Who's At Fault in UAV/Part91 MAC?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:17:37 GMT, "Tony Cox" wrote in
Message-Id: et:

I note that there is currently no requirement for certification, even
medical requirements [for UAV operators].

Can you provide a citation that supports that statement?

It's a quote in your original post, attributed to one William
Shumann:- "Currently, there are no FAA regulations dealing
with the certification of UAV pilots, aircraft or (commercial)
operators," he said.


It is scary
beyond belief if true. Imagine the uncertified pilot of the UAV
safely on the ground simultaneously monitoring video from the front,
above, below and to the sides while attempting to spot intruders on
the ground. How much time is going to be devoted to traffic scan
compared to ground scan? Will the operators receive recognition for
avoiding collisions or spotting illegals? How will the public be
assured that their priority is safety, and not mission success as is
inherent in manned aircraft where the pilots have their lives on the
line in avoiding collisions?

What assurance do we have that he won't have a heart attack, or
loose consciousness, or a whatever?

I'm of the opinion that physically being in the plane sharpens your
mind up. When I fly, I'm constantly "on edge" and ready to react
instantly to any problem. It's my bum on the line too. Frankly, I'd
never expect that level of alertness from a remote pilot, slouched in
a chair drinking his coffee, thumbing through "Playboy" during the
dull bits of a mission, scratching his butt and wandering off to
the bathroom whenever he feels like it. All he risks is his job.

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:03:52 GMT, "Tony Cox" wrote in
Message-Id: t:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:17:37 GMT, "Tony Cox" wrote in
Message-Id: et:

I note that there is currently no requirement for certification, even
medical requirements [for UAV operators].

Can you provide a citation that supports that statement?

It's a quote in your original post, attributed to one William
Shumann:- "Currently, there are no FAA regulations dealing
with the certification of UAV pilots, aircraft or (commercial)
operators," he said.


Aircraft operation in the NAS by an uncertificated "pilot" would seem
to violate FARs.


It is scary
beyond belief if true. Imagine the uncertified pilot of the UAV
safely on the ground simultaneously monitoring video from the front,
above, below and to the sides while attempting to spot intruders on
the ground. How much time is going to be devoted to traffic scan
compared to ground scan? Will the operators receive recognition for
avoiding collisions or spotting illegals? How will the public be
assured that their priority is safety, and not mission success as is
inherent in manned aircraft where the pilots have their lives on the
line in avoiding collisions?

What assurance do we have that he won't have a heart attack, or
loose consciousness, or a whatever?

It's my understanding that it takes a team of about 7 to operate a
UAV. Perhaps that level of redundancy might mitigate the concerns you
raise. However, 7 border patrol officers on the ground might be more
effective in preventing illegal entries.

I'm of the opinion that physically being in the plane sharpens your
mind up. When I fly, I'm constantly "on edge" and ready to react
instantly to any problem. It's my bum on the line too. Frankly, I'd
never expect that level of alertness from a remote pilot, slouched in
a chair drinking his coffee, thumbing through "Playboy" during the
dull bits of a mission, scratching his butt and wandering off to
the bathroom whenever he feels like it. All he risks is his job.

Those are my concerns as well.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Aircraft operation in the NAS by an uncertificated "pilot" would seem
to violate FARs.

I suppose that depends on how you define "Aircraft"
and "pilot"...


It's my understanding that it takes a team of about 7 to operate a
UAV. Perhaps that level of redundancy might mitigate the concerns you
raise. However, 7 border patrol officers on the ground might be more
effective in preventing illegal entries.

Now I don't understand the logic. What does a UAV provide
that a 182 doesn't? Is it significantly cheaper to keep in the air?
Do the "team of 7" work for less money than a pilot and a
spotter? Now that's scary....

I do understand the use of UAV in hazardous areas, where there
is enemy fire and/or risk of a pilot being captured. But why go to
all the extra trouble just to police the border?

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
nk.net...
Now I don't understand the logic. What does a UAV provide
that a 182 doesn't? Is it significantly cheaper to keep in the air?
Do the "team of 7" work for less money than a pilot and a
spotter? Now that's scary....

Surely you can understand how a UAV and support team are much more efficient
at going through taxpayer money than a 172.

Perhaps it is another pork barrel project, or some company has friends in
high places. Because, if they put out the ACTUAL job of searching for
illegal crossings I would find it very hard to believe that it couldn't be
done by a small fleet of properly equipped 172's or 182's and a reasonable
staff of pilots and observers.

Heck, why don't they try giving the job to CAP and see how well that concept
works?

Do the "team of 7" work for less money than a pilot and a
spotter?

You are assuming that the two-man crew of the Cessna is supported by
no one?

This is the government! That can't be right!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
news

Do the "team of 7" work for less money than a pilot and a
spotter?

You are assuming that the two-man crew of the Cessna is supported by
no one?

This is the government! That can't be right!


Oh yeah. For a moment I foolishly thought it would be run as a business.

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
. ..

Heck, why don't they try giving the job to CAP and see how well that
concept
works?

Around here (Las Vegas, NV), they do. Not sure how successful
they are...

In article et, "Tony
Cox" wrote:

Now I don't understand the logic. What does a UAV provide
that a 182 doesn't?

loiter time.

altitude.

And all potential 182 buyers will appreciate the military
NOT buying up good 182's.

--
Bob Noel

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 16:09:19 GMT, "Tony Cox" wrote in
Message-Id: et:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

Aircraft operation in the NAS by an uncertificated "pilot" would seem
to violate FARs.

I suppose that depends on how you define "Aircraft"
and "pilot"...


Ummm..

Pilot: A person who holds the appropriate category, class, and type
rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.

Aircraft: A device that is used or intended to be used for flight in
the air.


It's my understanding that it takes a team of about 7 to operate a
UAV. Perhaps that level of redundancy might mitigate the concerns you
raise. However, 7 border patrol officers on the ground might be more
effective in preventing illegal entries.

Now I don't understand the logic. What does a UAV provide
that a 182 doesn't? Is it significantly cheaper to keep in the air?
Do the "team of 7" work for less money than a pilot and a
spotter? Now that's scary....

Exactly. There have to be undisclosed reasons for deploying UAVs.

I do understand the use of UAV in hazardous areas, where there
is enemy fire and/or risk of a pilot being captured. But why go to
all the extra trouble just to police the border?

Perhaps the DHS is using the UAV for border patrol duty scenario as a
more publicly acceptable vehicle to introduce UAV surveillance nation
wide, because UAV use doesn't seem to make economic nor safety sense
for domestic peacetime operation.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 16:09:19 GMT, "Tony Cox" wrote in
Message-Id: et:

I suppose that depends on how you define "Aircraft"
and "pilot"...


Ummm..

Pilot: A person who holds the appropriate category, class, and type
rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.

Aircraft: A device that is used or intended to be used for flight in
the air.

I was being "Clintonesque". These definitions from the FAR's? I
couldn't find them on a quick scan.