guidelines

[patrickegan]

Is there enough interest within this community to warrant an effort for guidelines???


I’m interested in all feedback...

[Unterhausen]

I guess you have to 'splain yourself a little better

[patrickegan]

Currently there are no amateur UAS guidelines. Surprisingly, I’m not really hearing from many in industry and end users about wanting to do this in the future. Without an effort made by this community, some may find your/the future very restrictive. So the question is, is there an interest in “amateur” semi-autonomous (legal), flying in the future?

[matttay]

Absolutely agree on notion of guidelines, along with a notion of "classes" of UAVs. As previously noted, if I weigh a lot less than a goose and fly slower than a goose, then government oversight of my efforts should be no more restrictive than the regulations they place on geese. Or something like that :)

[patrickegan]

The goose has instilled into it the natural inclination to survive, a UAS does not. Many of you are still in the UAS denial stage. The one liner logic will not wash with the regulators and or the other NAS stakeholders.

[matttay]

And yet birds still hit airplanes because their instincts fail them when dealing with things that fly much faster and move differently than they expect. If your statement were true, then there wouldn't be huge efforts to clear birds from airports.

I'm not at all in denial. I just don't want my effort on a 15 oz foam airplane that can fly to 5000 feet to be treated the same as a 30 pound fiberglass monster that some law enforcement officials in Florida are hoping to use to find drugs.

Is that unreasonable?

[clolson]

Matttay: laws are often made based on public opinion and the irrational or rational fears of the day. UAV's make many people in the aviation world really nervous. Even if you call that irrational (or rational) behavior and whether or not it makes logical sense to you or anyone else, it's there and we have to acknowledge that. These fears and these moods are very likely to influence policy and rules and laws.

[matttay]

clolson: Completely agree. But it is the job of those that understand the differences to explain the subleties to the rulemakers. If nobody does, the blanket rules result. Nobody is ever happy with blanket rules becuase they seldom make sense (gun laws, no cellphones on airplanes, 55 MPH on Wyoming highway when nobody else is in sight, etc).

BTW, I believe UAV fears are indeed rational. And I read all the time about people putting stuff together here that would really worry me if it got away. But I also believe that with a bit of guidance, specifically around materials and weights, the community could identify a class of UAVs that are a very, very, modest threat to man and machine.

Imagine a classification:

Class 1: Less threatening to aircraft than birds and hail storms. UAV could be sucked into jet engine, collide with winshield, etc, without adverse effect. UAV carries substantially less kenetic energy than a 60 MPH baseball, ensuring direct impact with a human will not kill them. Control systems are not redundent and do not require LOS and backup control.

Class 2: UAV may cause damage to an aircraft, especially if sucked into an engine. Additionally, the UAV will probably injure people and property on the ground if a collision results. Control systems must be redundent, LOS is required.

Class 3: UAV will cause an airplane to crash if they collide, or would likely kill a human if it crashed into them on the ground. A check from an FAA inspector is needed before flight, and a certified pilot is required to man the controls. Several levels of redundency are needed.

If a "class 1" is established, then there's a real chance the AMA could offer insurance, even for professional users.

But without a classification, the class one users gets lumped in with a class 3 user, and his life becomes really really difficult.

[patrickegan]

Building a safety case is harder than voicing your opinion…

[small_rcer]

This link

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

Has a complete set of proposed guidelines. It appears to be reasonable, and fair in its' treatment of the parties involved. Maybe a thorough reading of this would give you a start on issues to bring up in dealing with the FAA and other bodies.

As far as I can find it is one of the few public documents that is not one sided and over bearing in approach. Maybe others can suggest other documents as well.

Another good document about the risks is here.

http://members.shaw.ca/sonde/risks.htm

Once people have read both of these, comments and suggestions would be really productive.

The major concern that I have found in the minds of regulatory bodies is the sense-and-avoid technology or more correctly the current lack of that technology.

Jim H

[billh117]

There is little doubt in the Aviation community that things are changing, maybe not as fast as some would like to see, and maybe too fast for others, but it is changing.

It is important that the civilian small UAV community have a seat at the table as these changes happen.

I define civilian as...

1. Commercial (Small to medium business, Including R&D)

2. Hobbyist

3. Non-Profit (SAR, environmental, etc.).

4. Other possible users.

I think "Small" needs further defining still.

Its clear that large business is not sitting on the taxiway waiting for something to shake out.
With Lobbyist, and organizations, work groups, and defining proposed protocols and regulatory frame work they are hard at work making sure their investments in time and money aren't wasted.

In my opinion Laws and regulations in this country are usually written by lobbyists for organizations and big business along with justification, and talking points and passed to the appropriate government entity/legislators/politician, and quite often discussed at weekend getaways to some luxury vacation spot.

Although there are many examples of groups that took on the challenge them selves and did very well.
One of those that might be considered a cousin of the Civilian small UAV community would be the Ultra light airplane community.
Now aside from following some basic FAA rules they are primarily self regulated.

You can see the basic guidelines/rules here as well as some cool Ultra Light articles and info. Here (http://www.ultralightflying.com/ultralight-vehicle-regulations/ultralight-vehicle-regulations.html)

An organization that has the small user in mind is or will be needed. Some thing between RCAPA (http://www.rcapa.net/) and AUVSI (http://www.auvsi.org/)

Some thing along the lines of the USUA (http://www.usua.org/) for the Ultralight community or USPPA (http://www.usppa.org) representing the powered paragliding community would appear ideal.

Self regulation should be the goal.

I think RCAPA would better serve it members if they maintained focus on the needs of their membership or constituency and perhaps served as an advisor to or representative of their members in relationship to new entity with a broader vision.

As long as RCAPA does not support full autonomous flights they are not the right organization to represent or speak for the civilian small UAV community.
See item 8. in their guidelines (http://www.rcapa.net/guidelines.htm).

One of the things that I would think important NOW is developing for the future. As an example I think all of the Auto Pilot development guys wether hobbyist or looking for some commercial application for their project should be including interfaces for such things as standards based aviation Transponders, TCAS and PCAS systems in their designs and preparing for an eventual integration in to an ATC environment primarily controlled by an ADS-B type system (www.ads-b.com).

Perhaps forming some guidelines or standards of their own as well.

I think once the groups are defined commercial, hobbyist, etc. and each has laid out some basic guidelines. A parent or umbrella group can co-ordinate those and quantify a set of overall guidelines much like the Canadians are doing and present them, hopefully with the support of big business (perhaps in the form of AUVSI) to the appropriate legislators/politicians for their support.

I think Robert Blair of PineCreek had a good idea he just has (or appears to have) a fairly narrow focus. See the (now closed) thread at DIY Drones (http://diydrones.com/forum/topic/show?id=705844%3ATopic%3A37831).

Continued discussion of this issue is badly needed. There have been a couple of attempts to do this on DIY Drones but they always seem to degrade into non-productive (In my opinion) wastes of time and board space.

These are my observations as an outsider coming in. As a Technology based businessman and (Just starting out) hobbyist I see a lot of opportunities here. It would be a shame to see it crushed by narrowly focused Organizations, Big Business, and/or Misguided Government.

I think a guidelines thread needs restarted and moderated by someone with out a narrowly defined agenda and the first step should be defining guidelines for the discussion of guidelines, followed by a list of resources, then maybe some standardized definitions.

My closing thoughts are do it now before somebody does it for you.

[CenTexFlyer]

OK, so far, it appears as though everyone that has posted agree that some guidelines should framed. Now, will everyone that posted and even those that are lurking, be willing to help that process. If so, then I think we should get to it......

I'd like to comment on this......

I think RCAPA would better serve it members if they maintained focus on the needs of their membership or constituency and perhaps served as an advisor to or representative of their members in relationship to new entity with a broader vision.

As long as RCAPA does not support full autonomous flights they are not the right organization to represent or speak for the civilian small UAV community.
See item 8. in their guidelines (http://www.rcapa.net/guidelines.htm).

As a founder and board member I believe we may have been guilty of narrowing our focus a bit TOO much in the past. However, with that said, I believe that the vast majority of our membership were NOT into flying semi or fully autonomous aircraft. That trend could certainly change.

We are also learning that R/C and true UA are being lumped together to a certain degree and it may make sense for us to look at autonomous vehicles in that light. While my business makes VLOS aircraft that are used for Search & Rescue and law enforcement work, there is a growing demand for semi/fully autonomous aircraft in their ranks. On a professional and individual level I am VERY interested in what sort of governing will come about for the civilian use of both!

Let us attempt to put together amateur UAS guidelines by taking what fits from any of the documents that have been mentioned. Self regulation would be the absolute ideal situation, but again our experience tells us that ain't gonna happen.

Think we could do that without people getting their feelings hurt and calling names?

Gene

[patrickegan]

I spoke to both Karen Tarr and Pete Firlotte at UAS 2008. While TC has a SFOC process they aren’t as easy to come by as I believe the commercial RC AP crowd would like. They are also a little skittish about handing them out without insurance and inquired about ideas in that area. I gave them a copy of the proposed RCAPA guidelines and asked for their feedback.

As far as fully autonomous capabilities go, I don’t know of too many systems that are fully autonomous. Secondly, systems without a pilot in the loop are a long ways from being introduced into the NAS. The political solution is definitely one worth exploring but takes a lot of resources.

Big business this far hasn’t been very supportive but I’ve been told that’s all changed.

[patrickegan]

The exemption idea is nothing new as I have been talking about it for almost 4 years. There are no exemptions for rules that don’t exist. Many of these common sense arguments have been made but fall upon deaf ears as they don’t meet the criteria for rulemaking, or do they build safety cases. I have to say that many of the idea’s aired (not saying throwing ideas out is a bad thing), are so far out of the realm of reality that they are inane. Most are myopic with little or no regard for the other NAS stakeholders, let alone those on the ground.

I talk to almost a person a day (and this is without exaggeration), that states, “the FAA knows I’m flying, but they let me do so because they know I’m safe!” That point is not even debatable...

[billh117]

OK Patric since your tired of saying there are no exemptions if there are no rules.

Why don't you tell us which or point us to a FAR (Federal Aviation Regulations) that we (The community) are using the NAS (National Airspace System) under or perhaps in violation off.

Basically by flying my Easy Star with an AttoPilot on board I fall within or outside of some regulation.

Please do your best to define acronyms and initials, try not to speak in legalese, and talk to us and not at us. These things would help me from getting my feelings hurt.

[patrickegan]

It has been basically laid out that if you are flying outside of the AMA safety code you are not RC hobby flying. The FAA contends that they have jurisdiction over all aircraft operating in the NAS (National Airspace System), 14 CFR 1.1 Definition Aircraft- means a device that is used of intended to be used for flight in the air. At anytime the determination could be made that you are operating in an unsafe manner that is a danger to the general public.
My posts are not intended to hurt anyone’s feelings, they are made in the hopes of bringing to light what is currently happening and to foster a productive dialogue. We are not playing games with the high school principal but are trying to interface with big business, serious stakeholder interests (manned aviation, both private and commercial), and a Federal regulatory agency.

[billh117]

Lets take this one at a time.



It has been basically laid out that if you are flying outside of the AMA safety code you are not RC hobby flying.


Laid out by whom. Show me. My Mom said it was OK so if you can't show me a Law then that makes no more sense than what my Mom says.


The FAA contends that they have jurisdiction over all aircraft operating in the NAS (National Airspace System), 14 CFR 1.1 Definition Aircraft- means a device that is used of intended to be used for flight in the air.

Granted, let me be more specific can you point us to a law, Rule, or FAR (Federal Aviation Regulations) related to Recreational/Sport Use of Model Airplanes.


At anytime the determination could be made that you are operating in an unsafe manner that is a danger to the general public.

I disagree, that would have to be shown to be true. The FAA does not arbitrarily and capriciously make determinations like that.


My posts are not intended to hurt anyone’s feelings, they are made in the hopes of bringing to light what is currently happening and to foster a productive dialogue.

Indeed I am sure you are sincere in your desire to be of assistance to your members.

