What is hobby UAV?

[gkamysz]

I had interest in hobby UAV. I was going to pursue a class F8 duration record. With the proposed rules for hobby UAV requiring line of sight flying below 400', what's the point? Does anyone actually do that now? I have an RTL setup I've messed around with. That was kind of fun at the club field, in that I would activate it and start asking where my airplane was while waving my hands in the air. I did that only a couple times before the novelty wore off. Programming waypoints over the club over fly area appears mundane, but maybe a hanful enjoy it. I haven't and don't dare program a model to fly past mornal overfly area. I wouldn't even think about it anymore as there is housing springing up nearby.

So what's the point? I don't see any hobbyists interested in spending on the low end a couple hundred dollars to watch airplanes fly themselves around the club field.

It appears that nobody that visits this forum falls into the recreational UAV category. Most peple are either developing guidance systems and/or airframes for sale. A few are providing a service like aerial photography. These are commercial pursuits. Once it becomes law, how will they sell their product if it was developed under the radar(illegally)?

I have thought about getting into the UAV business involving power systems, but without the possiblility to fly a model for extended periods preferably by itself, testing will be relegated to the bench.

Greg

[patrickegan]

Well, there is no hobby or amateur UAV/UAS. You’ve got a loophole now but, if someone gets hurt you can get hammered. No one (e.g. FAA, manned interests, vendors) are really interested in seeing uncertified autopilots flying in the NAS. In the future manufacturers will have to sell certified products. What will certification look like? No one knows, maybe like this.

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/air_software/

What does certification add to the cost??? Well, an ADS-B set up uncertified goes for about $200. Something certified for installation on a Cessna, about $15,000. I’d don’t see people shelling out $15,000 to do circuits around the flying field. Who knows, I could be wrong on this cause the turbine guys will have to fly in the same envelope.

[brakar]

I think you should accept there is almost as many interests and hobbies as there are people. What is the point in questioning other peoples preferenses? brakar

[gkamysz]

My point is that if AMA fights for hobby UAV and gets it. Will there really be anyone who does it? And how many people will claim to be hobbyists while doing something else.

Greg

[rich smith]

AMA fights for hobby UAV

HaHaHaHaHaHa.. AHHHH..Hahahhahahah....

[gkamysz]

Then we are all just waiting to be shut down. I guess.

Greg

[brakar]

Think I misunderstod your original post Greg. Anyway, you might be right with your last post. AMA probably hasnt a lot of sUAV enthusiasts in their rolls and the commercial companies e.g UNAV ceirtainly will not benefit from enthusiasts coming into the(ir) market. (brakar, on beer, in Stockholm). Cheers :D

[rich smith]

Think I misunderstod your original post Greg. Anyway, you might be right with your last post. AMA probably hasnt a lot of sUAV enthusiasts in their rolls and the commercial companies e.g UNAV ceirtainly will not benefit from enthusiasts coming into the(ir) market. (brakar, on beer, in Stockholm). Cheers :D

FMA, UNAV, etc. are far more likely to help than AMA. The only real hope lies in companies like Estes, Silverlit, Hobbico, etc. since that's where the money is but the're not even involved. And non-hobby participants would like to keep it that way. Nobody champions the open source crowd.

[patrickegan]

Unav’s Dave Perry, is a pilot and has an understanding of how the FAA an NAS works. The company has been around for a while and such has been part of the integration effort.

As far as a champion for the open source crowd goes… That is a hard one, in my estimation (I hear some of the inside feedback and thoughts) confronting the regulator is not a good tact. This bore very little favor for us in the ARC and was extremely difficult to defend against and still sound credible. The regulator is use to seeing certified equipment, and the other NAS stakeholders think this group is playing with extremely dangerous toys. (That doesn’t even take the other Federal agencies into consideration.) We have to be a little smarter and more realistic, with the right action and contacts we were able to get that FPV thing through in a couple of weeks. Now, I’m not saying that it would be that easy here but, we have to play the game and gain acceptance. Last day of the ARC we were very high, and just as dry in the support department (Fred Marks FMA was the only guy who backed us up) as the manned interests (and MITRE) drove the final nail in the uncertified autopilot coffin.

You may be thinking, what is acceptance? Let us look to the universities as an example. Here we have people no smarter or more controlled than many in the forum. Heck, many are here to glean information from the hobbyist, who by the way has very little in the way of academic confines and is free to implement his ideas and notions. Again we have a situation where vendor store fronting (and a letter from a Prof who knows less about the subject than many of you) gives the school project an air of respectability and ergo it is safe. I call BS on the notion in its entirety. Spitfire9 aptly pointed out some issues with the flying competition which by-in-large many of the offerings don’t finish, or get off the ground for that matter. The rules for the domestic competition stipulate that the Prof write up a letter of proof that the UAS can perform the series of maneuvers laid out for the competition as part of the entry. Besides the obvious and flagrant disregard of current FAA policy (that craft being flown illegally in Cornstalk Iowa), if they can do all of that safely, why are the attrition rates so high? Well, one might understand that if it were Johnny or Jack cobbling together some piece of “artwork” in his garage. In this case, you have a vendor funding the project in the six figure neighborhood that has all of the same and maybe more issues than those self funding with more to lose. Funny that the FAA doesn’t consider funded research as compensation or hire, “that is just part of your job.” :rolleyes: