FAA Clarification during Oklahoma UAS Telecon

[jetblackaircra]

Just wanted to let you guys know that I just got off the phone with two people in the FAA UAS Program Office in Washington and it came straight from the horses mouth:

Vehicles that would otherwise fit under the AC 91-57 rules, but are being flown by a business are not allowed to fly unless a special airworthiness experimental certificate is issued for that vehicle and flight area.

Vehicles with experimental certificates may NOT be flown for hire.

Bottom line, end of story.

*added due to lack of response* Just wanted to point this out to certain people who might be developing auto pilots or other UAV hardware, or who might be taking aerial photographs for hire who don't have a certificate.

I know there are a few on here, don't worry, I didn't ask if there was a reward for blowing the whistle on people like that.

[Myron]

Jet,


This has been their stance since Feb 13 two years ago. It is also why there is much hub-ub going on in all the forums about who can fly what and where and be "legal". Its quite a mess and we will be lucky if they have something that is doable for most commercial operators by 2011.. In the mean time the pure hobbiest only can do whatever they want as long as your not getting paid for it..

Myron

[jetblackaircra]

I am aware of this, just wanted to clarify to anyone else out there who might be flying unmanned aircraft for business purposes such as developing an autopilot to be sold. I must say that since my company has been developing an autopilot for some time now in addition to other UAV systems it seems to have placed us at an unfair disadvantage since we've decided to follow the rules. Makes me wish there was a reward for blowing the whistle on people who are developing auto pilots and other UAV hardware illegally. Maybe it would be worth it to blow the whistle just to stop their development from gaining any more ground on our development.

Let's hear from the guys on here who are developing UAV products. Tell me about your special airworthiness certificate..... you know who you are.

[zlite]

Open source has a lot of advantages in this climate.

[tekrunner]

I am aware of this, just wanted to clarify to anyone else out there who might be flying unmanned aircraft for business purposes such as developing an autopilot to be sold. I must say that since my company has been developing an autopilot for some time now in addition to other UAV systems it seems to have placed us at an unfair disadvantage since we've decided to follow the rules. Makes me wish there was a reward for blowing the whistle on people who are developing auto pilots and other UAV hardware illegally. Maybe it would be worth it to blow the whistle just to stop their development from gaining any more ground on our development.

Let's hear from the guys on here who are developing UAV products. Tell me about your special airworthiness certificate..... you know who you are.

There's no excuse for being a nark. The trick is to not let some despotic Federal agency pretend their working for our safety.

[Quandumphone]

Your best bet is to build a better product and let it sell itself.

[ios]

Hi Jet,


I am aware of this, just wanted to clarify to anyone else out there who might be flying unmanned aircraft for business purposes such as developing an autopilot to be sold.

What about products like RVOSD II in the FPV forum which also has a built in autopilot, or Ardupilot or Attopilot.... should those developers have a special airworthiness cert.?

I must say that since my company has been developing an autopilot for some time now in addition to other UAV systems it seems to have placed us at an unfair disadvantage since we've decided to follow the rules.

Is that to say that you have not been following the rules ? :o

Makes me wish there was a reward for blowing the whistle on people who are developing auto pilots and other UAV hardware illegally.

I don’t think that developing autopilots and other UAV related hardware is illegal. I think that the FAA recognizes that UAVs will have a much wider presence in the sky in the future, and that introduces safety concerns. By their nature UAVs will be operating autonomously and well outside visual line of sight, and potentially operating in close proximity to other manned aircraft or above populated areas. The FAA has a legitimate concern to manage air safety, and require commercial UAV operators to have a special airworthiness certificate.

Regarding the development of autopilots, I can sympathize with you, in that unless you can demonstrate safety and compliance, you can’t get an airworthiness certificate, and this is a little like the chicken or the egg. But there are things you can do like demonstrate your autopilot it a synthetic environment (i.e. Hardware in the Loop simulation) or flight test it while complying with AC 91-57 rules, i.e. get a few friends to beta test it for fun!! :rolleyes:

Maybe it would be worth it to blow the whistle just to stop their development from gaining any more ground on our development.

