This could have ended badly

And now the FBI is involved:

FBI seeks public's help in finding operator of unmanned aircraft near JFK - Travel on NBCNews.com (http://www.nbcnews.com/travel/fbi-seeks-publics-help-finding-operator-unmanned-aircraft-near-jfk-1C8704354)

I think it should be making more sense why the FAA is likely to require UAV pilots for hire to have at least a private ticket. As part of your ground school you learn airport operations.

You will also have something to lose (license) if you screw up and because of that you will be more motivated to follow the rules.

I can certainly see the potential for danger to other aircraft, to anything/body under the RC device, and maybe even to privacy. (I would imagine these RC devices with cameras would be something private investigators would find useful).
Despite that, I don't want to see this tech limited to only those who can afford a high licensing fee or high-cost training. Heck, it could even be useful (and perhaps, ultimately safer than a ladder and less expensive than a crane or bucket-truck/cherry-picker) for roofers, home inspectors, engineering inspectors, tower and high-voltage line inspections by utilities, and I suspect many others.
All that would be for "commercial" purposes, and potential beneficiaries should get on the bandwagon for sensible regulation.

I have no desire to fly a plane/jet/copter, but I can see potential in being "certified"/licensed - and effectively becoming an "expert" - in the operation of one of these devices with a camera attached.

On a slight tangent: I'm also wondering if model rockets are subject to similar restrictions? They are arguably even more dangerous, because no control can be exerted over them.

What a can of worms, huh?

The UK seems to be well ahead in this. This is where you go for your qualification in the UK.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Systems Association Pilot Qualifications (http://www.uavs.org/PQs)

The UK seems to be well ahead in this. This is where you go for your qualification in the UK.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Systems Association Pilot Qualifications (http://www.uavs.org/PQs)There is no requirement for any qualifications as long as there is no camera on board so it could be argued that regulation is not necessary from a safety point of view. The reasons of course are historic as flying model aeroplanes has always been very lightly regulated here in the UK & provided you don't fly above 400 feet or too close to an airport you can basically do what you like as long as you do it safely. I suspect that the CAA saw the opportunity to impose regulation on aerial photography on privacy grounds while they couldn't get the same regulations imposed on all model aircraft flying.

I suspect it's the camera that makes these UAV's more commercial (with legal implications when being used for paid work), rather than the hobbyist flying what can be very extreme model aircraft for enjoyment.

In addition to the 400 foot rule there will be a regulation saying you can't fly over populated areas, similar to the rules for minimum altitudes for aircraft for vertical and horizontal separation. Helicopters are not as restricted as airplanes, so at 400 feet you are starting to risk mixing it up with helicopters.

There is no requirement for any qualifications as long as there is no camera on board so it could be argued that regulation is not necessary from a safety point of view. The reasons of course are historic as flying model aeroplanes has always been very lightly regulated here in the UK .........
I'd say the big difference between hobby flying of model aircraft, and flying such with a camera on board, is that it doesn't really matter where you do the former - once you put a camera on board, it obviously has to be near whatever you want to film/photograph!

Hence, hobbyists who flew model aircraft in the past would CHOOSE to go somewhere quiet with few people around. Talk about cameras on board and it's a different matter - first choice becomes somewhere with interesting things to film! Then think about it being done commercially, and you start to get motivation for people to fly these things in locations that model aircraft enthusiasts themselves may consider madness. Likewise, if such as weather conditions were poor, a hobbyist wouldn't have too much of an issue with just saying "I'll try it tomorrow". But if you're worried about not being paid, maybe alienating a pushy client, it can lead to maybe risking making the flight in conditions that make it even less safe. That's before we even start thinking about operators concentrating on the images being recorded, to the negligence of flight safety.

There's a lot of precedence (at least in the UK) for having fairly light legislation on activities done "not for profit", compared to the same things done for "commercial" purposes, and that can happen either directly via legislation or indirectly via insurance considerations. As example, I am qualified (and consequently insured) to Scuba dive to a depth limit of 50metres, doing a dive requiring decompression stops, film or photograph to my hearts content - as long as I'm not being paid to do it. But I couldn't legally be paid to use Scuba and a camera in even a swimming pool, even in a depth I could stand up in! At first sight such as that may seem silly, but if you were in charge of making the rules, what would you do? At least with the current amateur/commercial distinction, everybody knows exactly where things stand.

I suspect the people who may be most concerned are the current "true hobbyists" who have been flying model aircraft for some time (presumably without serious incident). In the absence of any legislation at all, and unrestricted use of aerial drones for commercial photography and filming, it can only be a matter of time before a serious accident - and that is likely to lead to knee jerk (and draconian) blanket restrictions all round. Far better to get some more sensible legislation in well of advance of any accident, and a commercial/amateur distinction seems to me a pretty good idea in that respect.

Even aside from the tighter regulations on 'aerial work' the CAA introduced extra restrictions on hobby flying with a camera on board. It's rather disproportionate that strictly under the legislation a toy like the Parrot Ar.Drone cannot be legally flown in your own back garden because it's within 50m of people & buildings over which the pilot has no control whereas a similar toy helicopter without a camera can be flown almost anywhere. Likewise for the DJI Phantom referenced earlier in this thread if it has a GoPro on board then it cannot be legally flown in your own back garden whereas without the GoPro it can.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP658.PDF

I suspect it's privacy considerations. If you have people or buildings under your control you can, I would take that as meaning these people are aware of your operations (e.g. not taking sneaky shots of the neighbours sun bathing etc) and you can ensure they're not being endangered.

This is pretty cool...if it can be legalized in the U.S. someday soon.
Flexible Flyer: Unmanned Little Bird (http://boeing.com/stories/videos/vid_10_littlebird.html)

This is pretty cool...if it can be legalized in the U.S. someday soon.
Flexible Flyer: Unmanned Little Bird (http://boeing.com/stories/videos/vid_10_littlebird.html)

Probably won't see that model on Amazon anytime soon.

Yeah, I think you have to "sign up" to play with that "toy"!

Interesting "repurposing" of a existing airframe into a RPV, this will more and more become an issue that will need to be dealt with - unmanned or remotely piloted aircraft of ALL sizes have so many uses, but raise quite a few logistical and privacy questions!

I'd say the big difference between hobby flying of model aircraft, and flying such with a camera on board, is that it doesn't really matter where you do the former - once you put a camera on board, it obviously has to be near whatever you want to film/photograph!

Hence, hobbyists who flew model aircraft in the past would CHOOSE to go somewhere quiet with few people around. Talk about cameras on board and it's a different matter - first choice becomes somewhere with interesting things to film! Then think about it being done commercially, and you start to get motivation for people to fly these things in locations that model aircraft enthusiasts themselves may consider madness. Likewise, if such as weather conditions were poor, a hobbyist wouldn't have too much of an issue with just saying "I'll try it tomorrow". But if you're worried about not being paid, maybe alienating a pushy client, it can lead to maybe risking making the flight in conditions that make it even less safe. That's before we even start thinking about operators concentrating on the images being recorded, to the negligence of flight safety.

There's a lot of precedence (at least in the UK) for having fairly light legislation on activities done "not for profit", compared to the same things done for "commercial" purposes, and that can happen either directly via legislation or indirectly via insurance considerations. As example, I am qualified (and consequently insured) to Scuba dive to a depth limit of 50metres, doing a dive requiring decompression stops, film or photograph to my hearts content - as long as I'm not being paid to do it. But I couldn't legally be paid to use Scuba and a camera in even a swimming pool, even in a depth I could stand up in! At first sight such as that may seem silly, but if you were in charge of making the rules, what would you do? At least with the current amateur/commercial distinction, everybody knows exactly where things stand.

I suspect the people who may be most concerned are the current "true hobbyists" who have been flying model aircraft for some time (presumably without serious incident). In the absence of any legislation at all, and unrestricted use of aerial drones for commercial photography and filming, it can only be a matter of time before a serious accident - and that is likely to lead to knee jerk (and draconian) blanket restrictions all round. Far better to get some more sensible legislation in well of advance of any accident, and a commercial/amateur distinction seems to me a pretty good idea in that respect.

I've been following this thread off and on over the past few years with interest. I wanted to quote David's post because he makes a lot of good points. I am one of the first to say keep the government's nose out of our business, but there needs to be something set in place to keep it from becoming a free for all. This is one of those things where the price of commercial quality technology puts it within reach of some who can go buy a turnkey package without any training or knowledge and just 'go for it'. That's eventually a recipe for disaster. I like the idea of a self regulating industry, with a collective voice that can administer and certify operators of commercial operations.

One thing that hasn't been addressed much in this discussion is how the advances in technology have made this type of operation much more safe than in years past. Like the folks at Filmtools, many have on board GPS that can insure safety of flight operations by 'auto pilot' in three dimensions. Perhaps that's one area that could be beefed up like it is for full sized aircraft, requiring GPS units with RAIM capability, etc.

I am sure that one other angle of government interest comes from the possibility of using this new technology for nefarious purposes. In a post 9/11 world, that type of risk always needs to be measured and planned for.

Regards,

=gb=

One thing that hasn't been addressed much in this discussion is how the advances in technology have made this type of operation much more safe than in years past. Like the folks at Filmtools, many have on board GPS that can insure safety of flight operations by 'auto pilot' in three dimensions. Perhaps that's one area that could be beefed up like it is for full sized aircraft, requiring GPS units with RAIM capability, etc.



Completely ignoring the use of technology for bad - here are my thoughts.

The technology making the UAVs easier to fly is a double edged sword. When UAVs are hard to fly and expensive to own it is a natural barrier to entry. The number of people using them stays low. I know this doesn't sound fair but it does prevent many with a casual interest from doing it. Only those that are very determined willing to spend the time and resources will do it. They will in most cases be better operators since it requires a good bit of dedication to the effort.

Now that they technology has advanced to the point where it takes no more effort to fly a UAV than operating a video game AND the price of that technology has dropped till it it has become affordable to a relatively large population...

That begs the question - Should just anyone with enough money to buy one be allowed to fly a UAV (for hire)?

Personally I think that a reasonable barrier of entry should remain for UAV operators for hire.

Since price and complexity have been pretty much eliminated the barrier has to be regulatory in nature. That is why the FAA issued a flight directive to stop all UAV flights for hire without a special permit.

I favor having a basic airman's certificate as a minimum to operate a UAV for hire. Yes, I mean a real pilots license and not a token license specifically for UAVs. I'm not saying that because I already have a pilots license. I am saying it because I have a pilots license AND I understand things about the hazards of aviation that going through the process of getting a license and having 19 more years of flight experience provides. I also fly RC as a hobby (helicopters).

The reason behind my opinion - There is much more going on in an aircraft than its physical operation. When you conduct a flight you have to take into account weather, flight regulations/restrictions for areas of operation, safety checks of the aircraft, and situation awareness during the flight itself. These all come together to mitigate risk and provide an acceptable level of safety for the operation.

UAV pilots that don't have aviation experience will not be as aware of these aspects of operation and with that the risk of a negative outcome associated with those flights will be higher. Understanding basic flight operations for both UAV and non UAV vehicles in my opinion is mandatory for UAV operators since these new vehicles have the capability to easily mix in space with manned aircraft. Standing on the ground you have little to loose personally other than a few thousand dollars of hardware. The cost to those impacted by a negligent operator can be catastrophically high. I want to know that the UAV operator knows enough to not put me at undue risk when we are working in the same area. Whether I'm standing on the ground on the set or flying per the regs overhead.

In my opinion the advancements in technology have increased the risk of these vehicles causing problems and not reduced it. That is strictly an opinion on my part.

I pretty much agree with everything Chris said. For those who aren't into aviation, you basically have a course of instruction commonly referred to as 'ground school' where you learn about regulations, flight dynamics, weather, etc., then you have education actually flying the aircraft. The flight portion is in dual control aircraft until you solo, after which you can venture out on your own. I'm sure any commercial applications of RC aircraft will end up requiring both phases of instruction, only using RC aircraft and simulators. Registration of aircraft will be required since FAA is going to want to be able to hunt down the owner of any aircraft that enters airspace illegally or crashes and hurts people or property.

And yes, there will be tests, including some with word problems.

