Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by LoopZilla on April 7, 2008 at 6:54pm

As far as I know, which is diminutive in the grand scope of things, there is NO way to fly ANY unmanned aircraft in US unrestricted airspace for commercial profit without a site (or aircraft experimental) COA.

That said, there is no agency currently capable of monitoring your airspace, documenting possible infractions, and writing you a ticket. Couple that with the fact that there is no fee structure by which to judge your actions, and you can see why the general consensus is to continue to fly in a responsible manner. Plus, the FAA is more concerned about air collisions than ground incidents. There is very little able to be coordinated between federal and local enforcements at this time.

This 'oversight' on the part of the pilot can't last for much longer though. One major accident (inevitable in my opinion), and we will have the local law enforcement looking for those infractions and developing their own penalty structure. It is a fact, after all, that a county Sheriff has complete jurisdiction over his airspace if he assumes complete responsibility over it. Getting permission to fly from your local Sheriff is another way to fly legally, but get it in writing.

There is, however, one more way to fly that is commonly overlooked and that would meet your needs in a perfectly legal manner. Go from fixed wing to VTOL and tether your aircraft! Stay below 150' AGL and you can fly anywhere you wish, at any time (excepting instances where local laws prohibit such actions). If you can fly an advertising balloon over your car lot, you can fly a tethered UAV!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Frank Cates on April 7, 2008 at 7:18pm

Thanks for the info Loop. Do you suppose fishing line tied to a landing skid would count as 'tethered'? Maybe if the reel was attached to a fly rod?

I have wondered about something more blimp-shaped, powered and with moveable flight surfaces and a tether. The idea would be to use rc and keep it pointed into the wind, and enough power to hold position. That would allow getting to a particular spot to take the pictures, then reel it back in. The power and rc system would keep it under control. Just a thought.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Neal Clark on April 7, 2008 at 8:05pm

I just did a quick check of the rules up here in canada and it appears anything flown recreationally and under the weight of 35Kg or 77.2 lbs is considered a model and exempt from regulation. I would be a great resource for anyone considering building a UAV if this site had a page dedicated to the applicable rules and regulations for each country.

to quote the transport canada site:

"unmanned air vehicle" means a power-driven aircraft, other than a model aircraft, that is designed to fly without a human operator on board; (véhicule aérien non habité)
(amended 2003/12/01; no previous version)

"model aircraft" - means an aircraft, the total weight of which does not exceed 35 kg (77.2 pounds), that is mechanically driven or launched into flight for recreational purposes and that is not designed to carry persons or other living creatures; (modèle réduit d'aéronef)

The following is a link to the full Canadian Aviation Regulations page: here

Thanks,

Neal.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LoopZilla on April 8, 2008 at 6:23am

LTA (Lighter than air) aircraft are not exempt from any of the current FAA rulings for UAVs, so I am not too sure what advantage a blimp would be. In fact, unless you have a trailer or large van to move your aircraft around in the effort is not usually worth it.

I have only flown a blimp a few times, a kite, and a balloon - all for AP work. In all instances, we usually couldn't get the shot we needed for whatever reason (wind, turbulence between buildings, trees in the way, etc.).

Neal, I believe you are correct on the rulings in Canada. In fact, I know quite a few people who have registered their businesses with Canadian Aviation and are operating under their auspices, even over such highly populated areas as metropolitan Vancouver and Toronto.

Air4All is another entity in the EAU that is trying to create regulation for UAVs. They may set some sort of precedence for us. www.air4all.net

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LoopZilla on April 8, 2008 at 6:31am

John,

The RTCA SC-203 wrote a 'Best Practices' document that was submitted to the FAA back in the late fall of 2006. Through a complete botch of this submission, I believe the document led to the Jan/Feb announcement by the FAA, effectively shutting us down. Remember, there are both Federal and COMMERCIAL reasons people want UAVs grounded in the Civil and consumer sectors of the US!

