Experimental Certificate Granted UAV If MAC "Extremely Improbable"!

On Feb 24, 1:32*pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:32:32 -0500, "John T"
wrote in
:

"Phil J" wrote in message


Well I suppose one option would be to
put some really bright strobes on it, and keep it under 500 feet AGL.

I also suspect the majority of the UAVs used by police departments would be
at low altitudes in areas unlikely to be travelled by most GA aircraft.

We can hope that the final version of the Honeywell MAV will be
equipped with some conspicuity enhancement if it is flown in the realm
of full size aircraft. *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.

There is that risk, but there is the same risk with GA and commercial
aircraft flying overhead. Compared to human-carrying aircraft, the
number of UAVs is going to be pretty small. Adding UAVs just makes a
tiny change in a very small risk.

Phil

On Feb 24, 2:56 pm, Phil J wrote:
On Feb 24, 1:32 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:



On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:32:32 -0500, "John T"
wrote in
:

"Phil J" wrote in message


Well I suppose one option would be to
put some really bright strobes on it, and keep it under 500 feet AGL.

I also suspect the majority of the UAVs used by police departments would be
at low altitudes in areas unlikely to be travelled by most GA aircraft.

We can hope that the final version of the Honeywell MAV will be
equipped with some conspicuity enhancement if it is flown in the realm
of full size aircraft. 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.

There is that risk, but there is the same risk with GA and commercial
aircraft flying overhead. Compared to human-carrying aircraft, the
number of UAVs is going to be pretty small. Adding UAVs just makes a
tiny change in a very small risk.

Phil

When a human pilot is on board, there is a strong incentive for not
crashing. Unless the pilot is suicidal, we can expect the pilot to do
everything humanly possible to avoid crashing. That same incentive
does not exist in UAVs. The worst thing that can happen to a UAV crash
pilot is that he may lose his job, not his life. No matter how
conscientious the UAV pilot may be, there is a huge difference between
paying for your mistakes with your life vs facing disciplinary action.

I am fully in support of unmanned airplanes, but it is far too early.
We need something more reliable than see-and-avoid that is equally
effective for human pilots and UAV pilots. Perhaps when ADS-B or
something similar becomes proven and stable, it may be safer. But it
is far too early to be mixing UAVs with human pilots right now.

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
When a human pilot is on board, there is a strong incentive for not
crashing. Unless the pilot is suicidal, we can expect the pilot to do
everything humanly possible to avoid crashing. That same incentive
does not exist in UAVs. The worst thing that can happen to a UAV crash
pilot is that he may lose his job, not his life. No matter how
conscientious the UAV pilot may be, there is a huge difference between
paying for your mistakes with your life vs facing disciplinary action.

There are a class of unmanned operations covered by Part 101, "MOORED
BALLOONS, KITES, UNMANNED ROCKETS AND UNMANNED FREE BALLOONS" wherein it
has always been the case that the instinct for self-preservation was never
a motivation for safe operation of those craft. Yet none of them are
outright banned so I don't see why Part 101 can't be modified to include
UAVs.

On Feb 24, 5:13 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Andrew Sarangan wrote:
When a human pilot is on board, there is a strong incentive for not
crashing. Unless the pilot is suicidal, we can expect the pilot to do
everything humanly possible to avoid crashing. That same incentive
does not exist in UAVs. The worst thing that can happen to a UAV crash
pilot is that he may lose his job, not his life. No matter how
conscientious the UAV pilot may be, there is a huge difference between
paying for your mistakes with your life vs facing disciplinary action.

There are a class of unmanned operations covered by Part 101, "MOORED
BALLOONS, KITES, UNMANNED ROCKETS AND UNMANNED FREE BALLOONS" wherein it
has always been the case that the instinct for self-preservation was never
a motivation for safe operation of those craft. Yet none of them are
outright banned so I don't see why Part 101 can't be modified to include
UAVs.

You are correct that none of them are banned, but I believe the items
described in Part 101 requires notification to the FAA, and a NOTAM
will be issued. If the UAV is going to operate with a NOTAM advisory,
then I have no problem with their operation. Somehow I suspect that
will not be the case because most UAVs are for surveillance and covert
operations.

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:56:20 -0800 (PST), Phil J
wrote in
:

On Feb 24, 1:32*pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:32:32 -0500, "John T"
wrote in
:

"Phil J" wrote in message


Well I suppose one option would be to
put some really bright strobes on it, and keep it under 500 feet AGL.

I also suspect the majority of the UAVs used by police departments would be
at low altitudes in areas unlikely to be travelled by most GA aircraft.

We can hope that the final version of the Honeywell MAV will be
equipped with some conspicuity enhancement if it is flown in the realm
of full size aircraft. *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.

There is that risk, but there is the same risk with GA and commercial
aircraft flying overhead.

Not exactly. 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. So to say that this UAV poses the same hazard as manned
aircraft isn't very accurate, IMO. Are you a pilot?

Compared to human-carrying aircraft, the number of UAVs is going to
be pretty small.

I fully expect to see the NAS crowded with UAVs once they get it all
worked out. What gives you the idea that there won't be many of them?

Adding UAVs just makes a tiny change in a very small risk.

Phil

Huh? Can you explain that statement a little for me? I'm not sure
what "tiny change" and "very small risk" to which you are referring.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


...and within gliding distance of a landing site.

Which regulation are you quoting here?

I can think of many metro areas (not to mention wilderness) where 1000' will
not put you anywhere near a suitable landing site but, of course, *any* site
receiving an aircraft becomes a landing site.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:03:51 -0500, "John T"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


...and within gliding distance of a landing site.

Which regulation are you quoting here?


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.



I can think of many metro areas (not to mention wilderness) where 1000' will
not put you anywhere near a suitable landing site but, of course, *any* site
receiving an aircraft becomes a landing site.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


...and within gliding distance of a landing site.

Which regulation are you quoting here?

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.

Your entire quote was: "Human piloted aircraft must remain 1,000' feet above
congested areas, and within gliding distance of a landing site."

Your justification for that was a description of minimum altitudes, not a
restriction to be withing gliding distance of a landing site.

Is there another reg stipulating such a restriction?

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:11:05 -0500, "John T"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


...and within gliding distance of a landing site.

Which regulation are you quoting here?

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.

Your entire quote was: "Human piloted aircraft must remain 1,000' feet above
congested areas, and within gliding distance of a landing site."

Your justification for that was a description of minimum altitudes, not a
restriction to be withing gliding distance of a landing site.


Well, when I fly low over Los Angeles, I take gliding distance into
consideration, but you've managed to find a nit. If that is the only
one you found, is it safe to assume you agreed with the remainder of
my follow up article?

Is there another reg stipulating such a restriction?

I'm not sure.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


Well, when I fly low over Los Angeles, I take gliding distance into
consideration, but you've managed to find a nit. If that is the only
one you found, is it safe to assume you agreed with the remainder of
my follow up article?

Not in the least. However, it does demonstrate you haven't formed a logical
opinion, but rather attempted to back up an emotional response. There's
nothing inherently wrong with emotion, but it does tend to fly in the face
of logic.

Is there another reg stipulating such a restriction?

I'm not sure.

I submit you should be before stating otherwise.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________