Small UAVs and the FAA

[Zaviation]

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

[aviatordave]

does this link work?

[aragon]

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

[birdman11787]

I have read all the posts. Pesonally, I don't like the attacks. I do want to say that I am not one of the ones against John. I had asked about the backgrounds of those representing RCAPA back in the spring and it wasn't easy finding out.
I think John has a much better background and has already established himself in communicating with the FAA.
John, please keep posting in this forum also,
thanks,
john

[Zaviation]

I don't like the attacks either. I find them emotionally exhausting and counterproductive. It's just that sometimes you have go grind through a lot of river sludge to get to the gold. I have been committed to getting recognition for small commercial UAVs from day one and will continue working toward that goal.

It is refreshing to hear from someone else, thanks.

John

[typicalaimster]

So far it looks like a bunch of mud slinging. I think everyone needs to take a step back and calm down there.

That's pretty bad when it's coming from a Habitiual line stepper like me!

[lvspark]

I have been committed to getting recognition for small commercial UAVs from day one and will continue working toward that goal.
John

JZ,

Maybe you can clarify a few things for me...

On the slides you posted, and presented to the FAA, it appears that your proposing your level 1 UAV class as being used with unaided visual contact by remote control and requires recreational and commercial pilot certification.

(The light duty, Level 1 UAV is less than 2.2lbs)
As it reads, it would seem you are proposing that for me to fly my 28oz slowstick for recreational use, I would have to register with the FAA and watch a video, and join a beginners forum??

(The med duty level 1 UAV is between 2.2-33lbs)
Does this mean that for me to fly my camera carrying 36oz slowstick for recreational use that I would need to attend a FAA certified training center, take tests, and get a FAA pilots certification? And be an active participant in a forum???

Your basic fixed wing training course cost is $650
Would that $650 course be adequate for a person to pass the FAA pilots certification test for the 36oz slow stick? If the Slow Stick had a camera, would a person also need to get a special camera certification, or take additional FAA approved training courses to be legal?

Your description of the Level 1 UAV is seeing the plane with your eyes, and controlling it with a remote control. Does this description not apply to all RC model operations?

Your description of a Level 2 UAV is direct control with artificial vision. You also indicate that this type is semi-autonomous. If the plane does not do any controls automatically, I do not see how flying by a video downlink would give it any type of autonomony. Can you explain your thought process between the camera downlinking and the semi-autonomous description?

You do not elaborate on the level 2 UAV on your slides posted, but I assume that there would be more certifications for a level 2 than a level 1 and a person would require more training courses, testing, and FAA certifications?

[CAFplanekid]

Wow, I was not aware that you were in the business of training people to fly for money. Would your flight school be FAA approved? And under your plan, I would be REQUIRED to do flight training to fly my photo plane? Yes/no questions, all of them. I am not interested in arguing, and you say you are not either, so just keep to yes/no asnwers please.

[patrickegan]

John,

You’ve been dodging this one for a while maybe it’s just one more perceived attack.

Are you going to let your fellow RC aerial photographers in on the insurance deal?

[lvspark]

We ask a few questions that are valid and want to understand your plan better, but responding with that last one does not help anyone out..... :confused:

gee-wiz...

[Invertedflyby]

Why do you want small model airplanes to get recognition?

[JettPilot]

Inviting regulation is NEVER a good thing :mad: . I wonder why this guy is trying to get the government involved in controlling what we can or cant do :confused: It sounds like corruption to me :eek: , doing something that hurts everyone for the benefit of a few (people that will financially profit from certification, training, etc).

Give it any fany name you want, regulation is regulation and limits our activities greatly and makes it difficut to do anything innovative or different :( . 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.

[Invertedflyby]

Wow, and that coming from Washington DC! ;)

I agree with you 100%. If you read the link he provided and read some of his other posts you will find out all you want to know about him, and from that you will probably get the why. He tells quite a bit about himself here. http://zaneraviation.com/swabout.htm

I'm going to bite my tongue and leave it at that.

"I've done this, I've done that, I did it with a wiffleball bat"

[Zaviation]

Thanks for the publicity. The flight school just picked up two new students.

[dreslism]

I haven't heard that one for a while. But then, it is just all among friends now isnt it? What in the heck was wrong with that last post, other than the fact that I made it?

I guess I will go to another forum. Catch me if you can!!

Why don't you just answer CAFplanekid's questions? He asked them first before the post that got your above reply. He said he did not want to argue, just yes/no answers to questions he is trying to understand about your organization.

"Catch me if you can!!" sounds kinda childish when there were legitimate questions. I was looking forward to the answers also.

thanks,

Scott

[Invertedflyby]

You're welcome

[Karl B²]

What in the heck was wrong with that last post, other than the fact that I made it?
"I upped my insurance coverage - up yours." has two meanings, one of which is a personal attack of such an obvious nature that you wouldn't have included it had you intended otherwise. C'mon, it's been at least three weeks since I fell off the turnip truck... :rolleyes:

John and RCAPA members are both welcome to air their views on RC Groups. Name-calling, provocation and other rules violations, however, are not.

Mods are instructed not to conduct moderating duties outside of the warning point system, so I'm speaking as a fellow AP'er here: the bickering from BOTH sides does NO ONE in this hobby any good, no matter what forum it soils.

[Zaviation]

Thanks Karl, Two meanings? imagine that. In that case I apologize to any who took umbrage. Actually, I didn't address it to anyone in particular so how could it be a personal attack? I just included it for comic relief.

Things have been pretty tense around the forums lately and I feel as though a big, heavy weight has been lifted. Please excuse my uncontrolled exuberance.

Not only did I get my insurance renewed but it is through a local broker this time and when I paid them today they took 1/3 in aerial photos. Life is sweet.

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.

