 months. If this is true, then they should have those
archived as well. Yes as Mark, blueriverday. Myself, I've never been
there, nor plan to.

So, hunt "me" down, please. Expose my identity. Not the AT&T "me".
That's really me. I'm talking about the 15,000 groups he's claimed to
have spammed in my name, and made virtually unuseable. *That" Mark.

He's hiding in this group right now. Just look at the bottom of your
screen at those forgeries. CALL THE FBI.

This is a DEATH THREAT.

I'm considering KILLING him!"

MarkIV, so better than all the rest

On 4/21/2011 3:26 PM, Mark IV wrote:


That JEW got my Bellsouth account canceled, why? A simple death
threat, that's all.

If you put out the amount of trash I think you do, it wasn't the
"Jew" that got your account canceled, it was you that got your
account canceled.

Have a Nice day from a Christian.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:39:48 -0600, Daryl wrote:

On 4/21/2011 3:26 PM, Mark IV wrote:


That JEW got my Bellsouth account canceled, why? A simple death
threat, that's all.

If you put out the amount of trash I think you do, it wasn't the
"Jew" that got your account canceled, it was you that got your
account canceled.

Have a Nice day from a Christian.

Forget this childish internet stuff. I dare you to reveal your
identity. If you don't you're a coward. Any time, any place. Bring
your friends. I don't mind. Waiting... I DARE YOU. I am the ancestor
of the Vikings!

Hey, Jesustroll, when you were a little boy, did your granny explain
why everyone called you "Mr. Holy"? You know, because you were, and
STILL ARE a Xristian idiot.

Ok, go ahead, get busy. Spend another 1000 hours of your valueless
unemployed time and continue devoting your life to forging posts.
Yeah, spread it as far as you want, like you've been doing.

At the end of the day, I'll still be paying peeps to fly me and you
won't. See, the internet isn't my life like it is yours. Ok, I lied
rite there but I am MAN enough to admit it. I am sensible and in
control GODDAMMIT.

Mark IV, simply the best

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 18:14:06 -0400, Mark IV wrote:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:39:48 -0600, Daryl wrote:

On 4/21/2011 3:26 PM, Mark IV wrote:


That JEW got my Bellsouth account canceled, why? A simple death
threat, that's all.

If you put out the amount of trash I think you do, it wasn't the
"Jew" that got your account canceled, it was you that got your
account canceled.

Have a Nice day from a Christian.

Forget this childish internet stuff. I dare you to reveal your
identity. If you don't you're a coward. Any time, any place. Bring
your friends. I don't mind. Waiting... I DARE YOU. I am the ancestor
of the Vikings!

Hey, Jesustroll, when you were a little boy, did your granny explain
why everyone called you "Mr. Holy"? You know, because you were, and
STILL ARE a Xristian idiot.

Ok, go ahead, get busy. Spend another 1000 hours of your valueless
unemployed time and continue devoting your life to forging posts.
Yeah, spread it as far as you want, like you've been doing.

At the end of the day, I'll still be paying peeps to fly me and you
won't. See, the internet isn't my life like it is yours. Ok, I lied
rite there but I am MAN enough to admit it. I am sensible and in
control GODDAMMIT.

Mark IV, simply the best

Obsess much?

http://boardreader.com/thread/I_dare...5btXdfjvx.html

On 4/21/2011 5:14 PM, Mark IV wrote:
Mark IV, simply the best

Not since they overdid your bris.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 18:12:12 -0500, Dan wrote:

On 4/21/2011 5:14 PM, Mark IV wrote:
Mark IV, simply the best

Not since they overdid your bris.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I doubt the dogs dislike for you *Negros* (porch monkkeys) was based
on a previous experience. Most dogs don't like black people. I'm here
for you black, crack-baby.

Mark IV, rich, handsome, millioaire, *CAUCASIAN*

On 4/21/2011 6:19 PM, Mark IV wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 18:12:12 -0500, Dan wrote:

On 4/21/2011 5:14 PM, Mark IV wrote:
Mark IV, simply the best

Not since they overdid your bris.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I doubt the dogs dislike for you *Negros* (porch monkkeys) was based
on a previous experience. Most dogs don't like black people. I'm here
for you black, crack-baby.

Mark IV, rich, handsome, millioaire, *CAUCASIAN*

"Monnkeys?" "Millioaire?" Ask your mullah to explain what a spell
checker is.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired