SMALL - espritmodel.com SMALL - Telemetry SMALL - Radio
Reply
Thread Tools
This thread is privately moderated by Gary Evans, who may elect to delete unwanted replies.
Old Jan 08, 2013, 09:11 PM
OSUFPV - KF7VFT
Corvallis, OR
Joined Apr 2010
1,778 Posts
Quote:
This new approach does not necessarily mean certain aspects of the sUAS rule won't have an impact on the aeromodeling community.
Yeah, because the FAA won't approve their "community based standards" if
those certain aspects are not met. I suspect that there will be a lot of
regulation regarding clouds and maintaining adequate separation from them. get
your cloudbusting HD footage while you still can...

-Blues
Blueshy is offline Find More Posts by Blueshy
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Jan 09, 2013, 12:31 AM
Just trying to get a nut.
scrtsqrl's Avatar
United States, VA, McLean
Joined Oct 2006
6,473 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueshy View Post
I suspect that there will be a lot of
regulation regarding clouds and maintaining adequate separation from them.

-Blues
Indeed. Rightfully.
scrtsqrl is online now Find More Posts by scrtsqrl
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 09, 2013, 07:08 AM
FPV Desert Beta Test Center
Mesa, Arizona
Joined Nov 2006
2,473 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by prelator View Post
I think we're getting confused by the wording here. This is what the AMA had to say about the NPRM in the January issue of Model Aviation:



Looks to me like the NPRM is still the main SUS regulations and it may or may not touch on model aircraft as well. I still don't think it's a whole separate regulation just for model aircraft. The deadline the DOT rulemaking report of final publication by the end of 2014 also coincides with the deadline in federal law for legalizing commercial SUAS.
NPRM is not the regulation but just a "Notice of Proposed Rule Making". The same term is used for all upcoming regulations. When the proposed rule is issued into the Federal Register it will be given a publication date and is availble for all to see and comment. The first one could only pertain to amateur models and the next one may pertain to all other sUAS but both will be referred to as NPRM's until publication.
Gary Evans is offline Find More Posts by Gary Evans
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 09, 2013, 08:04 AM
Nakelp
nakelp86's Avatar
United States, NJ, Union
Joined Sep 2004
6,794 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemon View Post
They can try, but the precedent has been set, quite recently.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2191800.html
did not have to wait to long to prove they will come up with something

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/...puties-and-got
nakelp86 is offline Find More Posts by nakelp86
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 09, 2013, 10:29 AM
DX5e fatal flaw- PM me!!!!
United States, NY, Cortland
Joined Sep 2010
2,839 Posts
RX brownout hits the 'big time'

http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dl...::pc=PC_101298

Intruder in the circuit

The operators of a remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) were lucky to feel only embarrassment rather than grief after their aircraft got lost near a busy aerodrome. It’s an example of why RPA operators must take them seriously as aircraft.

...

In July 2012, an RPA operator, preparing for its unmanned aircraft system (UAS) operator’s certificate application, managed to lose one of its RPA. The RPA ended up in the hands of the Royal Australian Air Force, which was alarmed to discover that it had flown across the final approach path to RAAF Edinburgh. There were training aircraft in the circuit at the time.

...

The operator told the CASA investigator: ‘our considered hypothesis is that the most likely cause of the fly-away was internal electrical noise causing the gimbal servos to chatter or move at random. This would cause excessive current demand from the BEC (battery eliminator circuit). The BEC voltage would drop and could cause the R/C (radio control) receiver to brown out’.

If power returned to normal after the R/C receiver was out of range the RPA would have reverted to fail safe mode, holding its control surface positions but shutting off the motor, the operator surmised.
CNY_Dave is offline Find More Posts by CNY_Dave
Last edited by CNY_Dave; Jan 09, 2013 at 10:30 AM. Reason: add link
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 09, 2013, 02:16 PM
OSUFPV - KF7VFT
Corvallis, OR
Joined Apr 2010
1,778 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CNY_Dave View Post
The operator told the CASA investigator: ‘our considered hypothesis is that the most likely cause of the fly-away was internal electrical noise causing the gimbal servos to chatter or move at random. This would cause excessive current demand from the BEC (battery eliminator circuit). The BEC voltage would drop and could cause the R/C (radio control) receiver to brown out’.
I think you're focusing too much on the brownout and ignoring the real
problem which was a totally unconfigured autopilot that took over control.
Had there been no autopilot to fly the plane it would have stayed under 100
feet and probably crashed into the approved airfield.

