How do you guys define a UAV, as opposed to a RC plane ?

[Patrick Plawner]

Seen few of these, and I heard that in many cases, at least, the take-off and landings are controlled by a pilot on the ground.

The rest of the mission being done sometime also by a pilot on the ground, or by some recorded onboard flying missions devices.

So what is the definition ?


Thanks,
Patrick.

[joelhaasnoot]

Good question, and I don't know the exaxct awnser, but do have some pointers.
Firstly, in Europe, Eurocontrol & JAA created rules about UAVs for european countries and operating UAVs, these though all are for those more than 150kg. Anything less than that are "light UAVs" which are regulated by national aviation authorities (the FAA in the US). I have not been able to find UAV rules by the FAA, but need to look harder.

Also, the dutch model airplane rules say that if the model is radio controlled the pilot has to be in control at all times, basically if the pilot is not controlling at any time, its a UAV. Now if you take it that far, you could also see helicopters with auto-leveling (or whatever it is called) as UAVs, as the pilot doesn't control them. Anyway.... HTH somewhat

[djklein21]

Unmanned autonomos vehicle, or unmanned arial vehicle, depends who you are talking too, either way it usually refers to an atonomous vehicle

[patrickegan]

SUBJ:
INQUIRIES RELATED TO UNMANNED AEROSPACE VEHICLE OPERATIONS

1. PURPOSE. This notice establishes the Flight Standards General Aviation and Commercial Division, Operations and Safety Program Support Branch, AFS-820, as the Flight Standards focal point for coordination of information, procedures, and policy development for Unmanned Aerospace Vehicles (UAV) operations. This notice directs Flight Standards personnel to refer all UAV inquiries to FAA headquarters, AFS-820.

2. DISTRIBUTION. This notice is distributed to the division level in the Flight Standards Service in Washington headquarters, to the branch level in the regional Flight Standards divisions; to the Flight Standards District Offices (FSDO); and to the Regulatory Standards Division at the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center. This notice is also distributed electronically to the division level in the Flight Standards Service in Washington headquarters and to all regional Flight Standards divisions and district offices. This information is also available on the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Web site at: http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/notices/N 8700-25.htm.

3. BACKGROUND. Requests for FAA Certificates of Authorization (COA) to operate
UAV-type aircraft are increasing for both civil and military applications. AFS-820, in cooperation with the Air Traffic Service and other FAA organizations, will develop policy and procedures for operation of UAVs in the National Airspace System. To do this, it is important that the scope of the operations, the type of vehicles used, and the applications being considered and developed are understood. Historically, the military use of UAVs has had minimal impact on civil aviation. Authorization to operate these aircraft has been through the issuance of a COA in accordance with Order 7610.4J, Special Military Operations, dated November 3, 1998.

a. COAs have also been issued for civil applications for proof-of-concept testing.

b. Air Traffic Service has issued these COAs in coordination with Flight Standards Service.

c. UAV technological advances increase the potential use of such aircraft. Environmental research, crop monitoring, and security applications are being considered for UAV applications. To ensure a full understanding of the proposed uses of these vehicles and to ensure a consistent application of the policies developed for UAV application, this notice directs that all inquiries received by Flight Standards personnel concerning UAV operations be referred to AFS 820. In addition, Flight Standards personnel, when contacted by someone from the Air Traffic Service or other FAA organization asking for concurrence with the requirements outlined in a draft COA for a proposed UAV operation, shall refer the request to AFS-820.

d. The phrase “Unmanned Aerospace Vehicle (UAV)” is a universally recognized term that encompasses a vast spectrum of aircraft that are autonomous, semiautonomous, or remotely operated. Many other terms are used interchangeably, some intended to be synonymous with UAV, while others apply a separate meaning. For example, the term, Remote Operated Aircraft, has been used synonymously with UAV. It also has been used to identify several high-altitude, long range UAV-type aircraft. AFS-820’s intent is to document all use of, and develop policy for, all UAV-type aircraft, regardless of the marketing or design phraseology used. Therefore, all inquiries using UAV-type phraseology are to be forwarded to AFS-820. Examples include: Unoccupied Aerospace Vehicle, Remote Controlled Vehicle, Remote Piloted Vehicle, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, Radio Controlled aircraft, etc.

