UAVs

[rwanttaja]

The technology is cheap; key fob cameras are light and cheap, and can be carried easily. Here's footage shot with a small camera (< 1 ounce) mounted on a cheap "foamie":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9_jwJ68IWI

This is several years old; the same cameras now do HD and/or shoot high-resolution stills at selectable intervals.

Like Wes said, the main issue is legal....

Ron Wanttaja

[eiclan]

I saw on tv, L A I think, that a real estate broker had a little model airplane type "drone" with a camera so his "high end clients" could see properties over a broad area from his office without having to drive for hours. I don't know how common this is or, if it really works or is just a Hollywood type story.
I am not a RC model type guy, but I thought that the range that you could control them was pretty limited.

Gday Bill, These little machines are almost autonomous they can be programmed to go to set way points and loiter and come back and land,carrying a camera is a breeze.They aren't not cheap,the small one my brothers have got is over 5k and it only has GPS and height setting technology. Cheers Ross

[Jim Hann]

The RC aircraft community is taking advantage of blue tooth technology to connect the pilot to the aircraft. Eliminates the old issues of two pilots on the same frequency with two aircraft and causing expensive crashes.

Wes, the hobby side of R/C has moved quite happily to 2.4 Ghz, not Bluetooth. Range on Bluetooth is way too short. The 2.4Ghz system uses two freqs and "binding" the receiver to the transmitter so it ignores all others, that was not possible on 50, 53, 72, and 75 Mhz. Although as I (and others including Ron W ) can attest, 2.4Ghz doesn't prevent your aircraft from crashing!

[WLIU]

Hello!

Not sure that this audience is up for a technical discussion of the latest RC frequency management, but my understanding is that the mechanism used for automatic channel selection, or "binding", across a specified set of frequencies follows the blue tooth model. But in the frequency band that you point out. But I know just enough about blue tooth and zigbee channel hopping, that falls under the heading of software controlled radio, to be really really dangerous.

Thanks,

Wes

[Flyfalcons]

There are a couple different philosophies that RC manufacturers are using in their 2.4 systems. One is the dual-channel where the system picks two open channels and broadcasts on those, switching between frequencies if interference is detected. The other is frequency-hopping, where the transmitter and receiver are constantly hopping on different frequencies (over 100 hops per second). Both have proven to work well in high radio traffic environments.

[SBaircraft]

I used to work with UAVs for a living and their regulated use in the United States is at least a decade over due. Immediately after hurricane Katrina, a handful of UAV companies were on site and ready to survey infrastructure, locate survivors and guide rescue workers. However, they weren't allowed to fly. We use this technology every day in Iraq but we can't use it to serve and protect own citizens here at home.

I'm looking forward to the day when a park ranger can find a lost child quickly. A smoke jumper will be able to pull a small UAV out of his backpack and monitor the fire that he is fighting. Farmers will be able to take multi-spectral images of their fields in order to best distribute fertilizer or pick the right time to harvest. Your local police department, who probably can't afford a $2 million chopper, will be able to put an eye in the sky to find and track a stolen vehicle. Small UAVs are going to put amazing capabilities directly into the hands of people who need them... we just need the regulations to catch up.

[Joe LaMantia]

SBaircraft, Well Said!,

There are always positives and negatives to new technologies, and while we're having fun with the negatives, it's good to bring up the bright side. "We are a country of laws, badly written and poorly enforced", can't remember who first said that but it still rings true.

Joe

[Mayhemxpc]

I have enough problems with see and avoid for turkey vultures, and they have some minimal self-preservation instinct (but their maneuverability sucks.) That I will now have to watch for UAVs of similar or even smaller size, perhaps in some non-contrasting color, which is only looking down and in one direction, gives me some cause for concern.

I am not saying that these concerns are insurmountable. I am concerned, however, that the quick fix will either be to say that it is the human pilot's sole responsibility to see and avoid (which doubles the risk factor) or to further restrict our ability to use the airspace.

With regard to the post about it being OK so long as they take of and land at airports and use the normal traffic pattern, remember that traffic patterns present the highest risk for mid-air collisions.

[Mike Hongisto]

You can see the headlines already... “Drone Collides with Cessna, Family of Four Perish”.


Drones will provide some measure of savings over using a manned aircraft but this will come at both a human and economic cost. Whether its midair collisions with airliners or Cessnas, or Drones crashing into the suburban areas they overfly, these operational risks will be greater then if there were a pair of eyeballs present in the cockpit.


But forget about humans present in the cockpit, consider only the following: Will Drones require initial FAA certification? Will they require the use of PMA, STC or Field Approved parts and engines? Will the individuals maintaining Drones require a A&P? Will Drones require an annual inspection? Will Drones be subject to AD’s? Will Drones require the use of ground based pilots that have a new Category or Class of license? Will Drones require the use of a pilot at all? How can anyone begin to suggest that a Drone will be as safe as a manned aircraft if the above requirements do not apply to Drones?


Think for a moment that my homebuilt aircraft can NEVER be used in a commercial operation because it does not have a standard FAA Airworthiness Certificate. Yet Drones are being proposed for commercial use and they have absolutely no FAA certification requirements whatsoever.


Perhaps the States can introduce a dose of sanity in the Drone debate. For instance, the State of Minnesota requires that aircraft based here maintain a $500,000 minimum liability insurance policy. At a minimum, it would be appropriate, at least on the State level, to see a similar insurance requirement apply to Drones. But perhaps $20 million would be more appropriate because I’d suggest that the family referred to in the above headline was worth much more than 500 grand.

[rwanttaja]

You can see the headlines already... “Drone Collides with Cessna, Family of Four Perish”.

No, it'll be: "Wayward Cessna Destroys Drone Engaged in Humanitarian Mission."
Ron Wanttaja