New congress, same old tune, inaccurate

"Ferstlesque" wrote in message
...

All Predators and Reapers have transponders with mode C, and maintain
2-way radio communication with ATC (with a phone as backup). Military
Predators and Reapers do all of their training within Restricted
airspace; when they must transit the national airspace to travel to
their operating areas, they do so under an IFR flight plan above FL
180. They cannot "see and avoid" in the common sense of the phrase, so
VFR flight in the NAS is not done. Kirk's estimates on weight are
fairly accurate.

The real danger to GA is implied above. Eventually, some administration will
become convinced that the "see & avoid" concept for UAVs is "too hard", "too
expensive" and (inevitably they will claim) "too dangerous". The "solution"
will be a huge loss of VFR airspace for GA. Further, flight without an
operating transponder will become history. At that point, the entire country
will become controlled airspace.

Vaughn

Mike, I could not agree with you more on the cost-benefit of the
present type of UAV's along our borders. I am sure it has to do with
the higher ups' obsession with "the newest thing", even if it does the
job more poorly than previous solutions. It's very common in my career
field too, unfortunately.

Vaughn, that would suck. Let's hope the EAA, AOPA and SSA continue to
fight against future encroachment.

On Jan 13, 3:28*pm, Ferstlesque wrote:
Mike, I could not agree with you more on the cost-benefit of the
present type of UAV's along our borders. I am sure it has to do with
the higher ups' obsession with "the newest thing", even if it does the
job more poorly than previous solutions. It's very common in my career
field too, unfortunately.

Also agree. Hard to see how in most situations a couple of Huskies
with a semi-retired old fart in the FCP and a young eagle eyed border
patrol kid in the back seat couldn't do the job of a Predator. Less
sexy, I guess (of course, that depends on the kid in the back seat...)

Kirk
Semi-Retired old fart (well, from the first career at least...)

On Jan 13, 2:28*pm, Ferstlesque wrote:
Mike, I could not agree with you more on the cost-benefit of the
present type of UAV's along our borders. I am sure it has to do with
the higher ups' obsession with "the newest thing", even if it does the
job more poorly than previous solutions. It's very common in my career
field too, unfortunately.

Vaughn, that would suck. Let's hope the EAA, AOPA and SSA continue to
fight against future encroachment.

Coming to an airport near you. (Hey, Wichita)
http://tinyurl.com/478oqcf

On Jan 14, 8:59*am, Frank Whiteley wrote:
On Jan 13, 2:28*pm, Ferstlesque wrote:




Coming to an airport near you. (Hey, Wichita)http://tinyurl.com/478oqcf

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/su...3-drones_N.htm

The AOPA article Frank linked to is very discouraging. There are 273
active Certificates of Authorization in the USA, all involving
unmanned systems, but the FAA won't identify where the operation areas
are. AOPA has been trying to get a list of the COAs from the FAA for 4
years, but the FAA refuses to provide it.

This makes no sense. The F-177 and other classified aircraft were
developed inside distinct areas published on aviation charts. Pilots
could call a published number and find out if it was safe to fly in
those areas. In this way public safety and military necessity worked
together well, without compromising security. How come UAVs can't work
this way?

The FAA is supposed to be publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) sometime in June 2011 concerning the operation of unmanned
aircraft systems (UAS) in the national airspace. If would be great if
this NPRM, when it becomes available, is linked to by whoever on RAS
sees it.

-John

On Jan 14, 10:59 am, Frank Whiteley wrote:
Coming to an airport near you. (Hey, Wichita)http://tinyurl.com/478oqcf