UAVs

[WLIU]

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

[Bill Greenwood]

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.

[WLIU]

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

[Rick Rademacher]

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

[Bob Dingley]

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

Sounds like a good idea. If I were King of the world I would require:

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.

[Mike M]

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.

[WLIU]

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

[Mayhemxpc]

"Our" airspace...as in "We the People..."

[Mike M]

... FAA had very little vision of the national airspace being used for recreation...you and I are nowhere near the top of their priority list as customers...help the large commercial carriers operate more efficiently. But don't start thinking that its "my", or even "our" airspace.

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.

[WLIU]

FAA grounds RC Aircraft based aerial photo and video business

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/0...hoto-business/