John

[randall1959]

Personally I can't understand why this thread was even posted in "Aerial Photography" in the first place. This is better suited for the UAV section. IMHO this is merely an attempt to stir up bad feelings against specific individuals than it is to inform or enlighten.

[JettPilot]

No, he is not trying to stir up bad feelings.. :cool: He is trying to ADVERTISE :eek: He is trying to get people to join his "school" and advertises on forums like this, anywhere they will not remove his posts as inappropriate for the forum. It is a form of SPAMMING :mad:

He also posted this in the UAV forum, im suprised one of the moderators didnt nail him for advertising :confused:

[birdman11787]

He is trying to get people to join his "school" ......

funny..... i never got that impression......

and as far as I remember , RCAPA was looking to become the regulating force (like the ama) for the the new faa categories.

Again, it would be really nice if this could just be an intelligent discussion about the unfolding drama of these new regs....... not a power play between newly formed groups..... of which there are three now if i'm not mistaken.

[JettPilot]

There are several possibilities birdaman, you have:

1: Not read Zaviations posts that creafully.

2: Not read what Zaviation posted on the UAV forum

3: Are just unable to see a sales pitch when it hits you in the face. ( Why
do you think they want to regulate it, so that they can become
the "official" school and force us to hand over our hard earned money to
become "certified" UAV pilots.

Here is a quote from Zaviation in THIS THREAD " Thanks for the publicity.
The flight school just picked up two new students. "

How could you not figure that one out Birdman ????

[CenTexFlyer]

and as far as I remember , RCAPA was looking to become the regulating force (like the ama) for the the new faa categories.


I feel the need to make a simple correction here... RCAPA was lformed to be a unified "voice" - not the regulating force for the new FAA categories. There have been some "what if" scenarios played out, but that possibility is remote IMHO.

Again, it would be really nice if this could just be an intelligent discussion about the unfolding drama of these new regs....... not a power play between newly formed groups..... of which there are three now if i'm not mistaken.

RCAPA was formed over a year ago, so it's not exactly that new... and since it was not our intent to become an "agency" that removes them from the "power play" portion of that statement. There have been many long and intelligent discussions on the RCAPA forums concerning the FAA and what it might intend to do to regulate us. Granted, they have been JUST as contentious over there as anywhere, but we've all managed to talk them thru and resolve differences. ALL of the drafts authored are in the public forums over there, and you can see how some of them were shredded, rewritten, then re-shredded, and at the very least argued over ad-nauseum. The key here is.... every member and even "guests" could comment and have a say - even if it was a NAY!

If you are even remotely interested, it's a pretty good read. Over the past year you can clearly see how things have evolved. And with everyones cooperation and input, it should continue that way.

Gene

[birdman11787]

Sorry Jett ...... I just don't see it that way. I think you need to do a little more reading yourself. I know there is motivation for all three associations that can directly be connected to monetary gain in whatever form.....but i just don't think john is doing this to "get people to join his school".

[CenTexFlyer]

I know there is motivation for all three associations that can directly be connected to monetary gain in whatever form

RCAPA has no membership fees and hasn't had for the past year. That may change if we have something substantial to offer as a reward for membership, but that has nothing to do with the impending FAA regulation.

Gene

[birdman11787]

Gene, forgive me if i'm wrong here, (impending faa regulation aside) , affordable insurance possible through a group rate still constitutes monetary gain ......... I'm not saying thats a bad thing....its a great thing..... just trying to compare apples to apples as far as where we get our motivation........

[crux12]

UAV argument and AP

I don’t believe that to many of us are actually flying waypoints via GPS or other means here in the R/C realm (For the most part). Since we are just attaching cameras in multiple configurations all we are actually doing is providing an AP ship and taking photos for personal, or possibly commercial usage. This activity does not pose a real threat to the UAV marketplace since all we are doing is saturating the labs with vehicles.

If we were developing systems or UAS then we may wish to reconsider our actions. As long as we are remaining hobbyist, or advanced hobbyist then I would not be to concerned about this topic.

[patrickegan]

Gene, forgive me if i'm wrong here, (impending faa regulation aside) , affordable insurance possible through a group rate still constitutes monetary gain ......... I'm not saying thats a bad thing....its a great thing..... just trying to compare apples to apples as far as where we get our motivation........

Birdman-
If you have an insurance outlet that doesn’t require us to do a buy of around a 150 polices @ $750 a head and then do the leg work to find the people we are all ears. Folks are turning away work because they can’t policies let alone at a price point that makes sense.



crux12 UAV argument and AP

I don’t believe that to many of us are actually flying waypoints via GPS or other means here in the R/C realm (For the most part). Since we are just attaching cameras in multiple configurations all we are actually doing is providing an AP ship and taking photos for personal, or possibly commercial usage. This activity does not pose a real threat to the UAV marketplace since all we are doing is saturating the labs with vehicles.

If we were developing systems or UAS then we may wish to reconsider our actions. As long as we are remaining hobbyist, or advanced hobbyist then I would not be to concerned about this topic.

FYI - Patrick pulled this off of the FAA website.

__________________________________________________ _____

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

This is 8700.25 pulled off of the FAA website last year check out 3d.

[dreslism]

Gene, forgive me if i'm wrong here, (impending faa regulation aside) , affordable insurance possible through a group rate still constitutes monetary gain ......... I'm not saying thats a bad thing....its a great thing..... just trying to compare apples to apples as far as where we get our motivation........

Who is the monetary gain too? Definately not RCAPA or whatever. No one individual can get insurance on their own, if they do, most deals I've heard are as long as you tell no one else. Read around, that is the current deal basically. A few have found insurance, but if they tell anyone, they will lose their policy.

It appears that RCAPA has finally found someone to potentially cover them if they get like 150( I think) or more people to go in on a policy.

