What a load of bolleaux over the past few posts about software (and that clown in the linked article from Adacorp who obviously knows nothing!).
There are lots of RPAS/UAV programs with T&E work either ongoing or complete that is comparable to manned aircraft - as an example, why do you think Watchkeeper is taking it's time?
Global Hawk, Watchkeeper, MQ-9, X-47 and even Taranis - ie. all the recent aircraft have been designed, built and tested with the most exacting standards in mind. You are right to criticise "sense and avoid", but it's not technology and testing that's letting it down, it's that the regulators (like the CAA, EASA, FAA, etc...) can't decide exactly what "sense and avoid" should be able to do - better than a man or the same as?
When it comes to rogue aircraft coming down on schools, hospitals and nurseries, the RPAS is no different to any heavier than air type. If it's a catastrophic fail (ie. wing falls off) it's exactly the same, if the engine quits then the RPAS pilot can "dead stick" and force land it exactly the same and if you lose link then it reverts to the emergency mission which is series of waypoints just like that programmed into the FMS of an airliner. For the RPAS the final part of the emergency mission is usually a hold over an unpopulated area so that when it runs out of juice it carries on flying the hold pattern until it pancakes in. Remember the 2005 Helios 737 airliner where the crew suffered hypoxia? Same deal - the 737 flew on it's pre-programmed FMS until it crashed. Or there's the 1999 Learjet that crashed in similar circumstances?
In fact, in the last 2 examples it could be argued that RPAS are safer as it's difficult to get hypoxia in a control cabin on the ground - unless, of course, the cabin door has an air tight seal!!!
LJ
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 15th Jun 2012 at 06:20.