You have a UAV at 9 'clock, three miles...

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 16:38:01 GMT, "Casey Wilson" N2310D @ gmail.com
wrote in Jd0Gg.9778$u1.1872@trnddc05:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 08:42:47 -0400, "John Doe"
wrote in :

They normally maintain heading and altitude much better than many of the
pilots I know.

And what about the times they or their operators do something
abnormal, and violate regulations?

UAVs have no place in the NAS without the ability to comply with the
regulations that govern its use.

Would you please cite a reference to these incidents?


Sure. Below are some examples of the many UAV loss of control
mishaps.

Don't forget, the UAV assumes its own navigation upon loss of control
from the ground. The UAV, incapable of complying with the
see-and-avoid regulation, then becomes a hazard to air navigation if
it is not operating in Restricted airspace.

If UAVs, in their current state of refinement, were capable of
operating within federal aviation regulations, they wouldn't need a
chase plane nor Restricted airspace.

Thanks, Larry. You probably won't agree, but I'm going to pose that all
your examples support my side.
First, none of the mishaps you cited involved any potential hazard to
other aircraft, even when they wandered out of their operating arenas. With
the exception to those in foreign theaters, my bet is that ATC knew, as
close as transponder accuracy would allow, the exact position of the UAV --
and could have provided ample warning to any other aircraft.
Second, those (albeit, few) incidents that occurred outside SUA support
my statement that I'm not in favor of flying them over populated areas. In
other words, NIMBY until the reliability goes way up.

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 18:15:56 GMT, "Casey Wilson" N2310D @ gmail.com
wrote in wF1Gg.19367$uV.3365@trnddc08:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 16:38:01 GMT, "Casey Wilson" N2310D @ gmail.com
wrote in Jd0Gg.9778$u1.1872@trnddc05:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 08:42:47 -0400, "John Doe"
wrote in :

They normally maintain heading and altitude much better than many of the
pilots I know.

And what about the times they or their operators do something
abnormal, and violate regulations?

UAVs have no place in the NAS without the ability to comply with the
regulations that govern its use.

Would you please cite a reference to these incidents?


Sure. Below are some examples of the many UAV loss of control
mishaps.

Don't forget, the UAV assumes its own navigation upon loss of control
from the ground. The UAV, incapable of complying with the
see-and-avoid regulation, then becomes a hazard to air navigation if
it is not operating in Restricted airspace.

If UAVs, in their current state of refinement, were capable of
operating within federal aviation regulations, they wouldn't need a
chase plane nor Restricted airspace.

Thanks, Larry. You probably won't agree, but I'm going to pose that all
your examples support my side.

Unfortunately, UAVs maintaining heading and altitude much better than
many of the pilots you know has very little to do with aviation
safety.

First, none of the mishaps you cited involved any potential hazard to
other aircraft, even when they wandered out of their operating arenas.

If you believe that an aircraft incapable of complying with federal
regulations requiring their operators to see-and-avoid do not
constitute a hazard to aerial navigation within the NAS, you might
consider suggesting to the FAA, military, and airlines that regulation
§ 91.113 (b) be rescinded. :-)

With the exception to those in foreign theaters, my bet is that ATC knew, as
close as transponder accuracy would allow, the exact position of the UAV --
and could have provided ample warning to any other aircraft.

Please describe how ATC would warn NORDO flights of the runaway, blind
UAV.

Please describe how ATC knowing the position of a runaway, blind UAV
would prevent the UAV from impacting a balloon (typically flown
NORDO).

Second, those (albeit, few) incidents that occurred outside SUA support
my statement that I'm not in favor of flying them over populated areas. In
other words, NIMBY until the reliability goes way up.

So, it is the unreliability of UAVs that concerns you, not the fact
that today's UAVs operating outside of Restricted airspace are
incapable of complying with federal regulations?

How would you feel if a fellow pilot were incapable of complying with
federal regulations; would you expect the FAA to grant him an
exemption to his responsibility to see-and-avoid?

Be very careful here...

Saying UAV's can't be operated safely in the vicinity of VFR general aviation
has two solutions...

1)eliminate VFR general aviation...

2)Eliminate UAV's

In todays political climate given this choice it's not clear who would loose....


I think it would be much more productive to discuss what changes could be done
to operate safely together.

A UAV will never be able to do see and avoid in the same way a pilot can, that is
byond the state of the art for the forseeable future. Stubbornly asking that they do so
is counter productive and will lead back to the origional choice offered above.
(Vision system in the real world with all its variations are technically a very hard problem)


Some possible solutions:

All UAV's must operate in class A airspace with controled coridors to take off and land.


