Want to be on a TV show about amateur UAVs?

[zlite]

Hi all. I'm the editor of Wired Magazine and also an amateur UAV builder (see our site at diydrones.com). This October we're going to be starting a prime-time show on PBS called Wired Science, which will have a national audience of about 6 million people per night. One of the episodes is going to be on non-military UAVs, with a focus on the parallel evolutions of the pros and the amateurs.

We want to film a number of amateurs (including me) flying their UAVs in the San Francisco Bay Area sometime over the next two weeks. If you're in the area and would like to participate in a UAV fly-in for TV broadcast please respond here or contact me directly at canderson@wiredmag.com.

[Jack Crossfire]

Chances are 1 in 10 that mine will B completely autonomous in 2 weeks. Although she can hold orientation right now, that doesn't go very far in an extremely windy environment like Alameda/Emeryville. You might have a better show in a more sheltered area like Pleasanton, but you lose the coverage of San Francisco. Other than that, there's always shots of her sitting on the ground.

[zlite]

Chances are 1 in 10 that mine will B completely autonomous in 2 weeks. Although she can hold orientation right now, that doesn't go very far in an extremely windy environment like Alameda/Emeryville. You might have a better show in a more sheltered area like Pleasanton, but you lose the coverage of San Francisco. Other than that, there's always shots of her sitting on the ground.

It doesn't have to really work (the magic of video is that viewers won't be able to tell anyway). The point is that we're working on autonomous UAVs. Rough edges are dramatic tension!

Ping me at the email and I'll keep you in the loop about timing, place etc. If you know a good site for planes and helis in Pleasanton we could move to there and do without the SF backdrop for the sake of better flying conditions.

[CenTexFlyer]

..... and of course, you'll have your COA all buttoned up nice and neat......

[zlite]

..... and of course, you'll have your COA all buttoned up nice and neat......

All flights will be under 400 feet, line of sight and manual override at all times. That's totally within regs as generally understood.

[CenTexFlyer]

unmanned autonomous flight falls under r/c rules? How do you figure?

[zlite]

unmanned autonomous flight falls under r/c rules? How do you figure?
"Semi-autonomous". All UAVs will have a pilot on the stick at all times. No different than using a wing-leveler or gyro on a heli. It misses a waypoint, you bring it around manually ("pilot in command"). You read the regs differently?

[reedchristiansen]

Hi all. I'm the editor of Wired Magazine and also an amateur UAV builder (see our site at diydrones.com). This October we're going to be starting a prime-time show on PBS called Wired Science, which will have a national audience of about 6 million people per night. One of the episodes is going to be on non-military UAVs, with a focus on the parallel evolutions of the pros and the amateurs.

We want to film a number of amateurs (including me) flying their UAVs in the San Francisco Bay Area sometime over the next two weeks. If you're in the area and would like to participate in a UAV fly-in for TV broadcast please respond here or contact me directly at canderson@wiredmag.com.

...Never mind

[clolson]

...bring the FAA and we'll have a big party

Just keep the veggy trays under 400' and the beer within line of sight. (Sorry caught your comment before the edit) :-)

[CenTexFlyer]

Reed, Reed, Reed,....(and Zlite too).....

I'm just a simple businessman trying to produce civilian UA's. I have no DoD contracts, contractor sponsorships, or university endowments,...... I have no friends that can get me into controlled airspace. Because I use my UA's in humanitarian situations that get alot of attention, and to have the FAA call me directly and tell me to "cease and desist", I think it's reasonable for me to ask the question. Why do *I* have to stop doing humanitarian work when you guys are logging hours in a commercial endeavor and what (in this case) would appear to be public airspace?

All I'm asking for is a level playing field. Is that too much to ask?

Respectfully,

Gene

[zlite]

Reed, Reed, Reed,....(and Zlite too).....

I'm just a simple businessman trying to produce civilian UA's. I have no DoD contracts, contractor sponsorships, or university endowments,...... I have no friends that can get me into controlled airspace. Because I use my UA's in humanitarian situations that get alot of attention, and to have the FAA call me directly and tell me to "cease and desist", I think it's reasonable for me to ask the question. Why do *I* have to stop doing humanitarian work when you guys are logging hours in a commercial endeavor and what (in this case) would appear to be public airspace?

All I'm asking for is a level playing field. Is that too much to ask?

