RunRyder - Houston UAVs getting poor press

rrTV-PHOTO

New HD TV

HOME rrTV-PHOTO GALLERIES MY GALLERY HELP-FAQ

myHOME PM pmRR MEMBERS 498 ONLINE 47 EVENTS SEARCH REGISTER START HERE

1 page

1323 views

POST REPLY

Advantage Hobby	.	Revolution Models	.	CarbonXtreme
	.		.

UAV Autonomous Unmanned Aerial Vehicles > Houston UAVs getting poor press

Mark C
Key Veteran
Location: Houston, TX - USA

Local news here.

http://www.click2houston.com/invest...115/detail.html

12-05-2007 03:17 PM

ErichF
Key Veteran
Location: Odessa, FL 33556 (Tampa Area)

Yes I read about this in my AOPA E-newsletter.

I'm about this [ ] close to dropping my AOPA membership (since 1995). They are so ignorant of the facts, blinded by their ignorant membership. AOPA referred to the operations as "against current FAA regulations..." Last I read from t he FAA, was a policy letter regarding the operation of unmanned aerial systems within the NAS...nothing to the level of an NPRM or federal regulation.

I don't know if the AOPA understands how many UAV operators and technicians are also full scale pilots and members. All this just to keep Joe Piper and Charlie Cessna able to bound across the countryside as they please without being "taken out" by one of those pesky "drones".

Erich

12-06-2007 01:23 AM

fitenfyr
rrProfessor
Location: Port Orchard, Washington

Interesting...I see a whole lot of bad ideas on both sides of that story.

I see the AOPA being stuck in a bad spot with regards to this.

It is way more political than safety related in my opinion.
However squaking safety concerns gets more flames going faster than saying you are taking away our rights.

If this story is 100% true (no media spin..yeah right.

) then the HPD was just plain wrong to approach this how they did.

Did anybody notice the radar on top of that truck?

Somehow I doubt those pilots were in as much danger as the station leads you to believe. Also notice they give ZERO relation to where they shot that 172 turing as compared to where they were operating the Scan Eagle.
They also do not show the area of operation for the UAS. It could have never left line of sight and easily away from any manned aircraft traffic.

However if they really did say they had restricted airspace without having an actual TFR or being in a restricted area (which that news copter would have been in SERIOUS violation of and the AOPA would have SCREAMED about) then the HPD has some 'splainin to do.

The way I see it you can't get an accurate picture of what is going on from this story.
Way too many gaps and certainly some visual spin thrown in.

Kudos to the Houston Mayor though. I felt his response to it was very professional.
He supported his public servants and at the same time upheld the best interests of the citizens.
I would vote for that guy.

Somewhat ironic though is just today I was invited to an up coming meeting involving yet another player in the standards world (the NIT), the Dept of Homeland Security and a branch of the Justice dept. Regarding the use of UAS for USAR and LE.
Small world......

Jason Stiffey
Fly Fast....Live Slow...

12-06-2007 02:10 AM

HOMEPAGE

fitenfyr
rrProfessor
Location: Port Orchard, Washington

kind of figured there was more to it than the story suggested.
From Insitu's site (the company that made the UAS and had all the cool trucks.

)
http://www.insitu.com/index.cfm?navid=192&cid=2114

Quote

Where was the demo flight conducted?

The demonstration flight took place in a remote area approximately 45 miles west of Houston. The flight was limited to a 2 mile radius from the launch and recovery site up to an altitude of 1000’ AGL.

Was the flight authorized by FAA?

The flight was conducted under the direction and supervision of the FAA. A Certificate of Authorization was issued for the demonstration flight for the period 0900-1200 CST on November 16th 2007.

Was the airspace “restricted” or given a TFR designation?

No. The airspace was open and available at all times to the flying public. However a NOTAM was posted advising all pilots that the activity was taking place.

How was the flying public protected from possible conflict with the UAV?

Many safeguards were in place. Several ground observers were positioned and maintained visual contact with the aircraft at all times. Ground radar was operational at the launch and recovery site and tracked all aircraft within a 12 mile radius. In addition, the onboard Mode C transponder was functioning allowing tracking of the aircraft by Houston TRACON throughout the flight.

Did the UAV fly over populated areas?

No. The aircraft remained over sparsely populated areas at all times. No conflicts occurred with other aircraft or persons/property on the ground.

Will there be more flights in the future?

Quite possibly. We will be working with HPD and FAA in the future to gather operational data and experience as rules and safety procedures for integrating UAV’s into the airspace are developed. All future flights will be conducted under the same restrictions and limitations imposed during the most recent activity.

Will the Houston Police Department be deploying UAV’s in the near future as a result of this demonstration?

No. Until regulations are developed to insure the safe integration of UAV’s into the airspace, unrestricted use of such systems will not be possible.

Insitu is a TOP NOTCH company and is providing UAS for the DOD on a regular basis.
I was pretty sure they were not going to compromise that reputation by doing the things suggested in the story.
Too bad the media has to spin everything these days.

Jason Stiffey
Fly Fast....Live Slow...

12-06-2007 03:26 AM

HOMEPAGE

Mark C
Key Veteran
Location: Houston, TX - USA

I gotta admit fitenfyr that Local 2 News here sides for the dramatic. I know for a fact that they have done "creative editing" on segments in the past.

Here is the earlier original story:

http://www.click2houston.com/invest...066/detail.html

It will be interesting to see this:

Quote
Houston police say they'll be testing a different sort of drone in the coming months. It's a hovering aircraft that can take pictures from above.

12-06-2007 03:41 AM

fitenfyr
rrProfessor
Location: Port Orchard, Washington

Anytime is see an "investigative" report by our current media my BS meter starts to move.

That earlier piece was even worse than the first one.

The world of UAS is VERY broad.
I had no idea just how broad and advanced until I started working with the ASTM.
It really opened my eyes to where this was all going..

I am betting it is one of the Dragonfly variants.
They were a big topic of discussion today in my conversation with the NIT rep.

Jason Stiffey
Fly Fast....Live Slow...

12-06-2007 03:45 AM

HOMEPAGE

eyeinsky
Senior Heliman
Location: Fall River, Nova Scotia, Canada

Sound like the press making big deal out of nothing. If this aircraft was operating as reported by press and the FAA was involve that would be neglect on there part but I don't think that was the case. Ground radar, transponder with mode C and ground spotters should be a good start. If they incorporated TCAS Traffic Avoidance System that work between equip aircrafts it should work pretty good. With this system it will maintain 1000ft resolution advisory to conflicting aircrafts. That would be the fail safe of course if air traffic control failed to maintain separation. I'm sure TCAS it will be incorperat in the future but not vet manditory on all piloted aircraft.

The pilot that was interviewed he seems to be concerned about some thing that would fly out of the local model airfield. I don’t think this was the case. It surly does not help any of trying to do little AP work at low level line of sight operation.

BAD PRESS

Hard job competing with gravity.

12-06-2007 04:26 AM

Flint325
Senior Heliman
Location: City, State - Country

The FAA will work with people, the sheriff’s should have contacted them first. Additionally, they could have petitioned for an exemption from certain parts of FAA regulations if they wanted to fly in “airspace”. I predict that before 2010 most all larger sheriff’s, state police and federal law enforcement agencies will have some type of remote vehicle to assist their operations, there is just the proper way to go about it. The sad thing here is some reporter got shunned and the whole thing was blown out of proportion. Just my view.