FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
08-26-2010, 04:45 PM
#51
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Gainesville,
FL
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
The point is (again) that the DraganFlyer is not marketed or sold as a model, as you put it.
I agree with a lot of your points, but your argumentative nature over semantics is painting you as the quintessential academic with too much time on your hands.
Despite this, I doubt you could school me in anything RC or UAS related. I've been involved in the former for over 22 years, and the latter for over six, with more than 2000 flight hours on various small UAS.
However, it has been fun watching you bicker back and forth over semantics and playing the blame game. I will say again, some of your points I agree with...but you aren't making friends and influencing people with the way your going about it.
BTW, love the ferret! I used to have a couple myself
I agree with a lot of your points, but your argumentative nature over semantics is painting you as the quintessential academic with too much time on your hands.
Despite this, I doubt you could school me in anything RC or UAS related. I've been involved in the former for over 22 years, and the latter for over six, with more than 2000 flight hours on various small UAS.
However, it has been fun watching you bicker back and forth over semantics and playing the blame game. I will say again, some of your points I agree with...but you aren't making friends and influencing people with the way your going about it.
BTW, love the ferret! I used to have a couple myself
08-26-2010, 04:45 PM
#52
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
ORIGINAL: dbcisco
So?
You know how much money put into some madel aircraft?
Check some 1/2 or full scale RC prices.
ORIGINAL: Erich_F
The DraganFlyer is not considered a model...at least not their higher end stuff. Those things generally go for $18,000.
The DraganFlyer is not considered a model...at least not their higher end stuff. Those things generally go for $18,000.
You know how much money put into some madel aircraft?
Check some 1/2 or full scale RC prices.
08-26-2010, 04:47 PM
#53
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Gainesville,
FL
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
ORIGINAL: cj_rumley
It also meets commercial UAS certification requirements in Canada, but not the US. Notice that the hype on their web page says first to be certificated in ''North America.''
ORIGINAL: dbcisco
So?
You know how much money put into some madel aircraft?
Check some 1/2 or full scale RC prices.
ORIGINAL: Erich_F
The DraganFlyer is not considered a model...at least not their higher end stuff. Those things generally go for $18,000.
The DraganFlyer is not considered a model...at least not their higher end stuff. Those things generally go for $18,000.
You know how much money put into some madel aircraft?
Check some 1/2 or full scale RC prices.
Erich
08-26-2010, 05:02 PM
#54
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
ORIGINAL: Erich_F
Actually, that's not even accurate. To my knowledge, the now defunct Cyber Defense Systems got one of the very first Experimental Airworthiness Certificates from the FAA back circa 2006 for their CyberBug sUAS.
Erich
ORIGINAL: cj_rumley
It also meets commercial UAS certification requirements in Canada, but not the US. Notice that the hype on their web page says first to be certificated in ''North America.''
ORIGINAL: dbcisco
So?
You know how much money put into some madel aircraft?
Check some 1/2 or full scale RC prices.
ORIGINAL: Erich_F
The DraganFlyer is not considered a model...at least not their higher end stuff. Those things generally go for $18,000.
The DraganFlyer is not considered a model...at least not their higher end stuff. Those things generally go for $18,000.
You know how much money put into some madel aircraft?
Check some 1/2 or full scale RC prices.
Erich
08-26-2010, 07:04 PM
#55
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Lansdale,
PA
Posts: 2,045
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
Forget what it is "marketed" as. If someone showed up at the field with it I am sure it wouldn't be a problem to fly it.
The difference between a recreational unlicensed model aircraft and a UAV the FAA wants to control is the way it is used.
Further, by AMA ignoring the 400' guideline and then argueing with the FAA over sUAV definitions the only difference between what a model is, is how high you fly it.
The difference between a recreational unlicensed model aircraft and a UAV the FAA wants to control is the way it is used.
Further, by AMA ignoring the 400' guideline and then argueing with the FAA over sUAV definitions the only difference between what a model is, is how high you fly it.
ORIGINAL: Erich_F
The point is (again) that the DraganFlyer is not marketed or sold as a model, as you put it.
The point is (again) that the DraganFlyer is not marketed or sold as a model, as you put it.
08-26-2010, 07:26 PM
#56
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
ORIGINAL: dbcisco
Forget what it is ''marketed'' as. If someone showed up at the field with it I am sure it wouldn't be a problem to fly it.
The difference between a recreational unlicensed model aircraft and a UAV the FAA wants to control is the way it is used.
Further, by AMA ignoring the 400' guideline and then argueing with the FAA over sUAV definitions the only difference between what a model is, is how high you fly it.
Forget what it is ''marketed'' as. If someone showed up at the field with it I am sure it wouldn't be a problem to fly it.
The difference between a recreational unlicensed model aircraft and a UAV the FAA wants to control is the way it is used.
Further, by AMA ignoring the 400' guideline and then argueing with the FAA over sUAV definitions the only difference between what a model is, is how high you fly it.
ORIGINAL: Erich_F
The point is (again) that the DraganFlyer is not marketed or sold as a model, as you put it.
The point is (again) that the DraganFlyer is not marketed or sold as a model, as you put it.
AVIATION SAFETY
UNMANNED AIRCRAFT PROGRAM OFFICE
AIR-160
UAS Interim Operational Approval Guidance 08-01
<irrelevant sections skipped>
4.0 Methods of Authorization and Applicability
<more irrelevant stuff snipped>
Notes:
• This document and the processes prescribed do not apply to hobbyists and amateur model aircraft users when operating systems for sport and recreation. Those individuals should seek guidance under Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards, which is currently under revision.
• Civil UAS operations require a special airworthiness certificate and should follow the process as specified in this document.
• AC 91-57 shall not be used as a basis of approval for UAS operations and is applicable to recreational and hobbyists use only.
Decide for yourself if you want to support AMA's lobbying to alter that FAA policy, which has been in effect for decades.
08-26-2010, 07:29 PM
#57
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Gainesville,
FL
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
I can agree with this...
However, in the eyes of the AMA, if someone did show at a field with it, and flew it in autonomous mode (especially heads down FPV), they would be in violation of the newest Safety Code. In fact, some flying clubs have adopted the same in their rules. The Bay City Flyers, of which I used to be a member of near Tampa, adopted the AMA FPV rules and went on to add that a club officer has to be present on the field in order to conduct FPV operations. Talk about overkill, but I digress. I do it enough as a profession, I don't care to throw together some foamy with a camera just to buzz around the park.
Erich
However, in the eyes of the AMA, if someone did show at a field with it, and flew it in autonomous mode (especially heads down FPV), they would be in violation of the newest Safety Code. In fact, some flying clubs have adopted the same in their rules. The Bay City Flyers, of which I used to be a member of near Tampa, adopted the AMA FPV rules and went on to add that a club officer has to be present on the field in order to conduct FPV operations. Talk about overkill, but I digress. I do it enough as a profession, I don't care to throw together some foamy with a camera just to buzz around the park.
Erich
ORIGINAL: dbcisco
Forget what it is ''marketed'' as. If someone showed up at the field with it I am sure it wouldn't be a problem to fly it.
The difference between a recreational unlicensed model aircraft and a UAV the FAA wants to control is the way it is used.
Further, by AMA ignoring the 400' guideline and then argueing with the FAA over sUAV definitions the only difference between what a model is, is how high you fly it.
Forget what it is ''marketed'' as. If someone showed up at the field with it I am sure it wouldn't be a problem to fly it.
The difference between a recreational unlicensed model aircraft and a UAV the FAA wants to control is the way it is used.
Further, by AMA ignoring the 400' guideline and then argueing with the FAA over sUAV definitions the only difference between what a model is, is how high you fly it.
ORIGINAL: Erich_F
The point is (again) that the DraganFlyer is not marketed or sold as a model, as you put it.
The point is (again) that the DraganFlyer is not marketed or sold as a model, as you put it.
08-26-2010, 08:15 PM
#59
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
They had a runaway drone (or whatever) and it got into the restricted airspace in DC. Iknew this was bound to happen...
Search:
DENVER (Aug. 26) A military drone that was supposed to be remotely controlled broke off contact with its operators and wandered into restricted airspace around the nation's capital, the military has revealed.
