Considering MRF blastmail system to address FAA regulatory process but need your help

[Old Man]

I fear that you are correct in your assessment. If such is the case, the die has been cast, and it lumps us in with considerable more expensive and capable unmanned aircraft, constructed and certificated by the aerospace giants. Certificated is soon to become a very operative word.

 

[Ronan]

If the FAA tries to lump us with the big UAV's, they are going to get a really bad wake up call when the industries currently employing sUAV's come knocking at their door with pitch & forks.

Screwing the hobbyist is one thing, but those multi-billion industries aren't going to sit idle if they are forced to use (and pay) for large UAV's which would destroy the money saved using small sUAV's + disrupt their schedules.

 

[dmetz]

http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=77985

FAA Seeks Public Comment on Movie/TV UAS Exemptions

This may be our OPPORTUNITY guys.

It looks like we're going to get our opportunity down the road to offer public comment on the FAA proposed legislation pursuant to Section 333 of the Public Law 112-95 (attached). It might be too late for us to offer ideas but we can sure offer thoughts on what they've come up with.

From the FAA Press Release:

The agency expects to publish a broad proposed rule for small UAS (under 55 pounds) later this year. But the rulemaking process can be lengthy, so the FAA has been working for several months to implement the provisions of Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and move forward with UAS integration before proposing the small UAS rule.:

 

[Motopreserve]

I guess I am still unclear about the distinction they're making between similar craft being used for hobby or commercial use. It seems to me that any "safety" concerns would be dictated by the capability of the MR (to my logic, weight being the key difference because of payload, and therefore potential damage to vulnerable objects /persons below).

Im not sure I'm grasping the need to differentiate between 2 MRs that are both under 55lbs, but one is used for say photography / video of some scenic landscape for a movie, the other is just a kid flying in circles in the same field, who only wants to post it to youtube.

If the collective here wants to have a positive voice in this debate - it would seem important to distinguish the vast differences between the large and small craft - and their proposed uses. I'd assume folks like Kloner will have begun that with their petition for exemption/permission. Perhaps checking out their "legal arguments" would benefit the whole, since I'm assuming they employed an attorney or eight to help with the wording.

Bart: This is a LINK to the petition to sign through Change.org.

 

[dmetz]

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0396

I thought it might be helpful to post the direct URL for comment on Docket ID FAA-2014-0396 "Interpretation of the Special for Rule Model Aircraft". The link above takes you to the website for providing comment to be considered by the FAA. All comments are due by July 25, 2014.

I've read many of the comments there already. Some are reasonable...some are rather absurd. I don't think telling the FAA to get their head out of their a** is going to have much impact on the Interpretation.

On the other hand, any FPV user should be very familiar with AMA document 550 (attached). Conformance with this document is the only way that the FAA is going to consider that FPV can meet the provisions of the current law - section 336. I am not currently an FPV flier but have an interested for public safety applications such as search and rescue or even commercial application like systems/structure surveillance. Those activities will surely fall into commercial use and will be regulated so they don't really apply to this "Interpretation" but even on a recreational FPV level, the guidelines defined by AMA doc 550 seem reasonable.

I see only a few folks mentioning this document in their comments which is concerning. The "LAW" already requires Visual Line Of Sight (VLOS) so to make FPV operation in any way "legal", a spotter is a must.

Bart, you may want to include this link and the attached document in the other threads that deal with petitions and specifically with the subject of restricting FPV. I didn't want to cross-post.

 

[Old Man]

Thanks for posting that. I've made inferences the FAA will only consider people and equipment qualified under current FAA standards to operate commercially but the document lays out what is a hobby aircraft and that hobby aircraft are not commercial tools at this time. My view has the recent FAA activity further reinforcing this difference to absolutely assure that hobby aircraft are not viewed as or used as a commercial aircraft in commercial activities. They are also looking to eliminate FPV for the simple fact they know they cannot control the use of same if use of the equipment is legal in any way, spotter or no spotter. Further intent is to assure that people like Trappy and so many others that feel they can do what they want and whenever they want to will be in a position to face serious fines and jail time should they continue in their activities.

