Representation for Commercial sUAS

[Av8Chuck]

Nobody believed RCAPA in 2007 when they said this was coming down the pike. Next question, what are you going to do about ASTM F-38

Here are Patrick's writings on integration and other things. http://www.suasnews.com/author/patrick/

Whats really needed now in the USA is a consensus safety standard for flying. So far it looks pretty shocking to the man on the street.

Don't forget the other organization that is on the case sUAV Coalition

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.

They can't have it both ways [which doesn't mean they won't try], but the FAA say's categorically commercial UAV is against the law with the exception of ONE drone that they have certified for use in Alaska. So why specify airspace restrictions regarding drones [or any variation of the term] in NOTAMS?

If anyone is flying drones commercially then they're already breaking the law so what effect does a NOTAM have except for non-commercial operations? Whether its legal or not, I bet if you are seen flying a Phantom within line of site of a stadium you'll now be arrested. How is a law enforcement going to determine whether a flight is commercial?

You can thank the Tennessee Titans for this cluster-$#%k.

 

[Ronan]

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.

That little page on their website has no legal backing, infringes on the constitutional rights of American citizens and has been overruled in a US court case.

If it was any non-federal organization, it would have been taken down their website within 24 hours of face charges. In this case, the FAA is still quoting themselves when anyone approaches them. Don't dare bring what legal rights you or your business has, or even any court cases because the "FAA knows everything and is always right" (not my words, but the words of a pilot friend).

What was the old saying? "Hi i'm from the FAA and i'm here to help"...

 

[jdennings]

A friend of mine e-mailed me this recently: New FAA motto: 'We're not happy until you're not happy.' ...

It's interesting to note that if flying multirotors for commercial purposes was illegal, any US based promotional aerial video from a vendor would be a proof of illegal activity. (Flying products for commercial purposes, it sure isn't a hobby). As a matter of fact, any sort of flight testing would also be illegal.

 

[Ronan]

A friend of mine e-mailed me this recently: New FAA motto: 'We're not happy until you're not happy.' ...

It's interesting to note that if flying multirotors for commercial purposes was illegal, any US based promotional aerial video from a vendor would be a proof of illegal activity. (Flying products for commercial purposes, it sure isn't a hobby). As a matter of fact, any sort of flight testing would also be illegal.

Theres a lot of proof that commercial UAV's are legal. The only thing showing they aren't... A few media stunt by the FAA. They know they are wrong, but hey, it's a federal agency that doesn't answer to anyone apparently!...

 

[jdennings]

Discussion by attorney and RC flyer Brendan Schulman on the updated stadium NOTAM: http://www.kramerlevin.com/Unmanned...ms-During-Certain-Sporting-Events-10-28-2014/

"This alert discusses the Federal Aviation Administration’s updated Notice to
Airman (NOTAM) concerning operations in the vicinity of stadiums during certain
sporting events, and specifically the addition of the words "unmanned aircraft
and remote controlled aircraft" to the NOTAM, which poses a potential risk of
criminal prosecution to model aircraft and unmanned aircraft operators."

 

[Old Man]

A friend of mine e-mailed me this recently: New FAA motto: 'We're not happy until you're not happy.' ...

It's interesting to note that if flying multirotors for commercial purposes was illegal, any US based promotional aerial video from a vendor would be a proof of illegal activity. (Flying products for commercial purposes, it sure isn't a hobby). As a matter of fact, any sort of flight testing would also be illegal.

That is 100% correct and partially why the hobbyists are also subject to more the regulatory process that they suspect. Flight has to be incidental to the other activity.

Chuck,

There are actually two different sUAS units certified to fly in Alaska, from two different companies.

 

[Old Man]

For those that have some questions about how a Notam works. Bear in mind that in this case the controlling authority is the TSA, not the FAA. Notice how they handed off control of this one to an agency that is immune from legal recourse. You cannot sue the TSA, which just so happens to fall under the Department of Homeland Security .

