A group called "Lonestar UAS" (LSUAS), working with Texas A&M University, has been granted by the FAA a massive chunk of airspace to possibly operate their drones for unknown purposes in my backyard:

http://lsuasc.tamucc.edu/big_bend_range.php

Yup my families ranch is in it, we are not excited. The thing is, there is no radar contact nor ATC in the Big Bend below 10,000' and these drones are not equipped with any proven sense and avoid equipment, but want to fly low level in uncontrolled class E and G airspace.

The Big Bend may be one of the least populated areas in the lower 48, however aviation is very active in our region. Just as in places like Alaska, aviation is part of our day to day life for work, transport, supplies, etc. For example, we are bordered by four ranches. Of these four, three ranchers fly and all have airstrips. One has a 206/182, one an R44, another a Husky and 180, and my family with the 180 and Cub. Big Bend Ranch State Park is 9NM south of us and has a paved airstrip with weekly traffic. The skies are not empty, and the military traffic is daily. Border Patrol is active in their Eurocopters, with DHS and Homeland Security out and about in jet rangers. B-1 bombers fly low level (sometimes less than 500' AGL) off our northern border weekly, day and night. However, the FAA decided to grant this drone program all this uncontrolled airspace with this kind of traffic in the heart of it???

I am not opposed to drones in theory, however until they are equipped with proven sense and avoid technology this is a recipe for disaster IMO. Why, as certified pilots (and all the rules/requirements that go along with that), do/did we have to go through all this continual training to prove we are/were safe, but they (drones) don't???

The city of Alpine voted unanimously to ban LSUAS from their airport and as a community we are now in a hot debate about this issue.

Yesterday, our TX RAF Liaison/Presidio County Airports Manager/local EAA chapter President, Chase Snodgrass, was interviewed on a local radio station about the drones, among other things relating to our local airports. You'll have to bear with the rest of the conversation, but I felt he made some good points on the issue of drones in our airspace. Figured many of y'all might be interested in the topic as it may be coming to an airport/airspace near you...

Here's the link to listen, go to interview with Chase Snodgrass:

http://marfapublicradio.org/programs/ta ... n-archive/

Drones (UAS) in these type of test areas are under the regulations of the FAA. I am not familiar with the regs for the large Globalhawk type drones, but the smaller ones have very specific flight regulations. They must be flown by licensed pilots. Must never exceed 400 ft AGL. Must have mode S transponders. Must be flown with the assistance of a second licensed pilot as Safety Pilot/Observer. Must have proven Lost Com retrieval systems. Must always be within the line of sight of the Safety/Observer Pilot.

I am 100% AGAINST the use of drones in U.S. civilian airspace for any purpose whatsoever.

IMO this falls under the heading of "just because we can do a thing doesn't mean we should do a thing".

I can't think of one legitimate use for drones in U.S. civilian airspace. This smacks of big brother at its worst.

Barnstormer wrote:I am 100% AGAINST the use of drones in U.S. civilian airspace for any purpose whatsoever.

IMO this falls under the heading of "just because we can do a thing doesn't mean we should do a thing".

I can't think of one legitimate use for drones in U.S. civilian airspace. This smacks of big brother at its worst.

I am with you 100% Barnstormer. The F.G. spies on us and conceals its own activities. This is totally backwards and opposes the intent of the United States Government in every way. What is a better tool for tyranny than weapons with the consciousness of a human operator removed. Nobody can be trusted with this technology.

We've got similar " drone " issues here . I think it's the government plan to find everything about us and what we do ,from the number of trips to the grocery store to how many times we call or text friends. Got a email today about gun confincantion in Canada - and list of gun owners. Seems that protecting yourself or hunting for food has become illegal all around the world and coming to a place where we live. The drones are just a way of watching all of us . I would bet they will equipped to seek out all of your firearms and denfensevie measures . Guess the upteen dozen spy sattlites can't get what they want .

Skysteve, as stated in these documents, this group would have all the way up to 17,999' MSL. The point of a transponder was missed apparently by you as there is no ATC below 10,000' MSL out here and no radar either. Thus, separation of aircraft by ATC at low level is absolutely impossible. Flying at 400' AGL in much of this terrain is for the experienced mountain pilot only, I'll try to get a video up to show the terrain. Density Altitude at our ranch is 7000'-9000' all summer and terrain in the local area goes from 2500'-8000'. Winds on an average day often exceed 20knots and the thermals are very powerful as we have the highest solar radiation in the lower 48. Point being the last thing we need is an unproven operator at low level in our skies risking everyone's safety, and for what?

