RCAPA/ASTM Committee F38 on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles meeting update- - RC Groups
Thread Tools
May 16, 2005, 04:56 PM
SlowStick Test Pilot
patrickegan's Avatar

RCAPA/ASTM Committee F38 on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles meeting update-

RCAPA makes a big showing with 8 members total attending. In the first photo from left to right-
Rick, Jeff (rear), Gene, Patrick (rear), Curt, Dan and Jason, not pictured is David Grilley (Grizz).
In attendance are representatives but not limited to Bell Helicopter, Yamaha, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, OSD, DoD and the Navy. Thus far it’s a bunch of acronyms and getting to know you. The buzz is lets change the name from UAV to UAS (unmanned aerial system). I guess the reasoning behind the name change is it’s not just flying, boy the old Slow Stick just sounds more high tech by the minute. Jason has put together a nice power point presentation and is on the agenda to speak for RCAPA and the under 55lbs. segment in the F 38.01 Airworthiness Subcommittee meeting. I’ll report later on how that went.

Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
May 17, 2005, 11:51 AM
SlowStick Test Pilot
patrickegan's Avatar
F38.01 Airworthiness Subcommittee

Well what can I say, I think Jason wowed them with a presentation including some nice pictures (taken by RCAPA Shootout winners Carlos and Jeff) and the platforms that take them. More questions than answers, Jason got cut short on the answer part due to time constraints as the meeting ran 2 hours long.

Proposed classifications-

Micro-UAS max GW 10lb The only guy that backed us up on this one was Ed A. representing the Navy but alas this idea has been dumped.

Mini-UAS max GW 55 Lb

Looks like it will be 55Lbs and under but-

In the commercial sense your UAV will need to “Sense & avoid” other aircraft.

F38.02 and F38.03 updates to follow.
May 17, 2005, 12:04 PM
Old Timer
California Condor's Avatar
Nano UAS MAX GW 2 pounds YES! YES! (no restristions)
Last edited by California Condor; May 17, 2005 at 02:08 PM.
May 17, 2005, 01:46 PM
Suspended Account
Are these rules going to apply to anyone that carries an onboard camera or just the ones that do this for profit? There are several in these threads that do it for personal gain but most only do it as a hobby or to have something of interest to post. I've kicked around the idea of doing AP for money but I doubt I'd make enough to be anywhere near profitable. Most of what I'd consider doing is like maybe the occasional farm property or something like that. Seeing as my plane is so large my options would be limited to spots out in the sticks.
May 17, 2005, 02:23 PM
Myron's Avatar
From current available info and what has been discussed here and at RCAPA, these regs will only affect "commercial" operators of UAS's that are doing this for hire. Now as time progresses the FAA could easlily change things up a bit. I know that many of the hobbiest out there dont agree with RCAPA's stance on being pro active with the FAA, but it is a necessity for future growth of AP and the use of model aircraft for more that just leisure. I know that the majority of the guys here do this AP thing just for fun and hopefuly we/they/us (however you look at it) will be able to continue to do so.
I spoke with one of the guys there and the FAA seems to want to make it difficult for everyone to be able to get a "start up" company off the ground(pun intented!).
My impression of the conversation was that the FAA really has a HUGE task ahead of them and they want to scare people out of trying to build a successfull business using our airspace by proposing VERY outlandish regulations and certifications..

May 17, 2005, 03:17 PM
Registered User
typicalaimster's Avatar
Originally Posted by Myron
I spoke with one of the guys there and the FAA seems to want to make it difficult for everyone to be able to get a "start up" company off the ground(pun intented!).
Well better to keep the bad Start-Ups on the ground. It appears that UAS's are the latest trend. In alot of ways it resembles the tech boom of 2000. Although I'm more the hobby part of UAS's it's good to see the RCAPA is making a stance. Especially since the other unsaid group turned their back.

--Scott Fuller
May 17, 2005, 10:49 PM
evermax's Avatar
“Sense & avoid” ??

Is that refer to electronic “Sense & avoid” or visual.
Is there even a way to electronicly sense other than onboard radar?

Not sure my slow stick could even get out of the way of an incomming jet aircraft fast enough.

