rrTV-PHOTO   New HD TV
HOME   rrTV-PHOTO   GALLERIES   MY GALLERY   HELP-FAQ
myHOME PM pmRR MEMBERS 702 ONLINE 19 EVENTS SEARCH REGISTER  START HERE
 
3 pages [ <<    <    ( 1 )     2      3     NEXT    >> ]1973 viewsPOST REPLY
Midland Helicopters . HeliProz . ZoomsHobbies

.
.
Aerial Photography and Video > FAA: we ALL fly UAVs - have your say now or else!
 
 
FlightPower
Veteran
Location: Herts UK

This is part of an FAA document describing their understanding of UAVs prior to annoucing regulation of their use. It includes all of us.

d.  The phrase “Unmanned Aerospace Vehicle (UAV)” is a universally recognized term that encompasses a vast spectrum of aircraft that are autonomous, semiautonomous, or remotely operated.  Many other terms are used interchangeably, some intended to be synonymous with UAV, while others apply a separate meaning.  For example, the term, Remote Operated Aircraft, has been used synonymously with UAV.  It also has been used to identify several high-altitude, long range UAV-type aircraft.  AFS-820’s intent is to document all use of, and develop policy for, all UAV-type aircraft, regardless of the marketing or design phraseology used.  Therefore, all inquiries using UAV-type phraseology are to be forwarded to AFS-820.  Examples include:  Unoccupied Aerospace Vehicle, Remote Controlled Vehicle, Remote Piloted Vehicle, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, Radio Controlled aircraft, etc.


The link below is the full text with contact details. Unless these guys understand the distinction between a Rappy with a digital camera strapped on and a full blown Autonomous UAV and soon, then the majority of participants in this forum are due to be grounded by an overwhelming mass of inappropriate and unnecessary regulation.

So far the only people lobbying the FAA are guys who produce or operate full-blown UAVs and who are more than happy to see this devastation occur

Hint: These guys need to hear about the concept of a Class 1 "UAV" manually supervised air vehicle that is adequately covered by exsisting regs. and a Class 2 UAV - an Autonomous UAV - something that needs to be supported by an organisation capable of setting missions and planning safety protocols for Autonomous flight - i.e. nothing whatsoever to do with a helicam, commercial or otherwise.

http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/notices/8700/N 8700-25.htm

Thank you,

Julian
06-23-2004 Over year old.
 
 
Sar
Elite Veteran
Location: Kingston, NY

Quote 

NOTE: This notice does not apply to the recreational, noncommercial use of model aircraft. It is not intended to inhibit or restrict the routine operation of model aircraft for recreational purposes. (The Academy of Model Aeronautics, in part, defines model aircraft as weighing less than 55 pounds and being operated below 400 feet above ground level.) Additional guidance for the operation of these aircraft is provided in Advisory Circular AC 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards, dated June 9, 1981.


The people who are at risk from this FAA proceeding are those who use airborne cameras for commercial purposes, just to clarify and dispell panic from non-commercial fliers. commercial airborne camera folks should be worried though from what I read.

--
Jon
06-23-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
fitenfyr
rrProfessor
Location: Port Orchard, Washington

Hmmmm.....

Quote 
NOTE: This notice does not apply to the recreational, noncommercial use of model aircraft. It is not intended to inhibit or restrict the routine operation of model aircraft for recreational purposes. (The Academy of Model Aeronautics, in part, defines model aircraft as weighing less than 55 pounds and being operated below 400 feet above ground level.) Additional guidance for the operation of these aircraft is provided in Advisory Circular AC 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards, dated June 9, 1981.


Well that pretty much sums up what MOST of the people here are doing.
I really don't see this as an issue in the US.
In fact I would like myself to see a more "licensed" approach to Recreational R/C.
Some sort of basic understanding test and rules. Similar to the Amature radio licensing.
It would tend to weed out a bunch of the "problems" with irresponsible people flying with little knowledge or worse yet regard for saftey.

Jason Stiffey
Fly Fast....Live Slow...
06-23-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
Sar
Elite Veteran
Location: Kingston, NY

That can be done without involving the goverment.... why the heck would you want the feds running R/C airfields? Then you need your AMA card, yearly renewal to your R/C pilots license and 15,000 other administrative fees and taxes. Bad idea to even consider involving the feds.

--
Jon
06-23-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
fitenfyr
rrProfessor
Location: Port Orchard, Washington

Ahhhh...

but if you carried a federal license and could show some form of training I bet insurance would be a non-issue (meaning you could get it) and the AMA would not be necessary for these ventures. They won't help much with a commercial venture now anyhow.

Is it really that big of a hassle to renew your drivers license, concealed weapons permit, Pilot's license?
To me these are all EASY to accomplish and have some value behind them when looked at by anyone.
My AMA card is pretty much useless anywhere but at the field.