Essentially they are defining what is and isn't hobby in their view, and letting us know how we are going to operate in hobby activities. If our activities and/or equipment does not fit that profile we'll be classed very differently and subjected to all the rules and regulations contained in all the FAR's and AIM. That would be an extremely terrible thing to have occur since our aircraft would have to be certificated, maintain minimum equipment lists, maintain aircraft and engine logs, and moving to the operator, be commercial rated with accumulated flight time to qualify to fly for hire. Imagine having to obtain Private Pilot, Instrument ratings, and Commercial Pilot status before you could fly a 550 quad costing over $1 million because of certification costs.

The AMA established itself as the national organization developing hobby rules and operations with the FAA a couple years ago. That is not going to change anytime soon, if at all. What has changed is how we are being perceived due to the actions of those that think rules don't apply to them and post videos for the world to see that proves their point. Commercial activities are going to get hammered as things stand so our course going forward should be to work with the AMA and FAA, along with influential government representative to build a new set of rules and regulations that is more appropriate to what we do and use.

Ronan is 100% correct in his assessment of how the big sUAS players will react to a new set of rules that extends primarily to us. A fair number of their aircraft fit the <55lb rules and those big companies are the ones that have spent $ millions getting the rules changed to fit their aircraft and their ultra sophisticated equipment. We have our work cut out for us but that work is reduced if we can initiate discussions/opportunities for a sub class of <55lb aircraft that fits what we do, using altitude limitations that larger, more sophisticated sUAS can't really use because of maneuverability and line of sight issues in their ground station designs. At the moment the overseas market is rapidly shrinking for the big players due to wars winding down. That means their revenue stream is shrinking as well. They are absolutely looking to recapture that lost revenue in U.S. airspace, partially because they are restricted in who they can sell to. Most of their customer base will be here at home. We are a financial thorn in their side and I believe our best course is to minimize how much pain that thorn might cause them.

 

[gtranquilla]

I had a chance to talk to the Chief Operating Officer of ING Robotics (previously ING Engineering) while he was at the Global Petroleum Show in Calgary. Asked about his target market, he indicated that it had shifted away from Military and Navy towards commercial, hence their display booth at the GPS - Global Petroleum Show. http://ingrobotic.com/

Often a public organization opposed to a government action starts with a petition to bring the issue to the attention of the authorities. A petition can also offer a suggested better course of action. From there it escalates towards further action such as protest and/or legal action etc. Almost specific to USA government system there is also the lobbyist etc.

With a user base approaching 15,000 members I think it is time for a blastmail to address this issue. Maybe we can push the discussion in one direction or another.

What is the best point of attack though?

The REadyMadeRC petition? Maybe a simple form letter to the FAA that we can maybe generate a few thousand copies of from MRF members? Maybe a new petition using the website that the White House monitors (Change.org maybe, I forget what it's called). If we all signed it but then reached out to our customers and friends to sign it maybe we'd get enough hits to be noticed?

I can work on it today if it stays cloudy outside, it's not like I have anything else to do! :livid:

 

[Motopreserve]

A couple of the folks from the AMA will be talking about this subject during an online radio program at 8:30pm tonight.

You our can listen HERE.

 

[kloner]

wish i could talk guys but my hands are tied...... ball gagged

huge difference in big uav and suas were submitting.... everything exists today

 

[Bartman]

A couple of the folks from the AMA will be talking about this subject during an online radio program at 8:30pm tonight.

You our can listen HERE.

Thanks for posting that Scott, I'm listening now.

 

[dmetz]

Thanks for posting that. I've made inferences the FAA will only consider people and equipment qualified under current FAA standards to operate commercially but the document lays out what is a hobby aircraft and that hobby aircraft are not commercial tools at this time. My view has the recent FAA activity further reinforcing this difference to absolutely assure that hobby aircraft are not viewed as or used as a commercial aircraft in commercial activities. They are also looking to eliminate FPV for the simple fact they know they cannot control the use of same if use of the equipment is legal in any way, spotter or no spotter. Further intent is to assure that people like Trappy and so many others that feel they can do what they want and whenever they want to will be in a position to face serious fines and jail time should they continue in their activities......

