Who's At Fault in UAV/Part91 MAC?

How does the military's use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle intend to
comply with the Part 91 See-And-Avoid mandate? Will there be new
Restricted Areas imposed along the border, or will the UAVs be flown
in Positive Control Airspace?



-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 10, Number 17b -- April 22, 2004

-------------------------------------------------------------------

...BORDER SECURITY BY DRONE
Chances are you won't have to join the military to encounter a
UAV. They've been in limited use over U.S. airspace for years but
the Department of Homeland Security wants to use them regularly to
patrol the border between Arizona and Mexico. The San Diego
Union-Tribune reports that the flights are expected to start later
this month and the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol is confident
they'll help stem the tide of illegal immigrants and drugs. "It's
deal terrain," commissioner Robert Bonner told the Union-Tribune.
"There's nothing to hide. Not a tree in sight."
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#187152


While I'm in favor of policing the nation's borders, I'm very
suspicious of ill conceived DHS measures that create hazards and
inconvenience due to the imposition of less than enlightened
practices.

The Honorable Robert Bonner
Commissioner
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
1300 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Room 3.4A
Washington, D.C. 20229 Phone: (202) 927-8727
Fax: (202) 927-1393


--------------------------------

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m...9-1n19uav.html
The military usually operates robotic surveillance aircraft in
restricted areas throughout the United States.

But efforts to broaden the use of robotic aircraft in civilian
airspace have furrowed some brows in the aviation community, and
one aviation safety group opposes it.

The propeller-driven Predator resembles a small airplane with no
cockpit. The plane is directed by a pilot sitting in a ground
control station that receives live images transmitted by cameras
in the aircraft's spoon-shaped nose. It was designed to remain
aloft for 40 hours at altitudes as high as 25,000 feet.

San Diego-based General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, which makes
the Predator and other unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, won't
discuss the specific work it does for government customers. But
spokeswoman Cyndi Wegerbauer said the company is getting more
requests to fly UAVs along the U.S. coast and borders today than
in the past.

"We have done work along the borders now with Predator, Predator B
and even I-GNAT, so it's not new to us," said Wegerbauer,
referring to the company's UAV models. "But the acceptability of
using these systems for border surveillance has increased
dramatically since terrorism became such a real, in-our-back yard
threat."

Such requests are driving the demand to fly UAVs in civilian
airspace, experts said.

"We're on the threshold of a new era in terms of using UAVs in
civil and commercial airspace in the United States," said Scott
Dan, who oversees UAV research and development at GA Aeronautical
Systems. He sees UAVs being used someday to fly over wildfires and
perhaps even for agricultural purposes such as crop-dusting.

Dan has been working to realize that vision by serving as
president of the UAV National Industry Team, which is developing
the regulations and technology required to make it easier to fly
UAVs in civilian airspace. Participating companies include GA
Aeronautical Systems, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman,
Aerovironment and Aurora Flight Sciences.

NASA has provided $101 million to fund Access 5, whose goal is to
ease rules for UAV flights in civilian airspace in five years.

As part of the process, the two groups also are working on
procedures for autonomous UAVs, such as the Global Hawk developed
in San Diego by Northrop Grumman. An autonomous UAV follows a
computer-programmed route.

UAVs are permitted to fly in civilian airspace under a certificate
of authorization granted by the Federal Aviation Administration.
It requires the operator to file a flight plan at least 30 days in
advance.

The goal of UAV proponents is to allow them to fly routinely into
and out of designated U.S. airports. Operators would be allowed to
file a flight plan and fly on the same day, just like any pilot.

To the National Air Disaster Alliance, a flight safety group in
Washington, D.C., the idea of routinely flying remote-controlled
airplanes in civilian airspace is folly.

"Unfortunately for the American public, this is not an issue that
has appeared on the radar," said Tom O'Mara, an alliance board
member. "We already have a problem with air traffic control. Our
skies are overcrowded as it is. So why would anyone want to put an
unmanned aircraft into that mix? It's just a bad idea."

The issue is "problematic" for pilots, said John Mazor, a
spokesman for the Air Line Pilots Association.