I will not get into a pissing contest about this.
I am all for a licensed UAV operator to include any camera platform used for commercial purposes so long as they keep the process obtainable to the small operator and from what I read that is the FAA's attempt.
This notice is for Flight standards offices to start submitting information not to create a regulation next week.

Nuff said by me.

Jason Stiffey
Fly Fast....Live Slow...
06-23-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
FlightPower
Veteran
Location: Herts UK

- which is fine unless they end up defining a commercial UAV as something that is merely capable of carrying a useful payload.

But I take Sar's point, this is primarily problem for anyone who is interested in commercial aerial photography either now or in the future.

Julian
06-23-2004 Over year old.
 
 
FlightPower
Veteran
Location: Herts UK

 
fitenfyr

Don't be fooled by this, this is not a license to help people get insurance to operate a simple camera ship. This is about getting mandated to build an organisation capable of operating a full UAV when you don't have a full UAV to justify the expense and total comitment involved. This kind of thing has already wiped out commercial aerial photography in Australia - and according to mfouche the FAA actively admire what the Aussies have done.

Julian
06-23-2004 Over year old.
 
 
fitenfyr
rrProfessor
Location: Port Orchard, Washington

Is that so wrong?

Quote 
- which is fine unless they end up defining a commercial UAV as something that is merely capable of carrying a useful payload.


I guess I will just have to wait and see. IMO there is little wrong with trying to keep track of these kinds of projects.
In this day and age there are too many "what if's" regarding UAV's and such and the potential of these aircraft is growing exponentially (sp). Heck there are UAV's out there as big as an F-16.
Do you really want you neighbor building something like that without any kind of licensing requirement or inspection?
The experimental aircraft boom in the US is not too far off from what I see here. They are doing well and have no problems what makes you think it would be any different for UAV's?

I agree that this is an issue to have a fair amount of public/user input on, but not to fight completely.

Jason Stiffey
Fly Fast....Live Slow...
06-23-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
MPA
Elite Veteran
Location: Australia

Quote 
Heck there are UAV's out there as big as an F-16.


What does that have to do with RC helicopters with cameras ?

Quote 
Do you really want you neighbor building something like that without any kind of licensing requirement or inspection?


Perhaps you live next door to McDonal Douglas

The rest of us live next door to ordinary folks like those you find here with their Helicams.
06-23-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
FlightPower
Veteran
Location: Herts UK

this is what is wrong

Forget the day to day issues with rotorblade safety for a minute.

An Autonomous UAV has useful functions but in the wrong hands it is capable of being abused in the manner of a powerful weapon i.e. an accurate guided missile that can cover a distance of several miles, tens of miles or more depending only on fuel capacity. Or as a drug-running tool etc etc. Society has a reasonable need to know who as got one of these things, what their quaifications are, why they have it and where it will be operated.

A radio controlled model helicopter modified to carry a camera and operate in the line of sight of the operator i.e. a helicam poses no such new or extraordinary threat potential. In fact AMA guidelines and civil law already provide amply for the warning and prosecution respectively of would be idiots.

Yet these two distinctly different types of devices are about to be grouped together in a catagory called "UAV". If you actually have a UAV maybe that's fine. If you don't have a UAV then the cosiderations are likely to prove a show-stopper as seen in Australia.

Julian
06-23-2004 Over year old.
 
 
Freya
Senior Heliman
Location: Seattle, Washington

What you are all missing here is that the government should have no authority whatever to affect the lawful operation of a model. Passing more laws and regulations can never stop the commission of a crime or stupidity. It is illegal to shoot someone but it happens all the time. Did the speed limit ever keep your car from exceeding it. What this really is, is a way to potentially get more revenue!
06-23-2004 Over year old.
 
 
drsuessmn
Veteran
Location: Ellendale Minnesota USA

on the subject of licensing and to solve your what ifs let propose a scenario

What if AMA required pilots of their respective aircraft to perform a practical ability test both written and flying test the pilot in question would have to be allowed a permit after passing written and then can only fly under super vision of a licensed pilot of so much experience (years , different grades of flying tests or something like that) or be hooked to a buddy box with a licensed pilot that way our AMA would go down or stay the same insurance would go down and accidents may be less likely (not necessarily but maybe) if they went with different grades of licenses the revenue genereated from higher classes could pay for instructor certification Just a thought curious what yall think cuz I think if they can pull off regulating helis with cams theyll go after helis without cams after that thats how the us gov works
06-23-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
JohnC
Veteran
Location: East Yorkshire, England

I think the key point here is to get the correct distinction between a UAV aircraft and an RPV aircraft defined from the start so that rules then applied to one do not automatically apply to the other.

For start, the names do not help. All RPVs are UAVs. This may be OK for people who are in the know, but they will get clumped together by someone who sits behind a desk writing regulations.

I have quite a few years experience working on 'black box' aircraft system software (including some classed as 'safety critical'). The procedure involved to get flight clearance for the systems is beyond the scope of this forum, but it often boils down to this:

If final decision for something to actually happen is taken by the human pilot then the aircraft system involved is not critical to safety.

