Rational airing of ideas for dealing with the FAA [Archive]

LukeZ

Aug 19, 2005, 01:21 AM

I agree with the idea and soundness of an exemption for under 55 LOS commercial AP. Frankly I don't see what the difference is between those and every other model aircraft out there, at least to the FAA. Just because one guy's Slow Stick takes pictures for money and the other guy's takes pictures for free, shouldn't affect their inherent safety (or danger) to the populace below. As long as it stays LOS it seems to me the AMA should even cover it. I understand the FAA has always made a distinction between commercial and non-commercial, but the distinction really only makes sense when we're talking about full sized aircraft carrying passengers for pay. If someone pays you to fly them around they have a right to expect you know what you're doing and they're going to land safely at the end. If someone pays you to take a picture I guess they have a right to expect it doesn't turn out fuzzy, but the FAA should really care less. And hopefully, they don't.

If the FAA doesn't go for an under 55 lb (or maybe under 30 lb) exemption, then I really don't know what I'd offer as an alternative (say, under 29 lb? :p).

As for the autonomous stuff, I think Patrick is right, we probably should have a good answer for the FAA because the regs are inevitable. At the same time I agree with Myron that the less we invite on ourselves the better.

Naturally there has been endless debate on this topic here and over at RCAPA and elsewhere. What I personally would really like to see is an exemption based on weight for autonomous, non LOS operations as well, though I don't know how realistic that is.

All the ideas about training or certifications I am kind of skeptical about. It seems like too much work for the Feds to administer or remember about. My gut feeling is that they'd find it a lot easier just to ban it all except for the rich folks, rather than come up with a test/exam/license they could feel good in. And anyways, what would they test on? It certainly wouldn't be about practice: the possible permutations are endless. The only thing I could see is if they required you to take a test that asked questions about the law, to make sure you knew what was legal and not. That way you couldn't say you "didn't know you were breaking the rules" when your near space arial robot collides with the shuttle on re-entry. :rolleyes:

What might work is if autonomous operations are illegal over populated areas (could define that somehow, say city limits or something), unless prior approval from the FAA is obtained. Over non populated areas then we can go hog wild.;) But there again I don't think I'd go to the FAA and hand them my idea, I'd rather just lay low, keep my nose clean and use my common sense, and hope (perhaps naively), that they forget about me what with all the other more important things they have to think about.

Or, I could always move to Canada...

Luke

typicalaimster

Aug 19, 2005, 09:37 AM

What might work is if autonomous operations are illegal over populated areas (could define that somehow, say city limits or something), unless prior approval from the FAA is obtained. Over non populated areas then we can go hog wild.;)

There needs to be a definition of 'populated'. The route I want to fly has about 10 houses per mile. I don't know how I feel on this. My autonomous route I'd like to fly goes from Leesburg, Va to Warrenton, Va down Rt-15. The plane will fly itself, and I'll be following in the passenger seat of my friends car. I've planned a route after looking at several air charts and satellite maps. The plane will zig zag around and maintain flight over open fields. The thing is I cross several different roads and one major highway. I'm very comfortable with the route since I have plenty of abort zones along the way. I'll also be able to take over control of the plane at any time.

Another route I want to fly is out in Arizona. It's from one end of Sahuarita road (31.9572567 N / 111.0748423' W) to the other end (31.9628445 N / 110.6714333 W). Once again I have to fly over one major highway along the route. The development out there is in small pockets and I'd end up zig zagging again to stay clear of those small residential areas. There are some old old old military reservations according to the 1972 topo maps you get from Earth-dot-Google. Most of that land was old Titan missile sites and has been turned over to the state or private developers.

LukeZ

Aug 19, 2005, 11:28 AM

Yeah, "populated" certainly would have to be defined somehow, and as you point out, there's some difficulties. It would be pretty much impossible not to cross highways or other streets at some point in your flight these days in America, so at the very least you'd come into potential contact with the population traveling those roads.

Others might be able to think of more creative ideas for restrictions, but as I say, I'm not even sure that thinking up of restrictions for ourselves is all that great of an idea in itself. Maybe we can think of it as "having some ideas ready" in case they ask. Thinking up of ideas to bring to them on our own initiative doesn't seem to work real well, because the history of this sort of thing on these fora has been that no one can quite agree on what specifically it should be. Everyone's idea is in some part based on what they think the nature and likelihood of the FAA's restrictions to be, and some think they'll be awful and some think they'll leave us mostly alone.

If we can get the FAA to make the first move somehow, and from galaxyrpv it sounds like we might be able to, then we'd all be in a much better position to debate a response.

Luke

LukeZ

Aug 19, 2005, 11:30 AM

The plane will fly itself, and I'll be following in the passenger seat of my friends car. I've planned a route after looking at several air charts and satellite maps. The plane will zig zag around and maintain flight over open fields. The thing is I cross several different roads and one major highway. I'm very comfortable with the route since I have plenty of abort zones along the way. I'll also be able to take over control of the plane at any time.I might say that this flight could perhaps fall under LOS rules, if you follow along. A lot of us have done this sort of long-distance flying with non-autonomous rc aircraft before, so I don't see what the difference is. If you keep it in sight and you can take over control at any point, for all intents and purposes you're doing nothing different than plain ol' XC.

Luke

dklassen

Aug 19, 2005, 11:34 AM

Frankly, these "autonomous" flights are one of the issues that have brought us into the FAA light. It's taking modeling above and beyond typical AMA type activities and FAA guidelines. Longer flights, higher altitudes, autonomous flights, etc. I'm looking at it from a business standpoint. I fly a helicam for a business and depending on what the FAA does it could cripple my operations.

lvspark

Aug 19, 2005, 11:57 AM

I might say that this flight could perhaps fall under LOS rules, if you follow along. A lot of us have done this sort of long-distance flying with non-autonomous rc aircraft before, so I don't see what the difference is. If you keep it in sight and you can take over control at any point, for all intents and purposes you're doing nothing different than plain ol' XC.
Luke

I agree with this. If the aircraft is flying within LOS, and the ground pilot has the ability to take control of the aircraft at any time, the aircraft is still operating by remote control. If the aircraft is programmed and set free to run its course, that is a completely different type of operation.

patrickegan

Aug 19, 2005, 12:10 PM

Yes it’s the 25,000’ guy that’s helping to scare the FAA into action.

dklassen

Aug 19, 2005, 12:25 PM

Don't know the site. My comments were stated from a discussion with an FAA rep although I've heard about it from various other sources as well.

LukeZ

Aug 19, 2005, 12:52 PM

...you start adding in all sorts of technology, GPS, higher and higher altitudes, etc the FAA is gonna do something about it. Unfortunately low-level AP operators are getting caught up in it.
I agree this is certainly the fear and also what we want to avoid. We don't want low-level AP guys to be slapped with regs designed for autonomous, non LOS, non pilot-in-control, long distance, high altitude and inherently more dangerous kind of stuff. That's what I think Patrick's suggested exemption is all about.

What I would be interested in discussing, if us mere mortals even know enough about the distant thoughts of the powers-that-be to do so, is whether or not there really is a likelihood that AP stuff is going to be be lumped in with more extreme UAV sorts of things. I hear this sort of thing often, i.e., "low-level AP operators are getting caught up in it", but will they really? I'm not asking a rhetorical question either, I'm sincerely curious. Some people seem to think they will be and others, such as galaxyrpv, seem less convinced.

What do we really know about this?

Luke

dklassen

Aug 19, 2005, 02:06 PM

My apologies, didn't mean to go off topic. I guess we all know the issues by now. Question is, how can we protect ourselves and influence the FAA to our advantage and protect our hobbies and businesses.

typicalaimster

Aug 19, 2005, 02:07 PM

I agree with this. If the aircraft is flying within LOS, and the ground pilot has the ability to take control of the aircraft at any time, the aircraft is still operating by remote control. If the aircraft is programmed and set free to run its course, that is a completely different type of operation.

I would agree the LOS stuff. In this case I take off and then flip the switch into autonomous mode. From there I just watch the telemetry and video. It's alot like you're 2.2 mile flight, since I'd be watching the video screen from inside the car, and not the plane itself.

I just want to know if we're talking about a dense populated area vs ?

LukeZ

Aug 19, 2005, 03:44 PM

Welll, maybe the discussion about populated areas should be a different thread, I think I was drifting a bit off with my thoughts there.

kd7ost

Aug 19, 2005, 05:28 PM

I just want to know if we're talking about a dense populated area vs ?

I think it depends on what you are doing. In your case I would personally say (My opinion) that populated would be inside city limits, or over residential neighborhoods or shopping centers, schools etc. Your description to me is a Rural setting and you are doing everything possible in the scope of the mission to stay within seconds of PIC. (Pilot in command) I also know of your plane and it's a docile and svelte electric. I also know you exhibit attention to detail and have watched some of your video's. You got a handle on it alright. I wouldn't give my seal of approval (Who cares, Just my opinion) to all the guys on these threads. When you take it all in and look at it, you'll do it just fine and have done a helluva a lot of prep and practice.

Dan

lvspark

Aug 19, 2005, 07:36 PM

"just watch the telemetry and video."

"since I'd be watching the video screen from inside the car, and not the plane itself."

