UAV Law

[sectrix]

I've read a lot here on the forums about the legislation and rules of UAVs and, to say the least, I couldn't find a single, straightforward definition. So I did the unthinkable...I just went and read the friggen laws.

Here is what I've found. (and I'm glad I looked, 'cause now i can't do what I wanted :( )So here is the information for all of you, for better or worse.

UAVs (UAS by their term) are any unmanned flying vehicles. Public (governmental agencies) UAVs fly under guidelines of a COA(Certificate of Airworthiness, i think). Civil (as in us) UAVs fly under guidelines of a SAC (Special Airworthiness Certificate). Which means you must send them enough information to convince them you have mitigated any risk, (not only the aircraft, but the site as well) then be inspected and then approved. Model UAVs fly under the guidelines of AC 91-57, which are your classic five rules (Over unpopulated areas, under 400 feet AGL, no unproven aircraft near spectators, avoid real aircraft, stay within sight).
You must conform to COA, SAC, or AC 91-57 if you are operating a UAV. Period.

Damn.

Here's the rules:
UAV Policy (http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/uas/reg/media/frnotice_uas.pdf)
AC 91-57 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1ACFC3F689769A56862569E70077C9CC?OpenDocument&Highlight=91)

[CenTexFlyer]

Oh Jeez...... you have no idea what a S&*$#storm this is.....

[johnthewelder]

Build as big a model as you can.build it to look realistic with a dummy pilot.If someone takes a picture it will look like a manned vehicle.They might not knock it down if they can see a pilot.They will probably use thermal imaging to determine if it's manned so heat the dummy to 98.6 degrees.Don't break any normal laws for manned aircraft.Set "home" on autopilot to body of water .mountain gorge similar unrecoverable area should you be followed by another aircraft.

just kidding....

[realtimerecon]

The goverment cant even build a FENCE to keep US safe. So how do u think they will w/ this uav stuff !!!

[johnthewelder]

I've noticed that civilian uav flights are something that is hired out,uav with pilot. I'm also seeing job openings looking for experienced remote uav pilots.The military is investing big into combination autonamous-remote robotics.These hobby RPV pilots are the pilots and techs of all these robots they want.We should be incouraging their activities.

[johnthewelder]

If you built your plane to look like a UAV and cover it with visible sensers multiple camers three or four antennas police cruiser light bar .Big lettering on fuselage "SECURITY". Others might think it belongs to someone important and leave it alone????

[sectrix]

This was my horrible vision... maiden flight, everything going great, about three miles out from base, sitting in my car flying my plane....(tapping on window).....good morning officer.....what am I doing? Why, flying this remote controlled airplane. Where is it? Well, about 15000 feet that way, and another 400 straight up. Oh does that sound kinda strange Mr. Sheriff? Looks like we take a trip downtown....

I have enough on my record, I don't need trouble with the FAA, FCC, DHS, who knows who else. I mean regular people don't get in trouble with these branches of government. I can understand the FAAs reluctance to bring UAVs too quickly into the NAS. There IS a reason aviation is so safe. But still....damn.

And TexFlyer, what S&*$# storm? I didn't mean to make any trouble, although I suppose 90% of the people here have flown illegally... We can still use or build the planes we want, we just have to stay low and fly in circles all day....

In a way then this time is paramount to us. We are the pioneers of this new field of aviation, which will perhaps have more impact on the industry than the advent of the jet engine. We must push the issue. Develop and demonstrate safe UAVs. Comply with the rules while showing this can be done.

[sectrix]

And I think the disguise would be best as a large......fixed wing.....bird. Who seems to be constantly gliding and emitting an annoying squeal. With retractable feet. And a beak that spins at a few thousand RPMs. No vertical stab tho, feathers don't go that way.

[lvspark]

So I did the unthinkable...I just went and read the friggen laws.




AC 91-57 is not law. The advisory circular encourages voluntary compliance.
Model aircraft are not regulated.
None of that stuff is law. If it is, it should be in the CFR, no?
Still a big grey area. or is that gray area? dang!

[CenTexFlyer]

And TexFlyer, what S&*$# storm? I didn't mean to make any trouble, although I suppose 90% of the people here have flown illegally... We can still use or build the planes we want, we just have to stay low and fly in circles all day....


As Mike has just quoted, is there really a law? I was alluding to the fact that this has been a pretty contentious debate in other forums and even among several government agencies. No one seems to want to step into the breach and fly a precedent setting case, although I've threatened to a time or two myself. There is stuff happening within the FAA, but it's not for us mere mortals to view (or egads! Judge!) lest we turn into pillars of salt or something.....

Gene

[Gary Mortimer]

You might want to have a look at this...

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=415

It should open a CAP 722 link which is a very interesting document.

Again nothing set in stone yet, I have been told that as long as everything weighs less than 7KG's the UK CAA is happy. However when the first AP or RPV of that size hits something or someone then they will look very closely at it all.

Some policy is expected by August 2008.

Interesting times.