More than an hour into what was otherwise a normal flight, pilots remotely operating the MQ-8 Fire Scout lost contact with the unmanned helicopter on Aug. 2. The drone then traveled 23 miles away from Patuxent River Naval Air Station in Maryland and toward Washington. Though it never reached the District of Columbia, it did cross into the National Capital Region airspace, which is restricted.
Gerry
Search:
DENVER (Aug. 26) A military drone that was supposed to be remotely controlled broke off contact with its operators and wandered into restricted airspace around the nation's capital, the military has revealed.
More than an hour into what was otherwise a normal flight, pilots remotely operating the MQ-8 Fire Scout lost contact with the unmanned helicopter on Aug. 2. The drone then traveled 23 miles away from Patuxent River Naval Air Station in Maryland and toward Washington. Though it never reached the District of Columbia, it did cross into the National Capital Region airspace, which is restricted.
Gerry
08-26-2010, 08:21 PM
#60
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Lansdale,
PA
Posts: 2,045
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
Many RC aircraft have an autonomous mode....failsafe.
Once again, where do you cross the line?
Maybe even ban gyros?
Lets get Muncie on that, we can get rid of those pesky heli pilots.
Once again, where do you cross the line?
Maybe even ban gyros?
Lets get Muncie on that, we can get rid of those pesky heli pilots.
08-26-2010, 08:42 PM
#62
My Feedback: (26)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Alexander,
AR
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
To error is human !! To really screw up you need a computer !! The problem as I see it is the UNMANED part of a UAV !!
08-26-2010, 08:47 PM
#63
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Lansdale,
PA
Posts: 2,045
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
ORIGINAL: 52larry52
So what's the bottom line, can I fly my Rascal 110 over 400 ft high or not?
So what's the bottom line, can I fly my Rascal 110 over 400 ft high or not?
Be quick, I predict the FAA is going to change the "guidelines" to mandatory rules within two years.
Something they probably should have done 30 years ago.
08-26-2010, 09:25 PM
#64
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
ORIGINAL: Erich_F
I know the idiots in the media won't let the term go, but PLEASE stop calling them ''Drones''. Drones are remotely piloted aircraft meant to be shot down as targets. UAVs, or UAS, are not ''drones''. As an industry professional, I plead with you!
I know the idiots in the media won't let the term go, but PLEASE stop calling them ''Drones''. Drones are remotely piloted aircraft meant to be shot down as targets. UAVs, or UAS, are not ''drones''. As an industry professional, I plead with you!
Way back, some NTSB guy used 'black box' as a throw-away line in reference to the flight data recorder, and the media mullet heads immediately latched on to it, taking it literally as the color of the FDR. Now, every time an airliner comes from together to apart we have to endure the inevitable "The Black Box, which is not black but is in fact orange, has not yet been recovered..." Enough already.
ORIGINAL: dbcisco
The FAA says it is not recommended. The AMA says go ahead.
Be quick, I predict the FAA is going to change the ''guidelines'' to mandatory rules within two years.
ORIGINAL: 52larry52
So what's the bottom line, can I fly my Rascal 110 over 400 ft high or not?
So what's the bottom line, can I fly my Rascal 110 over 400 ft high or not?
Be quick, I predict the FAA is going to change the ''guidelines'' to mandatory rules within two years.
08-26-2010, 09:31 PM
#65
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Lansdale,
PA
Posts: 2,045
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
ORIGINAL: VF84sluggo
''The Black Box, which is not black but is in fact orange, has not yet been recovered...''
''The Black Box, which is not black but is in fact orange, has not yet been recovered...''
08-26-2010, 09:41 PM
#66
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
You're welcome. In systems engineering we'd work on various types of things, and the subject gizmo having that particular type of system being designed around it would always be referred to as a 'black box'. We didn't really care what it was for, only what info it needed, what the 'black box' was going to do with the info once we fed it, and any comparisons to the original input for error detection/correction that it might need once it did whatever it did inside it's 'black' world. The actual inner workings of the 'black box' was a whole 'nuther issue.
08-26-2010, 09:56 PM
#68
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
Exactly...
I think the exchange went something like this:
NTSB Guy: "We're looking for the FDR. That will tell us a lot about what was going on at the time of the crash."
Media Mullet-Head: "FDR? What's that?"
