FAA Approved MR manufacturers?

SamaraMedia

Active Member
An add here states "Aeronavics SkyJib-X4 Ti-QR, one of the chosen approved few by the FAA for commercial flight"? Is there any truth to this? Is there a list from the FAA of approved multirotors that any of us interested in going commercial can view?

Before I go plunging more money into a Rusty's UAP1 hex, which unfortunately is no longer available as he recently decided to get out of the business, is there an approved list by the FAA as to which manufacturers, if any, they have approved?

I am planning to install a Super X on this with a Quadframe 3 axis and CP control. Given the latest thread on XA status for support should I be concerned that they too will not be an approved vendor if they no longer exist or offer support in the US?

After watching the FAA hearing yesterday I would imagine somewhere down the road there will be a whole list of equipment and manufactures that they will require/approve for commercial use so I'm just trying to avoid throwing more money into a losing proposition, it's difficult enough to try and make advancements without now worrying about a list of qualified vendors, but it doesn't surprise me if there is. Mine you I'm talking about flying a 55 lb movie machine but something in the 8-15 lb range.

Thanks,

John
 

Bartman

Welcome to MultiRotorForums.com!!
John,

I don't think that there is an approved list yet. If the process is anything like certifying an airplane there will be a period where manufacturers will begin to apply for certification and then a long period where the FAA will walk them through the process. I had heard that some manufacturers were trying to begin designing for future FAA certification, Hexacopter.com comes to mind but I'd bet Aeronavics is making their statement based on their design being used by a company that has been granted a waiver. If that's the case it wouldn't be the airframe that is approved it would be the whole operation of the waivered company.

@kloner; is our resident waivered expert so he can probably clean up whatever mess I just made with that response! lol
 

kloner

Aerial DP
we haven't done anything with them in regards to this. they advertised the same thing for the uk when i got my Skyjib,,, wonder if theres any truth to any of it..... I believe it is refered to as part 141 and part 145 manufacturers. If a company reaches that status and the parts are trully faa certified get ready to bend over cause that's where a $.75 roll of toilet paper costs $100 kinda thing.
 

Old Man

Active Member
Seems the FAA has more or less provided their tacit approval of a couple specific brands based upon what was presented to them in the waiver requests. The wording I read in a couple of waivers implied they were only approving for flight use those that had been named and described in the waivers. That approval was one of the things that almost jumped off the paper and into my face when I read it. Those requesting the waivers were in essence used to "certify" specific types of multirotors through the submitted documentation package. That's kind of scary since somewhere down the line some lawyer is going to push responsibility for product liability all the way back to the company that provided the certification.
 

Av8Chuck

Member
After watching the FAA hearing yesterday I would imagine somewhere down the road there will be a whole list of equipment and manufactures that they will require/approve for commercial use so I'm just trying to avoid throwing more money into a losing proposition, it's difficult enough to try and make advancements without now worrying about a list of qualified vendors, but it doesn't surprise me if there is. Mine you I'm talking about flying a 55 lb movie machine but something in the 8-15 lb range.

Thanks,

John

Where did you watch that?
 

kloner

Aerial DP
if that's the case, TBS, faa's most wanted is an approved airframe manufacturer. No matter what is and isn't accepted is far from being a part 145/148 manufacturer which is where regular COA's will be issued and the COA waiver process will end

the hearing was live streamed yesterday on the web... there was a thread that linked it
 

Bartman

Welcome to MultiRotorForums.com!!
that hearing actually made it look like the larger gov't entity in the US is beginning to understand the absolute fukc up the FAA has made of the sUAS regulatory effort.

i hate to say it but i almost felt a tinge of.......optimism......while watching it! optimism, imagine that!
 

Bartman

Welcome to MultiRotorForums.com!!
If a company reaches that status and the parts are trully faa certified get ready to bend over cause that's where a $.75 roll of toilet paper costs $100 kinda thing.


OMG is that ever going to be an understatement!!!!
 

Av8Chuck

Member
Most of this is marketing hype which certainly has the potential to add to all the confusion. There are a lot of companies claiming that "their the nation's only FAA authorized UAS inspection company," that they have an "exemption to fly unmanned aircraft for data collection in Ohio," they show pictures of people working with a variety of drones on their websites implying they can use a variety of drones etc.. But the 333 exemption is a case by case approval in which UAS operations are authorized for a specific geographic area, using a specific drone for a specific mission.

Bit although this is essentially false advertising, its done with the consent and support of the FAA. Even though the 333 waiver is quite specific I can't see the FAA officially going after one of its "Poster Children" if they fly a different drone or don't follow the strict guidelines of the COA. The absurdity of this article is that it implies that the FAA is making progress, and although I guess it can be argued that this is progress its taken more than six months or so to approve four companies. I wonder how much it costs those companies to get their COA's?

Did anything interesting happen in those hearings? Anything unexpected?
 

kloner

Aerial DP
i don't think there geographically locked into any one place or state.... when i read there exemption i saw the reference to ohio but only explaining the amount of area they could potentially use as non populated as depicted on a vfr sectional/tac. Were approved to request coa waiver in all 50 states
 

Av8Chuck

Member
That's a little of my point, you still have to request the waiver for every mission. Sure the longer you work with them the easier and faster it should get but this process is not likely to scale to the efficiency necessary for you to be profitable. Obviously that depends on how much you can charge for your services, which is also part of my point, relators, for example, who can only afford to pay a couple of hundred dollars for an aerial of a house for sale can't afford the additional time and expense it takes to adhere to such an archaic system. Why would someone who shoots aerial of a house with a 3 pound quad and a GoPro be subject to the same restrictions as someone shooting with a 30+ pound X8 and a RED? The risk is nowhere near the same.
 

Carapau

Tek care, lambs ont road, MRF Moderator
same thing for the uk when i got my Skyjib
No such thing as any CAA approved manufacturer in the UK and never has been as far as I am aware but I could be wrong. The UK is actually going through a safety case system now whereby if you want to operate outside normal permissions you will need to submit a safety case, a part of which is sating why you think your aircraft is suitably safe for the tasks intended. So whilst Aeronavics can apparently provide great evidence for the safety of their frames, it is indeed the whole aircraft that needs to be suitably safe not just the frame. Are Aeronaivcs prodicing documentation for their RTF packages by any chance? Either way this would not make them CAA approved in UK- not yet at least as they will need to prove to the CAA how they have managed this.

As for what AV8Chuck states about a 3 pound v 30 pound aircraft, the CAAs safety case approach takes this all into account. So a P2 flyer wishing to fly in a built up area maintaining 30m from the public will have a lot less writing that I have had to do for my 20kg Raven.
 


janoots2

Member
@jwoike - I'm actually considering selling my backup rig which is a UAP1 hex, 4S, with WKM, avrotos, maytechs, carbon arms, non-vib mounts. Have his belt driven gimbal too w savox servos on it, great for still pics. PM me if you're interested
 

SamaraMedia

Active Member
Thanks but I'm considering selling mine due to parts availability going forward. Too bad, nice inexpensive rig, good learning tool
 

Top