Representation for Commercial sUAS

[Ronan]

Now with the sUAV Coalition you have an organization that is conducting business as usual, generating continuous revenue, unlike those currently fighting for survival. Look closely at some in that group and you might find one or more of them is also being entertained by large aerospace as a source for future revenue generation through the use of our airspace. Not a bad thing in and of itself but likely not something that will have any benefit for small sUAS businesses.

If you were referring to me, you miss understood my comment. I said the high cost of membership is disturbing considering a lot of us never heard of that organization. I have e-mailed them and have yet received any response.

Paying $60 or even $6000 doesn't matter to me, if it means that i can get those 2-3 contracts at the tip of my desk... But as it stand, you can spend $60,000 and still have nothing (or at least wait so long it becomes useless).

I just read an article... ex-army guy with a geo-mapping drone. He was told 60-90 day for his COA. He waited over a year... All of this so he can agree to stay 2 miles away from 2 local airports and not fly near buildings...

 

[Bartman]

Um are you not aware of RCAPA?? They were on the first ARC with the AMA and Patrick Egan is on the new FAA BVLOS group. Just saying.

Gary,

I am going to respectfully request that you refrain from any further mention of RCAPA in this thread. As with any manufacturers' product threads we ask our community to not use them to promote competing products or projects.

You and Patrick have had sufficient time to establish yourselves yet didn't and so now it is perfectly understandable that others are attempting to represent the needs of the community. Aren't you in South Africa anyway?

Regards,
Bart

 

[Old Man]

Wrong thread, iPhone error.

 

[jdennings]

The work that Patrick Egan and Gene Robinson of Equusearch have done is impressive, yet let's face it: it's impact has been limited. The fact that some here had not even heard of it is testimony enough, and one more reason to justify the formation of ACUAS.

Said work consisted mostly on safety guidelines, including a testing program, at least from what I have gathered. This is indeed very important, but here's what Gene himself had to say when responding to someone who was recommending a "nice guy" approach with the FAA, and criticizing him from taking them on (successfully so far, kudos to him):

"Let's talk "nice guy" since about 2005....... All of the below was offered to the FAA free of charge

We formed RCAPA to help produce a community based set of standards that EVERYONE could live with - just like AMA but for commercial ops. Does the AMA even TRY to test hobbyist on their guidelines? Uh.... no.

We produced that standard, then went so far as to produce an on-line test and qualification model to prove that minimum qualifications were met.

I produced and distributed (for free) a E-logbook software that would anonymously report flights back to a secured website - at the option of the operator, of course. Right, wrong, or indifferent - the very data they said they MUST have - we offered to collect.

As a systems analyst, I volunteered a weekend of my own time entering COA applications into the beta online COA system. Debugging, fixing, and finding out what worked and what did not work and helping them correct it.

I worked with the UAPO to develop one of the first COA's every granted by the FAA to a civilian government here in Texas. I was complimented on the thoroughness of my application.

Haven't you heard the old sayings "Nice guys finish last" and "No good deed goes unpunished"?
...
So, how many YEARS should a person be arbitrarily told "NO!" before you do something about it? I've waited 8 years. Maybe 10, 12 would do it? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

I do not mean to imply from these quotes, btw, that we should not be "nice guys". And gals. We should, (and we are, of course! ) but first and foremost we need to have our voice and interests heard, and strongly express and communicate not only our issues with the way the FAA has been handling it's "drone" mandate, but also how misleading and unacceptable its current approach is for us. I haven't see this view expressed anywhere it matters so far (and certainly not in suasnews), except here and in a few other lone places.

AFAIK, this is how we should indeed move forward:

We should not be viewing what needs to be done as territory coveted, but as groups that are prepared to stand united in the achievement of common goals. Reaching out to the various organizations to establish unity should be made a priority.

I hope Gary with SUASNews will adequately cover the birth of ACUAS and help spread the word.
Onwards!

 

[Old Man]

If you were referring to me, you miss understood my comment. I said the high cost of membership is disturbing considering a lot of us never heard of that organization. I have e-mailed them and have yet received any response.

I misunderstood, my apologies. You truly do understand the cost of doing business.