I could not agree more with what you have outlined here. I think the FAA is very specifically intending to define what is hobby operation of a model aircraft so the road is well paved for their regulation and enforcement of EVERYTHING else as commercial. I agree with your assessment of FPV as well. It is just easier for the FAA to restrict it altogether. In all fairness to the FAA's concerns, I wonder how many people who currently operate FPV do so strictly in compliance with the AMA's document 550 which is the only formidable argument I see right now which might allow an operator to be in compliance with section 336.

It will be interesting to see what the FAA does with section 333 and their development of the commercial UAS rules. As a newcomer to the UAS industry, it would be nice to hear that the FAA had (or is) actively soliciting input from members of the MR community. The more research I do regarding that pending policy, the more I suspect, as you had said, that the dye has been cast already, though it was reported tonight that the FAA has said they will miss the 2015 deadline for rolling out those rules. That can't be great news for anyone who truly wants to comply as a commercial operator with rules that simply don't exist or as the FAA will contend, do exist, but arguably do nothing to facilitate the type of operations we might wish to do. The FARs in their current form are wholly restrictive for simple sUAS commercial operation.

 

[Av8Chuck]

I'm so swamped I would really like to weigh in on this but I have too much to do at the moment. But I want to give some food food for thought.

Although there are some great suggestions in this thread it really isn't up to individuals to tell the FAA what we think the rules should be, as citizens we have the right to make a living anyway we choose as long as it does't interfere with the rights of others so we need to inform the FAA of our planned vocation and its then up to them to figure out a way to make that happen so that our activities don't intrude on the rights of others.

I think if you want something to research and you want to be able to influence the process find out what it takes to develop a Political Action Committee PAC and see if there's any possibility of getting legal status so that it can have standing in a court of law. Find out if there are any attorneys willing to help.

GA has been decimated by overregulation, high fuel costs and unreasonable liability insurance. It has taken decades to create that pitiful environment and that's where we're starting from....

AOPA would be in the best position to help but most pilots appear to feel threatened by this situation so I wouldn't count on much help there but if you could get a PAC started with 20K members that might be enough to at least get there attention along with the EAA.

I too believe this is a forgone conclusion so I doubt petitions would have any effect, its time for attorneys and in order to get a law firm that has the balls to take this on they're going to want to know that they represent a committed group that is willing to not just sign a petition but will to stand up for their constitutional rights. Also, this is not idealogical if everyone would respect each others rights none of this would be happening but far too many people want to make this debate about what the rules should be rather than as small business people stating clearly what we want to accomplish. What problem are we off to solve.

In order to define our business goals in a way that would protect our rights is going to require organization and attorneys.

Kloner, I know I owe you a reply but I've just been buried.

 

[dmetz]

I'm so swamped I would really like to weigh in on this but I have too much to do at the moment. But I want to give some food food for thought.

Although there are some great suggestions in this thread it really isn't up to individuals to tell the FAA what we think the rules should be, as citizens we have the right to make a living anyway we choose as long as it does't interfere with the rights of others so we need to inform the FAA of our planned vocation and its then up to them to figure out a way to make that happen so that our activities don't intrude on the rights of others.

I think if you want something to research and you want to be able to influence the process find out what it takes to develop a Political Action Committee PAC and see if there's any possibility of getting legal status so that it can have standing in a court of law. Find out if there are any attorneys willing to help.

GA has been decimated by overregulation, high fuel costs and unreasonable liability insurance. It has taken decades to create that pitiful environment and that's where we're starting from....

AOPA would be in the best position to help but most pilots appear to feel threatened by this situation so I wouldn't count on much help there but if you could get a PAC started with 20K members that might be enough to at least get there attention along with the EAA.

I too believe this is a forgone conclusion so I doubt petitions would have any effect, its time for attorneys and in order to get a law firm that has the balls to take this on they're going to want to know that they represent a committed group that is willing to not just sign a petition but will to stand up for their constitutional rights. Also, this is not idealogical if everyone would respect each others rights none of this would be happening but far too many people want to make this debate about what the rules should be rather than as small business people stating clearly what we want to accomplish. What problem are we off to solve.

