here it comes

[lvspark]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/02/12/212035/faa-cracks-down-on-use-of-model-aircraft-rules-for-uavs.html

[workshop]

You mean Pandora is going to try to shut her box? :D

Seriously... this may be a good thing because there doesn't seem to be a middle ground between a foam EasyStar and a Cessna 172. A designation will probably help commercial operators and the small UAV industry in the long run.

The process will be messy for sure. I bet in ten years, we will look back and enjoy having become the legitimate third party candidate for airspace. Just my opinion.

Jeff

[Tale Spin]

If nothing else it will give birth to a long and interesting thread.

I do not think that the independent R&D talent we see here has anything to worry about.
Still I look forward the the coming comments.

[Wulffy]

I agree with you, workshop. I am the Director of Avionics for a Part 145 repair station. Having had a multiple-decade long interest in UAVs and piloted airframes (obviously), I tend to think that this will ultimately result in furthering the flying public's safety. Am I a 'company' man (Blind FAA Robot)? Not necessairly, but I will admit that a darn large portion of the regs have been written in blood - innocent passenger and crew blood that, in many cases, could not have (should not have) been spilled. I am glad to see that the subject matter is being given due consideration before something catastrophic happens and causes some politician to succomb to the ensuing hype and allow an emotive reaction in enacting rules that are rarely well thought out nor appropriate...

I have seen a recent trend - and I know that this will most likely result in some flames being tossed my way - towards having a common-sense approach in the adoption and implementation of many of the rules. The NPRMs and associated comment solicitations are in place for a reason. I trust that before any regulations are formally drafted and enacted, that a similar protocol will be followed, allowing those of us with an OBJECTIVE opinion to hopefully be heard...

[Unterhausen]

seems like they have been pretty clear about this since the L.A. County Sheriff dust-up last year. Don't know what it means for most of us though. I don't intend to let my plane go any farther than it would as a model airplane, but that probably doesn't satisfy the FAA.

how hard is it to get an experimental certificate?

And speaking of making the thread go out of control, anyone hear from Jett Pilot recently? It seems they are directly addressing his activities. On the other hand, they probably are more comfortable with remotely piloted vehicles than with autonomous vehicles.

[Unterhausen]

I do not think that the independent R&D talent we see here has anything to worry about.
according to a discussion I had with our local AMA club president years ago, flying a model aircraft for anything other than a hobby has never been covered under the model aircraft exemption. He had all sorts of ways of getting around that, and he always had a plausible story.

So much for the long thread, I've got almost half the posts.

[rob10000]

Interesting stuff on the linked site.

here's video of a near miss between a Luna UAV and an airliner.

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=11940

[mlbco]

Here's a question for the lawyers in the group. The latest FAA notice:

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf100/452254_web.pdf

seems to indicate that all unmanned operations are either public, civil, or model aircraft. If I build an autonomous UAV that I only operate for sport or recreation (i.e. no commercial use) and I fly within visual line of sight, then am I covered under the model aircraft authority to operate? My reading of the FAA documents seems to indicate that this would be legal.

This would conflict with all the statements made by the AMA up to this point, which have been to divorce themselves from all autonomous aircraft operations. There might be a useful loophole here for UAV tinkerers to legally fly as model airplanes again!


Steve

[reedchristiansen]

The guidlines mentioned PIC (pilot-in-command) as "Key" and subject to currency and minimum requirements.

"The PIC concept is essential to the safe operation of manned aircraft. The FAA's UAS guidance applies this PIC concept to unmanned aircraft and includes minimum qualifications and currency requirements."

Any ideas about what these qualificaitons and currency requirements might be? Class III medical? Current Private pilots certificate??

Any ideas?

Reed

[lvspark]

mlbco, If your just out having fun, the sky's the limit.. (under 400' within visual line-of-sight and comply with ac-91-57)
Recreational use of your highly capable model aircraft is approved.
If your doing R&D, training, or market research, your model aircraft becomes a UAS you need the EAC.

[mlbco]

mlbco, If your just out having fun, the sky's the limit.. (under 400' within visual line-of-sight and comply with ac-91-57)
Recreational use of your highly capable model aircraft is approved.
If your doing R&D, training, or market research, your model aircraft becomes a UAS you need the EAC.

