On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 11:40:24 -0700, wrote in
:

Be very careful here...

Saying UAV's can't be operated safely in the vicinity of VFR general aviation
has two solutions...

1)eliminate VFR general aviation...

(Eliminating VFR general aviation operations does nothing to protect
IFR flights from UAV MAC hazards. In VMC, all pilots are required to
see-and-avoid.)

2)Eliminate UAV's

Surely there are other better choices than the two you have provided.

In todays political climate given this choice it's not clear who would loose....

Are you suggesting that I abandon air safety and capitulate to
corporate clout? No thanks.

What is right is right. What is wrong is wrong. It's pretty clear to
me. If the FAA found it prudent to require see-and-avoid in VMC,
anything less compromises air safety.

I think it would be much more productive to discuss what changes could be done
to operate safely together.

Either UAVs need to be capable of complying with federal see-and-avoid
regulations, or they need to be operated within restricted airspace
(or followed by a chase plane with a pilot capable of complying with
the see-and-avoid regulation). Or UAVs need to be equipped with a
system that provides the _equivalent_ of see-and-avoid capability.

But even if those measures are followed (as they are currently), that
doesn't overcome the loss of control issues facing UAVs.

A UAV will never be able to do see and avoid in the same way a pilot can, that is
byond the state of the art for the forseeable future.

I'm sure you believe that, but before I can swallow it, I'd need to
see some supporting evidence. Further, I don't care if UAVs use
visible light to comply with see-and-avoid; they just need to be
capable of maneuvering out of the path of another aircraft in time to
avoid it by whatever means.

Many UAVs are small and hence more difficult for a pilot to spot than
a conventional aircraft. To my mind, that puts the onus on the UAV
operators/manufacturers to do something about the potential hazard
they pose in joint use airspace.

Because UAVs were developed for military use, there likely hasn't been
significant R&D funding expended on traffic deconfliction systems.
That needs to change before UAVs are routinely flown in the NAS.

Stubbornly asking that they do so is counter productive and will lead back to the origional choice offered above.

Okay. So you're saying that UAV operators should be allowed to
violate federal regulations, so that UAV manufacturers can reap a
profit at the expense of public safety?

(Vision system in the real world with all its variations are technically a very hard problem)

Then perhaps another solution would be more appropriate. Radar has
been suggested. Lidar might work.

Some possible solutions:

All UAV's must operate in class A airspace with controled coridors to take off and land.


While that is a creative suggestion, it might cause the floor of Class
A airspace to be made lower. And it does nothing to overcome UAV loss
of control situations.


All air vehicles must cary a transponder or position reporting device.

This will force Champ and Cub owners out of the air.

If the government wants to fly UAV's make them pay for the position reporting deivces.

Please describe the type of position reporting devices to which you
are referring. ADS-B?* TCAS? What?

Some really good work has been done in this area for gliders...

Have you got a link to information about that?


What other solutions give us equavalent safety?


The DOD coerced DOT into permitting military operations in excess of
250 knots below 10,000', and look how that turned out.

The NAS is a coherent system, that has been designed so that it works.
When parts of it are arbitrarily changed without regard for the
consequences of those changes, air safety suffers.

Just wait until a UAV inevitably collides with an airliner, or a
runaway UAV crashes into a school yard. Then this issue will get some
serious attention.



* http://adsb.tc.faa.gov/ADS-B.htm
Aircraft (or other vehicles or obstacles) will broadcast a
message on a regular basis, which includes their position (such
as latitude, longitude and altitude), velocity, and possibly
other information. Other aircraft or systems can receive this
information for use in a wide variety of applications. Current
surveillance systems must measure vehicle position, while ADS-B
based systems will simply receive accurate position reports
broadcast by the vehicles.