"If it's implemented properly, you might look at it and think, 'It
looks like a good idea.' But the devil is in the details," Mazor
said. "We don't want anything flying around that would reduce the
safety and separation requirements for commercial airliners."

For Jeff Myers of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, a
general aviation group, one concern stems from the stealthy nature
of UAV operations by the military and the Department of Homeland
Security.

"As long as they're in military airspace, there's no problem
because they're operating on their own side of the fence," Myers
said. "In this case, the fence is a matter of communications."

The FAA has no authority over UAV flights in military airspace,
said William Shumann, an agency spokesman in Washington, D.C.

"Currently, there are no FAA regulations dealing with the
certification of UAV pilots, aircraft or (commercial) operators,"
he said.

But using the FAA's certificates of authorization, companies such
as GA Aeronautical Systems fly UAVs in civilian airspace.

In a Dec. 16 letter to Unmanned Systems magazine, GA Aeronautical
Systems President Thomas J. Cassidy said UAVs are treated by air
traffic controllers like any other small aircraft "because that is
what they are."

For example, Cassidy said a Predator B was flying at an altitude
of 21,000 feet last year in eastern California when "numerous
airliners in the vicinity" were calling air traffic controllers.

The pilots were asking for the best altitudes to avoid turbulence,
Cassidy said. A controller called by radio to the Predator, which
relayed the signal to the pilot in the ground control station.

"The pilot of Predator B 002, who was located hundreds of miles
from the aircraft, responded with a 'smooth ride at FL 210,' "
Cassidy wrote, referring to a flight level of 21,000 feet. "As far
as the controller was concerned, the Predator B was just another
airplane."

--------------------------------

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/sp...ustoms-ON.html

President Bush has requested $64 million to develop and obtain
more technology to assist with border protection. Another $10
million has been requested to develop and deploy unmanned aerial
vehicles, essentially drones, that would look out for illegal
border crossers.

By late spring or early summer, the agency hopes to deploy some of
the drones along the Arizona border, where arrests have risen
recently.

-----------------------------------
http://appropriations.house.gov/_fil...rTestimony.pdf

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)

Like ISIS, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) are both an important
part of the smarter border strategy and an essential element of
the Border Patrol’s revised National Strategy. UAVs equipped with
sophisticated on-board sensors have the potential to provide
unparalleled surveillance capability. UAVs provide long-range
surveillance. As a result, they are especially effective
force-multipliers because they have the capacity to remain on
station much longer than other airborne assets, and are
particularly useful for monitoring remote land border areas where
patrols cannot easily travel and infrastructure is difficult or
impossible to build. UAVs will perform missions involving
gathering intelligence on border activities was well as conducting
surveillance over open water along the Gulf Coast, the Florida
peninsula and the Great Lakes region on the northern border. The
high endurance of the larger classes of UAVs permits
uninterrupted overnight or around-the-clock coverage, and the size
and operating altitudes can make UAVs effectively undetectable
by unaided human senses. UAVs will also contribute to enforcement
effectiveness and officer safety by providing communications links
for coordinating multiple units on the ground is important in
remote border operating areas. The $10 million in funding sought
for UAVs will enable CBP to capitalize more fully on the UAV
research that has taken place in a military context, and to apply
UAVs in support of the Homeland Security mission. The funding
would allow CBP to deploy and operate a system of unmanned aerial
vehicles in support of the Border Patrol and other components of
Customs and Border Protection. The use of UAVs will complement the
other intrusion detection and intelligence gathering components of
the border surveillance network to meet the mission of stopping
the illegal entry of terrorists, smugglers and others into the
United States.

-----------------------------------
http://uav.navair.navy.mil/airdemo03...03/fednews.htm

“Let’s say you’re the chief of a Border Patrol sector, and it
takes six to seven agents to fly a UAV,” Thrash said. “You have to
make the choice: ‘Is the UAV providing me enough surveillance
capability to keep six or seven agents off the line?’”

...

However, obstacles remain before UAVs can fly along the borders.
First, Homeland Security has to secure permission from the Federal
Aviation Administration to fly the unmanned systems in commercial
airspace.

Another issue is a concern over citizen privacy.