Chris and Jim, I understand what you're saying. Like some others here, I too am a licensed pilot. What I meant in my comments above is that it is much safer for someone to fly RC camera vehicles in closer quarters to buildings, etc than would have been the case in years past. I've flown RC airplanes some years ago but have never done helicopters (yet).

The quad rotor stuff with GPS and now FPV while wearing video glasses is just astonishing to witness from a perspective of what could be done a decade ago.

There are many places where an RC vehicle can operate safely where a full size aircraft can't. Those are the applications for RC AP that I am thinking about. IOW, there shouldn't be any chance of sharing the sky in those scenarios with full sized birds. I think that's where the regulatory stuff should focus its efforts. On the 'where and how' RC can operate.

On a side note, I do recall post 9/11 of some talk about banning model rocketry. Thankfully, common sense kicked in somewhere along the line and that didn't come to pass. Let's hope similar common sense regulation will happen in RC AP with these lowered barriers to entry.

There's always upside and downside with any technology.

-gb-

Greg, I could see some classifications of vehicles being made, for instance high flying longer distance vs. very low altitude short range. FAA has a difficult time keeping up with technology and tends to throw a book of regulations at everything.

There is a world of difference from a safety point of view between a small quadricopter like a Parrot AR.Drone or DJI Phantom with GoPro and a gasoline powered T-Rex 500 carrying a DSLR which is about as safe as an aerial rotary mower.

The challenge is to draft a comprehensive policy that accounts for multiple operational scenarios AND do it in a timely manner. I know this is going to sound cynical but when has any government agency been able to accomplish both comprehensive and timely for anything?

The FAA has been dragging its feet on issuing policy for a couple of years. We may have to put up with a relatively high bar being set so we get at least something workable while any of us are still around to utilize the privilege.

There is a world of difference from a safety point of view between a small quadricopter like a Parrot AR.Drone or DJI Phantom with GoPro and a gasoline powered T-Rex 500 carrying a DSLR which is about as safe as an aerial rotary mower.

You are right to a point but where that falls short from my view is knowing that even a small drone will cause much more damage to a light aircraft than you might imagine. Just the battery pack itself even though LiON and relatively light will go through a windshield if the difference in speed between the windshield and the battery is +100mph. Small drones can make it to an altitude to be a hazard. There will be aircraft well under 2000' within 10 miles of an airport. Grab a sectional map and you will see that small airports are everywhere.

UAV operators must understand more than just how to fly the drone. They must understand where they are relative to other hazards. There must be something in place to provide traceability back to the owner/operator. There must be enough "skin in the game" to encourage compliance with the regulations. That is why I personally think the idea to have a full private ticket isn't too much to ask. Do you want to put your $5000 license in jeopardy with a risky flight? If there is no penalty then the behavior will be more risky. That is a human nature thing. When there is no risk there is nothing to limit our actions.

I'll add here that it is the technology that is making them more of a danger.

With normal RC flying you have practical limits that become obvious when you try to control a vehicle you are not sitting in. They quickly become small enough that maintaining spatial orientation and therefore control is difficult. A drone with a GPS and a flight camera can be flown much further from the operator than a vehicle solely operated by sight. That is at the core of the issue. Having a UAV that is capable of being in conflict with other vehicles is the root of the problem. It is the technology that has made this more likely to happen.

I also want to be clear that my thoughts are only related for the "For Hire" flights.

There is a world of difference from a safety point of view between a small quadricopter like a Parrot AR.Drone or DJI Phantom with GoPro and a gasoline powered T-Rex 500 carrying a DSLR which is about as safe as an aerial rotary mower.
Don't disagree with that in principle - but put yourself in the shoes of a body tasked with writing legislation - where do you draw the line, and how do you draw it so that new developments don't make it obsolete almost before the ink dries?

That's why (as with my diving example) there is a lot to be said for saying "one rule for private use, another for commercial". Yes, it may throw up anomalies, but......?

As regards safety and GPS, then would I be right in thinking that if a loss of signal, the GPS just takes it in a straight line back to the starting co-ordinates? Because if so, then great in free space, but what if the job is doing aerial sweeps round a building - and it goes round the side, signal drops out, so it flies straight back towards the start point without realising there is a building in the way......? Or has that been thought of?