Guys, I understand being against the drones. The thing is that more than anything they are not proven to safely operate in controlled airspace where there is ATC and radar for backup, but they want to turn them loose in a Wild West kind of way in our backyard. I like Chase's question on the radio. How bout we put a seat in one of these UAV/UAS and strap u in and let you go for a ride. I will add that this is mountainous terrain and you will be flying low level, and no the chase plane does not have any way to steer the aircraft, only radio contact with the operator who is far away...have fun

182 STOL driver wrote:We've got similar " drone " issues here . I think it's the government plan to find everything about us and what we do ,from the number of trips to the grocery store to how many times we call or text friends. Got a email today about gun confincantion in Canada - and list of gun owners. Seems that protecting yourself or hunting for food has become illegal all around the world and coming to a place where we live. The drones are just a way of watching all of us . I would bet they will equipped to seek out all of your firearms and denfensevie measures . Guess the upteen dozen spy sattlites can't get what they want .

I'd like to see this email. It includes an entire list of all gun owners?

I don't want the government spying on me either. Nor do I want them to spy on anyone else, by use of drones, satellites, email, phones, computers, cameras in cities or by any other means.

All drones are not used for spying. Some good uses to date include flying over agricultural crops to analyze growth, water useage, fertilizer and pesticide effectiveness. They are also used by the state and federal departments of agriculture to inspect range land, grass growth (both actual length, thickness and to determine best types of grass to seed) to determine best grazing practices. They are used to determine damage due to fires, floods and reparian areas. State Highway Patrol units use them to investigate acidents on freeways. They have found the use of drones provides more accurate accident analysis and opens travel lanes faster. Their own studies have shown they can gather necessary accident info in 6 minutes rather than 2 hours of Trooper time. One state that I know of had an average Trooper death of 2 per year by being hit by cars during freeway accident investigations. When they used drones that death rate went to zero. Some state Wildlife Departments have used drones to get accurate counts of deer, elk and other wildlife. Drones have been used to investigate found explosives and Haz Mat where it is dangerous to send in a person. They are used in "man down" scenarios where close up "eyes on" saves lives and protects other from getting wounded or killed trying to get to someone in danger. They have been used by various military opps to locate, see and assess threats such as snipers or troops just over a hillside.

There are many other uses for drones I have not listed here. My point is, not all drone uses are bad. Again, misuse of anything by anyone is a bad thing, including drone use.

This is a speech given by one of our local EAA chapter members during the public hearing in Alpine, TX about the drones. This is cut and paste from an email and I am not listing his name incase something got screwed up along the way. TAMU is Texas A&M University.

From the Alpine City Council's public hearing on proposed drone operation at the Alpine Airport:

"My concerns are fourfold:
SAFETY – it's a matter of when, not if, a drone will have a midair collision with a manned aircraft over Alpine.
ECONOMICS – it will kill the city's fuel sale business and drive commerce away from the airport, including losing our air ambulance service.
LIABILITY – as part of the contract with TAMU the city will assume 100% of the liability for any injury, death, or property damage caused by the drones.
CULTURE – Alpine's peace and tranquility will be marred by noise and pollution of drones flying over the city.

