Micro Aircraft Commercial Operators Association (MACO)

[Zaviation]

Hi Everyone,
This thread will be about the Micro Aircraft Commercial Operators Association (MACO) which will be a special interest group formed to advocate UAV policy, legislation, regulation, and procedures at the federal level.

I announced the existence of MACO on the Aerial Photography Forum because they started a poll about maximum altitudes for AP aircraft. Here is a link to the thread which contains the poll on altitude restrictions started because of Dave Browns Editorial in the latest issue of Model Aviation.

Altitude Restriction Poll (http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=397784)

My thread about MACO started in the Aerial Photography Forum in response to the poll.

MACO Thread (http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=399351)

With those as background we can now discuss in more detail exactly what MACO is, what it has done, and what it can do.

John Zaner
Zaner Aviation (zaneraviation.com)

[lvspark]

Thats a good question, What has maco (aka you) done?
Seems like you might have the carriage before the horse?

[Zaviation]

That may be true, time will tell. At least I have a horse and cart. What do you have to offer that might be considered constructive? The least you can do is give is a name to go with the code word.

If someone has something to offer it would be nice if everyone knew the name and credentials of the speaker. I have my background on my webpage for all to see. It is easy to sit back anonymously and throw out opinions. I would like to see what you have to back it up.

As for more details, I do not plan to post more information about MACO until the attacks stop. It appears that if you don't agree with RCAPA you immediately come under attack. It is getting kind of furious over in the Aerial Photography forum. Let's let the dust settle a bit then we will get on with business.

John Zaner

[lvspark]

we can now discuss in more detail exactly what MACO is, what it has done, and what it can do.
How can we discuss in detail if you "do not plan to post more information about MACO" :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
You answer my questions with questions and your play on words is obviously slanted. You still fail to answer with relevant information.

[Zaviation]

If you don't identify yourself I have to assume you are just here to cause trouble. This is an open forum; for all I know you may be an 11 year old who just flunked out of 3rd grade again. If you don't want to participate in a constructive way go back where you came from and let us get on with business.

John

[Myron]

John,

"Ivspark" is Mike Meyers... the guy you sent the email to the FAA about in your thread in the AP forum.

"On 14 July I sent him an article that I thought was relevant and was more positive. Here is the email and the article in picture form. This is the first and only item I have sent to him from this group."

Myron

[Zaviation]

Heck I know that Myron. Are you speaking for him this week? I give my name, you give yours, why can't he give his instead of just squeeking?

Thanks, John

[Myron]

No, not speaking for him.. He is well capable of doing that himself.. I just seems odd that you give him props in one email/thread and now you are arguing with him. I simply wasnt sure if you were aware that "Ivspark" was the same guy as in your email to the
FAA...

Myron

[Zaviation]

Just to clear things up. Some folks think I am on a membership drive or something. I am not! What I am doing is going to happen whether MACO exists or not. I will post what is happening and you are welcome to join in the discussion or not. If what I am doing is worth while folks will participate. End of speech.

Regards, John Zaner

[Zaviation]

I just seems odd that you give him props in one email/thread and now you are arguing with him.

Myron,
It seems odd that when I don't agree with someone it is always perceived that I am arguing with them. Has it ever occurred to you that he may be arguing with me. This is a different forum and a new thread, he started by throwing down a challenge, I asked him to identify himself. Where is the argument?

John

[Myron]

I guess I am refering to the "other" thread... John, I dont think that dissagreeing is the problem. I think delivery is more of an issue.... Not to start an argument, it just seems that many of your post are aimed at getting under someones skin. Either way, that doesnt pertain to this thread and I am bailing out of this one...

Myron

[Zaviation]

Thanks Myron,
By the time I get through all the hassle of trying to set up a means of communicating with people I really don't want to do it anymore. It just isn't worth it.

I am working with the Hq FAA UAV Team made up of members from all the major organizations in the FAA. I am also working with the Dept of Transportation in North Carolina. They want to set up a UAV Training Facility.

I am also working with Embry Riddle University through the Center of Excellence in General Aviation, This effort is through the Human Resources Department.

I am also working closely with two Embry Riddle graduate students on their masters project. They are in the Software Engineering Dept and are working on developing cooperating flocks and swarms of UAVs. They had no research funding so I was supporting them with resources and advice. This past week they got some research money but we are still working together.

I am going to continue my work with the FAA and anyone else who is interested in doing something positive. During my presentation to the FAA UAV Team in May they said they had to completely re-think how they viewed the UAV problem. They were totally unaware of the under 55lb commercial UAV insurance hassle.

So, I decided to start MACO and look what happens. I work with numerous other groups and the only one I have problems with is modelers. I don't even go to the club field anymore because as soon as you do something they can't do they pass a rule against it. I am 66 years old, been retired for 14 years, have my own successful Radio Control Aerial Photography business, I am in demand as a public speaker. Don't need the money, I just enjoy it. I have a lot of experience and relevant expertise to bring to bear on this problem but I guess you guys already have it all figured out.

I just got my renewal for my business insurance for the next year so guess I will just keep it to myself and let you live with what you get.

So long and good luck.

[typicalaimster]

Not trying to start a fight here... I think I missed the boat in all this... We have RCAPA, why do we need another orginization like RCAPA?

[Bill Harris]

Now this is strange. Mr. Zaner has a thread in the AP forum in which he refuses to discuss Maaco and refers to this one, and he has a thread here in the UAV forum in which he refuses to discuss Maaco and refers back to that thead. I'm not inclined to waste my time, but it appears that Maaco is an army of one, and a legend in his own mind. That zany Zaner, that is.

This guy gets a continued berth in my Twit Filter...
This message is hidden because Zaviation is on your ignore list.

