Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 78 of 78

Thread: UAVs

  1. #71

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Giger View Post
    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
    I think this is taking it a bit far. UAV pilots are obviously trained for the missions they perform. The question isn't so much about the pilots themselves as much as the aircraft they pilot. The question comes down to are they equipped with the technology necessary to safely integrate with the national air space system as it stands now and are they are safe to fly above the general population.

    If they are not equipped with the technology necessary to safely integrate with the current air traffic, there are two options:
    1. require that they develop a way to see and avoid other traffic (the basis of our current airspace system)
    2. put the burden on the rest of the air traffic and require something like ADS-B out and require that the UAVs have the capability interpret that information.

    Once we have found a way to integrate them safely with the existing traffic, we need to ensure they are safe to fly over the general population and that they won't be falling out of the sky (unlikely) and won't be having more engine failures that normal aircraft (through a certification process like part 23 or even requiring a 40 hour test phase like experimental aircraft). If they do have an engine failure or loss of connection with the pilot, they need the ability to safely guide themselves (or be guided) to a landing or crash away from people on the ground.

  2. #72

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    1,342
    "We need to be cautious about calling for sweeping restrictions on UAV's, as it may come back to bite us"

    I will suggest that I appreciate Mr Dingley's story and that when dealing with federal agencies you do not get a reasonable solution if you start by giving up ground. I will suggest that my opening position is that all UAV's have to give way to all civil manned aircraft and that all current operating rules for piloted airplanes remain as is with UAV's as second class users of the airspace. From that position I will listen to logical arguments as to how UAV's can operate with the same level of safety as we have today. And I expect to support large liability law suits if a UAV gets offsides and causes death or injury. That is the system of checks and balances that we work with today.

    "put the burden on the rest of the air traffic" - I will suggest that no pilot will support this idea. My tax dollars paid for the current system and I oppose further burdens on behalf of commercial users.

    "they need the ability to safely guide themselves (or be guided) to a landing or crash away from people" - Since human pilots have a hard time doing this, I will suggest that it is even more unlikely that we can expect UAV's to live up to this expectation.

    The future should be interesting.

    Wes
    N78PS

  3. #73

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    FA40
    Posts
    767
    Quote Originally Posted by skier View Post
    ...Perhaps the solution is to require every aircraft to carry ADS-B out capabilities, but that is a different discussion...
    you were kidding with that comment, right? that battle has been fought, the requirement is in effect, and it does not include all aircraft for some very good reasons that have already been agreed to and i'm guessing won't be changing anytime soon. besides, according to the nall reports, there are about eighteen thousand reported midair collisions over the good old USA every year and only about ten of them (not ten thousand, ten, as in one zero) involve two or more piloted aircraft. so even if every man-made object had ads-b, there would still be about 17990 midairs a year - maybe more, since many "drones" maybe wouldn't be seeing and dodging most birds (those other 17990 midairs). we take risks and manage them knowing the potential costs. same risks, same costs for all airspace users? then i'm fine with uav's. no new equipment or rules or restrictions for present manned aircraft users needed.

    defense property disposal office sales, anyone?

    Navy Wants Lasers on Marines’ Trucks to Shoot Down Drones
    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013...-laser-drones/
    Last edited by Mike M; 03-28-2013 at 06:45 PM.

  4. #74

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    2,236
    Skier, right now UAV pilots are well trained because the companies are on the ground floor and don't want a wreck as they do testing and demonstrations for sales. We don't know what their level of training will be in the future.

    Personally, I'd like to see UAV pilots required to have a Sport Pilot with a controlled airspace endorsement or PPL as well as a (new) UAV endorsement. That way they'll have an appreciation for what having skin in the aviation game is all about. For the UAV endorsement they should be required to share the pattern at an uncontrolled airfield with a UAV....both in takeoff and kin the pattern.

    On liability, I'm in agreement. In the event of gross incompetence they're like every other company.

    I also think the future of UAV's isn't some guy in NYC piloting a UAV over Huntsville, Alabama. I think it's going to be much more localized than that. Let's say FEMA was going to put up a drone after Katrina to survey the situation. They'd fly it out of Baton Rouge....faster turn around and the raw data is right there for the decision makers on the ground to work with.

    Which makes me think that perhaps the secret to see-and-avoid is to have an operator/observer team requirement at the point of launch and recovery. Naturally this shows my concern is during these phases of flight more than when they're droning about on their mission.

    Either that or require they fly out of controlled airspace and follow ATC directions, which is preferable to me as I don't ever use controlled airspace.
    The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

  5. #75

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    FA40
    Posts
    767
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...47c_story.html

    Maybe these things aren't ready for prime time?

  6. #76

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    MCAS MIRAMAR
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood View Post
    I saw on tv, L A I think, that a real estate broker had a little model airplane type "drone" with a camera so his "high end clients" could see properties over a broad area from his office without having to drive for hours. I don't know how common this is or, if it really works or is just a Hollywood type story.
    I am not a RC model type guy, but I thought that the range that you could control them was pretty limited.
    Just an idea of how far some of these (RC planes) can go with "FPV" kits on them (FPV=First Person View) Some guys are using VHF/UHF controllers and video transmitters and recievers.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar2lUhrFkLM
    Last edited by Downs; 09-25-2013 at 07:27 PM.
    Hy-Tek Hurricane 103



  7. #77
    Rick Rademacher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Urbana Ohio
    Posts
    184
    The UAV technology is great and getting better all of the time. I just wish general human common sense would also rise to a higher level.
    The smaller RC versions will be everywhere.
    I posted this on the www. RCGroups.com site the other day in the “350 QX BNF With SAFE™ Technology by Blade®”
    “Please remember that safety is the number one issue. Read the AMA guidelines on RC flying.
    While I might catch a Nano QX in my hand, it’s unsafe to catch a 350 QX without some type of safety protection. You should not be that close to the 350.
    I see videos of people flying higher than they should. As I Private pilot, I don’t want to hit anything in the air with my aircraft.
    I work on computers all day; I know that electronics and software can all have glitches.
    Have fun with the 350 QX but always fly safely to protect yourself and others.”
    I feel like one blowing into the wind. There will be tens of thousands of ignorant people flying these things as the price lowers with even greater capabilities to fly faster and higher.
    Look at this video -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0X7Z...ature=youtu.be
    Don’t get me wrong. I am excited with what can be done and the technology.
    See this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J-2JezMxiA

    I am flying the QX 350 and loving it. I want to fly almost anything!

    However, we need to educate more people about safety in a shorter period of time than many had envisioned or they will be in the faces of those who pilot aircraft flying low and slow.


  8. #78

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    FA40
    Posts
    767
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Rademacher View Post

    I see videos of people flying higher than they should...
    However, we need to educate more people about safety in a shorter period of time than many had envisioned or they will be in the faces of those who pilot aircraft flying low and slow.
    When the uav operators face results equal to those of aircraft occupants after a midair collision, i will accept them in public airspace. I didn't make up the idea. Leviticus 24:19,20. Deuteronomy 19:21. Put the results on youtube. after all, these aren't evil people. Just ignorant or reckless. Educate them about cause and effect.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •