Regulatory FAQ

[zlite]

[These are Frequently Asked Questions about the current state of UAV regulation in the US. If there are changes and updates not reflected here, please suggest corrections or modifications in the comments and we'll edit accordingly.]

Q: Are UAVs legal in the United States?

A: Under certain conditions, they are. There are two ways to legally fly Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in the "National Airspace", which is to say all but certain restricted areas: 1) Get a Certificate of Authorization (http://www.uavm.com/images/faa7711-2.pdf) (COA) or Experimental Airworthyness Certificate (http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/sp_awcert/experiment/) (EAC) from the FAA, a process that can take months or more. 2) Fly under exemptions granted to non-commercial ("recreational") flyers who adhere to certain restrictions.

Q) What are those restrictions for non-commercial UAVs flying without a COA?

A: You MUST do the following: 1) Stay below 400ft. 2) Stay within line of sight. 3) Maintain a "pilot in control", which is to say that you must always be able to take manual control and fly the aircraft out of danger. 4) Stay away from built-up areas. More detail is here (http://www.pam-rc.org/ac91-57.pdf).

Q) Who can apply for a COA?

A: Typically only government agencies (Law enforcement, Civil government, etc). This is not an option for a private individual.

Q) I've heard that the FAA doesn't allow unmanned aircraft with cameras and/or GPS. True?

A) No. Commercial use of aircraft with cameras is regulated as above, but aircraft flying under the recreational exemption may use cameras and GPS.


Q) What countries have more relaxed UAV regulations?

A) Australia and New Zealand are famously progressive in their UAV policies. Other countries, such as Mexico, have been know to be relatively friendly, too.

Q) What are the prospects for FAA regulations that allow amateur UAVs more freedom?

A) There is currently a rulemaking proceeding (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20071800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/E7-2402.htm) that aims to improve the regulations on UAVs. It will take a while; indeed, you shouldn't hope for anything before 2010-2012. There may be a special category for UAVs under 4 pounds, which may be more lightly regulated. But then again there may not. It's all up in the air, so to speak, and the forces that oppose amateur or commercial UAVs in the National Airspace are many and powerful. Speak up!

Q) What about universities and other students. Any exemptions for them?

A) Not automatically. But they may be able to get COAs more easily if they are federally funded and go through that agency.

Q) What if I break the rules?

A) Well, for starters, we don't want to hear about it here! We realize, of course, that people break the rules all the time on the assumption that if they use good judgment and stay away from built-up areas, they won't be caught. That may indeed be the case, but it will only take one cowboy flying a UAV into an airport landing zone and endangering civil aviation to set our hobby back by decades. So please don't do it! (Plus you could go to jail)

Q) Okay, I'm obeying all the rules. Are there any other guidelines for safe and responsible UAV operations?

A) Yes. RCAPA (the RC aerial photography association) has some excellent guidelines (http://www.rcapa.net/guidelines.htm) that are a great place to start.

[CenTexFlyer]

Good swipe at it Zlite! Just wanted to add alittle to it.....



Q: Are UAVs legal in the United States?

A: Under certain conditions, they are. There are two ways to legally fly Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in the "National Airspace", which is to say all but certain restricted areas: 1) Get a Certificate of Authorization (http://www.uavm.com/images/faa7711-2.pdf) (COA) from the FAA, a process that can take months or more. 2) Fly under exemptions granted to non-commercial ("recreational") flyers who adhere to certain restrictions.

Clarification : Only government agencies (Law enforcement, Civil government, Agencies) may apply for Certificate of Waiver/Authority. This is not an option for a private individual.

Q) What countries have more relaxed UAV regulations?[/b]

A) Australia and New Zealand are famously progressive in their UAV policies. Other countries, such as Mexico, have been know to be relatively friendly, too.

There might be some Ozzies and Kiwis that would disagree with this. Apparently the fee structure is quite high and many hoops have to be jumped thru.


Q) What are the prospects for FAA regulations that allow amateurs UAV more freedom?