However, SC-203 was actually comprised of quite a few people who actually knew their stuff and had some great ideas on how to operate UAVs safely in the US. This document, if it could be found online, may be a good resource for additional data to collect for inclusion with your submission.

http://www.uatar.com/RTCA%20SC-203%20Document%20Control%20Form.pdf

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Neal Clark on April 8, 2008 at 1:54pm

Well if any of you are close to the border I'm sure you will be welcome to come up North for a little field testing. I'm not quite sure I understand the logic behind the FFA's decision but thats not important. What this group should be focusing on is making the hobby much harder to shut down.

I was thinking that if you want to make a stronger case for yourself you should contact local schools, science clubs, etc and try to get more kids interested. I'm sure there would be a few news stations what would cover such a story. Perhaps you can design a really low cost kit that any high school student can assemble and fly. I'm sure there is enough creativity on this site to be able to put a kit or plans together which costs in the range of $50 to $200.

Another possibility is to give your UAV's the same capabilities of much more expensive craft. For example if someone were to make a small cheap platform capable of taking video for crop inspection, remote sensing (aerial photography, etc). You would be able to argue the value your activities have to society.

Perhaps I should open up a UAV B&B and cater to American hobbyists tired of a 400ft ceiling;)

Thanks,

Neal.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Frank Cates on April 8, 2008 at 2:58pm

From what I have read in the FAA documentation none of the uav airframes here will be legal unless licensed and operated by a pilot with a valid private pilots license. The airframes will have to be licensed and will need a transponder, light system, and registration numbers. I believe you will also need to file a flight plan and jump through a bunch of hoops in order to get off the ground. Could just be the way I read the documents though.

• ▶ Reply

ModeratorPermalink Reply by Chris Anderson on April 8, 2008 at 4:05pm

Frank,

That's just for commercial use. See our FAQ for more:
http://diydrones.com/profiles/blog/show?id=705844%3ABlogPost%3A28583

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Frank Cates on April 8, 2008 at 4:10pm

Thanks Chris, but you may need to keep an eye on this. Your posting date is prior to the two most recent documents released by the FAA. Your one area that might keep you in the clear is staying away from anything commercial. That would mean flying for recreational purposes only, which admittedly is the primary purpose for this site. I expect a fair number of your members were looking for an inexpensive way to have a uav for commercial use though.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Zaner on April 9, 2008 at 10:43am

Thanks for the discussion but this was not intended to be a discussion. There are too many of those already.

I was on a nationwide teleconference Monday evening with all kinds of folks who waht to use the cropcam.com system. They have representatives in Washington as I write this lobbying the FAA and Congress to do something about small UAS.

The bottom line is: Any commercial activity using SUAS is not authorized until the FAA produces a regulation or other guidance permiting it. This is regardless of size.

The FAA is setting up an ARC to prepare a draft of such a regulationg. They want users from all categories to participate in this process. They already have considerable information about Conops and various ways we use SUAS.

What the FAA is doing now is issuing a limited number of COA's to public organizations for the purpose of evaluating the potential of SUAS in different situations. I am participating in one of these with a local Sheriff Dept.

I suggensted to the FAA that there was already considerable data about actual use of SUAS in various roles by folks who have been flying them for some time. This is where my data collection request came from. This is an attempt to provide real data to the FAA sooner than they can get it through the ongoing evaluations. The data will be provided to the ARC by the FAA to use in preparing the draft policy.

I think that data concering the use of SUAS in different environments will clearly show that they are inherently safe and will, hopefully, lighten the regulatory burdon they eventually come up with.

We can keep talking this thing to death among ourselves or we can actually do something to move this whole process along. I still only have two replies to my request for data. That makes three with mine. What an impresseion that will make on the FAA when only three people are using SUAS.

Come on guys. Step up to the plate!

Regards, John Zaner

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Myers on April 9, 2008 at 1:53pm

Time period: May 2003 to present.

Number of sorties: 350+ (288 folders of AP flights, many FPV video files)

Incident data: None.

Aircraft type: Primarily Slow Stick mixed with others. All under 5lbs AUW.

Aircraft specifications: Brushless motor.

Operational environment: 30% Urban, 70% Rural.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Zaner on April 9, 2008 at 5:44pm

Thanks Mike for the good data.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page