You’re obviously very disappointed with the FAAs response to your commercial UAV development activities. You should remember that this forum is here as a community for those with a common interest in developing and helping each other develop hardware and software, and flying UAVs on a hobby basis (if you think about it, what an exciting hobby we have!). Some are even fortunate enough to do it so well that it becomes their career, something which many here aspire towards. There are regulatory restrictions on our activities, for instance regarding keeping the plane within line of sight and flying it below a given altitude, and doing it for the pleasure of the hobby rather than for profit. How fortunate are we, that we can indeed legitimately develop and fly UAVs legally as hobbyists.

I can think of autopilot developers (be it open or closed source) in this forum who have contributed and engaged with the community, and their ideas have cross pollinated and assisted others in the development of their own autopilots and UAVs. I don’t recall having seen a detailed discussion or even pictures of your autopilot, and I find it absurd that you feel so threatened, and come here to voice a protest. I’m sorry for the tone this is taking, but I just want to put things into perspective, because what you have proposed to do is hinder the activities of members of this community - so you can gain supposedly an advantage - what makes you think your entitled to that?

By the way, I’ve read through your other thread, about your composite UAV, with great interest, and I think you have definetly contributed positively in the past, and realise that your outburst is as a result of your frustration with the FAA, not this community.... But come on dude your not the only one entitled to do stuff !!!!!

Let's hear from the guys on here who are developing UAV products. Tell me about your special airworthiness certificate..... you know who you are.

~

[jetblackaircra]

I don't claim to be the only one entitled to "do stuff". But I find myself in a group of people all doing the same thing as me and all competing for the same piece of the UAV market pie, but where the majority are deciding to ignore the law and develop their product illegally while my company and I have decided to follow the law, after becoming aware of it that is, and it has put us at a dissadvantage.

If you don't think that developing UAV hardware is illegal, you're right, as long as you don't fly it in an airplane that has no pilot in it. The FAA representatives were very clear. If it's unmanned and being flown for any business purposes, it's gotta have a certificate. Cut and dried.

I'm all for contributing to the community, but my point here is that lets not encourage each other to break the law. Let's encourage each other to follow the law, and lets do that by giving the people who have already been through the process of certifying a UAV a forum to give help to people who want to.

Think of it this way, what if you made an autopilot just like the Attopilot, and you happened to be located in Virginia near DC. The FAA guys drive by your field one day and see you flying and ask you about it. The next day they bring the local PD to your house and take your gear and shut you down (not that it would happen that way, but for arguement sake). This whole time, the competition is under the radar so to speak. Is that fair?

I think we'll all agree that it is not. So lets help level the field. Anyone who's obtained a cert for their UAV, give us info on how to do it. Help us out. If you want people to contribute, lets make the world safer by getting all of our UAVs certified.

[Quandumphone]

I would think that someone doing it the right way would have a big marketing advantage at some point. Maybe not right now but soon. If that's what you are doing, then you should use it when the time comes. That time will be when the gray loopholes are filled in. This assumes that your product is good enough.

[ios]

I think we'll all agree that it is not. So lets help level the field. Anyone who's obtained a cert for their UAV, give us info on how to do it. Help us out. If you want people to contribute, lets make the world safer by getting all of our UAVs certified.


I really like this idea...

:)

[airmcn_3]

I would think that someone doing it the right way would have a big marketing advantage at some point. Maybe not right now but soon. If that's what you are doing, then you should use it when the time comes. That time will be when the gray loopholes are filled in. This assumes that your product is good enough.


Agreed, We spent a good amount of time thinking we were following the rules, come to find out exactly what Mike said is the case, we were fortunate enough to get an experimental cert so we could abide by the rules but I will say that the Govt. has not made it easy for us to do so. We have been required to follow full scale aircraft laws, that goes from conception to reality, they basically want a plan before you get started, part of this "plan" is a fully documented build and maintenance manual, along with all of this you are supposed to supply a flight log of any and all flights that were conducted on the UAS airframe for certification......

Good luck to all, it is doable as we managed to do so, but I will say that the task looks rather intimidating in the beginning.


Chris

[CenTexFlyer]

Certificate of Authority - get one

[johnorama]

Certificate of Authority - get one

You need a government sponsor to obtain a COA. You can't likely get a government sponsor without a contract. You can't get a contract unless you have something they want to buy. They don't want to buy it unless you have already flown it.

ANYONE can legally fly a UAV at New Mexico State University. The FAA has given them their own UAV COA to fly commercial UAV's. Your UAS/people/documentation will have to be reviewed and you may start flying under strict restrictions, but it can be done. If you call them, tell them "JJ" sent you.

