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.