longdan

This is a discussion I have had with some guys at my field for some time. What actually constitutes a drone or UAV?
Where is the line drawn? It seems to be pretty fuzzy.
Does a RC plane fitted with a digital camera make it a drone?
Is it the intent for which it is used make it a drone?
Is it a drone as soon as it's flown outside of line of sight?
If someone brought a Predator to a club field and flew it around, would it still be a drone?
Just food for thought.

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

I always wondered the same thing about cars. When does a compact become a mid sized? What if your 6'5"? Is a mid sized now a compact?

Life is all but a mystery....

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

Dan,

In the US, that is not a really hard question to answer. According to our FAA, an unmanned aircraft becomes a UAS (unmanned aerial system) and is subject to their regulations whenever it a) falls outside the AMA rules for weight, power, etc. OR, b) is operated for non-recreational purposes. According to them, its a simple as that...

Bob

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

When it's operated at a distance greater than what the natural line of site permits. When it requires a gps navigation system to maintain course and altitude. When it requires an onboard and downlinked telemetry systems to monitor flight systems and navigation. When it is navigated by a means other than direct visual reference between the operator and the aircraft. When onboard video is used to navigate the aircraft. Plus the rules from the FAA already noted.

You don't want to get caught doing uav stuff outside the boundaries of current regulations. It goes FAR beyond the FAA when the explaining has to get done.

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

Not quite accurate. The AMA does not make any laws and is not a governing body. I think the FAA may have numbers the AMA may have adopted though.

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

Yes, I know that, but the FAA views the AMA as the "regulating body" for recreational model aircraft flying. The FAA does not have the manpower or the desire to regulate model airplanes, so as long as they feel that the AMA is doing the job, they will leave that alone. As you describe, they have essentially said that as long as a model aircraft complies with the AMA safety code, then go operate it according to AC 91-57 and as long as its non-commercial, you're not subject to FAA regulation...

Bob

Mr67Stang

I distinktly recal reading in the AMA code that flying our models with visual aids such as onboard video or telescopes was prohibited for AMA members. Read as, If you get into trouble and cause damage because you were doing this... we are not going to cover it. While every R/C modeler has thought about doing this if even just for the "oh cool" factor I'm sure very few have actually done it. Not saying that few have put live video feed on their planes just saying few have actually used that video feed to fly the plane out of direct line of site. Now I fully understand that being a member of AMA is not compulsory to flying model planes and people are alloud to do as they choose, up to untill they hurt someone or damage property. So this being said, how in the heck is this discusion board even here?

I am in the USAF (no, i'm not a pilot) and I have seen Preditors, Shadows and the Global Hawks up close and personal and often feel I have the wrong job. Then I think to myself that the Air Force would likely frown on me taking there Preditor down and dirty in a knife edge pass over the insurjents while I fire off a Hellfire anyway. So, I'm interested in this but wonder how or if we can apply this kind of flying and stay within the perameters of the AMA. Now do not misread me. It is my desire to say within the guidlines of the AMA and I am in no way saying that anyone else must.

troposcuba

yer not a pilot? i though everyone in the USAF was a pilot... anyway, check out FPV (first person view) in the search function. I think that is what they call it when you fly solely on the video you are seeing from the plane rather than line of sight. some cool stuff and some pretty crazy vids there if ya look around a bit.

ps. how ya been bro?

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

Take a look at this:

http://www.cropcam.com/

Now granted, this company (Micropilot) is in Canada and things are a bit different up there, but there are a number of people who are using this UAV for legitimate agricultural uses. There are also a number of law enforcement units that want to fly the Cyberbug (http://www.proxygen.com/36/Editorial...list_type=name) to provide video surveillance, etc. Unfortunately, if they are doing it in this country (some are, actually), then what they are doing is currently against FAA "policy." However, the FAA realizes that flying something like this for a legitimate purpose needs to be possible in this country. At the same time, they need to protect the manned aircraft - which are the primary users of the National Airspace.

They (the FAA), are currently working on a new "flight authorization instrument," as they call it, that will allow vehicles like the CropCam and Cyberbug to be operated in the National Airspace System. I believe the desire is to have this new "instrument" in place within the next few years. I would anticipate that it will require some sort of aircraft certification and pilot qualification, but hopefully that will be much less than the Experimental Category Airworthyness Certificate and Private Pilots License and 3rd class Medical that are now required.

