UAVs

[Mike M]

When there is more man-made stuff in the airspace, there is more chance of a collision if any of that stuff moves. "I said, she said, we met, we don't, it won't......" I risk being killed if your whatever-you-call-it collides with my aircraft. No matter where, or what altitude, or what safety measures you or others have taken. Until you accept the same risk, you have no right to increase my danger. Plain and simple, do you accept that risk? If not, you agree with me - that increased collision risk is unacceptable.

[WLIU]

That is a squirrelly road to go down. It makes sense to insist that UAV's have operating requirements that keep them out of the way of manned aircraft. But the argument that a type of operation endangers "me" opens the "me" up to the argument by another operator that the "me" endangers them because the "me" trains to a lower standard, is a lower priority user of the airspace, etc. It all depends on who "me" and "they" are. No matter who you are, there is a "me" that thinks that you are a lower priority and qualified user of the airspace.

I will suggest that a better argument is that all users of the airspace must meet a minimum performance standard. So humans have eyes and make use of electronic devices and common procedures to observe potentially conflicting traffic and fit into the sequence of other traffic. I suggest that UAV's that are to share the airspace with manned aircraft, and that is almost all airspace in the continental US, be required to have some equivalent of "eyes" and be able to "see and avoid" and go with the flow just like manned aircraft do. The industry has lots of technology that can be used to meet this performance standard. Their challenge is to integrate that technology into a package that fits the size, weight, etc form-factor that they need. But I suggest that is their problem not ours.

Fly safe,

Wes
N78PS

[Mike M]

"That is a squirrelly road to go down ... the argument that a type of operation endangers "me" opens the "me" up to the argument by another operator that the "me" endangers them ....I will suggest ... all users of the airspace must meet a minimum performance standard."

There already is a minimum performance standard. And the present airspace users have accepted it along with the risks of the present system. Now a newly-defined group wants to change the rules to the detriment of established users. If it is really as safe as they say, then they should not object to the present performance standard. Mess up? Die. Don't overcomplicate. Privacy? No. Technology? No. My widow gets to decapitate you and stuff airplane parts down your neck???? Yes. Don't want to risk that? Don't launch your ...........yes, it istheir problem. Do not let them make it your problem without sharing your risk.

[Snowyibook@me.com]

[QUOTE=WLIU;28924]That is a squirrelly road to go down. It makes sense to insist that UAV's have operating requirements that keep them out of the way of manned aircraft. But the argument that a type of operation endangers "me" opens the "me" up to the argument by another operator that the "me" endangers them because the "me" trains to a lower standard, is a lower priority user of the airspace, etc. It all depends on who "me" and "they" are. No matter who you are, there is a "me" that thinks that you are a lower priority and qualified user of the airspace.

This subject seams to be a sore one and uneducated as well. Every one thinks that UAV's are just some joe blows that knows nothing about flying. I fly them and I am required to have a Class 2 Medical, As well as pass the ground school. And I take it one step further I Fly in Manned as well! So I know the airspace. But like I said this is a sore subject right now for manned aviators. And i can say that right now i feel comfortable in my little restricted airspace.

I hope that I don't sad bad. I love manned aviation far more then UAV's and would go flying any day!

[Mike M]

This subject seams to be a sore one and uneducated as well. Every one thinks that UAV's are just some joe blows that knows nothing about flying. I fly them and I am required to have a Class 2 Medical, As well as pass the ground school. And I take it one step further I Fly in Manned as well! So I know the airspace...I hope that I don't sad bad.

Uneducated? Do not throw stones, glass-house dweller. You have already proved you have huge knowledge gaps, as most of us do. Bottom line. Do I get to hunt you down like a diseased dog after your remotely piloted air vehicle collides with a human-carrying air vehicle? Will you play by the rules currently in effect or not? Error-free or die? Put up or shut up.

[Hal Bryan]

It's getting a little too heated in here, folks - everybody take a deep breath or whatever works for you.

I think this discussion is crucial - help me guarantee that we can continue to have it by dialing it back just a little.

Thanks!

[Mike M]

OK, I admit to hyperbole. I am kind of surprised nobody has brought up the obvious. Commercial airline flight booked. Driving to airport on 2-lane hiway, 65mph speed limit, pre-dawn, light drizzle, oncoming traffic. Automated toll gate at parking. Elevator to walkway, moving sidewalk to terminal. automated tram to gate areas. Etc. Terminal monitor shows wx is rvr 2600, indef ceiling. On-time departure, climb in solid clouds to cruising alt. Arrival airport wx lousy, but Cat III ils works fine. Most of the day was automated already, why am i objecting? because that oncoming Google-car had a human driver, ditto the Cat III crew. The flight was in controlled airspace with special equipment requirements, much like access to class d or class a. But uav operators want to add new requirements (and increase the risk) for all the present airspace users at no personal physical risk for their own financial gain. No. Not acceptable.

[WLIU]

I have not seen any new data presented in the last several posts so I will guess that we will have to wait and see what the FAA churns out. They have been given a deadline by Congress so we know that something will be coming.

I will note that the FAA regulatory process should kick out a Notice of Proposed Rule Making as the first public step towards permanent rules. The Certificates of Authorizations and temporary special use airspace issuances tie up FAA resources so there most certainly will be a policy established and NPRM's. Will be interesting to see what they write.

Film at 11.

Wes
N78PS

[skier]

One of my biggest concerns other than mid-airs is that UAVs can't see what's under them. If they lose an engine, they're going to hit something below them. Unlike a manned aircraft, they don't know the playground below them has 20 children playing on it or that the other field has a soccer game going on. I know for a fact that some of the UAVs being used by the Army in Afghanistan don't have the ability to sense where they're going to land after an engine out. They just enter an autorotation and hit whatever is below them.

I want the pilot in there to be able to avoid the school, playground, house, etc. How frequently do we hear about pilots dieing at airshows because they guided their craft away from the nearby houses and the spectators on the ground.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/11/us/maryland-drone-crash

[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.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS