Who's At Fault in UAV/Part91 MAC?

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 19:26:56 GMT, "Bob Jones" wrote
in Message-Id: m:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


I was taught to scan for traffic to the rear of the side to which I
intend to turn before making the turn.

That may be, but do you perform this scan in all quadrants in real-time?

If necessary.

Or only when you need it? My point is you appear to be placing a higher
standard on UAV's than are placed on existing aircraft/pilots.

That is not my intent.

By the way, where in Part 61 are the vision requirements specified?

He
[really long URL]

Ah, Part *67*, just as I thought. You were either lying or ignorant when
you made this claim:
"It's doubtful the...UAV operators' vision systems would function equal to
or better than that required meet the Part 61 requirements."

Part 61 (§61.23) requires the pilot of an airplane to possess a valid
Medical Certificate, so it indirectly mandates pilots to meet the
vision requirements of Part 67.

Why would you think I was fabricating the pilot vision requirement?
Do you hold an airmans certificate?

As near as I can tell, the words "vision", "eyesight" and "sight" don't even
appear in Part 61.

See above.

Further, you admitted elsewhere in this thread that you
have no idea what the capabilities of these systems are (yet more
ignorance).

I believe the UAV capabilities are a bit of a moving target, as its
systems are still under development.

But why let the facts get in the way of your quixotic quest, eh?

You haven't provided any facts at all, only personal opinion, so you
have no accountability at all to worry over.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


Part 61 (§61.23) requires the pilot of an airplane to possess a valid
Medical Certificate, so it indirectly mandates pilots to meet the
vision requirements of Part 67.

Do you know the UAV operators won't have valid certificates? If you don't
know the answer to this question, then this point of yours is a non
sequitor, isn't it?

I believe the UAV capabilities are a bit of a moving target, as its
systems are still under development.

If you don't know the capabilities (i.e., "you don't have the facts"), then
on what are you basing your opinion?

You haven't provided any facts at all, only personal opinion, so you
have no accountability at all to worry over.

You're the one trying to make a case to get the rest of us concerned over
something. Bring your facts and we'll discuss them. All you've done so far
is bring implications and innuendo (i.e., "BS").

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


Part 61 (§61.23) requires the pilot of an airplane to possess a valid
Medical Certificate, so it indirectly mandates pilots to meet the
vision requirements of Part 67.

Do you know the UAV operators won't have valid certificates? If you don't
know the answer to this question, then this point of yours is a non
sequitor, isn't it?

They may have in the future, but they certainly don't have them now.
Says FAA spokesman William Shumann, "Currently, there are no
FAA regulations dealing with the certification of UAV pilots,
aircraft or (commercial) operators". Nor have I seen any suggestion
that they'll have to be certified in the future.


You haven't provided any facts at all, only personal opinion, so you
have no accountability at all to worry over.

You're the one trying to make a case to get the rest of us concerned over
something. Bring your facts and we'll discuss them. All you've done so
far
is bring implications and innuendo (i.e., "BS").

From your point of view, maybe. I've found Larry's contribution
interesting, and certainly something to be concerned about. If you'd
been on this newsgroup longer, you'd realize that it'd be a pretty
empty forum if we just concerned ourselves with "facts".

The most important and worrying aspect of operating UAVs in
the public airspace is that *currently* they will not be operating
under the same constraints as the rest of us. Why? Well for one
thing the entire optical system through camera to operator
isn't certified to private pilot standards.

Of course, you may well be right (as in another post) that "For
all you know, they may have systems far better than human
eyesight". Hell, for all I know, the old duffer at the airport
flying without any sort of medical may well have the best
vision on the planet. But this just doesn't cut it. You can't
'self certify' for vision, and suggesting that this is OK if the "old
duffers" just happen to be the UAV manufacturers is a
significant departure from existing practice. It's not BS, it's
a very valid concern.

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
nk.net

...It's not BS, it's a very valid concern.

That's where I differ: I tend not to get very concerned until there are
*facts* to be concerned about.

In article et, Tony Cox i
wrote:
duffers" just happen to be the UAV manufacturers is a
significant departure from existing practice. It's not BS, it's
a very valid concern.