I doubt we could classify that type of activity as LOS. :)
A persons situational awareness would be impaired.
Now if you had comm's and a radar in your car to search for other aircraft, now were talkin' :D

galaxyrpv

Aug 19, 2005, 10:30 PM

LukeZ

Aug 19, 2005, 11:50 PM

That certainly makes sense. I think the collision avoidance aspect of UAV operations is something that the creative folks here and elsewhere might want to think about; whoever comes up with a workable and novel solution could stand to make some good money. I understand there have been tests of avoidance systems for autonomous aircraft going on for some time, but mostly by Nasa and/or Burt Rutan and the like. Those sorts of systems simply won't fit into smaller UAVs.

If full sized aircraft had transponders of some sort, the signal of which a UAV could easily detect within a few mile range, then the UAV wouldn't need heavy and complicated avoidance equipment to know a plane was in the area. Perhaps the UAV wouldn't even need sophisticated avoidance logic either, it could simply drop altitude as fast as possible. The onus is still on the UAV to get out of the way, as it should be, but the full sized craft makes its presence known.

A transponder on the UAV might also not be a bad idea either, to let the full size guys know of its presence, otherwise given the size of some UAVs I don't think they'd show up on radar.

Or perhaps flight plans could be required to be filed just as full size aircraft must do. After that I'm kind of out of ideas; but anyways, even if all the hobby UAV guys quit playing with this stuff today, the challenge would still have to be solved by someone, because industry isn't going to give up on all the various sorts of small reconnaissance craft they're currently researching and developing.

Luke

patrickegan

Aug 20, 2005, 02:09 AM

At the ASTM meeting in May during lunch we discussed a cheap system ($25,000) that could sense but still had problems avoiding. My statement was that may be cheap by military standards but not for us little guys and the analogy of sense &A or a new truck. Believe me I stuck to my mantra that if the reg’s imposed were too stringent or cost prohibitive folks would just go underground. I was told the FAA will enforce it and catch violator’s sooner or later.

Yeah right I can do a flight be back in the car and gone like a cool breeze in under 10 minutes so go ahead put that in your recreational pipe and smoke it-P

typicalaimster

Aug 20, 2005, 09:05 AM

The main thing the FAA is concerned about with autonomous flight is the see and avoid issue. That is applicable any where an autonomous aircraft is flown. How are you going to practice see and avoid with an aircraft over a mile away?

There are a few programs like AirNav's Flight tracker where you can monitor the airspace in a specific area. They have it so it updates every 60 seconds. The problem is the 400k file it downloads each update. This isn't a small file transfer over a cellular link.

Work in Progress

Aug 25, 2005, 10:37 AM

Interesting thread you have here. I'm not a UAV operator but I fly RC models and full-size general aviation so have an interest in how airspace usage develops.
LukeZ, be careful wishing out loud about transponders. Here in Europe, our regulatory authority is mandating Mode S transponders for all "flying objects" (as they call them) by 2007. This requirement includes ultralights, gliders, balloons and even free-fall parachutists! The costs will be substantial and in many cases will exceed the current value of the aircraft they are attached to. No consideration has been given to exemptions for aircraft without electrical systems, or what happens if you weigh down a parachutist with batteries. As it stands, a lot of aircraft and other "flying objects", manned or tethered or otherwise, will be grounded here in 2007. Everyone is assuming that there will in practice be a lower weight cutoff is, which eliminates models, but this has yet to be clarified and may come with very restrictive conditions, our CAA is talking about a maximum of 500 metres range from operator, and 400 foot AGL ceiling. Believe me, you don't want something like this to be visited on you on your side of the Atlantic. Given the Fed's attitude towards private aviation singe 9/11, though, it's not as unthinkable as it once might have been.

patrickegan

Aug 25, 2005, 11:28 AM

Work-

You are preaching to the choir, we don’t want that CASA stuff out of Oz or the JAA stuff from Europe. Every time reg’s from either of those agencies get brought up as potential guidelines I cringe.

LukeZ

Aug 25, 2005, 04:13 PM

Patrick - right.

In the spirit of the title of this thread, I'm only wishing out loud for "rational ideas". :rolleyes: Those sound crazy.

Luke

Zaviation

Sep 01, 2005, 02:53 PM

I have uploaded my briefing charts that I used for the FAA with the words that go with them.

Briefing (http://www.zaneraviation.com/faauav.htm)

I understand that ASTM has come out with a draft proposal for aircraft certification in the under 55 lb categoty. Does anyone know what they are proposing?

Regards, John

patrickegan

Sep 01, 2005, 11:35 PM

Hello John,

You’re back! Let us start fresh with an open dialogue maybe this time we can try and work together as a group? :cool:

I believe what was presented was some of RCAPA’s ideas and also from the F38 committee meetings. I think the draft was posted somewhere I could look but it will take some time. :)

In other news looks like AC 91-57 is going to get a re-write kids. Looks like the FAA is hot to trot and the AMA is behind the curve. I don’t know that the last part is fact but it is the word on the street. ;)

Your pal, Patrick

dklassen

Sep 01, 2005, 11:42 PM

So this is the third place today that John has posted his document under the cover of a question. Hum...

patrickegan

Sep 01, 2005, 11:51 PM

oh yeah?

LukeZ

Sep 02, 2005, 01:06 AM

dklassen, let's please try not to start anything for the millionth time... John's post seems relevant to the title of this thread, nothing else needs to be said.

Don't mean to be picky, but I know from experience this is a volatile mix of people in here. Can we please stay on topic this time?

Luke

dklassen

Sep 02, 2005, 02:07 AM

Three posts today all in different forums with the same intent. John is back fishing again after his ban here. There's nothing rational about his ideas and nothing rational that will come out of this discussion as long as he is pushing his poison.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

New briefing file.

I have uploaded my briefing charts that I used for the FAA with the words that go with them.

Briefing

I understand that ASTM has come out with a draft proposal for aircraft certification in the under 55 lb categoty. Does anyone know what they are proposing?

Regards, John

Altitudes Limites in AP

I have put the slides I used in my briefing to the FAA up on my webside with the words that go with them.

Briefing

I understand that ASTM has come out with a draft proposal for the small UAVs under 55 lbs. Does anyone know what they are recommending?

Regards, John

UAV and the FAA

I presented a briefing to Hq FAA on 18 May of this year. I have posted the charts I used and the words that go with them on my website at:

http://www.zaneraviation.com/faauav.htm

I understand that ASTM has come out with a draft proposal for aircraft certification in the under 55 lb UAV category. Has anyone seen it?

Regards, John

Zaviation

Sep 02, 2005, 10:22 AM

Of course I posted it in three forums. Four actually. Everyone does that when they want to get the word out. I see the same announcement about the availability of AP insurance in all forums. Guys posting their latest commercial advertisement they shot with their helicam is posted in all forums. It is common practice.

dklassen
"Three posts today all in different forums with the same intent. John is back fishing again after his ban here. There's nothing rational about his ideas and nothing rational that will come out of this discussion as long as he is pushing his poison."

What is wrong with posting in different forums, I see you must belong to them all. What do you think my intent might be? You seem to know. And why do you call what I say poison. I clearly stated it is my opinion and my opinion alone. Did you actually read it before striking out?

I don't understand what is going on here. Every word in that briefing was my own and the opinions are my own. I posted just the charts without the words at the urging of folks on the forums "Oh come on John, we are all friends here". Then when I posted the charts everyone immediatly attacked them. I withdrew the charts until I got all the words typed in to go with them. Now I want everyone to know the words are there. I have put a lot of time and effort into those words over a long period of time (years) and think you should, at least, read them before and think about them before labeling them poison.

Everyone says the modeling community has been self regulating for years and should continue that way. I think there should be licenses, especially for instructors. I have been an instructor for 40 years and have never taken a penny in compensation from any student. I know and like Robert Barnes and I support what he is doing with his school. I repeat, I do not gain anything more than satisfaction if his school gets more students.

In fact, his school has been in operation for 16 years and he is always busy. Recently, he had a student from DEA who was going to use a helicopter for border patrol. Other than that his students have always been, and continue to be, recreational pilots. Ernie Huber ran a very successful helicopter school for years and I doubt if he ever had a commercial student. Does that say anything about the quality of instruction at AMA clubs? When people are willing to pay up to $1,000 including accomodations for a week of training to be recreational pilots it says we have a definite shortage of qualified instructors. How many of you hot shot pilots contribute any of your time to instructing new pilots. Maybe you are dead set against licenseing because you are afraid you can't pass the test.

My idea is to get instructors certified so that new students know what they are getting into. How many of us have seen the instructor crash the students airplane or helicopter? I think it would be better for the new guys to pay a local instructor to get good instruction rather than have to travel across the country to Roberts school to get it. Does that sound like I am trying to promote the school? Wake up people! Quit spitting venom and let's discuss this like reasonable people. I am not in this because I make my living at it. I am retired and have been for 14 years. I use my aerial photography business to offset the costs of doing some of these things because they need done. Last year I claimed a 5 digit business loss on my income tax. If my intent is to get rich I am going the wrong way.

Why don't we just try to discuss these issues rationally as the thread title asks? There is no hidden agenda on my end. I am a lifelong recreational modeler and want to contribute to the solution. How about you? Patrick, for the sake of future modelers, let's put this feud to bed and get on with the job. I am not questioning your motives at all, quit questioning mine. As for the draft ASTM proposal, I asked a question and got an answer, let's move on.

Regards, John

Zaviation

Sep 02, 2005, 10:50 AM

I have been working with a couple of the professors and some graduate students at Embry-Riddle on some research programs. The University is hosting their first conference on UAVs. I am going to be sitting in on a couple of the panels and making a case presentations with some flight demos. Prof Owen sent this email and asked me to pass it on to anyone who may be interested. The downside is that speakers also have to pay the registration fee. I look forward to meeting anyone who can make it.