I have personally worked for a company that was flying medium sized UAV's illegally, mixing it up with manned aircraft, many times a day. It isn't fair for those who are following the rules. Rules save lives!

[johnorama]

I am not sure this is the proper forum for commercial UAV devopment.

Here, we can assume that everyone is hobbyists that build UAV's that fly under 400' and always have someone visually watching the a/c with their finger on the button ready to take it from the person flying via camera/instruments...just as the AMA communicated to us.

To try and rally the people here to submit Airwothiness applications to make a point to the FAA is not a good idea for the hobbyists and it will not make it any better for the commercial market.

I have flown 8 different military/commercial UAV's. 7 flown legally, 1 illegally; in combat, international airspace, military restricted airspace, the NAS (legally and illegally) and even got caught once illegally in foreign airspace. With that, I believe the FAA is doing the right thing in regards to UAV regulations, but not always at the speed that we think is best for ourselves.

[Condor39]

Maybe it would be worth it to blow the whistle just to stop their development from gaining any more ground on our development.


Are you honestly worried about hobbyist autopilots taking your market share? What they will do is force existing autopilot makers to come down from their ivory towers and supply their customers with better product and service.

[EddieWeeks]

You know what.. I have about had it with all this stupid sh__.

Below are two pics I was hired and got paid good money to take.

They may have been taken with my VTOL camera carrying airplane or they
May have been taken with my 40 foot pole, I am not saying.

If I was flying the plane do you really think I would run into a full size plane..?
I mean really.. Where is the common sense. I am barely above the light poles !!!
Max alt was around 50-60 feet…

To make a sweeping statement like that is just wrong. It affects too many people
And its assumes that you don’t have common sense because it tells us what we can
And can’t do even though its been proven perfectly safe.

The real reason for that sweeping statement is just to cover there a$_
If something does happen with a UAV and full size, FAA does not want
To be the least bit responsible, giving airspace to two different planes. (UAV and full size)

Another reason is, there are no consequences. Who is going to tell the FAA they can’t say
That. UAV lobby is too small compared to Full size.

So in the mean time, I am going to keeping paying for my kids school with AP taken from
A long pole..hahah

Eddie Weeks

[jetblackaircra]

First of all, part of my market is hobbyist autopilot sales. So, yes I care if someone is flying illegally to sell to hobbyists.

Second, the rules are there for a reason and just because you don't like them or think they are unreasonable doesn't give you the right to break them.

Third, I think this is the perfect forum for talking about what it takes to certify and fly a UAV for hire. It's called RC groups, not RC hobby groups. There are lots of people on here who sell a variety of products. You don't seem to mind when they post things asking for input on their products or help with development.

I have always been slightly unhappy with the way certification works at the FAA. I understand why it works the way it does, but it really limits small companies like mine. If certification documents were public domain then companies like mine would be able to compete with the big aerospace companies and product prices would come down. But, as it stands, we don't have the budget to certify things without help, so the big boys will maintain their monopoly. However, if everyone shared their cert documents, or at least as much as they can and still keep proprietary information hidden, it would give everyone a boost. I realize I'm asking you to share something that cost you lots of time and money, but it will help the industry as a whole and in turn help get UAVs into the NAS faster.

The main point of my posting was to get people like Eddie to realize that they're breaking the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Imagine if companies like Boeing, Cessna, Piper, and other big boys decided to operate under the "common sense" rule. It just doesn't work. Regulations, while undeniably a bother, save lives.

[airmcn_3]

First of all, part of my market is hobbyist autopilot sales. So, yes I care if someone is flying illegally to sell to hobbyists.

Second, the rules are there for a reason and just because you don't like them or think they are unreasonable doesn't give you the right to break them.

Third, I think this is the perfect forum for talking about what it takes to certify and fly a UAV for hire. It's called RC groups, not RC hobby groups. There are lots of people on here who sell a variety of products. You don't seem to mind when they post things asking for input on their products or help with development.

I have always been slightly unhappy with the way certification works at the FAA. I understand why it works the way it does, but it really limits small companies like mine. If certification documents were public domain then companies like mine would be able to compete with the big aerospace companies and product prices would come down. But, as it stands, we don't have the budget to certify things without help, so the big boys will maintain their monopoly. However, if everyone shared their cert documents, or at least as much as they can and still keep proprietary information hidden, it would give everyone a boost. I realize I'm asking you to share something that cost you lots of time and money, but it will help the industry as a whole and in turn help get UAVs into the NAS faster.

The main point of my posting was to get people like Eddie to realize that they're breaking the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Imagine if companies like Boeing, Cessna, Piper, and other big boys decided to operate under the "common sense" rule. It just doesn't work. Regulations, while undeniably a bother, save lives.



Hey Mike,

Did you know that technically speaking from the FAA standpoint every individual and manufacture on this website is and has technically broke the law?

If you develop a RC aircraft for financial benefit then I believe you are then considered a commercial company......

Australia is the same.

The reason I am saying this is because I believe the FAA has not and will not come after those companies due to them exercising common sense when testing and flying their product. As I believe it was said before, they got to have rules set in stone in case some knucklehead like the guy in Australia dog fighting a Virgin 737.....

I have asked if I can post some of our paperwork, as you can imagine the bosses are not very keen on the idea.

[EddieWeeks]

In my world, common sense trumps all else. For 15 years I flew RC jets at full size airports all over the country.
Many planes there went over 200 mph and always past 1500 feet all day long. And someone is making lots of money here. Entry fee are $40-$80.

Now its illegal to fly a foam POS, no where near any airport and take a few pictures…

Right

[Condor39]

@jetblackaircra

I agree with your comment regarding the monopolization of the industry by a few key players. This I believe has happened with the current sUAS Arc been chaired by AVI's CEO. My info is out of date however the proposed rules I saw clearly favored AVI's current systems as well as their financial ability to create a training an certification organization for small civilian UAS operators.

I personally want to see as many autopilots and small UAV systems out there certified or not, legal or illegal. The simple reason is that the more people that get involved in the industry the more likely we are to get policy that we can all work within.

Yes there is a danger that somebody will do something stupid and we will all made to pay with a blanket ban. However there is also the possibility that the FAA may be forced to create an affordable certification process both for hardware and operators which we can benefit from rather than skulking on the sidelines and picking up the scraps from companies like AVI, Boeing and Raytheon.

[airmcn_3]

@jetblackaircra

I agree with your comment regarding the monopolization of the industry by a few key players. This I believe has happened with the current sUAS Arc been chaired by AVI's CEO. My info is out of date however the proposed rules I saw clearly favored AVI's current systems as well as their financial ability to create a training an certification organization for small civilian UAS operators.

I personally want to see as many autopilots and small UAV systems out there certified or not, legal or illegal. The simple reason is that the more people that get involved in the industry the more likely we are to get policy that we can all work within.

Yes there is a danger that somebody will do something stupid and we will all made to pay with a blanket ban. However there is also the possibility that the FAA may be forced to create an affordable certification process both for hardware and operators which we can benefit from rather than skulking on the sidelines and picking up the scraps from companies like AVI, Boeing and Raytheon.


That’s a good thought....

I spend half of my year in Australia for work, one of the major things I noticed different about the modeling insurance was the need to have any aircraft over 7kg certified and inspected, they are then required to do a check off flight with the individual certifying the airframe. Same goes for turbine but a bit more involved.

There is no reason why CASA the FAA and alike organizations cant have it the same for small UAV's. If you can’t show competence and the knowledge to operate your aircraft in a safe and law abiding manor then you simply should not have it in the first place

[workshop]

I see the issue as similar to the right to bear arms. One can't shoot a gun anywhere or anytime one wants to but almost any citizen can own one.

There needs to be a check and balance in place should the U.S. Government allow commercial or military UAVs in NAS without us. :)

Regular citizens who bravely push UAV science in this climate are HEROS in my mind. I am embarrassed for the person who called for their “outing”. That will just push (more) development overseas where the U.S. Government has no authority or ability to do anything.

The SkyNet jokes that fly around El Segundo, CA (home to ALL major air/space defense vendors plus Aerospace Corp and the Air Force) are just not funny anymore.

[lvspark]

The main point of my posting was to get people like Eddie to realize that they're breaking the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

What law has been broken?
Please provide something better than just a blanket statement.

