Experimental Certificate Granted UAV If MAC "Extremely Improbable"!

William Hung wrote in

:

Didn't LA county Sheriff's Department try to do this same thing a
while back?

I do recall that the Monterey Park PD (east of L.A.) tried ultralights.

--

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

But the military is all about destruction

Nope. The military mission isn't all about destruction.

I've not seen a bomb or gun used other than do cause destruction, have
you?

sigh, the military is not ALL about bombs and guns. Think defense. Do you
remember one of SAC's missions?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

On Feb 23, 10:09*pm, "John T" wrote:
"Phil J" wrote in message





AFAIK, military UAVs are designed primarily for military
surveillance. *Hopefully there won't be much call for that within U.S.
airspace. *That leaves training, which can be done in RAs or MOAs with
appropriate cautions issued. *I would expect the military to be pretty
careful about this. *The last thing they want is the kind of publicity
they would get from a UAV causing the crash of a civilian aircraft
with civilian deaths.

While I agree with your publicity comment, it appears this UAV will be a
civilian operation. The article implies the UAV in question will be used by
the Miami/Dade County police department in an experiment with the FAA.

--
John Thttp://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyerhttp://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! *FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

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

Phil

"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.

--
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 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.

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

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


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.

Larry, you're not asking reasonable questions. To demonstrate, let's change
just a couple words and see how you would respond:

"What is the safeguard against a GA plane hitting someone in the event of an
engine or guidance or control failure or fuel exhaustion?"

I'll point to the recent crash in Sanford, FL and two crashes in Leesburg,
VA in the last several years as quick and ready evidence not flattering to
GA. The NTSB database has many more.

We're not talking about automated systems here. Humans are at the controls
of the UAVs and the planes. I'll grant it's harder for the UAV pilot to
avoid ground structures due to limited field of vision, but the size and
speed of the UAVs also make the risk they present much lower than that of
our GA planes.

--
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 19:32:00 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

"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.

You can fly smallish RC (model) aircraft and get all the surveillance you
want. Why this one?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

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.

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.