THE SAFETY ISSUE:
The TXDOT Aviation Division has called our Alpine Airport one of the busiest non-towered airports in Texas. It's feast or famine...at times there is little activity, at other times there are so many planes coming in that you can't find a place to park an airplane on the ramp.
Customs and Border Protection Aviation is based on our airport and operates helicopters and fixed wing aircraft with many, many takeoffs and landings per day; the DPS State Police helicopter is based at our airport...they scramble into the air at all times of day and night; UPS operates aircraft every day into and out of our airport to deliver overnight packages; our air ambulance is very busy often with multiple patient evacuation flights per day; business jets fly in and out every day supporting local businesses; hunters and tourists fly in – the airport is the Gateway to the Big Bend; the Civil Air Patrol flys in periodically with many, many aircraft for their mountain search and rescue training; during wild fire season the Forestry Service operates helicopters out of Alpine for fire fighting; ranchers from all over the big Bend area fly their planes up to Alpine to fill up their ranch planes with fuel; Sul Ross University besides flying in University regents for meetings often fly wildlife tracking missions out of our airport; McDonald Observatory uses the Alpine airport for officials to fly in to the observatory; the Military conducts aerial refueling over the airport. Our's can be a very busy airspace.
So with all these aircraft flying around Alpine and the Big Bend how do we prevent a midair collision with a pilot-less drone? I asked this of the contractor who would be flying these drones here and each of their strategies to prevent collisions was flawed and won't work in our unique airspace:
Their strategy is when they are flying a drone they will be talking with the air traffic control center in Albuquerque – well what they don't know is Albuquerque Center's radar cannot see anything below 7500 feet in the Alpine area; Albuquerque has no radio communications coverage in our airport area or anywhere south; Albuquerque Center cannot and does not provide aircraft separation services around Alpine.
Their next strategy is they propose to have a chase plane 1 mile behind the drone. So I ask “if the chase plane sees a collision conflict can it steer the drone away?” Their answer is No, the chase plane has no control over the drone.
I asked how they proposed to safely fly their drones across the military training route south of Alpine where jets routinely fly at 250 mph at low altitudes where they would never be able to see a small drone let alone have time to steer around one before hitting it – they were unaware that there was a military training route here.
One of our local pilots has already experienced a near mid-air collision with a drone. Mr. Johnny Williams of Marfa, a very experienced former Border Patrol pilot encountered a near miss with a drone while flying near El Paso – he was talking to air traffic control at El Paso at the time and they never saw the drone on radar.
It may not be safe for citizens on the ground either:
Last Saturday a drone lost control and crashed into a navy ship in southern Calif. There were multiple injuries. (2 burn injuries)
Last last week a $4 million drone in upstate NY with a much more sophisticated control system than anything TAMU is going to use, lost control and crashed.
In August at Virginia Motorsports Park a drone went out of control and crashed into a crowd of spectators. There were multiple injuries. (5 injuries).
Closer to home, Earlier in the year outside of Houston the Sheriff's dept lost control of it's drone and it came back at them and crashed into their SWAT vehicle.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ECONOMIC ISSUE:
TXDOT Aviation's economic impact study determined that the Alpine Airport generates $2.4 million to the Alpine and Big Bend area economy. The City of Alpine makes a profit selling fuel to aircraft at the airport. The average business jet that refuels at Alpine makes a $1500 purchase.
The operation of unmanned Drones will scare away private and business traffic at the airport and kill fuel sales and the profitability of the airport.
Alpine is the Mule Deer Capitol of Texas. Most of the hunters that stimulate our economy fly charter jets into our airport. Charter companies have indicated that they will stop flying into our airport due to the danger of unmanned drones flying in the area.
The presence of Drones flying overhead in the area will reduce the desirability of land and homes in this area and degrade property values.
-----------------------------------------------------
THE LIABILITY ISSUE:
Paragraph 7 of the Land Use Agreement that Alpine is being asked to enter into states that The City of Alpine will hold TAMU and it's agents harmless against all claims and liabilities brought for personal injury, death, and property damage.
In the event of an accident the city will be 100% liable and will have no recourse to then sue TAMA to cover the damages. Are you crazy? Why would you agree to such a thing?
-----------------------------------
FINALLY, THE CULTURAL ISSUE:
Why do people move to the Big Bend area when surely it would be much more convenient to live in a big city? This is the home of the last frontier. People choose to live here for the isolation, for the beauty, for the silence, for the peace and tranquility – not the noise nuisance of drones flying over their heads. Not to live in fear of an out-of-control drone crashing into their house or fear of what an in-control drone is doing circling over their property."

SkySteve wrote:Some good uses to date include....

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Everything you listed can and is being done without the use of drones.

If air surveillance is needed or required over U.S. civilian airspace then I want a human pilot in the aircraft.

I am 100% AGAINST the use of drones in U.S. civilian airspace for any purpose whatsoever.

There is enough of this research and use underway, we DO NOT need drones in our civilian airspace.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57331609-1/could-cyborg-insects-act-as-first-responders/

I have a proposed compromise: WE will be the only ones allowed to use drones. WE will use them and LOVE them as we take photos and videos of ourselves and our friends taking off, flying low passes over our heads and landing at BCP fly-ins. WE can use them in the deserted lakebeds of the Sierra Mountains and at places in SE Utah desert airstrips like Caveman and others. We can land on sandbars and use OUR drones to take photos and videos of ourselves having fun. However, since WE are the ones using them, the ones WE use will not have to have ANY of the safety and auto controll features of the ones someone else wants to use. Why? Because WE have said WE don't want anyone else to fly in OUR airspace. Drones are fine when WE want to use them, but someone else?

SkySteve wrote:Drones are fine when WE want to use them, but someone else?

I haven't been to Caveman, BCP fly-ins, or anywhere else listed where drones were used for photos or videos so I'm just guessing here, but I suspect when/if they were, they were flown in a manner that would be more consistent with the voluntary safety standards of the Academy of Model Aeronautics then with COA's or UAS license. If so, I'm fine with that. In this instance they are nothing more then remote control model airplanes in both their intent, their use, and their behavior.