NTSB Guy: "The FDR? Oh, that's just some black-box that records all of the aircraft's flight and engine data."
And henceforth the Flight Data Recorder became known as the "Black Box"....ughhhhhhh!
I think the exchange went something like this:
NTSB Guy: "We're looking for the FDR. That will tell us a lot about what was going on at the time of the crash."
Media Mullet-Head: "FDR? What's that?"
NTSB Guy: "The FDR? Oh, that's just some black-box that records all of the aircraft's flight and engine data."
And henceforth the Flight Data Recorder became known as the "Black Box"....ughhhhhhh!
08-26-2010, 10:30 PM
#69
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
This discussion is quite amusing. The UAS manufacturers in this and other countries could give a hoot about RC modeling. All they want is open air space pretty much world wide. I've been "in the business" for some time and I knew in 2006 that regulatory discussions were underway to obtain the airspace. I've known since 2007 that there was going to be some collateral damage in the modeling community. In 2008 we pretty much had the timeline laid out for when airspace would be opening up. The AMA never even entered into considerations. In the big picture RC modelers are like a flea on an elephants butt. As far as ARC was concerned, AMA was simply invited out of courtesy and allowed to shut up and listen. They weren't even permitted to share what they heard while attending. Look for sometime 2012 to start watching the skies for new winged wonders to be flying in places not seen before. They are already flying many places where they had not been permitted even a year ago.
One might contemplate ending their anti AMA rants. The AMA never mattered a twit where the airspace and regulatory discussions have been concerned. However, they were the only modeling organization invited to the table, if only to listen. You might want to remember they are the only real voice the modelers have in the deal. When you only have one voice the smart move is to learn how to use it. Only the foolish will continue to rail against the only hope they have. Everyone else at the table has a financial interest in either full scale manned aviation or UAS activities. The difference of value between commercial aviation interests and modeling is staggering. Some of you may hate the AMA with a passion but they are the only hand that is availble to feed you.
While you argue amongst yourselves on the dock your ship is sinking at the pier. Keep up the good work.
One might contemplate ending their anti AMA rants. The AMA never mattered a twit where the airspace and regulatory discussions have been concerned. However, they were the only modeling organization invited to the table, if only to listen. You might want to remember they are the only real voice the modelers have in the deal. When you only have one voice the smart move is to learn how to use it. Only the foolish will continue to rail against the only hope they have. Everyone else at the table has a financial interest in either full scale manned aviation or UAS activities. The difference of value between commercial aviation interests and modeling is staggering. Some of you may hate the AMA with a passion but they are the only hand that is availble to feed you.
While you argue amongst yourselves on the dock your ship is sinking at the pier. Keep up the good work.
08-27-2010, 01:00 AM
#71
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Lansdale,
PA
Posts: 2,045
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
From AFS-400 UAS POLICY 05-01
"6.13. Model Aircraft. Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards, published in 1981, applies to model aircraft. UA that comply with the guidance in AC 91-57 are considered model aircraft and are not evaluated by the UA criteria in this policy."
If you do not follow AC 01-57 you are no longer considered a model aircraft, just like I have been saying all along.
Identical RC aircraft below 400' is a model aircraft, above 400' is an sUAV.
Why is that so hard to understand?
"6.13. Model Aircraft. Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards, published in 1981, applies to model aircraft. UA that comply with the guidance in AC 91-57 are considered model aircraft and are not evaluated by the UA criteria in this policy."
If you do not follow AC 01-57 you are no longer considered a model aircraft, just like I have been saying all along.
Identical RC aircraft below 400' is a model aircraft, above 400' is an sUAV.
Why is that so hard to understand?
08-27-2010, 03:57 AM
#72
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
ORIGINAL: dbcisco
What part do you disagree with?
What part do you disagree with?
Regards
Frank Phelps
AMA 39551
08-27-2010, 05:43 AM
#73
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
ORIGINAL: Tired Old Man
This discussion is quite amusing. The UAS manufacturers in this and other countries could give a hoot about RC modeling. All they want is open air space pretty much world wide. I've been ''in the business'' for some time and I knew in 2006 that regulatory discussions were underway to obtain the airspace. I've known since 2007 that there was going to be some collateral damage in the modeling community. In 2008 we pretty much had the timeline laid out for when airspace would be opening up. The AMA never even entered into considerations. In the big picture RC modelers are like a flea on an elephants butt. As far as ARC was concerned, AMA was simply invited out of courtesy and allowed to shut up and listen. They weren't even permitted to share what they heard while attending. Look for sometime 2012 to start watching the skies for new winged wonders to be flying in places not seen before. They are already flying many places where they had not been permitted even a year ago.
