Who's At Fault in UAV/Part91 MAC?

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:55:26 GMT, "John T" wrote in
Message-Id: om:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news
[...]
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.

Implicit in your question is the notion that, because there are less
international Part 91 operations than domestic, there is no problem
compromising their safety. I do not hold that view.

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?

Are you implying that the ground based crew operating the UAV would be
able to meet the vision standards required of a certificated airman
and mandated by Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Volume 2,
Chapter 1, Part 91, Subpart A, § 91.113(b):

When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an
operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual
flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person
operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft.

solely through the use of video equipment on-board the UAV? If not, I
would characterize the UAV pilot vision standards as reduced from
those required of certificated airmen.

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.

What has lead you to that conclusion?

...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.

You didn't answer the question. :-)

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?

The NTSB has shown a significant lack of impartiality in at least one
civil/military MAC case:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...13X33340&key=2

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

Has anybody said this enhancement would be made?

Unfortunately, there has been no mention whatsoever of enhancing the
conspicuity of UAVs operating in Joint Use airspace in any of the
literature I have read. It would seem prudent to equip the UAV with a
bright light on the front of the UAV, so the pilot on a head-on
collision course with it might be able to see it in time to attempt to
avoid it. The UAV might also be equipped with TCAS to assist in
warning of an impending MAC.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


Implicit in your question is the notion that, because there are less
international Part 91 operations than domestic, there is no problem
compromising their safety. I do not hold that view.

You're assuming a significant rise in the danger to other aircraft (*You*,
not I, separated Part 91 traffic from the rest.) I'm not yet convinced that
adding remotely piloted aircraft to a relatively rarely-travelled slice of
airspace over very sparsely populated border areas raises the danger to
pilots enough for me to be worried. Frankly, I'd give much better odds to
having an in-flight fire or engine failure than a MAC with a remotely
piloted aircraft. The Big Sky is much bigger in the border areas discussed
in your articles.

Are you implying that the ground based crew operating the UAV would be
able to meet the vision standards required of a certificated airman...
solely through the use of video equipment on-board the UAV?

I implied no such thing. However, I'm curious to know why you're implying
they *wouldn't* be able to meet those requirements. Are you aware of all
the capabilities of the UAV's you're talking about? I'm not so I can't make
too many assumptions either way.

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

What has lead you to that conclusion?

What led you to yours? Does "Chicken Little" mean anything to 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.

You didn't answer the question. :-)

I have no expectation in your hypothetical scenario.

The NTSB has shown a significant lack of impartiality in at least one
civil/military MAC case:

The NTSB has shown a "significant lack of impartiality" in a number of other
cases, too, but they're still the closest thing we have to a standing
impartial review board that merits trust.

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

The Predator is equipped with Terrain and In-flight Avoidance Systems.
They will see you before you see them.

Mike $$$

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:03:52 GMT, "Tony Cox" wrote in
Message-Id: t:

"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.


Aircraft operation in the NAS by an uncertificated "pilot" would seem
to violate FARs.


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?

It's my understanding that it takes a team of about 7 to operate a
UAV. Perhaps that level of redundancy might mitigate the concerns you
raise. However, 7 border patrol officers on the ground might be more
effective in preventing illegal entries.

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.

Those are my concerns as well.

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 05:08:42 GMT, "John T" wrote in
Message-Id: om:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


Implicit in your question is the notion that, because there are less
international Part 91 operations than domestic, there is no problem
compromising their safety. I do not hold that view.

You're assuming a significant rise in the danger to other aircraft (*You*,
not I, separated Part 91 traffic from the rest.) I'm not yet convinced that
adding remotely piloted aircraft to a relatively rarely-travelled slice of
airspace over very sparsely populated border areas raises the danger to
pilots enough for me to be worried.

Intentionally compromising air safety is always a bad idea. Once the
UAV 'camel' has its nose under the tent, you can bet that you will be
sleeping with it soon, fleas and all.

Frankly, I'd give much better odds to having an in-flight fire or engine
failure than a MAC with a remotely piloted aircraft.