A) There is currently a rulemaking proceeding (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20071800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/E7-2402.htm) that aims to improve the regulations on UAVs. It will take a while; indeed, you shouldn't hope for anything before 2010-2012. There may be a special category for UAVs under 4 pounds, which may be more lightly regulated. But then again there may not. It's all up in the air, so to speak, at the moment, and the forces that oppose amateur or commercial UAVs in the National Airspace are many and powerful. Speak up!

This is imperative! Write your congressman, senator, lobbiest or whoever else you might know that can influence this. The large contractors want this slice of the pie all to themselves. They have the money and are deeply entrenched in the goverment. The power of your voice should NOT be underestimated. A concerted unified effort is even better!

Q) What about universities and other students. Any exemptions for them?

A) Not automatically. But they may be able to get COAs more easily.

Universities do not meet the rule of "government entity" but they are developing and flying UAs with impunity. The FAA has a difficult time enforcing the regs they have in place, much less new ones.

Q) What if I break the rules?

A) Well, for starters, we don't want to hear about it here! We realize, of course, that people break the rules all the time on the assumption that if they use good judgment and stay away from built-up areas, they won't be caught. That may indeed be the case, but it will only take one cowboy flying a UAV into an airport landing zone and endangering civil aviation to set our hobby back by decades. So please don't do it! (Plus you could go to jail)

The FAA can empower any law enforcement agency to sieze and arrest an individual and his equipment. This would likely not happen unless the very unfortunate last part of your statement take place. Then you are correct. The ONLY people allowed to do it would be the large contractors and the edu's in a VERY controlled environment.

This will be a long row to hoe.....

Gene

[patrickegan]

Zlite,

That’s a good start, but let me add


COA’s and Experimental cert’s are not viable for any commercial operations, or small operators without public entity sponsorship. If you can get a Federal level entity to sponsor you, they can write you an airworthiness statement. You can also go to NMSU or Dryden and use their airspace (terms and conditions apply).

The rest of this gets very cloudy and legalities depend on who you ask. Some would say to fly for “recreation use” one would have to adhere to the AMA Safety code, FPV, beyond visual line of sight and autonomous flight aids fall outside of said code.(last time I checked.)

Universities are not exempt.

As far as the Australian policy being progressive I would agree in that it serves as a model for the U.S. and lack of policy.

While the rulemaking and Aviation Rulemaking committee sound good they are moving at a snails pace. The much lauded ARC process still doesn’t have a signed letter of intent after 10 months or more.

[CenTexFlyer]

hehehe.... beat ya to the ENTER key by a minute, Patrick :)

[poynting]

The power limits noted for the Wireless Communications section (1W) are for Spread Spectrum transmitters. If operating other types of wireless equipment, such as analog video transmitters which are generally not spread spectrum, other (lower) power limits may be in place. Check the FCC part 15 rules for your situation.

[zik]

Great work zlite! It really helps to have all that information in one place.

[zlite]

Any objections to me making this sticky?

[patrickegan]

None here :)

[zlite]

Okay, I'm an idiot: I actually have no idea how to make a thread "sticky"! Is that something only a moderator can do? Who's our moderator?

[patrickegan]

I don't think we have one??? I nominate zlite...,do I hear a second?

[hg1]

Try clicking on "report this port to a moderator". That should get you a fairly fast response.

[zlite]

Try clicking on "report this port to a moderator". That should get you a fairly fast response.

Thanks. Done. Now we'll find out who our moderator is (or if we have one at all).

[zlite]

Apparently it's joelhaasnoot. Thanks!

Joel: Have you already introduced yourself on some thread? If not, anything you'd like to say about what the job of moderator entails and your involvement with UAVs? We'd love to put a face to the name...

[simonHBX]

Heres a little bit I found for australian UAV pilots

"UAV and Insurance
CASR Part 101 has been operating for some time and there still appears to be a little confusion as to the difference between a UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) and a Model Aircraft. According to the C.A.S.A. regulations. A model aircraft is used for sport and the pleasure of flying it. A miniature aircraft that is used, or intending to be used, commercially or for gain is a UAV. The only exception to this is the use of a model aircraft commercially for pilot training purposes.
If you are using, or intending to use, your model aircraft commercially or for gain, such as aerial photography etc, you are operating a UAV not a model aircraft. Your activities therefore come under the CASA regulations for UAV’s. If you work for a company or organization that is using or working on UAV’s, then when you fly their UAV it is not a model aircraft, even though at the time you may consider that your are flying it for fun.
It should be noted that autonomous flight of model aircraft is not permitted by the M.A.A.A., see MOP044 – Internal Navigation and Stabilisation, and therefore would also not be covered by the M.A.A.A. Insurance policies.
The M.A.A.A. insurance policy is specifically for model aircraft as defined by C.A.S.A. regulations and M.A.A.A. Manual of Procedures. Therefore, any M.A.A.A. Affiliate Member flying or dealing with a UAV or autonomous model aircraft is definitely not covered by the M.A.A.A. Insurance policies. Any activity involving UAV’s or autonomous model aircraft at an M.A.A.A. Affiliate Club is also not covered by the M.A.A.A. Insurance policies. Therefore it is highly recommended that if a club wishes to allow its facilities to be used or hired for the flying of UAV’s or autonomous model aircraft a condition of the hire/use should be that M.A.A.A. Affiliate Members should not be allowed access to the flying site. This is to ensure that any insurance claim that may arise from the activity cannot involve the M.A.A.A. policies.
It is also highly recommend if clubs wish to allow the operation of UAV’s or autonomous model aircraft at the facility the committee should obtain proof of insurance cover and a signed statement that the UAV operators were wholly and totally responsible for any claim arising during their operation at the flying site. Clubs should also be aware that if their lease with their land owner is for the flying of model aircraft, if UAV are allowed to be flown you may be invalidating you field lease"

[patrickegan]

Looks like the U.S is leading the way by following the Australians...

[Phildo70]

Aussies are very involved in UAV. I cant go past most university display stands without seeing at least one. Here is a UAV challenge in Queensland held yearly. I was thinking of entering a team with my work. :D

http://www.uavoutbackchallenge.com.au/intro/

[stev9960]

I've seen a few flying around, do all of them use GPS?

[Clarkst]

Good day folks;
I talked with Richard Posey (FAA) last week as I wanted clarification in regard to the certified pilot requirement and a few other points. The following is an incomplete summary of the information obtained.
Note: if you choose to contact Mr. Posey, please ensure you have a note pad handy with your well thought out and researched questions or concerns. This will also provide a place to take notes.
This information was directed toward the sale and certification of UAS aircraft.

1. The pilot of a UAS UAV MAV must be a certified pilot. In addition, the aircraft must have a mode C transponder, and, an emergency TFR must be submitted prior to flight.

2. As stated elsewhere in this forum, any vehicle that lifts off the surface is considered in NAS.

3. Law Enforcement does qualify as a government agency and can apply for the waiver.

4. There is discussion in regard to the possibility of 2 more classes of UAV, those less than 30 lbs and those less than 4 lbs.

We discussed other UAS manufacturers and the length of time it has, and will take to get through the process. Lets just say this was discouraging (2 years plus) The University of New Mexico has been through the process. The 477 page document created outlining their experience and the procedures required is very informative: http://www.psl.nmsu.edu/uav/roadmap/

It seems that the existing FAA regulations where ported over into an area which requires a great deal of thought. The special capabilities and automated safety features of some UAS vehicles would seem to encourage an edict from the FAA to leverage said safety features to help ensure overall safety for persons and property either airborne or not.

I happen to be a Private Pilot, but strongly believe training in relation to UAS aircraft must be customized. Perhaps standard ground school would be appropriate, but specialized flight training needs to be conducted based on the type of aircraft flown. Perhaps there will be "Type" certifications similar to existing aircraft classification (Land, Single Engine, Fixed wing, UAS, Under 4 lbs) categories.
I can not help but think that we could be helping people, indeed saving lives, with the correct implementation of UAS technology. I wonder how far behind we will be on the battle field compared to other "countries" with less restrictive polices (if any at all).