John –
If you can think of anyone else who ought to attend, please send their contact information to me or have them contact me directly. I’m particularly interested in getting more actual operators and user communities involved (police, fisheries, real estate, private detectives, etc.) Below is a note I sent recently to the presidents of several state private detective associations.

As the leader within the Georgia private investigator community, I think you might be interested in the Conference on the Commercialization of Unmanned Aviation that will hold here at Embry-Riddle 31 Oct-2 Nov. As you are aware, small, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have penetrated a number of commercial markets over the past few years, including investigations. Lighter-than-air UAVs seem to have gained particular interest in your profession in the last couple of years. Their stability and low visual and aural signatures, particularly at night are particularly well suited to surveillance.

The purpose of our conference is to bring together the academic, government, producer, and various user communities to generate a broad discussion of UA applications in various economic realms and their long-term future. For that reason, I ask you to consider attending the conference or having a suitable representative from your organization attend. There is a lot to learn here.

Our web page is www.erau.edu/uav, and I’d be honored to discuss the conference with you further on the phone. Thanks.

And thanks to you.
- Rob

Robert C. Owen, Phd
Professor
Department of Aeronautical Science
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
600 S. Clyde Morris Blvd.
Daytona Beach FL 32114
386-226-6897, robert.owen@erau.edu

typicalaimster

Sep 02, 2005, 11:37 AM

- Does that say anything about the quality of instruction at AMA clubs?

- Maybe you are dead set against licenseing because you are afraid you can't pass the test.

- My idea is to get instructors certified so that new students know what they are getting into. How many of us have seen the instructor crash the students airplane or helicopter? I think it would be better for the new guys to pay a local instructor to get good instruction rather than have to travel across the country to Roberts school to get it.

Our local AMA club in Northern VA was asked to instruct the George Washinton University students how to fly planes. They are currently working on a UAV/S project at their school. I was one of the on call instructors for the students. We are also working with one of the local high schools with their UAV/S project. This is all done free of charge. The only thing that costs them is the AMA membership.

I can understand a 'school' for something that is big system and commercial related. If it's flying some slow stick around someones yard, I do not believe a school is needed.

--Scott

patrickegan

Sep 02, 2005, 12:00 PM

John,

I don’t mind working with anyone as long as they are rational and they are not talking down to me/others or besmirching RCAPA. Let’s remember the rules of working together that means an exchange of ideas (a two way street) not dictating. I am trying to be honest and tread lightly here but John it would appear that you don’t like it when people disagree with you. It seems that you take any disagreement as a personal affront and start shooting randomly into the crowd. It has been my experience that most folks don’t really respond well to that type of behavior as witnessed by multiple ban’s and lost credibility. The last time you showed up I tried to start off with a nice tone and we all know what happened! This is the last time I extend the olive branch John if you start with the attacks or talking down you go on permanent ignore and I would ask everyone else to do the same. I think you should start with an apology to dklassen and realize people are just a little suspicious of your motives/actions from dealing with you in the past. So this go round I ask you to please take this into consideration for the benefit of the RCAP community.

Other thought’s-

I don’t feel it a crime to try and make money as that’s what the idea of “commercial” AP is all about.

My motive has always been to try and get as many RCAP folks under an exemption as possible and then try and come back with the least amount of red tape and hoops for those that don’t make the exemption.

Can we start there or does anyone feel that the last point is irrational?

Comrade Egan

dklassen

Sep 02, 2005, 12:09 PM

I can tell you what my problem is and what your poison is. According to what you would like to see happen, not just for yourself but to all of us.

In order to fly my helicam and run my business I have to get a pilot certification, training at an FAA approved flight training center, take an exam, participate in a forum, get a builder and maintenance certificate, view an FAA builder training video and join an FAA builders and maintenance forum and God knows what else.

This is the poison that you push.

You keep pushing that document over and over and over. To make matters worse, you push it to directly to the FAA and yet you say oh, it's just my little ol opinion. My blood boils when I see this kind of irresponsible crap. How can you have a rational discussion with someone that has such irrational ideas? John, you and your thinking are dangerous to this industry. Wake up people!

Zaviation

Sep 02, 2005, 12:26 PM

Fine, I don't agree with how RCAPA is approaching the problem. Does that make what I say poison? You are obviously not agreeing with me. Does that make what you are saying poison? Who died and make you king that you can determine what is poison or not. These threads open up and I don't participate and they just die away. Doesn't anyone have any rational thought? Patrick, you say you want to work together but you say it in such a demeaning way. This is what you accuse me of. If you don't like what I say lets see you come up with something better, other than just crossing your fingers and hoping nothing happens. That technique results in things like Challenger, Columbia, Twin Towers, and what is currently happening on the Gulf Coast.

If you really read what I was saying it is pushing for the least intervention by FAA and the most self regulation we could hope for. What is overly regulating about someone having to go to a local club instructor to take a test and get certified? This is not aimed at anyone in particular so it is not a personal attack but I think we need a thread on reading comprehension. If you think that is being superior you may be one of the candidates.

I was going to sign off with "Here's your sign" but that would probably be taken as spreading poison instead of comic relief.

As always, Regards, John

dklassen

Sep 02, 2005, 12:28 PM

This is rational thought John.

I wasn't going to post it here but this is the communication I sent to Steve at the FAA as well as others. This is what we should be telling and educating the fAA on. Yes, it is my opinion. Unlike John's view it is not punitive to the AP industry or business owners. I also included some sample photos of aerials and the equipment used. I believe this approach is more in-line with current views at the FAA including Steves.

Model Aircraft Aerial Photography

Overview

The intent of this document is to inform and educate the FAA on our specific use of model aircraft, and how they are being used in aerial photography. More importantly, to inform and educate on how they are not being used in respect to other commercial, private sector, or Military UAV’s.

There has been much discussion lately about UAV's, new regulations, model aircraft, aerial photography and commercial operations. For the last 10 years there has been a small but growing industry using model aircraft for aerial photography purposes. Technology has certainly changed over the last decade and equipment is becoming increasingly sophisticated. This is a simple overview of what this equipment is and how it is being used today from a business owner’s perspective.

There has also been discussion around the term UAV. Let me state that we are not flying "UAV's" by traditional definitions. We are flying line-of-site radio controlled models adapted for aerial photography use. This equipment is off the shelf and proven very reliable. We fly well within altitude guidelines and limits set by the AMA and FAA. Most AP flights take place well under 400 feet and usually not more than 100 to 200 feet AGL and always line-of-sight. Pilots that are flying aerial photo sorties generally have many years of experience and are very safety aware. After all this is our business and livelihood. Safety is our paramount concern.

What we do

We use radio controlled model helicopters and fixed wing aircraft to perform low-level aerial photography for residential and commercial real estate, golf courses, business owners, property developers, insurance companies, etc. We do not fly directly over people, cars, buildings or any other objects deemed unsafe or a hazard. We do not fly in adverse weather conditions such as unusually high winds, rain, fog and generally not after dark.
Equipment

There are two types of aircraft used, Helicopters and Fixed Wing. The typical helicam systems consist of an electric, glow, or gas powered model helicopter with a rotor span of approx 4 - 5 feet and weighs in at anywhere form 15 to 20 pounds. The helicopter lifts a camera carrier that houses a digital camera, pan and tilt system and a wireless video downlink for framing the picture. Fixed wing aircraft for this use are generally less than three pounds, electric powered and houses a small digital camera and may carry a video downlink.

How we do it

The flight team consists of the pilot and a camera operator. The pilot of course fly's the helicopter and the camera operator controls the photography equipment and has a live view from the helicopter via the downlink in which they frame the shots. The camera operator is also the pilots extra set of eyes and ears on the ground. They monitor the surrounding area and any ground safety issues during preflight checks and while the aircraft is aloft. A typical shoot lasts anywhere from 5 minutes to 10 minutes each flight. Depending on the subject and the client’s needs, most images can be captured within the first flight and generally within only several minutes in the air.

Safety guidelines and System Checks

We always put safety first. All job sites are subject to a safety review before we fly. We require an area where we can safely take-off and land near the subject to be photographed. We perform safety inspections before each flight to identify potential hazards that could affect a fly/no-fly decision. Pilot in command has sole discretion on whether to fly or not fly in a given area. Equipment is meticulously maintained and safety checked before and after each flight. There is a comprehensive pre and post flight checklist that is used for each job. Below is a short summary of the checklist that is followed.

Battery and fuel levels checked before and after each flight.
Control surfaces checked for proper operation.
Frequencies scanned to insure clear channels.
Flight areas reviewed for safety hazards.
Weather and wind conditions checked prior to arrival at the job sites.
Notification of proper authorities when necessary to clear any flights.

Conclusion

Our concern is addressing the needs of low-level line-of-sight Radio Controlled Aircraft used for Aerial Photography purposes in a small business setting. We do realize that there are other categories of such aircraft in the private/hobby sector that do push the limits and may in fact enter in to a true UAV category. They may fly autonomously, at higher altitudes, farther than line-of-site, enter into controlled airspace, etc. While additional regulations may be in order for these types of flights or aircraft, this document does not address this category of aircraft which I believe should be handled under separate regulations.

Based on what we do and how we do it, we feel that there in not a need for additional regulation by the FAA concerning model aircraft used for low-level photography. Back in 1981, the FAA released the guideline AC 91-57 for model aircraft that states some simple rules. Do not fly higher than 400 feet, stay at least 3 miles from a controlled airport, notify the tower if you are flying within these boundaries, etc. We feel that these guidelines or similar are sufficient and all that is necessary for us to operate in a safe self-regulated manner.

patrickegan

Sep 02, 2005, 12:45 PM

Dklassen-

Now that is what I would call rational. You stated “your” opinion from “your” perspective and experience with no recommendations for others to comply with concerning new regulation.

