Patrick Egan has recently made a freedom of information (FOIA) request to the FAA to find out who sat on the last committee that met to make rules for flight in the NAS in the USA.
It makes for interesting reading and should be of some concern if you are planning on commercial flight ops any time soon.
I am beginning to think that the genie might be out the bottle on this one and the process is so slow that many many people have just started anyway but it seems that its only big business that gets a say and the AMA as we had previously said was not at the table.
Patricks request and article is here http://www.suasnews.com/2011/11/10245/uas-arc-2-0/
Whats needed to satisfy the FAA are community based standards.
Having been sat in a country where rules have been proposed and adopted and commercial flight in the UK NAS is happening I can't help but wonder why its not so simple there.
Comments
Yep, I too noticed a lot of DoD contractors. DoD contractors live and breath on selling hardware (and ground station services in the case of big UAS). And...protecting the related IP from mass production. I see a lock down on technology--$2K gyroscopes anyone? The thing is gov't trusts these guys: folks like GA and Raytheon have been in the UAV game since 1996....been there done that.
If the DoD contractors have their way, you can kiss good bye to autonomous flight rights on the commercial side. Supervisory control maybe OK in controlled environments (basically non urban, and only the big corporations get waivers), and manual control will likely stay status quo (if it ain't broken don't fix it mentality). On brighter notes, that's good news for sUAS folks on the academic side: more R&D funding...but from DoD (like DARPA).
It maybe a time for big commercial companies to voice concerns (i.e. Big Ag, USGS, Transportation, Big Security, and Entertainment) to shine some light on non-DoD use cases to break up the monopoly, but that opens another can of worms. Problem holding those companies back is finding the right business model.
My issue is the very have security / defense presence on the panel. Yes they may be the first users of automated systems in the NAS but should they be allowed to dominate policy for what is essentially a civilian space. I agree with Geoffrey that the panel may not have actively tried to exclude participation but they sure as heck were not going to promote anyone's inclusion that threatened their interests. I cannot for the life of me see AV go out on a limb to promote rules that would benefit anybody but themselves and if anybody thinks that the DHS would want civilians flying sUAS even if it is for agricultural use needs his head checked. The bottom line is that every one of these organizations have an agenda they want promoted and for the most part that does not include amateur or civilian commercial use. Both Brett and Geoffrey make good points. I personally do not think that any members of the ARC went out of there way to block anyone from becoming involved they did not have to but on the other hand there was no way that they were going to promote anyone that threatened their position. Would the NIJ have asked that the ACLU be invited?
Nice sentiment for sure, but in the real world FAA, it does not work like that at all... I speak from experience. Patrick has tried many times as well as others to "infiltrate" the ranks to no avail. I have personally spoken face to face with a former ARC member and his words mirror what I (Patrick and others) have said, theorized.
Let me try to put forth a different voice here:
I was actually invited to participate in a panel very similar to this one- one that involved helping establish a set of recommendations to the FAA on regulations for integrating UAVs in the NAS. I declined mostly because I was simply too busy with other things. My (somewhat) limited experience dealing with people who work on panels like this is that they are *not* trying to find ways to "squeeze out the little guy"- They are just trying to get some sort of action done- that alone is a difficult enough challenge given the complexity of laws (and legal liability!) in the US.
Also, we don't know that this working group tried to "exclude" anyone- it is quite likely the FAA put out some sort of request through some vague channel and only those with adequate connections heard about it.
I think that rather than complaining that someone from this forum was "not invited', some respected person here could try to get involved with this effort, and do so with a professional demeanor. As for who should do it, or how such a person should be elected- I don't know. (Those organizations have the benefit of being an organization with hierarchy and structure, whereas this community is very loose and open.) But I would think that joining the process could only help out this community.
Just my USD 0.02
Wonder why Chris Anderson wasn't invited?
Anyways, it seems we are currently better off in Canada.
Only commercial flyers, and those flying for a living need to get licensing. Hobbyists, currently are left alone.
Susan Cabler is the ..... I will refrain from saying what I really think about her..... low life..... that pulled the plug on my business 3 years ago... Cost my family about 90k directly out of pocket and untold amounts of fututre loss..... She truely is heartless.... I hope the rest of the list is not similar....
I think there lies the problem.
interesting read
@ Ctech4285
that happening means there would be no hope at all. getting rid of rules doesn't make things better it just means the people with money and power can be even larger A$$holes. rules are there to make people equal and protect the weak from the storng the problem is you have to make sure the rules are set up to help everyone and not just a few.
other ways it's just as bad as having no rules at all.
Well don't forget the ASTM part of this pie as well. Its not looking good. But lets hope we are utterly wrong and a simple plan for vehicles sub 20kg and LOS is being put together.
maybe there is hope?
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/ron-paul-nah-we-dont-need...
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next