If you are looking to do AP commercially (which many in here are willing to at least give it a go) you most likely want to get insurance, which has been next to impossible on your own.

I don't see how getting a "group rate" provides any monetary gain for RCAPA.

I think it is almost the only way to get insurance; that is, as a group.

On the other hand, creating a group by yourself and saying your group should be the group to certify commercial operators via your own flight school kinda sounds like monetary gain as a motivation to me.

[birdman11787]

Birdman-
If you have an insurance outlet that doesn’t require us to do a buy of around a 150 polices @ $750 a head and then do the leg work to find the people we are all ears. Folks are turning away work because they can’t policies let alone at a price point that makes sense.

Dude..... I didn't mention anything about having an insurance outlet........ the only point I was trying to make was that there is monetary motivation for everyone involved in these "professional associations" : RCAPA, RAPA, and John's new "association" . Don't throw stones at each other.... you all have "agenda's" and to try and convince me otherwise is pointless. I would just like to see the discussions productive and intelligent without personal attacks because someone has a different opinion. Thats all.

[birdman11787]

Who is the monetary gain too? Definately not RCAPA or whatever.

Scott,
If you or the "founding members" of RCAPA are able to get insurance at a "reasonable group rate" ...... there was "monetary motivation"..... that was my only point .

[CenTexFlyer]

Oh man.... C'mon guys......

No one was attacking, only facts here.......

Yes, birdman, there was monetary gain..... for all of us! That's if, as a group RCAPA could get group insurance, it would be a monetary gain for the entire group, not a single individual or even a small group of "founding" individuals. It was an advantage to a group called "AP phtographers". No schools, no companies, no 401K's to feed....

Patrick kindly posted what the FAA has intended from their website. It's just a factual backup to what we see is about happen to both the commercial aspect and to the "advanced hobbiest" in this scenario. We, as a group, need to band together and refute/rebutt what the FAA intends as it is not based upon the practical experience that even "advanced hobbiest" have!

So, you might ask... "Just what do the founders of RCAPA.net want?"

Well I'll let out the secret of our "agenda" right now.

We want to be able to pursue our chosen avocation of aerial data collection with as little governmental regulation as possible. We do NOT want to regulate, we do NOT want to track, we do NOT want to dicatate to ANYONE how to do their business!

Would we do it, were we asked to? Durn tootin' we would! I think everyone would agree it would be better to have a group of "advanced hobbiest" oversea our operations rather than a group of McDonnel-Douglas engineers - don't you agree? (No offense to you McD-D engineers out there!)

Make no mistake, this is a highly charged issue. It has caused many of us in the RCAPA who are FRIENDS use coarse words with each other. We have tested the mettle and depths of many and will likely do so further, but we are STILL together as "unified voice" in the face of FAA regulation.

That is the best position for us to be in!

Gene

[patrickegan]

I have read all the posts. Pesonally, I don't like the attacks. I do want to say that I am not one of the ones against John. I had asked about the backgrounds of those representing RCAPA back in the spring and it wasn't easy finding out.
I think John has a much better background and has already established himself in communicating with the FAA.
John, please keep posting in this forum also,
thanks,
john

Birdman-

I’m a little confused are you’re for the idea of regulating the hobby APer’s as put forth in Zaneravitions presentation to the FAA?

I think this question would be a perfect poll in the open forum we could get a thumbs up or down for both platforms-

[Zaviation]

Thanks for the try birdman11787, but you are just setting yourself up as a target now.

Patrick, I made no such proposal to the FAA. My presentation was about the COMMERCIAL use of UAVs under 55 lbs. Quit misquoting me.

I really see no advantage to be gained in what you are trying to do unless it is personal, in which case you are doing a tremendous disservice to the very people you claim to be supporting. Perhaps everyone should read the forums again carefully, all three of them.

John

[patrickegan]

This isn’t one of the slides you presented to the FAA???

[CenTexFlyer]

John,

I don't think that Patrick is picking on you this time. Your slide does state (Commercial and Recreational) at the top. We have discovered that you have to be VERY careful in what you say to the G-men because they can take it and quite literally run with it. And once they start running, it's hard to stop them. That's why we pore over every word in every draft to make sure that we haven't included something that might unintentionally affect another area. Lots of eyes on a document has saved us a number of times.......

Gene

[randall1959]

Since there are very few planes that would be 2 kg or under that pretty much covers everyone. It would make a lot of money for the flight schools. Seems to be an agenda to me. I could even live with regulation after 5 kg but 2? Come on dude, that's less than the average non ap trainer. That would require nearly everyone flying today to become "certified" ( paying customer) that flies even the smallest glow plane, ap or not. It doesn't have to have a camera to be considered a UAV, only piloted from a point on the ground. What's next? Seems to me that if a certain individual gets his way it will mean a lot of moola coming his way and a LOT of headaches coming ours.
I can understand doing some kind of certification for larger, heavier planes flying in areas that take them over populations, but the guy out in the country with his .40 powered trainer and walmart digital camera would be unduly burdened, IMHO.
You want to kill a hobby? Over regulate and complicate it and you'll soon see a LOT of rc manufacturers going out of business and prices going a lot higher for the ones left.

[CenTexFlyer]

Since there are very few planes that would be 2 kg or under that pretty much covers everyone.

Note the all up weight....... this is the UAS going to Iraq. Put together from donations hustled up by Patrick @ RCAPA

http://home1.gte.net/texhills/Shabazz.jpg

[Zaviation]

Yes Patrick, that is one of the slides I showed the FAA. Do you also remember me posting this information?

"I also operate UAVs commercially and also have a flight school to teach fixed wing and helicopters. I called Hq FAA back in April to find out how they were progressing on the NPRM that was supposed to come out in Sept of this year. I was told that it was originally going to come out in March and then got delayed to Sept and now it was on indefinite hold due to another budget cut.

