Who's At Fault in UAV/Part91 MAC?

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
____________________

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 05:08:42 GMT, "John T" wrote in
Message-Id: om:

"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.

Intentionally compromising air safety is always a bad idea. Once the
UAV 'camel' has its nose under the tent, you can bet that you will be
sleeping with it soon, fleas and all.

Frankly, I'd give much better odds to having an in-flight fire or engine
failure than a MAC with a remotely piloted aircraft.

How did you arrive at that point of view. Do you have any data to
support it?

Giving odds or taking chances is an inappropriate approach to air
safety.

The Big Sky is much bigger in the border areas discussed
in your articles.

The "Big Sky" is a total myth. Any rational system that relies upon
chance to insure air safety is doomed to failure. I hope you're not
an FAA employee.

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.

You questioned my use of the term 'reduced vision standards'. That
lead me to believe that you felt that UAV operators would be held to
the same (not reduced) vision standards as certificated airmen. If
your questioning of my use of the term 'reduced vision standards' did
not imply your belief that they UAV operators would be held to the
same standards as certificated airmen, what were you implying?

: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.

The military has not disclosed to me all the capabilities of their
UAVs. :-) However, unless there is high-resolutin, color, binocular
vision in all quadrants, the UAV operators visual capability to see
and avoid will be substandard to that required of a certificated
airman.

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?

Your apparent lack of concern for air safety and reliance on chance
(Big Sky)for aircraft separation betrays your shallow understanding of
the issue.

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:

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.

So you feel that a _biased_ (as opposed to _impartial_) governmental
investigative organization does not warrant reform? Comon' man,
think!

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


Frankly, I'd give much better odds to having an in-flight fire or
engine failure than a MAC with a remotely piloted aircraft.

How did you arrive at that point of view. Do you have any data to
support it?

No, I don't. Those are *my* odds I'm offering.

Giving odds or taking chances is an inappropriate approach to air
safety.

BS. You take chances stepping into the shower. You take chances crossing
the street. You take chances driving to the airport. You take chances
leaving the ground in an aircraft. It's what you do to minimize those
chances that counts and nothing I've seen in your articles UAV's leads
me to believe that they're necessarily a significant safety issue. Once you
show me *evidence* of lackadaisical attention to safety by the owners and
operators of those very expensive bits of hardware, then I'll join your
rally. Until then, this is my last post on the issue. It's already gotten
far more attention than it deserves at this stage.

The "Big Sky" is a total myth. Any rational system that relies upon
chance to insure air safety is doomed to failure. I hope you're not
an FAA employee.

hmm... For the record, no, I'm not an FAA employee. However, the "myth" of
the big sky is shattered everytime I go up VFR. For all the VFR flight I've
done, the only time I have ever gotten close to another craft
unintentionally was near an airport. See and avoid? Perhaps, but I don't
recall ever maneuvering to avoid another aircraft during VFR cruise. Also
for the record, you inferred a reliance on chance for safety. I implied no
such thing. Until proven otherwise, I will stand by my assertion that there
are far fewer airplanes in operation (i.e., "Big Sky") in the border areas
under consideration for UAV use, though.

You questioned my use of the term 'reduced vision standards'.

Yes, I did.

That
lead me to believe that you felt that UAV operators would be held to
the same (not reduced) vision standards as certificated airmen.

I can't help that.

If
your questioning of my use of the term 'reduced vision standards' did
not imply your belief that they UAV operators would be held to the
same standards as certificated airmen, what were you implying?

I was implying that you have no idea what are the capabilities of these
UAV's you're trying to get us all stirred up about. Nothing more.

The military has not disclosed to me all the capabilities of their
UAVs. :-) However, unless there is high-resolutin, color, binocular
vision in all quadrants, the UAV operators visual capability to see
and avoid will be substandard to that required of a certificated
airman.

That may be, but there are ways to compensate. Again, you haven't
demonstrated that the proposed operation of these UAV's will significantly
degrade aviation safety. Come back when you have something more solid than
"omigod they're putting unmanned aircraft in the skies!"

Your apparent lack of concern for air safety and reliance on chance
(Big Sky)for aircraft separation betrays your shallow understanding of
the issue.

It's interesting that you think I have any less concern for aviation safety
than anybody else - much less rely on chance for separation. Larry, you're
demonstrating a serious ignorance here.

So you feel that a _biased_ (as opposed to _impartial_) governmental
investigative organization does not warrant reform? Comon' man,
think!

Now you're trying to change the subject. If you want to talk about
revamping the NTSB, start another thread. This one's dead.

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