NOTE: This notice does not apply to the recreational, noncommercial use of model aircraft. It is not intended to inhibit or restrict the routine operation of model aircraft for recreational purposes. (The Academy of Model Aeronautics, in part, defines model aircraft as weighing less than 55 pounds and being operated below 400 feet above ground level.) Additional guidance for the operation of these aircraft is provided in Advisory Circular AC 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards, dated June 9, 1981.

4. DISPOSITION. Guidance for inspectors issuing, reissuing, and surveying UAV operations will be incorporated into Order 8700.1, General Aviation Operations Inspector’s Handbook. This notice was developed by the Operations and Safety Program Support Branch, AFS-820. Direct any questions regarding this notice or UAVs to AFS-820 by telephone, 202-267-3370, or FAX, 202-267-5094.

/s/

John M. Allen for

James J. Ballough

Director, Flight Standards Service

[joelhaasnoot]

Basically, this means that anything that can fly itself in anyway possible, is a UAV, according to the FAA. Also, it means that if we convert a model aircraft into a UAV, and keep it recreational, this is legal, and we don't need a licence or anything... Up to 55 lbs that is (only 25kg, not very much too me)

[mad mike]

I'd not consider a model flying with devices such as an FMA CoPilot or any other form of "head-holding," or automatic flight attitude correcting modules to be UAVs.

For me, the model would have to be able to fly a predeterminded fligh path without input from the "ground pilot," to be called a UAV.

Take-offs and landings under direct control of a ground pilot should not remove the model from the UAV class.

What sets the UAV apart from the rest of R/C is that autonomos flight capability. If that is not a part of the forum's definition, then there would be no need for a separate UAV forum.

I don't think it really matters how the term is defined outside the hobby. The forum is for us, not the FCC or any governmental body, anywhere.

Mike S.

[patrickegan]

Joel- What the heck are you flying that's over 25kg

[patrickegan]

The crux of the biscuit-


d. The phrase “Unmanned Aerospace Vehicle (UAV)” is a universally recognized term that encompasses a vast spectrum of aircraft that are autonomous, semiautonomous, or remotely operated. Many other terms are used interchangeably, some intended to be synonymous with UAV, while others apply a separate meaning. For example, the term, Remote Operated Aircraft, has been used synonymously with UAV. It also has been used to identify several high-altitude, long range UAV-type aircraft. AFS-820’s intent is to document all use of, and develop policy for, all UAV-type aircraft, regardless of the marketing or design phraseology used. Therefore, all inquiries using UAV-type phraseology are to be forwarded to AFS-820. Examples include: Unoccupied Aerospace Vehicle, Remote Controlled Vehicle, Remote Piloted Vehicle, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, Radio Controlled aircraft, etc.

NOTE: This notice does not apply to the recreational, noncommercial use of model aircraft. It is not intended to inhibit or restrict the routine operation of model aircraft for recreational purposes. (The Academy of Model Aeronautics, in part, defines model aircraft as weighing less than 55 pounds and being operated below 400 feet above ground level.) Additional guidance for the operation of these aircraft is provided in Advisory Circular AC 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards, dated June 9, 1981.


Basically if you are flying anything without a pilot for money it’s a UAV. The SFAR should be out around the beginning of the summer. If you want more info go to www.rcapa.net

[joelhaasnoot]

Sorry, I'm not flying anything over 25kg. I've been looking too much at Military UAVs (not converted or souped up model airplanes). The weight limit in atleast Holland is 50kg.... (99% sure)

Also, I agree with mad_mike that a UAV is different and that we shouldn't base this forum on FAA regulations/suggestion/definitions, but a model airplane with an autopilot still flies itself and still has a somewhat autonomous nature....

