Drones To Be Certificated For GA?

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:43:50 -0000, wrote:

In rec.aviation.piloting hierophant wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:59:01 -0400, vaughn wrote:

"hierophant" wrote in message
...
My concern is that this certification will lead to the
temporarypermanent closing of airspace ala Nevada. Imagine if
general air over cities, coastlines, borders and the potential impact
of smaller airfields.

Agree. The drone folks would love to simplify and cheapen things for themselves
by 1) grabbing airspace and 2) by forcing the owners of all other planes to
install transponder equipment so that drones can cheaply "see" them. When a
drone is able to "see and avoid" just like a human pilot, then no special
airspace will be necessary. That is the standard we should insist on. Until
then, we should hold their feet to the fire. Video "see & avoid" technology is
coming, and may someday be cheap enough to go in any well-equipped airplane. ..

Vaughn

I had not thought about the see-avoid issue; this might give drones
freer realm in general airspace. Which is better? See-avoid drones
competing for any of our airspace or limited airspace for blind
drones?

A pickle.

Not really.

Drones have very limited utility in the US as a whole so I highly doubt
there will ever be many of them flying in general airspace other than
near the borders.

For testing and such the military already has restricted areas and MOAs
suitable for that.

And if a drone could ever see and avoid as well as the average 172 pilot,
there wouldn't be any realistic reason they couldn't fly with everything
else.

However, that is a big "if".

In the meantime, I wouldn't find a "mode C veil" along the boarder
objectionable.

Jim, there limited utility is being sought by major cities such as LA,
NYC, Atlanta and Chicago by local police.

hierophant wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:43:50 -0000, wrote:

In rec.aviation.piloting hierophant wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:59:01 -0400, vaughn wrote:

"hierophant" wrote in message
...
My concern is that this certification will lead to the
temporarypermanent closing of airspace ala Nevada. Imagine if
general air over cities, coastlines, borders and the potential impact
of smaller airfields.

Agree. The drone folks would love to simplify and cheapen things for themselves
by 1) grabbing airspace and 2) by forcing the owners of all other planes to
install transponder equipment so that drones can cheaply "see" them. When a
drone is able to "see and avoid" just like a human pilot, then no special
airspace will be necessary. That is the standard we should insist on. Until
then, we should hold their feet to the fire. Video "see & avoid" technology is
coming, and may someday be cheap enough to go in any well-equipped airplane. ..

Vaughn

I had not thought about the see-avoid issue; this might give drones
freer realm in general airspace. Which is better? See-avoid drones
competing for any of our airspace or limited airspace for blind
drones?

A pickle.

Not really.

Drones have very limited utility in the US as a whole so I highly doubt
there will ever be many of them flying in general airspace other than
near the borders.

For testing and such the military already has restricted areas and MOAs
suitable for that.

And if a drone could ever see and avoid as well as the average 172 pilot,
there wouldn't be any realistic reason they couldn't fly with everything
else.

However, that is a big "if".

In the meantime, I wouldn't find a "mode C veil" along the boarder
objectionable.

Jim, there limited utility is being sought by major cities such as LA,
NYC, Atlanta and Chicago by local police.

Yeah, I know.

There will always be the techno-nerds that want the latest technology with
no regard to whether or not that technology is applicable to the problem
at hand.

UAVs (especially the armed ones) are very good for military type surveillance
but not really that good, if usefull at all, for civilian surveillance in
some place like LA.

UAVs will not replace a helicopter with a spot light and an officer in the
air telling the cops on the ground the perp is running south down the alley
toward 1st street.

What would the cops do with a UAV in this instance, fire a missle at the perp?

Also these things are not cheap and with todays budgets likely, even if
UAVs were approved for cop use, it would come down to either the UAV or
the helicopter, and the cops aren't going to give up their helicopters.

About the only realistic domestic use for UAVs is things like pipline
patrol, and that would hardly be a problem for GA.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Apr 19, 5:59*pm, "vaughn" wrote:
"hierophant" wrote in message

...

My concern is that this certification will lead to the
temporarypermanent closing of airspace ala Nevada. Imagine if
general air over cities, coastlines, borders and the potential impact
of smaller airfields.

Agree. *The drone folks would love to simplify and cheapen things for themselves
by 1) grabbing airspace and 2) by forcing the owners of all other planes to
install transponder equipment so that drones can cheaply "see" them. * When a
drone is able to "see and avoid" just like a human pilot, then no special
airspace will be necessary. *That is the standard we should insist on. *Until
then, we should hold their feet to the fire. *Video "see & avoid" *technology is
coming, and may someday be cheap enough to go in any well-equipped airplane. *..

Vaughn

Agreed.