The hope is that the sort of ingenuity demonstrated on sites such as this will be encourage and rewarded. We will see how long and at what cost.

[patrickegan]

If you want a little peak into what we submitted, you can read these…

http://wcs_bbs.tripod.com/RCAPAProposal_11-LATEST.pdf

[Clarkst]

Well written Patrick.

While reading this document I wondered if the inclusion of a pilot certification may be appropriate. I do not want to add clutter, but is seems the collective RC/UAV community could define appropriate skill levels for RC pilots.

Electronics available today could also be leveraged to control and limit a given aircrafts position in relation to horizontal position and altitude. Since it is possible for an aircraft to "know" its relation to controlled airspace and air born or ground obstacles it can therefore avoiding them.
Due to the "best of the '50's" equipment approved and still used in most GA aircraft, I would assume there is some resistance to fully automated collision and control systems from the FAA's perspective. While I agree to some extent, where is the balance between innovation, safety, and regulation?
The private UAV community may be the place for the application of the latest technology providing a proof of concept arena and perhaps, future regulatory acceptance.
We can dream can't we?

[patrickegan]

Thanks, I can’t take credit for writing he guidelines…

Sure, some sort of pilot certification will probably be part of the standards for commercial operations.

The problem with relying on technology is standards for certification, and then certification

[MIT KID]

How does this set of regs apply to an R/C manufacturing company like GreatPlanes? Technically if they want to develop a new aircraft for sale, at some point they are flying it in the NAS as a company for profit. Does this imply that the FAA can crack down on R/C model manufacturers, since what they are doing isn't for "recreation"?

-Adam

[Gannet AME]

After reading all of this and knowing the FAA position on manned WIGs. Am I right in believing that there are no FAA rules or regulations applicable to unmanned WIGs (Wing in Ground Effect) Vehicles?

[patrickegan]

There are regs for everything including ground effect. Many gray areas with what is commercial when charging, someone (FAA), will have to write terminology that delineates the, who, what, where and how it dovetails with capitalism.

[macboffin]

Regarding CLARKST's comment about being behind on the battlefield compared to countries with little or no regulations, they don't have them because they don't need them ; such countries tend to have very little "private flight", if any ; and not that much of military flight either. Any UAV types flown will be under the control of the military, who will advise their own people of danger areas ; nobody else has any business in the airspace, so if they "happen to have an incident" they will probably want to keep quiet about it anyrate. (Been there and operated with some of those military myself.) Two factors ;as a little research into international data sources will show, there aint much to worry about "On the battlefield", although it must be said that the West are not fielding very "state of the Art" equipment either, except experimentally, although no doubt that will change. (The engine in the Shadow is a twenty years old design for instance). Partly this is because "The enemy" have little or no aerial ability in such conflicts as those in Afghanistan and Iraq. If ther did have both those areas would be a whole other story!. Given the amount of use of missile carrying Predators in Afghanistan/Pakistan they should get the idea before long. And then?

[patrickegan]

Unmanned UAS hunters are in the works…

[macboffin]

Unmanned UAS hunters are in the works… Everybody's works! (apart from US UAVs operating near Kubul, which are hunted by large airliners!)

[Tonystott]

I have to disagree with the statement that Australian regs for UAVs are progressive. this is exactly the opposite of my experience.

A primary example is the split of UAV classes:
-Sub 100g
-Between 100g and 100Kg
-Over 100kg

In the middle class (and all model aircraft used for commercial purposes or flown out of line-of-sight are classified as AUVs) you need the following to obtain a UAV operator's certificate:-
* General Aviation ground school course
* Aviation communications ground school course
* Equipment maintenance and operation course run by the manufacturer (good luck with that)
* UHF two-way radio tuned to tower frequency (for communication with passing aircraft - seriously!)
* Comprehensive operations manual
* Comprehensive maintenance manual (including lifing of components)
* Inspection of operations base by nominated CASA personnel
* Successful flight demonstration in front of nominated CASA personnel

In addition, separate authoriation is required for the UAV Maintenance officer.