John,

Sorry if I came across as demeaning. We have tried it the other way and it hasn’t worked yet and furthermore your tone is suggesting the kettle is ready to boil. Unfortunately I know the signs!!!

On one hand I think folks get too excited and start believing their own propaganda about the venerable Slow Stick. Let’s face fact’s it’s not a predator drone and never will be! As far as I am concerned regulating slow sticks with cameras attached is beyond the pale, but then again what the hell do I know.

Zaviation

Sep 02, 2005, 01:17 PM

Our local AMA club in Northern VA was asked to instruct the George Washinton University students how to fly planes. They are currently working on a UAV/S project at their school. I was one of the on call instructors for the students. We are also working with one of the local high schools with their UAV/S project. This is all done free of charge. The only thing that costs them is the AMA membership.

Hi Scott,
If you are talking about NVRC, I know they have a quality program. I was a member of NVRC in 1964 and helped set up the training program. I keep up with the website and know a lot about the club. A fellow named Ron Clem and I used to buy ingredients by the 55 gal drum and mix fuel for the club for 50 cents a gallon (20% Ucon synthetic oil 15% nitro). It is still the best formula I know of for fixed wing 2 cycle.

When I went to the FAA in May they said they were going to send someone to Roberts school to learn more about small UAVs. I honestly told them to just go out to NVRC and they would get quality training. I intend to follow up on that so don't be surprised if a couple of FAA troops show up looking for some instruction.

I never said there is no quality instruction out there. I only said it was not consistently available to all clubs and a lot of newcomers turn away in disgust because the instructor keeps crashing their airplanes. I had one fellow come out to our club in the evening last summer. Most people fly in the morning here. I asked if he was a member and he said he was a student and was really down about the kind of landing instruction he was getting. He had decided to come out in the evening to land or crash on his own. I talked him through a few landings and gave him some tips and he was fine. The next week they made him an instructor.

I have been around a long time and belonged to a lot of clubs. I have been the chief flight instructor and set up the training program in four clubs. I know about the training that is available at a typical AMA club. That is not being superior, it is being experienced. It is also being old, depending on how you look at it. I am going to be in the Washington area again at the end of September. It would be nice if I could arrange to have some of the FAA people meet me at your club and see some recreational flying first hand.

Peace, John

Zaviation

Sep 02, 2005, 01:48 PM

Why do you call what I briefed punitive to the AP comminity? Exactly what my briefing says is that if you are going to be flying recreational AP and already know how to fly, the most that you will have to do is take a test administered by a local club instructor. If you don't know how to fly you will have to learn from a local club instructor and take the same test.

Beyond that, I totally agree with the description of recreational AP as rationally described above. I didn't go into detail about recreational AP when I briefed the FAA because I was there to brief them on "commercial" UAVs. I also did not go into a lot of detail about aerial photography because that is just one of the applications for commercial UAVs. My briefing was about small commercial UAVs regardless of intended purpose. I did tell them that I use them for aerial photography and videography but that is just one of the uses. This forum is not aerial photography, it is UAVs.

What is not rational about that? What is punitive about that?
The main reason I mention recreational flying is because it has to be mentioned. If I didn't mention it they would have asked about it. That is why I included it in my briefing and specifically said that commercial operators need recreational flyers because that is the largest collection of expertise in the world. Almost all commercial operators come from the ranks of recreational flying and most of them will continue recreational flying. I know I am and I don't want any more restrictions on my recreational flying that are absolutely necessary. If the rules are too restrictive, I will probably be the first to break them and try to find innovative ways around them.

My first priority is right now and it is to do my best to ensure that the regulations are not too punitive to the recreational flyer, not just the recreational AP flyer. I think there is a certain mindset that some people have pre-programmed everyone with that set off alarms whenever I post something. Think for yourself, read and think about it. Don't just be another Stepford Modeler.

We are all in the same boat and we all have the same objective. We can present a united front if we choose to. If our methods are different, great, why put all your eggs in one method. I am an individual and I think for myself and I am accustomed to stepping in and making things happen. That is not going to stop and nobody is going to stop me. I can be a strong ally or I can be your worst enemy. I choose to be an ally but I will row my own boat. If we can live with that let's do it, if we can't, I will do it on my own.

Yesterday when the President was flying low over the Gulf Coast on his way to Washington I told my wife he just missed his chance to go down in history as a great leader. He should have directed the pilot to land at the nearest facility and then taken the first helicopter he could find directly to the Super Dome. Without security of any kind he should have stepped off that helicopter and said "Tell Washington I will be the last person out". Those people in the Super Dome would have given their lives to protect him and he would have become an instant national hero. Instead, he went on to Washington and announced that this was a temporary problem. Where is leadership when you need it?

Regards, John

typicalaimster

Sep 02, 2005, 02:04 PM

I intend to follow up on that so don't be surprised if a couple of FAA troops show up looking for some instruction.

I never said there is no quality instruction out there. I only said it was not consistently available to all clubs and a lot of newcomers turn away in disgust because the instructor keeps crashing their airplanes.

I am going to be in the Washington area again at the end of September. It would be nice if I could arrange to have some of the FAA people meet me at your club and see some recreational flying first hand.

If you do send some guys from the FAA out to view, please notify the NVRC club president, or vice. NVRC is going through a big challenge right now with land and usage. The club is currently under some stress and I don't think they would want any surprises. Of course NVRC tries to welcome any guests with courtesy. I just want to make sure the intent of the FAA going out to NVRC is known.

I do agree that clubs out there do not have the same guidelines. I about had a fit when I first saw the safety of NVRC, especially on busy days. After awhile and a few suggestions, a few minor things changed. Spotters, etc etc. Training is also the same way, and after awhile your hard core teachers get burnt out and just want to fly.

During one of our 'brain storming' meetings I brought up the idea of a 'boot camp' for younger members. The idea is a week long event starting on a Monday, and ending on a Sunday. It would be a quick way for for Boy Scout troops in the area to earn a few badges. Aviation was one of those badges. The same 'boot camp' could be applied to adults if the need was there.

I have also thought about perhaps starting a 'top gun' school or contest in the area. This would be an event where various pilots from the region would get together and help tone their skills. This would also include some hobby UAV's in the mix. It would be on the lines of Hobby UAV combat. However because NVRC is so close to the Dulles airport it's almost impossible to do anything.

My opinion is have a school for the over 55lbs gang. Let them pay the top dollar for the school. The over 55lbs crowd is going to be the major industry players. However leave the under 55lbs gang out of the picture. Most of the guys under 55lbs can get most of their training at an AMA field. If they qualify at one of those fields, then more than likely they would qualify with an ideal RCAP test.

Patrick and others from the RCAPA have entertained the idea of a written or online test for qualification. I have also brought up the idea of having certified testers in regions. Many AMA fields have a training and qualification program. In order to fly solo, you must qualify with a member of that organization. This is why I lean more toward meeting in person and qualifying a person, vs a written test. I can see your side trying to push a school. It's simple for a every day village idiot to take a written test. Look how many paper MCSE's and CCNA's we have in the tech industry.

I think we all have our ideas of how we want this put together. We all need to put our ideas out there without fighting and move forward with this. This means everyone. If we can not become a single organized voice in this, the FAA is going to overlook us all and do as the FAA pleases.

--Scott

Ensignnolo

Sep 02, 2005, 02:07 PM

Interesting link to MIT study about UAV in the National Air Space:
http://icat-server.mit.edu/Library/Download/251_Weibel%20-%20MIT%20ICAT%20Report%20-%20UAV%20Safety.pdf
Do a search on Model Aircraft and see what it turns up.

Link to a column in Avionics Magazine about UAVs in the National Air Space:
http://www.avionicsmagazine.com/cgi/av/show_mag.cgi?pub=av&mon=0805&file=inputoutput.htm

Ensignnolo

LukeZ

Sep 02, 2005, 03:07 PM

From the Avionics Magazine article:
FAA Flight Standards is drafting an initial notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for visual line-of-sight-operated UAS, but the target date is 2008. The NPRM will require them to be operated at no more than 400 feet, at least 3 miles away from airports--unless coordinated with airport authorities--and will limit them to 55 pounds (25 kg). Flight Standards has developed internal rules, but these have not been published.

That's almost word-for-word what the AMA rules currently are. I'd say this is pretty encouraging for AP folks if in fact it holds - with a target date of 2008 who knows what could happen.

No distinction was made between commercial and recreational use though, I wonder if there will ultimately be one...

Luke

LUke

Zaviation

Sep 02, 2005, 03:21 PM

Hi Scott,
So you are in NVRC, I thought that was the club you were talking about. Don't worry, I would give plenty of notice to the leaders of the club before springing the FAA on them. It probably wouldn't work out anyway, those guys are huffing and puffing all day. Besides, I wouldn't do this but, in my opinion, it would be better for them to just show up on a typical day and not identify themselves as FAA. I feel confident that in that club they would be treated properly and get a much better feel for how things really are. I don't like it when everyone has plenty of warning to put on a good show for VIPs. Regardless, if it were to happen, I would provide notice

As for schools, I don't advocate that much change to the way we do business now. I know one of the biggest problems with good instructors is burn-out. That is why I, personally, am advocating the certification of instructors and the availability of inexpensive liability insurance for them so they could get paid for instructing. This would not require them to get paid, they could still teach for free. However, if they choose to become certified and teach for compensation, they will not be overloaded with students and will be able to do a better job. Better yet, we will not loose them as instructors.