The only trouble is that your key word - "cheaply" - will be the
driving factor in the struggle between drone operators and GA. The
operators will claim that "see & avoid" capability will be cost
prohibitive to implement. Since a plurality, if not a majority of
drone operators in the near term will have government functions
(police, aerial surveys, etc.), it's a fair bet that GA will have to
bite the bullet with mandated transponders.

Uncontrolled airspace will soon be a thing of the past.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:40:54 -0700 (PDT), Why BeeDee wrote:

Uncontrolled airspace will soon be a thing of the past.

Sadly ;(

On Apr 19, 2:07*pm, hierophant wrote:
Appears so

http://www.gatheringspot.net/news-article/general-discussion/lobbying...

The article originally had a picture of a non-drone SR-71 Blackbird
which was removed. ???

My concern is that this certification will lead to the
temporarypermanent closing of airspace ala Nevada. Imagine if
general air over cities, coastlines, borders and the potential impact
of smaller airfields.
--
Live To Spend It


Not really, the only market that is remotely viable for drones would
be transoceanic flights. Domestically things are too crowded unless
they flew well over 50,000...and that's only practical if you fly
coast2coast.

I wouldn't worry much. Then again considering what a anti-anyone but
the government and big business organization the faa is, I don't
discount your concern.

On Apr 19, 6:50*pm, Schiffner wrote:

Not really, the only market that is remotely viable for drones would
be transoceanic flights. Domestically things are too crowded unless
they flew well over 50,000...and that's only practical if you fly
coast2coast.


I wouldn't be so sure about that:

FAA Pressed to Allow Drone Flights in U.S

(CBS/AP) Unmanned aircraft have proved their usefulness and
reliability in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now the
pressure's on to allow them in the skies over the United States.

The Federal Aviation Administration has been asked to issue flying
rights for a range of pilotless planes to carry out civilian and law-
enforcement functions but has been hesitant to act. Officials are
worried that they might plow into airliners, cargo planes and
corporate jets that zoom around at high altitudes, or helicopters and
hot air balloons that fly as low as a few hundred feet off the ground.

On top of that, these pilotless aircraft come in a variety of sizes.
Some are as big as a small airliner, others the size of a backpack.
The tiniest are small enough to fly through a house window.

The obvious risks have not deterred the civilian demand for pilotless
planes. Tornado researchers want to send them into storms to gather
data. Energy companies want to use them to monitor pipelines. State
police hope to send them up to capture images of speeding cars'
license plates. Local police envision using them to track fleeing
suspects.

Like many robots, the planes have advantages over humans for jobs that
are dirty, dangerous or dull. And the planes often cost less than
piloted aircraft and can stay aloft far longer.

"There is a tremendous pressure and need to fly unmanned aircraft in
(civilian) airspace," Hank Krakowski, FAA's head of air traffic
operations, told European aviation officials recently. "We are having
constant conversations and discussions, particularly with the
Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, to
figure out how we can do this safely with all these different sizes of
vehicles."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6579920.shtml

On Apr 19, 5:07*pm, Why BeeDee wrote:
On Apr 19, 6:50*pm, Schiffner wrote:



Not really, the only market that is remotely viable for drones would
be transoceanic flights. Domestically things are too crowded unless
they flew well over 50,000...and that's only practical if you fly
coast2coast.

I wouldn't be so sure about that:

FAA Pressed to Allow Drone Flights in U.S

(CBS/AP) *Unmanned aircraft have proved their usefulness and
reliability in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now the
pressure's on to allow them in the skies over the United States.

The Federal Aviation Administration has been asked to issue flying
rights for a range of pilotless planes to carry out civilian and law-
enforcement functions but has been hesitant to act. Officials are
worried that they might plow into airliners, cargo planes and
corporate jets that zoom around at high altitudes, or helicopters and
hot air balloons that fly as low as a few hundred feet off the ground.

On top of that, these pilotless aircraft come in a variety of sizes.
Some are as big as a small airliner, others the size of a backpack.
The tiniest are small enough to fly through a house window.

The obvious risks have not deterred the civilian demand for pilotless
planes. Tornado researchers want to send them into storms to gather
data. Energy companies want to use them to monitor pipelines. State
police hope to send them up to capture images of speeding cars'
license plates. Local police envision using them to track fleeing
suspects.

Like many robots, the planes have advantages over humans for jobs that
are dirty, dangerous or dull. And the planes often cost less than
piloted aircraft and can stay aloft far longer.

"There is a tremendous pressure and need to fly unmanned aircraft in
(civilian) airspace," Hank Krakowski, FAA's head of air traffic
operations, told European aviation officials recently. "We are having
constant conversations and discussions, particularly with the
Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, to
figure out how we can do this safely with all these different sizes of
vehicles."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6579920.shtml

bah, how else to get rid of civil aviation? The government has been
working towards that goal for 50 years...

