On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:56:20 -0800 (PST), Phil J
wrote in
:

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.

Not exactly. Human piloted aircraft must remain 1,000' feet above
congested areas, and within gliding distance of a landing site. This
UAV doesn't glide, and the police department intends to fly it at low
level. So to say that this UAV poses the same hazard as manned
aircraft isn't very accurate, IMO. Are you a pilot?

Compared to human-carrying aircraft, the number of UAVs is going to
be pretty small.

I fully expect to see the NAS crowded with UAVs once they get it all
worked out. What gives you the idea that there won't be many of them?

Adding UAVs just makes a tiny change in a very small risk.

Phil

Huh? Can you explain that statement a little for me? I'm not sure
what "tiny change" and "very small risk" to which you are referring.