--Bill

[patrickegan]

http://runryder.com/helicopter/t194700p1/

[typicalaimster]

http://runryder.com/helicopter/t194700p1/

Interesting http://www.zwei.net/downloads/Misc/popcorn.gif... Seems like he's moving from forum to forum to rally some support.

[Bill Harris]

Interesting ... Seems like he's moving from forum to forum to rally some support.

Or moving to a new herd of victims to antagonize.

As has been said, do we want this individual representing us? I'm leary of self-appointed gurus.

--Bill

[CAFplanekid]

Well, it does not look like he was received very well over there either, they all must be immature too. :rolleyes: I particularly like how, in his first post he basically said RCAPA and the users here were immature, and in a later post says he is not willing to discuss other groups. It is a shame really, if everything he says about what he has done with the FAA is true it sounds like he actually has done quite a bit of good. Too bad it seems like he wants to alienate everybody he can, maybe so if it does work out in the end he can claim 100% credit, without the help or support of anybody.

I will admit that I shouldn't have said what I said in the other thread, and that was wrong of me.

[Zaviation]

Best wishes,
John

[patrickegan]

John,

What about 8700.25 and the fact that it came out in 10/10/03??? Didn’t you meet with them the FAA in May of this year?

[wakumann]

Everybody should have a look at John Z. Homepage and the History of his professional experience in aviation and claimed achievements.

http://zaneraviation.com/


Cheers
Thomas

[Zaviation]

Thanks for the advertising, the flight school just got two new students from one of these posts. Keep up the good work.
Regards, John

[Zaviation]

When you take my buddies advice and check my background on my webpage also go into the FAA Airman Registry under the state of Florida and you will find my ratings. There is photographic proof of most of the other things. Everyone should stand such scrutiny.

Another favor, Thanks again guys. With your help I will be credible again.

John

[patrickegan]

Even little guys need credibility

[wakumann]

Hi John,
guess that's a total misunderstanding.
I wasn't impressed from your HP or Achievements or pictures or...at all, just recommend to others too check it out.
So no more comment's will be necessary to understand you re 'mission' here (and in other treads)
People ask you firm and simple question but you can't give straight answers, I find this very disturbing.


everything will be good (sooner or later)

Thomas

[JettPilot]

Inviting regulation is NEVER a good thing :mad: Do you all wonder why ZAviation is trying to get the government involved in controlling what we can or cant do :confused: It can be summed up in one word - CORRUPTION :eek: . This is doing something that hurts everyone for the benefit of a few (people that will financially profit from certification, training, etc). ZAviation wants to create a new set of rules and obstacles so that he can profit by "teaching" and "helping" people comply with the rules, for a VERY small fee of course ;)

Give it any fancy name you want, regulation is regulation and limits our activities greatly and makes it difficut to do anything innovative or different. It also adds cost and headaches to our hobby, and is deninately NOT in our best interest. Having lived 3 years in South America, I know corruption when I see it, greedy people that want to get their hands into our wallets through more "regulation" and "certifications". This is the type of stuff we should be resisting, not encouraging. Over regulation and breauracracy over time stifles a country and hinders innovation and progress.

[Myron]

This flight School.. "Eagle".. John claims to own, run and be affiliated with it... then who is Robert Barns?.. He claims to be the founder.. Just trying to figure out who's who?

http://zaneraviation.com/training.htm

Myron

[Zaviation]

Hi Myron,
I know that I am being baited here but I will bite one more time.

Back in January of this year I received a call from Robert Barnes who is the founder and President of Eagle Miniature Aviation. He had seen my website and was interested in learning the AP part of the business. I met with Robert a couple of time and we hit it off really well. He is a gentle giant of a man and a really great instructor of airplanes and helicopters.

We decided to join forces in Feb of this year and came to an agreement whereby we would work together toward some common goals but not merge our companies legally because of insurance and liability issues. Our relationship is based on friendship, mutual trust, and nothing more. The following press release appeared in the local papers.

[Zaviation]

The relationship I have with Eagle Aviation has continued to thrive. I saw his school as a way to get commercial UAV pilots trained and make it possible for them to get insurance if I could get his school certified by the FAA.

When I called the FAA in April of this year it was to ask how the proposed NPRM was coming and to check on the possibilities of certification for the school. Keep in mind, this is his school and I gain nothing but satisfaction if I do manage to get his school certified. He could walk away with that certification and never talk to me again and I could do nothing. I just want to clarify that I gain nothing financially by getting a school certified to train commercial UAV pilots.

When I talked to the FAA in April they were talking about commercial UAV pilots having to have a commercial pilots license and go through the appropriate ground schools. I asked about aircraft certification and they were thinking about having all the model manufacturers writh a manual to be included with each kit and if you built the model by that manual you could get it certified.

I told them they could not possibly be serious about those things for the under 55 lb class of UAV and they didn't see any distinction. I told them they would ruin recreational modeling overnight and cripple the under 55 lb UAV industry that is just starting to really take off in this country. I told them that training is required but a commercial pilots license is ridiculous and inappropriate. I also told them that they would increase the cost of model aircraft beyond reason by requiring the manufacturers to write a manual like that and 99.5 percent of modelers do not follow the manuals anyway. I told them we need to come up with a way of certifying builders instead of airplanes in the under 55 lb class in a take-off of the EAA designee programs.

Anyway, they said that I seemed to know quite a bit about it and asked if I could come to Washington and give them a presentation about what I thought about the under 55 lb issue. I did that and, as Paul Harvey would say is the rest of the story. Best left for another day.

I hope that clears things up a bit.
John

[fitenfyr]

This guy gets a continued berth in my Twit Filter...

That just made my night. :D :D
Funniest darn comment I have seen on the forums in a long time. :D
Regardless of who it is aimed at.

