HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Mar 15, 2012, 12:29 PM
Registered User
San Marcos, CA
Joined Aug 2009
2,793 Posts
I can't understand why this topic is so difficult .. or it seems like it.

Why is the FAA not imposing a similar rule like on UL's.. seems to work there just fine and they fly over populated area and at night, too. And you don't even need a Pilot License and can built your own UL and fly it without any registration. They even use them for commercial use.

So what's the difference, except that a UL can actually "kill" people where a UAV R/C Model will cause property damages at worst - never heard a R/C Plane kills people except it was a Turbine Powered R/C Monster Plane with 150" wing span.

Anyway, key is that they are already regulations on other bodies in the air available that are similar to our world ..

Smells more like an Industry tries to protect themselves because they fear of competition.

And yes, I want to use my UAV for commercial use ..
flyandi is online now Find More Posts by flyandi
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Mar 15, 2012, 12:48 PM
Rocket Programmer
jasmine2501's Avatar
United States, AZ, Mesa
Joined Jul 2007
25,354 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyandi View Post
Anyway, key is that they are already regulations on other bodies in the air available that are similar to our world ..
Key here is actually that UAVs present many hazards other than killing people on the ground. We need to be thinking about privacy issues, security, fair competition, law enforcement needs, etc, etc... it's not just about safety.

Quote:
Smells more like an Industry tries to protect themselves because they fear of competition.
Yes, I agree. The powerful players in this WILL try to have the rules be unfair to the little guys. We need to put a stop to that. We need to be looking at the money trail, because I'm pretty sure there will be some graft and corruption in this process.
jasmine2501 is offline Find More Posts by jasmine2501
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2012, 01:11 PM
Registered User
San Marcos, CA
Joined Aug 2009
2,793 Posts
Oh I agree with you .. keyword is here "fairness" for all players. Privacy issues are probably the biggest concern but these concerns are in discussion for other bodies in the air as well.

I am a strong believer that the "Small UAV Business"-Industry is the key component to get UAV's successfully commercialized. Especially if you look at all the technologies that have been developed by the community in recent years.
flyandi is online now Find More Posts by flyandi
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2012, 02:36 PM
Rocket Programmer
jasmine2501's Avatar
United States, AZ, Mesa
Joined Jul 2007
25,354 Posts
Privacy issues are something I find very interesting, but not particularly relevant to regulation. I think people need to realize what they are saying when they complain about privacy related to UAVs. We've been ok with the government being able to spy on us from the air for at least 50 years. I was told back in the late 70s that a spy satellite could read your watch on the ground, so I imagine they are collecting much more detailed information now. I think it would be good for the privacy camp to highlight the reasons why it's ok for the federal governments of many nations to spy on the entire earth, but giving Sheriff Andy a UAV is somehow more of a concern. The capability is only slightly expanded, and I personally don't think it demands an increase in concern. We have good privacy laws already - we just need to make sure the spirit of those laws can be applied to UAVs.

It's illegal in some cases to look into someone's window for example - doing it with a UAV isn't a loophole, it's still illegal. So I'm saying, UAVs don't require new laws concerning privacy, but they will require existing laws to be interpreted differently. There's a lot of questions... like, what is the difference between me sitting in my living room with a telescope, and me flying a UAV up to your window. If I want to invade your privacy, does the method I use really matter?
jasmine2501 is offline Find More Posts by jasmine2501
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2012, 02:58 PM
Registered User
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton, Pennsylvania, United States
Joined Nov 2000
6,276 Posts
fylandi
You need to do some research. There have been fatalities, albeit not many, involving model airplanes. In almost every case the models involved were run-of-the mill glow or gas powered models.
Any aircraft flown over populated areas has the potential to cause physical harm and moreso when flown beyond los. If you are unable to see the aicraft you most likely cannot see what is on the ground under it. INMHO that creates an untenable position.

BM
BillM is offline Find More Posts by BillM
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2012, 03:42 PM
Advocating for RC Aviation
USA, NJ, Phillipsburg
Joined Jul 2010
1,390 Posts
The pilot-in-command (PIC) of the UL is on-board the aircraft and has direct sensory input of the flight environment and any hazards to be avoided. The PIC of a UAV does not have direct sensory input of the flight environment and relies upon telemetry to avoid hazards. This may be adequate over a battlefield abroad, but the UAPO has determined that adequate sense-and-avoid technology does not yet exist to maintain safe separation from manned air traffic. The model airplane pilot has direct sensory input of the flying environment the model is operated in and so can avoid hazard. Very likely the new Rule for sUAS will follow this logic, constraining the flight area to direct line-of-sight. They are just not ready to let unmanned vehicles into the National Airspace System (NAS), from all that I have read. It is as simple as that, really. All about aviation safety.
danamania is offline Find More Posts by danamania
Last edited by danamania; Mar 15, 2012 at 03:44 PM. Reason: Typo
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2012, 03:57 PM
Registered User
San Marcos, CA
Joined Aug 2009
2,793 Posts
@Jasmine: I am 100% with you. There doesn't need to be another debate about Privacy Concerns .. they are already so many :-)

@BM: Sure, that's what I mean with "Turbine Powered R/C Monster Plane with 150" wing span" and it's mostly bystander or the pilot itself.. like the accident in Hungary a couple years ago which was an 41% Pitts .. Most of these fatal accident involve huge R/C Aircraft's.

