Talk:NATO STANAG 4671

NATO Start‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject NATO, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NATOWikipedia:WikiProject NATOTemplate:WikiProject NATONATO articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper#Certifiable Predator B]] The anchor (#Certifiable Predator B) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Things STANAG 4671 does NOT seem to cover explicitly[edit]

Any need for the UAV or its operators to be aware of other aircraft, either by radar, radio or visual.
Any need to the UAV to advertise its presence, other than by position lights, eg no minimum radar cross section is specified.
any need for UAV or operators to interact with civilian air traffic control
but it does recommend the shape of the landing gear control. - Rod57 (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seagle 2007 (eg page 6) seems to say collision avoidance covered by Article 12 operational procedures (outside of airworthiness) - Rod57 (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motivation or politics[edit]

It would be interesting if we could describe the motivation for the type of detail in this standard. It seems much more detailed than required to allow a military UAV to fly safely through civilian controlled airspace. - Rod57 (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lopez 2014 ref seems to suggest (p7) it was based on French USAR (possibly based on manned aircraft). - Rod57 (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

wondering about article header[edit]

Why is the header different than the rest of the standards, for instance STANAG 5516? By the way, I am not member of this community, but it just struck me :-) Boschmi (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]