Finally, the RCAPA is a little different, especially with its UAVs, because when I visited the site, I got the impression that they were aiming more at commerical use (especially the non UAV sections, the UAV section is very inactive...)

[patrickegan]

Where we are headed in the US is if it’s commercial it’s a UAV. As far as the tech and product side of the RCAPA.NET forum goes we are light as all of our resources are currently focused on the ASTM meeting May 16th, 17th. Also the UAV guy’s seem to have their hands full with product development/ testing and aren’t exactly forthcoming with information or specifics on their respective platforms. Lot’s of work still to do as far as the ASTM presentation is concerned and we hope to give updates from the meeting as warranted.

Joel, we are inclusive and encourage member input and could always use more manpower to round out the association forum.

Patrick

[LukeZ]

It seems to me the discussion of what a UAV is can really involve the search for one of two meanings: both of which are interesting and certainly relevant, but only one of which really affects the discussions in this forum.

The first meaning is the one assigned to it by the "authorities", be that the FAA, AMA, or whoever. Frankly, as Patrick has pointed out, although there is a movement towards coalescence in that area, the FAA at least still doesn't have a good definition, and they are still in the process of developing their definition more fully. (As for the AMA I don't think they even want to touch UAVs). As it stands now it seems like what the FAA is primarily focused on is the divide between commercial and non-commercial uses for unmanned aircraft, rather than autonomous or not. As Patrick pointed out, currently if you fly a completely stock Slow Stick that doesn't fly autonomously, but you use it to take pictures for money, then it's commercial, and since it's commercial, it's a UAV.

All that is interesting and good, but the second definition which perhaps is more pertinent is that which we agree delimits the topics discussed in this forum. My personal feeling is that it should involve the autonomous nature of UAV flight, as all the other aspects, it seems to me, are already covered elsewhere in other forums.

[mad mike]

My point was that if the UAV forum doesn't involve the autonomous flight aspect, then it is a redundant forum and there's no need for it.

Every other aspect of R/C flight, AP or otherwise, is already well covered in the collective forums.

I missed the vote to create this forum, but certainly would have voted for it. But before doing so, I would have wanted to see the definition of the term " UAV" hammered out FIRST.

Without the automomous flight capability, *nothing* sets it apart from the exising forums. I kind of thought that rather big difference was the idea behind creating the UAV forum, wasn't it?

Why should the possible commercial use come into play, as far as the UAV forum goes? It is a factor in the FAA's definition, but I do not see where it should matter here, in this forum.

Mike S.

[LukeZ]

Mike, you're right that it would have been nice to hammer out the definition first. If you read through the forum proposal thread (http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=339748) you'll see that the discussion of the definition as well as the name to give the forum never really got of the ground, primarily because as soon as we started seeing the poll results it looked like this forum wasn't going to happen. I guess there didn't seem to be much point in talking about the name of something we didn't think was going to exist...

I would bet that if we decide this forum would be served by a better name that an admin would change it for us. Currently it's tilted "UAV - Unmanned Aerial Vehicles", but perhaps it should be "UAV - Unmanned Autonomous Vehicles."

[joelhaasnoot]

Yeah, Mike is right in that we should discuss the implications of UAVs on Model airplanes.... That is, we should discuss that which makes UAVs different from Model Airplanes. In my opionion that would include radio links/modems, specially designed model planes for UAVs, and stuff like that....

BTW, I was wrong about the 25kg. Dutch rules are the same, must be an FAI thing.

[RCWorks]

by part of that definition... not being in control of the aircraft that means that all the newbies have UAVs!

When I first looked into UAV the FAA simply said they were illegal to operate by us common folk... things are looking up.

A few years ago I located a GPS guidence system that will work in conjunction with common R/C hardware... this just makes it easier no that you can apply for operating permits.

