32 replies to this topic

[Spydmobile]

This is about a total BAN on commercial use of RC in USA Airspace NOT recreational - I was unaware that this is Old news,
http://mi6films.com/...-rc-helicopter-
flight-in-the-usa-airspace/687/
Franco

EDIT: Dec 9 2011 - This is not true as the FAA has responsed to this allegation and it has been posted on RCG.
see : http://forums.openpi...dpost__p__41299

Edited by Spydmobile, 06 December 2011 - 04:26 PM.
to remove my silly alarmist comment

[Jose Angel]

Bad news for the USA fellows
I could understand to require authorizations, insurance, even technical competence... but a total ban is a non sense.

I only hope the european authorities does not copy and paste this restriction.

Edit: some more info from user gundamnitpete on rcgroups:

Quote

As of right now you can't use a multirotor for commericial purposes. This is because the FAA formed a committee (ARC committee) to draft some regulations for sUAS. In feb 2012, these regulations will be open for comment. Then when we'll see what premanent restrictions are put on commercial use of multirotors. So the commercial ban is only temp, until we see these regulations.

There is not ban on regular RC multicopter flights that just for fun. the sUAS regulations are just to keep a growing sector (cheap AP, etc.etc.etc) safe and regulated. I doubt they'll just ban it all outright, to much money to be made.

[Kenn Sebesta]

Sorry that this affects so many people, but this is good news. For non-pilots, this might not make much sense, but that's because they don't realize how quickly these things go wrong. One of the biggest reasons we have accidents is poor decision making, and one of the biggest pressures leading to poor decision making is financial. You do not want every Tom, Dick, and Harry who "really, really needs to shoot today or else they'll lose money" throwing their UAVs in the air in inappropriate times, at inappropriate places. Through decades of experience, we already found out that even when people's lives are on the line, they make choices that are, quite frankly, stupid. What reasoning person would expect them to make better choices when they're not the ones paying the consequences?

We simply do not have, today, the facilities to regulate this behavior. Not in airspace and not in power (i.e. a 750mm heli blade to the throat will kill you as surely as a knife. Were you expecting this risk when you signed on as a movie extra?) As much as it galls me not to be able to do what I want, where I want, it's the right choice in the short term.

[Dado]

Bastards, so makeing beautiful videos will be prohibited unless goverment or whatever local authoritys profits from license one will probably have to pay to have fun, well i guess thats when technology enabes everyone to have fun and takes money from ppl haveing  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx$$$$$ to be only one in business to provide similar shoots and AP videos.

Wait and see, once air starts proppeling cars and whatnot ppl will have to pay air amount they bread per day.

Oh and i'm sure world will follow that regulation idea, theres plenty bucks there to make and why would any person be able to have souch remarkable flight expiriance with couple of buck, heh.

bastards

[K Wells]

This is not New...it has been in place for many years.....for Commercial Use....

This is very understandable...as Kenn mentioned the obvious...can you Imagine what even a micro quad can do to the structure or engine of a private or commercial aircraft if it had a Mid-Air Strike?

Some of these guys, chasing the almighty dollar will surely cause problems for the rest of us who follow the rules.

Please go to the Flight Safety section on the forums...get knowledgeable...Fly Safe....Stay informed..remember you are Pilots!...act like one


http://forums.openpi...-flight-safety/

[Dado]

well i agree one has to contact local authoritys and get licence to shoot video scenery in populated area, altitude etc. I can also understand need for insurance and similar.
But call me sceptic, i see a problem, who's gonna determen if AP multirotor you have for fun is just fun toy, could also be indication you are in business to make money with it. peneltys? problem with law? hm.. i just dont belive things will be dealth with cleared mind.

Edit:
Well i just hope this will stick for safety of real aircrafts.  Not like taking more money out of us hobbysts, im fed up with tax, customs percentage, ham licences and crap like that.

Edited by Dadorcp, 05 December 2011 - 03:51 PM.

[mk1spitfire]

Dadorcp, on 05 December 2011 - 03:19 PM, said:

Bastards, so makeing beautiful videos will be prohibited unless goverment or whatever local authoritys profits from license

Well said. They want your money.

[Snagglesworth]

You can still make your beautiful videos. You just can't do it commercially.

[K Wells]

Snagglesworth, on 05 December 2011 - 03:56 PM, said:

You can still make your beautiful videos. You just can't do it commercially.

Perzactally....

Guys, remember, with incredible power that we have been very fortunate to achieve from the amazing present and soon to be future capability bestowed upon us by the talents of the amazing men and woman of the Open Pilot Teams.....

