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

[Old Man]

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?

They have absolutely overwhelming cause to see the small guy locked out through over regulation. AUVSI has become strongly supportive to whatever funding is being granted them. It's not the small player, shared technology group it started out as. They are doing good things but the focus is on the big money and product exposure. THIS is where we need to expand our involvement. Expanded contact, demonstrations, and displays within AUVSI conventions will go far for us, especially if those showing our wares are well spoken and professionally attired. We'll have to play much of the game through the established protocols.

 

[dark_star]

it will be interesting to see what the FAA decides

 

[ChrisViperM]

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?

Here is the full list of their corporate members, and most of them are "advising" the FAA.....

http://www.auvsi.org/membershipandchapters/corporatemembers


And here is their "Code of Conduct":

http://www.auvsi.org/conduct


On the membership site there is a link to all members websites, and although I just checked out a few of them, most stuff I saw was missles, grenades, laser guidance systems.......no sign at all of Aerial Film/ Photo......looks like this is the wrong guys to help us.

I guess there is just one way to get a voice, but I will start a seperate post a bit later....

EDIT: Funny enough, DJI is not on the member list.......



Chris

 

[dmetz]

To the FAA and entities on that committee we are irritants. Those guys stand to make billions of dollars in the UAS space while every single one of us here on MRF doing commercial sUAS work under the table might total revenues of a couple million max. Maybe a million or less. By virtue of the fractured space we're in we have no unified voice, no lobby, and every additional phantom sold erodes credibility more and more. Full size aviation has functioned well for decades in part because the high barrier to entry helps keep morons out of the industry. Not only do we not have that protection, with $1k phantom packages and the people who buy them declaring themselves aerial 'cinematographers' it's nearly a worst case scenario. It's ironic to me that most of the guys I know doing pro AC work are safe and care about doing things right and actually want rules/framework while the FPV hobby segment and phantom types continue to destroy our chances of reasonable, fair regulations. But if the FAA truly cares about safety that's what we need to happen- reasonable, fair regulation with certs for competent operators, line of sight, below 400' AGL, insured and with safety briefings on closed sets. It will certainly be interesting to see what the FAA decides on the exemption requests. If they approve it it will crack the door open for everyone. If they deny it it will mean more rogue operations.

Nice post...you are so right that there have been barriers in General Aviation that do not exist is the sUAV community. While I'm glad its "affordable", its also problematic for all the reasons you cite.

 

[textilet]

But if the FAA truly cares about safety that's what we need to happen- reasonable, fair regulation with certs for competent operators, line of sight, below 400' AGL, insured and with safety briefings on closed sets. It will certainly be interesting to see what the FAA decides on the exemption requests. If they approve it it will crack the door open for everyone. If they deny it it will mean more rogue operations.

At first I was caught up on the terms of the proposed film exemption being perhaps a little too voluntarily stringent. But after researching for a few days and especially reading the names on that ARC list, I'm more convinced that as you say, the door needs to be cracked. Any exemption for something even remotely resembling what you discuss above would be huge progress.

 

[Bartman]

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.

here's an idea...

what professional associations have members that benefit from the services of an aerial media company that uses sUAS?

1. Professional Association of Realtors
2. Professional Association of Civil Engineers
3. Professional Association of Architects
4.
5.

6.

who else? get a list, circulate a petition to have the US adopt the UK sUAS standard while getting the larger UAS standards worked out and have everyone do the grass roots thing to get a few hundred thousand signatures on the petition.

i'm working on a petition for this and i'll post when i have something. but until then, let's see a list of professional organizations. between facebook, linkedin, your contacts lists, how many people can we reach out to in a week? 100,000?

 

[ChrisViperM]

here's an idea...

what professional associations have members that benefit from the services of an aerial media company that uses sUAS?

1. Professional Association of Realtors
2. Professional Association of Civil Engineers
3. Professional Association of Architects
4.
5.

6.

Every single online dealer/sponsor should have a strong interest.....

Another thing what stumbles me is how quiet the Hollywood guys are....with the strong cost pressure on them they should be the ones screaming loudest....

I think to make that a success (as one of the possible ways to reach results) is to get in contact on a senior level with the other major forums and give this a much wider base....for a limited time, if we can get over the "competion" between forums for net traffic, and to avoid having lots of different petitons floating around, let's all unite.....at least for something important like this.


Chris

 

[Bartman]

chris,

it's not the forums traffic that will push it through, it's the small business people that will have an effect if we can trigger a process that they can contribute to.

i'm getting a clearer idea of what to do, just need to finalize the content and get it out there. now, whether the FAA will target me if we're even slightly successful remains to be seen. as a pro pilot with a family that relies on my flying income and under the FAA's regulation I'm a bit scared of being too involved. crazy but true.

