Replies to This Discussion

DeveloperPermalink Reply by John Arne Birkeland on July 5, 2012 at 2:31am

As long as you are following model airplane rules/recommendation you should be fine, since there is to my knowledge no US laws covering hobby/private UAV's yet.

The most important ones would be:

- Do not fly over populated areas

- Stay below 400 feet

- Always fly in line of sight

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jacob Cunningham on July 5, 2012 at 2:40am

What about the concept of giving a private user the freedom of an autonomous aerial vehicle?

Isn't that alone a bad idea?

Would one need a license to distribute self piloting drones to establishments?

How about AMA licensing?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gerry Lichter on July 5, 2012 at 10:14am

I bought my first ardupilot in 2010. This "freedom" has been available for atleast several years at that level of ease, and much longer for those who had the capability to implement it. RC planes have been around for decades and most military vehicles are just FPV.

The reality of autonomous flight has not been a problem yet, and a human operated Cesna has a greatly increased capability to deliver payload in to an area protected by electronic countermeasures.

I'm much more afraid of anti-terrorism hysteria threatening my freedom than a flying camera with waypoint navigation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ray K on July 5, 2012 at 1:16pm

The only restrictions I'm aware of with hobby aircraft are the ones you see with GPS modules.  

"Most modules permit NMEA output only when the module is traveling under 515 m/s AND when its at an altitude of under 60,000 ft (18,000 m). This is to prevent the modules from being used for military use."  -Adafruit  For the record, that is approximately at an 11 mile altitude and traveling at over 1,000 miles per hour.   I don't think any project featured here can even remotely exceed those specs.

 

Other than that, what John Birkeland said, and as long as you don't have any weapons on there, you're fine.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jacob Cunningham on July 5, 2012 at 1:37pm

Excellent! And if I was to distribute a ready to operate fully autonomous plane without a payload; only the sensors / ardu board required to fly autonomously.

Would there be no need to license the private operators?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jacob Cunningham on July 5, 2012 at 1:59pm

I just wanted to mention this part too. My intention was fully autonomous no rc module. 

Simply a computer with the software loaded in it and a plane with a USB cable. 

I read under the description of a UAV "piloted by rc on take off and landing then switched to GPS" ... 

• ▶ Reply

ModeratorPermalink Reply by Sgt Ric on July 5, 2012 at 2:05pm

There are no restrictions on "distributing" as you put it, an entire working aircraft, unless you are looking at exporting.

Nor would the "private operators" require any kind of licensing if they fly under the recreational designation as has been mentioned above.

 

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jacob Cunningham on July 5, 2012 at 2:10pm

That is excellent. Fantastic. 

Just a last question, if the operators were to violate the rules. Who's held liable? 

• ▶ Reply

ModeratorPermalink Reply by Sgt Ric on July 5, 2012 at 2:13pm

Woa, woa, woa... I just read your post about no R/C!

Not recommended (not at all safe) and I believe that may even violate some regulations.

The ability to regain manual control is a must!

 

• ▶ Reply

ModeratorPermalink Reply by Sgt Ric on July 5, 2012 at 2:17pm

How could the supplier be held negligent?  (unless the action was forseeable, I guess)

Could Ford be held liable if someone drove a car in a dangerous manner, "violating the rules"?

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jacob Cunningham on July 5, 2012 at 3:21pm

Ok so some form of radio control is required, even if a basic one (up down left right and throttle). 

Thank you very much for your time. 

I see your point regarding Mr. Ford 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jacob Cunningham on July 5, 2012 at 4:04pm

I am curious why there is a limitation on what the "public" can do...

I mean what if we "the public" are capable of building hypersonic hybrid aircraft that can go into space. I have heard of certain frequencies being used into space using Quadrifilar antennas. 

Let's assume that the "public" was not intending to do any damage but instead wanted to have a glimpse into space by his own doing not something broad casted by "NASA" or said "professionals". 

This is no longer related to my original question specifically but the sky is really, really big, I mean I don't think that the chances of hitting other objects are that likely.

I guess it isn't illegal but a hassle 

http://www.asi.org/adb/j/02/legal-roadblocks.html

• ▶ Reply