Who's At Fault in UAV/Part91 MAC?

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:03:52 GMT, "Tony Cox" wrote in
Message-Id: t:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:17:37 GMT, "Tony Cox" wrote in
Message-Id: et:

I note that there is currently no requirement for certification, even
medical requirements [for UAV operators].

Can you provide a citation that supports that statement?

It's a quote in your original post, attributed to one William
Shumann:- "Currently, there are no FAA regulations dealing
with the certification of UAV pilots, aircraft or (commercial)
operators," he said.


Aircraft operation in the NAS by an uncertificated "pilot" would seem
to violate FARs.


It is scary
beyond belief if true. Imagine the uncertified pilot of the UAV
safely on the ground simultaneously monitoring video from the front,
above, below and to the sides while attempting to spot intruders on
the ground. How much time is going to be devoted to traffic scan
compared to ground scan? Will the operators receive recognition for
avoiding collisions or spotting illegals? How will the public be
assured that their priority is safety, and not mission success as is
inherent in manned aircraft where the pilots have their lives on the
line in avoiding collisions?

What assurance do we have that he won't have a heart attack, or
loose consciousness, or a whatever?

It's my understanding that it takes a team of about 7 to operate a
UAV. Perhaps that level of redundancy might mitigate the concerns you
raise. However, 7 border patrol officers on the ground might be more
effective in preventing illegal entries.

I'm of the opinion that physically being in the plane sharpens your
mind up. When I fly, I'm constantly "on edge" and ready to react
instantly to any problem. It's my bum on the line too. Frankly, I'd
never expect that level of alertness from a remote pilot, slouched in
a chair drinking his coffee, thumbing through "Playboy" during the
dull bits of a mission, scratching his butt and wandering off to
the bathroom whenever he feels like it. All he risks is his job.

Those are my concerns as well.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Aircraft operation in the NAS by an uncertificated "pilot" would seem
to violate FARs.

I suppose that depends on how you define "Aircraft"
and "pilot"...


It's my understanding that it takes a team of about 7 to operate a
UAV. Perhaps that level of redundancy might mitigate the concerns you
raise. However, 7 border patrol officers on the ground might be more
effective in preventing illegal entries.

Now I don't understand the logic. What does a UAV provide
that a 182 doesn't? Is it significantly cheaper to keep in the air?
Do the "team of 7" work for less money than a pilot and a
spotter? Now that's scary....

I do understand the use of UAV in hazardous areas, where there
is enemy fire and/or risk of a pilot being captured. But why go to
all the extra trouble just to police the border?

The Predator is equipped with Terrain and In-flight Avoidance Systems.
They will see you before you see them.

Mike $$$

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 04:22:56 -0500, (Mike Money)
wrote in Message-Id: :

The Predator is equipped with Terrain and In-flight Avoidance Systems.
They will see you before you see them.

Mike $$$

Can you describe the In-flight Avoidance System you mention? Does it
rely on the operation of a transponder in the conflicting aircraft?
Is it radar based? Visual based? Please provide more information on
this system.

Larry,

The Predator is equipped with a modified Honeywell ETCAS TPA-81A. The
system responds to Mode 1, 2, 3, 4, A, C, and S. Forward surveillance
has been extended to 360 degrees.

In addition, Predator is data-linked to airborne and ground commands for
control and observation.

Predator is piloted by a ground controller who is assisted by up to six
(6) mission specialist. Each specialists is responsible for the
sensor/system he/she is operating to complete the mission (optical, IR,
armament, etc.). The pilot ground controller is dedicated to flying the
airplane. Some controllers are certified pilots and all controllers
have spent many hours in a simulator.

There are more eyeballs on a Predator and its proximity to everything
than any GA aircraft.

Mike $$$ (PA28)

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 19:40:48 -0500, (Mike Money)
wrote in Message-Id: :

Larry,

The Predator is equipped with a modified Honeywell ETCAS TPA-81A. The
system responds to Mode 1, 2, 3, 4, A, C, and S. Forward surveillance
has been extended to 360 degrees.

http://www.honeywelltcas.com/etcas_tpa81a.htm
System Operation
ETCAS provides two modes of operation. The basic mode is ACAS II
which is the same as TCAS II with Change 7.0 software and is RVSM
compatible. In addition to the standard TCAS functions of
situational awareness, traffic alert and resolution advisories,
the Honeywell ETCAS provides a formation mode. This formation mode
allows aircraft operators to locate, identify, rendezvous with and
maintain flight formation with aircraft equipped with a variety of
identification systems, including Identification Friend and
Fo(IFF), Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4, Mode A, Mode C and Modes S
transponder equipped private, commercial and military aircraft.

In order for UAV operators to rely upon the Honeywell ETCAS for
aircraft separation, _all_ aircraft would have to be transponder
equipped, and FARs would have to be changed to mandate transponder use
at all times while airborne. So while TCAS is definitely part of the
solution to aircraft separation, it would not separate UAVs from
aircraft without electrical systems, nor those operating in airspace
where transponder operation is not mandated by regulation.

In addition, Predator is data-linked to airborne and ground commands for
control and observation.

I'd like to know more about that.

Predator is piloted by a ground controller who is assisted by up to six
(6) mission specialist. Each specialists is responsible for the
sensor/system he/she is operating to complete the mission (optical, IR,
armament, etc.). The pilot ground controller is dedicated to flying the
airplane. Some controllers are certified pilots and all controllers
have spent many hours in a simulator.

How will the flying public feel about sharing the sky with
uncertificated UAV operators with lots of sim time? Shall we now
permit gamers with lots of MS Flight Simulator time to ply the
nation's skies? Yikes!

There are more eyeballs on a Predator and its proximity to everything
than any GA aircraft.

Mike $$$ (PA28)

What is the aggregate cost for all those eyeballs?

What is the cost of two man Cessna 182 patrol?

Are there any eyeballs aboard the UAV that meet the vision
requirements of a certificated airman: 20/20 binocular color vision?

Before the government starts operating UAVs among the flying public,
they need to insure UAVs will meet the same or better criteria they
currently demand of airman. Anything less is criminal negligence.

"Mike Money" wrote in message
...

The Predator is equipped with a modified Honeywell ETCAS TPA-81A. The
system responds to Mode 1, 2, 3, 4, A, C, and S. Forward surveillance
has been extended to 360 degrees.

What do you mean by 360 degrees? What is the resolution? Better or
worse than someone with 20/40 vision? Is there collision detection
software analyzing the incoming video, or does it just rely on the ground
based operator to see what's going on.

And of course not all GA aircraft are equipped with TCAS, nor are
they required to be.


In addition, Predator is data-linked to airborne and ground commands for
control and observation.

From the crash reports that Larry provided, this seems to be a ground
link which is easily obscured by terrain. I'd have thought some satellite
link would be better.


Predator is piloted by a ground controller who is assisted by up to six
(6) mission specialist. Each specialists is responsible for the
sensor/system he/she is operating to complete the mission (optical, IR,
armament, etc.). The pilot ground controller is dedicated to flying the
airplane. Some controllers are certified pilots and all controllers
have spent many hours in a simulator.

"Some" are certified pilots??? Come on now.

I bet there are millions of little weenies with hundreds of hours
of Microsoft FS under their belts, but I certainly wouldn't want them
flying around in the same sky as me and my passengers.


There are more eyeballs on a Predator and its proximity to everything
than any GA aircraft.

It's not "eyeballs on a Predator" that concern me. It's the
eyeballs the Predator has looking out for other traffic and
the competence of those interpreting what they see which
is the safety concern.

In the final analysis, the operator of a Predator just has his
job on the line; I have my life on the line, and that of my
passengers.

Tell you what. How about fitting operators with a helmet
that has a built-in gun pointing directly into his head? If they
hit another plane, the gun goes off.

How is see-and-avoid handled with unmanned weather balloons? Are they
only released in restricted airspace? Seems to me that there are some
parallels with UAVs.

"Ace Pilot" wrote in message
om...
How is see-and-avoid handled with unmanned weather balloons? Are they
only released in restricted airspace? Seems to me that there are some
parallels with UAVs.

Aircraft are obliged to give priority to balloons, unmanned or not.
No one has asserted that UAVs have priority over aircraft.

Anyway, balloons don't converge on you from your blind side.