UAV/drone that complies w/AMA safety code... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [RC Airplanes] >> UAV's and Drones



Message

Mr67Stang -> UAV/drone that complies w/AMA safety code... (10/26/2007 12:10:47 AM)

Here is my idea:

Build a Sig Kadet Sr. Outfit it with a quality real time video feed system with ample range for "NORMAL" r/c flying. Any sudjestions here? Use a buddy box dual pilot system where the master transmitter is in the hands of a pilot who keeps his eyes on the aircraft. while the "trainee" TX is in the hands and control of a pilot viewing the video screen. Would this be acceptable? Is there a comercially available video camera that can transmit it's image in real time or so close to real time that it would not matter? All of the hobby class aerial video I have seen is of such poor quality I would never attempt to actually fly a plane from it's view.

Possible additions would include a GPS system for relaying speed and altidude in real time... anything like that exist commercially?

Possible uses? Locating crashed planes and Gee Whiz fun.



Tired Old Man -> RE: UAV/drone that complies w/AMA safety code... (10/26/2007 2:22:07 AM)

It's all there and available. 900 mhz is a legal to use U.S frequency.



mithrandir -> RE: UAV/drone that complies w/AMA safety code... (10/31/2007 10:02:30 PM)

I don't think AMA guidelines prohibit flying a camera equipped plane...but there are issues in flying beyond visual range.
Some of the equipment I have seen does not have FCC certification or was certified but has been modified thus nullifying
that FCC cert... maybe get a HAM Lic and then you can put your own stuff t'gether on HAM freq's for amateuer TV.

http://www.hamtv.com

KG6QQG



rc bugman -> RE: UAV/drone that complies w/AMA safety code... (10/31/2007 10:23:00 PM)

Hi,

900 mhz camera stuff requires a ham ticket to be legal as does 2.4 gig wireless tv txs.

Elson K2BUG



mithrandir -> RE: UAV/drone that complies w/AMA safety code... (10/31/2007 10:59:41 PM)

I thought in the USA 2.4 Ghz at less then 200 milliwatts did not require lic!?



d_wheel -> RE: UAV/drone that complies w/AMA safety code... (11/1/2007 12:12:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mithrandir

I thought in the USA 2.4 Ghz at less then 200 milliwatts did not require lic!?


My understanding is that the power is 20 mw or less on 2.4 to be legal (unless you have a hem license).

I just did a search and although I couldn't find anything that actually said what the maximum legal power is, the responsible sites with equipment for sale had warnings about legal use. The lowest power transmitter I could find was 50mw, and it had a warning that it was not legal unless the user had an amateur license.

Later;

D.W.



mithrandir -> RE: UAV/drone that complies w/AMA safety code... (11/1/2007 12:30:58 AM)

I thought the FUTABA and XPS and DX 2.4 Ghz systems were around 200 milliwatts!?



d_wheel -> RE: UAV/drone that complies w/AMA safety code... (11/1/2007 1:56:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mithrandir

I thought the FUTABA and XPS and DX 2.4 Ghz systems were around 200 milliwatts!?


R/C equipment is on SS. The max is 100mw average power output. Video equipment is on FM and the rules are different.

Later;

D.W.



BufordT -> RE: UAV/drone that complies w/AMA safety code... (11/8/2007 11:47:21 AM)

Check out the AMA National Model Aircraft Safety Code under "Radio Control" rule #10. It says the pilot must maintain visual contact with the aircraft at all times. The only visual aid permitted is prescription glasses.



Flak -> RE: UAV/drone that complies w/AMA safety code... (11/9/2007 6:41:04 AM)

Check out lewaerospace.com.



ira d -> RE: UAV/drone that complies w/AMA safety code... (12/21/2007 5:27:15 PM)

The AMA safety code rule#9 says no aircraft shall be equipped with
divices that which allow it be flown a selected location which is beyond
the visual range of the pilot. That being said IMO what i put in my
aircraft is my business not that i would attempt to fly beyond visual
range because I would not unless I was out in the desert with a team
of people to help me track and recover my plane.

But I would install such divices in my plane if i wanted to and was not
flying at a AMA charted site.



blw -> RE: UAV/drone that complies w/AMA safety code... (1/11/2008 4:17:39 PM)

You can fly without AMA coverage any time you wish. Belonging to the AMA doesn't restrict you if you are willing to fly outside of the rules and the coverage that following the rules gives.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating irresponsible flying. We face the same dilemma where I work some with total autopilot systems in models.



macwing -> RE: UAV/drone that complies w/AMA safety code... (1/17/2008 12:30:22 AM)

Right on , BLW! you can do what you like ; and take your lumps when others,(Official or Private) don't like it. Regulations and Laws arise when people do what they like at the expense or danger of others. Those regulations are painstakingly formulated.
One of them incidentaly, relates to flying cameras in planes for Commercial activities. Elsewhere this has been the subject of several years of ranting, suggesting, approaches to AMA/FAA etc etc, (RCGROUPS for instance), but your AMA /MAAC/BMFA etc insurance does NOT cover you for commercial aerial photography or entitle you to claim "It's a model, not a UAV!".



mahogany dreams -> RE: UAV/drone that complies w/AMA safety code... (7/5/2008 10:27:26 AM)

Im with blw here, do you think we would have air travel, much less r/c aircraft if it werent for people tuning out the negativity of critics(or breaking laws)? Im not condoning breaking any laws here, but c'mon, laws are either instituted to keep people from doing totally stupid things, or for fear of the unknown.. The government doesnt trust the private sector for anything other than working 9-5..



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




SITE MAP!   : :   FORUM RULES

© 2001 - 2007 24-7 RC, LLC, all rights reserved.
0.234375