In order to define our business goals in a way that would protect our rights is going to require organization and attorneys.

Kloner, I know I owe you a reply but I've just been buried.

Thanks AV8Chuck for weighing in.

Actually, individuals can and do influence the rule making process at all levels of government. My career was in government service (public safety) and I had direct experience with legislative rulemaking, mostly at the local and state level, but we often times sought input from individuals. I agree with your comment that it is NOT an individual's role to tell the FAA what to do, but as a republic, citizens can and do have a responsibility for helping to structure law. That said, an individual with much clout in the process would normally be considered an expert in their field and thus might contribute unique experience or knowledge.

I could not agree more that input and influence from a well-recognized PAC, would carry significantly more weight than most any individual and the process of legislating is arduous and complex so, aside from commenting in a public comment period, like we have now with Docket ID FAA-2014-0396 "Interpretation of the Special for Rule Model Aircraft", a large, organized group with good legal and lobby representation is clearly preferred.

You mention the AOPA but as has already been discussed here, some feel that the AOPA could more likely be opposed or at least unwilling to endorse some of the positions a small commercial sUAS operator. t sould like you agree with that.

I'm not sure I agree with your final statement that if everyone respects each others rights, this would not be happening. Technology is what it is and the technology in the area of UAS has simply outpaced the FAA. As you know, they were charged by Congress in 2012 by Law to create rules to regulate the commercial use of UAS. I suspect, public incidents or not, the FAA would perceive a need to be proactive in legislating the operation of these aircraft. In other words, I think even if there was respect, consideration and good judgment all around, we would still see rules developed just for potentialities. The risk to life and property is just too high. Just my opinion here.

I do think a great place to begin with rulemaking is EXACTLY what you stated. "What problem are we off to solve?". I also think a key consideration in that rule-making process should be as you mentioned, "...as small business people stating clearly what we want to accomplish." Let's hope the FAA asked those questions already of folks involved in the industry with the knowledge and experience to provide that valuable input.

Are there any professional organizations that currently exists to support and further the interest of commercial sUAS photography and cinematography?

 

[Motopreserve]

Let's hope the FAA asked those questions already of folks involved in the industry with the knowledge and experience to provide that valuable input.

it seems to me that if the FAA had been interested in, and willing to get input from UAS industry people, they would have looked to study and research not only at their own quarantined facilities, but at "job sites" where this technology is being used successfully. I have not heard anything about folks from the FAA for instance heading out to Hollywood to check out the likes of Kloner, or to the fields of electrical towers that are being checked/monitored using UAS.

To me, this would have been a step in a direction that could lead to more educated and fair regulations. If the FAA is in fact determining the course for potential commercial uses - they should be studying those that are currently employing the technology commercially. The dedicated areas they've set up to "test" the tech are sure to provide data in a vacuum.

perhaps a way for small numbers of individuals to make a difference is to invite local legislators to come down and see this technology in a safe and professional setting, so that more people with "weight" can report back before finl decisions are made.

 

[dmetz]

..... To me, this would have been a step in a direction that could lead to more educated and fair regulations. If the FAA is in fact determining the course for potential commercial uses - they should be studying those that are currently employing the technology commercially. The dedicated areas they've set up to "test" the tech are sure to provide data in a vacuum.

perhaps a way for small numbers of individuals to make a difference is to invite local legislators to come down and see this technology in a safe and professional setting, so that more people with "weight" can report back before finl decisions are made.

Great points! It would be a FANTASTIC learning opportunity for some of the industry PRO's to do what you advocate here and as hungry as the press has been for information on UAS (drones), the local TV stations might very well jump on that photo op! Couple that with a beautiful demo reel and some industry FAQ's and that could have some impact. I wish I were experienced and knowledgeable enough in UAS to do this but I am not. I am a novice in this field. This is a great tactic though and has worked for other industries when trying to help legislators gain some insight and I have done that!