In the recreational world of AMA clubs the instructors do not even have to get certified. The clubs can still have uncertified instructors of unknown abilities. However, if a new person wanted to be assured of a certain level of instruction, they may choose to use one of the certified instructors at their club or a nearby club. The way it stands now is that, if a person wants to pay for quality instruction, they have to come to Florida (or some other school) and stay in a motel for a week of intensive training.

Recreational flyers would still have all the options they have now. Any reasonable club is going to have some kind of flight instruction program and require a certain level of proficiency before turning a pilot loose. What I am proposing is establish minimum requirements for those flight training programs.

The guys with commercial aspirations have no choice, they have to get signed off by a certified instructor. They don't have to attend a certified flight trainging school but they do have to pass the test.

Again. these are my personal opinions and I make no claim to represent anyone other than myself. If you go back through any number of my posts on this subject you will find my position to be very consistent and, in my view, very rational. I am just looking at a larger picture than recreational flying or recreational aerial photography. That does not mean I don't love and support those things, it is just that we are dealing with much broader issues. As you can see, when we really start talking, we have many more similarities than differences.

Regards, John

dklassen

Sep 02, 2005, 03:58 PM

http://members.cox.net/dwk/slide1.jpg

http://members.cox.net/dwk/slide2.jpg

Punitive and way off base. I am dead set against any type of promotion of certification for what we do. It's not feasible, cost prohibitive, no infrastructure or support, would most likely cripple ours and others business. You keep saying it's just your opinion. It goes beyond that when it could adversely affect others. You can do what you want but it pisses me off when others with their own agenda seek to push regulation down our throats. Seriously John, I wish you'd trash your document and never show it to another person, especially people in government.

"The guys with commercial aspirations have no choice, they have to get signed off by a certified instructor. They don't have to attend a certified flight trainging school but they do have to pass the test."

That is a bunch of BULL and anything but rational.

The FAA is most likely going to rewrite 91-57 with some additional guidelines and leave it at that. Why do you insist on pushing your addenda for more?

It's like if we found out the government was thinking about dropping the speed limit back to 55 and we start creating PowerPoint presentations to talk them into 45. It's just plain stupid.

LukeZ

Sep 02, 2005, 04:18 PM

dklassen, who's fishing now?

The fact is I don't particular agree with most of John's approach - I liked the letter you sent to the FAA and personally I'm not too keen on paying for certifications and much less paying for certifiers. However, this is a discussion. We all know John has a temper so why provoke him? You're not going to change his mind. And until he oversteps his bounds, he has every right to post his opinion. So far, he hasn't overstepped any bounds in this thread.

Can we please move beyond the disagreements? I'm not saying to agree, I'm saying that everyone here knows and has heard a million times that you and John and others disagree. We've all seen the recuring mushroom clouds all over the fora when you guys go at it. Why must we re-hash the fact that you disagree with each other a thousand times? Why push people's buttons and make insinuations? There are other sub-topics within this thread that can be discussed other than John's slides.

This was a good thread while it lasted. If history is any judge, however, people's tempers are already riled enough that it won't be but a few more days and it's closed down. It's getting pretty old.

Luke

dklassen

Sep 02, 2005, 04:58 PM

John repeatedly even after forum banns comes back with his silly documents over and over and over. Posts them wherever he can. He knows full well there is going to be trouble. John can post his opinions all day long and I could care less. Once he takes his babble to the FAA and try's to influence things for his own gain and to the detriment of others, he is fair game and open for criticism.

Zaviation

Sep 02, 2005, 05:06 PM

Hey dklassen,
How about some new rules. Don't offer up negative broadsides unless you have some positive suggestions to offset them. I am really against people coming on line and saying "I hate this" and "that is crap" and having nothing else to offer. Personally, I think you are just cluttering up the thread.

LukeZ
As for paying. I never said anyone would have to pay to get certified. I am sure there will be certified instructors who will do it for free. Also, if you don't want to fly commercially, you don't even have to use a certified instructor. Why do I have to keep explaining what I thought I had written very clearly. Please read before you write, not after. I am not trying to be difficult but it would be nice to come to closure on some of these basic issues.

This has been a difficult, long term, process but I am finally in a position to get some acceptance that I have a right to an opinion. Let's not screw it up over minor issues where we basically agree. This is not easy to do in an open forum but the most worthwhile things are usually the hardest to do.

John

LukeZ

Sep 02, 2005, 05:28 PM

John, I understand that under your suggestions people could become certified for free. However, some people will have to pay, say if they can't find a certified instructor willing to do it for free, or if they're dong commercial ops. And maybe the price will be reasonable, and I guess I don't mind paying this and that here and there. Still, I'd rather not if I could avoid it somehow, and more importantly, I'd rather try to avoid a situation whereby we create incentives for this to become some kind of for-profit industry. I'm not saying that's what you're proposing because you've said many times before this is not something you're doing for your own financial gain. However, it is a risk that it could develop into that for other people at some point and those things kind of tend to spread.

Not saying that risk in itself makes your idea a bad one; in fact I'm not saying much of anything really, except, in my earlier post, that I'd sure like to see this thread not go the way of other ones like it. Which, if we all let a bit more water roll off our backs, maybe it won't.

Luke

dklassen

Sep 02, 2005, 05:37 PM

Let me ask you a question John.

I am a "commercial" helicam operator. I do jobs every week, I have a legitimate business operation. I have be doing it from a helicopter before there was an Airfoil, Helicam Solutions, any of these forums or people that are now manufacturing AP equipment. Long before Runryder or Rcgroups ever existed. Probably even before you. I was doing this when I got laughed at by others in the industry when I stopped using a 35mm film SLR and went to digital. You get the picture (no pun intended)

Why do YOU want my business to have to"

1. Get certified to fly?
2. Trained by an FAA certified school?
3. Take tests?
4. Mandatory forum participations?
5. Have to get certified to build?
6. Watch videos?
7. Be more regulated by the government?
8. God knows what else?

You saw my letter to the FAA, They are very receptive to only providing guidelines and not buckets of regulations to kill our businesses.

Why not you?

Why the long diatribe of certifications, rules, mandatory this and that? People like me have been conducting business for a long time with no issues or problems. Lot's of us even have insurance. But here you come. WE NEED REGULATION!!!!!

It's not needed
It's not warranted
It not necessary

We've been doing it for many years.

But you seem to think that we are all of a sudden flying commercial UAV's and need to be controlled and regulated by the government. Just doesn't seem logical to me. Unless of course you have something to gain by it which is most likely the reason.

Zaviation

Sep 02, 2005, 06:36 PM

dklassen,
Yeah, I know you have been around for a long time. I have also been doing this for a long time. I have a lot of things I want to do. I don't particularly want to be doing this right now either. I am not pushing for regulation. It is coming! We can choose to deny it or ignore it but it won't stop it. I would like to keep going with the status quo forever. IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!!! Get used to it, get over it, leave the country, I don't care! Regulation is coming!

I and a lot of other people are trying to minimize the impact of that regulation on the recreational modeler. I don't know about the commercial operators like you and me. Maybe the levy will hold, maybe it won't. You stand around and hold your breath, cross your fingers, your eyes, whatever. It is not going to stop the publication of a regulation by the FAA.

You have a severe case of denial. You have my sympathy. If that last post is the best you got please take it elsewhere. It is not going to help and you might injure yourself.

Regards, John

kd7ost

Sep 02, 2005, 06:42 PM

Zaviation

Sep 02, 2005, 07:09 PM

LukeZ,
I agree, the ideal solution is for everyone to do what I want. That's the way we all feel, it is only natural. I am going to have to take the test too. I may also have to pay for it. I would rather not.

I think of it this way. The insurance industry is very cautious about giving us liability insurance and when they do it is rather expensive. They say that if we could be certified in some way like commercial drivers, commercial boaters, commercial pilots, commercial baby sitters, etc. they could provide insurance at a more reasonable price regardless of experience level.

If paying someone ($50.00 for instance) to administer a test and certify that I can fly safely could save me even $50.00 per year on my insurance, I would certainly do it. Also, I do not make my living at this. It is not a stable, reliable, every day occupation just yet. I would not set out as a young man with the intention of making my living as a commercial small UAV operator. I would also not recommend that other young men do that either.

If I were a commercial driver and had liability insurance and had had an accident for which someone were sueing me, I would expect my insurance company to stand by me and see me through it so I could get on with making a living. I would not expect the insurance company to cancel my policy over this. They may increase my premiums, or I may have to go to a different high risk company, but I would still have insurance and could continue with earning a living.

When I renewed my insurance policy this year I asked my broker what would happen if I had a claim. The response was "don't have a claim". That clearly implies that they might see me through the lawsuit but would then drop me like a hot potato and I would have zero chance of getting insurance somewhere else. That means that I would no longer be able to pursue my chosen profession and would have to find something else to do. That is not a stable occupation.

Regardless of how wonderful we think the status quo may be there is always room for improvement. I like the idea of certification if it means that some young fellow can do this for a living and count on supporting his family. Right now it is kind of half hobby, half profession, all uncertain. I also see ways of improving the training standard in the recreational area without severe penalty. I would love to see all the people who want to enjoy this great hobby be able to get high quality instruction.