Respectfully,

Gene

Gene,

We're total amateurs. Nobody's getting paid for any of this. PBS (a non-profit, BTW) is filming me and people like me practicing our hobby (in my case, with my kids). We're totally within all regs as I understand them and are responsibly flying (with permission) on a former naval air field miles from any populated area.

Don't you think you might be over-reacting a bit? I'm sorry the FAA came after you, but I don't see why you're coming after us.

Chris (zlite)

[CenTexFlyer]

Hmmmm......

I've been in R/C for about 30 years now.... I've been in the business of building UA's for about the last 6.... I've been on the RTCA SC203 for the development of Best Practices for UA in the NAS for the last 3 years. I have what is likely the first nationally televised use of a UA in a Search and Rescue operation in 05.... I think the term "overreacting" may be a stretch.

My question was more directly aimed at Reed since his is a commercial endeavor, with you as a secondary recipient. And I think it's a fair question. If you are involved in UA even on the amateur level one would expect that you would be current with the situation and the most recent curtailment of UA activity. One might assume you would certainly have an opinion on it, or at the very least see the validity of the question.

and BTW.... I am registered, tax exempt, non-profit, 501(c)3 Search and Rescue organizition as well..... would you like to make a donation?

[CenTexFlyer]

Wow! The silence is deafening.........

[mlbco]

CenTex,

The way I read it, Chris is within the law to operate his aircraft (within visual line-of-site) because it is for recreational purposes. I realize many of us are upset that we can't fly for commercial purposes (profit or non-profit doesn't matter here) but I think the rage needs to be focused on the FAA, and not the hobbyists who can legally fly.

A recent speaker at the AUVSI conference in D.C. brought up many of your points (see excerpt from a news report listed below). Maybe you should contact him for advice on how to proceed.


Steve Morris
MLB Co.
---------
http://www.shephard.co.uk/UVOnline/Default.aspx?Action=-187126550&ID=2c17e5f1-9e6d-409e-b782-97940680b1f7

Reported by David S. Harvey for the Shephard Group:

Police Chief Donald Shinnamon (Holly Hills, Fla.,) is an angry cop – angry that police are denied small UAVs while RC modelers fly unconstrained.

Shinnamon is a highly respected national authority on airborne policing who says the FAA is both wrong and unhelpful on the subject of law enforcement UAVs. In a nutshell he says the agency’s claims that public service aircraft need to go through extensive certification are wrong. ‘They don’t. The CFRs (code of federal regulations) are clear on that, and the FAA just doesn’t understand them.’

But their rudeness in their dealings with him, their high handedness and their ‘ignorance’ of the law are damaging the effort to move forward on the more beneficial aspects of UAV airspace integration. Shinnamon- who we think may just be right, given the way surplus helicopters were handed out by the Army to unqualified police flight departments a few years ago (legitimately so under public service rules) – says it’s time for people to stand up to the FAA and demand change. Even, maybe, by a direct challenge…

[CenTexFlyer]

There is no "rage" in any of my posts..... maybe a firm conviction of words that is borne of extended experience, but I'm well past being "mad" about this. And....With all due respect, I haven't gotten an answer, or even a response to my question.......

Autonomous, or semi-autonomous flight is VERY different than that of hobby R/C with the use of a gyro or a horizon sensing stabilization system. While I agree with Mr. Shinnamon wholeheartedly, his is just essentially another opinion that has been quoted by the media. It carries no weight and will make little impact on the situation. I've been quoted more times than I care to count on national television and it makes no difference to the Feds.

I spend many telecons with the FAA and have heard first hand many of the responses that Mr. Shinnamon considers rude or unhelpful, and many times they seem that way. Imagine having to tell a man you can't go search for his missing wife's body because the FAA doesn't deem it an emergency. How do you think THAT feels? Especially in the light of the fact that we have found many victims and have brought closure to a grieving family and THEY KNOW IT!

Many know that Myron and myself at RPFlight Systems have been working within the system that is available to us. Served on the committees, contacted the congressmen, Ombudsman, Senators, etc. etc. so we know from whence all this comes. For those to state "Oh... this is only a hobby" while promoting patently obvious commercial aspirations requires a call out for what it is. I will not, and do not call the FAA and rat out people who are flying - that's just bad karma, but it is happening. It's happened to us. I just raised the question here and still have not gotten a valid response as to why ANYONE would think it's OK for that situation to exist.

Gene

P.S. Oh Steve... have you guys begun your certification process on the Bat? How are you flying your prove out flights?

