FAA -- Myth Buster

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

dcstrng

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2010
Messages
913
Location
VA or NoDak
See: FAA uses website to explain regulations and use of unmanned aircraft | Wichita Eagle

In 2012, Congress passed a law tasking the FAA with developing a plan for “safe integration” of unmanned aerial systems by Sept. 30, 2015. That integration will be made incrementally.
The FAA expects to publish a proposed rule for small unmanned aerial systems – those weighing less than 55 pounds – later this year. The rule likely will include provisions for commercial operations.
One myth regarding use of such systems is that the FAA does not control airspace below 400 feet, the FAA said.
In fact, the agency is responsible for the safety of U.S. airspace from the ground up. The misconception may have come because manned aircraft in general must stay at least 500 feet above the ground, it said.
Others believe that commercial unmanned aircraft flights are OK if they are over private property and under 400 feet.
But the FAA, in a notice published in 2007, said that an unmanned aerial system may not be flown for commercial purposes by claiming it’s operated according to the Model Aircraft guidelines, which state the model aircraft must be flown below 400 feet, be three miles from an airport and be away from populated areas. Commercial operations are authorized on a case-by-case basis, the FAA said.
Commercial flights require a certified airplane, a licensed pilot and operating approval. To date, only two UAS models, the Scan Eagle and Aerovironment’s Puma, have been certified, and they can fly only in the Arctic.
A third myth is that commercial UAS operations are a “gray area” in FAA regulations. Not true, the FAA said.
“There are no shades of gray,” the FAA said. Anyone wanting to fly an aircraft, manned or unmanned, in U.S. airspace needs some level of FAA approval, it said.
Private-sector users can obtain an experimental-airworthiness certificate to conduct research and development, training and flight demonstrations.
Commercial operations are limited and require the operator to have a certified aircraft and pilot and operating approval. Federal, state and local governments and public universities may apply for a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization.
Flying a model aircraft for hobby or recreation doesn’t require FAA approval. But hobbyists must operate according to the FAA’s model aircraft guides, which prohibit operations in populated areas.

Read more here: FAA uses website to explain regulations and use of unmanned aircraft | Wichita Eagle
 

stol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
497
Location
Jackson Hole Wyoming
This will be a smoothed over topic for the FAA and guvmint... Till....... One hits and brings down a GA plane, or god forbid an airliner full of people.... All bets are off on what happens then with the rules....
 

Himat

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
2,868
Location
Norway
I’ll guess that the FAA will get a hard time to get the UAV genie back in the bottle.
How do they figure to enforce new regulations on the cheap and light UAV’s like electric quadrocopters?
UAV sold by the thousands from toy stores and model airplane stores?
With a quickly growing industry of commercial use?
Even in well regulated countries in Europe the governing bodies have been outrun by the technical development.
 

JamesG

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
2,408
Location
Columbus, GA and Albuquerque, NM
With the stroke of a pen and an army of lawyers.

The little toy planes aren't much of a threat, no more than bird-strikes. And an outright ban is pretty much unenforceable. What will happen is that They (the gub'ment and product liability lawyers) will go after the suppliers, everyone from the overseas component manufacturers to the retailers. Between the threat of litigation and the resulting increase in insurance costs, they will dry up the market not only the FPV, but the entire RC aircraft industry.

The bigger commercial sized (UL and up) ones will be even easier because they'll be easier to track and the investment is so much greater. No mfg. is going to build a product for a market that could die faster than the Hindenburg (intentional reference), and no commercial operator is going to be able to afford to develop and operate thier own in a hostile regulatory and liability environment. Even after remote situational awareness is perfected, UAVs are going to be the domain of government for a long, long time. And they want it that way.
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
8,050
Location
USA.
This will be a smoothed over topic for the FAA and guvmint... Till....... One hits and brings down a GA plane, or god forbid an airliner full of people.... All bets are off on what happens then with the rules....

The the rule will be, All Aircraft WILL file an IFR flight Plan for ALL Flights. Along with the user fee's.

Fly while you can. Dan
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,003
Location
Rocky Mountains
The the rule will be, All Aircraft WILL file an IFR flight Plan for ALL Flights. Along with the user fee's.

Fly while you can. Dan
Actually.......... this may be one case where it's good that we are signators of an international agreement. In this case the ICAO. Article 8 puts the responsibility on fitting in upon the pilot-less vehicle. [FONT=verdana,geneva]“each contracting State undertake to ensure that the flight of such aircraft without a pilot in regions open to civil aircraft shall be so controlled as to obviate danger to civil aircraft”[/FONT]

Lots of other interesting bits of information in the Chicago Convention too.
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
8,050
Location
USA.
Safety will be accomplished by grounding all traffic not in the system. Can't endanger a gov UAV. You have to think backwards :)
Dan
Fly while you can.
 

