Drones Talk This forum is for Multi-Rotor pilots and enthusiasts to talk about subjects that dont quite fit into any other forum.

Some FAA guidance

Reply

Old 09-15-2008, 10:08 PM
  #26  
CRAZYRYAN
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston , TX
Posts: 942
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Some FAA guidance

well what was stupid was the houston police department a couple years ago where testing on some uavs for there secret program and they never let the faa know about it and now i cant trust anyone when or i get my pilots license that if anyone flys near me and makes a close call i would get a lawsuit going on that issue depending on the facts. its just scary as hell if you see these things going to fly for the next decade and you forget that there are out there.
CRAZYRYAN is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2008, 02:40 PM
  #27  
leonard009
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Jacksonville, AR
Posts: 2
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Some FAA guidance

Is the FAA issuing COAs for civil users? My conversations with them are that they will not issue COAs to civil users at this time, only public or government users.
leonard009 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2008, 02:49 PM
  #28  
leonard009
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Jacksonville, AR
Posts: 2
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Some FAA guidance

We have to file an airspace NOTAM at least 24 hours prior to flying our UAS. We have to list hours, location and altitudes we will be flying. I would think anyone else flying under a COA will have a similar requirement.

ORIGINAL: CRAZYRYAN

reason i ask is because im fixing to get my private starting some flight lessons by next spring and wondering if i would encounter any of these uavs at or below 1200ft where the usual vfr flights are with 1 sm of visibility. since 1 sm visiblity is kinda hard to see these little planes flying around we vfrers could get into trouble pretty quick
leonard009 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2008, 03:32 PM
  #29  
CRAZYRYAN
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston , TX
Posts: 942
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Some FAA guidance


ORIGINAL: leonard009

Is the FAA issuing COAs for civil users? My conversations with them are that they will not issue COAs to civil users at this time, only public or government users.

that would be a bunch of bull if this is not taking seriously.
CRAZYRYAN is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2008, 10:46 AM
  #30  
patrickegan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: rcapa.net Sacramento, CA
Posts: 156
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Some FAA guidance

Anyone going to TAAC? http://www.psl.nmsu.edu/uav/conferences/2008/about.php

It would be a good opportunity to speak with Bruce Tarbert (FAA Co-chair) and or Ted Wierzbanowski (industry co-chair), about where they see the sUAS ARC headed. Personally I’m not very encouraged, but I will say that some folks who claim to be in the know may be proven correct (especially the NPRM comment). One other comment I will make is we are going to get the regulation a bifurcated community deserves.

Some background on the ARC and my impressions

http://rcapa.net/RCAPA%20Reporter/site/

pe@rcapa.net if anyone is interested

patrickegan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2008, 12:23 PM
  #31  
patrickegan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: rcapa.net Sacramento, CA
Posts: 156
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Some FAA guidance

http://www.rcapa.net/forums/index.php
patrickegan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2009, 01:32 PM
  #32  
Tired Old Man
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Valley Springs, CA
Posts: 18,602
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Some FAA guidance

The FAA was most definately aware of the Houston tests. All I can say. The FAA does issue COA's for civilian company operations. Again, all I can say. If you think they are going to entertain COA requests for Mr. Joe Blow out to try out his completely illegal gps/eo equipped, remotely guided, out of visual range r/c toy you're out of your mind.
Tired Old Man is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2009, 09:04 PM
  #33  
smh20502
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Katy, TX
Posts: 195
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Some FAA guidance

One of the problems that we are going to have to deal with is education. Most people are completely unaware of the FAA regulations and simply lack common sense. What is needed is a consorted effort to get the education out to those that need it. Of course there will be the few bozos that don't think of the consequences or just simply don't care.

The example of flying over a power plant is a good one. The potential damage is there but was there any damage done? Probably not...just someone didn't like it. And wouldn't you know that is exactly where this country is going. If enough people don't like something and complain then laws and regulations will be passed. I'm sure many of you are old enough to remember the movie Blazing Saddles...think we can ever have a movie like that again? Why. Because enough people say it's not PC...The similar thought process applies here.

We can actually use the regulations to our advantage. The 6dof devices out there can be combined with the proper processor and other devices to always fly back to a signal if lost, or land. Programs can be developed with the proper sensors to avoid schools, public housing, power plants etc. If you are an electronics engineer you probably know how simple this is
smh20502 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2009, 05:49 PM
  #34  
patrickegan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: rcapa.net Sacramento, CA
Posts: 156
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Some FAA guidance

That might be simple, but certification of that system may not. The ARC is winding down, I did a quick reread of this thread and had a little chuckle.[sm=wink_smile.gif]
patrickegan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2009, 08:57 AM
  #35  
jim.jo
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Stoke on Trent, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 6
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Some FAA guidance

Here in the UK, and the same applies to the rest of Europe, UAS (Unmanned Aircraft Systems) are divided into two categories; which are recreational models whose rules are regulated by an accepted organisation that reports to the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) in the UK this is the BMFA (British Model Flying Association) and the equivalent in each EU country, and commercial organisations that must present directly to the CAA.