Cost of obtaining approval will be charged at a rate of $140 per hour, so CASA quoted a price of between $3,500 and $5,000 to "walk me through the process". CASA declined to allow me access to any information previously submitted by past applicants (with prior removal of identification of course), so I had no idea as to what level of detail would be required.

There are other requirements, but you get the idea. None of this is in any way unreasonable for the operator of a 100kg UAV, but it starts to look rather silly if you are looking at a Slow Stick or a Trex 450...

Despite the regulations being in place since 2002, there are less than 10 approved operators in the whole of Australia, clear proof that the intention of the regulations was to stifle small operators with red tape.

So I sold my AP gear and now use a mast, kite and hot air balloon, none of which require CASA approval if used under 400 feet.

Now here comes the scary bit.... The Australian "father" of these draconian regs, a Max Walker, is generally revered by civil aviation bodies around the world as the guru of UAVs, and he personally boasted to me that he believes FAA will adopt Australia's regulations.

So anything any of you can do to achieve a more realistic result in your own country would have to be a good thing. Coming up with less harsh requirements for line-of-sight operation of aircraft weighing less than (say) 10kg would be a start.

[Pack AE]

Hi, I'm a lurker on these forums, but I wanted to give kudos for this particular awesome thread.

I was wondering if there have been any interesting recent developments in regards to SUAS regulation? I've heard of a potential "4-4-40" lightly regulated class (no bigger than 4 ft wingpsan, no heavier than 4 lbs, no faster than 40 kts), which seems to jive with the RCAPA letter above. Are you guys hearing anything encouraging with regards to this?

Those of you that are intimately involved with this process... if you had to estimate, when would you think we'll start seeing large numers of SUAS in the NAS? Still think 2010-2012 is realistic?

[patrickegan]

It was 4-40-400. 4lbs 40knots 400’

With what’s on the table, maybe larger numbers of vendor made craft in that timeline. :(

[keithskye]

Unfortunately, I have a lot that I could say about the regulatory compliance issues facing developers of UAVs here in the US, but because I am entering into this field as a business, sharing what I know, or the ideas I have, would be giving up too much information to potential competitors. Possibly because I am used to dealing with the FAA concerning regulatory compliance procedures with regard to my "full scale" operations, dealing with them does not seem to be all that daunting of a challenge. The process of obtaining COAs, or LOAs is pretty straightforward to me. Getting such authorization is often a function of education and documentation, and must always prove beyond the shadow of a doubt how the safety issues will be addressed, with clear, easily understood and documented procedures.

I cannot say any more on the subject, but I will say this: there is a great deal of information here in this particular forum, especially by Patrick and others, and my hat is off to them for providing it. Being a licensed and current pilot of full scale aircraft will definitely help anyone who is serious about breaking into this field. I know its expensive, but if its what you want to do, then its just one of the many things you'll have to invest the time, effort and money in that will be required.

Keith McLellan
CEO
Global Air Link
www.globalairlink.biz
928-412-9995

[fly_boy99]

Funny you mention "full scale" in reference to UAV's and then mention you are certified in full scale aircraft.

Please drop the full scale baloney and only talk about the size requirements as laid out by the FAA around UAV's. If you need a refesher here is a link for ya:

http://www.uavm.com/uavregulatory.html

Btw, don't bother calling back I'm done with you.

I have my own ideas which I am pursuing and I don't need a team to pull it off.

:cool:
B

[keithskye]

Somebody wake up on the wrong side of the bed? Sorry I couldn't get back to you after our first phone call, but I do have two other businesses to run and I had to take care of a TSA problem for a client. And as for being done with me, I wasn't aware that you or I had anything to do with each other in the first place. Childish comments like the one you've just made certainly won't garner any faith in your professional abilities, and I'm amazed that you would speak that way on a serious forum like this one.

I wish you the best of luck with your own ideas. We'll see if your individual approach works better than our team approach. As for full-scale, I'm referring to manned aircraft, and that is the standard to which our project will design and build, which according to our local FSDO, is the track they want us on. We've started the formal certification process and have our second meeting today.

