Anyone heard anything about the FAA/feds putting 30,000 drones in the air this summer?
Printable View
Anyone heard anything about the FAA/feds putting 30,000 drones in the air this summer?
Not from anyone that isn't undermedicated with anti-psychotics. There will be more drones but nothing near that number.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allan Scott
????????!!!!!!!--In my best Get Smart inflection, would ya believe 81.
https://www.eff.org/document/2012-fa...one-applicants
Well to be fair, that's 81 organizations that applied for UAV applications. They might each be putting 370 UAV's into the air.
Time to start sunbathing nude in the backyard just to cause serious disappointment and possibly incite therapy for their operators. That which is seen cannot be unseen, after all.
;)
I just saw a bit on CNN or one of the news news networks, the discussion was mostly about the Military uses where 98% of their drones are unarmed very light aircraft with micro video cameras. These things are very much like the giant scale model airplanes. There was one really neat electric powered UAV that was designed as a humming bird! Seems like all the local police would really like to get these little "spy" drones and in some cities the public is not happy with that idea. Right now there aren't many laws preventing anybody from buying, building, or flying these things, so we may see a new segment or division in EAA to cover that type of aviation interest!
Joe
;)
You would be supprised at how small these things can.... bee....
I would want to know if the County Property Appraiser also would be allowed to contract for UAV support. It could be possible for them to spot that new swimming pool on the far end of my property.
Bad news. The local tax assessors are now using Google Earth to check for additions and pools. No need for drones.
Best of luck,
Wes
N78PS
Actually, it's Congress... not the "FAA/feds" who pushed this. FWIW, we do a good job of shooting the messenger... rather than the guys and gals who pulled the trigger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Allan Scott
Depends on whether the messenger altered the message or not. Looking online, I see mainstream media quotes regarding "30,000 drones in the air by 2020." The message posted here, said, "30,000 drones in the air this summer." This is a bit of a difference...Quote:
Originally Posted by Curiousflyer
Ron Wanttaja
Good thinking Wes, but the GIS sys here still shows my portable lawn building that the hurricane got a few years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by WLIU
Whoo boy, drone season starts sept 1st ;)
I just assumed someone was 'time sense challenged'. Whther this summer or after 2015 when Congress said UAV aircraft have to be "integrated" into the national airspace... not much difference. Only 15 months or so - depending on what some would call "summer" and others would call "integrated". Word splitting. But, you're right. Mainstream media is using the 2020 figure for their benchmark.Quote:
Originally Posted by rwanttaja
As a pilot, the UAV issue is really a non-issue - provided that a UAV using an airfield has an operator announcing positions when in the pattern, and fly the pattern.
I've got no real problems with NORDO - our field has a number of folks who fly mute - but UAV's may be hard to spot and should always fly the pattern so we'll have an idea of where to look.
The large scale model aircraft guys seem to have a handle on how to do it, though, and if they can fly their planes (some of which are pretty darned big) without much ado the UAV folks shouldn't cause much of a problem for us.
From a privacy standpoint, I don't see any difference between a UAV flying over my house and any other aircraft. Other than they're not sexy like a regular
Gday chaps,Here in Aussie,if you want to use a UAV in a commercial function then the operator has to be licensed to fly the thing.My brothers are trying to get the shark patrol contract here in Perth.These machines can be programmed to fly to GPS points and when the battery is at a set low point it will fly home.There are also the power line inspection contracts.It is a growth industry,so much potential. Cheers Ross
It's a question of probability, really. The cops aren't going to park a Jetranger over your house without a serious justification for the expense involved. But if it just cost them $5 an hour....?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Giger
One wants to trust the police department, of course, but there are enough examples where power has been abused, both by individuals and by the organizations themselves. Rajneesh, Oregon, for example.
Ron Wanttaja
There are actually two growth industries about to take off here. The UAV vendors are marketing to municipalities. And here in the US, the constitutional lawyers are about to get a windfall. In the US there is the little constitutional detail about prohibitions on governmental bodies conducting something that can be categorized as a "search" without a clear and articulable suspicion that a crime is being committed (please see Terry v Ohio). You and I can fly an RC model around with a video camera as civilians, but when a governmental body starts doing that, the legal "bar" is raised a long way. The law tends to lag behind technology, so we have legal precedent that a judge, who has the status as a "neutral" party, typically has to approve a governmental body peeking over your fence, into your house, listening to your communications, etc. So the use of UAVs will quickly be challenged and likely made subject to similar restriction and oversight. The american tradition, unlike many countries, presumes that government must keep its nose out of the business of the citizens (note - not subjects) unless there is a compelling governmental interest.
What we are starting to see as a trend is that municipalities, and possibly soon states, are adopting ordinances that forbid the purchase and operation of UAV's by their law enforcement departments. The use of UAV's is different than using aerial or satelite photos for land assessments as UAV's show intimate detail of your activities now whereas the older technologies employed at the town, city, and state level, only provide a grosser, less detailed, picture of your property at a single point in time. There is a legal difference between a remote observation and active surveillance. And they cost money for acquisition, training, and maintenance, so it is easy for a municipality with a tight budget to listen to its concerned citizens and refuse to spend those $$, or even to accept grant $$.
The future will be interesting. I suspect that the lawyers will make more $$ than the UAV companies. But hey, you and I pay the bill for both sides through our tax $$ so grab some popcorn, put your feet up, and enjoy the show.
Best of luck,
Wes
Wait til they reduce the "hummingbird" drone to fly size. They could just park one near your front door and when you walk out it just buzzes in! Talk about a business opportunity, just think what the porn industry will do with this gadget!
Joe
:rollseyes:
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.