I am seeking your advice as an expert in this matter to help clarify some very murky waters.

We are not playing games with the high school principal but are trying to interface with big business, serious stakeholder interests (manned aviation, both private and commercial), and a Federal regulatory agency.


Now that hurts my feelings.

[patrickegan]

Does your mom regulate the NAS? ;)

CFR cited includes all ” aircraft”.

If you want to test arbitrary and capricious out, fly in the D.C. freeze.

Not only our members, but hobbyists, future members and people who want to develop this technology.

Sorry that I hurt your feelings ;)

[Tom Harper]

Patrick,

I agree that guidelines are worthwhile. I believe they should come from the active UAV hobbyist community.

I read the guidlines on RCAPA and the Canadian report and listened to the NTSB hearings. I don't see much there that is related to hobbyist UAV activities.

First we need a definition - what's being discussed here:

The NTSB hearings were only interested in UAVs above 330 pounds. I propose that we are discussing vehicles of less than 33 pounds. That way we avoid the NTSB by an order of magnitude.

Our vehicles are capable of fully autonomous, controlled flight.

The payload carried by our vehicles is equipment - cameras, electronics etc. We don't carry small animals or fireworks or do stunts or spray crops.

Our purpose is education and recreation. Any commercial benefit is small compared to the investment in time and equipment. Selling photos is much like selling any hobby surplus (puppies, kittens, guppies). If you don't expense costs on your income tax, it's not a business.

Operation is key. Hobbyist UAVs are flown beyond radio and vision range. However, that is done with an operator present and under full control of an automated system. A free flight or RC model is out of control when out of range and/or sight. A UAV is is always in control.

Hobbyist UAV flights are round trip. The system is always programmed to return the model to the launch area. That's important. We are not (yet) proposing cross country races.

Autonomous flights are of limited range. I have entertained the idea of monitoring cultural sites from a distance of 25 miles. That way pot hunters would not even know they were being watched. It's a neat idea but not practical. Hobbyist autonomous flights need a limit. I'd say 5 miles. Also, flights beyond visual contact should be under 400 feet AGL.

There is one regulation that is in order. All Flight Logs must be archived. That is not a burden these days. You download the memory device to a computer and save the waypoints and log file on a disk.


So, a hobbyist UAV is a flying vehicle that weighs less than 33 pounds, carries no payload other than optical and electronic equipment, is flown for recreation and education and has no commercial purpose beyond a normal hobby surplus. A hobbyist UAV may be programmed for fully autonomous flights of Less than five miles radius, over uninhabited areas, at an altitude of less than 400 ft AGL, where the aircraft is programmed to return to it's take off point. Electronic records of every flight are maintained by the owner.

If we meet that definition, what regulations are needed?

[FrankC]

Tom, you mention archiving the flight logs. As a newcomer who has never used a flight logger, could you briefly describe some of what it logs? I do have a motive here, I am a software developer writing software to manage an RCAP business and data logging is something I need to integrate. So far there has not been much concrete info available but that is largely because everything is still under discussion. I think.

[Tom Harper]

Frank,

I am using a Dean Goedde AttoPilot (Beta version). The key log elements are:

Flight Mode - Auto/Manual
Time
Longitude
Latitude
Satellites in view
Altitude
Speed
Heading
Present Way Point
Distance to Way Point

My AttoPilot logs 36 parameters. Most have to do with the flight dynamics of the airplane. I think the 10 above make a good minimum set for archiving. The resolution can be fractions of a second. There is an additional file with all Way Points.

You might look at the Eagle Tree web site. They make some neat data loggers.

Does that help?

Tom

[jetblackaircra]

I find this thread very odd.... R/C aircraft have been literally and figuratively flying under the radar for decades. R/C flights break laws and city ordanances regularly (noise, etc.) In my opinion the reason there are no laws that specifically talk about amateur R/C flight that get enforced is because no one cares. I don't think anyone will care about small aircraft of the size you talk about in your proposed amateur guidline. So, why regulate yourself when you're not being regulated?

