Who's At Fault in UAV/Part91 MAC?

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 00:02:54 GMT, "Bob Jones" wrote
in Message-Id: m:


No. It sounds like you failed to appreciate the operational errors
committed by the ground based UAV operators and maintenance personnel.

"Operational errors" like the hundreds (thousands?) of similar incidents
committed with manned aircraft. You still haven't made the case that UAV's
pose an inherent aviation safety risk.


What if 30% of the manned aviation fleet were to be lost in 10 years
as is the case of UAVs?


Incidently, you haven't contributed any factual information to this
message thread at all.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


What if 30% of the manned aviation fleet were to be lost in 10 years
as is the case of UAVs?

Apples and oranges - again. Military UAV losses have no relation to the
civilian sector. Besides, your original question posed was "who's at fault
in a UAV/Part91 MAC?" Now you're trying to change the argument to "UAV's
losses are too high."

Are you trying to imply something else?

Incidently, you haven't contributed any factual information to this
message thread at all.

Neither have you posted any facts to back up your claim that UAV's somehow
pose a risk to Part 91 or any other Part aviation.

You claim that UAV's should not be allowed to fly border patrols due to
their inability to achieve the vision requirements in all quadrants in
real-time as specified in 14CFR Part 61. Only when pressed did you post the
actual requirements - from Part 67 - and then you admitted that you have no
idea what these UAV's are capable of achieving. For all you know, they may
have systems far better than human eyesight.

You are trying to get us all riled up about some perceived safety issue.
However, all you have demonstrated is that there have been significant
losses in UAV's used by the military - many of which have occurred during
landing or in action. Several incidents have been attributed to "human
error" - not necessarily operator error - and none of these incidents causes
me much concern for sharing the skies with them.

You claim I haven't provided any facts and you're right. I don't have
enough to make an educated judgement on this issue. That's why I'm willing
to see the proposals for the operating parameters of the UAV's before I get
concerned, but that doesn't mean I won't call you on your BS.

Face it. You haven't made the case that UAV's pose an inherent aviation
safety risk.

My position remains one of "wait and see". I want to see the operational
plans. Where will they be based? Where will they operate? Will they be
coordinating with ATC? What altitudes will they maintain? What paths will
they take to get to station? Will they have strobes and nav lights to help
VFR visibility? Will they have collision avoidance systems? Other
questions may come to mind after reading their operational plans, but if
these questions are answered to my satisfaction, then I see no problem.

The original quotes you posted mentioned UAV use being considered by
non-military agencies, but you haven't posted any relevant information about
the operational plans or aviation safety record of these agencies.

Nothing you've posted has *any* relation to overall aviation safety. All
you've done is try to stir the pot with implications and innuendo.

ALL planes, manned, remotely piloted or UAVs, are a risk to aviation.
That's why we have the FARs, flight plans, restricted entry to MOAs, etc.
We all operate in the same air. --Bill

"Bob Jones" wrote in message
s.com...
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


What if 30% of the manned aviation fleet were to be lost in 10 years
as is the case of UAVs?

Apples and oranges - again. Military UAV losses have no relation to the
civilian sector. Besides, your original question posed was "who's at
fault
in a UAV/Part91 MAC?" Now you're trying to change the argument to "UAV's
losses are too high."

Are you trying to imply something else?

Incidently, you haven't contributed any factual information to this
message thread at all.

Neither have you posted any facts to back up your claim that UAV's somehow
pose a risk to Part 91 or any other Part aviation.

You claim that UAV's should not be allowed to fly border patrols due to
their inability to achieve the vision requirements in all quadrants in
real-time as specified in 14CFR Part 61. Only when pressed did you post
the
actual requirements - from Part 67 - and then you admitted that you have
no
idea what these UAV's are capable of achieving. For all you know, they
may
have systems far better than human eyesight.

You are trying to get us all riled up about some perceived safety issue.
However, all you have demonstrated is that there have been significant
losses in UAV's used by the military - many of which have occurred during
landing or in action. Several incidents have been attributed to "human
error" - not necessarily operator error - and none of these incidents
causes
me much concern for sharing the skies with them.

You claim I haven't provided any facts and you're right. I don't have
enough to make an educated judgement on this issue. That's why I'm
willing
to see the proposals for the operating parameters of the UAV's before I
get
concerned, but that doesn't mean I won't call you on your BS.

Face it. You haven't made the case that UAV's pose an inherent aviation
safety risk.

My position remains one of "wait and see". I want to see the operational
plans. Where will they be based? Where will they operate? Will they be
coordinating with ATC? What altitudes will they maintain? What paths
will
they take to get to station? Will they have strobes and nav lights to
help
VFR visibility? Will they have collision avoidance systems? Other
questions may come to mind after reading their operational plans, but if
these questions are answered to my satisfaction, then I see no problem.

The original quotes you posted mentioned UAV use being considered by
non-military agencies, but you haven't posted any relevant information
about
the operational plans or aviation safety record of these agencies.

Nothing you've posted has *any* relation to overall aviation safety. All
you've done is try to stir the pot with implications and innuendo.