Mluvara

My Feedback: (10)

FYI for those interested:

The FAA has released some insight into future UAS operations recently. While nothing is public on the FAA site that I know of, a good summary of what to expect is here:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...scription.html

Michael

T45WingNut

My Feedback: (1)

FAA link to UAPO Office..

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...ineering/uapo/

Mluvara

My Feedback: (10)

I'm aware of the site. There was a presentation by the FAA in DC to the AUVSI chapter there about what is going on. I have seen the slides, but do not know if they are public and are not on the FAA site.

Michael

T45WingNut

My Feedback: (1)

It will take the FAA a year or two befor it will show up.. right now i am going threw the process w to get a COA for a airframe for a customer . and just wanted to post the Link to the FAA UAPO Office so others here on the Form would know where to look for information...

Mluvara

My Feedback: (10)

Yep, the timeframe shows late 2009 or 2010. They are just getting started on the committees and moving forward. Will be interesting what comes of it.

Michael

bkdavy

My Feedback: (1)

Very interesting. The Mitre proposal is to limit aircraft to less than 35 lbs, below 1200 ft AGL, and maintain line of site between the pilot at the aircraft. There is no mention of limitation to commercial use. Does this imply the FAA may be restricting hobby use in the future. which under current AMA rules and FAA guidance allows up to 50 lbs? Are we going to have to be licensed by the FAA to fly models?

Brad

Mluvara

My Feedback: (10)

The FAA does not want to mingle with r/c as I know it, but they are stating that the AC-91.57 is outdated (1981). All of this would be for commercial uav's. They see the AMA as the governing body on r/c. The key is recreational use is slated to be AMA, commercial is what a "UAS" system is more commonly referred to, and would be commercial in nature. The bottom line is that they want safe integration of UAS into the national airspace.

Another link:
http://www.auvsi.org/news/index.cfm#News1697

Michael

T45WingNut

My Feedback: (1)

Brad
I dont think the FAA will go that far... ( i hope not )

From what I under stand from talking with the FAA, there big worry is safety..
Like a incident that happen not to long ago here in my state.. a person put a Cam and stuff in a large RC model. and did try to fly it over a Power station. and he all so flew in to the path of a King air that was on final approach for landing.. ( from what the King air pilot told me it was close ) after the Cop's and FAA track down the Owner of the RC model his explanation was " i was looking at my Feed plots for Hunting Dear. " thats the kinda stuff the FAA is worry about and I feel Needs to get a handle on things... anyways.. will see what happens over the next few years.. but for now I will keep going threw the process ( its a pain in the butt ) to do what my customers need for there UAV's..

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

I work for a company that lives uav's and works very closely with Congress, the FAA, and other federal agencies. Anticipate limitations and active restriction of r/c modeling in the not very distant future. That association of involvement is precisely why some (including myself) have mentioned that we need to scale back some of what we have been doing. The ultra large models will require operator certification from a federal agency to operate, and weight limitations will also be imposed. Look to regulations about to go into place in Europe and Australia as reasonable guidelines. Ours will be similar. If it's over about 25 kilos it will be an issue. It could end up less than that since so many highly successful uav's are well under that amount. If you're flying something ultra large now enjoy it while you can, because it's not going to last.

The governing body for U.S. airspace use is still the FAA in conjunction with the NTSB. They merely tolerate other agencies of any type with the exception of the military. Everyone else has no real authority.

NorfolkSouthern

What would some of those European and Australian regulations about to go in place regarding modeling be, Pat_Roy? Would they have any affect on something lighter than the 55 pounds proposed? How about parkflyers, or the typical .40 sized trainers? Many would seem to think it a bit silly to require a pilot's license and medical to fly a model airplane, which many consider as mere toys. I'm somewhat inclined to doubt that any new regulation is going to have much impact on most of us who fly R/C. None the less, some enlightenment would be helpful, as it could save quite a few folks from making a bad investment.

NorfolkSouthern

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

There was a member of our group at the AUVSI meeting and the FAA was back pedaling from the Mitre study quite a bit during the presentation. I do not believe that they are going to go with this level of restrictions without much user inputs.

As far as limitations to models, I don't know where Mr. Roy gets his information (MIB maybe?) but in talking with people who work with Mr. Tarbert, they do not feel the need, nor do they have the manpower, to further restrict legitimate AMA model aircraft operations. I'd be surprised if you see many, if any, new restrictions on model airplanes and don't forget, ANY FAA regulation has to go through a very extensive NPR process with an opportunity for public comments. That is where the modeling community and the AMA come in, just as they did back when the FCC was going to take away our frequencies - which resulted in us actually getting more...

