HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
This thread is privately moderated by Gary Evans, who may elect to delete unwanted replies.
Old Feb 12, 2013, 02:51 PM
OSUFPV - KF7VFT
Corvallis, OR
Joined Apr 2010
1,778 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Mortimer View Post
I think the most interesting thing about that document, besides them apparently
giving up on hobbyists and saying to use AC91-57, is the definitions at the end.

Visual Line-of-Sight:
Unaided (corrective lenses and/or sunglasses exempted) visual contact between a PIC or a VO and a UAS sufficient to maintain safe operational control of the aircraft, know its location, and be able to scan the airspace in which it is operating to see and avoid other air traffic or objects aloft or on the ground.

Populated or Urban Areas:
Areas depicted in yellow on a Visual Flight Rules (VFR) sectional chart or as determined from other sources.

Observer: A trained person who assists a UAS pilot in the duties associated with collision avoidance and navigational awareness through electronic or visual means. (Collision avoidance includes, but is not limited to, avoidance of other traffic, clouds, obstructions, terrain and navigational awareness.) A visual observer (VO) is a trained person who assists the UAS pilot by visual means in the duties associated with collision avoidance. A VO includes the OPA pilot when the OPA is being operated as a UAS.

Daisy-Chaining: Aviation jargon for the use of multiple, successive observers to extend the flight of a UA beyond the direct visual line-of-sight of any other PIC or VO.

The last one in particular. The rest are just finally definitions the FAA has
come up with for some terms we have been arguing about.

-Blues
Blueshy is offline Find More Posts by Blueshy
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Feb 12, 2013, 02:59 PM
FPV Browncoat
prelator's Avatar
United States, CO, Parker
Joined Mar 2011
1,554 Posts
Very interesting.

Key takeaways:

1. Amateur model aircraft are excluded from this policy, so we don't need to worry about it directly. Of importance is the fact that modeling is defined only as "operating unmanned systems for sport and recreation." The only factor is the purpose of use, not specific flight parameters such as remaining within visual line of sight. So the FAA has still not adopted the congressional definition of model aircraft which includes the visual line of sight component. This means that as long as you're flying for recreational purposes, you can still fly beyond VLOS without going outside the definition of model aircraft.

2. We have a new definition of VLOS:
Quote:
Visual Line-of-Sight. Unaided (corrective lenses and/or sunglasses exempted) visual contact between a PIC or a VO and a UAS sufficient to maintain safe operational control of the aircraft, know its location, and be able to scan the airspace in which it is operating to see and avoid other air traffic or objects aloft or on the ground.
Looks like the AMA and FAA definitions of VLOS are now in sync. Elsewhere in the document though they limit VLOS operation to 1/2 mile when conducted by someone without a pilot's license.

3. While they list several "sense and avoid" methods that are not acceptable for see and avoid by themselves, I wonder how receptive they would be to a combination of multiple things, such as pan and tilt cameras plus a visual observer watching the airspace around the aircraft but not the aircraft itself, staying under 400 feet in unpopulated areas in class G airspace. Something worth thinking about.
prelator is offline Find More Posts by prelator
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 02:59 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
28,897 Posts
Note there's still no obvious provision for commercial operation. Civil operations
seem to only cover R&D, crew training..etc.
And check out the PIC certification requirements if you ever choose to not operate
under the amateur exemption. Need a pilots license unless you
fly only daytime/under 1/2 mile/under 400ft.. period (I fly regular
RC sailplanes further than that), and even the non-pilot's license requirements
are pretty nutty.

There's a lot of wiggle room (possible exemptions as the technology matures) but
some of the core stuff is pretty silly.

ian
Daemon is online now Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Old Feb 12, 2013, 03:50 PM
DX5e fatal flaw- PM me!!!!
United States, NY, Cortland
Joined Sep 2010
2,839 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyandi View Post
Ok - here is a scary part:



Drone Power to the Government?
I think only gov't vehicles can use due regard because only the gov't (DoD and DHS really here, NASA for it's Ikhana too) can assume the liability without some sort of insurance.
CNY_Dave is offline Find More Posts by CNY_Dave
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 03:53 PM
DX5e fatal flaw- PM me!!!!
United States, NY, Cortland
Joined Sep 2010
2,839 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemon View Post
I wasn't saying you'd rely on the transponder to sent its position. ATC radar knows its
position, transponder is only sending out altitude. ATC data is available on the internet.
Basically you'd take the same raw data that goes into the flight tracker website
and combine it with your UAV's telemetry data to warn you when they're
in the same area of the sky at close altitudes. Yes there's some gaps for certain
aircraft, and location but it's better than nothing, and gets better the higher you fly
where arguably people are the most concerned about it.

ian

Even worse than using ADS-B, I fear.

The feed the FAA puts out is delayed by 15 minutes, and only contains flights that have been issued Mode-A codes by HOST, so only IFR flights and VFR flights that are receiving services. No VFR flights, no flights without transponders, and other flights may be excluded at the owners request.

The FAA won't release the live, up-to-date, scan-by-scan feed to anyone.

