Drone Pilot Settles With FAA Over Video Flight

On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 08:35:20 +1300, george152 wrote:

On 25/01/2015 4:04 a.m., Larry Dighera wrote:

My personal experience encountering an unresponsive Predator at 8,500', 12
o'clock and five miles while operating on a flight plan en route from KLAS to
KSBA is what galvanized my opinion of drone operations within the NAS. There
was no chase aircraft observing the drone (required), and the operator failed
to answer repeated radio calls from Joshua Approach Control, causing me to
divert my flight path to avoid the unresponsive drone. This nonchalant
attitude of drone operators is the heart of the UAS issue, and the arrogance of
the drone manufacturers is amazing, not to mention the apathy of airline
passengers.


Is there any chance we can stop calling them pilots?
They appear to be operators


I hear you. However, FAA is attempting to mandate that UAS operators hold a
valid airmans certificate: See: https://www.faa.gov/uas/faq/#qn9.

https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/notice/n_8900.227.pdf
"b. Policy.
Policy identifies Unmanned Aircraft (UA) as “aircraft” flown by a “pilot”
regardless of where the pilot is located. Aircraft and pilots must demonstrate
compliance with applicable sections of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) to operate in the NAS. However, UA are not compliant with
certain sections of 14 CFR. For instance, the absence of an onboard pilot means
that the “see-and-avoid” provisions of 14 CFR part 91, § 91.113, cannot be
satisfied. Without an onboard pilot, there is a significant reliance on the
command and control link, and a greater emphasis on the loss of functionality
associated with lost link.

Furthermore, for air traffic control (ATC) operations requiring visual means of
maintaining in-flight separation [VMC], the lack of an onboard pilot does not
permit ATC to issue all of the standard clearances or instructions available
under the current edition of FAA Order 7110.65, Air Traffic Control.
Consequently, to ensure an equivalent level of safety, UAS flight operations
require an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) or risk control to address
their “see-and-avoid” impediments to safety of flight, and any problems they
may generate for ATC. In the future, permanent and consistent methods of
compliance will be needed for UAS operations in the NAS without the need for
waivers or exemptions."


At some point, as you said, they will all get a wake up call, and the true
hazard UAS' pose will be undeniably revealed in the grizzly results.


Is there any possibility that some form of complaint could be made that,
when the inevitable happens, those 'lawmakers' could be imprisoned and
this new system explained to the sluggards ?


Ha Ha. What makes you believe they would be able to comprehend it? :-(


We lost a lot of local ATC here and as a result had a couple of midairs
and a number of close calls.


Where's "here?"

On 26/01/2015 8:30 a.m., Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 08:35:20 +1300, george152 wrote:

On 25/01/2015 4:04 a.m., Larry Dighera wrote:

My personal experience encountering an unresponsive Predator at 8,500', 12
o'clock and five miles while operating on a flight plan en route from KLAS to
KSBA is what galvanized my opinion of drone operations within the NAS. There
was no chase aircraft observing the drone (required), and the operator failed
to answer repeated radio calls from Joshua Approach Control, causing me to
divert my flight path to avoid the unresponsive drone. This nonchalant
attitude of drone operators is the heart of the UAS issue, and the arrogance of
the drone manufacturers is amazing, not to mention the apathy of airline
passengers.


Is there any chance we can stop calling them pilots?
They appear to be operators


I hear you. However, FAA is attempting to mandate that UAS operators hold a
valid airmans certificate: See: https://www.faa.gov/uas/faq/#qn9.

https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/notice/n_8900.227.pdf
"b. Policy.
Policy identifies Unmanned Aircraft (UA) as “aircraft” flown by a “pilot”
regardless of where the pilot is located. Aircraft and pilots must demonstrate
compliance with applicable sections of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) to operate in the NAS. However, UA are not compliant with
certain sections of 14 CFR. For instance, the absence of an onboard pilot means
that the “see-and-avoid” provisions of 14 CFR part 91, § 91.113, cannot be
satisfied. Without an onboard pilot, there is a significant reliance on the
command and control link, and a greater emphasis on the loss of functionality
associated with lost link.

Furthermore, for air traffic control (ATC) operations requiring visual means of
maintaining in-flight separation [VMC], the lack of an onboard pilot does not
permit ATC to issue all of the standard clearances or instructions available
under the current edition of FAA Order 7110.65, Air Traffic Control.
Consequently, to ensure an equivalent level of safety, UAS flight operations
require an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) or risk control to address
their “see-and-avoid” impediments to safety of flight, and any problems they
may generate for ATC. In the future, permanent and consistent methods of
compliance will be needed for UAS operations in the NAS without the need for
waivers or exemptions."


At some point, as you said, they will all get a wake up call, and the true
hazard UAS' pose will be undeniably revealed in the grizzly results.


Is there any possibility that some form of complaint could be made that,
when the inevitable happens, those 'lawmakers' could be imprisoned and
this new system explained to the sluggards ?


Ha Ha. What makes you believe they would be able to comprehend it? :-(


We lost a lot of local ATC here and as a result had a couple of midairs
and a number of close calls.


Where's "here?"

New Zealand.
In particular Paraparaumu and Fielding two fatals on circuit. I'll have
to look up the accident reports

On 26/01/2015 12:59 p.m., george152 wrote:

New Zealand.
In particular Paraparaumu and Fielding two fatals on circuit. I'll have
to look up the accident reports
http://www.taic.org.nz/ReportsandSaf...Fskin_aviation
and
http://www.taic.org.nz/ReportsandSaf...Fskin_aviation

And of course they know that it was the pilots fault as usual

On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 13:15:52 +1300, george152 wrote:

On 26/01/2015 12:59 p.m., george152 wrote:

New Zealand.
In particular Paraparaumu and Fielding two fatals on circuit. I'll have
to look up the accident reports
http://www.taic.org.nz/ReportsandSaf...Fskin_aviation
and
http://www.taic.org.nz/ReportsandSaf...Fskin_aviation

And of course they know that it was the pilots fault as usual


Tragic indeed. Those accident reports sure do point out the limitations of
see-and-avoid.

And drone manufacturers in the US are insisting that the FAA permit them to
intermingle their products with airline traffic within the National Airspace
System WITHOUT being equipped with sense-and-avoid technology. It boggles the
mind....

On 2/02/2015 10:45 a.m., Larry Dighera wrote:


Tragic indeed. Those accident reports sure do point out the limitations of
see-and-avoid.

And drone manufacturers in the US are insisting that the FAA permit them to
intermingle their products with airline traffic within the National Airspace
System WITHOUT being equipped with sense-and-avoid technology. It boggles the
mind....

Yup.
When you look at the size of a drone compared to the size of a C150..
Will it be necessary to equip light aircraft with a proximity RADAR system ?
Not so much for airport traffic but ag flying, gliding and general
aviation..