Lvspark,

For the record, I'm not looking for a loophole for my UAV business work. I'm mostly concerned about university students and hobbyist/experimenters who have not been able to fly legally because of the FAA's unclear stance and the AMA's vilification of their activities. The only silver lining in this might be that hobbyist UAV operators and students now have a way to legally fly and can confront the AMA on this issue.

In 2001 I wrote several letters to the AMA voicing my disapproval of their negative stance towards UAV activities. I argued that the AMA could easily (and safely) include line of sight UAV operation within their existing activities and that the AMA charter of promoting aeronautical science and education encourages them to do so. I also argued that this would be a great way to rejuvinate young people's interest in model aviation by combining the latest computer and video technology with flying models. The only response I got was some very negative letters from Dave Brown and others at Model Aviation. My letters were never published and I have to admit I've been frustrated with the AMA ever since. It's not the AMA's job to protect businesses like mine, but it is written in their charter to encourage educational and scientific activities involving model aviation.


Steve

[lvspark]

Response noted, Thank you for your efforts.
Mike

[CenTexFlyer]

Any ideas about what these qualificaitons and currency requirements might be? Class III medical? Current Private pilots certificate??

Any ideas?

Reed

All the way up to, and including a commercial ticket. Are you ready?

[clolson]

Interesting, if the FAA really pushes up the requirements for who is allowed to pilot UAV's to full scale pilots that have high level ratings, a side effect of that will be that these guys (mostly) will not want to do anything stupid or crazy to jeapardize all their hard work. Not only will they have uav pilots that thoroughly know how to navigate and interact with all the manned aviation entities, they will have uav pilots that will know the rules, know the stakes, and are unlikely to take stupid risks or break rules in a way that might jeapardize their own ratings or put any real lives in danger.

Yes, I realize I'm referring to some theoretically perfect commercial pilot, understanding that a lot of those guys couldn't find their own butt with out ATC vectoring them in, and god help us if they have to fly a new route or new aircraft!

[macboffin]

Interesting stuff on the linked site.

here's video of a near miss between a Luna UAV and an airliner.

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=11940 This was an airliner on approach into Kabul airport.

[macboffin]

Conspiracy theory! Established companies pressuring AMA and FAA to make life difficult for potential competitors?
Thought number two; anti-terrorist applications nipped in the bud?

[kd7ost]

The AMA never has been a player in this. They exist, with insurance, for hobby only activities. They did put a stop to flying with GPS systems and "Under the hood" video at AMA sanctioned clubs or events because the insurance underwriters said they have to. They don't want to nor should be subjected to FAA regulations because of commercial AP operations.

Dan

[A10FLYR]

And the latest in Denver.

http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=64836

[Unterhausen]

And the latest in Denver.

http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=64836
They didn't contact him, so he probably didn't have to quit -- I expect that most of those businesses like that will keep flying without harrassment.
interesting that he didn't realize that he was violating the letter of the regs. This has come up many times in the AP forum, guess he wasn't really clued in to that.

[Wulffy]

I have thoroughly read, put it down, and then thoroughly re-read the CFR Guidance Information that mlbco was so kind to timely locate and post today.

To summarize my interpretation (if anyone really gives a hoot :-), this clarification serves the purpose to:

I - Clearly define 'UAS' - Basically, any flying craft that is un-manned, period.

II - Categorizes and defines the classes of UAS':
A - operating as 'Pulic Aircraft' - I interpret this to basically mean special mission birds (such as Military/Federal US Government). It is unstated but common-sense predicates that the assumption be made that these airframes will be operated in a manner other than as models.
B - [UAS'] operating as 'Civil Aircraft' - I interpret this to imply State/Local Government UAVs and corporate/private airframes that are 'for hire' or intended to be operated in any fashion other than as models.
C - [UAS' operating as 'Models']- I interpret this to basically mean those owned and operated for recreational/sport use only. The interesting thing to note here is that unlike Public and Civil Aircraft, this section did not clearly attempt to define Model. This is important and touched on near the end of my comments...

III - Clearly asserts that any UAS flying must have operational authority, period.

IV - Defines the Operational Authority (OA) for each of the aforementioned classes:
A - Public - The OA is a Certificate(s) of Waiver or Authority (COA).
B - Civil - The OA is a Certificate of Airworthiness (CofA)- i.e. Typically Experimental CofA.
C - Model - The OA is Advisory Circular 91-57 from '81.