I told them that they need to come up with something to help the small UAV operators (under 55 lbs) who were left high and dry when the AMA decided they would not provide insurance for commercial operators or recreational UAVs. I told them that I had a flight school where we teach pilots to fly safely but they cannot get liability insurance because they have no certificate showing they are competent. Only pilots who have a lot of experience and can prove it can get insurance.

I have guys in the insurance industry who are willing to write insurance if I can get my school certified and issue certificates backed by the FAA. I also asked them about aircraft certification and they said they were thinking about having model manufacturers come up with a manual to put in each kit and if you followed it your aircraft would be certified. I told them that would kill the hobby industry because of the increased cost of kits that the manufacturere would have to pass on to the purchaser. Also, 99% of people who know what they are doing do not closely follow the manual anyway. I said they would have STCs coming out their ears.

I suggested a "certify the builder" program modeled after the EAA process with local designees to help builders get certified. After a bit more discussion they said that I had obviously thought about the under 55 lb UAVs more than they had and was way ahead of them. They asked me to mome to Washington and give them a presentation about under 55 lb UAV aircraft and aircrew certification. I did just that in Mid-May. I went to Hq FAA in Washington DC and found that the FAA has put together a team to address the UAV issues, large and small.

I briefed a team made up of engineers, lawyers, psychologists, safety specialists, airline pilots, etc. In all, a pretty savvy bunch. I only had about 5 charts and didn't get through all of those when they agreed that they had to re-think the whole UAV issue. Up until that point, they had never even thought about the under 55 lb category. They are so used to the AMA taking care of the modelers that they haden't noticed that there is an entire burgeoning industry out here just waiting to emerge as soon as we can get some regulatory issues settled and be able to get some kind of certification for aircrew and aircraft.

We discussed a lot of issues for about an hour and they asked me if I wanted a job. I politely refused but they wanted a way to capture my experience and expertise because they recognized that it would take them a long time to catch up on the under 55 lb category. I agreed to work with them if they could come up with a way to may me. They asked me for a proposal which I provided and they are working on ways to fund it. In the meanwhile, I have been assigned a focal point on the team to coordinate my efforts and also provide a kind of conduit to get information out to the small UAV operators. I have not broadcast all of this much because there has not been a lot happening. The stage is set for some things to get done and I would like to have a way to channel information back and forth as necessary."

I also explained to these forums that I have absolutely no financial interest in Roberts flight school. I was trying to get flight school certification for his school because it is the only one that I know of that should be certified. I also used that slide to show the FAA that the under 55 lb COMMERCIAL UAVs are different that the larger ones. They had been working on regulations that would handle small UAVs the same as big ones, I mean BIG ones. The group that is getting all the support in these forums is supporting that one-size-fits-all philosophy. I do not want to have to get a utility type certification for my 5 lb UAV, Nor do I want be required to have a commercial pilots license to operate it. This is the philosophy the FAA was following until I briefed them otherwise, and that that is also the philosophy being supported by the only group recognized by these forums.

Sure I am supporting regulation to the FAA, but regulation that is at a much lower level than other folks are supporting. In fact I am working to try to make the under 55 lb UAV operators self-regulating to the greatest extent possible. I think most people are supporting this other group simply because they can say someone is doing something and they don't have to get involved. Take my advice, get involved and read everything you can about what these groups that are "speaking for you" are really doing. Read carefully the posts in this forum, the UAV forum, and RunRyder Aerial Photography forum. Do your homework and then make your judgements. You will be glad you did.

Others will tell you to look at my website and all the things I claim to have done. They imply that I am being supperior by displaying all of my lifes accomplishments that way. That just sounds like good old jealousy to me. I have not shown anything on my website that is not absolutely true. I just love to learn and do things. Let those naysayers put up their websites. I am proud of what I have done and am doing and have no intention of stopping.

John Zaner

[Zaviation]

Put together from donations hustled up by Patrick @ RCAPA

Gene,
This is a UAV manufactured by your company, bought with donations hustled up by Patrick @ RCAPA. Probably to be sent to our troops in Iraq with "no financial gain" by your company. I really wouldn't expect your company to be making a profit from RCAPA donataions.

However, If we don't think of this as just a free UAV being sent to Iraq. How about if we think of it a part of an advertising campaign which could lead to a lot of future sales for your company. I mean "after all folks if it is good enough for our troops it is good enough for you". I can just hear it now.

So, if we think of this as part of an ad campaign for your company which could boost future sales, then that could lead us to thinking that RCAPA donations paid for your ad campaign. I am not saying this is true. I am just saying there are different ways of looking at things and questioning motives, just as you guys are constantly questioning mine. I know what I just said will stir up a lot of emotions on your part. Now you know how I feel.

Regards, John

[patrickegan]

We don’t advocate commercial licensees or any licenses for recreational or “hobby flying” nor does the FAA deem non-commercial AP as anything but recreational. Again the ASTM wants to have commercial operators get a commercial license just as a full size pilot taking pictures for profit. I have never gone to any governing body and suggested for one second that they should regulate any segment of RCAP.

I know you already know this but let me reiterate my personal view for the rest of the group my mantra has been an exemption for the under 55lbs class LOS UAV/UAS.

This forum could use a sticky about AMA insurance. Lots of park flyers out there who think they are covered by the AMA and its insurance rider, my suggestion would be give it a reread and good luck on a payout.

[patrickegan]

Mr. Altruism,

RCAPA was asked directly by combat troops on the ground in Iraq if we could supply a platform with a specific mission outlined by an EOD team that picks up military vehicles knocked out by IED’s.

