Growing Up - From Amateure to Pro in light of existing Civil Aviation guidelines on UAVs - Discussions

Hello All,

I would like to introduce the following topic, having come across a FORTUNE

of information regarding everything and anything to do with the legal, safe,

licensed and regulated use of UAVs, as published by the Israeli Civil Aviation Authority (ICAA)

during late 2011, and in effect today.

As this information is new to me and consists of hundreds of pages of guidelines,

directives, methods of operation, testing, build validation, training, control and

what have you - alas, all in Hebrew and with many terms that are new to me -

I will kick this off with my key intention here:

Can the DIY Drones community work with such guidelines, if made available, to advance the

APM 2.5 flight controller, add-on sensors and logic boards, and the fantastic Mission Planner -

to comply with such given requirements?

For example, mention was made of the UAV FC being programmed to be aware of

various regulated airspace by designation (Airports, Military, Flight paths and corridors etc) -

where they are in terms of geographic zones - and the definition of the UAVs mission

in terms of a virtual "Bubble" - in space as much as in Time, with the ability to avoid these

pre programmed zones (much like the DJI Tienanmen No-Fly Zone) and alert the operator

as to any breach of these parameters.

Or the very specific need for various what-if operations and safe-return routes in case of

a control error / comm breakdown / failsafe event -

One can't simply RTL if there happens to be a 6 lane highway in the automatic RTL flightpath!

This is the real stuff that sets the adults apart from the boys, if ever anyone aspires to use

these Ardu-Systems for commercial and legal applications.

If anyone is up to this, I am sure this would help with prepping all concerned towards

safe and responsible UAVeeing that could be made readily available for proper commercial

operations.

While I have my fingers crossed for Trappy, I am one to believe that any serious future for

our wonderful new "toys" calls this community to put its hacking and maker skills to work

at the "grown-up" class, now that we really HAVE proven that this stuff can be made to fly

out the doors of garages and home workshops across the world!

Cheers,

Gil

Technically these solutions are certainly possible. The motion to dismiss case is actually a motion to question the legality of the FAA to enforce the penalty. One of the key phrases there is that FAA governs "nagivable airspace", which is considered higher than 400ft. Considering that model aircraft aren't for transporting people, it can be questioned whether it's the role of the FAA at all in that space and concerning the vehicle (it's not a low-altitude passenger liner!). The other very important argument is the differentation made between hobby and commercial use. How can commercial or hobby use of such aircraft make any distinct difference? And if there *was* a difference, I'd bet my money on the commercial user being safer.So before asking "is it possible" and "what are the current regulatioins", it must be established that the regulations are actually sane, not contradictory and so on. If the regulations do not really apply, then the complexity of operating an RPA is anything between "making a call to advise regional traffic control there is an RPA operating under 400ft in some area where the pilot/operator evaluate the conditions for operation in that environment" vs. getting an RPA technically certified with all the paperwork, showing the execution of checklists, using certified equipment and all that and still not dealing properly with liability issues. Any incidents then become subject to more civil investigations, which probably make more sense given that the RPA's we're talking about here are a far cry from the passenger liners and the biggest threat of these aircraft is not collision with full-scale, but the consequences of a flying object falling down on earth. From that perspective, it makes more sense to consider it from a different legal perspective more along the lines of "sensible use of technology".

Replies

Gerard Toonstra October 11, 2013 at 6:28am

The ardupilot.com site has a wiki and it looks like it's one server running a couple of different instances. Perhaps another experimental one can be added there for this purpose. I'm not sure if the wiki itself can be converted into a PDF later for off-line viewing, but that would be a bonus.

The same site has a forum that could have a category added where threads can be started to discuss specific topics.

Also looks like that wiki can store documents linked to from one page with some easy descriptions on them and citing the sources from where the documents are collected. That by itself; a page that contains documents from various countries documenting the legislations is already an achievement.

You're right about insurance and how this goes hand-in-hand with certification. Probably insurance takes the form of model aircraft; insurance against third parties with protection clauses against ignorance and where the craft is operated and a coverage ceiling that's inline with a premium.
Gil Rosenthal October 11, 2013 at 2:19am

Getting craft and operations properly licensed and registered, would

help with the No. 1 catch to commercially operating UAVs: Insurance.

Attached is Darryl Jenkins' view on the topic :-)

Gil

Robo-Economics-Darryl-Jenkins.pptx
Gerard Toonstra October 9, 2013 at 4:15pm

Technically these solutions are certainly possible. The motion to dismiss case is actually a motion to question the legality of the FAA to enforce the penalty. One of the key phrases there is that FAA governs "nagivable airspace", which is considered higher than 400ft. Considering that model aircraft aren't for transporting people, it can be questioned whether it's the role of the FAA at all in that space and concerning the vehicle (it's not a low-altitude passenger liner!). The other very important argument is the differentation made between hobby and commercial use. How can commercial or hobby use of such aircraft make any distinct difference? And if there *was* a difference, I'd bet my money on the commercial user being safer.So before asking "is it possible" and "what are the current regulatioins", it must be established that the regulations are actually sane, not contradictory and so on. If the regulations do not really apply, then the complexity of operating an RPA is anything between "making a call to advise regional traffic control there is an RPA operating under 400ft in some area where the pilot/operator evaluate the conditions for operation in that environment" vs. getting an RPA technically certified with all the paperwork, showing the execution of checklists, using certified equipment and all that and still not dealing properly with liability issues. Any incidents then become subject to more civil investigations, which probably make more sense given that the RPA's we're talking about here are a far cry from the passenger liners and the biggest threat of these aircraft is not collision with full-scale, but the consequences of a flying object falling down on earth. From that perspective, it makes more sense to consider it from a different legal perspective more along the lines of "sensible use of technology".

This reply was deleted.