The federal government is able to conduct surveillance using
unmanned systems that exceeded the imagination only a few years
ago, said Barry Steinhardt, director of the American Civil
Liberties Union technology and liberty program. Very few laws
govern when and how such technologies can be used, Steinhardt
said.

“We’re creating this surveillance monster — the planes are just
one example of that — and we’re creating it at light speed,”
Steinhardt said.

-------------------------------------
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...6-093730-1766r
In the field test, King buried two of his new sensors in the
ground so their devices' antennas stuck up a few inches. He
measured each one's precise latitude and longitude with a Global
Positioning System gadget and entered the coordinates in his
laptop.

While the Border Hawk circled a couple of hundred feet overhead,
buzzing like a large mosquito, four APB members and myself walked
past the hidden motion detectors single file. ("SBIs always walk
single file," I was told.) The two gizmos successfully reported by
radio our direction and speed, although they overestimated our
numbers, signaling that there were 11 of us instead of five.

Our GPS coordinates showed up on a map on King's
wireless-networked laptop and a volunteer, who is a model airplane
hobbyist, piloted the Border Hawk to our location to record our
presence. Somebody who happened to be logged onto ABP's Web site
at that moment could have watched live aerial pictures of me
squinting up at the drone.

-------------------------------------

http://www.space.com/businesstechnol...vs_030813.html

-------------------------------------

In my opinion, it is a very helpful (and in some instances quite
necessary) virtue to be able to take criticism even if it is offensive
or insulting. In fact, even the most offensive criticism might (and
hopefully does!) contain insights that are valuable, and by
disregarding the entire criticism, you are throwing away that
insight. You may not like it, but it sometimes does pay to listen to
a person that is not as friendly as you'd like her to be.
-- Tobias Dussa

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


How does the military's use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle intend to
comply with the Part 91 See-And-Avoid mandate? Will there be new
Restricted Areas imposed along the border, or will the UAVs be flown
in Positive Control Airspace?

It's not just the military, but civilian government agencies that are
considering the use of UAV's.

If the UAV's are in the flight levels, then they will be in Positive Control
Airspace, right?

If the UAV's are for border patrol, would it not be reasonable to expect
them to be within a few miles of the border? As such, how much of an issue
would you expect them to be to Part 91 flights? Or are you concerned about
the occassional drug-running flight?

As for your question border restricted areas, I have to question how
many Part 91 flights are conducted close enough to the border for this to be
a problem. Do you know how many occur in any given time frame?

UAV use in general airspace should be carefully considered before
implementation, but I'm not as concerned about their use in border patrol
use as I am about their loitering over a city with several nearby airports
and busy airspace.

As for your subject line question, I'd wait for an NTSB ruling before
passing judgment on that.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:56:33 GMT, "John T" wrote in
Message-Id: om:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


How does the military's use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle intend to
comply with the Part 91 See-And-Avoid mandate? Will there be new
Restricted Areas imposed along the border, or will the UAVs be flown
in Positive Control Airspace?

It's not just the military, but civilian government agencies that are
considering the use of UAV's.

The AvFlash article mentioned the Border Patrol UAVs being operated by
the military.

If the UAV's are in the flight levels, then they will be in Positive Control
Airspace, right?

That might be true if they are capable of adequate surveillance
performance from 18,000' MSL, but they will have to climb to that
altitude outside Positive Control Airspace, in Joint Use airspace or
Restricted airspace, as the NAS is currently structured.

If the UAV's are for border patrol, would it not be reasonable to expect
them to be within a few miles of the border? As such, how much of an issue
would you expect them to be to Part 91 flights? Or are you concerned about
the occassional drug-running flight?

While the UAVs may operate within a few miles of the national
boarders, I doubt they will be based there. So it is likely they will
have to traverse Joint Use airspace en route to their stations.

As for your question border restricted areas, I have to question how
many Part 91 flights are conducted close enough to the border for this to be
a problem. Do you know how many occur in any given time frame?

Many international Part 91 flights occur each day. To intentionally
design the NAS in such a way as to permit UAV operation at reduced
vision standards is unprofessional, unacceptable to public safety, and
negligent.