That, and the fact that you can (as we do), work on UAV development if you can find a restricted airspace where you can fly your UAVs, means that a forum where that work and those vehicles can be discussed is not only "allowed" but valuable.

Bob

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

There's a thing called the International Trade and Arms Regulations (ITAR), which has a tremendous amount of bearing of what can be openly discussed regarding UAV technology. Then the State Department, which has a lot of oversight in ITAR related distribution of products and information, and in UAV technology, has some control authority. The Department of Defense has some oversight in the area of UAV's, and a lot of interest, along with Homeland Security.

Now if anyone thinks that the FAA is the sole governing body that has control over airspace and UAV regulations after seeing the heads up in the first paragraph, well, you're on your own. Don't read the FAR's and think those are the only regulations that apply to models, flight, airspace, and UAV's. There's a whole bunch of various regulations under different governing bodies in place that you have to look hard for to become truly enlightened.

You have to be very careful about what you openly discuss on an internet forum. Failure to do so means you may get to suffer the penalty even if you don't know the laws and regulations. Open internet discussions of things like advanced auto pilot technology, advances in gps accuracy, payload development and operation, certain telemetry methods, uploading pictures of secure areas and operations, electronic developments, and such can put one in close touch with a legal system that will show no mercy.

Then again, most people directly involved with UAV development and operations are bound by secrecy clearances and agreements through our government and non disclosure agreements with the companies involved.

There most certainly are UAV forums where the technology is discussed, but not openly unless it's a site restricted to those with special access.

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

Man, you guys are going WAY overboard! We're not talking Predator drones here, but small, typically hobby-type for this forum, commercial or DIY automonous or semi-autonomous aircraft. There is a forum on the other popular RC site where there are tens, if not hundreds of posts on this topic every day (http://www.rcgroups.com/uav-unmanned...-vehicles-238/) and I have yet to see the MIB's swooping down to arrest and torture those who post there - geeze!


Bob


ps. My link above to that "other" site may get removed, but if it does, its the scary RCU Gods, not the government...

Hopefully they'll leave it there just so that folks can see that there is a lot of interest in the subject and it would be nice to have that going on over here in RCU...

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

Data contained in this email may be subjected to the International Traffic Arms Regulation (ITAR) or the Export Administration Regulation (EAR) of 1979. Regulated data may not be exported, released, or disclosed to foreign nationals inside or outside the United States without obtaining the prior written approval of ******* and licenses as required by the U.S. Department of State.


The above is attached to almost every communication in many companies for a reason.

Regardless of the size or complexity, with UAV's you're getting involved with some pretty serious stuff. Those providing the forum for the exchange of information are governed by the above just as individuals are. I don't believe much thought went into the ramifications of providing an open forum before hand, but I'm reasonably certain that there will be some pretty strong after effects if there is not someone that is fully up to speed on UAV technology reading each and every post that is written before it is published to screen sensitive or dangerous material.

This forum is not limited simply to those with need to know in the U.S., those "in the business", or those with special clearances. Simple things can be used to make extremely complex components. The M.I.B. thing was amusing but more real than you may want to believe.

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

So Pat, if you're so sure that talking about this stuff is so much against the "rules" (yes, I've known what ITAR is for many years now) why don't you go over to the forum on RCGroups and spout your "doom and gloom" on every thread there? I think the reaction would be classic.

It will take awhile to get the regs. worked out, but you will see autonomous vehicles in the air over the US for non-military, commercial purposes. It doesn't take any elaborate or "secret" technologies to do it (we've built dozens of autonomous prop and turbine aircraft and helicopters for student projects and research). As soon as the FAA can convince themselves that they won't be running into all of the spam cans and composite wonders plying the lower skys of Class G airspace, they will allow it, hopefully within the next few years...

As far as being a technology that can be exploited for doing bad things, you can do a heck of alot more damage a lot easier with a truck load of processed cow S&#$...

