Who's At Fault in UAV/Part91 MAC?

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article et, Tony Cox
i
wrote:
duffers" just happen to be the UAV manufacturers is a
significant departure from existing practice. It's not BS, it's
a very valid concern.

It sort of begs the question - if UAV pilots are going to need to be
essentially PPL standard for medical etc. why bother? Why not just send
the guy up in a Cessna 172 to do his patrols instead? It'd be much
cheaper to stick the man in an existing aircraft that you can buy off
the open market for low (for Government) cost if you're going to need
the man to fly a UAV remotely, anyway.

Indeed! But when I suggested that earlier, Bob objected
because it'd send up the price of used 182's! (Owning one
myself, I don't see a problem...)

From the accident reports Larry posted, each of these UAV's cost
us about $3.3 million & need a crew of 7 to keep in the air. That's
10 brand new 182's -- 13 or 14 72's.


I see an advantage to using UAVs for reconnaisance over enemy territory.
But over your own country, the only point to UAVs I can see is research
and training the recon operators - which can all be done in a MOA.

There's a good sized MOA over most of Death Valley. They can
pretend the occasional hiker is Bin Laden. I'm with you. I can't see
any reason for operation in the NAS unless it is a "nose under the
tent" issue.

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 12:53:50 GMT, "Tony Cox" wrote in
Message-Id: :

I see an advantage to using UAVs for reconnaisance over enemy territory.
But over your own country, the only point to UAVs I can see is research
and training the recon operators - which can all be done in a MOA.

There's a good sized MOA over most of Death Valley. They can
pretend the occasional hiker is Bin Laden. I'm with you. I can't see
any reason for operation in the NAS unless it is a "nose under the
tent" issue.

MOAs are Joint Use airspace where military flights share the airspace
with civil aircraft. Personally, I would prefer that any UAVs
operating there comply with the same federal regulations to which I
must adhere, such as the pilot(s) being certificated to meet
regulatory standards and medical requirements including vision,
see-and-avoid responsibility, _personal_ responsibility under _civil_
and _criminal_ law for the consequences of any damages caused, ...
Holding the ground based UAV pilot(s) personally responsible for any
damage done by their UAV operations might reduce any attitude of
remote anonymity they may feel by not having their bodies subject to
the same catastrophic MAC consequences faced by airborne pilots.
Without personal accountability, UAV operators would have a virtual
license to commit murder/manslaughter with impunity.

(Take for example the irresponsible F-16 military flight leader,
Parker, who led his wingman into a high-speed, low-level, fatal MAC
with a Cessna-172 pilot in 2000. Although he chose to descend into
Class B and C airspace at nearly twice the 300 knot FAR limit for his
aircraft type below 10,000', without establishing communication with
Air Traffic Control as mandated by FAR, rather than face third degree
murder charges as would have been brought against a civilian, the
military found that a verbal reprimand without lost of rank nor pay to
be appropriate punishment for his recklessly irresponsible conduct.
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?e...12X22313&key=1)

I would also prefer my government exercise frugality with my tax
dollars, and choose the most effective method of boarder patrol
relative to its cost.

--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

In article , "Tony
Cox" wrote:

Indeed! But when I suggested that earlier, Bob objected
because it'd send up the price of used 182's! (Owning one
myself, I don't see a problem...)

From the accident reports Larry posted, each of these UAV's cost
us about $3.3 million & need a crew of 7 to keep in the air. That's
10 brand new 182's -- 13 or 14 72's.

well, if they buy new ones, that would eventually increase
the supply of used ones (and they tend to be properly
maintained). This would be a Good Thing.

:-)

--
Bob Noel