UAVs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WLIU

I hate to say it, but our non-pilot neighbors worry about you and I having an engine failure and landing on them. This is such a rare event that I do not think that you can use this as an argument against UAV's. Legislating your fears, rather than real numbers, is a slippery slope that leads to bad things like airport closures or operating curfews. I suggest that by our using with UAV's, the same arguments that unhappy airport neighbors use against us, we all lose. Pilots claim that they make better decisions. We should apply that skill to this discussion.

---

Part of what you say makes sense and is true, but the general public doesn't understand glide ratio's and that losing and engine doesn't necessarily result in a crash.

I have talked with UAV manufacturers that indicated there really isn't any sort of control over where a UAV lands after an engine out. These ones just continue in a straight line until they either hit something or land. IE, my fear is factual and based on current technology. As someone else in this thread pointed out, the engines aren't necessarily tested/certified the same way aircraft engines are. We don't have those guidelines for reliability, which means we can't be sure that engine failures will be that rare in UAVs.

I think that there are two very reasoned arguments that you are missing. You are giving way too much credit to the certification process for engines used in recreational aircraft, and way too much credit for pilots. If you have followed the AD's on engines and propellers over the last 30 years, you can easily come to the conclusion that the quality of certificated components is a trial and error process that you and I pay for. Look at the recent Boeing battery issue. And neither you nor I can predict that pilots do the expected thing when a mechanical failure occurs.

For better or worse, pilots have misjudges weather and fuel since just after Wilbur and Orville launched for the first time. Look up how many airplanes Lindberg and Doolittle crashed. It takes a certain type of individual to go through the process of becoming a pilot. The personality has good and bad aspects. We would like fewer folks to wreck airplanes, but the reality is that we will never achieve that unless we take pilots out of the cockpits. In engineering we say that perfect is the enemy of good. Its a trade-off and we do our best to manage risk.

I will note that accidents are bad for any business and if you look inside the engineering processes of the UAV builders I am certain that you will find guys spending lots of time calculating and testing reliability. So the absence of governmental regulation does not mean low quality. It may be higher quality because customers won't pay big $$ for junk. And the biggest detriment to GA keeping up with the latest technology is the FAA certification process. In another discussion we complain about how long it has taken for the FAA to maybe allow you to use your iPad in flight. The FAA process, in general terms, slows progress rather than embraces it. But that is another discussion.

Aviation is an activity where you must learn to manage risk, not just avoid it. This is different than the messages we see a lot in our normal, feet on the ground, daily routine. If you are purely avoiding risk, you can not be a pilot. Leaving the ground involves risk.

Getting back to UAV's, the FAA understands performance standards for safety, but the mere expression of fear and discomfort does not provide data that can be processed by the rulemaking calculation. To influence the formal process, statistics and logically constructed and supported methods or procedures carry the most weight. Look at how EAA and AOPA submit their comments to NPRM's for examples.

Fly smart, fly safe,

Wes
N78PS

Again, I can't argue with all your points, but the certification process is a hurdle that does in the end prove the equipment to meet some level of standards. As you point out, industry will demand some level of standards, but those will be weighed against cost. People are willing to buy a $50 electric drill that they have to replace next year in place of the $400 one that will last 15 years. By letting industry decide, you risk cheap outweighing safe as it has in most of our day-to-day lives.

We also have to remember that our airspace system is based upon "see and avoid" and until that changes, UAV integration will be a problem. Perhaps the solution is to require every aircraft to carry ADS-B out capabilities, but that is a different discussion.

It will be interesting to see how UAV integration ends up happening and what it means for general aviation. There are, as pointed out, positives with UAVs and negatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skier

.. Perhaps the solution is to require every aircraft to carry ADS-B out capabilities...

---

"Perhaps?" Right. Uh, huh. So, when all the UAV operators and $$$ people bet their lives on "perhaps" in the same way they expect us to, well...........perhaps we can continue the debate with some new data for Wes "WLIU".

Well one thing that would help is for every UAV to be painted hunter orange to help see it.

I would also like to see a new symbol on the sectional for airfields where UAVs are regularly based out of, like they do for skydiving ops.

That's a reasonable proposal. I will suggest that In addition to requiring high visibility paint and/or markings you could also suggest requiring that UAV's meet the FAR requirements for anti-collision lighting. And require that UAV used for commercial purposes be registered with the FAA and marked with the name of the manufacturer, a serial number, date of manufacture, name and address of owner, and if different, name and address of operator. And require that when in flight that right-of-way rule that applies to UAV's is that they give way to all other aircraft.

For folks who want to keep track of FAA UAV work, or even submit suggestions, take a look at http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/ Interesting info there.