[jetblackaircra]

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/uas/reg/media/uas_guidance08-01.pdf

Code of Federal Regulations Title 14 states that any aircraft flying in US airspace meet the requirements of part 21 or 23 or have an alternate method of compliance approved by the FAA. That alternate method of compliance for unmanned vehicles is outlined in the above document. If you don't do what it says you're breaking federal law.

The only good point anyone on here has brought up in my opinion is that anyone developing an R/C kit to sell to hobbyists technically breaks that law. I plan on contacting the UAPO to clarify. Stand by.

[lvspark]

Still a blanket, breaking the law statement.
Just messing with you, no need to provide a specific law. There is not one law on the books that was specifically written with the intent to regulate model aircraft sized aircraft. They will get you on something if they want, but it has not happened yet.. All that has happened is 99% of the UAS that have been deemed safe and airworthy by the FAA have malfunctioned crashed.. Go figure... heh heh

[airmcn_3]

Still a blanket, breaking the law statement.
Just messing with you, no need to provide a specific law. There is not one law on the books that was specifically written with the intent to regulate model aircraft sized aircraft. They will get you on something if they want, but it has not happened yet.. All that has happened is 99% of the UAS that have been deemed safe and airworthy by the FAA have malfunctioned crashed.. Go figure... heh heh


I think most here fall within the rules, as I do not agree with them completely they are there and need to be followed, they may not bust you but when you do apply for a COA they will want to know how you have conducted testing in a legal manor. That’s when they start to poke..... My issue with this is the fact that you are considered commercial even if you are doing research and development, until the "product" is complete we do not even know if it has a place in the market. The cost of a COA and the man hrs it takes to create the documentation is considerable when your an individual trying to test feasibility.

Here is a long read for any who is interested. Simple yes and no, cut and dry answers.

-Based on how I operate, do I need an experimental certificate for my UAS?

Yes, if you plan to fly your unmanned aircraft as a civil aircraft (defined in 14 CFR §1.1). The FAA's current policy is to issue only special airworthiness certificates to UAS's in the experimental category for the purposes of research and development, crew training, or conducting market surveys (14 CFR §21.193).

No, if you are a hobbyist and intend to fly your model aircraft in accordance with the guidance in Advisory Circular 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards.

No, if you intend to operate your UA as a public aircraft for the purposes of governmental (civil or military) functions. In this case, the FAA's Air Traffic System Operations and Safety Office (ATO-R) may issue a Certificate of Authorization or Waiver (COA). Normally, the government proponent (not the UAS manufacturer) contacts FAA to initiate the COA process.

Do I need a pilot certificate to operate a UAS in the National Airspace System (NAS)?

Yes. In general, 14 CFR part 61 prescribes the requirements for issuing pilot certificates. Section 61.3 states that a person may not act as pilot in command or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crew member of a civil aircraft of the U.S. registry, unless that person has a valid pilot certificate. Because the FAA has determined that UAS are civil aircraft in accordance with 14 CFR §1.1, these aircraft must be operated by a pilot in accordance with part 61.

Can I be paid or compensated for operating my UAS under an experimental airworthiness certificate?

No. UAS issued experimental certificates may not be used for compensation or hire. See Federal Register Notice, Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System (PDF) for FAA policy.

What does a special airworthiness certificate in the experimental category allow me to do?

A special airworthiness certificate in the experimental category issued to a UAS is subject to operating limitations issued with the certificate. The operating limitations allow operation of the UA only within the line of sight of an observer, during daylight hours, and when other aircraft are not in the vicinity. Currently, UAS can be operated only under an experimental airworthiness certificate for the purposes of research and development, crew training, or market survey. No other operations are authorized.

What regulations and information do I need to know before I initiate the UAS certification process?
As an applicant, you must understand civil regulatory requirements for the following 14 CFR parts, as they apply to experimental aircraft:
• 21, Certification procedures for products and parts. Regulations that allow for experimental certificates and special flight permits.

• 43, Maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alteration. Unless we previously issued a different kind of airworthiness certificate for the aircraft, part 43 does not apply to experimental aircraft. However, you should be familiar with the scope and detail of this part. Appendix D of part 43 provides useful information for you to use to develop a maintenance and inspection program that the FAA will ultimately find acceptable.

• 45, Identification and registration marking. The requirement for marking aircraft with the registration number.

• 47, Aircraft registration. The requirements for registering aircraft.

• 61, Certification: Pilots, flight instructors, and ground instructors. The UA must be flown by a licensed, certificated, current pilot.