The idea of regulation opens opportunities too. While we are working with the FAA and others maybe we could get some frequencies set aside for commercial operators so we wouldn't have to worry about getting shot down by the kid that we don't see down the block. I know there are frequency scanners and frequency agile radios and transmitter signatures and all that great technology but wouldn't it be nice to have some commercial only frequencies?

It is going to be a long struggle and we are going to have to be vigilant to ensure that others don't take away what we have had in the recreational area for so long. We can do that. What would be really nice is if we could take advantage of the opportunity to make things better for our hobby and our growing profession. The best part is that, once there is a regulation in place, we can stop worrying about whether there is going to be regulation or not.

Peace, John

dklassen

Sep 02, 2005, 07:51 PM

"Get used to it, get over it, leave the country."

Can you say hidden agenda? I rest my case. Be careful of this guy people.

Zaviation

Sep 02, 2005, 07:59 PM

I am really glad you are resting something. If you guys will excuse I am going to be off line for a while. This thing happening on the Gulf coast has me stressed out pretty bad. I am about to say some things I shouldn't and it is better to just go away for a while.

I really can't believe this is happening in America.

John

dklassen

Sep 02, 2005, 09:04 PM

Ok. Back to the topic at hand. Here's my general take on things. Problem is some consider what we fly as UAV's, doesn't matter if it's a Slow Stick or a Helicopter or 40% Extra. They are all UAV's to them. Call Steve at the FAA or any other at the FAA and they will tell you that they do not consider us true UAV's. They look at us as flying line-of-site radio controlled models, AP or otherwise. That's why they leave it to the AMA.

They don't intend on regulating us as UAV's. They are not that concerned with AP guys flying at 100' taking shots of a golf course with their helicams or slow-sticks. What they are concerned about is the people that are flying higher, farther, autonomously, out of line-of-site, etc. People doing that are more and more prevalent these days. Don't just believe what I say, make your own inquiries and find out for yourself. No doubt that regulation is coming of some type but they are more interested in folks that are flying way out of bounds when it comes to 91-57.

What we don't want to happen is for the FAA to inadvertently tie us into the folks that are flying these types of high altitude sorties. Thus my letter to Steve at the FAA.

That's why I think it's so important to make sure that the FAA knows exactly what we are doing and how we are doing it so they take that into consideration when rewriting 91-57. The FAA is not interested in killing our business nor are they interested in creating a whole new barrel of red tape for people flying R/C models. That's clear.

I've talked to just about everyone in this industry that I can find including Airfoil, HSC, AMA, FAA and many others. Trust me when I say that they don't want government regulation, certifications or anything of the type. Airfoil has had the FAA to their site several times for demos and they supported them 100% especially the public safety work they are doing.

Trust me when I say that there are people in this industry that have a lot more to loose than I do and they are not screaming the sky is falling nor are they jumping on the regulation bandwagon.

The FAA wants to work with us on this and they are not interested in creating more red tape. They don't have the budget for it anyway. RCAPA has an in with the FAA and they are certainly going to take into consideration what the RCAPA has to say. My advice is to keep it simple, steer them away from certs and more regulation for (key word) line-of-site models.

Zaviation

Sep 03, 2005, 05:39 AM

OK, here we go.
I finally got to bed at 2:00AM and was up again at 4:00. You see what time it is now.

First of all, I want say I am wrong. Perhaps not entirely but enough to admit it. I would also like to thank some people.

dklassen, Thank you for that post! You have gone from being one of my worst enemies to being one of my strongest allies. You finally attacked the problem instead of attacking me personally.

Thanks to all the moderators for letting this thread go until we hit paydirt. We have never been able to score in many other threads before one of them shut it down with a penalty. Sometimes you have to slug it out until you get there. That has been very frustrating until now.

One of my professors was lecturing on group dynamics one time and he drew a very nifty little pseudo program.

constant1: There are many ways to view any problem.
constant2: There are many solutions to each way a problem can be viewed.
constant3: There are as many views of a problem as there are people involved in the solution.

start
define problem
solve problem
everyone happy?
n - return to start
y - proceed with caution

This has been my view of the problem to-date, based on my background:

1. The FAA has announced they are creating a new regulation for UAVs.

2. The FAA has stated positively that everything that they regulate everything that gets out of ground effect.

3. The FAA has stated positively that the National Airspace is all the altitude - no ceilings, no floors.

4. The FAA has stated positively that everything that UAVs are unmanned aircraft regardless of size, altitude, or speed.

5. The primary mission of the FAA is ensuring the safety of people (souls) in the NAS and the safety of people on the ground that aircraft in the NAS may impact (literally).

6. Manned aircraft will, by definition, have priority over unmanned aircraft, no exceptions.

7. The FAA has always managed UAVs over 55 pounds and has never managed (really) UAVs under 55 pounds.

8. The FAA has a steep learning curve if they are to manage the under 55 pound category hands on.

9. The FAA can screw it up royally if not watched carefully and actively engaged.

10. The FAA must get on board with new technology or they will swamp with workload.

11. The recreational model aircraft training "system" is non-existent.

12. FAA licenses and ratings are good things, as Martha would say, and all pilots aspire to collect as many as they can.

13. Recreational model aviation trainging needs help but not as much as the FAA wants to provide.

14. Aircraft under 55 pounds should not be certified but many could be built better.

15. Operators of small commercial UAVs are having a hell of a time getting insurance.

That's enough of a laundry list for now. If each of you were to assemble a similar list reflecting your view of the problem it would look entirely different. In fact, many of you are saying there is no problem at all. No wonder we are having a tough time agreeing (understatement of the year) on anything.

I have been involved in many aspects of aviation, manned and unmanned, all my life and have discovered problems in each and every one of them. I am not saying that they were really bad but just things that could be improved. I have been viewing this New Proposed Rule Making by the FAA as a chance to solve all those problems in one shot. I can't help it, that was my career. My problem, and here is where I have been wrong, is that some of those things have nothing to do with the basic commercial UAV problem, or lack of problem, you are all seeing.

I apologize for that. I also apologize for continuing to harangue all of you with the same litany over and over again. I have been stuck in that tight loop in the group dynamics program. A contributing factor has been the propensity for people to attack me personally instead of working out our differences through a continuing dialogue. I know I am stubborn, I also know I am determined, at least I have proven that. Those attributes can be used to advantage once we agree on a definition of the problem and a direction to take.

My revised view of the problem:

1. Managing small UAVs either commercial or recreational.
The FAA has no experience in managing this class of aircraft and it represents a quantum leap in workload if they take it on. Thus my objective of increasing FAA efficiency. There is no reason that the AMA should not continue managing the recreational UAVs, sure there are problems but they have survived so far. If the FAA were to pass the management of small commercial UAVs off to some other organization it would certainly have to have its act together. RCAPA is not a good choice because they have limited themselves to aerial photography. A change of title and objectives could fix that but I still question some of their methods, nothing personal. That was why I tried MACO one time. The FAA said it may sound better if I were representing more than just me. They respond better to organized groups. I knew RCAPA was buried down in the bowels of ASTM and their scope was too narrow, so I tried MACO. I hated to do that, the last thing I want is to be stuck running some association. If someone else wants to do that, great, I will support it 100% but don't ask me to run it.

On the issue of licenses. Personally, I like them. It comes from my full sized flying. Everyone wants to collect licenses and ratings. They are like badges of honor or something although I know they don't say crap about your real ability to fly. It really surprised me that so many people are scared to death of the FAA. They are one of the friendliest government agencies I know, along with the Coast Guard, and I really enjoy dealing with them (another potential asset). The only real need for a license is to be able to get insurance easier. If an association could work out a way to get group insurance without licenses there would be no need for them. This would require careful management though.

Aircraft certification is a sticky issue and is where I parted company with RCAPA, again nothing personal. I saw them working on mean time between failure for servos and posted a strong disagreement with that approach. Nothing doing, so I went my own way. I still think certification of the builder is a better way to go. This is one that the FAA may insist on regardless of who is managing the program for commercial UAVs.

Different levels of certification within the 55 pound category is my doing. I can see a need for it in the recreational community and that would automatically apply to the commercial. The basic issue is insurance and the insurance companies make no distinction between fixed wing, helicopter, under 55 lb, over 55 lb. It doesn't matter to them. My policy is in the category of Aerial Photography. Beyond that they don't care if I am flying a 747. Maybe we could educate them over time and get better rates for small stuff but breaking out the 55 pound stuff into smaller categories is not necessary.

That's enough for now but I think it is enough for a start. If that sounds better let's go from there. If it doesn't I am just going flying. Keep in mind, I believe in loyalty, integrity, and doing the right thing. And, contrary to popular opinion, I do not have a short temper (unless I am shot at). I am a good writer, a good public speaker, I can think on my feet, and I am comfortable in front of crowds. That, in no way, is meant to be smug or superior. Each of you have talents that I cannot match. It is just what I did for a living and it can come in handy. Thanks again for your patience.

Regards, John

CenTexFlyer

Sep 03, 2005, 10:19 AM

I must really have a thick skin... or maybe I REALLY believe in what we're trying to accomplish here. Anyway, here goes.....

Interesting turn around John, but I would have to ask how we change some of the perceptions already formed by the FAA based on materials presented?

Thanks to all the moderators for letting this thread go until we hit paydirt. We have never been able to score in many other threads before one of them shut it down with a penalty. Sometimes you have to slug it out until you get there. That has been very frustrating until now.