It sort of begs the question - if UAV pilots are going to need to be
essentially PPL standard for medical etc. why bother? Why not just send
the guy up in a Cessna 172 to do his patrols instead? It'd be much
cheaper to stick the man in an existing aircraft that you can buy off
the open market for low (for Government) cost if you're going to need
the man to fly a UAV remotely, anyway.

I see an advantage to using UAVs for reconnaisance over enemy territory.
But over your own country, the only point to UAVs I can see is research
and training the recon operators - which can all be done in a MOA.
--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article et, Tony Cox
i
wrote:
duffers" just happen to be the UAV manufacturers is a
significant departure from existing practice. It's not BS, it's
a very valid concern.

It sort of begs the question - if UAV pilots are going to need to be
essentially PPL standard for medical etc. why bother? Why not just send
the guy up in a Cessna 172 to do his patrols instead? It'd be much
cheaper to stick the man in an existing aircraft that you can buy off
the open market for low (for Government) cost if you're going to need
the man to fly a UAV remotely, anyway.

Indeed! But when I suggested that earlier, Bob objected
because it'd send up the price of used 182's! (Owning one
myself, I don't see a problem...)

From the accident reports Larry posted, each of these UAV's cost
us about $3.3 million & need a crew of 7 to keep in the air. That's
10 brand new 182's -- 13 or 14 72's.


I see an advantage to using UAVs for reconnaisance over enemy territory.
But over your own country, the only point to UAVs I can see is research
and training the recon operators - which can all be done in a MOA.

There's a good sized MOA over most of Death Valley. They can
pretend the occasional hiker is Bin Laden. I'm with you. I can't see
any reason for operation in the NAS unless it is a "nose under the
tent" issue.

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 12:53:50 GMT, "Tony Cox" wrote in
Message-Id: :

I see an advantage to using UAVs for reconnaisance over enemy territory.
But over your own country, the only point to UAVs I can see is research
and training the recon operators - which can all be done in a MOA.

There's a good sized MOA over most of Death Valley. They can
pretend the occasional hiker is Bin Laden. I'm with you. I can't see
any reason for operation in the NAS unless it is a "nose under the
tent" issue.

MOAs are Joint Use airspace where military flights share the airspace
with civil aircraft. Personally, I would prefer that any UAVs
operating there comply with the same federal regulations to which I
must adhere, such as the pilot(s) being certificated to meet
regulatory standards and medical requirements including vision,
see-and-avoid responsibility, _personal_ responsibility under _civil_
and _criminal_ law for the consequences of any damages caused, ...
Holding the ground based UAV pilot(s) personally responsible for any
damage done by their UAV operations might reduce any attitude of
remote anonymity they may feel by not having their bodies subject to
the same catastrophic MAC consequences faced by airborne pilots.
Without personal accountability, UAV operators would have a virtual
license to commit murder/manslaughter with impunity.

(Take for example the irresponsible F-16 military flight leader,
Parker, who led his wingman into a high-speed, low-level, fatal MAC
with a Cessna-172 pilot in 2000. Although he chose to descend into
Class B and C airspace at nearly twice the 300 knot FAR limit for his
aircraft type below 10,000', without establishing communication with
Air Traffic Control as mandated by FAR, rather than face third degree
murder charges as would have been brought against a civilian, the
military found that a verbal reprimand without lost of rank nor pay to
be appropriate punishment for his recklessly irresponsible conduct.
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?e...12X22313&key=1)

I would also prefer my government exercise frugality with my tax
dollars, and choose the most effective method of boarder patrol
relative to its cost.

--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

In article , "Tony
Cox" wrote:

Indeed! But when I suggested that earlier, Bob objected
because it'd send up the price of used 182's! (Owning one
myself, I don't see a problem...)

From the accident reports Larry posted, each of these UAV's cost
us about $3.3 million & need a crew of 7 to keep in the air. That's
10 brand new 182's -- 13 or 14 72's.

well, if they buy new ones, that would eventually increase
the supply of used ones (and they tend to be properly
maintained). This would be a Good Thing.

:-)

--
Bob Noel