UAV use in general airspace should be carefully considered before
implementation, but I'm not as concerned about their use in border patrol
use as I am about their loitering over a city with several nearby airports
and busy airspace.

And how long do you estimate it will take for UAVs to be operating
beyond the national boarder corridors, given the national hysteria?

As for your subject line question, I'd wait for an NTSB ruling before
passing judgment on that.

Right. It's difficult to generalize about potential MAC
responsibility without specific facts. However, once the inevitable
MAC occurs, and the Part 91 pilot is no longer able to testify (due to
his untimely death), do you expect the team operating the UAV to
actually take responsibility for their failure to see-and-avoid? From
the past behavior of military in MACs with civil aircraft, I would
expect the military to deny all responsibility.

This begs the question, how is the UAV's conspicuity planned to be
enhanced?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news

The AvFlash article mentioned the Border Patrol UAVs being operated by
the military.

I didn't say the military wouldn't be involved, but you explicitly ignored
the inclusion of non-military agencies using UAV's.

That might be true if they are capable of adequate surveillance
performance from 18,000' MSL,

Safe to assume.

...but they will have to climb to that
altitude outside Positive Control Airspace, in Joint Use airspace or
Restricted airspace, as the NAS is currently structured.

What's the problem if it's restricted space?

While the UAVs may operate within a few miles of the national
boarders, I doubt they will be based there. So it is likely they will
have to traverse Joint Use airspace en route to their stations.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. UAV's don't necessarily need the massive runways
other recon aircraft require.

Do you know how many occur in any given
time frame?

Many international Part 91 flights occur each day.

So the answer to my yes/no question would be...? No, you don't know.

To intentionally
design the NAS in such a way as to permit UAV operation at reduced
vision standards is unprofessional, unacceptable to public safety, and
negligent.

Unprofessional? Negligent? Reduced vision standards? What reduced
standards?

And how long do you estimate it will take for UAVs to be operating
beyond the national boarder corridors, given the national hysteria?

I make no assumptions - including one regarding "hysteria". The only
hysterical one here appears to be you.

...do you expect the team operating the UAV to
actually take responsibility for their failure to see-and-avoid?

You're assuming facts no in evidence.

From
the past behavior of military in MACs with civil aircraft, I would
expect the military to deny all responsibility.

Perhaps, but the NTSB would still make their ruling, wouldn't they?

This begs the question, how is the UAV's conspicuity planned to be
enhanced?

Has anybody said this enhancement would be made?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"John T" wrote in
ws.com:

What's the problem if it's restricted space?

None, if it's restricted airspace. But it may very well be in joint use
airspace, especially if the other civilian players get into the game.
They'll be climbing through the Cessnas flying around.

Many international Part 91 flights occur each day.

So the answer to my yes/no question would be...? No, you don't know.

I can't give you an exact number, but it's in the thousands. There are
thousands of daily helicopter flights to/from the Gulf of Mexico alone,
nevermind the true international flights, both airline and Part 135 and
Part 91 flights, US and other countries. My best guess is that it's in the
tens of thousands daily, counting everything.

We're giving up lots of freedoms to the government, and now we're expected
to possibly give our lives, for little or no return. The sky is falling,
the sky is falling!!!! Not I, said the little red hen.

--
Regards,

Stan

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:55:26 GMT, "John T" wrote in
Message-Id: om:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news
[...]
Do you know how many occur in any given
time frame?

Many international Part 91 flights occur each day.

So the answer to my yes/no question would be...? No, you don't know.

Implicit in your question is the notion that, because there are less
international Part 91 operations than domestic, there is no problem
compromising their safety. I do not hold that view.

To intentionally
design the NAS in such a way as to permit UAV operation at reduced
vision standards is unprofessional, unacceptable to public safety, and
negligent.

Unprofessional? Negligent? Reduced vision standards? What reduced
standards?

Are you implying that the ground based crew operating the UAV would be
able to meet the vision standards required of a certificated airman
and mandated by Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Volume 2,
Chapter 1, Part 91, Subpart A, § 91.113(b):

When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an
operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual
flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person
operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft.

solely through the use of video equipment on-board the UAV? If not, I
would characterize the UAV pilot vision standards as reduced from
those required of certificated airmen.