They respond better to organized groups. I knew RCAPA was buried down in the bowels of ASTM and their scope was too narrow

If you'd have stayed with us "over there" and "slugged it out" in this fashion, then we'd be even further ahead "over there". Our initial contact with the FAA (quite awhile ago) told us that the ASTM path was THE path to take. We've worked with the ASTM, gone to the meetings, read the minutes and have made that same deterimination. Our preference now is to work directly with the FAA and that is the path we are attempting to take. We haven't abandoned the ASTM, but taken a multi-path approach.

If the FAA were to pass the management of small commercial UAVs off to some other organization it would certainly have to have its act together. RCAPA is not a good choice because they have limited themselves to aerial photography. A change of title and objectives could fix that but I still question some of their methods, nothing personal.

It is not/was not our intent to manage small commercial UAV's. Only to act as a unified voice in the face of impending regulation. If asked, would we? Perhaps, if it were a condition of "self regulation" or at the very least an easing of some of the draconian regs that have been bandied about. I believe that anyone who is doing some sort of UAS flying as a profession would step up for that. But as you state, we'd really have to get our act together and ramp in a very formal fashion. We recognize that. Do we have the resources? I believe so. The "P" could easily be changed to "Professionals" and the mission statement re-written.

This has been my view of the problem to-date, based on my background:

1. thru 15. Operators of small commercial UAVs are having a hell of a time getting insurance.

By and large, all true statements. But a point in favor of RCAPA, we have at least gotten some insurance companies to consider underwriting us on a "group" basis. Something and individual, regardless of experience would be able to do. A benefit of an "association".

1. Managing small UAVs either commercial or recreational.
The FAA has no experience in managing this class of aircraft and it represents a quantum leap in workload if they take it on. Thus my objective of increasing FAA efficiency. There is no reason that the AMA should not continue managing the recreational UAVs, sure there are problems but they have survived so far. That was why I tried MACO one time. The FAA said it may sound better if I were representing more than just me. , so I tried MACO. I hated to do that, the last thing I want is to be stuck running some association. If someone else wants to do that, great, I will support it 100% but don't ask me to run it.

OK, we may be rookies at running associations, but that's what we've been trying to do at RCAPA. We're getting better. Your support would be appreciated.

Aircraft certification is a sticky issue and is where I parted company with RCAPA, again nothing personal. I saw them working on mean time between failure for servos and posted a strong disagreement with that approach. Nothing doing, so I went my own way. I still think certification of the builder is a better way to go. This is one that the FAA may insist on regardless of who is managing the program for commercial UAVs.

You're right on this one. MTBF was discussed and it was eventually dropped as being ridiculous. There have been many things discussed and turned over and argued about, but it has been a commitee process with full review and comment by the membership. We've distilled this thing down to what the membership (of those that are inclined to participate) thinks is a happy medium.

Different levels of certification within the 55 pound category is my doing. I can see a need for it in the recreational community and that would automatically apply to the commercial. The basic issue is insurance and the insurance companies make no distinction between fixed wing, helicopter, under 55 lb, over 55 lb. It doesn't matter to them. My policy is in the category of Aerial Photography. Beyond that they don't care if I am flying a 747. Maybe we could educate them over time and get better rates for small stuff but breaking out the 55 pound stuff into smaller categories is not necessary.

We don't like the "levels" but if that is what the FAA wants, then we will support them.

I am a good writer, a good public speaker, I can think on my feet, and I am comfortable in front of crowds. That, in no way, is meant to be smug or superior. Each of you have talents that I cannot match. It is just what I did for a living and it can come in handy. Thanks again for your patience.
Regards, John

The membership of RCAPA is a pool of talent that encompasses all those things and more! There are lots of folks out there who are willing to help in this issue. Just like we as professionals are willing to help with Katrina in any way we can. Finding the right path to put that help to good use is the same in both situations.

Regards

Gene

patrickegan

Sep 03, 2005, 11:03 AM

I think the approach should be to ask for everything we want and work backwards.

Secondly we have 8700-25

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.

Leave the recreational sleeping dog lay, we should not even complicate matters by dragging that segment in. The AMA is coming around and they can just roll with the punches of whatever new/revised version of AC 91-57 the FAA comes up with. Thirdly since RCAPA is a commercial organization that’s primary focus is commercial use of remote control aircraft we fit the classification of UAV. Do most of us fly autonomous aircraft beyond LOS? No! Should the people that do have more input on how they will be regulated? Yes! Can RCAPA do everything on no budget and make everyone happy all the time? No! RCAPA has tried to make contact with all of the players state that we are concerned and try to be proactive as far as the impending regulation is concerned. As far as being deep in the bowels of the ASTM John you posed the question yourself

I understand that ASTM has come out with a draft proposal for aircraft certification in the under 55 lb categoty. Does anyone know what they are proposing?

Regards, John

Some of the information that RCAPA submitted to the ASTM made it’s way to the FAA. Is it everything we wanted? No. Has the FAA heard of the ASTM and worked with them before? Yes. Is that the end of RCAPA’s involvement on this issue? No. Have we made contact with the FAA directly? Yes. Will we continue to work with the FAA and ASTM? Yes.

dklassen

Sep 03, 2005, 11:35 AM

Everyone that I have talked to at the FAA including Steve and the Western Regional Standards Director say they don't consider us UAV's even if we are flying for compensation. They told me they still consider us to be flying line-of site models that do not fit their definition of a UAV. Why do we insist on lumping our-selves in with UAV's. They even pointed me to documentation (all be it dated) that says as much. John, you already poo pooed the documents that I provided as being old and dated but they were what the FAA gave me in answer to my question.

"The FAA has stated positively that everything that they regulate everything that gets out of ground effect"

Not correct. They do not regulate R/C models. We still fly under their 1981 guidelines. There are no current regulations for R/C models. The FAA has never been concerned with R/C model aircraft.They leave it to the AMA.

"The FAA has stated positively that everything that UAVs are unmanned aircraft regardless of size, altitude, or speed."

Show me the FAA documentation that supports it? Not an article, I want to see an official FAR or whatever they call them that states the definition. In fact, the FAA folks I make contact with say just the opposite and refer me to documentation that states that fact.

You've all seen what what I sent to the FAA. I specifically mentioned the fact that we are not flying UAV's and should not be regulated as such. Not one person at the FAA that has read my comments and that I have been corresponding with has disputed that or told me otherwise.

Like I have, we should be reinforcing with the FAA this fact, not talking them into considering us UAV's for further regulation. Help them rewrite 91-57 and keep us there where we belong.

dklassen

Sep 03, 2005, 11:50 AM

Here's another point.

This was a comment from the FAA to me. The term "commercial" for us is a little gray at best anyway. Technically we fly for compensation which could be considered commercial. However he said "even though we fly for money we are not flying commercial aircraft. We are flying hobby grade R/C models."

Even the courts made a ruling that if you are working full time and fly a helicam part time the courts don't consider you a commercial operation. That was from a lawsuit that the AMA lost from a helicam operator a few years ago. He was flying part time, had a small incident made a insurance claim to the AMA, they denied it, he sued and the courts ruled in his favor saying that he was not a true commercial operation. The FAA also know about that one.

We need to keep ourselves in 91-57. That's where we belong.

patrickegan

Sep 03, 2005, 11:53 AM

What I posted above was off of the FAA website they came up with the UAV classification. Maybe now that it has gone over to the technology side these guys don’t feel that way.

Zaviation

Sep 03, 2005, 01:36 PM

Off and running again.

It seems like I am the only one with any doubts, everyone else still knows exactly what to do. Let that go for a while.

dklassen,
I am dissapointed. If the FAA does not regulate model aircraft because they are still managed by AMA under the 1981 guidelines then what the hell gave the FAA the authority to publish that guideline? And, since it was an advisory and not regulatory in nature, who still regulates model aircraft?

Gene, I could make the case that we are further ahead by my not staying at RCAPA and slugging it out. Who can say for sure?

As for misconceptions by the FAA and who heard what from whom in the FAA, I told you this is a very steep learning curve. When I talk to the Steve at the FAA I can get a different perception each time. None of this is in concrete so the recommedations you heard a year ago or the conversation you had a month ago may no longer be valid.

When I briefed the FAA in May I was not giving them recommendations, I was giving them personal opinions. They did not want me to come to work for them to implement what I had briefed, they wanted me to help them learn more about the problem. That briefing is history and was intended to stimulate thought about the problem of small commercial UAVs.

Some basic perceptions about model airplanes that did change, I repeat, perceptions that changed, because of the briefing and discussion.

1. Small commercial UAVs are different from large commercial UAVs and must be managed differently. (The perception prior to this briefing was that model aircraft would be certified by having the kit manufacturer develop and include a manual with each kit). This perception was changed during that briefing and could change again, maybe it already has.

2. Aircrew for small commercial UAVs do not have to have an equivelant full sized rating and medical. (Many in the FAA had the perception that the observer, co-pilot, camera operator, etc should have the same full sized ratings and medical as the pilot in case they have to take over) This perception was changed at that time and may have changed again.

3. The AMA is doing a credible job of managing model aircraft but the guidelines must be clarified. (The perception was that the AMA was not doing a very good job). This perception was changed during that briefing. In fact I made it clear that the only cadre of trained and proficient operators and builders would come primarily from the AMA ranks.

If those perceptions were changed the briefing was worthwhile. Nobody in the FAA took anything I said as marching orders to go off and do some regulating. Model aircraft whether recreational or commercial are going to be included in the upcoming regulation. Even if they are just identified as being managed by the AMA they are included. That means that someone, somewhere is going to sit down and keystroke in some words that are going to change our lives. Since we are such a small part of the big UAV picture and there is a lot of money and power involved we could very easily be obliterated with the stroke of a pen because we are not that visible.