If there are any UAS "Professionals" operating in Central Florida, I would be more than willing to help arrange a coordinated "show and tell" with our local press and politicians. I could invite the Orlando Film Commission to be involved as well as they are always looking to facilitate local industry resources.

The only downfall I see to this relates to the current commercial environment. With the lack of FAA rules and guidance in the area of commercial UAS operation, the publicity could expose a business to unwanted scrutiny. People know that commercial application of UAS occurs and if fair legislation was already in place, we'd likely be in a much better place. Perhaps we could approach the demo from the standpoint of a "recreational" operator and discuss the various opportunities available for responsible commercial use?

 

[Motopreserve]

There may be some pilots who would be willing to show off their skills - possibly folks who are not doing this as a business (yet), but have the type of rigs that would be used for commercial AV/P. As long as they are not paid for the footage or their piloting, and do not use FPV, at this point they will be breaking no rules.

On a side note: the same people who host the podcast Bart and I linked to yesterday have some past episodes that deal with the FAA and AMA issues. I just listened to an older one that makes some great points about my questions regarding the commercial distinctions - and the host does it from the standpoint of a full-scale pilot who is able to take photos from his plane, but not his UAV. He mentions at one point that an FAA employee he spoke to, agreed that it made no sense to him either - and had no reasonable explanation.

Not very encouraging...

 

[Old Man]

The FAA has spent, and is likely still spending, considerable time inside the offices of the larger sUAS companies. They were provided demonstrations and operational training by at least one firm I can name. That is one of the big money aerospace companies that sat the board during the formative rule making process. There is at least one, possibly several more, FAA reps with sUAS experience and backgrounds in Florida. I have to be very careful with what and how I say things on the subject.

 

[Motopreserve]

The FAA has spent, and is likely still spending, considerable time inside the offices of the larger sUAS companies. They were provided demonstrations and operational training by at least one firm I can name. That is one of the big money aerospace companies that sat the board during the formative rule making process. There is at least one, possibly several more, FAA reps with sUAS experience and backgrounds in Florida. I have to be very careful with what and how I say things on the subject.

I was referring more to the small business uses (film production, real estate, smaller farms etc). I'm assuming from your guarded wording and references, you're speaking about much larger corporations. This comes back to what I was saying about the importance for a delineation between uses, and even the types/size of craft used for each purpose.

While safety should be paramount across the board - painting the entire industry with one broad stroke is a disservice to those trying to eke out a living with a $2k-$10k drone as opposed to the company (BP for example) purchasing a $300k+ drone with much greater, and potentially dangerous capabilities/range/weight.

Maybe an organization along the lines of the Small Business Association should be contacted. If clout comes with numbers and money - maybe it's time to start thinking outside the box.

 

[textilet]

For reference here are the entities on the FAA's rule making comitee:
UAS ARC MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS
• General Atomics
• MITRE
• GE
• New Mexico State University
• Raytheon
• National Business Aviation Association (NBAA)
• Northrop Grumman
• Insitu/Boeing
• Rockwell-Collins
• Honeywell
• PBFA
• DHSCBP
• ALPA
• AOPA
• AUVSI
• NASA
• Aero Vironment
• Lockheed Martin

Very few if any of them have an incentive to protect the kind of businesses mentioned above
*edit* though I'm not clear on all of the alphabet soup names at the end. AUVSI is supposed to be an advocate right?

 

[dmetz]

For reference here are the entities on the FAA's rule making comitee:
UAS ARC MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS
• General Atomics
• MITRE
• GE
• New Mexico State University
• Raytheon
• National Business Aviation Association (NBAA)
• Northrop Grumman
• Insitu/Boeing
• Rockwell-Collins
• Honeywell
• PBFA
• DHSCBP
• ALPA
• AOPA
• AUVSI
• NASA
• Aero Vironment
• Lockheed Martin

Very few if any of them have an incentive to protect the kind of businesses mentioned above
*edit* though I'm not clear on all of the alphabet soup names at the end. AUVSI is supposed to be an advocate right?

Very insightful...thanks for sharing this.