Of course potentially even your Mini PZ-T28 could cause destruction, but it's not in the nature of an R/C modeller to cause harm or destruction and our safety record is more than excellent.

The majority in this hobby goes the extra length to protect the hobby and privileges by maintaining safe planes and fly responsible. Even if it's only because to protect their investment. Either way, the result is the same.

I don't see why it should be different in flying UAS? We will use the same safety philosophies/approaches.
flyandi is online now Find More Posts by flyandi
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2012, 04:38 PM
Rocket Programmer
jasmine2501's Avatar
United States, AZ, Mesa
Joined Jul 2007
25,354 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyandi View Post
our safety record is more than excellent.
Yes, that's a huge reason why model aviation is excepted from regulation by the FAA - because we have a proven track record of safety when using the airspace.

Quote:
I don't see why it should be different in flying UAS? We will use the same safety philosophies/approaches.
It needs to be different because we have already shown that the safety methods used by the modeling community are not adequate for UAVs with additional capability and increased mission envelopes. We have also proven (beyond any doubt, I think) that some kind of regulation is needed to prevent people from operating UAVs in a dangerous manner. I am against making it technically impossible - such as restricting the sale of components. However, I do not want some jag-off's UAV landing on my car at 75mph on the highway. If the cops want to use UAVs to ticket speeders, I'm all for it, as long as they are regulated in some way.
jasmine2501 is offline Find More Posts by jasmine2501
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2012, 08:17 PM
buyer of the farm
United States, FL, DeLand
Joined Mar 2009
3,939 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyandi View Post
I don't see why it should be different in flying UAS? We will use the same safety philosophies/approaches.
UAVs are typically used for aerial photography, usually for commercial purposes in saving some money over a manned aircraft. Now, where are you going to fly to take aerial photos or video that you can sell?

That's right, around people and buildings. Whether you are taking pictures for a real estate ad, monitoring corrosion on a bridge superstructure, taking pictures of the high school band, whatever, that UAV is flying for extended lengths of time where the people and potential injuries and property damage are.

I think that calls for a higher state of monitoring, a higher standard to legally fly and qualified equipment. I don't think it needs to be overly complicated or expensive, just have minimum standards, inspections and flight certification for pilots. The idea has to be to allow it to be done inexpensively and safely, not to make it so freakin' expensive, time consuming and riddled with bureaucracy that nobody can do it. Otherwise, better to leave it completely free.

AMA could do that fine but they'd most likely have to have immunity from liability if one of their certified outfits has a brain fart. That's only fair.
Rockin Robbins is offline Find More Posts by Rockin Robbins
Last edited by Rockin Robbins; Mar 15, 2012 at 08:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 2012, 08:38 PM
Electric Coolhunter
Thomas B's Avatar
United States, TX, Fort Worth
Joined Jun 2000
14,466 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyandi View Post
....
So what's the difference, except that a UL can actually "kill" people where a UAV R/C Model will cause property damages at worst - never heard a R/C Plane kills people except it was a Turbine Powered R/C Monster Plane with 150" wing span.

.....
There have been around 7-8 R/C model caused aircraft fatalities in the US over the last 30-40 years, plus several in England and at least a few in Europe. None were ever caused by a "Turbine Powered R/C Monster Plane with 150" wing span."

You made a comment in another post about most being caused by giant scale aircaft, which is simply not true. Only a couple of the ones I know about were cased by giant scale aircraft.

The US cases include the fairly recent R/C helicopter fatality (a .30 or .40 size heli, as I recall) a few years back in the Houston area, a WWII scale (twin .40 F-82) pylon racer in AZ that crashed into someone at a race, a .60 sized Aeromaster biplane around 20-25 years ago (Horizontal stablizer structural failure in flight) that killed a fairly well known local broadcast personality somewhere on the east coast, a gentleman flying his own .40 or .60 size trainer and hitting himself out west somewhere a good number of years back. I seem to recall another pylon racing fatality, possible Formula One, around 30 years back, as well...the others escape me for now.

The only one I have ever heard of involving a full scale aircraft happened in Germany a few years back...a 20 lb plus gas powered R/G glider tug had a midair collision with a Grob G109 powered sailplane and caused two fatalities in the Grob when it crashed.

A small .15 size trainer struck and killed a adolecent child in England years back....and there was the famous giant scale Pitts mode you mentioned in a European country a few years back that struck and killed two spectators.

As tragic as these accidents were, they also show how safe our hobby is numbers wise...millions and millions of R/C flights and vanishingly few fatal accidents or serious injury accidents.

It also shows that under the right and thankfully very, very rare circumstances, even fairly small sUAS aircraft could cause a fatality.
Thomas B is offline Find More Posts by Thomas B
RCG Plus Member
Last edited by Thomas B; Mar 15, 2012 at 08:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Should I be concerned? F-14 Tomcat56 Trader Talk 9 Jul 27, 2008 12:08 PM
Discussion As far as the FAA is concerned can we contract to take photos via RC heil/plane? Adams123 Aerial Photography 23 Mar 01, 2008 10:10 AM
Discussion Triton 1 should i be concerned? JustinMoore12 Batteries and Chargers 6 Dec 08, 2007 05:40 PM
Joke Why the U.S. should be very concerned about long-term climate change... Flyingwingbat1 Humor 0 Jan 10, 2007 08:20 PM
Got my Rocket 3600 motor. Almost no cogging, should I be concerned? BING! Power Systems 10 Jun 19, 2005 10:34 AM