Seriously speaking.

The lines of communication to the FAA are now open.
There are several groups of people talking to them and if you have a say in this please make it known.
I personally guarantee you that it will be heard and counted in the process, but hey who am I in this whole thing anyhow. :D

[Zaviation]

Originally posted by Jettpilot.

Give it any fancy name you want, regulation is regulation and limits our activities greatly and makes it difficut to do anything innovative or different. It also adds cost and headaches to our hobby, and is deninately NOT in our best interest.

In one of the other forums there is a current video posted of a guy who flew over 2 miles at 800 ft using a video downlink. Who needs regulation? We are supposed to limit our flights to 400 ft. A forward looking video camera does not, in anyones imagination, meet the requirements of "see and avoid" for VFR flight at that altitude. I might also add that this is "recreational flying" not commercial.

Suppose for a moment that some Cessna 172 pilot was flying along a highway at 800 ft with his wife and two kids just looking at the scenery and trying to fine grandmas house. Suddenly his windshield is full of something that could be a big bird, except it is not. Here is this guy flying along perfectly legal and within his rights to enjoy his hobby. He is also in the right, DEAD right!

You say, "Boy what a spoilsport, what are the odds of that happening?" I would say maybe one in a million, or one in ten million, or one in a hundred million, that is fine if it is you in the Cessna, but it is not nearly good enough if it is my family in that Cessna.

Think about it! Who needs regulation if it stops you from trying something different? The odds are going to catch us one of these days and we will be a sorry lot then. The interesting thing is that regulation will not stop this kind of activity, people break regulations every day. However, if a regulation were in place when this tragic "accident" happens, the pilot who broke the regulations would be condemned and grounded. Without regulation, we may well ALL be condemned and grounded.

It is like the insurance thing for commercial UAV operators, sometimes regulation can be very helpful and protect the things you hold dear. Would you leave your driveway if there were not regualtions requiring drivers licenses? It is a two-edged sword but personally I invite regulation and want to make sure I am participating in the development of that regulation. I don't think I am participating in the process as a member of some photographers association whose motives I question. I do think I am participating when I am dealing directly with the FAA.

Regards, John

[ALtitudeap]

Would you leave your driveway if there were not regualtions requiring drivers licenses?
Regards, John

I do this every day in southern Arizona :D

[Zaviation]

Original posted by Patrick Eagan

Earlier you mentioned in one of your closed threads you are just loosely affiliated with the overwhelmingly successful school. Now that you have found two nuts to join you in the derelict short bus of lower learning you’re claiming affirmation. Here’s a friendly suggestion, whilst picking up headgear for the freshman class of Eagle MAT (is it university or technical institute?) you may want to invest in something to cover your own soft spot. News flash Eagle MAT enrollments are up by 200%, (scooped before it could hit the Zanyvation.com website) Things just keep getting better and I’m sure the folks at the FAA are hoping that’s true cause sitting through that presentation was probably like sitting trough aunt Edna’s slides from the high rollers Indian Casino bus junket for one rocking night with Billy Ray Sirus!!! While we’re on the subject of Billy Ray Sirus, have you noticed that you have more closed threads then his fan site?


Hey Patrick, I remember those friendly posts and then I came over to this forum and found the above post from you. That cleaned out the pet meds in a hurry. Get your own house in order and maybe we can be friendly, but not while missiles like that are flying.

Still trying, John

[Myron]

John,

Gotcha on the school flight school thing.. Question, If your currently working with the FAA on potential regs for the sub 55LB class UAV, What method are you using to get clearance to test and fly your birds? Are you talking to your local tower and just letting them know where you plan to test fly your UAV? Are you filing a flight plan?
How much of a PITA is it to get said clearance?

Myron

[Zaviation]

Hi Myron,
I have never requested a special clearance because I don't fly commercially over 400 ft altitude. When I fly recreationally I will go above 400 ft but always within direct vision and making sure that I give the right of way to manned aircraft regardless of altitude.

Right now there are no rules for commercial UAVs under 55 lbs and 400 ft that I am aware of. What those rules will be is a work in progress. I recommended to the FAA that they allow UAVs under 55 lbs to fly as high as 1000 ft using the see and avoid VFR rules. I had also suggested that they raise the floor for manned aircraft to 700 ft AGL and leave 300 ft overlap to let the the guys flying full sized aircraft get used to the idea of mixed traffic.

I don't think they will do that but it is worth a try, We could probably get a hard ceiling raised to 700 ft but I am not sure they are ready for a mix just yet. One of the biggest problems is awareness. I really don't think a lot of modelers are aware of the regulatory requirements they now live with. I think we could deal with 300 ft of mixed traffic if everyone were aware of the requirement to see and avoid and the mandatory right away for manned aircraft. We could even throw in a requirement for an additional spotter for the UAV flying in the mixed arena between 700 and 1000 ft.

One of the very real problems facing the FAA is that the under 55 lb UAV management problem is going to break an already straining system for managing flight planning guidance and airspace use. That is why I showed them the charts with forum information on them. It was not to invite the FAA to join or look at our forums, It was to try to move them into the 21st century and get a forum of their own. That would ease the burden on the existing system enough to perhaps allow them to slip in the small UAV stuff. The FAA already has a website and I told them it would not be difficult to get a forum going. They could also use it for some of their current communications with the full sized pilots. It would be nice to see a forum where there were some areas that were reserved for broadcast only by the FAA and others where interaction would be allowed.

The response from the lawyer in the group was that he didn't think the FAA could require everyone to have access to the internet. I told them that I was sure there was a time when they could not require everyone to have access to a telephone or teletype but they seemed to overcome those hurdles. It seems that those of us who do not have personal access to the internet could go to thier local library or to the local FSDO and do thier flight planning. I actually told him that it seemed to be a legal problem and that was why he was there. I suggested that he look into it and find out what the legal issues were and report back to the group at a later date.