Differential GPS and the ability to memorize a route would mitigate that risk.

Differential GPS and the ability to memorize a route would mitigate that risk.
Yes, but does that exist in any current devices? Because without it, a lot of the safety-through-technology arguments aren't valid. (At least at the moment.)

Well there is the question of how one might mitigate a risk such as you described vs. implementation of regulations covering a broad spectrum of aircraft types that would be possible to deploy as remotely piloted vehicles. FAA is going to do the latter. Just saying if you had a production where you had complex movement in 3-space then differential GPS might be a solution.

Users shouldn't just blindly follow where technology tells them is the correct route. They could end up with what already happens when drivers do that with sat nav, ending up in deep fords, going down roads too narrow for their vehicles and other hazards.

Yes, but does that exist in any current devices? Because without it, a lot of the safety-through-technology arguments aren't valid. (At least at the moment.)

David,

At least a few models I'm aware of, at the low end of the spectrum, utilize IR sensors for object avoidance. Therefore, if a model lost signal and decided to head for home in a straight line, it could avoid running into things.

And that's my point. IF the current state of tech is implemented properly, there is no reason for these things to run into anything. If you look at the current state of robotics, there is a lot of AI that's available for implementation on RC AP vehicles. Even my Roomba vacuum cleaner has 'cliff sensors' to keep it from going over the edge of a drop off.

I believe programmable GPS routes are a good idea. Inertial navigation can also be implemented due to low cost solid state accelerometers being used in phones and video game controllers. Then there is good old machine vision with a regular camera.

I DO NOT believe a regular pilot certificate should be the entry factor because operation of a model aircraft and a real one are different enough. Having a pilot's license before I ever flew RC didn't help much other than basic flight theory and CG knowledge. Flying with a joystick controller is much different than being in the seat. But now you can do FPV with the glasses which helps the pilot with spatial orientation.

However, a separate curriculum and licensing system for piloting RC AP is an approach that might put skin in the game while providing the relevant knowledge one needs for conducting such operations.

Regulations should include max distance from pilot to craft, max altitude ( I think the current 400 foot restriction is fine), restricted areas (ie proximity to airports), weather minimums, etc. Just not the same regs as apply to full size aircraft.

There is no doubt that colliding with a model can cause much grief to a full size helicopter or fixed wing. Especially where turbines are concerned. Ingesting a model aircraft through the intake could ruin someone's day real fast.

=gb=

We don't need another source of tragedy in this world for the sake of some cool videos.

Fixed objects shouldn't be a terribly difficult thing in a "safe/home" mode to return a craft to the point of origin/pilot. And the smaller craft probably don't present a "serious" impact risk - of course the larger (and more heavily built) the airframe, the bigger the risk. That modded Huges 500 would leave a mark!

I'd be a bit more concerned with the potential issue of avoiding a low flying "object" - watched a local police chopper coming in fast, low, and hot on a multiple armed perp sitiation the other day, and we regularly see both police and life flight helis at low levels, and landing. Recently a life flight heli was grounded in the middle of the nearby major street after a fire dept heli blew debris (a large-ish cardboard box) into it as the second heli came in for a landing at a major multi fatality TC.

Common sense would dictate that there should be "no fly" or restricted fly zones around hospitals, police stations, local airports, and other high traffic areas, but there's still an issue in ALL areas of not having a small hard to see "aircraft" hovering around. Thank goodness the Papparazzi hasn't caught on to these things yet - can't imagine the nightmare THAT will cause!

Living close to a major city, we regularly get "live chase" situations on the news with mutliple LE and news helis participating, and you regularly hear the news pilots conversations with the air traffic control and LE so they don't create additional "emergencies"! You wouldn't want a "drone" flying around with no ground control!


There are a lot of different potential flight profiles, and it's going to about as fun as figuring out how to make "flying cars" a practical and safe tech (anyone else remember when those were supposed to be a big thing...?). Problem is these small (and large) RPVs/UAVs/whatever acronym you want are relatively cheap, have numerous uses, and can go pretty much anywhere, anytime - there will be a need to address "the nut behind the wheel" issue, as that is where the problem truly lies!