I'm hoping everyone else does too. It's going to cost something to get through all this and hopefully someone recognizes that starting interacting with some of the other organizations with generally similar interests will minimize repetition of effort and reduce the expense level somewhat. Each group has their own specifically targeted interests but in many cases also share a number of common interests. If all those working towards what are common goals put their names together you have a much larger body of people that would be presented for representation to the politicians and other government working groups. Of course each group would need to maintain their "line item" individuality focused on regulatory specifics, for which they would all maintain their group specific membership roster. I do wonder about the intent of some earlier groups though.

 

[Bartman]

..........I hope Gary with SUASNews will adequately cover the birth of ACUAS and help spread the word.
Onwards!

I may not have the details 100% correct but I believe Gary works for Patrick who has been the face (some might call him the owner?) of the mostly dormant RCAPA.

 

[Ronan]

I may not have the details 100% correct but I believe Gary works for Patrick who has been the face (some might call him the owner?) of the mostly dormant RCAPA.

Well good to know my hunch was right...

 

[Av8Chuck]

I'm not sure of Gary's influence or involvement with RCAPA but I think everyone needs to understand that if you want to fly sUAS commercially in the US then we're all in this together. There's plenty of debate to be had about which organization does what, but we're all better off if these different organizations work together to get as large a constituency as possible.

Although he kind of "Damned" the ACUAS with faint praise, Gary has always been helpful for me over the years. Hopefully people will put any differences aside and join ACUAS, we need about 20,000 members to command the kind of influence required to have input in the regulatory process.

I think we should shift the immediate focus on how can we work together to evangelize for members?

 

[Old Man]

Precisely

 

[Gary Mortimer]

Yeah no dramas Bartman, I only mentioned it as folks have been there and tried, also RCAPA is on the FAA committee representing a pretty large manufacturer. I started and own sUAS News, I started that back when there was no place to receive free news about the RPAS industry. I mentioned ASTM F-38 because its them not the FAA that you will really have the fight with. Here's another group

Please let me introduce myself, my name is Peter Belanger.
I'm personally reaching out to you because our association is incubating the very first Commercial Drone Association in the US and is a Tier 1 Research Partner with Berkeley, Stanford, MIT, Maryland University, and Virginia Tech on the FAA recommendation for the commercial use of UAV aircraft in the NAS. Our interest are the fastest and safest way to allow the commercial use of "Drones" in the NAS for the advancement of our commerce and technology activities in the US.
Your company will be allowed to sell product, recruit talent, demonstrate your latest technology, and or be a sponsor/exhibitor with a booth for branding and marketing exposure to the 18 - 35 Millennial Demographic. This is a premier event in a premier location.

I will gladly put your press releases on sUAS News. My last mention of RCAPA. Nobody has made money out of it, it was always free to join. If folks had taken notice instead of crying its our right and we have freedoms or not from my cold dead hands or some such the USA would be flying by now. All our FAA insiders keep saying 2021 lets hope they are wrong. Oh yes I am in South Africa.

 

[Ronan]

Well I enjoy reading sUAS News everyday, Monday to Frifay.

 

[filmfly]

Hi Gary, thank you for your contributions to the discussion. I agree with Chuck that the best thing we can do is to find ways to all work together toward our common interests, and I'm sure it will be very helpful both to connect with other groups who have similar agendas and to learn from others who have some experience in the area. I'm also a fan of the great resources at sUAS news.

 

[Gary Mortimer]

Thanks guys, from the outside it looks very Alice in Wonderland over there. The real nub of your problem was the FAA's refusal to goto an international meeting in Paris in I think it was 2008 or 9 when the world really started working on common regs. Because they snubbed the rest of the world the rest of the world now has them on ignore. I think that is why there is such a not invented here attitude at the FAA, and a lack of pilots model or full sized running things. One would hope the community would be outraged about the new TFR at sports events NOTAM. 3nm and 3000' Model aircraft and RPAS mentioned. I can see half a mile being fair but not 3 miles

 

[Old Man]

Although I don't like the fact they lump this TFR into a national defense category we have unfortunately already experienced buffoons who have dropped their multirotors on people's heads and stampeded horses in sporting events. All through lack of concern and/or planning. Flight rules have always required, rightfully, that a pilot is responsible for the safe operation of his/her aircraft and to assure the safety of persons and property on the ground. That restrictions were to be imposed was a foregone conclusion, only the manner was left to be decided. The terms that qualify the restriction leaves room for many activities to continue for the moment but using the TSA instead of the FAA as the controlling authority in this one bodes ill for us all.