Back to the Notam. They were quite specific with the terminology. They meant everything, commercial or hobby, just as they do when they issue the TFR's for presidential visits to areas. If you fly ANYTHING within the TFR without express clearance, you're looking at some serious financial penalties and jail time. They look hard too. Last time Obama was in Portland, OR they closed down a 60 mile or so circle around the town and were flying Predators out of Portland airport to maintain an over watch. They were also using other types of aerial radar to assure a sterile sky.

 

[Old Man]

Wonderful and encouraging stuff keeps popping up every day (tongue in cheek) Expect to see some or all of the following in an upcoming regulatory document release.

1) Must have flight safety program that addresses mishap-accident-incident prevention, response & reporting, mid air collision avoidance.
Bureaucracy at its best; make paperwork in order to generate job creation for people to track the paperwork, who in turn will create more paperwork. Most of the above is already laid out in the FAR's.

2) Must have systems safety process with traceability of hazards, failures, and improvements dedicated to increased reliability.
the above will require a full time staff of several people shortly after implementation, and grow exponentially.

3) Must have automated systems to control the aircraft in the event aircraft departs from controlled flight (since it will have to be "certified" think $50.000+).

4) Must have see and avoid system (think ADS-B, which requires a lot of power).

5) Must certify all operations personnel (operators, observers, "mechanics"=BIG $$$).

6) Must certify equipment used in manner equal to process used for full scale commercial aircraft (your $10K multirotor immediately increases in price to >$100,000).

That's the stuff corporate inter department dreams are made of. They create a reason for many jobs to exist for without such a regulatory hurdle many middle management would have to find productive work. Some things I agree with, partially and proportionally, but a lot of things we will be faced with are nothing more than reasons to keep a large inefficient staff employed, generally doing very little but at great expense. Basically folks, it's a system that looks to draw heavily from part 121 and 141 of the FAR's. As far as see and avoid is concerned, unless ALL certificated aircraft, light sport aircraft, and ultralights are mandated to use the same system the concept has holes in it you could fly a 747 through.

All of this trickles down to the hobby level in increased component prices at the beginning with later expansion of their regulatory environment.

 

[Ronan]

Complete load of bs and then some. FAA is going to get hit hard with law suits if they think they can pass that.

Only high end corporations can pass this. I doubt any of us can pay $50,000 to certify a $5000 airframe.

 

[Gary Mortimer]

Just the ASTM F-38 requirement for STANAG manuals will be more than most people can afford. Remember the Puma being used in Alaska is in use under military surplus rules and comes with all the STANAG manuals pre paid for by the people during sandy wars. Can anyone say commercial advantage? World Radio Council and C2 links are the other huge elephant in the room. Of course if the FAA just picked up regs from, Canada, Australia or the UK then Robert would be your fathers brother and sense might prevail. (in the unlikely folder)

 

[Ronan]

Just the ASTM F-38 requirement for STANAG manuals will be more than most people can afford. Remember the Puma being used in Alaska is in use under military surplus rules and comes with all the STANAG manuals pre paid for by the people during sandy wars. Can anyone say commercial advantage? World Radio Council and C2 links are the other huge elephant in the room. Of course if the FAA just picked up regs from, Canada, Australia or the UK then Robert would be your fathers brother and sense might prevail. (in the unlikely folder)

Honestly if the FAA doesn't do that (pick something similar than UK/Australia/etc) then there ground to claim the FAA wants to block sUAV business's. That's grounds to claim constitutional infringement and isn't taken lightly.

We need a big/heavy hammer that's ready to strike if this happens (while constantly making people aware of what is happening/fighting it).

 

[Gary Mortimer]

We have several reports (leaks) that there has been an SFAR 107 meeting behind closed doors just aggregating the rumours and will post shortly. There are so may elephants in the room that I forgot this one! Patrick spoke about it in 2010 http://www.suasnews.com/2010/11/2782/the-sfar-part-107-shades-of-things-to-come%E2%80%A6/ One of the snags I think is the FAA is probably not as far advanced as 2010 in its systems knowledge.