All air vehicles must cary a transponder or position reporting device.
If the government wants to fly UAV's make them pay for the position reporting deivces.
Some really good work has been done in this area for gliders...


What other solutions give us equavalent safety?


Paul

The third choice is operate UAVs on IFR flight plans, which is what they do.

wrote:
Be very careful here...

Saying UAV's can't be operated safely in the vicinity of VFR general aviation
has two solutions...

1)eliminate VFR general aviation...

2)Eliminate UAV's

In todays political climate given this choice it's not clear who would loose....


I think it would be much more productive to discuss what changes could be done
to operate safely together.

A UAV will never be able to do see and avoid in the same way a pilot can, that is
byond the state of the art for the forseeable future. Stubbornly asking that they do so
is counter productive and will lead back to the origional choice offered above.
(Vision system in the real world with all its variations are technically a very hard problem)


Some possible solutions:

All UAV's must operate in class A airspace with controled coridors to take off and land.


All air vehicles must cary a transponder or position reporting device.
If the government wants to fly UAV's make them pay for the position reporting deivces.
Some really good work has been done in this area for gliders...


What other solutions give us equavalent safety?


Paul

Stubby wrote:

The third choice is operate UAVs on IFR flight plans, which is what they do.

That does not guarantee separation from VFR aircraft, however.

--
Peter

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:53:33 -0400, Stubby
wrote in
:

The third choice is operate UAVs on IFR flight plans, which is what they do.

Please explain how operation under IFR in VMC relieves a flight from
complying with federal see-and-avoid regulations.

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 11:40:24 -0700, wrote in
:

Be very careful here...

Saying UAV's can't be operated safely in the vicinity of VFR general aviation
has two solutions...

1)eliminate VFR general aviation...

(Eliminating VFR general aviation operations does nothing to protect
IFR flights from UAV MAC hazards. In VMC, all pilots are required to
see-and-avoid.)

2)Eliminate UAV's

Surely there are other better choices than the two you have provided.

In todays political climate given this choice it's not clear who would loose....

Are you suggesting that I abandon air safety and capitulate to
corporate clout? No thanks.

What is right is right. What is wrong is wrong. It's pretty clear to
me. If the FAA found it prudent to require see-and-avoid in VMC,
anything less compromises air safety.

I think it would be much more productive to discuss what changes could be done
to operate safely together.

Either UAVs need to be capable of complying with federal see-and-avoid
regulations, or they need to be operated within restricted airspace
(or followed by a chase plane with a pilot capable of complying with
the see-and-avoid regulation). Or UAVs need to be equipped with a
system that provides the _equivalent_ of see-and-avoid capability.

But even if those measures are followed (as they are currently), that
doesn't overcome the loss of control issues facing UAVs.

A UAV will never be able to do see and avoid in the same way a pilot can, that is
byond the state of the art for the forseeable future.

I'm sure you believe that, but before I can swallow it, I'd need to
see some supporting evidence. Further, I don't care if UAVs use
visible light to comply with see-and-avoid; they just need to be
capable of maneuvering out of the path of another aircraft in time to
avoid it by whatever means.

Many UAVs are small and hence more difficult for a pilot to spot than
a conventional aircraft. To my mind, that puts the onus on the UAV
operators/manufacturers to do something about the potential hazard
they pose in joint use airspace.

Because UAVs were developed for military use, there likely hasn't been
significant R&D funding expended on traffic deconfliction systems.
That needs to change before UAVs are routinely flown in the NAS.

Stubbornly asking that they do so is counter productive and will lead back to the origional choice offered above.

Okay. So you're saying that UAV operators should be allowed to
violate federal regulations, so that UAV manufacturers can reap a
profit at the expense of public safety?

(Vision system in the real world with all its variations are technically a very hard problem)

Then perhaps another solution would be more appropriate. Radar has
been suggested. Lidar might work.

Some possible solutions:

All UAV's must operate in class A airspace with controled coridors to take off and land.


While that is a creative suggestion, it might cause the floor of Class
A airspace to be made lower. And it does nothing to overcome UAV loss
of control situations.


All air vehicles must cary a transponder or position reporting device.

This will force Champ and Cub owners out of the air.

If the government wants to fly UAV's make them pay for the position reporting deivces.

Please describe the type of position reporting devices to which you
are referring. ADS-B?* TCAS? What?

Some really good work has been done in this area for gliders...

Have you got a link to information about that?


What other solutions give us equavalent safety?


The DOD coerced DOT into permitting military operations in excess of
250 knots below 10,000', and look how that turned out.

The NAS is a coherent system, that has been designed so that it works.
When parts of it are arbitrarily changed without regard for the
consequences of those changes, air safety suffers.