V - Defines how the airframe is to be operated (by whom, required equipage, and other requirements) in the US National Airspace System (NAS):
A - Public:
1 - Must have Pilot in Command (PIC) and Observer. (Important: Responsiblility is imputed to the PIC)
2 - PIC and Observer must be in constant contact.
3 - PIC and/or Observer must be in Line of Site of the UAS and within 1 mile laterally and 3000' vertically of the UAS being operated/observed.
4 - Flight ops >= FL180:
a - Require an IFR flight plan/clearance,
b - Require a Transponder (Mode C acceptable, Mode S preferred),
c - Navigation or Anti-Collision Lighting is required to be installed and operational, and
d - Communicication between PIC and ATC must be maintained.
5 - Flight ops < FL180:
a - "Similar" requirements excluding IFR flight plan/clearance requirement, however 'may' require ATC coordination prior to operations
B - Civil:
1 - Requirements are defined by the Operational Limitations when the OA is issued,
2 - Several related FARs are cited as being applicable with Experimental CofAs, and
3 - The big thing to note here is that Operations on airframes with Experimental CofAs can not be conducted for compensation or hire.
C - Model:
1 - The requirements are defined in AC 91-57 - i.e. 400' AGL Operational Ceiling, etc.

The guidance clearly speaks about the FAA's policy as it relates to operations ("mistakenly" [incorrectly]) being conducted in accordance with AC 91-57. Specifically, AC 91-57 applies to Modelers, only. The guidance does not clearly define the term Modelers. However, it does clearly predicate that persons or companies conducting operations "for business purposes" [u]can not do so, in accordance with AC 91-57 - i.e. they are not Modelers. Not only is the term 'Modelers' not clearly defined but also, as touched on above, the term 'Model' is also not clearly defined as it relates to the Classes of UAVs. It appears that this may have been very intentional. I truly believe that the decision not to define these terms (yet) was a cognitive decision. I do believe, however, that it was for darn good reasons.

In the policy paragraphs, near the end of the body of the clairification, the author of the document clearly asserts that due consideration is being given to the concept that there may very well be solid grounds in which to consider a fourth class of UAS'. I think that they did not yet go down the path of defining Models or Modelers yet, with the mindset that they will wait to see what the public feedback on the clairification is, before making any drastic definitions or assertions as it relates to this understandably emotive portion of our concerns. To give us a forum for providing feedback (hence ideas) to them, I think is an opportunity that should not be quickly dismissed.

IMHO, I strongly feel that there does need to be a fourth class. That would be a class that facilitates some of the liberty granted by AC 91-57, contains new language specific to this yet to be defined fourth class of UAS', and possess a sub-set of common-sense rules that are pulled from either Public or Civil Classes of UAS'. i.e. I think that requiring a CofA for a ground-observed Line-of-Site operated Aerial Photography bird may be absurd, but that is not to say that the individual operating the airframe shouldn't have to have some verifiable training and means of acknowledging the responsiblilities that they are taking by conducting business operations with an admittedly potentially dangerous machine, and acknowledging the (yet to be defined) operational restrictions that they are required to adhere to when conducting operations in accordance with their (yet to be defined) OA.

Granting liberties without accountability is a sure means to facilitate abuse. Frankly, I am surprised that abuse hasn't yet occured. Someone earlier in the thread did elude to the concern regarding the utilization of UAS' in the execution of terrorist activity in the US NAS. Having a common-sensical system in place to facilitate appropriate oversight and (self-?)policing of this fourth class of operators seems a way to kill a few birds with one stone.

It is much too early for anyone to have all of the answers - representatives of the FAA included - they are just people like you and I with a very busy schedule and a damn tough job ahead of them. The video above demonstrates that the concerns have merit. As our hobby continues to gain popularity, and as Military, General, Corporate, & Carrier air traffic continues to see a steady increase in density, it is only a matter of time before something catastrophically horrible occurs. Without a framework of rules and regulations in place to help mitigate it, adequate (self-?)policing of the operations described herein, and appropriate safety measures in place, when (yes, "when" not "if") a lethal accident or abuse does occur, it could mean a swift, unilaterally invoked, long-lasting (permanent?), and abrupt end to our hobby and professional endeavors.

I for one would hate to see that take place. To help ensure that we will not suffer that fate, we must play a partnering role with the FAA, and other industry leaders (AMA, etc.), in helping to facilitate positive change.

