Drones To Be Certificated For GA?

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...

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...

On Apr 19, 5:02*pm, hierophant wrote:

Live To Spend It

Good luck with that.

On Apr 19, 5:14*pm, Daryl 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.

=========
WARNING: Using a fake name, Heirophant's
premise is simple... "a lie is as good as the truth
if he can get someone to believe it." But heed this
warning; he has tried all of this before. Just look
back on the various newsgroups, and there he will be
in all his pathetic ugliness. Yet, this time it is much
worse. Out to undermine these newsgroups to the
point that seemingly he alone appears to be the
only authority on just about everything, and/or
pretends he is trying to warn us of others, he not
only fabricates all he says, but does much of it
by stealing the identity of many others, including
yours truly, as the means to this end (if a posting
seems out of character or obscene, be sure to
check the Headers - if it's from X-privat or Hushmail,
it's a forged post from Heirophant). Besides the identity
theft, this time he is blatantly stalking many of
us into many other newsgroups that we frequent
as well, including this one, with the intent to disturb
and spread his lies there as well. It was even
shown that there are many more newsgroups that
he is trying to disturb this way, even an AVIATION
group in which he is apparently stealing the identity
of actual pilots, where periodic warnings to readers
about Heirophant are posted. There he PRETENDS
TO BE A PILOT; here he pretends to actually be
involved.

Unfortunately, because of these very antics by
Heirophant, some of the regulars have already moved
on to other forms of communication, or soon will
be, including many of the travel agents from one of
the original newsgroups he frequents. And after chasing
them away by posting vile messages under their names,
he chastises them for leaving the group. He then tries to
fool readers here that he is the savior of the group - when
in fact he is the person who has caused all the anarchy.

Others are simply waiting and hopefully for a time
when it is safe to rejoin the various groups. Yet, to
Heirophant, it doesn't matter... he simply continues to
post and adds threads using the identities of these
others, saying and implying things that they would
never actually say. And just look at his current
signature line in these other groups, doing the exact
same thing that he accuses many of us as doing.
Yet, unlike Heirophant's signature, ours is at least in
keeping with what is acceptable according to the Charter
guidelines. Plus, follow our links, which will lead you to
actual and legitimate connections, affiliations and
licensed endeavors. That can't be said of the associations
Heirophant claims; a website that attracts spammers,
in addition to certifications that have never heard of him.

Now we all know that this post and information will
simply be met with more lies, negative comments
and innuendos by Heirophant, staying true to form,
with him possibly tying to add clout by again taking
on the identity of some of the other regulars. As
to his bashing of me personally (which in this case
will be a forgone conclusion) one only needs to look
to the source. He hasn't been accurate yet in
anything he has said, so it is of little consequence
what he tries to makes up in this reference.

Nothing has changed on my end at all, but
seemingly this is not the case with some of the
services he claims as leverage in his dealings. Even
they have a problem claiming something that he
is not, and using foul language to boot. What
can be done in the meantime until such antics
can be stopped? On our part, that answer is simple.
Totally ignore everything Heirophant does and says,
don't believe a word of what he tells anyone,
be suspicious of others actually backing and
endorsing such behavior (it is probably just him
anyway), and let's simply go about business as
before - minus Heirophant.

---
Mark IV

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. I have removed the one NG so I won't see the
response.

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. ;^)

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.

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?

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.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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.

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.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:40:54 -0700 (PDT), Why BeeDee wrote:

Uncontrolled airspace will soon be a thing of the past.

Sadly ;(