One might contemplate ending their anti AMA rants. The AMA never mattered a twit where the airspace and regulatory discussions have been concerned. However, they were the only modeling organization invited to the table, if only to listen. You might want to remember they are the only real voice the modelers have in the deal. When you only have one voice the smart move is to learn how to use it. Only the foolish will continue to rail against the only hope they have. Everyone else at the table has a financial interest in either full scale manned aviation or UAS activities. The difference of value between commercial aviation interests and modeling is staggering. Some of you may hate the AMA with a passion but they are the only hand that is availble to feed you.
While you argue amongst yourselves on the dock your ship is sinking at the pier. Keep up the good work.
This discussion is quite amusing. The UAS manufacturers in this and other countries could give a hoot about RC modeling. All they want is open air space pretty much world wide. I've been ''in the business'' for some time and I knew in 2006 that regulatory discussions were underway to obtain the airspace. I've known since 2007 that there was going to be some collateral damage in the modeling community. In 2008 we pretty much had the timeline laid out for when airspace would be opening up. The AMA never even entered into considerations. In the big picture RC modelers are like a flea on an elephants butt. As far as ARC was concerned, AMA was simply invited out of courtesy and allowed to shut up and listen. They weren't even permitted to share what they heard while attending. Look for sometime 2012 to start watching the skies for new winged wonders to be flying in places not seen before. They are already flying many places where they had not been permitted even a year ago.
One might contemplate ending their anti AMA rants. The AMA never mattered a twit where the airspace and regulatory discussions have been concerned. However, they were the only modeling organization invited to the table, if only to listen. You might want to remember they are the only real voice the modelers have in the deal. When you only have one voice the smart move is to learn how to use it. Only the foolish will continue to rail against the only hope they have. Everyone else at the table has a financial interest in either full scale manned aviation or UAS activities. The difference of value between commercial aviation interests and modeling is staggering. Some of you may hate the AMA with a passion but they are the only hand that is availble to feed you.
While you argue amongst yourselves on the dock your ship is sinking at the pier. Keep up the good work.
The bantering back and forth is about as useless as a you know what and accomplishes much of nothing. However, meaningful and thought provoking discussion can be very useful. If indeed, there can be future issues and they can be headed off by looking into things then that is worthwhile. The rest is just chaff in the wind.
I for one certainly do not hate the AMA (although I think it wise to look at its practices) or any organization that practices good sound judgment and adheres to their mission or at least changes their mission should the need arise. I will say I have little to no use for money hungry executives that parasite off the backs of others. OK, mini rant done [X(]
08-27-2010, 05:59 AM
#74
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
ORIGINAL: Tired Old Man
When you only have one voice the smart move is to learn how to use it. Only the foolish will continue to rail against the only hope they have.
When you only have one voice the smart move is to learn how to use it. Only the foolish will continue to rail against the only hope they have.
08-27-2010, 06:59 AM
#75
My Feedback: (21)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Apple River IL
Posts: 951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: FAA under pressure to open skies to drones.
ORIGINAL: dbcisco
From AFS-400 UAS POLICY 05-01
"6.13. Model Aircraft. Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards, published in 1981, applies to model aircraft. UA that comply with the guidance in AC 91-57 are considered model aircraft and are not evaluated by the UA criteria in this policy." .........
From AFS-400 UAS POLICY 05-01
"6.13. Model Aircraft. Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards, published in 1981, applies to model aircraft. UA that comply with the guidance in AC 91-57 are considered model aircraft and are not evaluated by the UA criteria in this policy." .........
AFS-400 UAS POLICY 05-01 was cancelled 3/08 and replace by IOAG 08-01. Would it not behoove you (for those less informed) to at least quote a more current document?
hook
Huge ditto tothe T.O.M. and ThomasD. too.