The following is a direct quote:

well, they want to put their video cam on a plane to use for looking for "hodgies" that may be setting up to ambush them while they are destroying roadside bombs

This mission was reiterated at the ASTM meeting by a representative of the Government followed up by a “we don’t have anything to send them at this point.”

Looks like “hodgie likes to sap our guys and so I took it upon myself to ask vendors to donate equipment and labor to supply these guys with something that could reconnoiter for snipers thus helping to possibly save the lives of some of our troops. Your statement is just as inane as those expressed by the fools in the forums who were against sending the troops anything because the Iraqi’s are being oppressed.

So feel free to email all of the vendors who donated a few thousand $’s worth of equipment for the benefit of those combat soldiers Castle Creations, Wirelessvideocameras.com Bishop power products, FMA direct, RPFlightsystems, Eagletree, Hobbylobby and tell them how they are just money grubbing bastards.

So with your line of thinking are you suggesting that we should have said no?

[Invertedflyby]

I will state my opinion on this whole thing. I don't think it's a good idea to get the government involved regulating r/c aircraft. Why bring attention to it to be regulated? If it is insurance you are after that is a (free) market issue. It’s basic economics, Supply and Demand, it will work itself out over time.

The thing that concerns me is your mentality towards regulation. You seem to have an enabling outlook on things. You have a long list of different licenses and accomplishments. That is a good thing, but there is such a thing as being accomplished at something and not having a license to prove it. Model aircraft should be one of those things, you shouldn't need a license to operate them. America thrives on freedom and ingenuity, government regulation restricts those things. You sound like a government man, having worked for them for a long time and are proud of that fact. I could be wrong but I think your thinking goes like this. "because they gave me a license I can do this and am good at it"(and by that I don’t mean that you aren’t good at them). I say do it on your own merits, don't enable someone else to say you can do it. I see you built some personal computers that you and your wife use, and you built the Ethernet network in your home. That’s awesome. Do you have an A+ certification?

My dad was an air traffic controller, I grew up in the aviation world and in the right seat of his Comanche. I have seen the FAA get a little carried away in the past and am leary of just trying to give them the key to my hobby. Bob Hoover was a good example. Personally, for me, if worst comes to worst, it won’t be a problem because I hold a commercial pilot’s license, but it is hardly needed to fly model airplanes. I don’t see your plan happening, it is overkill and there is no way that the FAA can fund or hire enough model aircraft examiners and inspectors to regulate all the r/c aircraft in the country. And I don’t think the taxpayers would like the idea.

Also please try to have some consistency regarding whether you do or do not profit from the school that is on your website. I have seen your posts on both websites and they contradict each other.

[Zaviation]

RCAPA was asked directly by combat troops on the ground in Iraq if we could supply a platform with a specific mission outlined by an EOD team that picks up military vehicles knocked out by IED’s.

That is exactly what I mean. Just because the military asked for a UAV does not mean that you had to select one of Gene's. There are any number of UAV manufacturers out there who would gladly have given one of their systems for free just for the advertising value. You basically took a requirement and sole sourced it to an insider with RCAPA funds. Who is to say that yours met the requirements better than someone elses? However, I bring up the posibility of conflict of interest and commercial advertising (which is one of the reasons I left RCAPA to begin with) and you guys just brush it aside and come right back at me.

I am telling you. as I have told you before, I have no legal or financial interest in Roberts school. We agreed to work together because there should be a school which can certify commercial UAV pilots. We agreed to avoid merging legally because of insurance and liability issues. I repeat, I have no financial interest in the FAA establishing licensing requirements for Commercial UAV operators.

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. My briefing pointed out that the under 55 lb UAVs ghould be treated differently and not tossed in with the larger ones.

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. However I am not advocating that.

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. All this is just for thought and is a work in progress. None of this detailed training stuff was briefed to the FAA.

The FAA is investigating a couple of incidents now where recreational 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.

As for being very good at something and not having a license, I appreciate that circumstance and agree. If fact, in most cases you have to be good to get a license. It is the license that proves that you are good and permits you to get insurance without all the hassle we have now. Imagine a commercial driver or commercial fisherman looking for liability insurance without a license. The insurers don't issue policies just because you claim to be very good at something. If commercial UAV operators want to be able to get liability insurance without a hassle they better step up to the plate and be willing to get a license. I want to make sure you only need a license to fly an under 55 lb UAV not a license to fly Boeing 747 UAV.

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. These types of incidents are what put us on the FAA RADAR screen for regulatory action. They just were not aware that the under 55 lb UAVs should be managed differently. I made them aware of that fact and thats why they want me to work with them. They know little about the under 55 lb world either recreational or commercial. Our track record on self-regulation is not without some obvious stains. We have a tremendous opportunity here to step up and be responsible if we can work together to bring it off.

Regards, John

[dklassen]

Some people are simply more comfortable with big brother running their lives, and in fact invite them in with open arms. Other's like me are not. All this certification BS and like proposals are ridicules and over the top. It's like a little kid that gets caught stealing and the father asks him what he thinks his punishment should be. Instead of apologizing to dad and proposing a day of detention with out his Play Station, he proposes to dad a good whipping, some new rules, maybe an earlier curfew, etc, etc, etc. All along dad was only going to send him to his room with out dinner.

Like anything else, a few overzealous self important individuals will screw it up for everyone else.

[JettPilot]

DKlassen is 100% correct.

MONEY AND POWER is the strongest motivation in the world. Its very obvious that Zaviation wants to be "somebody" and make money with the authority of the FAA and the US government to use as a way to make us all do what he wants.