This is not quite as straightforward as it sounds for our RPV's - but I believe the principle involved is a good start point for making a distinction.

Maybe it would be useful to always refer to autonomously controlled vehicles as AUAVs rather than UAVs as it makes a specific distinction.

I believe that the increasing electronic assistance available to RPV pilots makes things safer rather than the other way around - as long as the system is designed correctly. The MAJOR concern I have is that the people making these systems are completely uncontrolled. You can write what you like on a web-site - but it doesn't mean the system is safe. Normal aircraft software companies must all be approved, and are subject to regular quality control audits.

I think that eventually, AUAV systems will be governed by the same development regulations as those for normal aircraft. However, at this point in time we are moving much faster than the controlling bodies.

JohnC.
06-23-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
Angelos
Key Veteran
Location: nr Oxford, OX11, UK

I agree with JohnC that the distinction should be made between UAVs and AUAVs. However, still don’t see what makes a helicam a UAV or an RPV. To me it is still a model helicopter as long as it is in direct sign of operator and it is not controlled via a video link. It is not a UAV or an RPV. It is not a vehicle at all. My list is therefore as follows.

1. RC model when in direct sight of the pilot whether it is computer assisted or not. Heading hold gyros are computers therefore I don’t see why you can’t stabilize the other axis using inertial sensors and microprocessors. FMA co-pilot has a microcontroller in it but your heli does not become a UAV when you fit a co-pilot.

2. If an aircraft is piloted via a video link it is a UAV or RPV (whichever you like).

3. if an aircraft is entirely under computer control it is an AUAV.

-Angelos
06-23-2004 Over year old.
 
 
FlightPower
Veteran
Location: Herts UK

Personally I think the term UAV is completely unhelpful when it comes to describing modified RC model helicopters. It may sound fancy and exciting but governments hate the idea of exciting things in civilian hands.

UAV = Exciting = Dangerous = target for restrictive legislation

RPV = sounds a bit derivitive of UAV = Exciting (ditto)

Recreational model Helicopter with a consumer camera attached = novel combination of normal and familiar sounding things = trivial = waste of law enforcement and court time to legislate for.


I started this thread as a call to action.
Please will interested parties contact these guys:

John M. Allen  for
James J. Ballough
Director, Flight Standards Service

FAA, AFS-820 by telephone, 202-267-3370, or FAX, 202-267-5094.
 
And explain to them the difference between a UAV and what you use.

Thank you,
 

Julian
06-23-2004 Over year old.
 
 
FlightPower
Veteran
Location: Herts UK

Update

I have spoken with Glenn Rizner of the the FAA. Nice guy and more than willing to listen.

He is responsible for drawing up the UAV regs and he has a meeting tomorrow (24th June) on exactly this subject, i.e. the destinction between UAVs and non UAVs that do useful jobs - like helicams. He is keen on minimal effective regulation.

Have your say, he would appreciate your input:


Glenn Rizner, FAA

glenn.rizner@faa.gov
001 202 267 3370


FYI, for the Australians your man is:

Richard Macfarlan, CASA

macfarlane_r@casa.gov.au

(0) 2 6217 1118

Julian
06-23-2004 Over year old.
 
 
fitenfyr
rrProfessor
Location: Port Orchard, Washington

Message

I have a message into his voice mail as well.
Bet he was talking to you when I called.

Jason Stiffey
Fly Fast....Live Slow...
06-23-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
FlightPower
Veteran
Location: Herts UK

Can someone mail Glenn a link to "Mike's A List" you know the list of (non UAV) helicam guys all over the world - I couldn't find it on a quick web search and I have to leave the office now

This shold give him a real flavour of what's out there and he shoud be struck by the repeated message of "safety first" on practically every helicam operators web site.

Thank you

Julian
06-23-2004 Over year old.
 
 
fitenfyr
rrProfessor
Location: Port Orchard, Washington

Organize

This is where the organization that is forming will come in handy.
Present a well organized group to the FAA and they will listen.
I still think you guys should go for some sort of certification program in this.
I think it will lead to bigger and better things in the future along with a better public/customer image, but that is me.

Jason Stiffey
Fly Fast....Live Slow...
06-23-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
JohnC
Veteran
Location: East Yorkshire, England

Julian,

The email to glenn.rizner@faa.gov bounced. Are you sure it's right?
06-23-2004 Over year old.
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
3 pages [ <<    <    ( 1 )     2      3     NEXT    >> ]1973 viewsPOST REPLY
HeliHobby . Ron’s HeliProz South . Century Helicopter

.
.
Aerial Photography and Video > FAA: we ALL fly UAVs - have your say now or else!
 PRINT TOPIC Advertisers 

Subscribe to This Topic

Tuesday, December 2 - 4:43 pm - Copyright © 2000 - 2008 runryder.com | email | link to rr | runryder needs cookie