• 65, Certification: Airmen other than flight crew members. You may be required to have maintenance performed by certificated airmen.

• 91, General operating and flight rules. A certificated pilot must operate the unmanned aircraft within the regulations established for manned aircraft.
If you lack knowledge about, or don’t understand, the regulatory requirements related to UAS certification, we will conclude the certification process at this point. We will advise you to gain necessary knowledge and then contact us when you understand the applicable regulatory requirements.

The UAS process closely follows the manned aircraft certification process so you may refer to Order 8130.2 and AC 21-12 for related reading material. You may also obtain information from New Mexico State University Physical Science Laboratory, Technical Services Institute.

If you demonstrate sufficient knowledge, we will instruct you to complete a Program Letter (14 CFR Section 21.193) and Safety Checklist (MS Word) and submit them to us for review. This review can take from 30 to 60 days from the date we receive your letter and checklist.

How long does the entire UAS certification process take?

The UAS certification process consists of FAA evaluation of the applicant, the applicant's preparation of the Program Letter and Safety Checklist, and a Safety Evaluation. The entire process can take three months to more than a year. The amount of processing time depends significantly on your (applicant) efforts.

During initial conversations with you, the potential applicant, we evaluate your familiarity with applicable regulations and areas such as:
• Your prior manufacturing activity and experience;
• Company staff background and engineering expertise;
• Company policies and procedures (and documentation thereof) for design, manufacturing, configuration control, software development, testing, analysis, and quality assurance;
• Attributes with regard to the proposed UAS;
• Proposed operating location; and,
• Maturity and complexity of the UAS, if it was previously operated for another agency.

Following favorable outcome of this evaluation, we provide you with a Sample Program Letter and Safety Checklist that you must complete and return. Your preparation of these documents often is the longest part of the application process.
Once we receive and review your completed documents, we schedule a safety review with you at FAA Headquarters in Washington, DC. During this meeting we schedule a final visit at your facilities and proposed flight area, usually within 30-60 days. The intent of the final meeting is to clear up any open questions, issue the experimental airworthiness certificate with associated operating limitations, and witness a flight to verify safe operations.

I’ve heard the FAA prioritizes UAS applicants based on certain criteria. How does this process work?

Manpower and workload considerations require a change to the Aircraft Certification Service (AIR) policy and process for accepting UAS applicants for experimental certificates. These changes, effective January 1, 2008, apply to new applicants and current certificate holders who present new systems. However, the policy change does not affect current certificate holders who may reapply with the same or duplicate systems, and who only require support from the geographic MIDO and FSDO.

Based on our assessment of the UAS certification process, and required dedicated resources to support the process, we determined that we can issue a limited number of experimental certificates per calendar year. This number is directly affected by the complexity of each applicant’s system and the amount of work effort each applicant requires. The process we use to accept applicants will prioritize and sequence their proposed projects to ensure effective use of available FAA resources.
We evaluate applicants on the following criteria:
• Previous civil certification experience and success.
• Previous experimental airworthiness experience and success.
• Evidence of mature design, manufacturing, and quality systems.
• Understanding of the regulatory process in 14 CFR.

If you meet the majority of these four criteria, you will receive preference ahead of earlier applicants with little or no experience.
Certificate of Authorization or Waiver (COA)
Updated: 10:59 am ET December 9, 2008
COA is an authorization issued by the Air Traffic Organization to a public operator for a specific UA activity. After a complete application is submitted, FAA conducts a comprehensive operational and technical review. If necessary, provisions or limitations may be imposed as part of the approval to ensure the UA can operate safely with other airspace users. In most cases, FAA will provide a formal response within 60 days from the time a completed application is submitted.

To better support the needs of our customers, FAA deployed a web-based application system. The UAS COA Online System provides applicants with an electronic method of requesting a COA. Applicants will need to obtain an account in order to access the online system.

Please refer to the Account Managers Contact List to obtain an account. If your organization is not listed, please contact:

Randy Willis,
Senior Analyst
Phone: (202) 267-8565
Fax: (202) 267-5809
randy.ctr.willis@faa.gov

[jetblackaircra]

I have sent the following questions to an FAA representative who is willing to answer questions regarding UAS certification and testing. If anyone has any other questions to add, I would be happy to pass those along.

