Espritmodel.com Telemetry Radio
Reply
Thread Tools
This thread is privately moderated by zlite, who may elect to delete unwanted replies.
Old Oct 23, 2012, 04:59 PM
Registered User
hiero's Avatar
United States, MA, Harvard
Joined Oct 2012
5 Posts
The sUAS news podcast "Global Perspective" July 2012 is also a useful starting point for research - although, Patrick needs to work on the sound quality, eh?

http://www.suasnews.com/suas-news-podcast/


From that I get
http://www.uvs-international.org
hiero is offline Find More Posts by hiero
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Oct 24, 2012, 01:05 PM
SlowStick Test Pilot
patrickegan's Avatar
Yumastan RCAPA.NET
Joined Feb 2003
5,834 Posts
Sorry. International call Skype and a cellphone. When the budget gets bigger we'll get a studio.
patrickegan is offline Find More Posts by patrickegan
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2012, 03:34 PM
Gaftopher
Gary Mortimer's Avatar
Nottingham Road South Africa/Bedford UK
Joined Feb 2007
3,817 Posts
On a South Sea Island
Gary Mortimer is online now Find More Posts by Gary Mortimer
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 12:08 PM
SlowStick Test Pilot
patrickegan's Avatar
Yumastan RCAPA.NET
Joined Feb 2003
5,834 Posts
You are not far off as we may be coming to you live from an Atoll in the not too distant future.
patrickegan is offline Find More Posts by patrickegan
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2012, 02:04 PM
Registered User
hiero's Avatar
United States, MA, Harvard
Joined Oct 2012
5 Posts
Comment:
From proposed guidelines @ http://www.suasnews.com/2012/01/1103...ed-guidelines/

Quote:
II Sec. 2 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONAL LIMITS. The operational limitations of a

CLASS (A) and CLASS (B) UAS shall apply with the following exceptions:

a. The aircraft shall be operated only in undeveloped areas and not within

500yds in the horizontal plane of such things as residential structures, heavily

trafficked roadways or business that serve large numbers of people with the

specific exception of low population structures and roadways associated with

agricultural activity.
This would seem to prohibit this weight class from some very foreseeable commercial applications - video broadcast of a road race, for example. Eg. 2, some mapping spans would be crossing roadways.

Your thoughts? Exception could be flight plan filed with ATC?
hiero is offline Find More Posts by hiero
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2012, 04:57 AM
Gaftopher
Gary Mortimer's Avatar
Nottingham Road South Africa/Bedford UK
Joined Feb 2007
3,817 Posts
I think its years off before tracking of a road race would be allowed and a broadcast entity would want decent images so that would make the platform pretty chunky and even less likely to get approval.
Gary Mortimer is online now Find More Posts by Gary Mortimer
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2012, 01:07 PM
Registered User
hiero's Avatar
United States, MA, Harvard
Joined Oct 2012
5 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Mortimer View Post
I think its years off before tracking of a road race would be allowed and a broadcast entity would want decent images so that would make the platform pretty chunky and even less likely to get approval.
Looks like that's about right. Certainly here in the US - unless the regulatory path changes suddenly.

I couldn't find the rules and regs for EU countries, except Switzerland. So I called UVS International and spoke with Mr. Blyenburgh (you will remember him from the sUAS interview). My understanding is that, in general, commercial use is limited to VLOS or extended VLOS, and <150kg machine. Extended VLOS = ~500 m to ground observer who acts as transmission link to external pilot @ another 500 m distance. So 1 km tops. Specific regs vary by national ATC org, of course.

Pretty restrictive for the particular application I was considering. The logistics would be difficult and perhaps would not make financial sense. Like you said - in a few years. 2015 and 2016 are shaping up to be important years for this industry commercially.
hiero is offline Find More Posts by hiero
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2012, 08:31 AM
SlowStick Test Pilot
patrickegan's Avatar
Yumastan RCAPA.NET
Joined Feb 2003
5,834 Posts
Galaxy Blimps as seen on ESPN (2 min 4 sec)
patrickegan is offline Find More Posts by patrickegan
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 04, 2013, 12:17 AM
Registered User
Joined Apr 2012
18 Posts
More UAV regulation for Pro's and the hobbiest

Hello everyone,

In this message I have included a current Bill up for Oregon vote etc. It is to outlaw UAV and anything and everything that is unmanned and can take pictures from the air. You can only imagine what all that can include; Kites, blimps, balloons FPV planes and so on. So far 17 States are pursuing laws like this one.


I personally have no issues with registering, paying fees, having insurance and so on but it is getting agitating hearing nonsense coming from those that regulate the entire US. That being said...

