Experimental Certificate Granted UAV If MAC "Extremely Improbable"!

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:02:40 -0500, "John T"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


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.

Larry, you're not asking reasonable questions.

I don't agree. You are aware that the Honeywell MAV is solely
dependent on the continuous operation of its ducted fan for support,
right?

To demonstrate, let's change just a couple words and see how you would respond:

"What is the safeguard against a GA plane hitting someone in the event of an
engine or guidance or control failure or fuel exhaustion?"

FAA regulations mandate that 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. We're talking about two different classes
(apples/oranges) of vehicles; comparing them doesn't seem valid to me.

I'll point to the recent crash in Sanford, FL and two crashes in Leesburg,
VA in the last several years as quick and ready evidence not flattering to
GA. The NTSB database has many more.

I'm not familiar with those. If you're going to cite them as
supporting your assertion, perhaps you'll be kind enough to relate
their specifics, or provide links. Thank you.

But personally, I don't believe it's valid to compare UAVs with the
majority of current aircraft operating in the NAS, because it doesn't
seem UAV operations are being held to the same standards, nor do they
have the same capabilities or potential consequences to their
operators. Further, the FAA doesn't even permit model aircraft to
operate like the police departments intend to use UAVs:


http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...High light=91
3 0 OPERATING STANDARDS.
a. Select an operating site that is of sufficient distance from
populated areas. The selected site should be away from noise
sensitive areas such as parks, schools, hospitals, churches, etc.

We're not talking about automated systems here. Humans are at the controls
of the UAVs and the planes.

Will those humans operating UAVs hold airmen certificates? Will those
humans be exposed to losing their lives if their piloting causes a MAC
or crash? It's a lot different that manned aircraft.

John, I know you're a bright guy if you're making a living as an
independent consultant, but for some reason it seems like you aren't
truly appreciating the issue. Did you read any of the information in
my original article in this thread? Or is it me? Is there something
I'm overlooking?

I'll grant it's harder for the UAV pilot to avoid ground structures due to
limited field of vision,

It is my understanding, that currently the FAA requires a ground
observer or a chase plane, in addition to the person controlling the
UAV, so the UAV pilot doesn't have to have complete situational
awareness; but the team does, of course.

but the size and speed of the UAVs also make the risk they present much
lower than that of our GA planes.

That depends on the particular UAV under discussion. The Honeywell
MAV does not glide, so it can't comply with:


http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...1.3.10&idno=14
CFE Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may
operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an
emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on
the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town,
or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an
altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a
horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above
the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas.
In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500
feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.


So my question is, why should a UAV, that lacks a human occupant who
is exposed to harm in the event of a mishap (unlike UAV operators who
are not aboard the UAV obviously), and lacks the capabilities to
comply with current FARs, be permitted to violate current FARs?

It doesn't make any sense to me, but I'll bet it has everything to do
with potential corporate profit. If true, that not a good reason to
increase the risk to the public, IMNSHO.