 

[Motopreserve]

I think to make that a success (as one of the possible ways to reach results) is to get in contact on a senior level with the other major forums and give this a much wider base....for a limited time, if we can get over the "competion" between forums for net traffic, and to avoid having lots of different petitons floating around, let's all unite.....at least for something important like this.
Chris

This is a good point Chris. Seems like banding together with whichever resources are available to us would be a wise move. I know the folks at FPVlab and probably the Flite test crew have a stake in preventing the outlawing of goggles at least. And it can only widen the reach, and hopefully the impact.

 

[Bartman]

This is a good point Chris. Seems like banding together with whichever resources are available to us would be a wise move. I know the folks at FPVlab and probably the Flite test crew have a stake in preventing the outlawing of goggles at least. And it can only widen the reach, and hopefully the impact.

guys, i'm not trying to replicate what the other petitions and the AMA are already working on regarding FPV (see below)..the basic structure will be as follows

1. Small business people across multiple industries are already relying on sUAS for aerial services
2. The present interpretation shouldn't seek to indirectly regulate commercial sUAS operations by better defining hobby operations
3. The FAA should adopt the UK commercial sUAS regulations as quickly as possible so as to keep the benefit of low-cost, sUAS based aerial services available to the tens of thousands of small business people that are already employing them.
4. Self-regulation of commercial sUAS operators should be managed by an sUAS member/operator interest group to be overseen by the FAA
5. Peripheral issues such as privacy should be handled at the local/municipal level (as any other privacy violation would be).


this is "below"
ever through one snowball at someone nice and high so you could throw another fast and low while they tried to avoid the high one? I think that the FPV stuff is the high and slow snowball with commercial regulation being the low and fast one. AMA is in the best position to affect the outcome of the FPV issue. nobody's fighting the commercial sUAS fight except for a few small special interest groups.

 

[Old Man]

It was I believe 1939 when the AOPA was first formed, and for exactly the same reasons we are experiencing today; over regulation. Without the AOPA general aviation would have died on the vine during WWII. If we are to be viewed as professionals we need to conduct ourselves as such. The formation of an organization to promote what we do and establish operational guidelines is a very good method of protecting ourselves and our craft as things move forward. There are just far too many functions our aircraft and services can perform more effectively and economically than big money sUAS units and manned aviation to ignore.

We need someone that has experience with the aircraft and extensive contacts with industry vendors and operational aerial businesses to best spearhead the creation of such an organization. There is also need of a sound legal adviser. IMO we have both contributing to this thread. Neither is me but I think everyone can guess who I'm referring to

 

[Motopreserve]

guys, i'm not trying to replicate what the other petitions and the AMA are already working on regarding FPV (see below)..the basic structure will be as follows

1. Small business people across multiple industries are already relying on sUAS for aerial services
2. The present interpretation shouldn't seek to indirectly regulate commercial sUAS operations by better defining hobby operations
3. The FAA should adopt the UK commercial sUAS regulations as quickly as possible so as to keep the benefit of low-cost, sUAS based aerial services available to the tens of thousands of small business people that are already employing them.
4. Self-regulation of commercial sUAS operators should be managed by an sUAS member/operator interest group to be overseen by the FAA
5. Peripheral issues such as privacy should be handled at the local/municipal level (as any other privacy violation would be).


this is "below"
ever through one snowball at someone nice and high so you could throw another fast and low while they tried to avoid the high one? I think that the FPV stuff is the high and slow snowball with commercial regulation being the low and fast one. AMA is in the best position to affect the outcome of the FPV issue. nobody's fighting the commercial sUAS fight except for a few small special interest groups.

I understand that your idea will be more effective than going for what is already being "shopped" out there. I was only thinking of the idea of spreading the word via the other forums. Regardless of what you can come up with - it seems to me that exposing it to as many folks as possible may help spread the word, and the hope to get it out to "100,000 in a week." Not all the people on other forums will be interested/concerned in the commercial aspects, but some will be.

I would also hope that the business that sell this gear to the commercial services may be a good target, and have a vested interest in spreading the word as well.

 

[Bartman]

if you reach 100,000 at whitehouse.gov, the WHhte House will take a personal look at it. I think that the petition to build a full scale space-worthy version of the Starship Enterprise reached 100k and they had to comment on it.

i also own www.understandingsuas.com but haven't had time to do anything with it.

 

[Motopreserve]

if you reach 100,000 at whitehouse.gov, the WHhte House will take a personal look at it. I think that the petition to build a full scale space-worthy version of the Starship Enterprise reached 100k and they had to comment on it.

i also own www.understandingsuas.com but haven't had time to do anything with it.