What real estate agents are doing is visiting a property to take still and video, inside and out. They take that back to the office to give prospective buyers a "virtual tour". Some of these virtual tours are posted on the real estate broker's web site. An RC aircraft will certainly facilitate this.
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. Not too hard to move from short distance blue tooth technology to Wifi and cell phone connection. But I think what I described in the first paragraph is what you have heard about.
In high tech, change is constant. There will be more new stuff tomorrow.
Wes
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
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 RossQuote:
Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood
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! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
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.
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.
Attachment 2795
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
:cool:
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.
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.
No, it'll be: "Wayward Cessna Destroys Drone Engaged in Humanitarian Mission."Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Hongisto
Ron Wanttaja
How about "Piper Cub and Drone Collide. Crash In School Yard Killing 20 Children".
I can only hope that UAV's are required to display the same anticollision lighting as certificated aircraft, carry Mode C Transponders, and give way to all other aircraft. I will suggest that there should be comprehensive training requirements for UAV "operators" so that they are certified as knowledgeable on all of the aircraft rules and operating practices that the rest of us are. But I think that the first collision is going to start another lawyer's gold rush....
As for certification of parts and designs, manned aircraft designs are regulated to "protect" the passengers who travel in them. That reasoning does not apply to UAV's. But! There is a reasoned argument that people and property on the ground must be protected from UAV's falling from the sky. So that line of argument suggests that some type of design approval that scrutinizes the control system and reliability makes sense.
And there is a reasoned argument that an unmanned aircraft has a greater need for liability insurance than a manned one.
Fly safe,
Wes
N78PS
I just saw on tv that there was lady missing in the city area of Grand Junction which covers a fairly wide area with vacant lots and open space.
The sheriff had and used a drone in the search, which looked just like a model airplane, had about a 3 foot wing span.
Interesting article on one city's deployment and the FAA operating limitations that have been applied. AOPA had a link to the article.
http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/03...ns-drones.html
Fly safe,
Wes
N78PS
As I am planning on attending a UAS meeting on Wednesday, I thought I would solicit comments and advice. It is my assumption that many UAVs would be flown out of an airport that is located about 15 miles to the south of Grimes Field (I74) where I am based. My hope is that UAVs can detect and avoid a slow flying non-electric yellow Piper Cub to prevent a close encounter of a bad kind. If they can’t, I want practices in place to restrict their flying options more than they do mine.
Ohio UAS focus group to meet again
Officials in Ohio continue to seek input from pilots about integration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System,after the first such meeting in February drew a crowd. The Dayton (Ohio) Development Commission hopes to capitalize on growing demand for UAS. Pilots in the region are encouraged to attend the new session at 6:30 p.m. March 13 at Pentagon Center, 3560 Pentagon Blvd. in Beavercreek, Ohio. Pilots who plan to attend are asked to RSVP to Clifton Dunn by email.
A.O.P.A has information about the previous meeting here-> http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2013/130213ohio-looks-to-capitalize-on-unmanned.html?WT.mc_id=130308epilot&WT.mc_sect=adv &cmp=ePlt:Rgnl
Thanks
P.S. I do fly, enjoy, and sell RC aircraft
Sounds like a good idea. If I were King of the world I would require:Quote:
Originally Posted by eiclan
An airman's certificate isued IAW a new paragraph of part 61.
The written & oral should be heavy on the subject of airspace.
The UAV operator must have current charts.
The UAV operator must have a current weather brief.
If conditions require, must be on an ATC clearance.
The UAV must have a transponder if operating in B, C, D, or E airspace.
this is not a video game. remember what is at stake here. google uav airplane near miss. the nice folks at ASRS recently published a compilation of uav control and clearance compliance problems. midair collisions often result in aircraft parts through vital organs, limbs ripped off, decapitations, and crispy-critter corpses. when the people paying the flight bill and the operator at the console are killed during a midair collision, fine, i will share airspace with them. not sued. not fined. not imprisoned. killed. it is what they expect us to give up if they foul up. works both ways, fine. want to sign that waiver request now? until then they have NO right to be in OUR airspace. period.
I have to note that the airspace is not "ours". The laws enacted by our Congress basically set up the FAA as the "public trustee" to control the access to, and use of, the airspace for "the public good". What this has been translated into, and what EAA and AOPA have done so well to force a paradigm shift in, is that the airspace is managed to benefit the commercial carriers of people and cargo in commerce. The original staff of the CAA and FAA had very little vision of the national airspace being used for recreation. Paul Poberezny and his peers get credit for getting the FAA to create rules that allow the modern homebuilding and recreational avation activities to exist.
If you look at the nuts and bolts of how ATC is set up to work, you and I are nowhere near the top of their priority list as customers. And there is a very reasoned argument that NextGen benefits that you and I might get are really side effects of how they want to help the large commercial carriers operate more efficiently.
All of the above is reason to be active in your favorite sport aviation association, and active in the affairs of your local airport.
But don't start thinking that its "my", or even "our" airspace.
Fly safe,
Wes
N78PS
"Our" airspace...as in "We the People..."
as Mayhemxpc noted, "our" as in "We the people". i didn't mention recreational use. i didn't mention aviators. i did mention "people paying the bill" and "operators" which includes recreation, commerce, tossing cookies, whatever. there is an increased risk of death when a person flies in an aircraft. that risk should not be increased by people who have NO increased risk of death themselves. i apologize my statement was not clear, so i'll try again. when the people paying the flight bill and the operator at the console are killed during a midair collision, fine, i will share airspace with them. not sued. not fined. not imprisoned. they die. it is what they expect us to do if they foul up.Quote:
Originally Posted by WLIU
FAA grounds RC Aircraft based aerial photo and video business
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/0...hoto-business/