[Jack Crossfire]

On http://www.modelaircraft.org/clubsearch.aspx they show two locations that look like they could be flying fields.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/clubdetails.aspx?club=157

http://www.modelaircraft.org/clubdetails.aspx?club=544

Other than that, there are a number of parks.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37.680585,-121.893321&spn=0.005298,0.010868&t=k&z=17&om=1

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37.6502,-121.897495&spn=0.001325,0.002717&t=k&z=19&om=1

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37.648953,-121.871606&spn=0.001325,0.002717&t=k&z=19&om=1

A school which is sometimes accessible on weekends.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37.656067,-121.882871&spn=0.00265,0.005434&t=k&z=18&om=1

Empty space for a future office park.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=37.653863,-121.894501&spn=0.00265,0.005434&t=k&z=18&om=1

In the worst case there's always home video of flying.

[mlbco]

Gene,

The Bat has passed certification and has COA's in place at several restricted airspace flying sites in the Northern California area. We also regularly fly at military bases with restricted airspace. I just returned from a big military demo in Australia where we flew in restricted airspace. Two years ago I flew for 2 weeks in Mexico with approval from the aviation authorities (no COA needed there).

Steve

[CenTexFlyer]

Gene,

The Bat has passed certification and has COA's in place at several restricted airspace flying sites in the Northern California area. We also regularly fly at military bases with restricted airspace. I just returned from a big military demo in Australia where we flew in restricted airspace. Two years ago I flew for 2 weeks in Mexico with approval from the aviation authorities (no COA needed there).

Steve

Ah.... very good. I guess maybe that's where we screwed up. Our target market from the very outset was law enforcement, fire, and municipalities, so we never went for the DoD/Contractor money. Prior to Feb 13th it was never a problem to go on searches or even do prove out flights. But now, with no mil contracts, no DoD, no sponsorship, we are high and dry. I guess the axiom still holds true... "it's not what ya know, but who ya know"

[zlite]

Jack,

Thanks so much for great links. I know the AMA clubs and they generally frown on anything that looks like a UAV, regardless of whether it's FAA legal or not (it's an insurance thing). The Alameda Hornets, which were okay with our semi-autonomous aircraft, unfortunately lost their field (we use another nearby runway under an engineering clearance).

In general, the only reason not to fly at the Alameda would be wind; it's otherwise perfect. As soon as we set the date, we can pick a backup site from your list in case the wind is too high on the day. I'll keep you updated...

--Chris

[Jack Crossfire]

Early morning is the best time to avoid high winds. Other than that, the chances of anything exciting happening with the copter are pretty low.

[CenTexFlyer]

I know the AMA clubs and they generally frown on anything that looks like a UAV, regardless of whether it's FAA legal or not (it's an insurance thing).

Would you guys like a number to call to check on the legality of what you are about to do? I'd be happy to help!

Gene

[Aeroflot]

Well done Geek dads! I understand your motivation perfectly it’s a great thing to get children involved in robotics, especially if they fly around, getting the kids off the game boy outside and playing with RC aircraft fantastic! and that lego AP project I have 3 young guys that just added lego to there santa list.

Forget about criticism…… welcome fellow geek dad! Regardless of your projects commercial or non commercial interests I can see you are going to need a lot more lego to keep young minds active.

Needs no explanation, level playing, or donation!

[CenTexFlyer]

No criticism Aeroflot..... just a simple question.

That I guess will go unanswered......

And no wants to find out if it would be legal or not.....

If you do, the number is (202) 385-4677, that'll be Bruce......

[zlite]

Gene,

Just to give you some perspective, here's a picture of our "UAV" and its pilot/creator, who is nine. He made it out of Lego. Are you sure this is a matter for the FAA?

Chris

[reedchristiansen]

Reed, Reed, Reed,....(and Zlite too).....

I'm just a simple businessman trying to produce civilian UA's. I have no DoD contracts, contractor sponsorships, or university endowments,...... I have no friends that can get me into controlled airspace. Because I use my UA's in humanitarian situations that get alot of attention, and to have the FAA call me directly and tell me to "cease and desist", I think it's reasonable for me to ask the question. Why do *I* have to stop doing humanitarian work when you guys are logging hours in a commercial endeavor and what (in this case) would appear to be public airspace?

All I'm asking for is a level playing field. Is that too much to ask?

Respectfully,

Gene


Gene,

I think I am with you on this one.... My comment before the edit was pretty heavy with sarcasm. I decide not to stir the pot, so I removed it, but I agree - it is time to start playing by the rules. Fortunatly, we have fairly low cost restricted airspace a short drive (2 hours....) away at Dugway proving grounds wich we are making good use of. The days of flying at the park are ending...

