Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 06/14/2010 View Sun 06/13/2010 View Sat 06/12/2010 View Fri 06/11/2010 View Thu 06/10/2010 View Wed 06/09/2010 View Tue 06/08/2010
1
2010-06-14 Home Front: Politix
FAA Under Pressure To Open Us Skies To Drones
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by BrerRabbit 2010-06-14 09:40|| || Front Page|| [8 views ]  Top

#1 Those folks who want drones flying around our airspace have never seen, or heard, a pilot when he is truly pissed off.

I remember a while back when someone proposed building a football stadium at the end of a major runway at Sky Harbor. Their logic was that "No problem, planes will just have to take off at 15 more degrees angle to avoid it!"

The local talk radio station was suddenly deluged by phone calls from irate pilots. They were very glad they had a 15 second tape delay, because what the pilots were screaming was so peppered with obscenities that it sounded like a longshoreman who had just hit his gouty toe with a hammer.

Needless to say, the FAA told the stadium builders not only "no", but "Hell no!"

I know the airspace around here is already crowded as blue blazes with normal civilian and military traffic. It is also electronic band crowded, so control systems for drones would be sketchy as well.
Posted by  Anonymoose 2010-06-14 11:06||   2010-06-14 11:06|| Front Page Top

#2 Imagine an airspace sharing its volume with not only civilian passenger and cargo traffic of a major metro area, but also placing hundreds of craft that have limited means to react quickly to that on coming traffic. Done every year. Not a single record of collision yet. So, what's the real hang up?
Posted by Procopius2k 2010-06-14 11:12||   2010-06-14 11:12|| Front Page Top

#3 my real hang up is this is just another way for law enforcement too spy on us.
Posted by chris 2010-06-14 12:31||   2010-06-14 12:31|| Front Page Top

#4 I don't see where our border is a zone we really NEED to use drones - those are much more vital where we can't afford to have a conventional aircraft downed and the pilot captured. For border work just install some weapons & observation pod mounting points on a Cessna and offer free flight hours and you'll get all the volunteers you can handle.
Posted by Glenmore 2010-06-14 12:48||   2010-06-14 12:48|| Front Page Top

#5 Procopius2k: Apples and oranges. No motorized pilot will go anywhere near a hot air balloon festival, so for the duration of the event, Albuquerque, for example, has little or no low altitude air traffic other than balloons. N.B.: collision avoidance doesn't work with hot air balloons.

BTW, if you want to attend the Albuquerque festival, I know a great place to stay where the hosts are also balloonists.

I'd also like to add that this isn't restricted to just the civilian world. The USAF and the US Army have been wrangling with each other for years over UAVs in each other's airspace.
Posted by  Anonymoose 2010-06-14 13:33||   2010-06-14 13:33|| Front Page Top

#6 Drones or RPV's that are programed or remotely piloted. Their sensors are such that they are like looking through a straw (OK, toilet paper tube) with little or no situational awareness and a certain amount of time lag on the controls. That's why most UAV losses are mechanical failure and/or pilot loss of control during emergencies or landing.

In combat zones there is strict traffic separation between everything in the air; fast, slow, high and low movers, manned and unmanned. Most of the US is not under radar control, especially low altitude, even in fairly dense population areas. With existing systems eventually there WOULD be a collision with a manned aircraft.
Posted by tipover 2010-06-14 16:41||   2010-06-14 16:41|| Front Page Top

#7 Reminds me of a proposal to use UAVs for shark patrol off the beaches of Perth, Western Australia. When you figure out the cost and personnel involved two 19 year olds in an old 172 is way cheaper.
Posted by Aussie Mike 2010-06-14 18:43||   2010-06-14 18:43|| Front Page Top

23:56 Betty Huputer2738
23:48 Mike Hunt
23:46 Mike Hunt
23:09 Anguper Hupomosing9418
23:08 Redneck Jim
23:07 Anguper Hupomosing9418
23:05 Redneck Jim
23:03 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:57 Mullah Richard
22:12 DarthVader
21:42 Nimble Spemble
21:39 Besoeker
21:37 Besoeker
21:32 phil_b
21:29 Pappy
21:23 Pappy
21:20 Whitle Borgia2803
21:16 JosephMendiola
21:14 Dash Riprock
21:13 Besoeker
21:10 Besoeker
21:08 Deacon Blues
21:06 Besoeker
21:06 JosephMendiola









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com