Who's At Fault in UAV/Part91 MAC?

"William W. Plummer" wrote in message
news:rhVic.20812$YP5.1530448@attbi_s02...

I had an opportunity to speak with a Marine who operates UAVs as the
remote
pilot. He said he and others doing that job must be instrument rated
pilots
and the UAV must be on an IFR flight plan.

That may be true in his case (instrument rated pilot), but it isn't
required according to Larry's original post.

Given that, why would the
accident rate for UAVs be any different than normal IFR traffic?

1) Conventional traffic must "See and avoid" when in VMC even if
flying IFR.

2) The remote "pilot" doesn't need to keep alert to the extent that
the rest of us do because his life isn't on the line.

"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
nk.net...

"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?

Unless the entire system (camera=ground station=operator)
can match private pilot vision requirements, and is as flexible and
responsive as a qualified private pilot, then the UAV will always
be inherently less safe.

The MIT report does its statistical analysis assuming that the UAV
will just blunder into whatever happens to be in its airspace, and that
if the engine fails it'll come down like a WW2 doodlebug. As reported
before, "collision avoidance" seems to boil down to dodging aircraft
with active transponders. It doesn't appear from anything said so
far in the thread that anyone in the UAV program has considered the
situation from a VFR pilot's point of view.

I have no problem with UAVs -- if their use is confined to
MOAs or MTRs or anywhere else where we have a 'heads up'
that some 'unusual' traffic can be expected. But if these things are
buzzing around in the NAS, then it's reasonable that they obey the
same rules as the rest of us. Otherwise, lets just dispense with the
PP vision & medical requirements, junk 91.113(b) and have
a free-for-all.


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.

I assumed this was what you meant when you said
in a response to Larry:- "There is no altitude
reference outside of Class A airspace, so presumably
see-and-avoid is not an issue.". Did I misunderstand you?

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 20:50:12 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in Message-Id:
et:


"Tony Cox" wrote in message
ink.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?


It's doubtful the ground based UAV operators' vision systems would
function equal to or better than that required meet the Part 61
requirements. It would be necessary for the systems to provide color,
binocular, 20/20 vision in all quadrants, in real-time.

Anything less would restrict a lot more airspace or negatively impact
public air safety (or both), wouldn't it?

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:18:09 GMT, "Tony Cox" wrote in
Message-Id: . net:


I have no problem with UAVs -- if their use is confined to
MOAs or MTRs or anywhere else where we have a 'heads up'
that some 'unusual' traffic can be expected. But if these things are
buzzing around in the NAS, then it's reasonable that they obey the
same rules as the rest of us. Otherwise, lets just dispense with the
PP vision & medical requirements, junk 91.113(b) and have
a free-for-all.

I have a problem with them (as I understand them to currently be
equipped) in all Joint Use airspace, including MOAs and MTRs. To
accommodate UAVs in the NAS, considerably more systems analysis and
testing will need to be conducted before it would even be appropriate
to consider a UAV NPRM. Certainly the FARs would have to be revised
to accommodate UAVs. The MIT project at least provides the means, if
not the best methods, of one getting his arms around the issue.

In article , Larry Dighera
wrote:

It's doubtful the ground based UAV operators' vision systems would
function equal to or better than that required meet the Part 61
requirements.

UAVs have limited payloads. The UAV mission is not to carry
heavy equipment to scan for other aircraft.

--
Bob Noel

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


It's doubtful the ground based UAV operators' vision systems would
function equal to or better than that required meet the Part 61
requirements. It would be necessary for the systems to provide color,
binocular, 20/20 vision in all quadrants, in real-time.

All quadrants? What about all the aircraft with no rearward visibility?
How do those pilots scan all quadrants with 20/20 vision in real-time?

By the way, where in Part 61 are the vision requirements specified?

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 12:40:11 GMT, "Bob Jones" wrote
in Message-Id: m:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


It's doubtful the ground based UAV operators' vision systems would
function equal to or better than that required meet the Part 61
requirements. It would be necessary for the systems to provide color,
binocular, 20/20 vision in all quadrants, in real-time.

All quadrants? What about all the aircraft with no rearward visibility?
How do those pilots scan all quadrants with 20/20 vision in real-time?

I was taught to scan for traffic to the rear of the side to which I
intend to turn before making the turn.

By the way, where in Part 61 are the vision requirements specified?

He
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....4.1.2&idno=14

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


I was taught to scan for traffic to the rear of the side to which I
intend to turn before making the turn.

That may be, but do you perform this scan in all quadrants in real-time? Or
only when you need it? My point is you appear to be placing a higher
standard on UAV's than are placed on existing aircraft/pilots.

By the way, where in Part 61 are the vision requirements specified?

He
[really long URL]

Ah, Part *67*, just as I thought. You were either lying or ignorant when
you made this claim:
"It's doubtful the...UAV operators' vision systems would function equal to
or better than that required meet the Part 61 requirements."

As near as I can tell, the words "vision", "eyesight" and "sight" don't even
appear in Part 61. Further, you admitted elsewhere in this thread that you
have no idea what the capabilities of these systems are (yet more
ignorance).

But why let the facts get in the way of your quixotic quest, eh?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


Once you show me *evidence* of lackadaisical attention to safety by
the owners and operators of those very expensive bits of hardware,

I'm happy to have you aboard. :-) Here is the information you
request:

Interesting that none of those cites indicate anything approaching "evidence
of lackadisical attention to safety".

Lessee... Inadvertent cloud entry. Reference to difficulty in landing.
Faulty assembly. Icing encounters (two of those). Mechanical failure due
to inadequate lubrication.

Sounds like a reading from the NTSB database.

The point is that none of these equate to "lackadaisical attention to safety
by the owners and operators".