Inviting regulation is NEVER a good thing Do you all wonder why ZAviation is trying to get the government involved in controlling what we can or cant do It can be summed up in one word - CORRUPTION . 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]

Hey Guys,

I think a key point here is still being overlooked...that is "UAV" by defenition and what the FAA wants to do about them.. They(correct me if I'm wrong)want to lump ALL RC things that fly for COMMERCIAL purpose into the SUB 55 LB CLASS of un-manned ariel vehicles.... THIS IS BAD!!!
The line in the sand needs to be between PIC-LOS(Pilot in Control and Line of Site) and the true GPS guided aircraft.. We need to work to educate the FAA the difference between a SS and a Camera or something that can be launced and forgoten about until its time to land...

Myron

[dklassen]

Yes indeed. I'm working on a document for the RCAPA that addresses that very thing. That's the direction we should me moving.

[Zaviation]

The line in the sand needs to be between PIC-LOS(Pilot in Control and Line of Site) and the true GPS guided aircraft.. We need to work to educate the FAA the difference between a SS and a Camera or something that can be launced and forgoten about until its time to land...

That is very wrong. An Unmanned Aircraft is an aircraft without a person in it. It matters not whether it is LOS, has an autopilot, or not. A long time ago, before I ever got involved, the FAA defined an aircraft as something that gets out of ground effect.

Therefore, by definition, a UA is something that gets out of ground effect without a person on board. That includes a Slow Stick, unless you have it on a string (tethered). If we are still stuck back on basic definitions, someone has not been doing any homework at all.

John

[Zaviation]

Yes indeed. I'm working on a document for the RCAPA that addresses that very thing. That's the direction we should me moving.

Does that mean that you, and RCAPA, are also moving in the direction of regulation? I think everyone is moving in the direction of regulation. The FAA announced a long time ago that they were working on a New Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) for UAVs.

By their definition LOS/PIC includes radio controlled Slow Sticks. None of us are inviting regulation. The FAA announced that it was going to regulate a long time ago. I think we are all working to minimize the impact of that regulation.

John

[CenTexFlyer]

That is very wrong.

I swear Buck,..... it's not what you say, it's how you say it..... I believe there is some latitude here, and from what we have gathered, the FAA does too! I have really been trying to keep an open mind, but this abrogation of common sense far exceeds any boundaries that I had. It appears as JettPilot may be on to something.....

[Zaviation]

Just because the military asked for a UAV does not mean that you had to select one of Gene's. There are any number of UAV manufacturers out there who would gladly have given one of their systems for free just for the advertising value. You basically took a requirement and sole sourced it to an insider with RCAPA funds. Who is to say that yours met the requirements better than someone elses? However, I bring up the posibility of conflict of interest and commercial advertising (which is one of the reasons I left RCAPA to begin with) and you guys just brush it aside and come right back at me.



I asked about this a while back and it just got forgotten I guess. I think it is a legitimate question and deserves an answer. If I were an RCAPA member who ponied up some funds I would like to know. This is the kind of thing that would get you into the Washington Post if you tried it around the professionals.
John

[CenTexFlyer]

An idea takes shape and someone puts out a call for an airframe - I raise my hand and say "I can do that".

A conflict of interest on an organization that takes no money and has no dues?!?!?!

Sensibility has been completely abandoned here. McCarthyism lives!

[patrickegan]

That is exactly what I mean. Just because the military asked for a UAV does not mean that you had to select one of Gene's. There are any number of UAV manufacturers out there who would gladly have given one of their systems for free just for the advertising value. You basically took a requirement and sole sourced it to an insider with RCAPA funds. Who is to say that yours met the requirements better than someone elses? However, I bring up the posibility of conflict of interest and commercial advertising (which is one of the reasons I left RCAPA to begin with) and you guys just brush it aside and come right back at me.

I am telling you. as I have told you before, I have no legal or financial interest in Roberts school.

Regards, John

Maybe it's love??? :D

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4168791&postcount=44

Any UAV company that wants to step forward and donate I would happy to try and find them a team that can use it. (Sorry no combat Slow Stick’s) I asked for all of the equipment shown including the platform from RPFlightsystems. Rest assured no one came forward and said here let me give you a UAV/UAS, but who knows maybe today is my lucky day!

Only one person donated any money and that money was for shipping and that is what it was used for shipping R&R items to combat personnel in Iraq. The people that got the donations thus far aren’t sitting on their duffs but are performing missions and dodging bullets daily.

Line in the sand-

What can you do, besides sit around and denigrate this effort to help our brave men and women overseas? I feel that this effort is more important then anything else. We are first and foremost information gatherers and if we can’t band together to produce something to help save the lives of our troops when they ask for it then I don’t want any part of not only you but this as a profession.

[Zaviation]

It may be love that motivated someone to send that EOD unit a UAV, more specifically, one of Genes. I still think some of the motivation was financial. There is a lot of value in the free advertising that comes from something like this.

What bothers me more is my background in Systems Acquisition Management and all the schools we went to learning about he requirements definition process. One of the cardinal rules is you don't let the customer specify the solution, they specify the requirement. This unit said they need a UAV. What they meant is they need a way to detect IEDs before they have a chance to hurt anyone. I really doubt if anyones UAV will meet that requirement. It may provide some fun for them before they crash it or the dust eats it up. But what if, just one time, it gives them a false sense of security and someone gets hurt or killed because your device erroneously gives them an all clear.

When I look at the real requirement I can't help but think of a rabbit (in this case, a one-wheeled sled with a swivel wheel like those one wheeled trailers you see) attached to the front of the first vehicle in a convoy with a 25 ft pole. This sled would have a frequency generator with a directional antenna focused on the road in front. It would generate signals up and down the frequency spectrum every few seconds to set off any radio controlled EIDs in the roadway. It could also have a powerful EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse Generator) using the same directional antenna and sent a powerful EMP down into the road surface in between frequency scans. This would be a second line of defense and would fry any electronic device which would either disable it or set it off if it were triggered that way.