Keith McLellan
CEO
Global Air Link, LLC

[fly_boy99]

Sure Keith sounds good, let me give you a call right back buddy.

Refer to the prior specifications for UAV classification.

Thanks,
B



Somebody wake up on the wrong side of the bed? Sorry I couldn't get back to you after our first phone call, but I do have two other businesses to run and I had to take care of a TSA problem for a client. And as for being done with me, I wasn't aware that you or I had anything to do with each other in the first place. Childish comments like the one you've just made certainly won't garner any faith in your professional abilities, and I'm amazed that you would speak that way on a serious forum like this one.

I wish you the best of luck with your own ideas. We'll see if your individual approach works better than our team approach. As for full-scale, I'm referring to manned aircraft, and that is the standard to which our project will design and build, which according to our local FSDO, is the track they want us on. We've started the formal certification process and have our second meeting today.

Keith McLellan
CEO
Global Air Link, LLC

[Psionic001]

Here's a link to Australia's CASA UAV Rules:
http://www.casa.gov.au/rules/1998casr/101/

[patrickegan]

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/digital-video-industry-news/145993-rc-aerials-illegal-says-faa.html

I contend that anyone getting a check or grant money is involved in a commercial operation. 14 CFR part 119 does not exclude research from the definition of "compensation or hire". Everything else we do is...

[keithskye]

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/digital-video-industry-news/145993-rc-aerials-illegal-says-faa.html

I contend that anyone getting a check or grant money is involved in a commercial operation. 14 CFR part 119 does not exclude research from the definition of "compensation or hire". Everything else we do is...

Patrick scores a bullseye here. Although I think that there will be some relief for the small stuff operating at relatively low altitudes, it will be up to those who are seriously interested in this to make their voices heard by the regulatory agencies, and it isn't just the FAA that is concerned about this. And not only do you have to be heard, you will have to be of one coherent voice with very well thought out ideas, plans and procedures.

If you want to have more freedom to operate in the way that most envision when first contemplating getting into the business, then you're going to have to look hard at what it will really take to share the air with full scale aircraft. I for one do not think it will be impossible to certify larger or higher flying systems, but it won't be very easy and it involves far more than most people can imagine.

[mhpilot]

Hello to everyone

I have been in the background for some time now watching the changes and advancements going on. One question I do have is there was a link to the Transport Canada web site that went into some requirements for UAV's that I can't seem to find anymore, does anyone have that link still?

thanks

[f104nick]

I just goggled Keith's name and UAV's and found his company.
http://whisperaerospace.com/

Looks very cool.
They must have something flying or they wouldn't be looking for clients that have a payload designed, and a have the need for a UAV. You can't sell something you don't have. I bet they are allot farther along than we thing.

Cheers, Nick.

[fly_boy99]

The picture just became a lot clearer...

:rolleyes:

[slimplynth]

Hi everyone...

I'm a Quality Engineer for a UK Aerospace company, dealing with most aspects of aero structures. To be honest I can see the need for plenty of regulations and I guess most of that comes from the Insurance obligations people and companies need to survive when it comes to liability.

I've heard it touted a few times that the weight of paperwork required to get an airliner in the skies is approximately 100 times the weight of the finished article.. which, i can see everyday, is probably an under estimate of what is actually required i.e. telephone calls and email traffic etc

Personally, I'm responsible for special processes, audited by Nadcap (sorry this isn't my CV :0) i'm just trying to justify the above)

These Audits are against manufacturing methods and Local Document Control of relevant customer specifications. I'd say I'd go through about 1000kg of paper a year easily :o

Anyway.. I've digressed... the reason I say the above is that I feel safer, even walking down the street or going on holiday; knowing there are stringent controls in place to safe guard my existance when it comes to high speed projectiles with enough momentum to shake me free of this mortal coil :D

Though I don't like the idea of stifling creativity... speaking of which, the reason I joined this forum was because of my electronics habbit. I had planned to go down the Kite route to avoid any problematic restrictions on data transmission. Is anyone here a member of the picaxe forum? (http://www.picaxeforum.co.uk/) If so... Serout 1,N2400,("Reyto") :D

