"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 16:38:01 GMT, "Casey Wilson" N2310D @ gmail.com
wrote in Jd0Gg.9778$u1.1872@trnddc05:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 08:42:47 -0400, "John Doe"
wrote in :

They normally maintain heading and altitude much better than many of the
pilots I know.

And what about the times they or their operators do something
abnormal, and violate regulations?

UAVs have no place in the NAS without the ability to comply with the
regulations that govern its use.

Would you please cite a reference to these incidents?


Sure. Below are some examples of the many UAV loss of control
mishaps.

Don't forget, the UAV assumes its own navigation upon loss of control
from the ground. The UAV, incapable of complying with the
see-and-avoid regulation, then becomes a hazard to air navigation if
it is not operating in Restricted airspace.

If UAVs, in their current state of refinement, were capable of
operating within federal aviation regulations, they wouldn't need a
chase plane nor Restricted airspace.

Thanks, Larry. You probably won't agree, but I'm going to pose that all
your examples support my side.
First, none of the mishaps you cited involved any potential hazard to
other aircraft, even when they wandered out of their operating arenas. With
the exception to those in foreign theaters, my bet is that ATC knew, as
close as transponder accuracy would allow, the exact position of the UAV --
and could have provided ample warning to any other aircraft.
Second, those (albeit, few) incidents that occurred outside SUA support
my statement that I'm not in favor of flying them over populated areas. In
other words, NIMBY until the reliability goes way up.