This is entirely different then operating drones under COA's or UAS license (the current allowed methods) which is not at all "remote control model airplane" like, nor for "recreational purposes".

No, in my opinion, "WE" are not "fine" flying drones either, not in civilian airspace.

Manned aircraft, using the same gyro-stabilized camera systems that drones use, have been flying surveillance flights for law enforcement investigations since the early 1980s.

The Supreme Court has ruled on how these aircraft and cameras can, and cannot be used, with, and without search warrants. There is case law, already in effect to control the use of drone aircraft for these purposes.

No one has been concerned about the several hundred manned aircraft performing these missions everyday, here in the US, and the same limitations that curtail their use, apply, fully, to unmanned aircraft.

There are no instances of these manned aviation programs violating the legal restrictions imposed by our Federal Courts. Trust me, if these violations had occurred there would have been a news media blitz on the "Big Brother" angle.

If there are no violations by manned aircraft, why are you concerned that these same agencies will violate your constitutional protections using drone aircraft?

The average citizen does not know the Supreme Court addressed these privacy concerns a couple decades ago. And as the technology has improved, these limitations have been clear enough to prevent abuses.

The news media is ignoring their responsibility to inform and educate you about the truth, because your un-informed fears are a better story to sell.

The fears about mid-air collisions is a story for another day.

And as one comedian said, when Amazon starts using them for deliveries, you can go skeet shooting and get presents!

JLD, did you read about this new proposal? I apologize for not getting more info up about it yet, not the most tech savvy and having trouble uploading some of the PDF files. These are to be testing areas that do not comply with the rules you outlined. I am not claiming to be all informed and certainly don't know much about drones.

However, this is a totally new issue and a whole new set of operating abilities. More information has come out since I posted this and I'll try to get it up later today.

Ok can't get the PDFs to upload from my phone but here is a link to some news about the resolution our county just passed.

http://www.newswest9.com/story/24247736 ... nst-drones

"HOW"

the UAVs are used to surveil people are constitutional issues, addressed by the Supreme Court a couple decades ago. (but the language is clear enough that although technology has improved, it's still clear what you can and can't do - surveilling people).

"WHERE"

the UAVs fly ... is controlled by the FAA. I'm trying to separate the issues for clarity - they keep getting blended together but the solutions to each of the issues are controlled by different authorities, and so the successful argument (against) each of these issues is different, and how you lobby against it, is different.

Right now, how we see the problem, is the problem. With clarity we can address the issues more effectively.

Right now, how we see the problem, is the problem. With clarity we can address the issues more effectively.

JLD is correct. Look, nobody want to see drones spying on US citizens. Their use in a war zone is different to most people than their use on US soil. And nobody wants to see drones flying in airspace occupied by aircraft carrying people. I don't, you don't, drone manufacturers don't, legitimate drone pilots don't, and the FAA doesn't. The FAA highly regulates the "WHERE" and "HOW" issues. Drone pilots are required to pass the same FAA written exam as we had to pass. They are also required to have a current pilot certificate. They also must have specific training to fly a specific drone, the same as we are required to have for our airplanes. They must fly under the authority of an approved COA (Conditional Operating Authority) that specifies where they fly, when they fly, weather conditions they fly in, the time they can fly. A NOTAM is posted prior to their flight so we all know the details of their flights. I am speaking of the smaller drones up to 75 lbs. Some are approved for flight in class B, C, D, E and G airspace, some are not. All of them must
fly below 400 feet AGL, most fly less than 100 feet AGL. (I don't know much at all about the large Globalhawk type of drones.).

To be 100% against drones is like being 100% against crescent wrenches. Think if you were the families involved with the lost plane near Johnson Creek, when wx made it too hazardous for real planes to fly. Now in the not-too-distant future Imagine a 206 landing at JC, and unloading a fleet of a few hundred drones. They all disperse, flying at tree-top level with high-definitiion cameras and FLIR, and an army of people closely monitoring their activitity from a safe place. S&R could be hugely improved with drones. They can be very useful and have the potential to save lives.

SkySteve wrote:They are also required to have a current pilot certificate.

Well I don't give a rat's ass about that, but damnit their BMI better be less then 30 or I'll know the reason why!

scottf wrote:To be 100% against drones is like being 100% against crescent wrenches.

Now that you mention it... what kind of sot uses a crescent wrench? I mean have we reached such a low in our education system that we are unable to distinguish the difference between a bolt that takes a 1/2" (or 13mm) wrench, and one that takes a 9/16" (or 14mm) wrench? No wonder our children are lost when they encounter a 1/2 BSW bolt.