I will also note that some of our elected representatives have expressed interest and opinions on the topic of UAV's. There was a recent high profile Senate filibuster for instance. Sending suggestions to those folks will accomplish a lot more than simply venting on an internet forum. When a Senator or Congressman sends a formal inquiry to a federal agency, they must provide a reply.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

I'll agree with the N-number and data plate, but not names and addresses.

The right of way rule is already there - slower traffic get it - and I don't see that changing.

However, since UAV's have a long duration in the air (or, rather, most do), something along the lines of "UAV operations should be launched and recovered as to have minimum impact on commercial and general aviation, such as from low traffic airfields and times of day." To be honest, they could have UAV's taking off and landing every half hour at most of our local airfields and the only person that would notice is the guy cutting the grass between the hangar and the taxiway....because he's the only one at the airport.

Now I am curious. If UAVs are likely to land where they should not, or possibly collide with other aerial vehicles, and manned aircraft must carry a registration certificate naming the owner and providing an address, why should UAVs not be required to carry similarly identifying info that can be easily read?

I will also call into question that UAV's are slower than manned aircraft. I have seen a UAV that can operate above Mach 1.

Thanks,

Wes
N78PS

My point on right of way works both ways - sometimes a UAV should have right of way, sometimes it shouldn't. However, I'd steer clear of anything without a human pilot just to be on the safe side, just like I would do for a human pilot barging his way into a traffic pattern without a radio...in the wrong direction (and yep, it happens).

We need to be cautious about calling for sweeping restrictions on UAV's, as it may come back to bite us.

What if we demand that UAV's be restricted to the point that they can't share the pattern with manned pilots?

Then airfields will have "UAV only" hours where GA pilots can't use them. And now, if one lands during the UAV window, even if there are no UAV's operating, you're in violation of violating restricted airspace.

Don't think anyone will call in your tail number? All we need to do is keep painting UAV pilots as ignorant, irresponsible and untrained idiots that don't have anyone's safety in mind....as if it matters since they're "piloting" completely unsafe contraptions that are more likely to crash into a schoolyard of children ("Oh! the children! We must do it for children!" they cried) than anything else and they'll have our number scrawled on a note pad and the call to the FAA ringing.

This is a great discussion. I'm begining to see some parallels with future UAV operations and the operations of DEA and Customs/ICE back in the 90s. Norad was in the mix as well. What affected 800 oil & gas industry helos then, could affect all GA aircraft tomorrow. Back then, my fellow pilots and I operated along the Gulf of Mexico out 250 to 300 nm from Alabama to the Texas/Mexico border. So did drug smugglers. And that attracted the above players.

There are more than a dozen high volume locations along the coast that use a CTAF to have reasonably safe operations. The "State Aircraft" usualy disregarded the CTAF, barged in and it looked like a western movie when the wild bunch rides roughshod through town, terrorizing the shop keepers. One of our pilots, also a USNR Captain commanded an aviation unit at the NAS in New Orleans. He contacted the Customs boss, also a tenent unit there. The commander to commander approach worked for quite a while. A "State Aircraft" can be a game warden's Cub, the Blue Angels, a Sheriff's UAV, etc. My question is: Can a UAV operator sitting in El Paso effectively use a CTAF if his AC is over Ohio? Will he?

At times, I heard Houston Center transmitting an IFR clearance on VHF to a state aircraft. He read back on VHF, so he was non military. The clearance had the phrase "due regard". Look it up, but it means this. That pilot assumes responsibility for separation. Oh yeah, it can only be used in G airspace. What can go wrong?

A friend of mine was in solid IMC doing a GPS approach to Morgan City (E airspace) with 10 passengers on board. Somewhere between FAF and MAP there was a break and he spotted a King Air 90 at 4 oclock sliding 100 ft under his belly, disappearing back into the klag at 10 oclock. E airspace. Other simmilar happenings in D airspace in IMC. I met the same K' Air when he did a 90 deg intercept passing LESS THAN 50 FEET ABOVE ME. He wouldn't answer me on CTAF until we were both on the ground and I told him I was telling on him. Question: Can a UAV operator request a due regard clearance? Can he safely comply?

I got a belly full following a particularly outragous encounter with a Citation that had US Customs painted on the side. My passengers were terrified. I called the FSDO and got our Principle Operations Inspector. No I did not go through my Chief Pilot. The POI said that enforcement was hard on these cases. No I did not get an N number but I could describe the rivet pitch on his wing. We agreed that I ought to let this one slide because no one took a picture. He did say that they were succesful in one case against these guys. Question: If a UAV operator commits a careless and reckless violation, can he be brought to justice?

Bob