Experimental Certificate Granted UAV If MAC "Extremely Improbable"!

"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)
____________________

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


The Honeywell MAV also flies in the event
its power plant fails: like a piano. :-)

Do you have a cite for that? Or is this just another assertion?

--
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 18:53:25 -0500, "John T"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


The Honeywell MAV also flies in the event
its power plant fails: like a piano. :-)

Do you have a cite for that? Or is this just another assertion?

You haven't read the research material in my initial article in this
thread. Have a look at it, and see if you don't agree with my
assertion.

On Feb 24, 6:58*pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:53:25 -0500, "John T"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


The Honeywell MAV also flies in the event
its power plant fails: like a piano. *:-)

Do you have a cite for that? Or is this just another assertion?

You haven't read the research material in my initial article in this
thread. *Have a look at it, and see if you don't agree with my
assertion.

Think A-La-Cirrus.

Wil

On Feb 24, 3:07*pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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 Feb 24, 3:07*pm, Larry Dighera wrote:

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?

I'm a student pilot. Does that qualify me to have an opinion
according to you Larry? Every machine flying overhead constitutes a
risk to people on the ground. It's a very small risk, but it's there
whether it's manned or not. You can argue that this UAV is more of a
risk. That may be true, but we really don't know just how reliable it
is. And the real question is how many of them there are going to be,
and where are they going to fly. Those are both unknowns. IF it gets
to a point where people are getting hurt by these things, you can bet
the politicians will rush to hold hearings to demonstrate their
concern, and new regulations will probably follow.


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?

I don't expect this. My guess is these things will only be deployed
when there is a known risk that law enforcement wants to pursue. I
don't think that will mean a sky full of them. What makes you think
that our airspace will be crowded with 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.

For any given person on the ground, there is a very small risk that an
airplane is going to fall on them. Adding UAVs means a tiny increase
in this very small risk.

As long as we are talking about lives and risk, what about the
benefits of the police using UAVs? Catching criminals and taking them
off the streets will save lives. Being able to pursue cars from the
air without having to resort to a high-speed chase will save lives. A
patrol car could carry one of these UAVs in the trunk, and if a
suspect takes off in a car the UAV could be dispatched to follow,
rather than chasing with the patrol car.

Phil

Larry Dighera wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
If you think existing aspects of Part 101 should be applied and
otherwise modified to SUA operations in the NAS I'd agree with you.

I hadn't even considered Part 101. How would you propose to modify
Part 101?

Since it already includes regulations on other unmanned aircraft Part 101
seems the natural place to insert regulations on UAVs. Unfortunately I
don't have time to write up a coherent set of proposed changes to Part 101
that might satisfy both our concerns - and even if I did I don't see how it
would serve any useful purpose other than a thought exercise.

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:45:28 -0800 (PST), Phil J
wrote in
:

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?

I don't expect this. My guess is these things will only be deployed
when there is a known risk that law enforcement wants to pursue. I
don't think that will mean a sky full of them. What makes you think
that our airspace will be crowded with them?


Well, I've done some research. This story indicates that UAVs will
haul cargo:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=11250026
That might fill the skies alone.

There is information about some UAV applications available he
http://www.uavm.com/uavapplications.html
General Commercial Applications
Meteorology see also Weather 1, 2, 3
Hurricane Monitoring see also 1, 2
Cryospheric Research - Arctic and Antarctic
Civil Engineering
Bridge Inspection
Scientific Research see also 1, 2, 3, 4
Transmission Line Inspection
Pipeline Inspection see also 1, 2
HAZMAT Inspection
Epidemic Emergency Medical Supply see also 1, 2, 3, 4
Traffic Monitoring
Aerial Surveying
Damage Assessment
Insurance Claim Appraisal
Real Estate Marketing
Golf - Resort Marketing
Stadium Event Monitoring
ConcertSecurity
Sports Video
Runway Inspection
Corridor Mapping
Virtual Tours
Landmark Inspection
Precision Agricultural - Wildlife and Land Management
Coffee Harvest Optimization
Vigor Mapping and Frost Mitigation
Crop Disease Management see also 1, 2, 3
Corn Precision AG Studies see also 1
Herd Tracking and Management
Entomology
Forestry Inspection
Fisheries Management
Species Conservation
Wildlife Inventory
Mineral Exploration
Remote Aerial Survey
Forest Fire Surveillance
Forest Fire Mapping
Volcano Monitoring
Remote Aerial Mapping
Oil Spill Tracking
Snow Pack Avalanche Monitoring
Ice Pack Monitoring
Poaching Patrol

More he
http://www.uavm.com/images/NASA_UAV_...sment-2004.pdf

Have you done ANY UAV research yourself personally, or you just
providing your own unsupported personal opinions?

Larry Dighera wrote:
Well, I've done some research. This story indicates that UAVs will
haul cargo:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=11250026
That might fill the skies alone.

There is information about some UAV applications available he
http://www.uavm.com/uavapplications.html
[ List elided for brevity. See web site. ]

That same list of _potential_ applications also applies to airships. So
there is at least one counter-example proving that potential doesn't
necessarily translate into real world application.

Furthermore, UAVs/UASs have been around since WW I. So in a sense their own
history is another counter-example showing their alleged advantages have
not translated into civilian applications on a large or even moderate
scale.

So what recent technical or economic cusp was recently crossed that
suddenly makes UAVs sufficiently viable in any of those applications that
would cause the skies to be filled with them?