G

[sectrix]

You make a good point, Mike, I didn't think of that. But what about the other policy I linked to? Isn't that law? It is Part 91 it says, and it also says you MUST abide by one of the three.
To quote, "The current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may operate a UAS in the National Airspace System without specific authority. For UAS operating as public aircraft the authority is the COA, for UAS operating as civil aircraft the authority is special airworthiness certificates, and for model aircraft the authority is AC 91-57."
So if I fly beyond line of sight, I am no longer compliant with 91-57(voluntary or no), and I'm certainly not getting any certificates, so I'm not operating under any 'authority', which is against the policy set forth by the FAA?(I don't think they even know)

I hope the US looks to the UK for guidance. IMO if UAVs are under minimum altitude for full size (FL 20 I think), and not over populated areas or near airports, I don't see any problem.

I'm just going to follow 91-57 (except for the line of sight thing) and do what I originally planned. And when that inevitable visit from officer Friendly comes, I'll just hope he's too surprised about the whole thing to do anything other then to tell me to move along. Or he isn't familiar with FAA policy. And if I do get in trouble, yall will be the first to know.

On with the Engineering!

[sectrix]

An article I found describing something of a preview of new FAA laws to come early '08 from Flight International, a weekly aviation publication. Basically says UAVs over dense urban areas must be under 4 lbs and 400 feet. Other areas under 35 lbs and 1200 feet. All UAVs will operate under 40 knots, and 2.6 nm away from airports. UAVs can only be operated by licensed pilots, line-of-sight only.

Article (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/11/30/219974/faa-reveals-first-cut-at-small-uas-system-description.html)

[jtprouty]

Interesting. Last I heard they were only going to require that UAV operators go through pilot ground school, not have a pilot's license. In the local area (Wichita KS) most ground schools now consist of watching a set of DVDs and then taking a written test if you want to get your license. Be interesting to see how this one plays out!

One more question: If you're flying a UAV for hire do you have to have a Commercial Pilot certification?

Jimmy

[lvspark]

jtprouty, are you asking question on future requirements, or current FAA position?

[jtprouty]

Just posing the question. I know that to fly for hire (profit) the FAA requires a Commercial certificate. I'm wondering if they are going to require the same of UAV pilots flying for hire.

Jimmy

[jtprouty]

The article also states "the vehicles would be likely to use "outboard" collision avoidance - ground-based pilots having line-of-sight contact and direct control over the vehicle"

If this is true, flying the plane via standard RC would be more cost effective and there is no need for autonomy. If it's flown via RC I don't think you have to jump through all of the hoops they require for UAVs. It's simply an RC aircraft.

One thing to consider as well, this is just an article in a magazine. I'm skeptical of what is really being discussed until I see factual documentation from the source.

I also think the last paragraph in the article is one that should concern all of us that aren't backed by multi-billion dollar companies. They can massage the standards to meet their needs and make it very difficult for us to proceed with our projects.

Jimmy

[lvspark]

Most recent position of the FAA that I am aware of is:

"The Pilot in Command must be a current certificated private pilot. Supplement pilots are permitted. Supplemental pilots must complete an approved private pilot ground
school or complete training acceptable to the FAA. The Pilot in Command must be a current certificated private pilot."

And

"You can't sell your operations as a service. You can perform R&D for yourself, you can fly a sensor or camera for test purposes and be compensated, but you can't advertise and sell it as a service under an experimental certificate."

In the future, things might be different, but for now, this is what FAA is saying for a 26oz slow stick. It is the FAA's current position.
There are other positions as well. http://aplanding.com/smf/index.php/topic,128.0.html

[sectrix]

Lousy stakeholders. I wonder if there is anything we can do (as mere citizens and not possessing billions of dollars), to make the FAA a bit more receptive to small-time UAV flyers. I have nothing against being inspected and certified, being safe is of course goal numero uno, but I doubt the FAA has time or resources to inspect all the people who want to fly UAVs. Which may mean they simply leave it being required to obtain a COA or SAC to fly.

Personally I think a modified AC 91-57 should apply to UAVs under a certain capability. Certainly if you are well below minimum altitude (AWAY from airports, or any other special airspace) and away from anyone or anything that can be damaged, what is the issue? In the end, I just want to fly beyond line-of-sight.

[kohned]

We're the FAA and we ain't happy 'til you ain't happy.

[CenTexFlyer]

In the end, I just want to fly beyond line-of-sight.

EHHhhhhhhh! Wrong answer! Next contestant!

[lvspark]

well below minimum altitude (AWAY from airports, or any other special airspace) and away from anyone or anything that can be damaged, what is the issue? In the end, I just want to fly beyond line-of-sight.
If you do this as a recreational activity, and take into consideration what you have stated above, what is stopping you? Not breaking any laws or putting anyone in harms way....., be safe and go have fun. :cool:
RCAPA guidelines might be a good thing to read.

