Originally Posted by
grognard
And your TE limit is? Preferably in terms of easily interpreted charts and graphs that the technically illiterate among us can actually USE?
Fortunately, the upcoming test presents an opportunity to elevate the level of technical literacy amoung recreational sUAS operators.
Originally Posted by
franklin_m
Idea being that at any point in the path, based on the current velocity vector, a complete loss of control would result in sUAS impacting inside lateral limits of FRIA and no closer to 100 feet from any non-participant (FAA's definition of participant) inside the FRIA.
Originally Posted by
grognard
That is completely impossible to predict as you very well know. A complete loss of control could occur at any time, and the model could react in any conceivable way depending on the nature of the failure. Including cruising straight and level out of the lateral limits of the FRIA.
If the aircraft remains within the FRIA, not even a fail-safe mode would help; since there are failure modes (loss of power at the receiver) which would inhibit the fail safe from acting. So you're basically wanting to ban anything physically capable of generating lethal force in a terminal dive -- with the power plant operating at 100%.
Since the post-failure path of the aircraft cannot be predicted, the requirement to miss non-participants by 100 feet is meaningless.
I see what you mean about literacy. Quite interesting that you're saying something is impossible that FARs essentially already requires you to do. To refresh, FAR 107.19(C) requires YOU to "
ensure that the small unmanned aircraft will pose no undue hazard to other people, other aircraft, or other property in the event of a loss of control of the aircraft for any reason (emphasis added)." All I did was add some distances.
So your "loss of control at any time" [ironically almost word for word from FAR 107.19(C)], or loss of receiver power, etc. etc. etc. don't matter. FAR 107.19(C) is abundantly clear. NO MATTER WHAT, YOU are required to ensure that if YOU lose control of your sUAS for ANY reason, including all of the ones you mention above, it poses no undue hazard to to other
people, other aircraft,
or other property.
Originally Posted by
franklin_m
Of course you were cunning enough to put this in terms of "FRIA limits". But since your stated goal is to "stick a fork in FRIAs" that's bogus. Any regulatory body adopting this concept would have no alternative but to ban anything flying ANYWHERE which is capable of generating lethal force. Which, I have a funny feeling, will be construed as anything weighing more than 0.55lb.
Pay attention folks! This what this guy really wants, and if you don't oppose him, he'll work with the FAA to make it happen.
My goal is to ensure that all citizens are treated equally under this rule, and yes, I want to stick a fork in the FRIA concept as it's currently proposed. I think there is a strong equal protection argument, a strong anti-trust argument (AMA would effectively have a monopoly on flying sites), and a strong safety argument. Equal protection is solved by requiring all citizens be able to use them w/o regard to membership status, the monopoly would be solved in the same manner, and the lateral limits (combined with existing FAR 107 above) solves the safety piece.
I'm confident that regulators will see the flaw in the concept and rewrite the rule to ensure these flaws are fixed.