Right now the FAA has a tremendous amount of low altitude airspace that can change shape on a near real time basis. There are Terminal Control Areas, Approach and Departure Corridors, Restricted Areas, Special Use Airspace. Temporary Certificates of Authorization which require NOTAMS, Aerobatic Zones, etc, etc. If I needed to fly above 400 ft for a particular job I could request, 30 days in advance, a special COA from the FAA for a certain altitude and route on a certain date. If it were approved they would issue a NOTAM informing everyone of the slight bulge in the airspace that would exist for a couple of hours on that certain date.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could have a system for flight planning that was similar to Keyhole where we could fly virtually along the route we were planning. The floor of the airspace would show up as a tinted color below us and all the various restrictions would appear as columns or squares or whatever shape they were. These shapes would represent all the restrictions that we had to be aware of that were in effect during our flight and that would interfere with out planned route. That way, when the FAA issued an authorization for a special use of airspace they could just enter it into the system and it would immediately show up on everyones flight planning screen.

They could use the same type of broadcast only system for sending out special repair notices and airworthiness direceives to maintenance specialists. There are a lot of things that could be applied to such a system that would really decrease the burdon on the existing paper system and allow them to do more with less. I hope I triggered some thinking about some of the research that is currently funded. Maybe in addition to glass cockpits we could have a glass airspace control system.

Anyway, that is why I used the charts showing the existing forums that work very well for exchanging information. I was inviting them into our technology, not into our forums.

Regards, John

[kd7ost]

I would like to state, for the record, that I do not think a 1000 foot ceiling for see and avoid in class G airspace is adequate. Thats just not very high at all. Guys flying gliders in thermals hit 3000 feet and can see and avoid just fine. Why try to impose limits within an already limiting "see and avoid" concept? If you can see it with the naked eye, you can see the Cessna's and Pipers, and avoid it. I'm still talking class G airspace BTW. I mean, why would a mile away be OK if you can only go 1000 feet up? It's all see and avoid! I don't want folks fighting for rights without knowing what the users even need. It's pretty common for everyone in this process to ask for what they themselves want instead of getting a concensus. We need to speak as a group and not as individuals self imposed as requestor for all.

Dan

[Zaviation]

I have never passed myself off as a self-imposed representative of anyone except myself, personally. I will defend to the death my right to do that to anyone. So let's not question that again, I have said it before and I say it again. I made it perfectly clear to everyone involved at the FAA that I was only giving my own personal opinion. That is what I do on these forums also. It is my own opinion and I am entitled to it so quit trying to dispute that. I respect what you just posted as your personal opinion and I am not accusing you of trying to represent anyone other than yourself. Fine, you give your opinion and now I will respond with mine.

Actually, I would prefer 10,000 ft and I certainly would say I need more than 1000. The problem is you have to balance that against what you can logically expect to get. One of the primary questions is altitude, not range. If manned aircraft are not allowed below 400 ft we could fly UAVs on forever below that altitude with no problems. You say 1000 ft is not enough for commercial UAVs below 55 lb. I personally disagree with you. You have to realize that see and avoid is a two way street. It is not only a matter of us seeing them but also of them seeing us. If the see and avoid is not mutual then safety is compromised. If the ceiling for small UAVs were raised to 1000 then I, as a manned aircraft pilot, would consider that a floor. My chances of seeing a small UAV and avoiding it are nil. I have to depend on the pilot on the ground who does not have his butt on the line to see me and avoid me. That is asking a lot at 1000 ft. In my personal opinion, it is impossible beyond that. I, as a manned aircraft pilot would really fight anything beyond what already exists. Beyond 1000 ft is totally unreasonable and cannot be defended.

The one way you have a chance of flying a UAV in that airspace would be to have an electronic "sense and Avoid" system which is technologically impossible now. At least it is impossible for us to afford it and get it small enough to put of a UAV under 55 lb. Then, once you have that sense and avoid system, you would also need to have at least a full sized commercial pilots license and perhaps an IFR ticket. Your spotter would also be required to have the same tickets. This paragraph is not my personal opinion it is the current opinion of the folks working on the problem at the FAA. I don't really know if I personally agree with it or not. To me, that puts it into the industrial category and is beyond the scope of my studies.

One thing that we need to enter into this debate is the willingness of the FAA to allocate Special Use Airspace. I see no reason why we could not lobby for higher altitudes at specific locations where they regularly fly gliders to higher altitudes. This could be a permanent allocation at club fields just like they have permanent aerobatic boxes assigned to certain airfields. These Special Use Airspace authorizations could also be issued on a temporary basis. If a club wanted to host a sailplane competition, or maybe they want more altitude to fly the Tournament of Champions at Las Vegas with the big 40 to 50% scale aerobatic planes. These types of events are usually scheduled well in advance and it would be no problem to meet the time requirements to get an airspace allocation from the FAA.

That way, the FAA issues a NOTAM and the full sized pilots see it during their flight planning and know to avoid that area during that time. That way everyone is safe. That is what the FAA is there for, to ensure safe and secure access to the NAS. By the way, I really like your idea of speaking as a group, that is the easy part. Now figure out how to get this group to agree on anything. If you will relent and agree with my position, that will make a group of two. That's a big if, and it wouldn't be a very big group. Stick with it though, this politicking is not easy stuff.

Regards, John

[kd7ost]

I will defend to the death my right to do that to anyone. So let's not question that again,

I must have missed something. What and to whom does this mean something to or for? I can't see where anyone said anything to gain this type of comment. Who questioned what that you need to die for?