To date there is still no international agreement in place that defines the specific deployment and use of an UAS and it is assumed that all work on UAS are research and development projects that must be fully explained and demonstrated as part of the process to achieve a certificated of airworthyness so each UAS is treated on its own merits.

The most important concept to put forward to achieve a viable UAS here in the UK is the incorporation of a "sense and avoid" system which must demonstrate the equivalent ability of the "see and avoid" system of a manned aircraft of any design (fixed-wing,rotary,etc) and this would allow a fully functional UAS that can be flown under any circumstance and in any airspace.

Also I should point out that in the UK an UAS includes not just the UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) but also a GCS (Ground Contol System) which is your uplink and downlink technology and the appropriate building/mobile vehicle you will be operating from. You will also require specific licences which are regulated by OFCOM to operate on certain radio frequencies for your up/down links etc, and these licence are separate from the CAA.

This is just an initial basic outline of what is going on here in the UK as there are no actual specifics available for working UAS because individuals and corporate business' are not working together or sharing information because of the R&D aspect of UAS's here in the UK, therefore until someone applies for a patent we are all on our own !!!

I personally am working on a rigid airship design for my UAS and my project is moving forward slowly so that I am not caught up in red tape, when in fact I am finding that I can influence decisions by the CAA with the appropriate R&D which is adding to their knowledge of practical UAV operation.

I therefore think that in the USA there must be similar restrictions and openings for UAS developers both small scale and commercial and that the FAA is not as restrictive as some people are making them out to be, it must be that inappropriate steps are being taken without full consideration of their project being taken in to account. So re-examine your work and see where you might be going wrong then present that data to your FAA and I am sure they would be grateful for your positive input.
jim.jo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2009, 09:40 AM
  #36  
patrickegan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: rcapa.net Sacramento, CA
Posts: 156
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Some FAA guidance

Jim,
You make some good points. BAE will be going for type certification of the GA22 in the UK. The U.S. has a lot of people and would be manufacturers and only about 161 COA (Certificate of Authorization) and a handful of experimental certificates. The other difference between our two CAA’s is that yours is willing to accept an “Industry Code of Practice”, FAA not so much. Unfortunately many folks aren’t too interested in doing the work necessary to safeguard their future. We have a group over here that will be taking all of the “good” work that was discarded during the sUAS ARC process and combining it into a Code of Practice. Incidentally, most of the information that was jettisoned was provided by operators.
patrickegan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2009, 01:48 PM
  #37  
JimLerch
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Parrish, FL
Posts: 12
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Some FAA guidance

So, after reading the linked documents, here's how I see it.

The AMA guidelines are stricter than the FAA guidelines. AMA says FPV pilot is on buddy box, Primary pilot must maintain direct visual observation and be ready to retake control as needed.

The FAA says, "stay below 400 feet and more than 3 miles away from airport, and enjoy yourself"

However, if I take a pretty picture, and I sell the pretty picture, the FAA now says I need a pilots license, an air worthiness certificate, and a waiver.

So, if I stay below 400ft, more than 3 miles away from an airport, take the risk of flying without AMA coverage, and do it as only a hobby, I'm cool. Of course, when I fly into the school bus full of lawyer kids on a field trip, I may prefer a future where I commit armed robbery and goto PMITA federal prison.


JimLerch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2009, 04:19 PM
  #38  
JoeEagle
My Feedback: (26)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 793
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Some FAA guidance

i did a re read too. it is a little funny, isnt it patrick!

the suspense date is coming up. looking forward to it.

don't give up hope
JoeEagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2009, 09:52 AM
  #39  
patrickegan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: rcapa.net Sacramento, CA
Posts: 156
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Some FAA guidance

Joe,

You know me, ever optimistic!
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Rp43451.jpg
Views:	17
Size:	34.9 KB
ID:	1171181  
patrickegan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2009, 03:14 AM
  #40  
LaBam
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, TN
Posts: 71
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: Some FAA guidance

Crazyryan, anything at or below 3sm visibility is IFR. And that requires that you hold an instrument rating. But I understand your concern. Hitting a bird can be terrifying, I couldn't imagine hitting a 35-55 lb. UAV! That would suck! I build and fly UAVs as well as fly small aircraft so I kind of have a view of both sides. They want to keep pilots safe, as well as let us enjoy our hobby. They could easily take away all of our rights to fly UAVs. It wouldn't be hard, all the FAA has to do is tell the Department of Homeland Security that civilian UAVs pose a serious risk to general aviation and commercial aviation and BAM! no more UAVs for the average American. As stated before, it wouldn't be hard to make a system that could stay below 400 ft. and avoid all high risk areas. But then again, not everyone would use it... I just hope they don't restrict us much more, I like the rules we have now. Just my $0.02.
LaBam is offline  
Reply With Quote

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service