[dag214]

I have been in and out of the UAV programing stages (not computer programing but the stage before R&D), for the last 15 years. The reason I looked into it was to have 90mm film type cameras mounted to a drone to shoot film for movies. The thought would be it would be cheaper than a pilot, and the airspace would be less controlled. But what I found out (and I did not spend a bunch of time on it) was that the FAA is very clear at this point of what they will let happen. I have seen so many people that really think that they can produce a viable UAV to sell for service in the private world that will operate in the NAS, and within controlled airspace. I have seen people put together "teams" to go after this, with out any pre-programming of what the project will even consist of. Now this is all just my opinion, and I am sure some whack job will say that they can get all the regs changed. But the FAA can't even control a pilot on a VFR flight plan that can't even read his GPS. I love reading all of the post here where a few people (not many) say that they are starting up a UAV company with zero time working on real UAV projects stating that they will get all these regs changed so they can sell the UAV they are selling. LOL. That might get it changed by 2015. Just because you can fly a plane, or might be a FULL SCALE PILOT means nothing when it comes to managing the development of the products needs, manging a design, managing work load, managing testing of avionics, managing airframe testing, and managing how this will be excepted by the world, FAA and so on. Now if you were to build a true anti gravity flying saucer that was green friendly in your garage and fly it past Boeing or Northrup, I bet you could sell it and retire, is that not the real reason someone would want to put a "team" together, MONEY?

But I said to much, I don't want the Martians to know what I am doing.

Love these threads, and rock on everyone!
DAG

[AWACS]

removed :)

[patrickegan]

We'll, at least some are willing to try and work within the spirit of the law :)

[fly_boy99]

Funny Dag...

I guess I'm not the only one who thinks the same.

Let them believe is what I say... :p

[patrickegan]

Funny stuff, there are plenty of hundred million dollar projects that don't do very much flying. I can think of several under utilized programs (paper weights) off the top of my head. A few half million dollar foam projects too. ;)

[Tom Harper]

I see a variety of figures and restrictions in threads here. Some make sense (not a requirement of regulation) and some do not. There is a lot of activity worldwide, so some definitions and regulations would be timely.

Some comments:

Weight - I would prefer 5 Kg. That's the traditional FAI limit for model aircraft - 3 Kg (a number I've seen discussed) is too limiting.

VSOL - Too vague. The limit of visibility for a model is, arguably, 1 Km. A fixed, allowable radius of operation makes sense.

Commercial, grants etc. - Safety is not related to intent. Most student and non-profit activity would be considered grant funded. Requiring a COA for that activity is absurd. There is no functional reason to regulate against commercial activity conducted within the definition of a model aircraft.

Altitude - I believe the 400 ft limit is imposed within some proximity to an airport. Beyond that, 1000 feet would place models below normal GA operation.

Populated areas - Models should not be operated in populated areas. UAS operation should not pass over residences (without specific reason and permission) or paved roads.

So, I'd say the regs should allow:

Weight - less than 5 Kg

Altitude - less than 1000 ft

Distance - Up to 1 Km from operator

Location - unpopulated areas only

Application - unlimited (perhaps non-ordnance)


Why would the above need further legal limits? How could it even be detected and monitored?

[patrickegan]

Most of this would be acceptable to the UAS community, but way beyond the comfort level of the manned stakeholders. Want to make your opinions known? Fill out the Ops matrix and send it in. :)

[Tom Harper]

Ops matrix?

[patrickegan]

http://www.rcapa.net/forums/showthread.php?t=50

[FrankC]

I have been reading this document and have a question from the Appendix A: Summary Matrix section. On page 57 is a section concerning Visual Observers and when they are required. The last entry in that section is "Heads-down" but that text only appears in that one spot in the document. Does someone know what they mean by "heads-down"?

[patrickegan]

Raven is a heads down system. You view a monitor seeing the ground while flying (FPV). You are not scanning the airspace for other traffic, or sensing and avoiding.