Dan

[lvspark]

A short recap :D

Wakuman,
I kind of thought you were disturbed. I have met others like you in these forums

they must be in worse shape than you

Remember when you were in school (perhaps a rash assumption) there was a school bully who would get into an after school fight with some dumpy kid who couldn't defend himself? Then when it was all over and the victim lay curled up in the dust and everyone was turning to leave, there was always some creepy little slimeball who would run up and give the victim one last solid kick in the kidneys. I recognize you now.

you would have to practice a lot to get up to the "no talent" level.

I will defend to the death my right to do that to anyone


And this classic
Now figure out how to get this group to agree on anything. If you will relent and agree with my position, that will make a group of two.

heh heh good stuff..... :p

[Zaviation]

That won't get you anywhere Mike. I am not planing those games anymore. The right to speak my opinion comment came kd7ost accused me of setting myself up as a self-appointed spokesperson for other people,

I take exception to that and I reserve the right to state my personal opinion and will defend that right to the death. What is wrong with that, Many thousands of better men than you or I have died to defend that right for me. Why should I do any less. I will also defend the right for you to state your personal opinion in this or any other forum. If anybody has any argument with that take it up with the Supreme Court.

I have stated my opinion in no uncertain terms. If you want to debate that opinion or present one of your own feel free. If you can't come up with anything reasonable you resort to attacking me personally. Why don't we stick to the subject at hand. If you don't agree with what I have said as my personal opinion then present your argument. If you can't do that please have the decency to keep quiet.

Regards, John

[Zaviation]

In that thoughtful and intelligent post which was longer than mine you had these original words to offer.

" short recap
And this classic
heh heh good stuff....."

All the rest was cut and paste. Now there is a real classic. I am beginning to think you are just taking up space and wasting oxygen. Again, why can't you stick to the subject? That kind of post is what led to some of the remarks of mine that you copied.

Oh! and stop drooling too!

Regards, John

[kd7ost]

We need to speak as a group and not as individuals self imposed as requestor for all.

This is the statement I made John. You will see I did not direct it at you but rather as plural. We. Individuals. I can see how you would take it that way though. It was in a thread and in a response to your post. What I clearly meant to say was, We need to speak as a group and not as individuals self imposed as requestor for all. That means all of us. Not just you. Not just me. Not any ONE person unless we vote them in.

I'm a 10 year US Army veteran that voluntarily served two active duty terms to defend your rights John. And everyone else posting here that I know of. No one here is taking them from you or from them. Fact is, they, and I, are simply exercising our rights too. It's OK if we don't agree with you John. It's OK if you don't agree with us. This talk about defending your rights to the death is something I read as an attempt to make others think we are violating your rights. Or, perhaps you just feel picked on because we don't support all you say. Anyhow, I don't think I see in here where anyone is violating anyone else’s rights. You don't likely have any idea of what that looks like to have ones rights violated if you use the term so loosely. Disagreements are a part of life John. I'm sure you know that and I don't have to say it. It just comes off really, really, goofy when someone makes comments like that when no one is doing anything to justify that style of retaliation.

Regards John

Dan

[lvspark]

John,

My post did not attack you, it is only your own words...
So in a sense, you are attacking yourself.
I see that alot from you, like you are talking into a mirror.
I am surprised all of your Ad Hominem has made it through the moderators. If you would tone down the aggression in your post, you might actually get your point across. Until then, this is just mild entertainment watching you go down in flames....

[Karl B²]

Now that you have found two nuts to join you in the derelict short bus of lower learning you’re claiming affirmation.
did the pet meds wear off?
Don't forget the other side here, Mike. As I said in the AP thread, both sides are slinging their poo on this issue.
I am surprised all of your Ad Hominem has made it through the moderators.
Looking at the topic list for UAV, there are no moderators assigned.

[clolson]

I'm not sure if it's even worth trying here, but for some reason the internet sometimes brings out the worst in people and people assume that posts and comments are intended in the worst possible way ... so once the mud starts flying it goes downhill quickly from there.

I'd be willing to bet a round of beers that if we all met face to face, used the standard sorts of face-to-face courtesies, started swapping stories, figured out we had a common R/C and UAV interests, we'd all be good buddies before we knew what hit us.

People don't have to get along if they don't want to, maybe there's too much collective ego here to fit in one little forum, but if you read through some of the posts, the exchange borders on downright silly in several places. It would be almost humorous, except the carnage here has clearly bruised several egos.

Let me humbly suggest that we all extend each other the basic courtesies we all deserve as human beings. In such an environment, the true losers will quickly out themselves, and then the rest of us can get on with the business at hand.

Curt.

[kd7ost]

Heya Curt,

Always the cool head of reason in here. I'm up for the beer. Heck, lets make that plural too. Beers. ;-)

On to real UAV stuff. How's the University project going. (I know this isn't the proper thread, just trying to help redirect the flow)

Dan

[Zaviation]

OK Guys.
I would really like to present a united front. Dan, if I mis-read your intent I apologize. I am just getting so used to taking hits I thought it was another incoming.

Do you notice a pattern developing here? If you present a reasonable question I will take my time and respond to the best of my knowledge. If I agree with you I will say so, if I don't I will do my best to explain why. If that doesn't wash you can come back at me on the issues.

This is called debate and is how you arrive at agreement so you can present a united front. I make no claim to having all the answers. I do claim to have put more thought into this than most. That also may have led to some wrong opinions. However, I would like to debate the issues at hand, not each other. In other words, I would like to have help here too.

In a debate, when someone presents an opinion or a position, others then have the opportunity to agree or disagree. If you agree you keep quiet so that those who disagree have a chance to present opposing opinions.

What has been happening is that if I present an opinion and you have no logical or reasonable counter to that opinion you start attacking me instead of my opinion. That not only concedes the point but does not show you in a very favorable light.