Currently it is possible for a guy with some talent to build a plane that he will take off manually and then swich over to have it fly a predetermind course via GPS check points and have it return to land manually, now if you have some room it is possible to have the whole flight automated... I don't have that much room yet.

[LukeZ]

skunkworks, when you say "now that you can apply for operating permits", which permits do you mean? I know there is a permit process for flying long-range UAVs in US airspace but I haven't heard many details of it, other than an article I read once that said only about 10 flights a year are approved because it's such a pain. That is why the aircraft companies are lobbying for changes that would allow UAV operators to file a flight plan the way full size pilots do.

Anyways I'd be interested in learning more about the current permit process if you know anything about it. I don't think the "file and fly" changes are expected to be approved for probably a couple years more...

[leccyflyer]

Basically, this means that anything that can fly itself in anyway possible, is a UAV, according to the FAA. Also, it means that if we convert a model aircraft into a UAV, and keep it recreational, this is legal, and we don't need a licence or anything... Up to 55 lbs that is (only 25kg, not very much too me)

Joel

25kg is a very BIG model. The potential for damage and injury with such a model, even when under direct control of a pilot within visual range, is enormous. People have been killed by much smaller models.

You're a new sign up, possibly attracted to RC Groups by the new forum and discussion surrounding it. Your profile says you are a student in Addis Abeba (sic). Can I ask you what the Ethiopian authorities view is on the operation of amateur UAVs in Ethiopian airspace?

Leccy

[joelhaasnoot]

Yeah I realize that 25kg is a lot, I wasn't thinking when I wrote it. Actually, Dutch rules state 5kg as the limit, but then expand on that saying 25kg for big airplanes. I have just signed up, correct, because of the wealth of information. I have been doing a lot of research on UAVs, and was very interested in this forum.

About RC & Ethiopia, I have no clue. I should be careful in what I say, but I won't go into detail. I probably could drive about an hour or so out of the city, find an empty field and then go fly, without anybody noticing. If I were to ask permission, it would probably take years, cost a lot & be a lot of hastle. That's my expectation. For instance, I know somebody who was a ham here, and it took quite a while to get the permits. I only know of one person who actually flew here, it was quite a ways from airways and used airspace (may have actually been in military airspace...), but that was like for 2 flights

I'm moving back home (The Netherlands / Holland) this summer, and then I really hope to get involved in the RC & UAV scene.

[patrickegan]

(The Academy of Model Aeronautics, in part, defines model aircraft as weighing less than 55 pounds and being operated below 400 feet above ground level.)

This is the line that causes a lot of confusion.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/mag/0804/president.htm

More fun reading-

If you scroll down you can read about the FCC’s proposed broadband transmission over the power lines from 1.3Mhz to 80Mhz :confused:

[ElectroLawndart]

Hmmmm...

My goal is to launch a glider from a balloon @ +60K feet taking pictures all the way back to the launc site. My target weight is under 6lbs for the payload(glider) to make it exempt from FAR 101. But after looking at the link that Patrickegan supplied I'm confused.

When my glider is dangling from the balloon it's exempt but the moment it releases its considered a model "flying up there with the big boys'?

Does it matter HOW the glider transits the air column? If so, maybe I can make it fly a profile like Rutan's SpaceShip One. Just drop straight down in a ballistic trajectory until its under 10K feet then glide back to the target area.

Dart

[LukeZ]

Although I understand the FAA probably isn't too happy about model aircraft at high altitudes, does anyone know if this is actually illegal? I guess perhaps it's illegal if the FAA isn't notified: couldn't Dart call the FAA and tell them about his launch? I think model rocketeers do this sometimes, don't they?

I wonder if anyone has any experience requesting permission from the FAA for these sorts of activities, and what their response has been. I'd think if they knew in advance about it they shouldn't be all that bothered about it, but then again what do I know...

[patrickegan]

18,000’ AGL is Class A airspace strictly verboten!

[acemace16]

My point was that if the UAV forum doesn't involve the autonomous flight aspect, then it is a redundant forum and there's no need for it.

