Some FAA guidance  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> UAV's and Drones >> Some FAA guidance
Page: [1]

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Some FAA guidance - 12/4/2007 6:10:42 AM   
Mluvara



Posts: 1425
Joined: 1/14/2002
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Status: offline 		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/2007/11/30/219974/faa-reveals-first-cut-at-small-uas-system-description.html

Michael


_____________________________

Michael Luvara
RCATS - http://www.rcatsystems.com
Luvara Air Racing - http://www.LuvaraAirRacing.com
       Post #: 1

RE: Some FAA guidance - 12/4/2007 5:03:53 PM   
T45WingNut



Posts: 193
Joined: 1/25/2002
From: Brookhaven , MS, USA
Status: offline 		FAA link to UAPO Office..

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/air/hq/engineering/uapo/

(in reply to Mluvara)
       Post #: 2

RE: Some FAA guidance - 12/4/2007 5:07:47 PM   
Mluvara



Posts: 1425
Joined: 1/14/2002
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Status: offline 		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


_____________________________

Michael Luvara
RCATS - http://www.rcatsystems.com
Luvara Air Racing - http://www.LuvaraAirRacing.com

(in reply to T45WingNut)
       Post #: 3

RE: Some FAA guidance - 12/5/2007 2:43:08 AM   
T45WingNut



Posts: 193
Joined: 1/25/2002
From: Brookhaven , MS, USA
Status: offline 		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...

(in reply to Mluvara)
       Post #: 4

RE: Some FAA guidance - 12/5/2007 5:16:07 PM   
Mluvara



Posts: 1425
Joined: 1/14/2002
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Status: offline 		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

_____________________________

Michael Luvara
RCATS - http://www.rcatsystems.com
Luvara Air Racing - http://www.LuvaraAirRacing.com

(in reply to T45WingNut)
       Post #: 5

RE: Some FAA guidance - 12/5/2007 5:35:59 PM   
bkdavy



Posts: 1377
Joined: 9/28/2004
From: FrederickMD, USA
Status: offline 		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

(in reply to Mluvara)
       Post #: 6

RE: Some FAA guidance - 12/5/2007 5:44:50 PM   
Mluvara



Posts: 1425
Joined: 1/14/2002
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Status: offline 		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

< Message edited by Mluvara -- 12/5/2007 5:46:20 PM >

_____________________________

Michael Luvara
RCATS - http://www.rcatsystems.com
Luvara Air Racing - http://www.LuvaraAirRacing.com

(in reply to bkdavy)
       Post #: 7

RE: Some FAA guidance - 12/5/2007 5:57:11 PM   
T45WingNut



Posts: 193
Joined: 1/25/2002
From: Brookhaven , MS, USA
Status: offline 		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..

(in reply to bkdavy)
       Post #: 8

RE: Some FAA guidance - 12/6/2007 4:15:13 PM   
Tired Old Man


 

Posts: 11367
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Central, CA, USA
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

If you can''''t fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

(in reply to T45WingNut)
       Post #: 9

RE: Some FAA guidance - 12/7/2007 12:52:40 AM   
NorfolkSouthern


 

Posts: 841
Joined: 7/17/2006
From: Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Status: online 		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

(in reply to Tired Old Man)
       Post #: 10

RE: Some FAA guidance - 12/7/2007 4:29:39 AM   
rhklenke



Posts: 2227
Joined: 6/3/2002
From: Richmond, VA, USA
Status: offline 		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

(in reply to Mluvara)
       Post #: 11

RE: Some FAA guidance - 12/7/2007 10:55:01 PM   
Tired Old Man


 

Posts: 11367
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Central, CA, USA
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

If you can''''t fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

(in reply to rhklenke)
       Post #: 12

RE: Some FAA guidance - 12/8/2007 4:50:52 AM   
rhklenke



Posts: 2227
Joined: 6/3/2002
From: Richmond, VA, USA
Status: offline 		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

(in reply to Tired Old Man)
       Post #: 13

RE: Some FAA guidance - 12/14/2007 10:35:30 PM   
Tired Old Man


 

Posts: 11367
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Central, CA, USA
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

If you can''''t fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

(in reply to rhklenke)
       Post #: 14

RE: Some FAA guidance - 12/15/2007 10:52:07 PM   
rhklenke



Posts: 2227
Joined: 6/3/2002
From: Richmond, VA, USA
Status: offline 		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?!?



< Message edited by rhklenke -- 12/15/2007 10:53:16 PM >

(in reply to Tired Old Man)
       Post #: 15

RE: Some FAA guidance - 12/16/2007 6:26:06 PM