Comes the Responsibility to use this incredible power wisely and not irresponsibly

We here, should be setting the Standard for Safely in the operation of these fantastic vehicles.

You owe it to yourself, your family and your neighbors to enjoy this technology safely...or we may loose the privilege.

Licensed Pilots are required to document every flight...Date, Time, Nature of flight, Duration, Departure and Arrival locations, Type of aircraft etc..etc

Aircraft Logs, document, All flights on the Airframe, Engine Start and Stop Times, Maintenance performed scheduled or unscheduled, engine or prop changes, electronics and or avionics changes...etc, etc.

It may seem to be a pain in the ass..but if an accident should happen, you have a record to show that you have taken every precaution to limit this potential exposure to the public and have demonstrated your efforts to do so.

Log Books are very inexpensive

Pilot Log Book

http://www.aviationl...book-navy-sp-57

Airframe Log Book

http://www.aviationl...over-green-sa-2

Engine Log Book

http://www.aviationl...r-burgundy-se-2


Believe me, it will not be long before you will be required to make these log entries...so you should start now..it could save you many hours to prove your skill later and by doing it now, could earn you a future UAV Pilot rating.


Here is a link to FREE online Pilots Log...all you have to do is Register

http://logs.aviationlogs.com

[Dado]

Yeah safety first, that goes without saying.

[K Wells]

Corvus is a perfect example of proper logging of flights

http://wiki.openpilo...x 1km-milestone

[K Wells]

Here is an example of the Free online Flight Log.....they email this to you after you make an entry

This is only one method. Corvus developed a method using UAV objects within Open Pilot
http://forums.openpi...h__1#entry38272

If you have the skills, you can follow Corvus instructions and build your own

I have Eagletree OSD, E logger and Eagle Eyes...after each flight you can simply download your Flight Data and it serves as your documented Log

If you do not have or cannot afford all these Whiz Bang Toys, you can simply do manual logs. Below is an example;

The following is a summary of your LogBook entry for your records.

Date: 11/25/2011
From: Bandera, Texas
To: Bandera, Texas
Route:
Legs: 1
Holds:
Total Duration: 0.05

** Aircraft **
Type: UAV Hexa X
Tail Number:
Category: Rotorcraft
Class: Multi-Engine Helicopter
Classification: Experimental
Characteristics:
Complex? Yes
Retractable? No
High Performance? Yes
Over 12,500? No
Tail Wheel? No

** Landings Information **
Intermediate Landing Types:
Day Landings: 1
Night Landings:

** Instrument Flight Information **
Instrument Approaches:
Instrument Approach Types:
Actual Instrument Hours: 0.10
Simulated Instrument Hours: 0.10

** Specific Hours **
Solo: 0.05
Night:
Single Engine Land:
Multi-Engine Land: 0.05
Single Engine Sea:
Multi-Engine Sea:
Flight Simulator:
Cross Country:
Flight Instructor:
Dual Hours Received:
Pilot In Command: Wells, Kendall
Second In Command:

** Custom Data **
Custom Data Name 1:
Custom Data 1:
Custom Data Name 2:
Custom Data 2:

** Financial Information **
Expenses:
Total Cost:

Remarks: Initial Stabilization test on Static Line
Endorsements:
CAP Mission Number:

Thanks,
AviationLogs.com

[Crash]

I live a sheltered existence in the country.  How many deaths have been caused by non-military RC vehicles? It must be a huge problem for the Fed to need to be involved.

[K Wells]

Crash, on 05 December 2011 - 05:47 PM, said:

I live a sheltered existence in the country.  How many deaths have been caused by non-military RC vehicles? It must be a huge problem for the Fed to need to be involved.

That isn't the problem...property damage isn't even the problem....Shitheads are the problem

[Windbreaker]

As Snagglesworth said, it restricts "commercial" use of RC helicopters.

The same goes for the "experimental" category of homebuilt, full-scale aircraft -- commercial use is prohibited. And licensed private pilots cannot fly for profit until they earn a commercial pilots rating.

What's troubling is an outright ban without the option of attaining certification for commercial RC operations. So even if one wanted to go through the process of approval, it simply doesn't exist yet.

Meanwhile there are those who pursue the thrill of flying through the clouds with FPV setups. Makes for interesting images but it might put these UAV's in airspace that is used by full-scale aircraft flying IFR. Knowing how the public gives knee-jerk reactions to anything unusual nowadays, it'll take only one collision to raise a demand to shut everything down. So we all need to be extra careful.