Did the mention of submittal of flight plans prior to a UAS flight come up.

Anyway Thank You for the time/money invested in the trip.

May 18, 2005, 12:24 AM
LuftAdler's Avatar
[QUOTE}Not sure my slow stick could even get out of the way of an incoming jet aircraft fast enough. [/QUOTE]

Hopefully you don't have jets zooming around Class G (talking the 0-1200 AGL flavor of Class G now not the 14500 MSL flavor ) airspace at full throttle. That would be pretty unwise on their part. It would also be unwise if you were flying RC in Class B/C/D/E airspace around an airport at any altitude since this airspace usually goes all the way down to the ground around aerial port facilities.

Not sure what airspace is around your community and locations that you fly? Invest in an FAA aeronautical sectional chart for your area. There cheap and can be had for $8.00 at most aviation on-line stores.

Simple common sense rules need only apply here, no fancy hardware.

1. Fly ONLY in Class G (uncontrolled) airspace below 1200 feet AGL. (commercial AP is kind of useless above this altitude anyway)
2. Adhere to the same VFR rules as pilots in this class of airspace. Don't fly into clouds and maintain 1 mile visibility around your aircraft.
3. If you see another aircraft approaching. Don't try to avoid horizontally, avoid vertically. You can bring an SS down from 1200 to 100 in less than 30 seconds.

Last edited by LuftAdler; May 18, 2005 at 12:51 AM.
May 18, 2005, 12:47 AM
SlowStick Test Pilot
patrickegan's Avatar
CC- Nano was suggested and shot right down.

I’m paraphrasing but it was stated that if you are doing it for a buck your going to be regulated, end of story.

randall- see above

typicalaimster- small companies will have a hard time with what is proposed.

evermax- With the UAS (last weeks UAV) LOS is see and avoid your and other aircraft after LOS then it is radar or electronic.(sense & avoid) I had lunch with the Vice-chair of the committee and the good news is there’s a company that makes a cheap sensor they haven’t got the avoid part worked out but hey what do you want for $25,000?

p.s. Thanks for the thanks

How does a commercial rating grab you to take pictures for profit?

In the attached photo Jason is running over the proposed classification and ratings chart. Oh what fun was had by all- P
Last edited by patrickegan; May 18, 2005 at 01:58 AM.
May 18, 2005, 12:55 AM
LuftAdler's Avatar
Like I said, for us it's see and avoid.

How about posting those powerpoint slides so we can see what was briefed. The photos of the presentation are a little hard to read .
May 18, 2005, 01:19 AM
SlowStick Test Pilot
patrickegan's Avatar
those are ASTM slides in the last photo and I don't have them. The RCAPA stuff we might be able to have Jason post. P
May 18, 2005, 08:59 AM
dusty bible = dirty life
Majortomski's Avatar
I think it is absolutely GREAT that RCAPA got involved in this on the ground floor and made a positve input for the little guy!
May 18, 2005, 10:38 AM
Registered User
I'm glad you guys are there too. Can you hazard a guess at what kind of regulation you think will come out at the end? It seems to me that the regulation proposed will be a bit extreme. No difference between a 55lb model and a 2lb model?

For example, that kite-e plane Bar-Stool is working on is not much different than a plain old kite, yet that would be in the same class as a 55lb plane?

May 18, 2005, 11:41 AM
SlowStick Test Pilot
patrickegan's Avatar
halljb- I don’t know if a string is considered remote control or autonomous operation.
May 18, 2005, 11:47 AM
Suspended Account
So I guess in the end it will be a means to keep the honest guys honest just as most rules are, haha.
It will be sort of like the IRS trying to keep track of all the kids mowing grass after school, a noble principle but hard to enforce and regulate. The few that are actually caught will be made an example of and the rest will keep doing what they're doing.
Looks like the FAA will have to start asking for more funds to track those dastardly AP fliers and their little slow sticks, hehehe.

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) mcu-electric Site Chat 15 Jan 25, 2003 10:14 PM
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles AirVenture Life, The Universe, and Politics 3 Sep 09, 2002 05:25 PM