Bob

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

Two widely differing viewpoints. That's a good thing. I can only pass along some of what I've seen in our dealings with these agencies. The MIB shot is a bit low. The AUVSI is not the end all information authority with regards to uav's and government bodies. Much of the information they relate is in regards to items that will effect them. Most weren't actively involved in the development of the causes of those effects. Much of the AUVSI membership are still little more than garage based R&D businesses and only a few have the wherewithal to have direct access with upper level government members, which is where the decisions are made. The industry leaders will have a lot of impact on airspace rules. Companies like Boeing, Lockheed, General Atomics, , L3, AAI, and those they support will have all the weight. Everyone else will get to play along.

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

Actually it was just an AUVSI *organized* meeting, but as I mentioned, the first speaker was Bruce Tarbert, FAA lead for UAS integration into the NAS - i.e., the guy leading the group who will write the rules. I believe he's pretty tight into the loop...

Bob

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

And influenced by whom?

You may end up right, but what I get to experience leads me to believe otherwise. There are too many things going on in places I can't talk about that will have tremendous impacts on what modelers do for fun if they win out. Commerce usually wins out with federal agencies and the greater the amount of "commerce" the greater the leverage. If "management" of the full scale flyers takes place in order to integrate uav's in U.S. airspace modelers will be viewed similar to a mosquito on an elephants butt. A nuisance for certain but easily swatted.

I'm reasonably certain that 25 kilos will be the upper limit of models permitted to be flown by "unlicensed" people. Over that will be regulated by federal authorities.

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

Hey, you should check out the AMA. Its an organization whos members are model aircraft designers, builders, and flyers. It *effectively* regulates model aircraft activity through its insurance process and it in fact, *does* limit model aircraft to 25 kilos (actually 55 lbs) and also *effectively* requires a "license" for model aircraft larger than that. It has about 300,000 members - almost as many as the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and many more than the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA).

The FAA seems to use that 55 lb limit a lot. I wonder where they got that number? Hey, maybe they actually talk with the AMA about things like that?!?

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

If the AMA didn't use "influence" (a.k.a. safety code) to keep aermodelers in check and to fly with some sort of safety and guidelines, then who would? Let me guess, we'd be able to police ourselves? Yeah that would go over as well as taking away speed limits from the roads and expect drivers to use their best judgement.

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

The FAA "borrowed" the 25 kilo number from the European countries that are soon to unviel rules covering the opening of civil airspace to uav operations. The AMA had nothing to do with it.

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

Really? I looked through the Eurocontrol proposal and it doesn't mention 25 kilos anywhere. In fact, the only place I can find the 25 kilo (55 lbs) reference is to the rules that the FAA are considering, and I know from the source that they "borrowed" their number from the AMA.

Bob

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

Well if you want to include England as part of Europe, they go up to 20 KG's before you have to file for a waiver with their version of the FAA.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP658.PDF

H5487

Folks, the world is a whole different place than the one we were comfortable with before 9/11 and if you think we can continue doing whatever we want with what the average citizen sees as a potential terrorist weapon (R/C models) then you need to understand what kinds of forces we're up against.

Has everyone already forgotten the mass hysteria that gripped this country for several days following 9/11? The only full scale planes flying for the first week after 9/11 were military. Despite the fact that little Cessnas and Piper Cubs are incapable of destroying much of anything, every one of them were grounded along with the airliners! The skies were cleared! And if the government had a way to enforce grounding our models during that time, you can bet the order would've gone out to stop Little Timmy from flying his threatening Aero Hog foamie as well!

Pat Roy, I think you have a good grasp on the future changes to our modelling freedoms (i.e. expect tighter regs soon) but I think you are mistaken about our FAA controlling our airspace. The FAA may be in charge of it but the Transportation Security Administration and Office of Homeland Security (the new Gestapo) are over the FAA so guess who has ultimate control of our airspace??? And for the rest of you who insist that common sense will prevail and all will be okay, think about the huge bins of life-threatening fingernail clippers that the TSA confiscated from airline passengers!

Folks, I'm not a Chicken Little and I'm really not a negative person but I AM a realist and it makes my head spin whenever I hear someone say "They can't take that freedom away from me. I have rights!" Well guess what, keep flying your models over a powerplant or close to a King Air again and see what the TSA and OHS does to ALL of our rights to fly R/C! Bottom line, folks... Either stop doing stupid stunts or face the consequences!!! Yes, Virginia, our government CAN take rights away from us!

And rhklenke, you are correct (per post #11) in that the FAA is directed by law to allow the public to respond to an NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) but are you aware that there is NOTHING that says that the FAA is required to incorporate the public's opinion into the final desision on that NPRM? While the FAA has a reasonably good record of trying to work with the NAS users, the AOPA can tell you of many times when the FAA completely ignored the public's inputs to an NPRM and eventually did whatever it wanted to do in the first place. Also, don't forget that an Emergency Order skips the NPRM process (and public's participation) completely and allows them to do whatever it is they want to do immediately, all in the name of Public Safety or National Security.