And how long do you estimate it will take for UAVs to be operating
beyond the national boarder corridors, given the national hysteria?

I make no assumptions - including one regarding "hysteria". The only
hysterical one here appears to be you.

What has lead you to that conclusion?

...do you expect the team operating the UAV to
actually take responsibility for their failure to see-and-avoid?

You're assuming facts no in evidence.

You didn't answer the question. :-)

From
the past behavior of military in MACs with civil aircraft, I would
expect the military to deny all responsibility.

Perhaps, but the NTSB would still make their ruling, wouldn't they?

The NTSB has shown a significant lack of impartiality in at least one
civil/military MAC case:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...13X33340&key=2

This begs the question, how is the UAV's conspicuity planned to be
enhanced?

Has anybody said this enhancement would be made?

Unfortunately, there has been no mention whatsoever of enhancing the
conspicuity of UAVs operating in Joint Use airspace in any of the
literature I have read. It would seem prudent to equip the UAV with a
bright light on the front of the UAV, so the pilot on a head-on
collision course with it might be able to see it in time to attempt to
avoid it. The UAV might also be equipped with TCAS to assist in
warning of an impending MAC.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


Implicit in your question is the notion that, because there are less
international Part 91 operations than domestic, there is no problem
compromising their safety. I do not hold that view.

You're assuming a significant rise in the danger to other aircraft (*You*,
not I, separated Part 91 traffic from the rest.) I'm not yet convinced that
adding remotely piloted aircraft to a relatively rarely-travelled slice of
airspace over very sparsely populated border areas raises the danger to
pilots enough for me to be worried. Frankly, I'd give much better odds to
having an in-flight fire or engine failure than a MAC with a remotely
piloted aircraft. The Big Sky is much bigger in the border areas discussed
in your articles.

Are you implying that the ground based crew operating the UAV would be
able to meet the vision standards required of a certificated airman...
solely through the use of video equipment on-board the UAV?

I implied no such thing. However, I'm curious to know why you're implying
they *wouldn't* be able to meet those requirements. Are you aware of all
the capabilities of the UAV's you're talking about? I'm not so I can't make
too many assumptions either way.

I make no assumptions - including one regarding "hysteria". The only
hysterical one here appears to be you.

What has lead you to that conclusion?

What led you to yours? Does "Chicken Little" mean anything to you?

...do you expect the team operating the UAV to
actually take responsibility for their failure to see-and-avoid?

You're assuming facts no in evidence.

You didn't answer the question. :-)

I have no expectation in your hypothetical scenario.

The NTSB has shown a significant lack of impartiality in at least one
civil/military MAC case:

The NTSB has shown a "significant lack of impartiality" in a number of other
cases, too, but they're still the closest thing we have to a standing
impartial review board that merits trust.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

How does the military's use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle intend to
comply with the Part 91 See-And-Avoid mandate? Will there be new
Restricted Areas imposed along the border, or will the UAVs be flown
in Positive Control Airspace?


Did you read the item before posting your message? There is no altitude
reference outside of Class A airspace, so presumably see-and-avoid is not an
issue. Yeah, they've got to climb through Class E airspace to get to Class
A, but I'd assume that'll be done in a restricted area.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

How does the military's use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle intend to
comply with the Part 91 See-And-Avoid mandate? Will there be new
Restricted Areas imposed along the border, or will the UAVs be flown
in Positive Control Airspace?


Did you read the item before posting your message? There is no altitude
reference outside of Class A airspace, so presumably see-and-avoid is not
an
issue. Yeah, they've got to climb through Class E airspace to get to
Class
A, but I'd assume that'll be done in a restricted area.

And in case of mechanical failure when the plane has to descend
into the VFR altitudes? Don't you think the rest of us are entitled to
be "seen-and-avoided"?

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
nk.net...

And in case of mechanical failure when the plane has to descend
into the VFR altitudes? Don't you think the rest of us are entitled to
be "seen-and-avoided"?


A mechanical failure would make it an aircraft in distress. An aircraft in
distress has the right-of-way over all other air traffic.