Why are we wasting our time with this UAS crap when we should be focused on getting the enterprise built???!!!!

 

[Bartman]

Why are we wasting our time with this UAS crap when we should be focused on getting the enterprise built???!!!!

i was wondering the same thing. maybe that can be item 6 on the list above

 

[textilet]

I like your thought process on separating the small business sUAS lobby from the "hobby" lobby. (sorry for that)

 

[Av8Chuck]

It was I believe 1939 when the AOPA was first formed, and for exactly the same reasons we are experiencing today; over regulation. Without the AOPA general aviation would have died on the vine during WWII. If we are to be viewed as professionals we need to conduct ourselves as such. The formation of an organization to promote what we do and establish operational guidelines is a very good method of protecting ourselves and our craft as things move forward. There are just far too many functions our aircraft and services can perform more effectively and economically than big money sUAS units and manned aviation to ignore.

We need someone that has experience with the aircraft and extensive contacts with industry vendors and operational aerial businesses to best spearhead the creation of such an organization. There is also need of a sound legal adviser. IMO we have both contributing to this thread. Neither is me but I think everyone can guess who I'm referring to

I have mentioned the formation of a PAC several times on several threads, so obviously I'm for it. But all of us on these forums seem to debate the same things over and over, the trick is turning the debate into action. Its a process, we need people to come together in significant numbers, AOPA's success is largely due to it having ~650K members, obviously not that many when it started, nevertheless we need serious people willing to pay to join the organization to provide revenue that can support legal challenges. We need enough members that would provide enough credibility that we can obtain the services of a Law Firm willing to take on the Government.

This is an arduous process that will be expensive and considering what this is about you can't rule out potential risk of retribution by the FAA to any certified pilot, but if you want to have any hope of influencing this process then we need to unit so that our collective voices will be heard as a single influential voice.

Not only do we continually debate the same issue but I think we're debating the wrong issue, this really isn't about MR's safety or regulation as much as it is about defending our right to make a living doing what we want to do. All of our civil liberties are being taken away under the guise of safety, privacy, and National Security.

I think George said it best: "It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition that he may abuse it."

I forgot, I can't guess who you were referring too?

 

[Av8Chuck]

I like your thought process on separating the small business sUAS lobby from the "hobby" lobby. (sorry for that)

I don't think that's a good idea. Yes they may have differing agendas but they both need representation in this and we need "people." I think the divide stems from hobbyists thinking that this debate doesn't really concern them and probably want nothing to do with the commercial side of this. Unfortunately for them I believe that since the FAA has been ineffective at differentiating a hobbyist from a professional they will simply ban all cameras and sensing devices from RC's thereby removing the incentive to fly commercially.

We will all lose.

 

[Bartman]

i disagree Chuck. supporting each other is one thing but while commercial sUAS operators have waited for someone to adopt their interests, the whole debate has moved on and guess who isn't included?

AMA is fighting for hobby FPV flyers, who is fighting for sUAS operators? we can ask for their support but we shouldn't expect anyone to come to the rescue of the larger commercial sUAS community.

 

[dark_star]

I don't think that's a good idea. Yes they may have differing agendas but they both need representation in this and we need "people." I think the divide stems from hobbyists thinking that this debate doesn't really concern them and probably want nothing to do with the commercial side of this. Unfortunately for them I believe that since the FAA has been ineffective at differentiating a hobbyist from a professional they will simply ban all cameras and sensing devices from RC's thereby removing the incentive to fly commercially.

We will all lose.

This is is very possible. It would be stupid and even irresponsible, but very possible. The practical issue is, nothing would really change. We wouldn't stop our sUAS ops and neither would 90% of the other guys. That genie is out of the bottle. It would just push it further under the table. Conversely, if they create a reasonable framework it would incentivize guys to get certs and be official to show production that, hey, we have a demonstrable safety record and that means you can get your permits and good insurance rates, etc. It would promote safety.

But again, we have no lobby, no unified voice. And all the full size aviation associations pretty much hate us. You can't even blame them. Our machines are a possible safety threat as well as taking work and money away from them. Aside from the operators who do cinema work and have shot-overs or cineflex rigs, no one else has a vested interest in joining us at this level. The big guys (insitu, lockheed, et al) have way bigger fish to fry with ag, petroleum and other industrial functions. It's pretty depressing. The seven guys who got together to file that exemption request are, by far, the most organized front in this space. Kudos to them. That sort of thing takes attorneys, money and time to make happen. Grabbing the bull by the horns.