Question 1: Just to re-clarify, anyone flying a UAV in a manner which
satisfies AC 91-57, EXCEPT that the flight is for business purposes is
required to obtain a special airworthiness certificate for that
aircraft and flight area. Correct?

Question 2: If the above statement is true, are companies developing
radio controlled aircraft kits solely to be sold to hobbyists for
hobby purposes not related to UAV's required to obtain the same
certificate? For instance, Great Planes, House of Balsa, Sig,
Top-Flite, just to name a few are developing R/C models which cannot
be flight tested without a certificate according to a very literal
interpretation of the statement given during the teleconference.
Doesn't this seem excessive? These companies have been flight testing
their models with very safe results for a very long time.

Question 3: The FAA has historically tried to make transition periods
easier on companies already established and selling products. How
does the FAA plan to aid the companies who are already in the UAV
business, but having trouble complying with these new guidelines?

Question 4: Doesn't it seem reasonable to allow companies to develop
products to be sold to hobbyists and test those products while flying
under the AC 91-57 since that set of guidelines applies to the
intended use of the product? I understand not allowing businesses to
fly a UAV for hire under AC 91-57, for instance collecting aerial
photographs, but if their product is only to be sold to hobbyists it
seems unreasonable to require the company to obtain certification to
do flight testing.


Anyone have any thing else to add?

[airmcn_3]

I have sent the following questions to an FAA representative who is willing to answer questions regarding UAS certification and testing. If anyone has any other questions to add, I would be happy to pass those along.

Question 1: Just to re-clarify, anyone flying a UAV in a manner which
satisfies AC 91-57, EXCEPT that the flight is for business purposes is
required to obtain a special airworthiness certificate for that
aircraft and flight area. Correct?

Question 2: If the above statement is true, are companies developing
radio controlled aircraft kits solely to be sold to hobbyists for
hobby purposes not related to UAV's required to obtain the same
certificate? For instance, Great Planes, House of Balsa, Sig,
Top-Flite, just to name a few are developing R/C models which cannot
be flight tested without a certificate according to a very literal
interpretation of the statement given during the teleconference.
Doesn't this seem excessive? These companies have been flight testing
their models with very safe results for a very long time.

Question 3: The FAA has historically tried to make transition periods
easier on companies already established and selling products. How
does the FAA plan to aid the companies who are already in the UAV
business, but having trouble complying with these new guidelines?

Question 4: Doesn't it seem reasonable to allow companies to develop
products to be sold to hobbyists and test those products while flying
under the AC 91-57 since that set of guidelines applies to the
intended use of the product? I understand not allowing businesses to
fly a UAV for hire under AC 91-57, for instance collecting aerial
photographs, but if their product is only to be sold to hobbyists it
seems unreasonable to require the company to obtain certification to
do flight testing.


Anyone have any thing else to add?


Looks good Mike.

[Tuner]

FYI I m not making a stand either way on this as both side have great points.
However often breaking the law is the only way to change it as the court system is where a matter of law can be argued and come to a resolution.

Often in our history the only way laws like this are changed is not through lobbying or sending letters but through DIRECT ACTION.

While I do not agree with doing anything that is unsafe at all. I do feel that sometimes it is better just to do what is morally responsible ignoring the law and let a Judge sort it all out. Until this is brought up in a court room I fear their is no incentive for change.

That said I think the 4 questions that were asked are incredibly reasonable and legitimate concerns and I look forward to seeing a response. GOOD LUCK!

I invite anyone to "Nark" me out (Scott Kent University of Arizona) and would enjoy the opportunity to debate this matter of law in court. That said technically I have yet to violate any law, but full well plan to do so if what you say is true. I also full well plan to abide by all FAA guidelines if and when I decide to no longer pursue this academically but commercially.

That said I don't see how having an RC airplane with a camera in it and selling the photo's taken is in anyway a UAV for commercial purposes. That said once it can do anything other than stabilization(aka navigate gps way points) its a UAV in my book.


Keep it up!
Scott

[CenTexFlyer]

Agree with all the posts here re: common sense, however, I will have to point out one thing. Scott, by your statements here, in writing, and witnessed, you have demonstrated "willful intent" to break a law. So now you will be unable to argue "plausible deniability"..... :)

"Badges?!?! BADGES!!?!! We don' need no steekin' BADGES!"

