RCAPA Reporter - Important information, breaking news, and legislative actions....

Lots is going on at the RCAPA Reporter regarding both the Hobbiest as well as the Professional UAS AP community. Visit and see the latest reports from the UAS2008 meetings in Paris, or the AUVSI meetings in San Diego where Patrick Egan and Ira Buckley are in attendance, both representing RCAPA, its members, and the UAS AP community at large. The RCAPA Reporter is free, available to anyone with an interest in the news and information, and requires NO membership to visit and view its contents. Things change daily, news is released when received, and your comments, questions, and suggestions are ALWAYS welcomed there via the various feedback areas or email links. Check it out TODAY!!!!

Joe Bennett
Editor in Chief - RCAPA Reporter

Views: 316

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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.

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

Could you clarify that? You don't think that manual overrides are safe or practical? That contradicts all of our experience and advice.
ok let me clarify ,
having a uav without manual over ride is not safe or practical
Ah. The important word "without"!

Couldn't agree more ;-)
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....

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
We do not exclude semi-autonomous flight, if you operate in VLOS to 400’ and at all times have PIC (pilot in command) capabilities. Anyone who thinks they’ll be doing anything beyond that (legally), for the foreseeable future is dreaming.
then please explain how it is i do what i do when the very people you claim are going to "bust" me are requesting flight demos ? please look at some of my blogs on my profile page . you will see one that has pictures of a demo we did for washington state DOT and flew under a COA and NOTAM ? as you can see by the pictures the airplane is very large and we use cloud caps AP . are you telling me this was not legal?
I missed the part that he said the Wa State DOT was going to bust you. :-)
If you were flying under a COA, totally legal from what I know. We should leave legal/illegal for the courts... When it comes down to the current situation, it is authorized or not authorized. I think Patrick was speaking of smaller, somewhat unsupervised operations where you could just go out a do a flight without the paperwork. The average drone'er is not going to pick up a COA very easily. You would be one of the few in the US that has flown UAS with a COA.

we were in direct satellite com with FAA officials during the entire operation notice the dish on top of the WSDOT aviation trailer.
BTW we were doing this as a study for avalanche control , they want to drop 30lb of explosives with a uav in a snow storm in the mountains . i suppose next im going to be told that thats not legal and im a terrorist ect..ect..
lets set aside opinion here , you can have a commercially viable UAV business right now, you just have to be smart . what patric said was dead wrong and i have proved that . call me a S.O.B. and say i am attacking anyone i dont care please but just try to disprove me .

Reply to Discussion


© 2019   Created by Chris Anderson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service