RC aerials illegal says FAA

Brian Drysdale · March 12th, 2013, 02:20 AM

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.

Greg Boston · March 12th, 2013, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Heath

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=

Galen Rath · March 12th, 2013, 12:13 PM

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

Dave Blackhurst · March 12th, 2013, 12:31 PM

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"!

David Heath · March 13th, 2013, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Boston

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

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.)

Jim Michael · March 14th, 2013, 06:03 AM

Looks like someone didn't get the memo. Photographing with Remote Helis in Crazy Locations --- Behind-the-Scenes in Aspen | Chase Jarvis Blog I'm curious how many of the shots will end up in ads.

Chris Medico · March 14th, 2013, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Michael

Looks like someone didn't get the memo. Photographing with Remote Helis in Crazy Locations --- Behind-the-Scenes in Aspen | Chase Jarvis Blog 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.

Jim Martin · March 14th, 2013, 12:09 PM

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....

Video: DJI Phantom Quadcopter | The Filmtools Blog

pretty amazing unit and fun to fly!

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Warren Kawamoto · March 16th, 2013, 04:33 PM

Well, it looks like someone could hijack your drone with criminal intentions now...
LiveLeak.com - Drone hack explained: Professor details UAV hijacking

Trond Saetre · March 16th, 2013, 05:17 PM

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.

March 12th, 2013, 02:20 AM	#76
Brian Drysdale Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Belfast, UK Posts: 6,154	Re: RC aerials illegal says FAA 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.

March 12th, 2013, 12:13 PM	#78
Galen Rath Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Illinois Posts: 323	Re: RC aerials illegal says FAA We don't need another source of tragedy in this world for the sake of some cool videos.

March 12th, 2013, 12:31 PM	#79
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	Re: RC aerials illegal says FAA 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"!

March 14th, 2013, 06:03 AM	#81
Jim Michael Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 895	Re: RC aerials illegal says FAA Looks like someone didn't get the memo. Photographing with Remote Helis in Crazy Locations --- Behind-the-Scenes in Aspen \| Chase Jarvis Blog I'm curious how many of the shots will end up in ads.

March 14th, 2013, 12:09 PM	#83
Jim Martin Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Burbank, CA 91502 Posts: 949	Re: RC aerials illegal says FAA 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 pretty amazing unit and fun to fly! Jim Martin Filmtools.com

March 16th, 2013, 04:33 PM	#84
Warren Kawamoto Trustee Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 1,435	Re: RC aerials illegal says FAA Well, it looks like someone could hijack your drone with criminal intentions now... LiveLeak.com - Drone hack explained: Professor details UAV hijacking

March 16th, 2013, 05:17 PM	#85
Trond Saetre Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Bergen, Norway Posts: 3,375	Re: RC aerials illegal says FAA 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.