The insurgents are using pretty much the same explosive chemical for their EIDs and we know what it is because we have found stockpiles of it. The third line of defense on the rabbit could be an electronic sniffer for, at least, that chemical. An alarm would flash signaling an immediate halt for the convoy until the threat was removed. These are a few things I thought of just as I sat here typing. When you look at the real requirement you can get outside the box, or in this case, outside the UAV and maybe find a better solution.

By the way, the Systems Acquisition Process taught in these schools led to some pretty awesome systems. During my career we turned out the F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, the B-1, and all our stealth capability. I am not saying I contributed that much, I was just a computer systems engineer. However, I did have to go to the schools and learned a bit.

Regards, John

[JettPilot]

Nope, I made millions on the deal


What deal did you make millions on Patrick ???

[dklassen]

That is very wrong. An Unmanned Aircraft is an aircraft without a person in it. It matters not whether it is LOS, has an autopilot, or not. A long time ago, before I ever got involved, the FAA defined an aircraft as something that gets out of ground effect.

Therefore, by definition, a UA is something that gets out of ground effect without a person on board. That includes a Slow Stick, unless you have it on a string (tethered). If we are still stuck back on basic definitions, someone has not been doing any homework at all.

John

John,

What we fly are NOT UAV's man. Pull your head out. Do some research.

http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/arac/vpqt0696.pdf

http://www.acq.osd.mil/uas/docs/airspace2.doc

And no, I am not into regulations, I am proposing just the opposite. There is not a need for regulation or certifications. We are flying radio controlled models, NOT UAV's!!!

[Zaviation]

Write it, yell it, scream it at the moon. In the end you will have to accept it. We are flying UAVs. I agree that recreational UAVs will need much less regulation than the commercial guys but you can't hide from the FAA.

It is kinda like saying we don't need FCC regulations because we are flying models. The problem is we are using real frequencies. It is the same with UAVs.

It is not me saying it nor did I initiate it, the FAA did. I started a thread a long time ago to try to pass on information (sharing I think I called it). The problem is that you guys are holding down the transmit button and nobody can get through. All I have ever received back is static.

I honestly don't need the aggravation so I think I will sign off now. You all can rage at the windmills for a while.

Regards, John

[dklassen]

Did you read the documentation I provided? It has the FAA def of a UAV in it.

Here, I'll make it easy for you.

http://members.cox.net/dwk/faauav.jpg

[JWarren]

This thread has been moved to UAV due to the topic title.

[patrickegan]

What deal did you make millions on Patrick ???

On the free UAS for the EOD team. ;)

It may be love that motivated someone to send that EOD unit a UAV, more specifically, one of Genes. I still think some of the motivation was financial. There is a lot of value in the free advertising that comes from something like this.

What bothers me more is my background in Systems Acquisition Management and all the schools we went to learning about he requirements definition process. One of the cardinal rules is you don't let the customer specify the solution, they specify the requirement. This unit said they need a UAV. What they meant is they need a way to detect IEDs before they have a chance to hurt anyone. I really doubt if anyones UAV will meet that requirement. It may provide some fun for them before they crash it or the dust eats it up. But what if, just one time, it gives them a false sense of security and someone gets hurt or killed because your device erroneously gives them an all clear.

How on God’s green earth do you know what the hell they said, let alone meant? A “hodgie” isn’t an IED! I have heard that same crap from other beltway insiders “those guys over there can’t give me a definite mission!” That’s funny I figured it right out but then again I don’t work inside the beltway. We all know you beltway types just love regulation, common sense in regulation out. You don’t make any sense and I think after the last few days of you trying to make your point all you have really accomplished is instilling trepidation in this community with all of your proposed FAA regulation talk for the recreational flyer.



I think they are playing my song :)

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/natlib/ihas/s...6/100010386.mp3

[JettPilot]

Hahaha , now I get it Patrick. When I saw the millions thing you had me salavating :D Since I designed and fly a UAV I was already planning how I would spend the money ;) But I guess I will have to keep my day job and postpone buying the house in Hawaii :(

[patrickegan]

I’m glad you found it funny- :eek:

Wow, I got a warning for defending myself for helping out the troops. You might as well just give me the boot now because I’m not going to take it laying down when someone casts aspersions upon my patriotism or motives for wanting to do what I can for or fighting men and women in harms way!!!

[Myron]

John,

I will have to go digging through the archives to find the thread, but you were the one that didnt agree with anyone at RCAPA about the fact that the FAA was gonna step in on commercial RC anything... You were addamant that you and your SS were not and should not be affected and you were ticked off that RCAPA was even trying to get involved with the FAA and regs. But, we knew it was going to happen and you didnt like the idea and you went off in a huff. Step forward to present day... You have finally come to reality and you now want to be the "expert" in sub 55 lb class UAV.. I asked you in another thread how you as an "expert" interfaced with the FAA on flight paths and your UAV operation ect. ect.... Your response was basically that you didnt have to and you dont... You dont even own a full blown autopilot and you do not fly fully autonamously, HOW DO YOU EXPECT TO BE THE EXPERT and why do you think the FAA will listen to you alone over the big boys like Boeing, SAIC, Honewell and all the companies that have the deep pockets.. Do you really think you have that much stroke with the FAA?

I think that I am right in my previous statement... The FAA needs to know that a SS with a camera is not really a UAV but a small plane with camera and it flys by PIC and it never goes beyong visual range even thoug some guy is making 300 bones for a few pictures... They do need to keep tabs on UAV's that CAN FLY via gps waypoints without a pilot for obvious reasons... Last I heard and read the FAA wanted to put all the commercial use models into the UAV category(because it is used commercially) and that is what this whole fight is about...