 

[Ronan]

Imagine... just imagine... if the FAA were to adopt a similar certification approach as found in France or Australia or UK...

How much time, money and stress would be saved? Everyone would move-on, us to running our business, FAA to more important things, etc...

Crazy heh?

 

[Old Man]

The FAA has been 30 to 40 years behind where technology has been at since at least 1975.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gary Mortimer]

In a nutshell expect at the NPRM. We dare not say more what we are told. Our source will become obvious if we do. Expecting 100k comments they are gearing up for the fight. Imagine if they have to answer everyone before they move on that would take years.

No Class A or B

Max alt 500 AGL

Max weight Under 55lbs

Private Pilot Ground School (Knowledge test)

Some sort of certificate

N #

Look to the 333 Exemption requirements

Expecting 100,000 comments

 

[Av8Chuck]

Guys this thread was intended to inform others about the launch and website of a new advocacy organization, the ACUAS.org and to hopefully recruit members. Its great that we're debating the virtues of the FAA regulatory process but all of this debate on this thread will have little if any effect on the outcome. If we want to be able to operate small UAS businesses profitably then we need to organize ourselves to have any chance of influencing the NPRM process.

So lets please focus this debate in a way that will help the ACUAS grow its membership and create talking points, and more importantly answers to any objections that the FAA or others might have to our presence.

Please JOIN and HELP!

 

[Gary Mortimer]

Ok really my last post on the subject, have a listen here for what has happened before. Patrick just spoke to Tad Mc Geer, creator of the Aerosonde and ScanEagle http://www.blogtalkradio.com/suasnews/2014/11/05/unmanned-aircraft-with-tad-mcgeer

 

[Ronan]

In a nutshell expect at the NPRM. We dare not say more what we are told. Our source will become obvious if we do. Expecting 100k comments they are gearing up for the fight. Imagine if they have to answer everyone before they move on that would take years.

No Class A or B

Max alt 500 AGL

Max weight Under 55lbs

Private Pilot Ground School (Knowledge test)

Some sort of certificate

N #

Look to the 333 Exemption requirements

Expecting 100,000 comments

So no flying super high, no flying near airports.
Max alt is fine.
Max weight is fine (that's 25kg).
How much is a knowledge test at a private pilot ground school? How hard is it?
Certificate is normal... you would think something can be made using the knowledge test too.
N# That's registering the airframe at the FAA, right?

 

[Gary Mortimer]

Yep, look at the tail of this one

 

[Old Man]

Ok really my last post on the subject, have a listen here for what has happened before. Patrick just spoke to Tad Mc Geer, creator of the Aerosonde and ScanEagle http://www.blogtalkradio.com/suasnews/2014/11/05/unmanned-aircraft-with-tad-mcgeer

Some inconsistencies in that interview. Although the Scan Eagle never officially flew from a tuna fishing boat it did fly from a fishing boat named the Shackleton. Mostly to prove viability and operating from a fishing boat. It has since flown from smaller vessels. Ya'll have probably seen the Captain Phillips movie so you know it has flown from considerably larger vessels. Mr. McGeer's new company is developing a sUAV largely funded with grants from DARPA, which is surprising considering Mr. McGeer's aversion to the war fighting effort. The person that had been in charge of promoting sales to the world's fishing fleets after Mr. McGeer left Insitu retired in 2009 out of frustration. The military customer was just too profitable to divert business and development focus towards civilian applications, plus the government restrictions on UAV technology are still quite painful.

Overall a good interview though, and few can possibly recognize just how brilliant Tad McGeer really is. Him and his original partner are the two smartest people I've ever encountered. Some of the message delivered in the interview is strongly suggestive of people's need to organize to protect their future.