Think of it this way... a guy goes out to fly his R/C airplane in the middle of his 20 acre field in rural Oklahoma (like I do). Crashes it into an oak tree (like I've never done....) No harm, no foul. Technically, I'm inside the city limits of my hometown and probably violating a noise ordanance and maybe more (I'm on the edge, but inside of class D airspace, operating an aircraft, should I have to be in contact with the control tower at the airport?).

Now, scenario number two. A similar guy, but not quite as cautious takes the same R/C plane out and takes off in the middle of Main street in the same town buzzing over pedestrians heads and narrowly missing cars. He didn't damage anything, didn't hurt any body, but he has to be stopped right? So, the police are going to bust him for a noise violation, disturbing the peace, public endangerment. Or say he's flying near the approach end of an active runway and planes have to dodge him all the time... FAA will have something to say then.

My point is, if you are responsible with your UAV and don't do foolish things, you'll probably end up under the radar. So, why come up with restrictions on yourself? I say wait until there begins to be some serious talk about regulating amateur UAVs and then fight that battle.

By the way, disclaimer:

*I am in no way admitting to illegal activities. The above posting was totally ficticious and has no basis in actual fact.*

[billh117]

OK I had hoped that Patric and the RCAPA had this kind of stuff handy.

I would propose we as hobbyist are flying in the NAS (National Airspace System), under AC 91-57 dated 06-09-1981 located here (http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/aaim/organizations/uas/media/ac91-57.pdf).


Its a simple document. Now I do think there is a revision or update, or associated FAR to this but I have been busy and can't find it right now. But that doesn't matter.

Once an organization is created, the organization can request an exemption to AC 91-57 (or its associated FAR) for its members based on the organizations definitions, guidelines and code of conduct.
There is a precedent for the FAA to grant exemptions from FAR's, AC's, Policies and Standard's for an organization and its members.

I do not view the FAA as an enemy or bad guy. The FAA clearly goes out of its way to accommodate recreational and sport flyers of full size G/A aircraft.
On the other hand big commercial aviation interests might if not dealt with carefully become a hindrance to the small UAV community.

As far as Guidelines those look great Tom. I personally do not feel qualified to submit any guidelines my self but I have some comments I think might be useful. like the commercial aspect, the FAA has some comments and clarifications (Read LoopHoles) on what is commercial use of G/A aircraft.

I have many friends who hold a PPL (Private Pilots Lic.) and have had the "What is commercial" discussion several times.
I will look some of that up later tonight.


@jetblackaircra, Wow I find your thoughts on this surprising. I have been following your build and your great work and unless you are under a COA all of this is relevant to you or would seems to me that it would be.

[CenTexFlyer]

February 13th, 2007

[patrickegan]

The document the FAA put out on the aforementioned date about says it all.

As far as GA goes, the only money changing hands that not commercial is splitting gas between buddies. Any and all other money exchanges are commercial with no exemptions.

[Tom Harper]

Patrick,

What'sa GA? (er.....General Aviation? - is there a legal definition)

I assume the FAA draws a finer line than that. Most commercial enterprises are defined by the IRS.

__________________________________________________ _______________

A bit of Googling answered my question. The definitions I found are very broad. I am sure that legal definitions exist. What I have found so far would include birthday balloons and childrens kites.

Tom

[patrickegan]

Yes, general aviation. Tom Tugan, I believe was the one that made the claim that if it wasn’t part of your primary business it wasn’t commercial. I inquired about that notion with at least 10 FAA (including counsel), people in the room and was told that there are no exemptions for commercial activity. Splitting the expenses for a flight is the extent of money changing hands.

[Tom Harper]

Patrick,

FAA definition:

"Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air."

They fail to define flight.

I don't doubt your responses, but the concept isn't functional. The passengers on an airliner are sharing expenses.

The Agency can do anything it wants to. However, the degree of danger posed by models and the agency budget will determine what they do.

I think a reasonable set of guidelines should be acceptable. UAV activities are accelerating. It is in the agency's best interest to join rather than obstruct.

[jetblackaircra]

So, maybe I'm way off base here, but I thought we were talking about amateur UAV aircraft. I think everyone might be confused.