Like any other tech, the user is a major part of the equation, and likely the "weak link"!

I DO NOT believe a regular pilot certificate should be the entry factor because operation of a model aircraft and a real one are different enough.
Reading through this thread, it comes across very clearly to me that exactly what the certification and legislation around these should be is a matter for genuine debate.

What is NOT debatable (IMO) is that there should be some form of licensing and control in principle - because if that is succesfully opposed, the most likely outcome in the future is likely to be complete banning. And I feel the control should include some form of compulsory insurance, certainly for commercial use.
And the smaller craft probably don't present a "serious" impact risk - .......
Maybe not to the building itself, but what about if there was a crowded pavement beneath? Yes, technology may exist to lessen risks in the future, but with current "dumb" return to start in a straight line fail-safes it's easy enough to imagine a scenario where a craft flies round a building, loses signal, tries to get back to "go" (through the building! :-) ) crashes into it, and turns very quickly from a flying machine to a falling brick.....

Maybe not much damage to the building, but I wouldn't like to be underneath......

Even more intelligent future designs may not be totally immune to other circumstances, and the more complicated they become, the more room for human error, the more need for full training. Please don't think I'm somebody who just wants to ban them, period, but I am in favour of commercial use being subject to compulsory training, licensing, and insurance requirements. (And maybe for that to apply to all use over a certain weight limit.)

Looks like someone didn't get the memo. Photographing with Remote Helis in Crazy Locations --- Behind-the-Scenes in Aspen | Chase Jarvis Blog (http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/2013/03/photographing-with-remote-helis-world-class-athletes-in-crazy-locations-behind-the-scenes-in-aspen/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ChaseJarvis+%28Chase+Jarvis+Blog%29) I'm curious how many of the shots will end up in ads.

Looks like someone didn't get the memo. Photographing with Remote Helis in Crazy Locations --- Behind-the-Scenes in Aspen | Chase Jarvis Blog (http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/2013/03/photographing-with-remote-helis-world-class-athletes-in-crazy-locations-behind-the-scenes-in-aspen/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ChaseJarvis+%28Chase+Jarvis+Blog%29) I'm curious how many of the shots will end up in ads.

What they have an opportunity to learn (if they don't have a waiver) is that the FAA operates under administrative law and the normal rules if innocent until proven guilty does not exist.

Another thing (administrative law) someone wanting to enter into this area needs to read up on before taking the leap.

Well...we blew through our first shipment in 2 days but we just got another 50 in. Here's a link to our blog post with the video we shot....
DJI Phantom Quadcopter for GoPro- Filmtools.tv - YouTube
Video: DJI Phantom Quadcopter | The Filmtools Blog (http://blog.filmtools.com/2013/03/14/video-dji-phantom-quadcopter/)

pretty amazing unit and fun to fly!

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Well, it looks like someone could hijack your drone with criminal intentions now...
LiveLeak.com - Drone hack explained: Professor details UAV hijacking (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b5a_1363470395)

I'm an air traffic controller, and have followed the discussions about the RC aerials for a while.
The rules varies a bit from country to country, but what worries me from what I have read on different RC forums, is the lack of understanding about the 400ft vertical limit.

400ft will keep the RC drone below regular air traffic which operates above 500ft above ground level, with a few exemptions.

The horizontal limit varies a bit from country to country, but basically the RC must never be flown beyond visual range of the operator, regardless of flying FPV or not. In Norway, the horizontal limit is 300 meters from the operator.
If using FPV, there must be a dedicated "spotter" with visual view of the RC at all times. (This also seem to vary a bit from country to country, but the basics still remains)

Close to airports, which basically means within 5km or in some countries also within the airports Control Zone, there is a no fly zone for RC without permission from the local air traffic control. (General rules, and the distance might be different in other countries.)

The extra restrictions that applies if mounting a camera on the RC drone, is basically because you will then be able to photo/film military and/or other restricted areas. In Norway (and probably other countries as well) this need a security clearance of the operator and an aerial photo/film permit by military agencies.
If commercial flying, an extra permit by the CAA is also required.