I have been saying all along that model aircraft are and will be regulated, others are shouting that they are not and should never be. I am telling you now that model aircraft will be included in this new regulation which is going to replace the 1981 advisory. To what extent they are regulated is yet to be determined and the FAA is gathering information from all the sources they can. One advantage to my beirfing is that I didn't just talk to one person over the phone, I talked to the whole team at the same time and we all heard everyones words at the same time. I have the opportunity to do that again in about two weeks. Then, at the end of October I am going to make a presentation at the first UAV conference at Embry Riddle.

Do you want to discuss these issues or continue to dictate them? I sense no give in your responses, only take. If we can agree on some things I can present them as such, If we can't or won't, I will present my personal opinion again. I have already told you that those opinions have changed so I am not going to present the same beirfing again.

Regards, John

dklassen

Sep 03, 2005, 01:56 PM

John Zaner does NOT represent the view of most in this profession. I do not want John to present anything further to the FAA. I don't agree with John or his approach. I hope the FAA doesn't either for the good of us all.

Zaviation

Sep 03, 2005, 03:10 PM

You are something else my friend. If nobody speaks out against you I will have to assume you are their spokesman, in which case you are on your own.

patrickegan

Sep 03, 2005, 05:36 PM

If this keeps up much longer the title of this thread’s gonna need a changing :rolleyes:

Myron

Sep 06, 2005, 03:13 PM

Hey Guys,

I found this article the other day and I only posted in in RCAPA... I think now is a good time to post it here... It starts out slow but really starts getting good midway through...

http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/av/show_mag.cgi?pub=av&mon=1004&file=uavsenteringthe.htm

Myron

Zaviation

Sep 22, 2005, 07:32 PM

OK all you guys who were climbing all over me for trying to propose some minimum level of regulation with your "NO REGULATION" mantra. Take a look at this thread and see what is being talked about now. My opinions look like a Sunday School Picnic compared to these. And this stuff is coming from the groups you guys are supporting. I warned you to wake up before it was too late. Smell the reality now! It is all going to get more intense, not less. Just try to keep up.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_3245422/mpage_2/key_/tm.htm

If you think this is not going to spill over into the hobbyists go back and hide your head in the sand some more.

As I said, You are on your own. Keep running but you still can't hide.

John

JettPilot

Sep 22, 2005, 08:43 PM

Take a look at this thread and see what is being talked about now.

Everything is "talked about", but that does not mean squat... You are actively trying to create rules - big differnce there buddy. My problem with you is that you want to create new rules so that you can force us to go to your school and charge us very high prices for it. You cannot earn money by selling or doing anything useful, so you want to earn money by force and regulations. Can you say LEGALIZED EXTORTION :mad: ???

typicalaimster

Sep 22, 2005, 08:46 PM

I quit following that RCU thread awhile ago. It was cutting into my building and flying time. I'm already behind schedule.

JettPilot

Sep 22, 2005, 08:59 PM

I quit following that RCU thread awhile ago. It was cutting into my building and flying time. I'm already behind schedule.

I hear you buddy, I was getting a lot more work done on my UAV when I was banned from here :) I just got back form a test flight... It was a bit windy but beautiful today. You been flying lately ? Im anxious to hear how the picopilot works for you...

JettPilot

dklassen

Sep 22, 2005, 10:27 PM

John, go away pleaseeeeeeeeeee

dklassen

Sep 23, 2005, 10:47 AM

John, you don't need names. You represent your own self serving interests and no one else. I only hope that enough of us including RCAPA have communicated effectively with the FAA to to counteract your foolish, punitive and outlandish proposals. In my own personal correspondence with your contacts at the FAA I get the feeling that they are smart enough not to take such idiotic ideas into serious consideration.

One can only hope...

patrickegan

Sep 23, 2005, 11:08 AM

Not to worry they know that certain folks represent let’s say the “fringe”-P :cool:

CenTexFlyer

Sep 23, 2005, 03:01 PM

Not to worry they know that certain folks represent let’s say the “fringe”-P :cool:

You mean like the Red Ryder song?....... :p

Zaviation

Sep 23, 2005, 05:00 PM

Don't worry, I just talked to him yesterday and apologized for making his name known to such a group. I had warned when he gave me permission to reveal his identity that he would hear from a group of fanatics that would scare him if he was not prepared. You all have certainly lived up to my expectations in that regard.

I have never been involved with such a group in my life. I am constantly amazed at your ignorance of the facts and your refusal to accept the truth when it is pasted right in front of your face. If you think all this is hurting me, you are wrong, you are simply exposing your true nature and I don't think people are impressed.

In my latest discussions with the FAA I have found out that they are actually acting on some of my more important suggestions having to do with revamping the way the FAA manages all their duties, not just UAVs. They are also appreciative of the fact that I am the one who put the idea that small UAVs are different from big UAVs on their radar screen. My relationship with the FAA has not changed nor has their opinion of me or what I am trying to do. It is this group that has mis-interpreted and mis-informed everyone within range about my motives.

Again. I suggest you wake up and smell the reality. It is a changing world and you have to be prepared to participate in the change or live with the results of someone elses participation. Saying you are a member of RCAPA is a cop out that gives the impression that you are actively invlolved while you just sit back and throw darts at someone elses efforts. I put everything I have right up front in the forims and on my webpage. Until you do the same you have no right to criticize my efforts.

dklassen

Sep 23, 2005, 08:29 PM

I probably shouldn't play in to your pitiful games but I will post my business sites if you or anyone else would like to look at them. I've been doing Heli AP for about 8 years and Event Photography for a little longer. Both business have been reasonably successful and next year when we leave the state we will be full time on both. I've already posted on this forum my position and what I've sent Steve and others at the FAA.

John, your wish for regulation is still foolish, ridiculous, self serving and damaging to our businesses. So anyway, I'm done with John and I hope him nothing but failure in his endeavors with the FAA.

http://www.pmaerialphoto.com
http://www.pmeventphoto.com

lvspark

Sep 23, 2005, 10:32 PM

Wow dklassen nice work. \
and Zaviation good for you. It's amazing the FAA would actually revamp the way they manage all their duties based upon your suggestions. You must have some real convincing communications skills.

dklassen

Sep 23, 2005, 11:52 PM

lvspark,

Thanks. Just got the ION in the air a few months ago. Been through a couple gassers and nitros for AP over the years but didn't much care for them. The ION really fits the bill for us. I even clean it myself ;)

Working on a Polecam now for close in and indoor stuff. The Event shoots are especially fun. Best seats in the house.

Zaviation

Sep 24, 2005, 12:10 AM

Ivspark, nice of you to recognize it. I do have good communication skills except when I try to talk to the "Fringe" as Patrick puts it, then I have no luck getting through at all. Pretty tough to commumicate through solids.

Zaviation

Sep 24, 2005, 08:12 AM

Actually, that is my first attempt at building a web page. I am getting better and it would look classier if I used more expensive software. I am kind of proud of it and I keep learning as I go.

As for the rest of what you said, if is not worth answering, as usual.

CenTexFlyer

Sep 24, 2005, 09:27 AM

You and many other RCAPA groupies have labeled that as wrong. Why is it wrong for me to go to the FAA and present my opinions. It is certainly more than anyone else has the guts to do.

I have made it clear to the FAA that, in my opinion, RCAPA is just a poor stepchild of the ASTM and really has nothing worthwhile to offer while severly criticizing the honest efforts of others.

John,

This is REALLY getting old. You speak of lies and misrepresentations but you propogate your own. When all this regulation talk began months ago, RCAPA was formed to act as a unified voice. Your perceptions about a few people caused you to run off in a snit and pout rather than working with the group.

RCAPA did exactly what the (then) "powers that be" in the FAA directed us to do. Get with the ASTM and work with the F38 committee. Which we have been doing. You on the, other hand, decided to circumvent protocols and use the GOB system to your advantage.

Your denigration of RCAPA, the officers and members, and the efforts put forth by all therein only serves to alienate you from the general flying populace. Who, by the way, are also being heard by the FAA.

Zaviation

Sep 24, 2005, 11:26 AM

Gene,
There is no GOB system that I am aware of. What influence I have now I have earned through my own individual efforts. I still maintain that I have a right to my opinions and it is not mandatory to be a member of RCAPA.

RCAPA does not represent me in any way and I do not agree with the approach they are taking and I also do not believe they represent the "general" flying populace.

I guess people who are pushing their own agenda don't like it when everyone does not agree with them. That's too bad. I have a right to my opinions and I will continue to exercise that right.

I the fact that I seem to be having more success than the 560 "members" of RCAPA (or is that 5.60) can do collectively ruffles some feathers. Why don't you just get off your butts and do something positive about it instead of trying to force me "into the fold".

I could go into the history of why we are here but it has to do with the initial direction that RCAPA was taking. I totally disagreed with it and said so in the RCAPA forum. I got the same reaction then about not being a team player so I quit and went my own way. If you don't like it that's too bad. If I am having more success with getting my ideas across than RCAPA, that's also too bad. Instead of trying to tear me down all the time why don't you just get better or try harder.

All this picking away only makes me more determined to see it through. There is too much at stake here for the recreational and commercial operators to let a bunch of amateur organizers speak for all of us. I told you at the outset that I had a lot of experience that could be very useful to the group and I was told to become another drone. Now the RCAPA founders are finding out what I said was true and it isn't setting too well. Again, that's too bad.

I guess we will just have to play it out and the results. In the meantime, my business just keeps getting getter, just lucky I guess.