Unmanned aerials; why the FAA is concerned

[Tom Hamilton]

 

[Vance Colvig]

I think that is just a part of it. Since it's inception, the FAA has been the regulating agency with the responsibility of promoting and enforcing recreational, private, and commercial aviation within the boundries of the United States, and also of U.S. registered aircraft when operated outside of the U.S. I am certainly no fanboy of the FAA, but they do have their place. Having had several bird strikes resulting in aircraft and windscreen damage, the idea of striking an airborne rigid device weighing even a couple of pounds at 120 knots can be disasterous for all aboard, and for those on the ground beneath. How would you like to be aboard an airliner on departure or arrival and have a drone take out an engine, a control surface, or the pilot? Yea, I know, we just don't like rules, however some of them are there for the safety of the general public.......like your family.

 

[Trevor Emmerson]

Some of this guys youtube vids are pure gold

 

[Jeremiah Warren]

The video is "fake" in that the Quadraptor isn't actually firing, they are shooting with normal guns at ground level. The muzzle flash was added in post.

 

[Joe Minuni]

LOL. At first I thought it was authentic until I saw the camera jitter not tracked to the Quadraptor and was thinking no wonder the FAA is concerned...:tongue_smilie:

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

The video is "fake" in that the Quadraptor isn't actually firing, they are shooting with normal guns at ground level. The muzzle flash was added in post.

I'm pretty sure the quad rotor was added in post too.

 

[Mike Yonts]

I think the accent was, too...

 

[Mike P.]

Quick question; if you purchased a model helicopter and then attached a camera to it, the same FAA stuff doesn't apply, does it? At that point, it wouldn't be considered a UAV, but rather a recreational/remote controlled aircraft.

I still think them trying to enforce regulation is a fools errand; if someone actually wanted to use one to do harm (shoot remotely or cheap guided explosive) they would do so regardless of the regulation. Everyone else who would use them -- whether it's for commercial/aerial footage, recreation, or otherwise -- would do so responsibly, so what's the deal?

 

[Vance Colvig]

Mike P. You have a lot more faith in the intelligence and lack of greed than do I. My cockpit has been hit with green lasers on several occasions. Clark Gables grandson was convicted of doing the same here in Los Angeles several months ago. I make my living flying for a government agency (no, not the FAA) with over 11 thousand hours as pilot in command in helicopters and I have seen lots of dumb things done by pilots whose lives were on the line. Some were lucky and lived, and some died. Sometimes people on the ground were either injured or killed also. Now have the general public with no knowlege of airspace used by piloted aircraft operating a "hobby" RPV over people on the surface and it is only a matter of time before someone gets injured or killed. You asume much when you think that people will act responsibly. Ever see someone roll through a stop sign with someone in the crosswalk? Ever see someone texting while driving? What makes you think the same person who happens to text while driving would not operate a RPV in such a way as to not endanger others? I think that is the deal. But why ask here? Give the CAA and the FAA a call and get their take on it.

 

[Tom Hamilton]

Unfortunately, all it would take is one feckwit doing something destructive, any loss of life or property, and all eyes would rivet to the FAA direction. I can already see the headlines. In the post-911 world, the FAA takes no chances, thus, the blanket ban on all such rigs. You are correct, there are, no doubt, a few people out there with ideas to that effect.

It is a terrible shame, some of the RC footage I've seen, especially the natural history stuff, is nothing short of POV spectacular.

Not sure where we go from here, but I guess an operator-specific vetting by the FAA, and all relevant security agencies, will slowly produce results for those who care to lobby the agenda in Washington, that can see a potential return on that investment in time and money.

Judging from the current state of affairs, military pilot-operators in the United States controlling heavily armed drones real-time via satellite uplink, and killing terrorists halfway around the world, not too difficult to understand the significance these regs.

 

[Mike P.]

Yeah, that all makes sense. I wasn't so much referring to people operating their vehicles responsibly, so much as them not using the vehicles for something irresponsible (like intentionally doing harm). That said, just as someone doesn't want to crash their car, I'd imagine most people wouldn't want to crash their remote controlled helicopters/cameras. Also, people are allowed to drive (if it's on private property, you may not even require a licence), but I was under the impression the FAA is trying to restrict who can operate those remote controlled helicopters more actively/aggressively, implying they're more deadly than a car, bike, tractor, lawnmower, or any other vehicle (when really, they'd be less deadly, since no one is in them).

I dunno, the only scenario where I see UAVs being used for our purposes would be really low altitude (slightly above trees, over houses, and things) which could be achieved on private property (assuming it isn't downtown). Anything broader/higher than that, and it'd probably make more sense renting a helicopter anyway (assuming it's within budget).

 

[Tom Hamilton]

Horses for courses. Heli-shots are great, and a solid tool for many really high-end productions, but they are really expensive. Unfortunately, they can't get the super close-in stuff the RC guys have been excelling at.

Have a look at the Government of Mexico Tourism Authority's latest piece for a really good example of that. I was in Baja on a shoot recently, and the piece was playing on all the monitors throughout the airport, mesmerizing stuff, no way to get those shots other than RC.

I really hope for a solution here.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

That said, just as someone doesn't want to crash their car, I'd imagine most people wouldn't want to crash their remote controlled helicopters/cameras. Also, people are allowed to drive (if it's on private property, you may not even require a licence), but I was under the impression the FAA is trying to restrict who can operate those remote controlled helicopters more actively/aggressively, implying they're more deadly than a car, bike, tractor, lawnmower, or any other vehicle (when really, they'd be less deadly, since no one is in them).

I'm far more incentivized to not crash my car (since I'm in it) than to not crash a helicopter. Also we don't just let people drive cars we require dozens of hours of experience and a certification/testing process which means UAVs are treated the same as a car. Also piloting a UAV is far more difficult than driving a car. I've seen way more uav crashes than car crashes.

I think there should be some regulation. I think if you fly an aircraft more than 5lbs you should require a license of some form. And you should be limited to 100' or so. All similar to current RC aircraft regulations. I also think that you should be able to build, license and market aircraft which require no licensing if they are purely automated (GPS waypoint system only).

 

[Tom Hamilton]

I also think that you should be able to build, license and market aircraft which require no licensing if they are purely automated (GPS waypoint system only).

Gavin, can you expand on that? Not quite clear what you mean.

 

[Cliff Hokanson]

wow will that take a Epic Camera

 

[Tom Hamilton]

Yes, there are rigs out there with Epics on board, just make sure the operator knows what he is doing, and your insurance cover will pay for an Epic crash.