If you want to reach agreement on any point please present your opinion. I am honestly trying to do the same. Then give others a chance to present reasonable alternative opinions. Any personal attacks or perceived personal attacks on me will be responded to in kind.

Does that sound like a reasonable approach to obtaining a united front? I don't know of any other way. It certainly isn't seeing who can yell the loudest or say the nastiest things. I can be your best friend or your worst enemy. The choice is yours. I say let's get on with it and have a debate where everyone can feel welcome to get involved. We keep telling the world we want to be self-regulating, let's show them we can be.

Regards, John

[Zaviation]

Hi Curt,
Welcome to the discussion. I was preparing my last post so I didn't see yours until I sent it out. I agree, cool heads must prevail. We will only defeat ourselves otherwise.

I wholeheartedly agree about the beer and being friends. I will buy the first round. We all believe very strongly in what we are doing, for some of us it has been our whole life. Unfortunately, this sport seems to draw strong, independent, opinionated people.

The good news is, if we agree on something, there is no stopping us.

The bad news is trying to reach agreement.

I promise to do better if you all will too.

Bottoms up, John

[kd7ost]

OK Guys.
I would really like to present a united front. Dan, if I mis-read your intent I apologize. I am just getting so used to taking hits I thought it was another incoming.

Good enough for me.

I do claim to have put more thought into this than most.

Just an observation. This is a horse you may want to consider stepping off of for talks. If you’re trying to open a dialog, it's not very disarming to tell others that you claim to have thought about this more than most. Perhaps you have. Perhaps not. Who is to say? You don't know who's in this forum. This is a very charged subject with a fair amount of good minds involved. I recommend we all demonstrate mutual respect for each other in order to move on with any hope of success.

Dan

[CAFplanekid]

:D I take exception to the beer proposal, I am not legally allowed to drink. But, in the spirit of unity, I will let yo buy me one if you must :)


Glad to see it lightening up a bit, and I hope it can stay that way. Thanks for jumping in Dan and Curt, very wise words indeed, even if they are promoting under-age drinking.

Jonathan

[patrickegan]

I’m sorry but I believe that someone has made an ache breaky big mistakey as those weren’t attacks “to the man” or “to the person” they were meant more like questions of “the man” or “the person” as to evaluate further proof or arguments!

Anyway so now that this has turned in to a cozy corner bar atmosphere what do you guys suppose we should listen to on the jutey box? -P ;)

[mlbco]

Guys flying gliders in thermals hit 3000 feet and can see and avoid just fine. Why try to impose limits within an already limiting "see and avoid" concept? If you can see it with the naked eye, you can see the Cessna's and Pipers, and avoid it.

Dan


I think the ability of an RC pilot to see and avoid a full-size aircraft is often overestimated. I'm not aware of any formal tests that have been conducted to assess this, but my experience has been that most RC pilots have no idea how close they are to full-size aircraft, they just think they know.

Let's assume a Cessna is approaching your field as you thermal your sailplane at 3000 feet. You hear the Cessna before you see it so you will naturally look to check where it is relative to your glider. Assuming you can locate it quickly from the engine sound alone, you must know relocate your sailplane (good luck!) and then make a quick decision as to whether the Cessna is on a collision course with your model. You may be able to estimate the intersection of the courselines, but what about altitude? What does a Cessna look like at 3000 feet? If you spiral dive and he's below you you might hit him. If he is above you it might be best to just fly straight. You'll only have less than a a minute to decide and react before he's in your airspace. I don't believe most RC pilots can reliably judge the relative positions of 2 dissimilar size objects at 1/2 mile distance. I'm willing to bet that if tests were conducted by the FAA the results would show that ground-based see and avoid is nearly impossible to perform reliably.

Additionally, most people ignore the speed differences between relatively slow flying RC models and faster full-size aircraft. In a fixed period of time the faster plane can create a large separation distance from the model by merely changing the direction of its velocity vector a small amount. The slower model can maneuver all it wants and still won't move very far in the same fixed time period, regardless of where it points its velocity vector. When speed differences are great, the burden of "avoiding" falls more heavily on the faster flying aircraft. Of course the opposite applies if you fly turbine models!

I'm not trying to pick an argument with anyone on this matter, I just want to point out that operating any model aircraft in a manner that will avoid full-size aircraft can be difficult unless the model is kept at extremely close range (i.e. less than 500 feet for example). No tests have been conducted to prove that RC pilots can perform see and avoid maneuvers while at the limits of their visual range. I think the FAA has been accepting this notion because they've assumed it to be true ever since people started flying RC models, not because they tested it. I'd love to hear the FAA's opinion on free-flight aircraft operations!


Steve Morris

[leccyflyer]

Those are all good points Steve and the bottom line is that no matter how difficult "see and avoid" is with a model being flown by radio control within visual range it is still a far better prospect for collision avoidance than high altitude (above 500 feet) UAV operation either by pre-programmed GPS guidance or purely by on board video.

If a UAV is two miles away and operating out of sight of the ground based pilot he cannot possibly determine whether a full scale aeroplane in his vicinity is on a collision course or not- the full scaler might be coming up right behind him and he would never know anything about it.

[Zaviation]

Dan,
I couldn't agree more that we have to give each other some more lattitude and not take exception so quick. As an example, I have nothing but respect for most of the guys on these forums and that is why I am asking for help and to help reach some of these agreements.

When I said I had put more thought into it than most I didn't even have the forum in mind. I was actually thinking about the government when I said that. I think the FAA and the Dept of Homeland Security have pretty much overlooked the under 55 lb UAV.

When I say overlooked, I don't mean that if we don't remind them that we are here we will be free of regulation. The FAA was working toward a regulation that would put the same requirements on all UAVs including the under 55 lb. That means that we would have to meet the same aircrew and aircraft certification requirements as someone flying a commercial Predator sized UAV.