The FAA is already working on regulations for UAVs for hire. There has been quite a bit of discussion about it on this forum. I thought the point of this post, as patrickegan stated, was to discuss the fact that amateur UAVs will get lumped in with UAVs for hire and be regulated by the same rules that the big boys have to follow.

I have no problem with my UAVs being regulated by the FAA because I plan to be one of the big boys. :-D When the NPRMs come out for regulating UAVs I will be one of the first to respond.

But, I agree that someone flying a UAV for LEISURE shouldn't be as heavily regulated and although there might be some growing pains at the FAA I think that they will understand that not only is it unreasonable to regulate Joe Blow flying his 2m 40oz powered glider with a camera on it autonomously around his pasture, it is also impractical for them to do so. They don't have the man power to go out and bust every single UAV out there. They're going to regulate the ones that are going to cause a significant threat to people/property on the ground or other aircraft in the air.

That is what I thought this thread was about. If you're talking about UAVs for hire, that's another story. If you're going to be making money by flying something, you can bet your sweet you know what that the FAA will have something to say about it. And I'm fine with that, I'll be glad to work with them when that time comes.


By the way, sharing operating cost means paying no more than an equal split of what it cost the pilot. passengers on an airliner are paying more than an equal split between everyone on board (or at least maybe someone should explain that to the people in charge of the airlines, then maybe they wouldn't be going under)


In FAA-2006-25714, the document you mention, they (as usual) are vague about the difference between a UAS operated as a civil aircraft and a UAS operated as a model aircraft. A civil aircraft is defined as "any aircraft other than public". CFR 1.1 However, there is no definition of model aircraft. So, the question becomes when does a model aircraft become a civil aircraft? The FAA does not discuss it in any document I can find. They do however give the impression that a model is a small aircraft operated as a hobby, not for hire. (Policy Statement paragraph, this is the most important part of the document)

So, I would imagine the arguement could be made that if you are not using any of the facilities in the NAS (runways, controlled airspace, etc.) and you are operating under the guidelines of AC 91-57, and your airplane is not being operated for hire, then you are following the regulations and policy set forth by the FAA, autonomous or not.

[billh117]

Well I found it. Is there somebody at the RCAPA some sort of communications officer or something, who keeps track of all this?
Because if I was a member and asked about the existence of a document and got just a date as a response I would be disappointed.

@jetblackaircra

Thank you I haven't the time to look all this up.

I will adress the commercial aspect in a later post.

I hope to have lunch with a friend who is a doctor and uses his plane for his practice and has a letter from an aviation attorney clarifying the commercial aspects.


Its on Chris Andersons DIY drones Regulatory FAQ (http://diydrones.com/profiles/blog/show?id=705844%3ABlogPost%3A28583)

(about half way down. Thanks Chris)

Posted by Chris Anderson on March 9, 2008 at 8:30pm

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!



Here is the relevant snippet...

Recreational/Sport Use of Model Airplanes

In 1981, in recognition of the safety issues raised by the operation of model aircraft, the FAA published Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards for the purpose of providing guidance to persons interested in flying model aircraft as a hobby or for recreational use. This guidance encourages good judgment on the part of operators so that persons on the ground or other aircraft in flight will not be endangered. The AC contains among other things, guidance for site selection. Users are advised to avoid noise sensitive areas such as parks, schools, hospitals, and churches. Hobbyists are advised not to fly in the vicinity of spectators until they are confident that the model aircraft has been flight tested and proven airworthy. Model aircraft should be flown below 400 feet above the surface to avoid other aircraft in flight. The FAA expects that hobbyists will operate these recreational model aircraft within visual line-of-sight. While the AC 91-57 was developed for model aircraft, some operators have used the AC as the basis for commercial flight.

That Document that you referenced for that date (Unless there is another one) re enforces what I stated earlier Hobbyists UAV flyers are flying under AC 91-57.

So there are FAA rules (Or standards) for this Hobby.
Just to clarify a misconception Exemptions are possible when there is a rule.

[jetblackaircra]

Bill, good show.

