![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news ![]() The AvFlash article mentioned the Border Patrol UAVs being operated by the military. I didn't say the military wouldn't be involved, but you explicitly ignored the inclusion of non-military agencies using UAV's. That might be true if they are capable of adequate surveillance performance from 18,000' MSL, Safe to assume. ![]() ...but they will have to climb to that altitude outside Positive Control Airspace, in Joint Use airspace or Restricted airspace, as the NAS is currently structured. What's the problem if it's restricted space? While the UAVs may operate within a few miles of the national boarders, I doubt they will be based there. So it is likely they will have to traverse Joint Use airspace en route to their stations. Perhaps. Perhaps not. UAV's don't necessarily need the massive runways other recon aircraft require. Do you know how many occur in any given time frame? Many international Part 91 flights occur each day. So the answer to my yes/no question would be...? No, you don't know. To intentionally design the NAS in such a way as to permit UAV operation at reduced vision standards is unprofessional, unacceptable to public safety, and negligent. Unprofessional? Negligent? Reduced vision standards? What reduced standards? And how long do you estimate it will take for UAVs to be operating beyond the national boarder corridors, given the national hysteria? I make no assumptions - including one regarding "hysteria". The only hysterical one here appears to be you. ![]() ...do you expect the team operating the UAV to actually take responsibility for their failure to see-and-avoid? You're assuming facts no in evidence. From the past behavior of military in MACs with civil aircraft, I would expect the military to deny all responsibility. Perhaps, but the NTSB would still make their ruling, wouldn't they? This begs the question, how is the UAV's conspicuity planned to be enhanced? Has anybody said this enhancement would be made? -- John T http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415 ____________________ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|