Discussed

[fitenfyr]

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,
These have been discussed at the ASTM level a bunch.
In fact your idea of a flight plan is the BIGGEST reason the F38 committee exists.
Industry wants to be able to "file and fly" just like a manned aircraft does now.
The problem is there are no rules to tackle the see and avoid issue.
Hence the need for the regulations and the F38 committee to exist. :D

The focus at our level should be on how we can make a set of regulations or standards that will keep us out of the sense and avoid issues completely.
Airspeed limits, alititude restrictions, standard training etc.. are all the things we should focus on for the under 55 lb class of UAV/UAS.

We should stick with Line of sight operations right now just like we do for recreation.
By adding in ANY type of non line of sight method of control we are back to dealing with sense and avoid.
I think it is safe to say that 90% of the AP operators out there are using line of sight operations and 100% have the ability to operate that way.

[LukeZ]

fitenfyr,
this is all pretty interesting. Do you mind telling me a bit more about the F38 committee? It's not something I've heard of before. As for ASTM I assume you mean the international standards institute?


The focus at our level should be on how we can make a set of regulations or standards that will keep us out of the sense and avoid issues completely. Airspeed limits, alititude restrictions, standard training etc.. are all the things we should focus on for the under 55 lb class of UAV/UAS. We should stick with Line of sight operations right now just like we do for recreation. I agree this sounds like a good idea for as far as you can take it. I'm completely for exemptions in every area we can get.

For the sake of discussion, however, what about the folks that would like to use UAVs for non line-of-site, non pilot-in-control operations? I understand we're not going to get an exemption for this sort of stuff, and that's fine, but I'm curious as to what we might expect in terms of regulations for this field. I know they aren't going to set standards for truly autonomous UAVs with the thought of making it at all easy for the hobbyist, and again, that's fine. But I wonder if they'll come up with some creative solutions to the sense-and-avoid issue, or if it will remain something obtainable only if you're Boeing or Burt. If that's the case, I could see a lot of small business enterprises being hampered... all the same, safety must be the first concern.

Luke

[fitenfyr]

fitenfyr,
this is all pretty interesting. Do you mind telling me a bit more about the F38 committee? It's not something I've heard of before. As for ASTM I assume you mean the international standards institute?

Luke,
Here is the link to the ASTM F38 committee. Yes it is an international standards organization.
http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/COMMIT/COMMITTEE/F38.htm?L+mystore+dwig3472+1124618164
You can find a section on RCAPA in the forums that I try to keep as up to date as possible on the ASTM issues.

or the sake of discussion, however, what about the folks that would like to use UAVs for non line-of-site, non pilot-in-control operations? I understand we're not going to get an exemption for this sort of stuff, and that's fine, but I'm curious as to what we might expect in terms of regulations for this field. I know they aren't going to set standards for truly autonomous UAVs with the thought of making it at all easy for the hobbyist, and again, that's fine. But I wonder if they'll come up with some creative solutions to the sense-and-avoid issue, or if it will remain something obtainable only if you're Boeing or Burt. If that's the case, I could see a lot of small business enterprises being hampered... all the same, safety must be the first concern.

Luke

Sadly these kinds of activites I think are not going to be allowed at a recreational level anymore.
I think the FAA is too concerned about conflict in the National Airspace system to allow any UAV to fly beyond line of site without the operator having a national standard level of training and certification.
The ASTM's goal is to provide an industry level of licensing for these kinds of things.
My goal as a secondary one to keeping the Line of sight ops out of regulation is to keep the "big boys" at the ASTM grounded in the fact that a lot of their future engineers and such are going to come from the very segment you are talking about.
How successfull I will be at keeping the requirements within the easy grasp of the hobbiest I don't know. Frankly I think that aspect of regulation is a few years off anyhow.

There is more concern to me right now at the hobbiest level on the AMA's position and what they are doing in talks with the FAA than what the FAA's goals are for commercial ops.
If you didn't read the latest Model aviation and President Brown's statements about his recent meeting with the FAA you really should.
There is also a thread on RCAPA that I posted a personal letter I sent to him regarding it. It is in the FAA section.
I don't want to cross post it here as I would like to keep the discussion in a central location. Too hard for me to visit all the forums. :D
There are some dangerous things being proposed and it could be VERY bad for all of us if we don't speak up.