77th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2013 Regular Session
Senate Bill 71
Printed pursuant to Senate Interim Rule 213.28 by order of the President of the Senate in conformance with pre-
session filing rules, indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on the part of the President (at the request
of Senate Interim Committee on Judiciary)


SUMMARY
The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject
to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor’s brief statement of the essential features of the
measure as introduced.


Imposes restrictions on use of drones by private parties and public entities. Creates various
crimes for unauthorized use of drones. Punishes by maximum of 20 years’ imprisonment, $375,000
fine, or both.


Directs Department of State Police to establish registry of certain drones used by public bodies.
Permits Oregon Department of Aviation to issue licenses for use of drones.
Declares emergency, effective on passage.


A BILL FOR AN ACT
Relating to drones; and declaring an emergency.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:


SECTION 1. As used in sections 1 to 7 of this 2013 Act:
(1) “Airspace of Oregon” means the space above the ground that is not part of airspace
governed by federal law.
(2) “Drone” means an unmanned flying machine that is capable of:
(a) Capturing images of objects or people on the ground or in the air;
(b) Intercepting communications on the ground or in the air; or
(c) Firing a bullet or other projectile.
(3) “Public body” has the meaning given in ORS 174.109.
SECTION 2. (1) A person may not possess or control a drone unless permitted to do so
by the federal government or by the Oregon Department of Aviation under section 7 of this
2013 Act.
(2) A person who possesses or controls a drone in violation of subsection (1) of this section
commits a Class B misdemeanor.
(3) A person who possesses or controls a drone in violation of subsection (1) of this section
and uses the drone to capture an image of a person or object on the ground or in the
air commits a Class A misdemeanor.
(4) A person who possesses or controls a drone in violation of subsection (1) of this section
and uses the drone to fire a bullet or other projectile commits a Class C felony.
(5) A person who possesses or controls a drone for the purpose of hunting or stalking
game commits a Class C felony.
(6) A person who possesses or controls a drone and causes the drone to fire a bullet or
other projectile at an aircraft while the aircraft is in the air, or intentionally causes or attempts
to cause the drone to crash into an aircraft while the aircraft is in the air, commits
a Class A felony.
(7) A person who gains unauthorized control over a drone commits a Class A misdemeanor.


SECTION 3. (1) A person who operates a drone in the airspace of Oregon without permission
from the Oregon Department of Aviation, or from the person with the right to possession
of the land below the airspace, is guilty of a Class C misdemeanor.
(2) It is not a defense to a charge of violating this section that the land below the airspace
was not marked with a no-trespassing sign or similar notice.


SECTION 4. (1) A public body may not operate a drone in the airspace of Oregon without
registering the drone with the Department of State Police.
(2) The department may impose a civil penalty of up to $10,000 against a public body that
violates subsection (1) of this section. Any penalty collected under this subsection shall be
deposited in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Account.
(3) Evidence obtained by a public body through the use of an drone in violation of subsection
(1) of this section is not admissible in any judicial or administrative proceeding, and
may not be used to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that an offense
has been committed.
(4) The department shall establish a registry of drones operated by public bodies, and
may charge a fee sufficient to reimburse the department for the maintenance of the registry.
(5) The department shall require the following information for registration of a drone:
(a) The name of the public body that owns or operates the drone.
(b) The name and contact information of the individuals operating the drone.
(c) Identifying information for the drone as required by the department by rule.


SECTION 5. (1) Any person or public body that owns or exercises control over a drone
in Oregon that causes injury to person or property is strictly liable for the injury.
(2) Any person who suffers injury to person or property caused by a drone operated in
violation of section 2, 3 or 4 of this 2013 Act is entitled to damages from the person or public
body that committed the violation of not less than $5,000 and an award of reasonable attorney
fees.


SECTION 6. In addition to any other remedies allowed by law, a person who gains unauthorized
control over a drone is liable to the owner of the drone in an amount of not less
than $5,000. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff in an
action under this section.


SECTION 7. The Oregon Department of Aviation may issue licenses to persons to operate
drones in the airspace of Oregon for the purpose of implementing section 2 of this 2013 Act.


SECTION 8. This 2013 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public
peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2013 Act takes effect
on its passage.
[2]

My sense of this...

After reading this you should wonder what the Emergency is? We can't give all American's equal rights quickly but we can call having a drone and regulating it an emergency? This reminds me of when the US powers were trying to regulate muscle cars and classics, making owners pay fees and outlawing them.