Just wait until a UAV inevitably collides with an airliner, or a
runaway UAV crashes into a school yard. Then this issue will get some
serious attention.



* http://adsb.tc.faa.gov/ADS-B.htm
Aircraft (or other vehicles or obstacles) will broadcast a
message on a regular basis, which includes their position (such
as latitude, longitude and altitude), velocity, and possibly
other information. Other aircraft or systems can receive this
information for use in a wide variety of applications. Current
surveillance systems must measure vehicle position, while ADS-B
based systems will simply receive accurate position reports
broadcast by the vehicles.

This will force Champ and Cub owners out of the air.
I can see the headlines now:

Spoiled antique airplane owners complaining about new safety requirments.

An easy solution is a blanket notam prohibiting flight without a working Mode C
transponder, for any area where UAV's are to operate.



Have you got a link to information about that?
Start he
http://www.users.bigpond.com/keepits...de tection%22


Just wait until a UAV inevitably collides with an airliner, or a
runaway UAV crashes into a school yard. Then this issue will get some
serious attention.

General aviation has done both of the above, UAV's have not. (Yet)
Based on your argument I think we should immediatly ban General aviation!


Just saying over and over that the UAV has to do see and avoid is not going to make it
happen or make it possible. UAV's are just too capable and too attractive as technology to
go away, we need to start having a real discussion about what can be done to
coexist or we are going to loose.

Realize there are really two arguments going on here...

1)UAV's are too unreliable and thus dangorous.
I agree with this statement completly, however they will get better
and the reliability will improve. Be careful when arguing risks, arguing about
risks you don't understand or that are unfamiliar can easily lead us astray.
The world is not a risk free place, if you really are worried about your
personal safety then you outght to start working to ban teenage drivers
and old drivers for they kill far more people on a daily basis than any potential
UAV incident. Otherwise your comments just look reactionary.

2)UAV's must do see and avoid. This is just not going to happen.
They can do the equavalent with mode C transponders and
possibly the GPS survalince described in the link above.

Paul

How does having a mode C transponder help me see the UAV or the UAV "see"
me? It allows ARTCC to see us both, but not us to see each other.
Did you mean a mode S transponder??

If the government is willing to pay to install a GNS530 with ADS-B in every
aircraft so that we can see the UAV's, than I will gladly do all the seeing
and avoiding, and let the UAV's fly blind. This may however counteract any
economic advantages that the UAV's have.

I also don't see the great economic advantage to using the UAV in the first
place. You are replacing a 300k observation plane with a multi million
dollar UAV, and replacing a highly trained Cessna pilot with a room full of
highly trained UAV operators. It's a plan only a government could love.

wrote in message
...

This will force Champ and Cub owners out of the air.
I can see the headlines now:

Spoiled antique airplane owners complaining about new safety requirments.

An easy solution is a blanket notam prohibiting flight without a working
Mode C
transponder, for any area where UAV's are to operate.



Have you got a link to information about that?
Start he
http://www.users.bigpond.com/keepits...de tection%22


Just wait until a UAV inevitably collides with an airliner, or a
runaway UAV crashes into a school yard. Then this issue will get some
serious attention.

General aviation has done both of the above, UAV's have not. (Yet)
Based on your argument I think we should immediatly ban General aviation!


Just saying over and over that the UAV has to do see and avoid is not
going to make it
happen or make it possible. UAV's are just too capable and too attractive
as technology to
go away, we need to start having a real discussion about what can be done
to
coexist or we are going to loose.

Realize there are really two arguments going on here...

1)UAV's are too unreliable and thus dangorous.
I agree with this statement completly, however they will get better
and the reliability will improve. Be careful when arguing risks, arguing
about
risks you don't understand or that are unfamiliar can easily lead us
astray.
The world is not a risk free place, if you really are worried about your
personal safety then you outght to start working to ban teenage drivers
and old drivers for they kill far more people on a daily basis than any
potential
UAV incident. Otherwise your comments just look reactionary.

2)UAV's must do see and avoid. This is just not going to happen.
They can do the equavalent with mode C transponders and
possibly the GPS survalince described in the link above.

Paul

I also don't see the great economic advantage to using the UAV in the
first place. You are replacing a 300k observation plane with a multi
million dollar UAV, and replacing a highly trained Cessna pilot with a
room full of highly trained UAV operators. It's a plan only a government
could love.


In combat.. you have a semi disposable observation platform that has long
loiter time and that can also provide laser targeting information (and some
have shot missiles at moving ground targets and hit them).. and you have
kept the "jellyware" (a.k.a. human life form) safely on the ground and not
flying over enemy territory. Combat by remote control is a good thing.

BT