Now the military stuff, that's another story, but nobody is encouraging anyone to discuss that here - anymore than anyone is encouraging the engineers at LM that are working on the Raptor to discuss the inner workings of it fly-by-wire flight control system over on the EAA or Sport Flyers discussion boards. Not that anyone who IS working on classified military stuff would be stupid enough to discuss it on an open forum.

Bob

calvino

my thingie is, you have tons of people running out to the LHS picking up a plane, strapping a cammera to it and going flying, why couldn't you take the video and use it seperately from the external view, also known as, unles the plane goes out of sight, you use the "operator view" aka, you. I think the reason why the FAA doesn't allow people to fly strictly from the video provided (which is the point I am getting) is so some terrorist doesn't fly a plane from an apartment and bomb some building of big importance, is the idea I am getting[&:]

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

There is no specific provision in the AMA Safety Code that prohibits on-board video systems or having someone fly the aircraft using those systems. It simply can not be equiped with on-board systems that allow it to fly out of visual range of the pilot. I've seen some people try and fly a model using a head-down video display from a forward looking camera. Its not as easy as you think and you MUST have a safety pilot who can take over the plane when the head-down pilot looses it...

And again, (at this point) if the aircraft and pilot comply with the AMA safety code, the FAA doesn't want to have anything to do with it...

As far as the potential to do some harm with a model airplane, IF the model complies with the AMA safety code, its potential is VERY limited to do so. It doesn't have the range or paylod capacity, its too difficult to fly (NO autopilots in AMA-type aircraft, remember), and the person operating it has to be really close to the destination (NO flights out of unenhanced visual range, remember). They simply aren't a credible threat (dispite what that idiot NY Senator Schumer says - what a moron [:@] ) and the "powers-that-be" recognize that. The issue is the potential for collision with manned aircraft...


Bob

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

I don't go to RC Groups. Too little time as it is.

I'm well aware of the activities taking place within the FAA. The company I work for has been in the process of training FAA personnel in the operation of UAV's, and has had a tremendous influence on opening up future airspace in dealings with our government bodies. We aren't waiting for the laws to change, we're helping make the new laws that will replace the old ones, and developing the standards that all will have to adhere to.

I don't have any issues at all with UAV's in open airspace as long as the units are reliable enough to complete a successful flight without crashing into someone's home or office. What I do have an issue with is a bunch of people getting into an international open forum and sharing UAV technology without any consideration regarding information that should not be shared with sources not friendly or supportive of our people here in the U.S., our government, our politics, or our religeous freedoms. There's a lot of information and technology that should not simply be dropped in the laps of people that want to do us harm now, or in the forseeable future. It doesn't have to be stealthy, the size of these things takes care of that by itself in many cases. All it has to do is "see" over the next hilltop and provide a gps position that's usable by the viewer.

Yes, people have a lot of fun with this stuff, as they should. Unfortunately few are responsible enough to see any farther than their last statement, and usually fail to consider what possible effects their statements may have in the long term, or what impact it could have when used in a military enviornment. Too many people will pass the info hat around just for giggles and little personal attention. All the wrong reasons. Then again, there's all the fools that will put something in the air that is marginally safe and lose it into the confines of the general public. There's a lot of damage that could be done to this hobby with only one of those instances taking place. It could happen all to easily now with a simple FMA Co-pilot if the operator lost radio link with his 40 size trainer. As for how much damage a simple radio controlled airplane could do, one public death would be enough and those have already happened with "normal" r/c aircraft.

I'm all about Freedom. More than most will ever be able to comprehend. But I'm also a strong proponent of personal responsibility. That by itself comes up wanting with most people today, as proven with this forum and previuous posts in other forums. An open UAV discussion forum serves every and anyone, not just those truly responsible enough to use it.

mithrandir

My Feedback: (2)

The day will come when you will need a license and a full background check to fly model planes....

Maybe not in 2 years or 5 years... but the day will come....
it is too easy with store bought stuff to build a flying device capable of causing harm...

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

Maybe... depends on what you call a "license"

Gotta' differ with you there. As I said before, its much easier to do much more harm with much less sophisticated methods of delivery. Stuff that fits into the AMA rules on model airplanes doesn't have the legs, payload capacity, or accuracy to do anything except knock somebody in the head and you could never do THAT intentionally - it only happens when we don't want it to.