Section 2 says that section 7 will establish legal flying and use of them but 7 says refer to section 2

It mentions that possession of a drone will be a crime. They're definition of a drone is anything that is unmanned and flown that can take pictures. Kites, balloons, blimps all will be in that category and RC planes too. Why they're so concerned is beyond me as all Americans are monitored in a million ways right now. Cell phones are taking unregulated videos of people, sending them to youtube without the person being filmed permission. Cameras owned by the Government film us on the highways, in the parks and so on. Google, Face book and others know more about us than most of our families do. Seriously, Civilian drones are the least of our concerns as Americans... Another thing that seems ignorant to me is the fact that they say Possession of their version of what is a drone will also be illegal. Hmmm, who is going to design and build the ones that are going to be legal? How about we spank the evil doers when they do bad instead of assuming all Americans can't be trusted with anything! Personally I'd like the Government to do lock up bad guys with the money they spend chasing issues that aren't issues yet. I do believe the industry should be regulated but reasonably. If it isn't then everyone will simply hide what they do and sneak around it all, kind of like gun control.

Reply back, tell us what you think, even if it agrees or disagrees. We value your opinions. At least your agreement to this Bill will likely have more common sense than what I am reading!! LOL
Aerosight UAV is offline Find More Posts by Aerosight UAV
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 04, 2013, 02:50 AM
Gaftopher
Gary Mortimer's Avatar
Nottingham Road South Africa/Bedford UK
Joined Feb 2007
3,817 Posts
Well get behind RCAPA, they were at ARC 1.0
Gary Mortimer is online now Find More Posts by Gary Mortimer
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 07, 2013, 10:36 AM
SlowStick Test Pilot
patrickegan's Avatar
Yumastan RCAPA.NET
Joined Feb 2003
5,834 Posts
RCAPA is prepared to back an effort and help where it can.
patrickegan is offline Find More Posts by patrickegan
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2013, 04:00 PM
Registered User
Taildragger55's Avatar
Anchorage, Alaska
Joined Nov 2008
603 Posts
Call me a dummy, but if I'm reading the legeslation going on in Oregon correcctly, it effectivly makes ANY R/C aircraft illegal. Doesn't a R/C aircraft intercept communication from the ground via the transmitter the pilot holds in his/her hand?

Similar legeslation is in the works here in Ak. too, but not nearly as restrictive.
Taildragger55 is offline Find More Posts by Taildragger55
Last edited by Taildragger55; Mar 10, 2013 at 07:36 PM. Reason: Added text.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2013, 08:57 PM
SlowStick Test Pilot
patrickegan's Avatar
Yumastan RCAPA.NET
Joined Feb 2003
5,834 Posts
I wonder where the AMA is in all of this?
patrickegan is offline Find More Posts by patrickegan
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2013, 02:46 PM
Gaftopher
Gary Mortimer's Avatar
Nottingham Road South Africa/Bedford UK
Joined Feb 2007
3,817 Posts
Sitting pretty as folks move towards being forced to be members to fly RC.
Gary Mortimer is online now Find More Posts by Gary Mortimer
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2013, 11:38 PM
Registered User
United States, AZ, Chandler
Joined Mar 2012
12 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taildragger55 View Post
Call me a dummy, but if I'm reading the legeslation going on in Oregon correcctly, it effectivly makes ANY R/C aircraft illegal. Doesn't a R/C aircraft intercept communication from the ground via the transmitter the pilot holds in his/her hand?

Similar legeslation is in the works here in Ak. too, but not nearly as restrictive.
Your RC plane receives a signal. It does not "intercept communication". If you put a big sports microphone on it and listen to someones conversation then you are intercepting communication.

Fly at an AMA field and don't put a camera on your plane and your good.

Mar 10, 2013 06:57 PM
patrickegan I wonder where the AMA is in all of this?


The AMA is wise to stay out of this debate. The AMA protects modelers not commercial UAV pilots.
In my opinion, if your flying a UAV or "drone" for commercial use then you need a full understanding of the National Airspace System and at least a private pilots license.
cbh82v is offline Find More Posts by cbh82v
Last edited by cbh82v; Mar 13, 2013 at 11:39 PM. Reason: SP
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion beginners' faq for edf somewhere? xorbe Electric Ducted Fan Jet Talk 0 Jun 28, 2006 05:36 PM
need FAQ for castle! DavidB. Castle Creations 2 Jun 08, 2004 05:05 PM
A FAQ for building LiPos? mikeb33 Batteries and Chargers 0 Apr 29, 2004 08:17 PM
FAQ for true newbie? fdisk Parkflyers 2 Sep 25, 2003 02:07 PM