Thanks!

The reality of the 2009 sUAS-ARC (proposed) regulations:

John, that may be the best illustration so far. I note the girl is wearing a helmet (optional in some states for high speed motorcycles) and that she is obviously complying with all safety guidelines. Yet, they still want to box her in with ridiculous rules...

Good illustration indeed. Can very well be seen as an illustrtion of the shift in ideals that are taking place around the world today, where former ideas of individual freedom are being replaced by freedom to regulate. Not anylonger neccessary to document or justify the need for imposing new regulations/ restrictions on individual freedom, just make a reference to "terrorism" or "security" and then you are free to proceed.

Btw: Hint for unemloyed sUAV'ers and SMBs that are getting wiped out by new regulations; join the regulators. There should be plenty of work translating standards ment for 747's, Dreamliners, 380's etc to fit EasyStar therminology. (Ref. 10e-6 and 10e-9 requirements).

brakar

It's up to us to try and make them see that isn't going to work. Wishful thinking or counting on commonsense coming from the regulator is folly.

It looks to me like the big companies are pushing for full certification of all the UAS components, in particular the autopilot. DO160 and DO178 qualification would translate into a certification cost well above what most small vendors could afford. I'd estimate over $100K for an autopilot TSO.

The sUAS ARC refers to certification of the entire UAS (complete aircraft). In the case of a Group-I (parkflyer with a Dcam onboard) that would include the airframe, motor, battery and even the RC radio system ! ... I can't wait to see the price on a TSO'd FUTABA FASST system !

We'll know more about what folks are thinking after this upcoming ASTM meeting. Type 1 will hopefully be off the TSO hook, but there again no autopilots!

I have a quick question regarding regulations. What if (hypothetically) a private security company wanted to use an RC aircraft for surveillance over the property they're contracted to work in? Are there ANY loopholes at all that would allow this? Not using an autopilot, etc (essentially an FPV plane).

Just curious...

Do you really want to know? Head in the sand works for most folks.

Originally Posted by patrickegan

Do you really want to know? Head in the sand works for most folks.

Is that along the lines of forgiveness vs. permission?

If so, yeah, I don't want to know

Am I the only one that finds this all a bit depressing?

400' limit? I am pretty sure somebody breaks that law every single day at just about every little local club r/c airstrip.

No commercial use for r/c aircraft with video or cameras? The web is filled with websites/companies who openly offer those services. These services most surely take place in 'built-up areas'.

bleh...

"Stay within line of sight"? How many thousand videos are there on the internet where some guy uploaded evidence of himself breaking that law?

Is the FAA getting ready to visit??

http://www.suasnews.com/2010/10/2478...the-clampdown/

Could you please tell me where this information came from - it is very important! Specifically the part about MAAA and flying UAV at model aero club fields.

I see an issue - that the aircraft classes are not clear and are contradictory, therefore invalidating the laws applying to UAV vs Model aircraft! If two organisations (CASA and MAAA) are showing a contradiction of what a model/UAV is, then how can law be applied? A small UAV is a model aircraft when not flown commercially, and flown as demo or sport/recreation yes or no? CASA's definition is "a sub-100kg model rc aircraft is no longer a model aircraft when flown commercially for monetary gain". So what is it when not flown for monetary gain - a MODEL AIRCRAFT!

thanks.

Originally Posted by 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"

They (FAA) are just as confused as us. I've asked about the differences in manned aviation as well. Competitions, training, etc. Their definition is when a dollar changes hands.

We'll know more about what folks are thinking after this upcoming ASTM meeting. Type 1 will hopefully be off the TSO hook, but there again no autopilots!

Thank GOD that China is finally shipping IMUs and fully functioning AutoPilots for a fraction of what USA engineers (with their export restricted hands tied behind their backs) can make.

3 axis stabilzation (three gyros, two accelerometers and some math) has hit the $100 price point. Good (not great) APs are getting below $300. What Dean Goedde (AttoPilot) spent years coding is priced in $4000 range and is worth evey penny. He is export restricted. China will be selling a silimar unit at a tenth of the price by 2011Q2. They'll ship tens of thousands Worldwide with a majority of customers in the US...

So... back to talk of no AutoPilots anymore... please...

Jeff