If you think 3 miles is bad, consider the size of the one they impose for presidential visits to cities. That one runs more like 30 miles and shuts down considerably more hobby activities. That Paris meeting pretty much defined when the rest of the world was supposed to initiate incorporating of unmanned systems into open airspace, which was initially set for 2012 I think. They have not been on time but they have been considerably more accomplished in that task. The U.S. had, and still has, some Constitutional issues to contend with before they can award all the airspace to corporate giants, law enforcement and the military.

 

[jdennings]

> "ALL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS; INCLUDING PARACHUTE JUMPING, UNMANNED AIRCRAFT AND REMOTE CONTROLLED AIRCRAFT,"

I live 2nm from a large stadium. Does this mean I can't fly my unmanned, remote controlled palm size Blade Nano QX in my backyard when a game is on? A 250 Size mqx? A 2 pound quad? A 20 pound octo?

Interesting that the term "Model aircraft" was not used.
Seems we are back to legal uncertainty again when it comes to both definition and enforcement authority ... If the answer for the Nano QX is "Yes, I am allowed to fly it", doesn't the same answer applies to the others, for fun or profit?

 

[Av8Chuck]

> "ALL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS; INCLUDING PARACHUTE JUMPING, UNMANNED AIRCRAFT AND REMOTE CONTROLLED AIRCRAFT,"

I live 2nm from a large stadium. Does this mean I can't fly my unmanned, remote controlled palm size Blade Nano QX in my backyard when a game is on? A 250 Size mqx? A 2 pound quad? A 20 pound octo?

Interesting that the term "Model aircraft" was not used.
Seems we are back to legal uncertainty again when it comes to both definition and enforcement authority ... If the answer for the Nano QX is "Yes, I am allowed to fly it", doesn't the same answer applies to the others, for fun or profit?

How are you supposed to know about a TFR flying in your back yard? Where do you receive the TFR? Its amazing to me that AOPA hasn't jumped all over this. We're going to have TFR's all over the place that all kinds of pilots will be violating because they didn't know they were in force.

 

[jdennings]

Its amazing to me that AOPA hasn't jumped all over this.

This may do it. My local airport is less than 3nm from the university stadium. No activity whatsoever when a game or event is on?

 

[jdennings]

Can't help but wonder wether there isn't an ulterior political motive here: Pit full-size aircraft pilots against model aicraft. "Because of their damn toy drones, now we can't fly ... " Good ole' PR divide and conquer ..

 

[Hexacrafter]

I need to chime in here as I believe some are reaching as to the extent of FAA oversight. I do not claim to be an expert in this area, so please correct me if someone has information to the contrary.
The FAA has set "guidelines" for hobbist flying model aircraft. The FAA has set "rules" for commerical sUAS aircraft. These are completely different, but many seem to wish to "blend" the two together. They are not the same and are separate.
http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/model_aircraft_operators/
The FAA NOTAM and other restictions ONLY apply to those flying a sUAS professionally or commerically.
Please note that hobby flying in "public" places may be governed by other laws or ordinances, so hobbists should be knowledgable of state & local laws in the area they fly and use due care, but the FAA does not claim oversight or authority.
Should a hobbist violate the FAA guidelines, put full sized aircraft or the public at risk, or violate other State or Local laws, then criminal or civil actions can be taken.
Flying your hobbist multicopter in your back yard, at the AMA club or over the property of another with permission is of no concern to the FAA, except within the "control" areas of an airport... 5 miles.
If in doubt, please call the FAA. I have and this is what I have been told.

 

[jdennings]

The FAA has set "guidelines" for hobbist flying model aircraft. The FAA has set "rules" for commerical sUAS aircraft. These are completely different, but many seem to wish to "blend" the two together.

There lies the core of the issue.
The outcome of FAA v Pirker clearly shows, imho, that the distinction is not valid, and that there are no such enforceable and legally binding "rules" for model aircraft flown commercially.
This seems to be further confirmed here.

"And then, nothing. A huge blank space."