On Apr 19, 7:15*pm, Schiffner wrote:
On Apr 19, 5:07*pm, Why BeeDee wrote:



On Apr 19, 6:50*pm, Schiffner wrote:

Not really, the only market that is remotely viable for drones would
be transoceanic flights. Domestically things are too crowded unless
they flew well over 50,000...and that's only practical if you fly
coast2coast.

I wouldn't be so sure about that:

FAA Pressed to Allow Drone Flights in U.S

(CBS/AP) *Unmanned aircraft have proved their usefulness and
reliability in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now the
pressure's on to allow them in the skies over the United States.

The Federal Aviation Administration has been asked to issue flying
rights for a range of pilotless planes to carry out civilian and law-
enforcement functions but has been hesitant to act. Officials are
worried that they might plow into airliners, cargo planes and
corporate jets that zoom around at high altitudes, or helicopters and
hot air balloons that fly as low as a few hundred feet off the ground.

On top of that, these pilotless aircraft come in a variety of sizes.
Some are as big as a small airliner, others the size of a backpack.
The tiniest are small enough to fly through a house window.

The obvious risks have not deterred the civilian demand for pilotless
planes. Tornado researchers want to send them into storms to gather
data. Energy companies want to use them to monitor pipelines. State
police hope to send them up to capture images of speeding cars'
license plates. Local police envision using them to track fleeing
suspects.

Like many robots, the planes have advantages over humans for jobs that
are dirty, dangerous or dull. And the planes often cost less than
piloted aircraft and can stay aloft far longer.

"There is a tremendous pressure and need to fly unmanned aircraft in
(civilian) airspace," Hank Krakowski, FAA's head of air traffic
operations, told European aviation officials recently. "We are having
constant conversations and discussions, particularly with the
Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, to
figure out how we can do this safely with all these different sizes of
vehicles."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6579920.shtml

bah, how else to get rid of civil aviation? The government has been
working towards that goal for 50 years...

I tend to agree. I'm sure there isn't a day goes by that some brainiac
at the FAA doesn't pass some time wondering how many beer cans could
be made out of the 200,000+ aircraft registered in the USA.

Sad to say...

On Apr 19, 5:21*pm, Why BeeDee wrote:
On Apr 19, 7:15*pm, Schiffner wrote:





On Apr 19, 5:07*pm, Why BeeDee wrote:

On Apr 19, 6:50*pm, Schiffner wrote:

Not really, the only market that is remotely viable for drones would
be transoceanic flights. Domestically things are too crowded unless
they flew well over 50,000...and that's only practical if you fly
coast2coast.

I wouldn't be so sure about that:

FAA Pressed to Allow Drone Flights in U.S

(CBS/AP) *Unmanned aircraft have proved their usefulness and
reliability in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now the
pressure's on to allow them in the skies over the United States.

The Federal Aviation Administration has been asked to issue flying
rights for a range of pilotless planes to carry out civilian and law-
enforcement functions but has been hesitant to act. Officials are
worried that they might plow into airliners, cargo planes and
corporate jets that zoom around at high altitudes, or helicopters and
hot air balloons that fly as low as a few hundred feet off the ground..

On top of that, these pilotless aircraft come in a variety of sizes.
Some are as big as a small airliner, others the size of a backpack.
The tiniest are small enough to fly through a house window.

The obvious risks have not deterred the civilian demand for pilotless
planes. Tornado researchers want to send them into storms to gather
data. Energy companies want to use them to monitor pipelines. State
police hope to send them up to capture images of speeding cars'
license plates. Local police envision using them to track fleeing
suspects.

Like many robots, the planes have advantages over humans for jobs that
are dirty, dangerous or dull. And the planes often cost less than
piloted aircraft and can stay aloft far longer.

"There is a tremendous pressure and need to fly unmanned aircraft in
(civilian) airspace," Hank Krakowski, FAA's head of air traffic
operations, told European aviation officials recently. "We are having
constant conversations and discussions, particularly with the
Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, to
figure out how we can do this safely with all these different sizes of
vehicles."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6579920.shtml

bah, how else to get rid of civil aviation? The government has been
working towards that goal for 50 years...

I tend to agree. I'm sure there isn't a day goes by that some brainiac
at the FAA doesn't pass some time wondering how many beer cans could
be made out of the 200,000+ aircraft registered in the USA.

Sad to say...

I have secret planes in case of lottery. Mr. Rutan will be getting a
call...nothing new, nothing off the shelf either. ;^)