To reiterate my earlier assertion, IMHO, we are going down the right path. To speak to the comments on the Denver Ch 9 news article, the gentleman that is having his Aerial Photography Business effected, is also on the right path. Speak your mind in an objective, thoughtful, and respectful manner, in the correct forum, and via the most prudent channels - i.e. Your Representatives and also via the solicited feedback:

"Feedback regarding current FAA policy for Unmanned Aircraft Systems can be submitted at http://www.faa.gov/uas (http://www.faa.gov/uas). (Scroll down to the bottom of the page and find Contact UAPO. Click into this link.)"


If you do not exercise your right to be heard when it is needed most, then you give up that right when you want, and need, to be listened to...

Change is never easy, but with due diligence, objectivity, respect, compromise, and common-sense, I think that we can all be winners, while helping to ensure the safety of the flying public.

Respectfully;

Tod Wulff

[shanghai_fool]

Would this also include sponsored (paid) model pilots at shows and events? Are they now grounded for hire?

[Unterhausen]

Would this also include sponsored (paid) model pilots at shows and events? Are they now grounded for hire?That's an interesting question, because I think your insinuation is correct, and they shouldn't be flying for hire. However, the AMA certainly has had such people at their own events.

There is a long thread in the AP forum about this issue right now. I think the FAA has just made clear what many people knew already, you can't fly a model airplane for money in the US. Basically, we've gotten caught up in the issue of large and medium sized military UAVs that are a serious threat to civil aviation, but really, I don't think the status quo has changed.

[macboffin]

Wulfy, some seven or eight years ago whilst having high level meetings regarding military UAVs down at Huntsville,(I dont say this to impress) I was asked about possible ways of combating "amateur" terrorist mission UAVs and gave them my two cents worth, including some possible practical soft and hardware solutions; the subject has been studied for some time now, and hopefully some practical stuff in place in certain places. Certainly 9/11 must have sharpened a lot of minds. The comment is well madethat it behoves us not only to fly carefully, but get very tough with anyone you suspect of doing anything that could bring our hobby activities into terminal disrepute. We could finish up back with tissue, dope and sticks, and rubber bands!

[Unterhausen]

as long as there is money to be made feeding people's need to fear imaginary threats, our hobby is in danger.

[Myron]

Hey Guys,

"Would this also include sponsored (paid) model pilots at shows and events? Are they now grounded for hire?"

My guess is that there is a loophole in this one.. The guys are paid to demonstrate products and they probabaly rcv no cash compensation at an event unless they "win" a contest.. I think most of them are paid for their marketing skills, one of which is being an excellet MODEL pilot.

Its a very good question.. Lets think about it for a second.. If they are grounded, what would Futaba, JR and all the big name mfgs have to say about it? Can the FAA really step in and say you can no longer market your product? Can they step in to companies like RCATS, Eagletree, UNAV, and all the other guys that make telemetry and UA gear and say, that stuff is used for commercial UA flight and you have to stop?
Can they stat harassing all the guys selling video gear because they are used in flying commercially... Seems a bit extreme to me but I guess anything is possible..

Myron

[shanghai_fool]

I'm sure the lawyers are scratching their heads and trying to get clarification on this one as the insurance companies will not cover illegal activities. I did not see anything on AMA's website about this.

Donald

[treehog]

Big brother and war supplier UAV interests can easly stamp out any small operators

so far all that happened is they didnt get that isue on thier radar

Ralf

[Hovertime]

Can the FAA really step in and say you can no longer market your product? Can they step in to companies like RCATS, Eagletree, UNAV, and all the other guys that make telemetry and UA gear and say, that stuff is used for commercial UA flight and you have to stop?
Can they stat harassing all the guys selling video gear because they are used in flying commercially... Seems a bit extreme to me but I guess anything is possible..

Myron
Short answer to all of the above is YES.
And if by any chance it gets done it would take years, decades to undo it, if at all possible.
Its like a one way ticket when government takes action.

[kd7ost]

Short answer to all of the above is YES.
And if by any chance it gets done it would take years, decades to undo it, if at all possible.
Its like a one way ticket when government takes action.

I have a different take on it. The FAA has no legal ability to tell people they can't sell products like the ones on the above list.

Most guys (I swear) that fly via downlink are not legaly licensed to operate that equipment. You can't put the onus on the company to verify the legality of the buyer. (Unless you're talking guns) But you will find a disclaimer on their web site stating as such.

The manufacturers simply have to label the equipment that it is "Intended for hobby use only" and it's up to the consumer to keep their nose clean.

Dan