[lvspark]

Let's hear from the guys on here who are developing UAV products. Tell me about your special airworthiness certificate..... you know who you are.

This might apply to me although I am not developing anymore. When the 2/13 notice came out, I halted all comercial operations (including autopilot and airframe development) and went into the EAC process. I got 90% through the EAC but pulled out when I was required to fly to DC for the safety evaluation. The trip to DC was not worth the money or hassle a hobby business would return. I am suprised that since the 2/13 doc came out a couple years ago and the FAA Order 8130.34 in march 08', that those in the biz are just now figuring out what the "rules" are, and furthermore, making a point of others that are "breaking the law" when they themselves have been flying up until a week ago.. :confused:

I think the applicant in this news blurb that withdrew in 2008 would be me.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/air/hq/engineering/uapo/news/

[airmcn_3]

This might apply to me although I am not developing anymore. When the 2/13 notice came out, I halted all comercial operations (including autopilot and airframe development) and went into the EAC process. I got 90% through the EAC but pulled out when I was required to fly to DC for the safety evaluation. The trip to DC was not worth the money or hassle a hobby business would return. I am suprised that since the 2/13 doc came out a couple years ago and the FAA Order 8130.34 in march 08', that those in the biz are just now figuring out what the "rules" are, and furthermore, making a point of others that are "breaking the law" when they themselves have been flying up until a week ago.. :confused:

I think the applicant in this news blurb that withdrew in 2008 would be me.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/air/hq/engineering/uapo/news/


Can you post a link to doc 2/13, I am having a hard time finding it.

Thanks in advance.

Chris

[lvspark]

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064802b00f3


EDIT:
faa link of the same thing http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/significant_documents/index.cfm?fuseAction=c.dspDocumentInformation&documentID=21998&documentTypeID=0

[airmcn_3]

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064802b00f3


EDIT:
faa link of the same thing http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/significant_documents/index.cfm?fuseAction=c.dspDocumentInformation&documentID=21998&documentTypeID=0


You made this comment on another thread.

Where did you find this? Or was it told to you by someone from the FAA?

Just curious because if the second statement is true then most of us are ok, it seems to me it says we can do development and can be compensated but can not advertise or sell UAV service.

Post by lvspark:
Most recent position of the FAA that I am aware of is:


Quote:
Originally Posted by FAA
"The Pilot in Command must be a current certificated private pilot. Supplement pilots are permitted. Supplemental pilots must complete an approved private pilot ground
school or complete training acceptable to the FAA. The Pilot in Command must be a current certificated private pilot."



And


Quote:
"You can't sell your operations as a service. You can perform R&D for yourself, you can fly a sensor or camera for test purposes and be compensated, but you can't advertise and sell it as a service under an experimental certificate."



In the future, things might be different, but for now, this is what FAA is saying for a 26oz slow stick. It is the FAA's current position.
There are other positions as well. http://aplanding.com/smf/index.php/topic,128.0.html

[lvspark]

Those statements were from Richard Posey of the FAA to me in an email during my EAC process.
The second statement was referring to a holder of an EAC.
If you have one you can do some things and get compensated, but as he put it, "you can't advertise and sell it as a service".

example:
Ikana uas compensated for flying a camera over a fire as research (o.k)
vs.
a cropcam flying over a field to take pics as a service.. (not o.k) in his opinion...

[airmcn_3]

Those statements were from Richard Posey of the FAA to me in an email during my EAC process.
The second statement was referring to a holder of an EAC.
If you have one you can do some things and get compensated, but as he put it, "you can't advertise and sell it as a service".

example:
Ikana uas compensated for flying a camera over a fire as research (o.k)
vs.
a cropcam flying over a field to take pics as a service.. (not o.k) in his opinion...


Sounds good to me, I think I may e-mail him just to make sure this is still the current stance.

Thanks for the response.

Chris

[lvspark]

Your welcome.

[small_rcer]

See the post on this link

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1049267

for the 74 page report by the Aviation Rulemaking Committee. It addresses sUAS or small UAV

small_rcer

[patrickegan]

The RCAPA has been ringing this bell for 3+ years all to the same response and attitude given jetblack. (its all part of regulatory denial, don't take it personal ;) )

Condor had a very adept interpretation. We are playing a game with people who have lots of money in their overhead accounts to push their respective business plans. It’s a start up shut out, plain and simple.