Every other aspect of R/C flight, AP or otherwise, is already well covered in the collective forums.

Mike S.


What about piloting by video downlink? Should that be included in the UAV forum? I think so.

I was "hired" to fly my Sr Telemaster as one of the first USAF RPV test beds. It was an engineering project at the US Air Force Academy in 1980/81. The objective was to get timely battlefield photos to the front lines.
Here is a little more info on my Telemaster:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1076254&highlight=telemaster+rpv#post1076254

I still have some strong interest in this area and look forward to this forum.

Very busy right now getting ready for SEFF (next week!).

Dave
SEFF Staff

[acemace16]

Hmmmm...

My goal is to launch a glider from a balloon @ +60K feet taking pictures all the way back to the launc site. My target weight is under 6lbs for the payload(glider) to make it exempt from FAR 101. But after looking at the link that Patrickegan supplied I'm confused...

Dart


The glider and balloon idea concerns me. I regularly (At least 3 or 4 times a year) see balloons above 18,000 feet. Some over 30,000 feet On at least a couple of occasions if a glider was hanging from them it would have been toast and would have caused at least some damage to my airplane. So I do think this could be a problem if not properly coordinated with the FAA.

Dave
SEFF Staff

[LukeZ]

I found this link that refers to FAR 101 (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/htmlfile/part101.php), which deals with unmanned free balloons, among other things. Not that it necessarily clears things up much. Naturally there aren't any rules that guide the combination of two technologies (unmanned free balloon for one half of the flight, and glider the second).

This guy (http://vpizza.org/~jmeehan/balloon/) built a balloon project which dropped a payload (admittedly not as large as a glider), and he tried to figure out the FAA regulations, which he mentions in the section titled "Regulations".

[ElectroLawndart]

i was thinking more on the lines of what these people are doing:

http://bordelon.net/freespace/
http://members.shaw.ca/sonde/

In the first website, the author mentions him calling the FAA to inform them of his launch. FAA's reply:"Well...OK". The other site is Canadian and doesn't mention contacting ATC's or anything.

Common sense tells me that even though the odds of a midair collision with my payload is astronomical, the repercussions are also astronomical. The odds of winning the lottery is probably similar but people win those from time to time...just not me. :-/

Thanks in advance for helping me make the world safe from my ignorance.

Dart

My electronics instructor once told me: There are no stupid questions, just stupid people asking questions.

My reply: Sir, you had 150 questions on your last test.

[Rhathid]

(If you scroll down you can read about the FCC’s proposed broadband transmission over the power lines from 1.3Mhz to 80Mhz :confused:

Not gonna happen, it's been in the testing stage for a couple years and it's failing miseriably. The ROI is non-existant and they have to put repeaters every 30 yards in some areas.

Even if it did go into place, the output on your transmitter is more powerful than EMI from the power lines.

[RCWorks]

Flying via Video link is not a UAV. I still consider it R/C.

When you have a UAV you can have your vehicle in the air and yell "Look Mom, NO HANDS!!!" and mean it.

Me thinks as long as you go to the middle of nowhere to play then no one will bug you. The problem is in the distance, you need to run your UAV where you can send it out and have a decent flight.. say 1+ miles each way.

Where I fly R/C this is not possible, besides being in an air traffic corridor (500ft rule) in the air I have pedstrians crossing the runway with the brains of a cow... (they do not care to hear your gliding on final because your out of charge/fuel, or that your UAV can not detect animals that are too stupid to move out of the way.). But out in the Mojave nowhere it's a bit different.

Getting permission from Uncle Sam is as easy as greasing any other palm... This has been my experience with the Feds at all levels.

[kd7ost]

i was thinking more on the lines of what these people are doing:

http://bordelon.net/freespace/
http://members.shaw.ca/sonde/

In the first website, the author mentions him calling the FAA to inform them of his launch. FAA's reply:"Well...OK". The other site is Canadian and doesn't mention contacting ATC's or anything.


