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

Casey Wilson wrote:
"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?


I believe you must show us what exempts UAVs from the FARs.

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 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.

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.

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

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:32:42 -0700, wrote in
:


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.


I can see that you are frustrated by some aircraft being certified
without electrical systems, but to characterize their owners as
'spoiled' is a bit presumptuous, in my opinion.

Perhaps UAV manufacturers would be willing to fund the installation of
the safety equipment UAV operation would impose on the owners of
aircraft certified without electrical systems. Or do you feel it
would be just and equitable for aircraft owners to foot the bill for
the privilege of enabling blind UAVs to share the NAS with us?

Your 'easy solution NOTAM' is certainly another option, but it fails
to display any concern for other NAS stakeholders, and reveals an
arrogant attempt to place corporate revenue over the rights and safety
of those stakeholders. It's another blatant airspace grab. It
excuses UAV manufactures for failing to design and spend the necessary
capital to produce a product capable of meeting the regulatory
obligations of NAS users.

If UAVs are going to function in harmony with the current NAS users,
it is incumbent on their developers to invest the time and money
necessary to enable their designs to operate within federal
regulations. Anything less is corporate hubris.


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

(I was unable to access the PDF file. It may be due to a problem on
my computer.)


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!


General Aviation has been plying the skies since December 17, 2003.
When was the first UAV certified?


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.

Prescient, huh? :-)

UAV's are just too capable and too attractive as technology to go away,

Agreed. And I never suggested that UAVs go away. I'd just prefer
that we all operate in compliance with the same federal regulations. I
hope you don't think that is unreasonable.

we need to start having a real discussion about what can be done to
coexist or we are going to loose.

I'm in sympathy with your urging to discuss coexistence. Isn't that
what we are doing here?

But I do not agree, that we should be motivated to engage in that
discussion by fear of 'loosing' or fear based on anything else. (You
meant 'losing,' right?)

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.

UAVs were developed to operate in the combat theater, not the NAS.
Before they can be allowed to operate in the NAS, they need to be able
to meet the regulatory requirements that all other users must meet, or
rewrite the regulations (in a sensible way consistent with systems
analysis theory). Anything else is irresponsible and negligent.

UAV unreliability is an issue that I would expect to improve over
time.

However, the cost differential between operating a $13-million UAV and
its ground-based crew of seven compared to a pilot and a suitably
equipped Cessna 182 will never support UAV operations for border
patrol missions. It's an audacious government/corporate boondoggle
supported by the DOD and Executive branch; it's the nose of Big
Brother's domestic spying camel slipping under the tent. :-)

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.

My comments _are_ reactionary. I am reacting to the penchant DOD has
for breaking the DOT's well engineered National Airspace System. I'm
reacting to the undue influence corporations exert on legislators, and
the unconstitutional actions of the Executive branch. And instead of
backing away from the issue, I prefer to confront it directly.

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.


Until UAVs demonstrate the equivalent of see-and-avoid capability, or
the NAS is redesigned and the necessary and equitable regulatory
modifications made, UAVs need to be separated from other air traffic
operating in the NAS.