Reed

[CenTexFlyer]

hehehe... have you seen *my* UAV? It's made out of a beer cooler. OK, EPS anyway....and I will wager that my ALL UP weight, ready to fly is less than what that handsome young lad is holding without the wings on it! My vision and perspective is quite clear.......You see, there are people out there like AOPA, ALPA, and the like who could care less what it's made out of. You are in THEIR airspace. And the FAA is the guardian of that airspace. Seriously, call the number I gave you and explain what you are doing and get an opinion. Or better still, get PBS to call on your behalf. What's it going to hurt?

I'd be willing to bet you there are several folks lurking in this thread that could tell you what the response will be but won't say a word. :rolleyes: ;) :cool:

EDIT : OK so Reed is ONE who will! Anyone else?

[CenTexFlyer]

Hey Reed,

You posted as I was typing, and dang it if you weren't right on the spot! Believe me I don't like it any more than anyone. I applaud trying to get kids into aeronautics, I've loved it all my life. We need more Junior Birdmen out there as far as I'm concerned, but our world is changing. Shaped by the deeds of a few that will effect the future of us all.

If you haven't written your legislator or elected official, you should so!

Gene

[Aeroflot]

No criticism Aeroflot..... just a simple question.

That I guess will go unanswered......

And no wants to find out if it would be legal or not.....

If you do, the number is (202) 385-4677, that'll be Bruce......
The simple answer is that the rules change from country to country.

In Australia a UAV is not a classification of control systems, but of commercial invoicing in the activity of flying an object. So if it is not for commercial (invoicing) purposes then no operator license is required. The contact for CASA UAV regulations in Australia is Mal Walker CASA number 131 757. Please do some research before you call.

I do recommend the operator be a member of MAAA and FAI however no insurance cover is given to any UAV control device. This is not a requirement to fly using automatic control.
I also recommend that youngsters obtain there bronze wings.

The guys at Monash have very good procedures, as they mention wetlands.
Thanks to the EE department for looking out for all the birds.
http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/AEROBOTICS/papers/MECSE-16-2006.pdf

If a UAV operator adherers to all MAAA rules, Under 400 feet, clear from property
Under 7.5kg GTOW (unless you have a MAAA heavy model permit), stay away from birds and Rookies have at least a bronze pilot ready to take control. Then you are free to experiment and get your logo working.

And for the geek dads this is a great way to get with the kids outdoors. 10 year old Tom
Started at about 5yo with a kitty hawk 12 months later flying an Electra Fun for 2 years then move straight to a Classic thanks to a club member at MARCS in Victoria.
So what has this got to do with UAV’s? glad you asked. More recently curious brothers started playing with “Just Basic” and moved on to PicBasic Pro and wouldn’t you know it can’t find my MElabs programmer any where, I have noticed a flashing PIC16F876a
stuck in a bread board though.

The motto of the story is that if the COA? give you grief move to a better
Bay Area (Melbourne) we could do with all the logo you got!

(zlite……. now that what I call a piece of logo well done flyboys)

[zlite]

Seriously, call the number I gave you and explain what you are doing and get an opinion. Or better still, get PBS to call on your behalf. What's it going to hurt?

I'd be willing to bet you there are several folks lurking in this thread that could tell you what the response will be but won't say a word. :rolleyes: ;) :cool:


As I said, we believe that we are flying fully within the regs. We're recreational, not commercial, and pass every other published test (pilot in control, 400 ft, line of sight, etc). But if the FAA wants to come after us anyway for some random reason not enshrined in law, I for one would love to run that story in Wired or anywhere else. "FAA accuses nine-year-old of weaponizing Lego" is a headline that few media would turn down ;)

There are lots of ways to fight the battle for a rational UAV policy. You have yours and I have mine. The important thing is that we're on the same side.

[Aeroflot]

As I said, we believe that we are flying fully within the regs. We're recreational, not commercial, and pass every other published test (pilot in control, 400 ft, line of sight, etc). But if the FAA wants to come after us anyway for some random reason not enshrined in law, I for one would love to run that story in Wired or anywhere else. "FAA accuses nine-year-old of weaponizing Lego" is a headline that few media would turn down ;)

There are lots of ways to fight the battle for a rational UAV policy. You have yours and I have mine. The important thing is that we're on the same side.

