Farmer Uses Unmanned Eye in the Sky to Maximize CropsIdaho Business Review (06/23/08)
(Excerpt, thanks to the AUVSI news roundup, follows):
Kendrick, Idaho, farmer Robert Blair is heading the campaign to revamp agricultural information collection. Utilizing Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), Blair has been able to map, track, and study his fields with superior precision. The UAS employed by Blair is known as the CropCam, and has the appearance of a model airplane, with an eight-foot wingspan and a length of four feet. It is battery-fueled, weighs six pounds, and flies at an altitude of between 400 and 2,000 feet, at a maximum speed of 60 mph. It can be configured to fly a particular route on autopilot or under manual control, and is able to cover over 640 acres in around 25 minutes. The UAS is outfitted with a high-resolution camera and sends the data right to Blair's computer for evaluation. The photos he has taken have allowed Blair to look at elk herd damage to his crops and, employing color spectrum overlays, discover precisely which areas require more or less water or fertilizer. Having such in-depth and timely information helped Blair to better manage his crops and saved him more than $50,000 in 2007, he states. Presently, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) mandates civilian, commercial UAS operators to acquire a Certificate of Authorization for public use, a pilot's license with an instrument rating, and a tail number for the vehicle. Blair would like an exemption to the rules for natural resource management and new UAS rules that more closely match the standards overseeing model airplanes. With help from Congressman Bill Sali (R-Idaho), Blair got several members of Congress to sign and submit a letter to the FAA, asking them to include representatives from natural resource management industries on the agency's rulemaking advisory committee. The committee is working on new regulations for UASs, and Mike Fergus, FAA spokesman for the northwest mountain region, says the process has only just begun. Tom Curtin, Ph.D., chief knowledge officer of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), says his organization has a seat at the table, and hopes the committee will eventually hand down a set of regulations that benefit operators like Blair. "[AUVSI wants] sensible rules that are going to allow unmanned aircraft to be integrated into the national airspace," he says. "And sensible to me means starting with the easy stuff," such as agriculture, forest fires and border control.
He can only try after the FAA (byw not the FCC as the Post Title Suggests?) - after the FAA officially grounds his efforts and costs him $50,000 in costs.
But this is great news, because it opens a tear in the tent flap for the ear of a camel, and creates a viable market for new technology, now we the US people can compete in cutting edge technology, rather than leaving new tech to the Israelis, Canadians, and new Zealanders.
I suspect the Farmers have a Constitutional claim to the full enjoyment of their property. If the right to erect a cellphone tower 1000' in the air exists, then it would seem the right to operate a vehicle on one's own land, in support of one's right to life, to earn a living, and pursue commerce, predates and supersedes the FAA's authority.
In short, there is hope of a Constitutional showdown between the farmer denied access to his own airspace and the FAA. (A Takings complaint).
They are aware, as a community we don’t want to inflict any harm upon ourselves i.e. (Hobby examples), “This is how high I flew today!”, “Breaking the sound barrier with a 1/8 scale turbine, and using FPV when it gets out of VLOS!”, “Monster Planes” etc.
we just returned from Blair farms . we designed a much more capable system for robert then crop cam , that airplane is our E-2 which i have posted video of here . its a porpouse built uav not some r/c off the shelf afair . it also uses the much more capable piccolo LT AP from cloud cap. we demo'ed it for a croud of about 50 ag' people yesterday. FYI we keep it below 400' AGL . the way i understand the line between commercial an rec' . was stated to me by an FAA official like this , the operator cannot be compansated for a spacific flight .that is how pro r/c aerobatic pilots can fly uavs proffesionally and thats why i can do it proffesionally. and lets not forget we are talking"advisory" rules here ,not wise to break but no real teeth and when is the last time anyone here has watched r/c compitition videos ? way above 400'agl . r/c gliders usually go up to 1000' - 1500' every day
True, the 400 foot and LOS portions would still be there, and I agree with them. I suppose you could make a deeply philosophical statement and say if it improved his ability to earn income it must be commercial. If we go to that length though, would not the ability to drive a car to work increase your ability to earn money, and would that not be commercial use of a motor vehicle and require special licensing? and taxes??
Comments
My apologies. Typing too fast; now corrected...
But this is great news, because it opens a tear in the tent flap for the ear of a camel, and creates a viable market for new technology, now we the US people can compete in cutting edge technology, rather than leaving new tech to the Israelis, Canadians, and new Zealanders.
In short, there is hope of a Constitutional showdown between the farmer denied access to his own airspace and the FAA. (A Takings complaint).
Ben
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next