In both of those cases, the project involves high altitude ballooning. Canada is different but here in the US we abide by FAR101 for balloon launches. After the glider drops, there are simply no regs written to govern it. No one was thinking 10 to 20 years ago that they better figure out how to govern miniature GPS guided gliders getting dropped from 15 to 20 miles high. It still sounds outlandish and is certainly not an easy task, but one that can be accomplished and is fun to work at. http://www.tvnsp.org/

Dan

[kd7ost]

Flying via Video link is not a UAV. I still consider it R/C.


I think the definision is subjective. The Airforce flys Global Hawks and Predators via Video link. They don't have to be flown that way, and autonomous flight is prevelent especially with the Global Hawk. But, It's still a UAV when being flown via Pilot and video link.

The term UAV started out as Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. I'm pretty sure they meant powered vehicle. We can leave out lawn darts and frizbees and their kin. I think (IMHO) a Model plane is anything that is intended to be a pilot controled, or free flight, control line, rubber powered, glider, propellant of any sort, totally recreational airplane. I would even say if a guy was flying via Video link at his flying field, (AMA doesn't allow that any more :mad: ) That is is still just a model plane. Once you add a commercial application, are making money off it, and or flying via autonomous systems, you just entered the UAV class. Thats just my opinion though.

Dan

[mad mike]

Dan,

Just wondering, you said "Once you add a commercial application, are making money off it," that this would put it in the UAV class.

Why would doing AP for fun be different than doing it for commercial purposes, in the context of defining "UAV?"

Maybe I'm way off-base here, but I rather thought there was to be a new Forum to discuss something *different* than what's being talked about in the AP Forum. And since it was titled "UAV," that difference would have been primarily autonomous flight.

If the deciding factor is simply "for fun" vs "for hire," then a new forum might have been named "Commercial AP."

I hope this new forum does fullfill a need and is sucessfull. But so far, it seems to be almost a redundant forum. But, maybe over time, it will improve.

Mike S.

[Rhathid]

I see a difference.

That's like asking what the difference is between a A, AA, and AAA baseball team.

AP is taking pictures from the air.

UAV is making a RC plane fly on it's own, record video, take pictures, perform specific tasks a step beyond recreational use.

Think any Joe with a camera who takes pictures is viewed as a peer by a professional photographer? Both might have the same equipment, but there is a clear difference.

I'd like to sit here and talk about GPS telemetry, or having my RC plane recognize an object, circle it, and relay that objects GPS coordinates back to a receiver. I don't consider topics like that AP.

From what I see, most the people in the AP section are using smaller eletric planes, foam Maggpie, etc type planes. I think a UAV would be something considered a little more complicated that a digital camera strapped to a foam plane. I could put a camera on a kite and call it AP.

Probably one of the clear things I see is using (not always) .40+ size planes and finding a way to work GPS into them, or some kind of telemetry.

Sure you can talk about that stuff in AP, but telemetry isn't AP.

What the heck. Why am I even wasting my time with this post? Who cares if there is a new forum for UAV's. Sheesh. It's a freaking forum, not real estate re-zoning! :confused:

[mad mike]

The topic of this thread is "How do you guys define a UAV, as opposed to a RC plane ?"

If you really don't care then I doubt you'd have read or posted on the subject.

Just because we may not see eye-to-eye on the subject, no need to take the "why did I even post" attitude. Your ideas are no less important or real, than mine.

And in the long run, I guess mine only matters to me.

Mike S.

[patrickegan]

I too feel the bureaucratic induced angst as it is hard to imagine that with a slow stick and a $100 for a photo you are in the same league as say Raytheon. Oh well the official definition should be out end of summer. None of it really makes any sense but the scuttlebutt is that it’s coming from congress and some new “BIGGER” agencies that the FAA do something to stem the public outcry for regulation. P.