Also, I would like to clarify that in the above post where I was talking about altitude restrictions and the sailplanes it may have been confusing. What I am working on is the requirements for commercial UAVs under 55 lbs. I think the recreational UAVs in the same class will, and should, continue to be managed by the AMA. However, having said that, I can't imagine that the FAA would put out a regulation for the commercial use of a UAV under 55 lbs and not impose some of the same requirements on the recreational area.

I have been telling the FAA that I think the requirements for recreational use should not be as stringent for aircraft and aircrew certification. The recreational users are usually flying at an established site where there is less risk to the general population, whereby commercial operators could be flying anywhere. There is automatically more training/proficiency of the commercial operator because they have to assess whether the flight can even be made safely and plan their routes for emergencies. The actual flying under those conditions is also much more difficult if you want to protect your equipment and people around you.

Robert (The owner of the Flight School) and I have spent considerable time discussing what should be taught to a commercial helicopter pilot as opposed to a recreational pilot. Or a pilot upgrading from recreational to commercial. We know that a commercial pilot will need to understand a lot more about flight planning and judging the level of risk for a particular job. They will also need to be a lot more proficient at autorotation and nose-in. Recreational helicopter pilots usually have the field already set up so they don't have to evaluate site conditions. They also don't have to learn autos or nose in if they don't want to, nor do they have to be as proficient at general flying because they are in a somewhat controlled environment.

As for distance judgement, I have to agree that it is very difficult to judge how far you are away from an object when both are 1000 ft away. The FAA is investigating a couple of incidents now where models interfered with real aircraft. In one instance there were RC models in the vicinity of an fly-in and a Cherokee had just taken off when a model crossed in front of it. The pilot veered left and struck the ground sliding 250 ft and striking a couple of spectators. In another incident the pilot of a Cessna 210 had just taken off and was directed to a specific heading at an altitude of 1200 ft. This heading took him over a known RC field but he was not concerned because he was at his assigned altitude of 1200 ft. When he approached the RC field he noticed an airplane below him and suddenly it went vertical and passed by his aircraft about 15 feet away trailing a thin smoke trail. He judged the model to be about 5 ft wingspan. When questioned later a couple of the guys at the RC field remembered the incident but didn't think the RC aircraft was even close to the same altitude as the Cessna. I have the specific reports that I had posted on another forum but these summaries serve the purpose here.

We claim to be able to regulate ourselves and don't need the FAA but the incidents above show otherwise to the regulators. We also have people posting videos all over these public forums showing themselves in a position to endanger manned aircraft or people on the ground. A lot of these people are not even aware of the danger or just don't think it is going to happen to them. We have a tremendous opportunity here to step up and be responsible if we can work together to bring it off.

Regards, John

[kd7ost]

As much as they are good points, I don't agree with it all. Have you ever flown where there is nothing around but you? You can hear a car driving down the highway 10 miles away. (I'm not going to fly that far). If a full scale airplane comes into the picture, you can hear it from a long way off. I'm not advocating you try to dodge the Cessna flying at 1000 feet agl. My suggestion is if a full scale plane comes into range you get the hell out of there before they are even close. If you can't hear that plane approach from where I fly from, you are either deaf or are flying in 40 mph winds and are coming in to land anyway.

I'm also wondering if guys here are wanting to persue this line from a hobby standpoint or for airial photography or Search and Rescue or packing communications receivers in emergencies or what? Some of us are privateers who would like a chance to make a living at this.

If you want to do it as a hobby, why bother with this? Stay under the Model airplane guidlines. If you want to take pictures of water shed damage or ? whatever, you aren't going to do that from on the deck. There are plenty of us that don't live in cities, that would like to develop technology to have jobs doing some level of what I'm describing without having to hire a Commercial pilot and fly a global hawk to do the job. In fact, we don't have that money. So whether it is your intention or not, you are trying to close the door on development that many of us would like to persue in a safe and sane manner.

It sounds like some guys feel this should either remain as a toy operation, or a government operation. I don't buy that at all nor do I agree. Lets get guys in here that would like to work on how to make it happen, not guys who want to prevent it from happening. And thats not a personal attack to anyone.

BTW, this is working with the FAA and flying in the United States we're talking about. I'm not trying to push a global agenda.

Dan

[kd7ost]

Well, I cannot even imagine what it takes for model plane pilots to fly with full scale planes. UAV/UAS systems all aside, No model airplanes, kites, weather balloons, rockets whatever should be flown in that manner. Putting a 1000 foot ceiling on that won't resolve what you described. Obviously the 400 foot recommendation for RC model planes isn't being abided by either. UAV's are not generally capable of vertical performance unless it's maybe the new UCAV units coming along. UAV's as camera platform fly more like a Telemaster. I don't think there should be a 1000 foot ceiling. Keep it within see and avoid range. And if a full scale plane even starts into the picture, get out. Period. I don't think you should dodge the other plane. Also, fly with a spotter. No flying where full scale aircraft approach or takes off. You will still get idiots like you describe above. But they will not likely be UAV pilots. They will be just a few modelers who don't care and aren't sensitive to safety and are getting too close today.

When flying a photo flight, you get up to altitude, make your run, and get back down. You’re not hanging around up there burning up the sky and fuel. I also in this case advocate the UAV is flown via Pilot in control. Any autonomous systems are only employed as safety devices that activate through PCM to return the plane to the pilot should interference or some other catastrophic failure cause the Pilot to lose control of his system. Naturally, if any full scale aircraft come along, you get out and give them full right away. I would hope a full scale pilot never saw my UAV because I was never close enough to concern him/her.

