Who's At Fault in UAV/Part91 MAC?

"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...

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.

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

Under the existing definition, sure--but this definition presupposes that
such an aircraft has human occupants. To my thinking, unmanned hardware
can't exactly experience "distress"; therefore, right-of-way shouldn't be an
absolute in this instance. Manned air traffic should never be jeopardized
by unmanned aircraft, irrespective of any malfunction such hardware may
experience. "Safety" always pertains to the human element, never machinery.

A related thought: rockets always have a human-controlled self-destruct
capability to protect lives and property on the ground should the vehicle
experience a loss of control. Maybe UAVs should have this cabability too.

"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.


They are not always flown in restricted areas. This test facility is
not in a restricted area.

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Pho...03-0078-1.html

....and as copied from:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...9&modele=jdc_1

"Altair is expected to be the first UAV to meet Federal Aviation
Administration requirements to operate from conventional airports, with
piloted aircraft, in the national airspace. In addition to triple-redundant
avionics, Altair is configured with a fault-tolerant, dual-architecture
flight control system. The UAV will be equipped with an automated
collision-avoidance system and an air traffic control voice relay. The relay
allows air-traffic controllers to talk to ground-based Altair pilots through
the aircraft."

On several occasions, Joshua Control has called me with warnings about
UAVs and their chase planes orbiting around El Mirage Dry Lake. The location
is a couple miles north of KREY near Adelanto, California.

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:07:41 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in Message-Id:
.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?

Yes. Did you read the entire content of my article? You'll note in
one of the excerpts of the links, that the demonstration UAV was at
200' AGL.

There is no altitude reference outside of Class A airspace, so presumably
see-and-avoid is not an issue.

Agreed; your assessment is presumptuous.

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.

From the links I provided in the article, it seems that the FARs are
being revised to accommodate UAVs outside of restricted airspace.

"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?

Good question. In fact, several good questions.

As for "see-and-avoid", there is some visual feedback to the remote
pilot ahead. I've no idea as to the quality of the circuit, nor the coverage
of the sky from the cockpit it gives the pilot. If the quality is sufficient
that the remote pilot can pass the aviation medical eye exam over the
remote circuit (put the eye chart in front of the plane and ask the remote
pilot what the letters say, color charts, etc.), I don't see the problem ;-)

I note that there is currently no requirement for certification, even
medical
requirements. With all the fuss over sport pilot medical requirements, this
needs to be addressed or we might as well not have medical certifications
at all..

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:17:37 GMT, "Tony Cox" wrote in
Message-Id: et:

"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?

Good question. In fact, several good questions.

As for "see-and-avoid", there is some visual feedback to the remote
pilot ahead. I've no idea as to the quality of the circuit, nor the coverage
of the sky from the cockpit it gives the pilot. If the quality is sufficient
that the remote pilot can pass the aviation medical eye exam over the
remote circuit (put the eye chart in front of the plane and ask the remote
pilot what the letters say, color charts, etc.), I don't see the problem ;-)

That would be a reasonable test of the UAV pilots' ability to comply
with the see-and-avoid regulation, but the UAV pilots would have to be
able to see above and below and to the sides in addition to airspace
immediately ahead.

I note that there is currently no requirement for certification, even
medical requirements [for UAV operators].

Can you provide a citation that supports that statement? It is scary
beyond belief if true. Imagine the uncertified pilot of the UAV
safely on the ground simultaneously monitoring video from the front,
above, below and to the sides while attempting to spot intruders on
the ground. How much time is going to be devoted to traffic scan
compared to ground scan? Will the operators receive recognition for
avoiding collisions or spotting illegals? How will the public be
assured that their priority is safety, and not mission success as is
inherent in manned aircraft where the pilots have their lives on the
line in avoiding collisions?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:17:37 GMT, "Tony Cox" wrote in
Message-Id: et:

I note that there is currently no requirement for certification, even
medical requirements [for UAV operators].

Can you provide a citation that supports that statement?

It's a quote in your original post, attributed to one William
Shumann:- "Currently, there are no FAA regulations dealing
with the certification of UAV pilots, aircraft or (commercial)
operators," he said.


It is scary
beyond belief if true. Imagine the uncertified pilot of the UAV
safely on the ground simultaneously monitoring video from the front,
above, below and to the sides while attempting to spot intruders on
the ground. How much time is going to be devoted to traffic scan
compared to ground scan? Will the operators receive recognition for
avoiding collisions or spotting illegals? How will the public be
assured that their priority is safety, and not mission success as is
inherent in manned aircraft where the pilots have their lives on the
line in avoiding collisions?

What assurance do we have that he won't have a heart attack, or
loose consciousness, or a whatever?

I'm of the opinion that physically being in the plane sharpens your
mind up. When I fly, I'm constantly "on edge" and ready to react
instantly to any problem. It's my bum on the line too. Frankly, I'd
never expect that level of alertness from a remote pilot, slouched in
a chair drinking his coffee, thumbing through "Playboy" during the
dull bits of a mission, scratching his butt and wandering off to
the bathroom whenever he feels like it. All he risks is his job.