Aircar

Banned
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
3,567
Location
Melbourne Australia
Lasers on airliners might be one approach (self defence) -this would work on birds too . We certainly can track 'threats' and project flight paths with today's technology, just can't do anything about it in time . Some sort of capacitor discharge system for a single shot or at most a couple should not be beyond the state of the art but this might be a slippery slope as well (just like military aviation started with pistol shots between scout aircraft and hand held bombs ) --arming civilian aircraft is specifically forbidden in Australian air regulations but those rules can be modified . We used to do flour bombing in our old gliding trainer (ES52 kookaburra) and apparently got too good at it (according to the 'targets'....) and only found out later that even this is a breach of regulations (gliders are already equipped with dive brakes ...) Making UAVs emit a warning signal at a specific frequency would simplify the exercise --a sort of transponder but one way (or ditto for manned aircraft and a program for the UAV to take avoiding action --something to add to Asimov's three laws.
 

Wanttaja

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
1,466
Location
Seattle, WA
Lasers on airliners might be one approach (self defence) -this would work on birds too .
Would work on anything BEHIND the birds, too... buildings, other airplanes, etc.

Think about the required sensors and reaction time of such a system. As the plane reaches, say 120 knots, a gaggle of geese gets flushed two hundred feet in front of it. The system is going to have to acquire the birds, track the relative path to see if any are a threat, discriminate an individual one, slew the laser, fire, kill the bird, repoint, repeat as necessary...in a second. While monitoring the background to ensure no wayward energy damages anything downrange.

If you've got a system that'll do that, contact:

United States Army
The Pentagon
Washington, DC
USA.

Ron Wanttaja
 

JamesG

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
2,408
Location
Columbus, GA and Albuquerque, NM
Ok, hanging lasers and 20mm cannons on airliners is silly.
But...

What you're describing (Sense and Avoid) is one of the methods that is being pursued to give autonomous UAVs the situational awareness to avoid collisions. Either active (radar or ladar) or passive optical recognition (looking for a dark dot in the sky). But really if we'd think about it, we are approaching it from the wrong way. The flying bots should have the right of way the same way Ultralights and sailboats do. Put radio transponders, distinct strobes, and paint them bright colors so that faster manned traffic can see and avoid them. We should keep them "dumb" and not try to get to clever because it is as likely to lead to accidents if both aircraft maneuver, its as likely to cause a collision because "crap happens".
 
M

Manticore

Guest
Just make it so that if one comes over your property and you catch it, it then belongs to you.
(Limited special offer on our giant-sized kevlar reinforced butterfly nets.)
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,003
Location
Rocky Mountains
But really if we'd think about it, we are approaching it from the wrong way. The flying bots should have the right of way the same way Ultralights and sailboats do.

Why would you want to give the responsibility for avoidance to the stupid half of the equation? Bots are far more vigilant than humans, can "see" better, react quicker and don't get confused, at least within the confines of their programming.

" Sec. 103.13 Operation near aircraft; right-of-way rules. (a) Each person operating an ultralight vehicle shall maintain vigilance so as to see and avoid aircraft and shall yield the right-of-way to all aircraft."

No right of way for part 103. Since part 103's are "vehicles" and drones are aircraft part 103 would have to yield to drones.
 

JamesG

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
2,408
Location
Columbus, GA and Albuquerque, NM
"within the confines of their programming." Is the point. We are a long, long way from the infallible AI and sensors of Hollywood drones. Also right now, even military UAS do not see better than a pair of human eyeballs, and their SA sucks. Your $50 RC plane with a FPV camera taped to the nose is even worse.

" Sec. 103.13"
That may be the reg, but in practice, ULs are so slow (and usually not paying attention), that other aircraft have to go around them. Why do you think "real" GA and commercial pilots hate ULs so much?
 

N8053H

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
2,523
Location
Right here in front of my computer
When I am flying an ultralight I avoid everything from small birds to big airplanes and everything in between.

I do not need a stinken rule to tell me to stay the heck away from all the above.

But yes you are correct slower traffic, the guys or gals seem to not put there head on a swivel as much. More looking at one thing for some time. I hate to admit it, But I have done this.

Tony
 

Hosebomber

Active Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2014
Messages
37
Location
Tehachapi, CA
My point was that the SeaWiz is already developed and in use. It can track, target, and shoot a missile in seconds, then re target the pieces larger than 2 inches and re shoot those all off of a priority list that it creates based of which portions may contain explosives/be dangerous. The scan, search, identify, and servo/computer controlled reaction all happens in about 2ms. I'm pretty sure there are some minds out there that could make it into less precise smaller cheaper program for aircraft and UAV avoidance systems. Simply putting a regulation that all UAV's that fly over 400 ft agl have this avoidance system in place.
 

N804RV

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
210
Location
Mount Vernon, WA
This ^ is already available with the use of Phalanx CIWS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in conjunction with the new LaWS system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS said:
The tracking subsystem observes the target until the computer determines that the probability of a successful hit is maximized and then, depending on the operator conditions, the system will either fire automatically or will recommend fire to the operator. While firing, the system tracks outgoing rounds and 'walks' them onto the target.

.....On October 11, 1989, the USS El Paso was conducting a live fire exercise off the east coast of the United States using the Phalanx against a target drone. The drone was successfully engaged, but as the drone fell to the sea, the CIWS re-engaged it as a continued threat to the El Paso. Rounds from the Phalanx struck the bridge of the USS Iwo Jima, killing one officer and injuring a petty officer.
:shock::shock::shock:
 
Last edited:
2
Top