Zlite I agree I don’t think there is a problem.
I wouldn't be surprised if the FAA COA or whatever are actually supportive. The Australian CASA is especially when they see what you are trying to do, if it involves education the answer is usually yes.

[CenTexFlyer]

As I said, we believe that we are flying fully within the regs. We're recreational, not commercial, and pass every other published test (pilot in control, 400 ft, line of sight, etc).

Why not remove all doubt?


But if the FAA wants to come after us anyway for some random reason not enshrined in law, I for one would love to run that story in Wired or anywhere else. "FAA accuses nine-year-old of weaponizing Lego" is a headline that few media would turn down ;)

You catch on fast!

There are lots of ways to fight the battle for a rational UAV policy. You have yours and I have mine. The important thing is that we're on the same side.

Agreed!

Zlite I agree I don’t think there is a problem.

I disagree, that's why I suggested the definitive authority weigh in on this issue. Some might say "Why stir up trouble?", but then that would indicate some doubt, would it not?

I wouldn't be surprised if the FAA COA or whatever are actually supportive.

Be surprised, be VERY surprised!

The Australian CASA is especially when they see what you are trying to do, if it involves education the answer is usually yes.

You seem to be very versed in CASA protocols. Good on ya, m8! But they weren't forged in the aftermath of 9/11 or DHS so the tone and complexion are significantly different.

I am not trying to be difficult or critical in any way on this subject, but I'd sure hate for everyone to get spooled up then catch it in the end. I can't tell you how many demo's, searches, and filming spots have been summarily shut down because they "believed" they were legal. It would seem prudent to me to clear up those little doubts before it was even started. Either way there is a story there that could effect positive changes!

[Jack Crossfire]

One thing the media pays no attention to is the fact that it costs twice as much for amateurs to develop technology as professionals. Every dollar an amateur spends on gyros, accelerometers, GPS, magnetometers, airframes, batteries, and radios requires making 2 dollars. 1 for taxes and 1 for equipment.

The aerospace companies can write off their expenses but the individuals have to pay. This is probably the single biggest roadblock in amateur technology development. If we didn't have to pay 100% of our expenses in taxes, the radio telemetry could probably be off the self instead of hacked over 3 months. The circuit boards could probably be machined surface mount instead of heavy through hole boards. The processor could probably be 400Mhz instead of 200Mhz.

[macboffin]

Important point, the big companies don't like "amateurs" to come up with something that money alone can't hack.The law of the jungle, teeth and claws, turf wars, beltway bandits.................

[CenTexFlyer]

Mac.... boy do you ever have THAT right! Have I shown y'all my scars.......?

[Aeroflot]

I spoke to Mal Walker at CASA before I posted the first time.

When I spoke to CASA I believe that the Australian authorities were supportive and helpful provided the UAV operator is within there rules some of which have been outlined.

The Australian legislation regarding the operation of UAV,s was created after 9/11

[zik]

Thanks for the regulations post Aeroflot. The Monash tech report was interesting and it put me on to the Australian regulations which are at:

http://casa.gov.au/rules/1998casr/101/101casr.pdf

Sections F and G are the interesting ones for any other Aussies out there.

Now I'm looking into sitting BAK and instrument flying exams so I can become a "certified UAV controller".

[Aeroflot]

Wow small world, I was looking for that everywhere yesterday and couldn’t find it
in the 3 minutes I had to respond thanks.

This is what I was looking for. Once again for the young budding UAV operators.

Subpart 101.F UAVs
Division 101.F.1 General
101.235 Applicability of this Subpart
(1) This Subpart applies to:
(a) the operation of a large UAV; and
(b) the operation of a small UAV for purposes other than sport or
recreation.
Note 1 There is no practicable distinction between a small UAV and a model
aircraft except that of use — model aircraft are flown only for the sport of flying
them.

PS next time you are Monash Compsci mention it to David, Ron and Carlo that you think some sort of department UAV project might lift it out of that dull IT domain it's slipped into. Lets face it this is much more fun than IT.

[patrickegan]

Guys,

Gene is very close to the flame on this subject and his opinions reflect the frustration manifested by knee jerk Federal policy clarification. This frustration is compounded by a very unlevel playing field, and without having the luxury of wheel barrows full of money you are essentially shut out.

Patrick

[zlite]

We held this on Saturday and it was great fun. About a dozen people all told and a range of aircraft from real-time Google mappers to autonomous helis. Full report here (http://diydrones.com/profiles/blog/show?id=705844%3ABlogPost%3A3088) .