If the FAA wants to do something proactive, rather than prohibitive, it could simply reinforce a 300-foot ceiling for RC aircraft. Wouldn't matter if its commercial or not. Fixed wing is generally prohibited from flying lower than 500 feet AGL over sparsely populated areas, and no lower than 1,000 feet AGL over densely populated areas. A 300-foot ceiling would provide separation while allowing a reasonable amount of usable airspace for RC operations.

Helicopters can operate lower than 500 feet in many areas so that might still be a problem. However the 300-foot ceiling for RC aircraft should provide enough safety margin since the RC operator has enough time to detect the approach of a full-scale helicopter and get the RC aircraft into a safe zone.

Anyway, it's up to all of us to be responsible and vigilant.

Edited by Windbreaker, 05 December 2011 - 06:12 PM.

[Kenn Sebesta]

Dadorcp, on 05 December 2011 - 03:19 PM, said:

Bastards, so makeing beautiful videos will be prohibited...

Let's leave out hyperbole. The only thing that the FAA is discussing is commercial flights. So someone will not be able to pay you to fly your UAV to take a beautiful video, they'll have to do it themselves.

Crash, on 05 December 2011 - 05:47 PM, said:

I live a sheltered existence in the country.  How many deaths have been caused by non-military RC vehicles?

I don't know. Do you? Is this question too limiting? Would it be fair for me to ask "how many deaths have been caused by my Great Planes Citabria 0.40?", and then feel that FAA regulations should be based off of my personal experience?

What I do know is that there have been lots and lots of deaths in commercial aerial vehicles.  We don't allow trained pilots to fly commercial unless they have a pretty steep minimum flight experience, and for good cause. I also know a skydiver has hit a plane and killed all four people onboard, while only suffering a broken ankle himself. (His foot ripped off the tail. A skydiver weighs comparably to a heavy UAV cameraship.)

I don't see how putting the pilot safely on the ground, out of harms way of his/her own actions, improves the equation.

Crash, on 05 December 2011 - 05:47 PM, said:

It must be a huge problem for the Fed to need to be involved. It must be a huge problem for the Fed to need to be involved.

It seems we don't have a forum any more for this kind of soapbox comment, so could we just leave out the politics?

[Kenn Sebesta]

Windbreaker, on 05 December 2011 - 06:12 PM, said:

If the FAA wants to do something proactive, rather than prohibitive, it could simply reinforce a 300-foot ceiling for RC aircraft. Wouldn't matter if its commercial or not. Fixed wing is generally prohibited from flying lower than 500 feet AGL over sparsely populated areas, and no lower than 1,000 feet AGL over densely populated areas. A 300-foot ceiling would provide separation while allowing a reasonable amount of usable airspace for RC operations.

(You've got a lot of good comments, Windbreaker, so I feel bad only responding to this one.)

I don't know how this myth got started. There is no FAA regulation for minimum altitude, only for minimum altitude over densely populated areas and minimum distance from people in sparse areas. Crop dusters legally can and do fly several feet off the ground, and not because they have a special right to do so, but simply because in unpopulated (called sparse) areas you can fly anywhere you want, so long as you are never closer than 500' to people.

[Brian]

Windbreaker, on 05 December 2011 - 06:12 PM, said:

If the FAA wants to do something proactive, rather than prohibitive, it could simply reinforce a 300-foot ceiling for RC aircraft. Wouldn't matter if its commercial or not. Fixed wing is generally prohibited from flying lower than 500 feet AGL over sparsely populated areas, and no lower than 1,000 feet AGL over densely populated areas. A 300-foot ceiling would provide separation while allowing a reasonable amount of usable airspace for RC operations.

The ceiling for recreational use is actually 400', which you can see here.  There also more information about UAS regulations from the FAA here.  It's also good to have a spotter if you're going to be flying at any altitude.

It used to be that the 400' altitude limit was a not much of an issue for small aircraft.  Much beyond that and they are hard to see, but I'm worried that with FPV people are going to be going beyond that regularly, and wont be able to see any small aircraft that might come in the vicinity.

[Crash]

Kenn Sebesta, on 05 December 2011 - 06:15 PM, said:

I don't know. Do you?

I was able to find 1 RC related death. (Heli pilot slit his own throat)
Granted, I didn't do an extensive search but it is a little hard to find data on a problem that simply does not exist.

[Spydmobile]

I log every flight including the ones in my living room, for this exact reason, when my logger is onboard I also attach the datalogs, KMLs and even videos, so that if I am in question, that the exact nature, locations and  altitudes etc are available to investigators.
Franco