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/uas/reg/media/frnotice_uas.pdf

There's THE DOCUMENT, that everyone is so up in arms about. And you are absolutely right. The most important paragraph in the whole thing is right after your exerpt, it said:


"While the AC 91-57 was developed
for model aircraft, some operators have used the AC as the basis for commercial flight
operations.


Policy Statement
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.
The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers might be flying
UAS with the mistaken understanding that they are legally operating under the authority of AC 91-57. AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and thus specifically excludes its use by
persons or companies for business purposes."

They are basically saying if you're flying for military/homeland security, get a COA, if you're flying for hire, or intend to fly for hire, get a special airworthiness certificate. If you don't fall into either of those, fly under the AC and you're good to go.

I've been editing this instead of adding more posts....

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/uas/reg/media/uas_guidance08-01.pdf

Read that, particularly the page 5 notes section. This document was published March of 08 and is meant to provide guidance to those seeking approval to fly their UAV.

[patrickegan]

There is one the FAA posted that states that AC91-57 is getting a rewrite. I’m on the sUAS ARC and know it’s getting one.

[Mel Duval]

There is one the FAA posted that states that AC91-57 is getting a rewrite. I’m on the sUAS ARC and know it’s getting one.


http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/uas/reg/media/uas_guidance08-01.pdf


Page 5, halfway down the page..... BTW, the document is interesting reading......


EDIT: Looks like JBAC and I were posting the same thing...

[billh117]

Tired of the acronyms you don't understand. I am and my mom is getting tired of explaining them to me.

Try this place for UAV stuff (http://www.uavforum.com/library/acronym.htm)


and this one for Aviation acronyms (http://www.gps.tc.faa.gov/glossary.html)

and this one for general stuff. (http://www.acronymfinder.com/)

If you can't find it in one of these then the poster is MCU :-)

[patrickegan]

Yes, exemptions and waivers will be available after the rule making process. You will have to build a safety case to mitigate the risks for the operations you’d like to perform. Or just have your mom get on the blower and tell them what’s up! ;)

[jetblackaircra]

I don't know how much experience you guys have with the FAA, but from reading these documents which are fairly recent (March of this year) it does not sound to me like they have any intention of regulating UAVs that are operated as a hobby and fall under the AC currently released for models.

If you know of a rewrite of that document, by all means clue us in on what it will include.

No offense, but no matter what's in the rewrite, I think you're higher than a kite if you think that the FAA is going to require all kinds of paperwork to fly an autonomous model for leisure like most of us are doing. Now if someone wants to build a 500lb, 25ft span UAV and fly that for leisure, then maybe.... but still if they follow the guidlines in AC 91-57 then they really shouldn't be endangering anyone and it is in the FAA's best interest to not waste man power on it. Honestly, anyone who has ever dealt with the FAA should know that one thing they don't need is more paper work than is absolutely necessary. And they definately don't need a bunch of amateurs sending in documents in the wrong format with incomplete information, etc. They've tried very hard to not have to deal with people like the average R/C modeller by doing things like putting out AC 91-57. I could see that they might want to revise it to be more clear about it's intentions regarding R/C flight for hire, but that's it.

[billh117]

Jetblackaircra

I kind of agree.

The FAA is not an enemy or bad guy. The FAA clearly goes out of its way to accommodate recreational and sport flyers of full size G/A aircraft and sport users of the NAS (Ultralights, Etc.)

On the other hand narrowly focused organizations with conflicting agendas, Big Aviation Business, and/or Misguided Government could hurt the Hobbyist UAV community.

Like Patric has said a couple of different times if you have a plan to take to them that makes sense and can make a safety case its much more likely things will go our way.

[patrickegan]

...

[patrickegan]

No offense, but no matter what's in the rewrite, I think you're higher than a kite if you think that the FAA is going to require all kinds of paperwork to fly an autonomous model for leisure like most of us are doing.

I wish it was just as simple as hitting the pipe, something’s may cease to be models. :(

[Tom Harper]

"something’s may cease to be models."

That could be a serious problem.

The sad part is that a Free Flight or a out of range Berg rcvr pose a greater danger than a hobbyist UAV.