Edited to add: Have you been here yet? http://www.rcgroups.com/video-piloting-fpv-rpv-469/

[Phazer]

Hey Guy's

I am one of the lucky ones here. I get to fly UAV's for a living. Currently flying the Aerosonde. Here is a link to a working group report on UAV operations for Transport Canada. To do things properly there are a huge amount of hoops and red tape in order to fly legally. I know Transport Canada is working closely with the FAA to establish operational guidlines. I was told by the head of UAV operations for Transport CAnada that the minute that you fly for "Non Recreational Purposes" the aircraft is classed as a UAV whether it's an LT 40 or a Giant Scale Warbird. And of course here in Canada MAAC will not cover us we have to carry our own liability insuarance.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/general/recavi/uavworkinggroup.htm

[sectrix]

Mostly the reason I'm so hesitant, even though I think I can operate safely, is that I really can't afford to get in trouble with the law. I'm using federal loans to pay for college and the second I get in any real trouble I lose eligibility for that funding (and any private funding that is based off of FAFSA, which is almost all of it), for like five years. And to put salt in the wound all the loans I currently have will enter the repayment phase immediately. The ironic thing would be that a good part of the reason I'm doing this is to help get into the college I want. Such a project on my transcript would look really good (Double major: Electrical and Aerospace engineering @ UIUC). This isn't to say I'm not going to try anyway, but at least this way I can say that I looked it up and to the best of my knowledge I broke no laws. Not to mention I plan on taking every measure I can to ensure this thing stays airborne and in control.

And actually spark, I missed that part of the site completely. I will now revoke my flying privileges on account of blindness.

[kd7ost]

Mostly the reason I'm so hesitant, even though I think I can operate safely, is that I really can't afford to get in trouble with the law. I'm using federal loans to pay for college and the second I get in any real trouble I lose eligibility for that funding (and any private funding that is based off of FAFSA, which is almost all of it), for like five years. And to put salt in the wound all the loans I currently have will enter the repayment phase immediately. The ironic thing would be that a good part of the reason I'm doing this is to help get into the college I want. Such a project on my transcript would look really good (Double major: Electrical and Aerospace engineering @ UIUC). This isn't to say I'm not going to try anyway, but at least this way I can say that I looked it up and to the best of my knowledge I broke no laws. Not to mention I plan on taking every measure I can to ensure this thing stays airborne and in control.

And actually spark, I missed that part of the site completely. I will now revoke my flying privileges on account of blindness.


Flying beyond your see and avoid abilities is academic in a proof of concept. Having the plane cover X miles within you ability to visually mitigate risk is just as good but also keeps people happy and safe. You can cover a long distance flying in big circles.

Dan

[RCAV8R13]

Well guys, here's how I see it.
I've been a pro at this UAV thing for 15 years now and what I have concluded is this: The FAA doesn't work for airplanes, the FAA works for pilots. Pilots don't want toy airplanes putting them out of jobs.
When you ask the FAA for permission to fly your UAV they say: "Sorry, we don't have a form for that. Good day". If you pressure them, they say: "Fine, meet all the same requirements for full scale airplanes and pilots. We have a form for that. Good day".
The FAA works for pilots and pilots feel threatened. As well they should, their days are numbered.
RCA

[lvspark]

Hey, do you have a COA for your avatar? :D

[RCAV8R13]

Hey, do you have a COA for your avatar? :D
Shuuuuush! They might be watching.
RCA

[sectrix]

Well guys, here's how I see it.
I've been a pro at this UAV thing for 15 years now and what I have concluded is this: The FAA doesn't work for airplanes, the FAA works for pilots. Pilots don't want toy airplanes putting them out of jobs.
When you ask the FAA for permission to fly your UAV they say: "Sorry, we don't have a form for that. Good day". If you pressure them, they say: "Fine, meet all the same requirements for full scale airplanes and pilots. We have a form for that. Good day".
The FAA works for pilots and pilots feel threatened. As well they should, their days are numbered.
RCA

LOL, indeed.

[CenTexFlyer]

Got our COA Thursday

[sectrix]

Really? What are your restrictions? What did they inspect? How much did it cost? How long did you wait?

Sorry I have a about a billion questions. A COA seemed far out of reach for me. If you can describe anything about this process that would be awesome.

[CenTexFlyer]

First (and foremost!) you must be a government agency. Fire, Police, Emergency Management Office, etc. etc. Are you one of those?

[sectrix]

Right, sorry, confusing it with SAC, duh.

[Old_UAS_piloto]

I have been in the UAV business for over 25 years and it has gotten very difficult to fly anywhere in the united states. As for the LAWs, The FAA uses the FARS as was stated. I have been on working groups and meetings discussing this same thing. The discussions cover everything from what the definition of a UAS is to what will be necessary as a pilot to fly them. It appears this will be on going for at least the next 4-6 years. As for the current policy the FAA is following regular aircraft standards from issuing experimental certificates for the aircraft to the COA issue. Very frustrating for those of us flying these aircraft because it is never the same from day to day.

I can only hope they will solve it in my life time.

[sectrix]

I can only hope they will solve it in my life time.

I feel the same way, and I haven't been doing anything for 25 years!