There are no legitimate security concerns with AMA-category model airplanes - NONE. Anyone who believes and advocates otherwise is grandstanding for some other reason. If that kind of rhetoric is responsible for curtailing an activity like model aviation, then to a certain extent, the terrorists have already won. The only way that we'll get more regulations is if idiots like Schumer suceed in convincing people that by regulating something like model airplanes would make them safer in their daily lives - even though it would have no impact what so ever. Of course, the reason that people like him do something like that is beacuse they lack the intellegence and the stones to do something about the real threats. All you have to do is examine the true current state of boarder security in this country or the incident at VA Tech this past year to clearly see that...

Bob

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

Not so. The average person can, right now, cough up about 10 to 15 grand for a fully capable, off the shelf system that can fit in a simple medium scale model plane and fly very great distances out of the line of sight with full up and downlink capability. All you need to know is where to look.

As for licensing, I'm afraid that in the next few years anything, model or uav, that weighs over 25 kilos might end up requiring a license of one sort or another, along with a medical certificate, issued by our friendly federal government. The hand writing is on the wall in big red letters for that one.

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

They are not all that hard to find, but adding such a system would make it a non AMA-category aircraft - which leads back to my original statement - there are no legitimate security concerns with AMA-category model airplanes...

longdan

Boy, sometimes I am so glad that I don't live in the US of A

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

I hear ya' Its very frustrating sometimes! [] We have met the enemy and most often, it is us (or our lawyers...)

Bob

My point is (and it clearly was lost on some people) was that its a lot easier to buy a gun, or a truckload of fertilizer, etc. and do far more damage and that is a fact. THAT'S what we should be saying to the general public as well. A 55 lb model airplane is only a threat to the people standing around watching it (and we have safety rules that have been quite able to deal with that) - period, end of story - go look for a different boogy man...

Bob

d_wheel

"Medium Scale" would be a 60 to 90 size model. You can't carry enough payload to do much damage with anything that size. Even if you could, you wouldn't be able to hit within 150 feet of a target unless you are within sight of it. To even get that close, you would have to do quite a bit of test flying and practice, making it likely that you would be discovered before you could carry out the dastardly act. Anyone seriously considering taking out a high profile target would use something much simpler and much, much more reliable than what is available to the model UAV enthusiast.

I suggest you cast your eyes toward Iran and other oil rich countries who hate the American way of life if you want to keep UAV bomb threats in check. We who do this for fun are causing absolutely no harm to our country. If someone wanted to use our limited technology for the wrong reason, I feel sure that after researching what is available they would turn elsewhere for their information and supplies. A guidance system may well be available for the 10 to 15 grand you refer to but that is NOT what modelers are using. Even with this system, you would need an airframe in the 50 to 100 grand range to carry enough payload to cause serious harm. This takes us so far away from what the average model UAV enthusiast is doing that it just becomes laughable.

Your doom and gloom messages are beginning to sound like Chicken Little..

An Enthusiastic Model UAV Tinkerer;

D.W.

Tired Old Man

My Feedback: (1)

I pretty much agree with the last post. I'm also fairly certain that no one in that country or one of similar political outlook can read or view anything on the internet. One that's available world wide. That's my point. Just how much are we willing to share with our "neighbors"?

Easier things with which to do damage are quite available but why does anyone want to give other methods away for the sake of fun. Paranoid, perhaps, but I work with these things in a war time enviornment and have been doing so for a long time. I know extremely well their capabilities. For those at home it's all fun and games with the new toy but I'll tell you right here and now that if you can be seen with a UAV you can be killed by someone else a long, long ways away or from overhead. All I need to do is see you and state your position. From that point on the final outcome is a 100% certainty.

This new UAV forum is the next level in irresponsibility, imo.

mithrandir

My Feedback: (2)

We need to be sure we do not reveal technology or vulnerabilities.

I generally do not say anything that isn't available on my companies web site.
We are careful with ITAR issues.

I doubt they (Terrorists) will get any new ideas from this forum.
In many instances it is the payloads and missions that are sensitive not the airframe itself.

mith