[EPiXNiCROS]

I just finished reading this entire thread and I'm a little confused because I've also been reading the FAA regulations for unmanned free balloons. According to the FAA regulations you need to have some control over a free balloon so at what point does a free balloon become a UAV? I would like to fly an unmanned free balloon at high altitude (+100,000') but I would also like to have have some control over the altitude and direction of travel.

[patrickegan]

When you are getting paid. You should call the UAPO and ask.

[wbuttry]

sounds to me the faa has really got you over a barrel if this new regs go in place we;ll half to call the faa when a bird flies or when we play sports baseball especially it is a bunch of bs to me ive been flying rc for 14 yrs and never had a problem with full scale aircraft when i flew stuff like the senior telemaster it was alway over 400 probally around 900 i always had lights on it like strobes and marker lights i think this arc is a way to keep the small men down and most of the people on arc is uav manafactures not normal people like us one person from ama wow well pat it looks like rcapa is gonna half to disban and quit just like the ama nothing new they take all th good stuff away and regulate the rest of it just the american way

[brakar]

patrickeagan, do you still follow the rulemaking process in Europe? If so, any news? brakar

[patrickegan]

Meeting in Brussels coming up in Early October I believe. ICAO is in South Africa in December, and an EC meeting early next year.

[Snow*Wolf*]

1000ft is going to be unrealistic as alot of the LSA and ultralight aircraft operate in this altitude. And it would not be monitored or detected until an accident occurred or a grey haired lady complained because a plane flew too close to her roses.

I see a variety of figures and restrictions in threads here. Some make sense (not a requirement of regulation) and some do not. There is a lot of activity worldwide, so some definitions and regulations would be timely.

Some comments:

Weight - I would prefer 5 Kg. That's the traditional FAI limit for model aircraft - 3 Kg (a number I've seen discussed) is too limiting.

VSOL - Too vague. The limit of visibility for a model is, arguably, 1 Km. A fixed, allowable radius of operation makes sense.

Commercial, grants etc. - Safety is not related to intent. Most student and non-profit activity would be considered grant funded. Requiring a COA for that activity is absurd. There is no functional reason to regulate against commercial activity conducted within the definition of a model aircraft.

Altitude - I believe the 400 ft limit is imposed within some proximity to an airport. Beyond that, 1000 feet would place models below normal GA operation.

Populated areas - Models should not be operated in populated areas. UAS operation should not pass over residences (without specific reason and permission) or paved roads.

So, I'd say the regs should allow:

Weight - less than 5 Kg

Altitude - less than 1000 ft

Distance - Up to 1 Km from operator

Location - unpopulated areas only

Application - unlimited (perhaps non-ordnance)


Why would the above need further legal limits? How could it even be detected and monitored?

[Air Head]

I am here in the USA and someone in India wants an airframe built for a UAV.

Is there any problem with me selling them to him?

Thanks for any input

Rick

[patrickegan]

The Indian government might no let it in. I hear they're burning RC stuff at the ports of entry. If its not hardware and software you should be okay from this end. Could check with the Commerce to be sure. :)

[macboffin]

Have myself exported "live" ie equipped airframes etc to India, (and back out again) when doing demos for Indian Army of small surveillance types. They wanted to be sure that batteries were in a seperate container,( they were not li-pos) otherwise no problem.You should establish the validity of the customer, ie "Not member of suspect organisation" and get them to forward to you copies of Customs inward clearance certificates, otherwise you could find yourself in deep kaki. Across the Indian border is Pakistan, across that is Afghanistan........There are R/C model aircraft clubs in India, especially in the Delhi area, there are several small firms making small UAVs, hopeful of orders from the military, and the Military already operate UAVs of different types, some homegrown and some imported ; one wonders why your customer doesnt support the local market?

[hpux735]

I agree with 90% of your ideas, but this one:


Altitude - less than 1000 ft


doesn't work because the lower legal limit for GA aircraft is 500 ft. AGL.
The 400ft limit ensures 100ft of separation between us and them.

I don't like it either though ;)