[kd7ost]

Dan,
Just wondering, you said "Once you add a commercial application, are making money off it," that this would put it in the UAV class.
Why would doing AP for fun be different than doing it for commercial purposes, in the context of defining "UAV?"
Mike S.

There's no hard science to my comment. I'm thinking that’s the way it will become defined as time moves along. Not by us of course. I think future regulation from the FAA will come down with it defined for us. It may not mean much though.

If you define the term literally, any RC plane is a UAV if UAV stands for Unmanned Arial Vehicle. I don't think it serves us to try to draw our own lines. We should just build and fly our own aircraft.

I designed and built a plane that has flown via GPS guidance up to 35 miles round trip. I took it off and landed it, but once at altitude I turned off the transmitter and the PCM receiver enabled the autonomous functions. I tracked it on a laptop via APRS and watched it the whole way. It took pictures of specific waypoints in the desert along the way and back. It turned around at the halfway point and came back overhead. My recent build can be viewed here.

http://www.rcapa.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=285


Edited with this update....

Just found this posted on another thread.
http://www.aerovironment.com/news/news-archive/pointsocom.html?

These planes are Remote controlled UAV's. I imagine they have some flight enhancement devices, but they aren't flying autonomously. The pilot is putting it in real time where he wants to see on the ground. That makes me think the definition might be something along the lines of, "Any Unmanned flying vehicle being used for any other than recreational uses, provided the pilot can fly the plane without visual enhancement devices. Thats what might separate the AP for fun and AP for profit planes into model or UAV. Just thinking.

Dan

[mad mike]

Dan,

You said, "I'm thinking that’s the way it will become defined as time moves along. Not by us of course. I think future regulation from the FAA will come down with it defined for us. It may not mean much though."

About that, I have absolutlely NO doubt. But it was this part that I wanted to comment on:

"I don't think it serves us to try to draw our own lines. We should just build and fly our own aircraft."

For the largest sense, I agree with your statement. But my comments about the definition meant only in the context of this UAV Forum. There are things being done that should be discussed and information shared on, by quite a few people who use these Forums. And to keep from having to search thru the various specialized interest forums for these subjects, some kind of working definition is a *must*.

Your description of what you've accomplished is exactly what I'm believe many had in mind when they voted to create the UAV forum. Basically, an aerial platform that carries out the majority of its mission without direct control from an operator on the ground.

If it doesn't do that, then it really should be discussed in one of the other forums.

In my way of thinking, it really doesn't matter if AP is done for fun or profit, it is still AP, either way. The process of taking aerial photographs is same. If the discussion is about the buisness aspect of AP, rather than the process, then it truely is another subject. If enough people want to talk about the *business" of AP, then a separate forum just for that would make sense. At this time, however, that sort of thing really isn't happening enough to warrent the creation of such a forum.

Likewise when it comes to autonomous flight. For fun or profit, the process will be the same.

I don't think you and I are really all that far apart on just what, for the Forum's purposes, sets UAVs apart from other R/C aircraft. What we seem to view differently is, how the commercial aspect figures into it.

But that's OK. I'm here to learn what I can. And I'm looking forward to is hearing more from you, as you've already covered much of the teritory that I (and many others,) would like to travel.

Mike S.

[kd7ost]

[///]

[mad mike]

Dan,

If I've managed to come off here as argumentative, I sincerly apologize! It was not my intention, but reading back over what I've posted, I see where it would be easy to be taken that way. I have over-explained my views, as I tend to do.

I do hope to read more of what you've accomplished, as I have a lot to learn. I am just getting into AP myself, and the subject of UAVs is only a distant dream for me right now.

Mike S.

[jpartis]

I've been searching to try and find out more information regarding whether a project that I am undertaking is illegal or not and finnally found this forum with useful information but found your continual complaining about the forum not being what you want it to be very annoying. If you don't find what you are looking for hear I suggest you just search for another forum. Sorry for attacking but dude, please, less complaining and more information sharing.