Folks, it will be easier to lose our R/C freedoms than you think. All it takes are a few morons to do some dumb things and a whole bunch of other morons to defend their "right" to do so!

Harvey

H5487

Per my previous post, here's how to lose our right to fly models. From today's Houston Chronicle, page B1...

CONTINENTAL PILOT REPORTS CLOSE PASS WITH A ROCKET
A Continental Airlines pilot reported being startled by what he described as a rocket that shot past his cockpit window Monday when the plane was about eight miles north of George Bush Intercontinental Airport.
The Federal Aviation Administration and the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force are investigating the incident, which occurred about 10:30 a.m.
"We don't know for sure what the object was. But we think it might be somebody doing model rocketing," said Roland Herwig, an FAA spokesman. "The pilot saw the rocket, and some people saw the rocket's trail (of smoke)."

The news story continues for more paragraphs than I want to type here but some of the more notable remarks are...
"We don't know if it was a model rocket or what. We will interview everyone and determine the validity of what was seen," she said. ("She" being FBI spokeswoman Shauna Dunlap. - Harvey) If it was a model rocket, investigators want to know the type and who launched it. "Building rockets is a legitimate hobby, but hobbyists have to let the FAA know what they're doing," Hartwig said.
Robert Morehead, an engineer and president of the Amateur Spaceflight Association in Houston, said the FAA would need to be notified only if a rocket would be entering controlled airspace. (The floor of controlled airspace eight miles north of Bush Intercontinental is at 2000ft. - Harvey) He said the only danger to a plane might be if the rocket is ingested by a plane's engine. "The real question is if the rocket would tear up the engine instead of just shutting it off." Model rockets can be made of cardboard or aluminum airframes, he said. Rockets also can easily reach 30,000 to 40,000 feet, the altitude at which an airliner may cruise.

The article goes on to say that while this is not the first time a rocket has crossed paths with an airliner, no plane has yet been hit by a launched model rocket.

So, we have a model rocket that penetrated controlled airspace and was close enough to an airliner that it was seen by the pilot and some passengers. (So it's a safe bet that it wasn't a little Estes model many miles miles from the airliner!) The incident is being investigated by both the FAA and FBI. It's also a safe bet that the Transportation Security Administration and Office of Homeland Security are interested in the incident. We now have a professional Continental flight crew who is very likely adamantly against model rocketry and chances are also good that most, if not all, of the passengers on that flight are telling their friends that they "came this close to death because of some irresponsible kid shooting a model rocket at our plane!"

So, unknown model rocketeer, did you never notice that there was an IAH (Bush International Airport) departure corridor right above your launching pad yesterday and that your rocket would very likely go higher than the airliners in that corridor? And since airliners travel forward much slower (especially in a climb) than a model rocket climbs during launch, did you not notice that the approaching airliner and your model might be close? And did you think that this little incident would be no big deal? (An air traffic controller friend of mine at LAX called to tell me about it last night. He said that the incident was "all the talk among controllers nationwide!" So you can bet that the controllers union is now against models too!) Great going dude!!! All of us REALLY appreciate the damage you just did to our hobby!

THIS, my friends is exactly the kind of crap that's going to fuel anti model rocket and model airplane legislation in the (maybe not so distant) future! It is not too unrealistic to imagine that our hobby could, one day, be reduced to indoor flights only. Especially if someone (rocketeer, fixed, or rotary wing modeler) finally succeeds in bringing down an airliner!

Harvey

CRAZYRYAN

My Feedback: (1)

what kind of application do these customers use the uavs? u have to have license for them? interesting.

T45WingNut

My Feedback: (1)

CRAZYRYAN

some of the customers are using UAV's ( still in testing ) for things like well looking for Hot Spots on power lines. some others are looking in to agricultural applications. some of the others i can't really post what applications they are using them for. have sign NDA non-disclosure agreement in place with them so i can really go in to much detail about it.. most of them I have ( or going threw ) the process of getting COA for the UAV. only other way is to set it up as A special airworthiness certificate in the experimental category.. Its all still a Big Mess when it comes to doing anything with a civilian UAV.. but hope one day there will be a Clear Rule to go by.. there is a Large area for growth in Civilian UAV market.. ..

CRAZYRYAN

My Feedback: (1)

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

T45WingNut

My Feedback: (1)

CRAZYRYAN

I dont think you will.. not unless someone is out flying one with out the FAA knowing about it..
like here where i do some of my test flights .. I have to go threw the FAA and set up a Window that i can Fly in.. just like a flight plan.. do you know if anyone is operating any UAV's around where you are in TX??? I am sure you flight flight instructor or flight school you are going threw will go over all of that with you.. but like here I just dont go out and start flying the UAV's i work on.. I go threw all the steps with the FAA so i keep my self out of Jail..LOL...