Who's At Fault in UAV/Part91 MAC?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"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.

It is if the pilot can't 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. You're proposing that these UAV's
can simply ignore this rule because they're supposed to be in class
A all the time.

"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.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news

"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.

Their operations are not confined to restricted areas and Class A
airspace.

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:56:33 GMT, "John T" wrote in
Message-Id: om:

"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?

It's not just the military, but civilian government agencies that are
considering the use of UAV's.

The AvFlash article mentioned the Border Patrol UAVs being operated by
the military.

If the UAV's are in the flight levels, then they will be in Positive Control
Airspace, right?

That might be true if they are capable of adequate surveillance
performance from 18,000' MSL, but they will have to climb to that
altitude outside Positive Control Airspace, in Joint Use airspace or
Restricted airspace, as the NAS is currently structured.

If the UAV's are for border patrol, would it not be reasonable to expect
them to be within a few miles of the border? As such, how much of an issue
would you expect them to be to Part 91 flights? Or are you concerned about
the occassional drug-running flight?

While the UAVs may operate within a few miles of the national
boarders, I doubt they will be based there. So it is likely they will
have to traverse Joint Use airspace en route to their stations.

As for your question border restricted areas, I have to question how
many Part 91 flights are conducted close enough to the border for this to be
a problem. Do you know how many occur in any given time frame?

Many international Part 91 flights occur each day. To intentionally
design the NAS in such a way as to permit UAV operation at reduced
vision standards is unprofessional, unacceptable to public safety, and
negligent.

UAV use in general airspace should be carefully considered before
implementation, but I'm not as concerned about their use in border patrol
use as I am about their loitering over a city with several nearby airports
and busy airspace.

And how long do you estimate it will take for UAVs to be operating
beyond the national boarder corridors, given the national hysteria?

As for your subject line question, I'd wait for an NTSB ruling before
passing judgment on that.

Right. It's difficult to generalize about potential MAC
responsibility without specific facts. However, once the inevitable
MAC occurs, and the Part 91 pilot is no longer able to testify (due to
his untimely death), do you expect the team operating the UAV to
actually take responsibility for their failure to see-and-avoid? From
the past behavior of military in MACs with civil aircraft, I would
expect the military to deny all responsibility.

This begs the question, how is the UAV's conspicuity planned to be
enhanced?

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.

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.

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
news

The AvFlash article mentioned the Border Patrol UAVs being operated by
the military.

I didn't say the military wouldn't be involved, but you explicitly ignored
the inclusion of non-military agencies using UAV's.

That might be true if they are capable of adequate surveillance
performance from 18,000' MSL,

Safe to assume.

...but they will have to climb to that
altitude outside Positive Control Airspace, in Joint Use airspace or
Restricted airspace, as the NAS is currently structured.

What's the problem if it's restricted space?

While the UAVs may operate within a few miles of the national
boarders, I doubt they will be based there. So it is likely they will
have to traverse Joint Use airspace en route to their stations.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. UAV's don't necessarily need the massive runways
other recon aircraft require.

Do you know how many occur in any given
time frame?

Many international Part 91 flights occur each day.

So the answer to my yes/no question would be...? No, you don't know.

To intentionally
design the NAS in such a way as to permit UAV operation at reduced
vision standards is unprofessional, unacceptable to public safety, and
negligent.

Unprofessional? Negligent? Reduced vision standards? What reduced
standards?

And how long do you estimate it will take for UAVs to be operating
beyond the national boarder corridors, given the national hysteria?

I make no assumptions - including one regarding "hysteria". The only
hysterical one here appears to be you.

...do you expect the team operating the UAV to
actually take responsibility for their failure to see-and-avoid?

You're assuming facts no in evidence.

From
the past behavior of military in MACs with civil aircraft, I would
expect the military to deny all responsibility.

Perhaps, but the NTSB would still make their ruling, wouldn't they?

This begs the question, how is the UAV's conspicuity planned to be
enhanced?

Has anybody said this enhancement would be made?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"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.

"John T" wrote in
ws.com:

What's the problem if it's restricted space?

None, if it's restricted airspace. But it may very well be in joint use
airspace, especially if the other civilian players get into the game.
They'll be climbing through the Cessnas flying around.

Many international Part 91 flights occur each day.

So the answer to my yes/no question would be...? No, you don't know.

I can't give you an exact number, but it's in the thousands. There are
thousands of daily helicopter flights to/from the Gulf of Mexico alone,
nevermind the true international flights, both airline and Part 135 and
Part 91 flights, US and other countries. My best guess is that it's in the
tens of thousands daily, counting everything.

We're giving up lots of freedoms to the government, and now we're expected
to possibly give our lives, for little or no return. The sky is falling,
the sky is falling!!!! Not I, said the little red hen.

--
Regards,

Stan