Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Howard Gordon on June 11, 2008 at 6:32am

Frank -

I don't think many would take issue with your range of definition for "fully autonomous". As an outsider reading these discussions, it seems that RCAPA is attempting to represent the interests of a group of aerial vehicle users for whom "autonomous" operation is not a requirement. That is completely reasonable. Further, the charter of this website as stated on the home page -

"This is a site for all things about amateur Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs): How-to's, videos, discussion and more. "

in no way precludes discussions of topics in which RCAPA takes an interest.

However, there are others who seem to share similar interests to RCAPA but take exception to RCAPA's approach, and every time a discussion is started on one of the UAV forums that involves RCAPA, for whatever reason, the discussions seem to trend toward uncivil behavior, and that is a problem.

Speaking for the other moderators on this forum, we welcome the information provided by RCAPA members as well as by participarts who might hold a different perspective, as long as the discussions remain constructive.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Bennett on June 11, 2008 at 6:53am

Howard,

Thank you for your comments and your observations regarding RCAPA. I have tried to keep discussion here as civil and informative as possible, despite the obvious attempts by some to derail the original intent of these posts. Much is happening in the world of UAS AP, and there are many different points of view as to how things should be, how they should be represented, how much or how little regulation is needed. RCAPA did not create the problems we now face. RCAPA has tried to represent the greatest number of people possible, based on the feedback received from members and other interested persons over the last several years. But there always comes a time when things need to gel, and when a more fixed and solid set of proposals and guidelines need to be presented for review and possible implementation. The ARC meetings that RCAPA has a seat on are exactly the place for these proposals to be presented and discussed with other "stakeholders" and the FAA directly. The RCAPA proposals have been met with very good results, and the UAS AP community has gained important recognition (many were actually unaware of our existence until the ARC meeting). The FAA has reacted with interest to our presentations, and our part in the ARC appears to be bringing very favorable attention to our situation from Congress as well. But, all of this is exactly why I posted this discussion to begin with. The story is ongoing, and as it becomes available it is being presented via the RCAPA Reporter. That was my only motive towards posting here, that of making the information available to all interested parties. Check it out for yourself....

Joe Bennett
Editor in Chief - RCAPA Reporter

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by wayne garris on June 11, 2008 at 7:55am

it is common practice to have manual overide in any robotics system . i wouldnt recommend it and its just not safe or practical .

• ▶ Reply

3D RoboticsPermalink Reply by Chris Anderson on June 11, 2008 at 9:17am

Wayne,

Could you clarify that? You don't think that manual overrides are safe or practical? That contradicts all of our experience and advice.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by wayne garris on June 11, 2008 at 9:29am

ok let me clarify ,
having a uav without manual over ride is not safe or practical

• ▶ Reply

3D RoboticsPermalink Reply by Chris Anderson on June 11, 2008 at 9:31am

Ah. The important word "without"!

Couldn't agree more ;-)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ira Buckley on June 14, 2008 at 7:46pm

Gentleman,

The proposal RCAPA presented at the ARC which I helped to produce does not prohibit "autonomous" flight specifically.
The Class B and C in particular could well be guided by an "autonomous" type system BUT the operator must ALWAYS have eyeballs on the system while airborne and ALWAYS be able to assume full manual control on a moments notice.
The kicker here is the ability to sense and avoid.
To date the ONLY fully developed sense and avoid out there is a set of human eyes and ears looking and listening for potential development of a conflict of airspace and an alert operator poised to take action to avoid that conflict.
I just discussed this very issue at length with a top FAA official in San Diego after Mr. Anderson's speech and FAA agreement with the RCAPA position with regard to this is total.


Ira Buckley, RCAPA Public Information Officer

• ▶ Reply

3D RoboticsPermalink Reply by Chris Anderson on June 14, 2008 at 8:06pm

Glad to hear it. That are exactly the rules we've been operating with here all along. Not sure why there should be much controversy about this, since these guidelines have been in place for years. Line-of-sight, 400ft and pilot-in-command (able to take over manual control at any time) are reasonable, clear and safe.

I look forward to the day where there are clear guidelines beyond line of sight, as well, but until then we're strongly encouraging our members to follow the existing rules.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by wayne garris on June 14, 2008 at 8:17pm

just to clarify I've been told specifically "unassisted LOS" ie no FPV or binoculars ect

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ira Buckley on June 17, 2008 at 8:51am

Thank You Mike,

For articulating that so clearly.
All I would add is that RCAPA is also looking out for the interests of the AP hobby community as well, they are our future, but the primary issue we are forced to address at this time is commercial use.

I also want to state clearly here for the record that we are singing from the same sheet of music as the FAA when it comes to the need for sense and avoid ability.
As of now the ONLY fully developed sense and avoid is a set of human eyes and ears able to directly observe the system in flight and the airspace around it for to a considerable distance with the goal being to avoid developing a conflict of airspace with a very wide safety margin.
I have spoken with high level FAA officials about this many times and anyone who thinks they will accept less than this is dreaming.

Ira

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Bennett on June 11, 2008 at 10:54am

Just received and released the UAS2008 Power Point Presentation as given by Patrick Egan at the Paris show. He says it was very well received by the attendees. It is a fairly large file, around 3.5megs in size. Setup as a PP Slide Show. It is located at the Reporter in the Current Stories area. Thanks folks....

Joe

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Bennett on June 11, 2008 at 8:48pm

Just received release permission and have placed online the RCAPA UAS NAS Integration Proposed Guidelines at the Reporter. Check it out in the Current Stories area if interested. These Guidelines were presented at the recent FAA ARC, UAS2008, and the AUVSI meetings and were met with very favorable responses. Thanks all....

Joe Bennett
Editor in Chief - RCAPA Reporter

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page