Your tax funded $20,000 slow flyer.

[fraggin]

http://www.foxnews.com/images/209123/3_23_sheriff_drone1.jpg

Well, maybe your taxes if you live in LA.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200155,00.html

Ok, admit it. Who is the LA County Sherrif that has been lurking here?

[Ensignnolo]

FAA shut them down pretty quickly:
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060609uav.html

Ensignnolo

[chopsuey]

Yeah I am curious about why the FAA so worked up. What's the difference between that and the kid next door flying a RC plane? Or us working on our UAVs?

[LukeZ]

Yeah I am curious about why the FAA so worked up. What's the difference between that and the kid next door flying a RC plane? Or us working on our UAVs?Yeah, that's exactly the argument the sheriff made. It will be interesting to see where this goes. But at first glance, it doesn't appear to be a good omen for us in this hobby. Hopefully it's not indicative of the FAA's direction with this kind of thing - but again, it will be interesting to see.


Luke

[Steve McBride]

It may be that they quoted an operational altitude that intrudes into commercial airspace?

Steve

[Unterhausen]

the head of the local AMA sanctioned club mentioned to us a while back that he thought that private individuals were in the clear, whereas since we wanted to fly as a commercial venture (funded university research) he thought we were not covered under current FAA regs. But then again, I've seen some of the videos he made with his UAV, and they appeared to be taken at the local AMA club field, so I think I understand his approach to the matter.

[Gary Warner]

One step closer to the FAA capping our hobby flights to 400 feet. :(

Gary
--

[djklein21]

Theyare flying planes beyond visual range. They can't see and avoid. That is the problem. Plus, without the safety certification, they will probably fall from the sky and hurt somone.

[mwraight]

I can't believe that's the UAV they were talking about on the news! You could suck 100 of those into the intake of a 757 and probably not even notice!

I have a bad feeling about the FAA's stance on the whole small UAV ordeal. We have no weight with them - unless you've got a lot of $$$ and weight to throw around you're not going to reach them. Meanwhile, the companies that make the bigger UAVs, ones that may have military contracts or are multimillion dollar companies can lobby away. And most of the big UAVs have the ability to carry a transponder and other high tech see and avoid toys. Stuff you'll never fit on a fully autonomous slow stick!

We'll be lucky to get 400 feet. They probably won't even grant that if you're flying out of your line of sight.

My suggestion: call the FAA, call your congressperson, call the AOPA & EAA, call the AMA and make some noise on any level you can. Sitting around doing nothing won't get anything done - especially with the FAA.

[typicalaimster]

There is another discussion (http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=533692) about this in the AP forum. It effects them to.

[twinturbostang]

quote from article: "it will also lead to a better policy controlling UAVs nationwide."

Oh, that sounds lovely. :mad:

[LukeZ]

Here's another AOPA article: AOPA to protect member interests on UAV certification panel (http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/040809uav.html).

Some quotes:


"AOPA will lead the advisory committee that will set key standards for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) flying in U.S. airspace.

"We volunteered for this job because we want to make sure that these unmanned aircraft don't have an impact on our members, literally and figuratively."

"Our benchmark for the standards will be a piloted vehicle operating VFR," said Kenagy. "Only when a UAV can fit into the system with the same level of safety will it be ready to share our airspace."

Although I'm sure none of us really want an impact strike between a UAV and a general aviation aircraft, it is also quite clear, from this article and many others, that what AOPA is really talking about when they mean "no impact," is: "not allowed to exist."


Luke

[lvspark]

RCAPA has been involved in the guidance material being prepared by the RTCA to be presented to the FAA very soon, RCAPA had a hand in creating the "Lightly Regulated" category of UAS. It is anticipated the "Lightly Regulated" class of UAS will be just that, lightly regulated. What the FAA does with the guidance material is anybodys guess at this point. We are awaiting a study by MIT that models impact data from various sizes of aircraft.

Here is some interesting reading if anyones interested..
http://www.access5.aero/site_content/docs/mit_UAV_safety_analysis.pdf

[CenTexFlyer]

Careful there, Mike....

You just ALMOST gave RCAPA credit for something there! Walkin' on the slippery rocks! :)

Gene

[Hovertime]

Its fairly simple - money talks, and UAV's can take away many contracts and as such threatens multimillion $$ industry of manned commercial aviation.

[kd7ost]

Its fairly simple - money talks, and UAV's can take away many contracts and as such threatens multimillion $$ industry of manned commercial aviation.

I don't know if I see it that way at this point. I think UAV's will do things that full scale can't reasonably do. I don't think there will be huge monetary shifts by allowing small UAV's to operate at the lower edge of the existing NAS. I see it more as a Sierra Club type thing. Lots of people with money want the space put off limits to all users but their own group. They just want control and don't want to share or even consider how to share.

Dan