I want to add a camera to my RC Plane, fly less than 400' and within raido range of my DX7 just to have some fun. All I want to know is if this is legal or not.

I called, as well as posted a message to the FAA and they have not gotten back with me at all. Makes me wonder how imporant this really is to them after all!

Please, can some one give a definative answer regarding whether it is legal to fly a remote controlled (DX7) 7 lbs RC Plane (ARF) with a camera mounted in the canopy, from a head mounted display on my head?

[patrickegan]

If you're just doing it for a hobby, you're cool. P

[mad mike]

jpartis,

Mad Mike, Please Chill...

Wasn't angry to begin with. Then again, when you wrote that, you were relying to a 2 year old post of mine. :D

Unless things have changed radically, patrickegan gave you a good answer, though. As far as I know, there have been no new laws enacted against taking pictures or shooting video from an R/C airframe, as far as hobbyist go.

Mike S.
Spring Hill, FL

[patrickegan]

Not yet!

[CenTexFlyer]

Just to mix things up a bit.....

I do Search & Recovery using one of my Spectra wings. Don't get paid anything. Even have a non-profit 501(c)3 (by IRS definition - NOT COMMERCIAL) that I operate under. Fly line of sight using standard R/C gear.

I have been contacted by FAA in D.C. as I walked out of the airport to do a search - telling me "Cease and desist any flight operations either intended or otherwise!" when the press leaked that "a drone" would be utilized.

I enjoy what I do helping search teams find victims and helping law enforcement solve crimes. I don't get paid. Why does this activityi not fit under "recreational flying"? So I can't have my hobby? What secret criteria do my wings fall under that preclude me from flying where I want in rural america, far away from airports and GA traffic?

Riddle me that, Batman!

[CenTexFlyer]

...... and the room goes quiet.......

[kd7ost]

I'm thinking it's just a two year old thread and people are done with it. I don't even recollect what I was huffy about but it looks like we let it go in 2005.

Dan

[CenTexFlyer]

The riddle remains.......

[kd7ost]

The riddle remains.......

So do you want us to try to venture an opinion as to why or is it a rhetorical question?

Dan

[d_wheel]

I've been searching to try and find out more information regarding whether a project that I am undertaking is illegal or not and finnally found this forum with useful information but found your continual complaining about the forum not being what you want it to be very annoying. If you don't find what you are looking for hear I suggest you just search for another forum. Sorry for attacking but dude, please, less complaining and more information sharing.

I want to add a camera to my RC Plane, fly less than 400' and within raido range of my DX7 just to have some fun. All I want to know is if this is legal or not.

I called, as well as posted a message to the FAA and they have not gotten back with me at all. Makes me wonder how imporant this really is to them after all!

Please, can some one give a definative answer regarding whether it is legal to fly a remote controlled (DX7) 7 lbs RC Plane (ARF) with a camera mounted in the canopy, from a head mounted display on my head?

There is more than just one "legal" aspect to what you are trying to do. If you are going to stay within the AMA guidelines, then that part would seem to be legal. If you are going to use a video system with 20 mw or less power, that part will be legal. However, if you do like most and use a video transmitters that runs anywhere from 200mw up, then you will not be legal. If you are an amateur radio operator and select a video transmitter that is within the frequency band you are licensed for, the 20mw power limit does not apply. So you can see, the legalities are many and varied making it impossible for someone to say yes or no without knowing the details.

Later;


D.W.

[d_wheel]

I have been contacted by FAA in D.C. as I walked out of the airport to do a search - telling me "Cease and desist any flight operations either intended or otherwise!" when the press leaked that "a drone" would be utilized.


Were you told to stop your search activity, or to stop flying a camera plane altogether?

D.W.

[patrickegan]

The whole question is kind of a “hot potato!” A good example would be the proposed RCAPA SAR contest. When the idea was run up the flagpole the FAA UAV people had a problem with it, unfortunately they could never articulate “the” problem. It’s symptomatic of a half baked program with no real concerted direction or curriculum for certification!