On Feb 24, 2:56 pm, Phil J wrote:
On Feb 24, 1:32 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:



On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:32:32 -0500, "John T"
wrote in
:

"Phil J" wrote in message


Well I suppose one option would be to
put some really bright strobes on it, and keep it under 500 feet AGL.

I also suspect the majority of the UAVs used by police departments would be
at low altitudes in areas unlikely to be travelled by most GA aircraft.

We can hope that the final version of the Honeywell MAV will be
equipped with some conspicuity enhancement if it is flown in the realm
of full size aircraft. But it seems the police want to fly them over
the heads of urban dwellers. What is the safeguard against this UAV
hitting someone in the event of an engine or guidance or control
failure or fuel exhaustion? I am unable to imagine a safeguard
against that sort of scenario.

There is that risk, but there is the same risk with GA and commercial
aircraft flying overhead. Compared to human-carrying aircraft, the
number of UAVs is going to be pretty small. Adding UAVs just makes a
tiny change in a very small risk.

Phil

When a human pilot is on board, there is a strong incentive for not
crashing. Unless the pilot is suicidal, we can expect the pilot to do
everything humanly possible to avoid crashing. That same incentive
does not exist in UAVs. The worst thing that can happen to a UAV crash
pilot is that he may lose his job, not his life. No matter how
conscientious the UAV pilot may be, there is a huge difference between
paying for your mistakes with your life vs facing disciplinary action.

I am fully in support of unmanned airplanes, but it is far too early.
We need something more reliable than see-and-avoid that is equally
effective for human pilots and UAV pilots. Perhaps when ADS-B or
something similar becomes proven and stable, it may be safer. But it
is far too early to be mixing UAVs with human pilots right now.