Dan

[Zaviation]

I am concerned about the commercial operators. Thise who are trying to make a living at this. As I have said before, I am retired and have been for 14 years, I am 66 years old. I can still fly and see 90% as well as I used to. I am doing this commercially but my income is from aerial photography. However, I am also interested in the research end of it and I still fly recreationally under the AMA.

When I started doing this 3 years ago my objective was to establish under 55 lb commercial UAV operations as a viable occupation so that if my grandchildren decided they wanted to do this for a living the training, certification, insurance, and acceptance would be there to make that possible.

That environment does not exist right now. Certain things have to happen for it to exist. There is going to have to be some drgree of regulation and certification to make it happen. We all know that too much regulation is not a good thing, we should also know that underregulation is not good either, society needs regulation and laws to ensure comfort, safety, and freedom.

These forums are a very good example of overregulation. We have found out this forum does not have a moderator. If it did, we would not have been allowed to continue far enough to resolve our differences and be able to work together. I have been booted off of forums before we got to that point before. An anonymous moderator somewhere looks at what you say and determines whether it is respectful or not. If they determine it is not respectful enough you can get the boot. I have also learned the hard way that there are people who, knowing those rules, will bait you into saying things that can bring in the moderators.

Anyway, I am glad there is not one on this forum and we were able to break through the ego zone, mine included, and get to the point where we can commumicate. Let me say right now that I have a tremendous respect for other modelers and know that there is an enormous pool of talent and knowledge just waiting to be tapped. If I were a lawyer and offering legal assistance, people would know what they are getting and be glad of it. I am a professional R&D program manager and technical planner, writer, speaker and so on. I also have over 30 years experience working around the Washington area inside the beltway. I am not, repeat not, saying that makes me any better or smarter than anyone else. I am simply describing my experience and qualifications outside of modeling so you know what I am bringing to the table.

I am very comfortable speaking before groups of any size or makeup. I have never said I wanted to represent anyone other than myself. On the other hand, if and when we do reach agreement on issues and you need a mouthpiece to voice those arguments, I am available. I am not lobbying for a position, please don't misunderstand me. I will continue to work with the FAA and make sure that I diffrentiate between those things which are my own personal opinion and those which were achieved through debate with a larger group.

Now, with that out of the way, I don't know how many of you have had experience flying formation with full sized aircraft but it is very challenging and takes total concentration. Computing rates of closure and angle-off are difficult when you are inside an aircraft which is of similar size and speed of the others. I have also tried formation with other RC pilots who are experienced in full sized aircraft formation flying and we have decided that, from a ground view, it is impossible to fly relatively close formation with RC control. I am going to try some experiments with on-board video and I-glasses to see if that helps. I don't think I will be able to do much better.

As I had said before, we cannot depend on the see and avoid system with a mix of manned aircraft and UAVs. Someday, there will be a certified electronic sense and avoid that will be capable of doing that safely. In the meantime, we have to depend on see and avoid. I understand the requirement for the faster moving aircraft to have the greater responsibility when it comes to see and avoid but I think that should apply to manned aircraft only. Our UAVs are usually much slower than the manned aircraft but they are also very difficult to see. The current rules also say that manned aircraft have the right of way regardless. Since we cannot assure safe see and avoid at greater than about 600 or 700 feet I would say that is going to be out limit for some time. That is my opinion only.

Even horizontally, below the maximum altitude, we have to ensure see and avoid. There are several reasons for manned aircraft to be below 400 feet. They can be crop dusting, powerline patrol, legal surveilance, emergency life-flight helicopters, etc. I would estimate that we could see well enough to see and avoid these aircraft at up to 1/2 mile horizontal direct visual range and that is probably pushing it. So for normal everyday flying we are going to have to keep them in pretty close.

That does not stop us from using the other options. The FAA has already asked me what I think about the idea of Special Use Airspace. They had even mentioned setting up permanent UAV test ranges. I have already requested that they help me look into establishing one for Embry Riddle off the Atlantic coast. I think it may be reasonable to expect to have some off the gulf coast as well. I think ranges off the coast will be the easiest to establish but will also involve the most risk for the aircraft because it is over water. I would think that most initial testing of UAVs could be done within the confines of see and avoid and if you are not within range of permanent special use airspace you could request temporary special use airspace on a recurring basis. If you are researching or conducting commercial operations with UAVs these things have to be accepted as part of doing business. The thing is, they can be done. The one thing that the FAA has made clear is that the onus is on the UAV commercial operators to show that whatever we devise to ensure adequate sense and avoid has to be proven to provide adequate safety for the manned aircraft. We cannot argue with that.

Jeez these posts are getting long, but I am excited now. I think we may be getting somewhere.

Regards, John

[Zaviation]

Hi,
I hope I didn't go too far and scare anyone away. I just wanted to be very clear up front that I will never claim to represent other peoples opinions without express permission. It is entirely optional. As it stands right now I can only speak for myself and will make sure that anyone I communicate with understands that.

If you want the RCAPA group to represent you and you are a member then that is your right and I will never try to speak for you or them. However, there is every reason to continue this discussion to try to reach agreement on some issues. I will probably rejoin RCAPA because they are a group that has represents other people. I will continue to voice my own personal opinion on those things where RCAPA and I do not agree.

I think that we, the people who are doing this, need to discuss it to try to resolve our differences and identify those areas that we cannot resolve or come to agreement. I think this can only benefit us as individuals and RCAPA as an association.

Regards, John

[kd7ost]

Hi, I hope I didn't go too far and scare anyone away. Regards, John


Quite contrary. You want to fly models. Thanks anyway guys. It was fun but I'll move on.

Regards to all

Dan

[Zaviation]

By models do you mean under 55 lbs commercial or recreational. If that's what you mean you are correct.

John