In the future ADS-B in could be used, where all traffic data is sent up to aircraft capable of receiving it.
CNY_Dave is offline Find More Posts by CNY_Dave
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 04:16 PM
Keep Calm, and Carry On...
seearestacey's Avatar
United States, UT
Joined Feb 2012
425 Posts
Could we propose to the FAA that FPV'ers could get an FPV license? You would get a HAM radio license and an FPV license. The license would be similar to a pilots license, wherein you would have to follow certain rules. No flying next to landmarks or near airports, staying within "Class G" airspace, ect, ect....
seearestacey is offline Find More Posts by seearestacey
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 04:24 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
28,897 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CNY_Dave View Post
The FAA won't release the live, up-to-date, scan-by-scan feed to anyone.
Without a complete live picture of at least your area, then what we're talking about
really just isn't possible. People keep acting like eyes are infallible in the "see and avoid"
equation, but they are really pretty dreadful for this sort of task. I think realistically
VFR pilots rely a lot more on the "big sky" principle than they'll ever admit.

ian
Daemon is online now Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Old Feb 12, 2013, 05:26 PM
Registered User
San Marcos, CA
Joined Aug 2009
2,866 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by seearestacey View Post
Could we propose to the FAA that FPV'ers could get an FPV license? You would get a HAM radio license and an FPV license. The license would be similar to a pilots license, wherein you would have to follow certain rules. No flying next to landmarks or near airports, staying within "Class G" airspace, ect, ect....
unrealistic and unnecessary .. Ultralight are exempt and the only thing you need is a Driver License to fly one .. it's called Amateur Aviation for a reason!
flyandi is offline Find More Posts by flyandi
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 05:27 PM
Registered User
San Marcos, CA
Joined Aug 2009
2,866 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemon View Post
Without a complete live picture of at least your area, then what we're talking about
really just isn't possible. People keep acting like eyes are infallible in the "see and avoid"
equation, but they are really pretty dreadful for this sort of task. I think realistically
VFR pilots rely a lot more on the "big sky" principle than they'll ever admit.

ian
You can buy a ADB-S receiver on eBay for $99 and see all live traffic within 150nm...
flyandi is offline Find More Posts by flyandi
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2013, 05:32 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
28,897 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyandi View Post
You can buy a ADB-S receiver on eBay for $99 and see all live traffic within 150nm...
Only if "all live traffic" is also so equipped.
Daemon is online now Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Old Feb 12, 2013, 05:39 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
28,897 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyandi View Post
unrealistic and unnecessary .. Ultralight are exempt and the only thing you need is a Driver License to fly one .. it's called Amateur Aviation for a reason!
True ultralights don't even require a driver's license to operate. You may be thinking of new Sport Pilot class.

ian
Daemon is online now Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Old Feb 13, 2013, 01:45 AM
Registered User
atckirk's Avatar
Poway, CA USA
Joined May 2001
198 Posts
I'm an Air Traffic Controller in Socal and am trying to get on a UAS project in a few months:

1 UAS TCRG Research Task UAS-12-01a (Determine Minimum SAA Information for Collision Avoidance)

1.1 Requirement
This event consists of a Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) simulation to research minimum sense and avoid (SAA) information for collision avoidance. The event is a pilot-centric HITL, with data collected on pilot activities. The SMEs will participate in the controller role for the HITL. Data will not be collected on the controller activities.

Hopefully I can get on this project and find out some good info!
atckirk is offline Find More Posts by atckirk
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2013, 09:15 AM
FPV Browncoat
prelator's Avatar
United States, CO, Parker
Joined Mar 2011
1,554 Posts
Huh. You would think they would have studied that BEFORE declaring that cameras a per se inadequate to sense and avoid now wouldn't you?
prelator is offline Find More Posts by prelator
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2013, 12:35 AM
Registered User
Joined Nov 2012
6 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemon View Post
Note there's still no obvious provision for commercial operation. Civil operations
seem to only cover R&D, crew training..etc.
And check out the PIC certification requirements if you ever choose to not operate
under the amateur exemption. Need a pilots license unless you
fly only daytime/under 1/2 mile/under 400ft.. period (I fly regular
RC sailplanes further than that), and even the non-pilot's license requirements
are pretty nutty.

There's a lot of wiggle room (possible exemptions as the technology matures) but
some of the core stuff is pretty silly.

ian
I'd say there's no provision for commercial operations, period. This is strictly for government agencies applying for COAs, or those crazy enough to try for experimental certification. As I read this, even if you fly within 1/2-mile, and under 400 ft. AGL, you still need a certificate showing you've passed the private pilot's written exam.... and you need to provide airworthiness/maintenance information, regular written reports about usage ...and prove that you've done at least three takeoffs and landings within the past 90 days to prove your pilot competence. Even if you're only flying a 1 kg foam plane, or an AR Drone.

This is not a serious document. In fact, it could be interpreted as the FAA thumbing their noses at at least two sections of the 2012 FAA Reform and Reauthorization Act:

Section 333: Where the FAA was supposed to issue guidelines by August 2012 under which certain small UAS could operate before the full 2015 commercial implementation.

Section 334: Where the FAA was supposed to make it easier for public agencies to use small UAS.
leszekmp is offline Find More Posts by leszekmp
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2013, 02:18 AM
Registered User
San Marcos, CA
Joined Aug 2009
2,866 Posts
Yeah - but the document clearly states that Hobbyist are exempt and fall under AC91-57 .. what else do we want?
flyandi is offline Find More Posts by flyandi
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