garyscott - RPAS Pilots (certainly those with a 'traditional' flying background) consider the Ground Control Station (GCS) to be our cockpit on the ground. It is BF'd and signed off as part of the aircraft.
zondaracer - You're correct to a point in that there is a reduction in elements of the overall SA position, but my view is that these are being addressed in the main either through procedural or technological means. Current work (including ours) into See & Avoid/Sense & Avoid/Detect & Avoid (delete as appropriate) is proving what works and what does not. One of the most routine failures is a lack of predictable and repeatable performance of the human eye . . .
BEagle - 100% in agreement. RPAS have a job to do just like any other aircraft or system. We cannot make them all things to all men. Access to airspace is being addressed, again through procedural AND technological means. By that I mean adherence to recognised standards and international rules and regulations starting at design, build, operation and maintenance of aircraft. Problems only occur here when the rules are 'set aside' and an organisational, cultural position of waivers and consessions is adopted - either by operators, regulators or industry. Is that not the same of any airctraft?
As a note, there are some benefits to being on the ground in terms of access to information, phone lines, internet, mission/aircraft/system specialists - not to mention crew 'facilities'
I believe in the phrase 'equivalence and transparency' - that means equivalence with existing regulations and procedures (wherever possible) and transparency to other airspace users. When everyone gets that idea (and my other points) and we start treating these like real aircraft instead of toys, gadgets and 'killer death spy drones' the progress will be made.
1. This will work.
2. It's just another aircraft.
3. The 'machines' are coming - get over it.
cheers
Bear
(awaiting incoming)