-Blues
Blueshy is offline Find More Posts by Blueshy
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 09, 2013, 02:26 PM
Registered Pilot
bmschulman's Avatar
United States, NY, New York
Joined Oct 2006
992 Posts
http://money.cnn.com/video/technolog...ney/index.html

More mainstream coverage, this one highlighting potential privacy concerns. They think they can use AP for "great production footage" -- I guess they aren't aware of the legal issues we have been talking about.
bmschulman is offline Find More Posts by bmschulman
RCG Plus Member
Old Jan 09, 2013, 02:43 PM
Registered User
San Marcos, CA
Joined Aug 2009
2,871 Posts
First of all, there are several key issues in this report:

1) They conducted trials in CONTROLLED AIRSPACE !!!
2) They conducted these flights near a Military Airbase.
3) They UAV was considered to fly below 100ft and in a 300m radius .. since it drifted in over 400ft - 1100ft altitude uncontrolled, I would highly agree that this UAV was not ready to fly at all. No autopilot, no fail-safe configured, nothing. As soon the control link kicked out, it should have stopped the motor(s) .. I don't know how much time we put in testing and testing and testing before we even attempt to fly our stuff..

To blame the BEC for the issue is just an lame excuse. Overall I would say the UAV was not fit to be an UAV... if the Gimbal / Servo's produce such an excess draw of amps, clearly the UAV was not tested enough.

On top of this, it was a "commercial" (or to-be) operator with proper licensing. I think this was 100% operator fault on different levels.

Sad that these examples always surface first and really give the "other" sides more arguments ...
flyandi is offline Find More Posts by flyandi
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 09, 2013, 03:02 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
29,108 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyandi View Post
Sad that these examples always surface first and really give the "other" sides more arguments ...
Normal safe operation of <insert anything> doesn't make news.
Daemon is online now Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Old Jan 09, 2013, 04:15 PM
DX5e fatal flaw- PM me!!!!
United States, NY, Cortland
Joined Sep 2010
2,839 Posts
I was just reveling in the term 'brownout' hitting the mainstream news!

The rest wasn't 'big news' to me as I follow these cases pretty closely, and see plenty of 'em.
CNY_Dave is offline Find More Posts by CNY_Dave
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 09, 2013, 06:12 PM
OSUFPV - KF7VFT
Corvallis, OR
Joined Apr 2010
1,778 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CNY_Dave View Post
I was just reveling in the term 'brownout' hitting the mainstream news!
$20 he was using a spectrum receiver.

-Blues
Blueshy is offline Find More Posts by Blueshy
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 09, 2013, 06:34 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
29,108 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueshy View Post
$20 he was using a spectrum receiver.

-Blues
Bet you're right. "Brownout" is the fallback explanation for all Spektrum related failures.
We don't see that excuse used for many other control systems.

ian
Daemon is online now Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Old Jan 10, 2013, 07:39 PM
SlowStick Test Pilot
patrickegan's Avatar
Yumastan RCAPA.NET
Joined Feb 2003
5,999 Posts
Good podcast with ex-uapo head Doug Davis

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/suasnew...as-initiatives
patrickegan is offline Find More Posts by patrickegan
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2013, 10:28 AM
DX5e fatal flaw- PM me!!!!
United States, NY, Cortland
Joined Sep 2010
2,839 Posts
Going to need a state laws thread, or state-by-state:

Indiana bill SB20:

"Summary of Legislation: This bill provides that a person who knowingly or intentionally uses an unmanned
aerial vehicle to monitor a person, property, or thing without the written consent of the subject of the
monitoring commits a Class D felony.

It also provides that images or communications obtained through the
use of an unmanned aerial vehicle are not admissible as evidence.

The bill provides that a person who possesses an image or communications obtained through the use of an
unmanned aerial vehicle commits a Class A misdemeanor."

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/...SB0020.001.pdf


I'd say SB20 is worth looking at...
CNY_Dave is offline Find More Posts by CNY_Dave
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2013, 11:15 AM
Rocket Programmer
jasmine2501's Avatar
United States, AZ, Mesa
Joined Jul 2007
25,460 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CNY_Dave View Post
Going to need a state laws thread, or state-by-state:

Indiana bill SB20:

"Summary of Legislation: This bill provides that a person who knowingly or intentionally uses an unmanned
aerial vehicle to monitor a person, property, or thing without the written consent of the subject of the
monitoring commits a Class D felony.

It also provides that images or communications obtained through the
use of an unmanned aerial vehicle are not admissible as evidence.

The bill provides that a person who possesses an image or communications obtained through the use of an
unmanned aerial vehicle commits a Class A misdemeanor."

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/...SB0020.001.pdf


I'd say SB20 is worth looking at...
Redundant, isn't it? The fact that you used a vehicle in combination with the camera doesn't change that you did illegal photography.
jasmine2501 is offline Find More Posts by jasmine2501
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Poll Proposed U.S. FPV Guidelines - Max Range Gary Evans FPV Talk 65 Aug 10, 2008 03:27 AM
Poll Proposed U.S. FPV Guidelines - Max Weight Gary Evans FPV Talk 16 Jul 30, 2008 02:30 PM
Poll Proposed U.S. FPV Guidelines - Max Altitude Gary Evans FPV Talk 52 Jul 30, 2008 02:05 PM