How did you arrive at that point of view. Do you have any data to
support it?

Giving odds or taking chances is an inappropriate approach to air
safety.

The Big Sky is much bigger in the border areas discussed
in your articles.

The "Big Sky" is a total myth. Any rational system that relies upon
chance to insure air safety is doomed to failure. I hope you're not
an FAA employee.

Are you implying that the ground based crew operating the UAV would be
able to meet the vision standards required of a certificated airman...
solely through the use of video equipment on-board the UAV?

I implied no such thing.

You questioned my use of the term 'reduced vision standards'. That
lead me to believe that you felt that UAV operators would be held to
the same (not reduced) vision standards as certificated airmen. If
your questioning of my use of the term 'reduced vision standards' did
not imply your belief that they UAV operators would be held to the
same standards as certificated airmen, what were you implying?

:However, I'm curious to know why you're implying
they *wouldn't* be able to meet those requirements. Are you aware of all
the capabilities of the UAV's you're talking about? I'm not so I can't make
too many assumptions either way.

The military has not disclosed to me all the capabilities of their
UAVs. :-) However, unless there is high-resolutin, color, binocular
vision in all quadrants, the UAV operators visual capability to see
and avoid will be substandard to that required of a certificated
airman.

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

What has lead you to that conclusion?

What led you to yours? Does "Chicken Little" mean anything to you?

Your apparent lack of concern for air safety and reliance on chance
(Big Sky)for aircraft separation betrays your shallow understanding of
the issue.

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?

The NTSB has shown a significant lack of impartiality in at least one
civil/military MAC case:

The NTSB has shown a "significant lack of impartiality" in a number of other
cases, too, but they're still the closest thing we have to a standing
impartial review board that merits trust.

So you feel that a _biased_ (as opposed to _impartial_) governmental
investigative organization does not warrant reform? Comon' man,
think!

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 04:22:56 -0500, (Mike Money)
wrote in Message-Id: :

The Predator is equipped with Terrain and In-flight Avoidance Systems.
They will see you before you see them.

Mike $$$

Can you describe the In-flight Avoidance System you mention? Does it
rely on the operation of a transponder in the conflicting aircraft?
Is it radar based? Visual based? Please provide more information on
this system.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Aircraft operation in the NAS by an uncertificated "pilot" would seem
to violate FARs.

I suppose that depends on how you define "Aircraft"
and "pilot"...


It's my understanding that it takes a team of about 7 to operate a
UAV. Perhaps that level of redundancy might mitigate the concerns you
raise. However, 7 border patrol officers on the ground might be more
effective in preventing illegal entries.

Now I don't understand the logic. What does a UAV provide
that a 182 doesn't? Is it significantly cheaper to keep in the air?
Do the "team of 7" work for less money than a pilot and a
spotter? Now that's scary....

I do understand the use of UAV in hazardous areas, where there
is enemy fire and/or risk of a pilot being captured. But why go to
all the extra trouble just to police the border?

How is see-and-avoid handled with unmanned weather balloons? Are they
only released in restricted airspace? Seems to me that there are some
parallels with UAVs.

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
nk.net...
Now I don't understand the logic. What does a UAV provide
that a 182 doesn't? Is it significantly cheaper to keep in the air?
Do the "team of 7" work for less money than a pilot and a
spotter? Now that's scary....

Surely you can understand how a UAV and support team are much more efficient
at going through taxpayer money than a 172.

Perhaps it is another pork barrel project, or some company has friends in
high places. Because, if they put out the ACTUAL job of searching for
illegal crossings I would find it very hard to believe that it couldn't be
done by a small fleet of properly equipped 172's or 182's and a reasonable
staff of pilots and observers.

Heck, why don't they try giving the job to CAP and see how well that concept
works?

In article et, "Tony
Cox" wrote:

Now I don't understand the logic. What does a UAV provide
that a 182 doesn't?

loiter time.

altitude.

And all potential 182 buyers will appreciate the military
NOT buying up good 182's.

--
Bob Noel