I also recall very clearly that YOU hammered me(you got a warnings on this forum) about me being in RCAPA and "representing" other guys in the AP field yet I did not have a web site of my own nor was I doing alot of commercial flying... NOW things have changed a bit. We do own and develope full blown UAS's and your the guy with NO true UAV credentials trying to represent me.... Being that you cannot manage to remain polite and profesional in ANY forum... I respectfully say that I think YOUR WRONG and I DO NOT WANT YOU representing me in any way shape or form...

Myron

[galaxyrpv]

Here is my 2 cents. I operate and manufacture outdoor RC blimps that range from 30 feet to over 50 feet. I have full liability insurance up to $1,000,000 coverage. That same coverage is offered to any of my clients that purchase a blimp from me. I have operated in class B airspace with coordination from the local control tower. I have flow target drones and reconnaissance UAVs while I was in the ARMY for 4 years, and I hold a private pilot license. Since I am a manufacture that sells domestically and worldwide the FAA is interested in my operating procedures and safety precautions. I am in communication with the FAA rule makers and have been invited to Washington DC to discuss further my commercial applications. I will tell you this; the FAA is not interested in governing recreational RC operations. There are simply too many lobbyists against it and the enforcement costs are too extensive. They would prefer recreational RC pilots govern them selves. From what has been explained to me the FAA has no clear avenue to proceed with civil UAV requirements or airworthiness. They are still trying to figure out all the possible applications and different aircraft that will apply. They are not even close to drafting future rules and regulations. I have been in contact with RCAPA and Zaviation and have heard both of their suggestions. It seems they are both working on theory and what might be used in the future. I however am operating civil UAVs right now for profit. My desire is not to see an inexperienced UAV operator stick a blimp, airplane, or helicopter in a major freeway causing the FAA to be forced to regulate us sooner than expected. My whole lively hood is wrapped in civil UAVs, so I will be an active participant in the development of future FAA regulations.

I have been involved in RC my whole life. My father, Ted White, was Vice President of the AMA. I will help protect our recreational RC privileges.

Tony White
Galaxy RPV

[groundfx]

At this rate, freedom is dead. I the irony here is that so many fight against freedom thinking they are fighting for it.

My hat tips to the gentlemen who represented the true RCer spirit and fought to deregulate RC flying away from the exclusive realm of the heavily regulated "HAMS" and gave it to the masses. It was a noble goal and the golden years were great.

Unfortunately, many years later, like entropy, the will to regulate everything is sometimes stronger than the will and ability to fight it.

History tells us that freedom is only ever won by a long fight and a struggle. History also tells us that freedom is usually lost in an instant.

[dklassen]

Did you read the documentation I provided? It has the FAA def of a UAV in it.

Here, I'll make it easy for you.

http://members.cox.net/dwk/faauav.jpg

What about this? You claimed that we are all flying UAV's and pose regulations and certification biased on that opinion. I have provided documentation to the contrary. What say you?

You obviously have the coin to do whatever you want and can withstand anything the FAA brings down. Most of us can't. Your proposal and those of RCAPA could potentially bring a lot of small AP businesses down. The RCAPA has been backing away from these to their credit.

BTY, I understand your need to express your success and stature but it sounds pretty condescending and downright snotty to those of us who work hard to get by and have a lot at stake with our AP businesses.

Understand John, emotions run high over this subject. While you were cashing in on the .com bubble I was getting laid off when it burst. I have struggled for everything that I have and managed to work myself into a position with the high real estate prices in CA to leave for another state and make a full time run at my AP business. You have nothing to loose, I do. This is just a past time for you, if it goes away you'll just do something else. Folks like me have a lot more at stake than you do.

[CAFplanekid]

Well guys, he DOES get to sit in an enclosed box at the Superbowl after all :rolleyes: Hmmm, I wouldn't have it any other way...

[dklassen]

It is an FAA document from 1996. We're actually still flying models under 1981 guidelines. The FAA does not consider model aircraft UAV's. I've also talked with the Western Regional Rules and Standards Manager at the FAA and he has all the latest documentation on the subject. Maybe the Academy of Model Aeronautics will have to rename themselves to Academy of UAV Aeronautics soon. When the FAA talks about UA's, UAS, UAV's, the are referring to government, military and other commercial aircraft, not models and not models used for aerial photography line-of-sight.

RCAPA is not backing away from this subject or working with the FAA, they are only backing away (hopefully) from this ridiculous and irresponsible push for certifications and other like regulations for model aircraft used line-of-sight for AP applications. Believe me, I'm not singing RCAPA praises I have done my share of battles with them. I'm one of the few who were not in lock step with their line of thinking. They are however open to new thoughts and approaches and willing to course correct. For you, I really would prefer that you not talk to the FAA again and just go about your business. You have 45 helicopters in your stable and a bank full of money. Go fly them and forget about the FAA.

[dklassen]

I'm not talking about the guy flying his 40 sized trainer at 25,000 feet. Let the FAA do with them as they please. They are hobbyist already breaking the AMA and FAA guidelines. I'm talking about those of us who are flying line-of-site AP sorties at 300 feet or below as a business. The FAA knows all about us and they also know we aren't the ones breaking the rules or causing problems. I looked at your sides and you seek to suggest regulations and certifications for us that are not necessary and would most likely cripple our business. Instead of educating the FAA on what we do and why we don't need regulations, you guys right out of the box start coming up with all kinds of ridicules classifications, regs and certifications. That's just plain stupid. My head is anywhere but in the sand, I can see people like you with your hidden agendas a mile a way. You must have a hidden agenda why else would anyone in their right mind propose such things to the government for those of us flying models for AP use.

I'm done and have said my peace. I only hope and pray that people like you don't hose everything up for the rest of us.

[Karl B²]

If anyone wishes to restart this conversation, you are welcome to do so (sans personal attacks/provocations) in a new thread.

Closed.