Current State of Commercial SUASs (& New(ish) FAA Fact Sheet)

I did a little digging into the current state of affairs with regard to commercial small unmanned aircraft systems (SUASs) and I'm not really sure what it all means. On the one hand, there seem to be quite a few companies developing and/or manufacturing SUASs. Presumably, many of these are for private, commercial use as opposed to pure research, governmental or recreational activity. On the other hand, judging by what I'm reading from the FAA, the current state of allowable SUAS use does not come close to justifying this level of commercial development. What do these people know, and where are all the SUASs currently in existence being used?

I'm sure that anyone developing a hobby SUAS would love to allow it to fly outside of the range of manual control. Right now, the hobby community is pretty much restricted to the pure excitement of watching a plane fly on autopilot, but within the same airspace as a manually flown R/C plane. The point, and I know it's not new, is that as goes commercial SUAS regulation so goes (to some extent) recreational regulation (hopefully in a positive and/or more unrestrictive way). So, this is the tie-in relative to DIY Drones.

First of all, if you haven't read this FAA fact sheet, it's both interesting and encouraging, so you might want to (it's short).

http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=6287

For what it's worth, I think there might be some confusion on this site regarding COAs, or Certificates of Waiver or Authorization. These are only available to public entities, i.e. not private commercial ones, who want to fly SUASs in public airspace. As of September 2010, there are only 251 active COAs. By definition, none of these relate to private commercial SUAS use.

The only certification available to civil operators of SUASs is a Special Airworthiness Certificate in the Experimental Category. Since 2005, only 78 have been issued.

While the FAA seems to be very positive about SUAS development and use, it appears that, in reality, there just isn't much practical use of these systems going on in the private sector. Yet, a whole lot of companies and their investors must see something coming, and soon. Is all of this activity based on speculation, or are there current, practical uses of SUASs going on? If so, what are they? Personally, I would love to see an SUAS surveying a corn field as I drive by! I think it's going to be while, though.

In the 1980's the FAA was faced with the same situation with ultralight aircraft. At that time you either were a pilot and flew a licensed aircraft, or you were in severe violation of the law.

Hang gliders had been around for years, and someone was smart enough to stick a go kart engine and a prop on one. From that point there was no looking back. In no time at all there were thousands flying . . . illegally. The FAA was faced with the problem, even back then, that they didn't have enough money or manpower to think about trying to license and enforce ultralights.

The FAA came up with rules that limited ultralights to non-restricted airspace, 250 lbs, 55 mph, 5 gals of gas, and no license. The only time the FAA ever became involved was when there was an injury accident.

Are there commercial UAS's flying? Absolutely. Facts to back that up? No, but if there is a money stream someone is doing it. The extensive lists above just scream out for this inexpensive solution.

There is going to have to be multiple solutions. Calling everything a UAS is like lumping an RC plane with an SR71. Anything over 10 lbs falling from the sky is going to be a huge problem. It is likely that even recreation use will be limited in payload.

This will take years to sort out. There isn't enough flying right now, but in a year there could be 10 times what there is now, and 10 times that the next year. At some point industry groups, recreation groups, and the FAA will have to hammer out a working package so that commercial and recreation use doesn't endanger lives.

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones

Comments

MarcS October 12, 2010 at 3:08am

Hi John, you ae absolutely right!
I jst wanted to make clear, that even google has to folow rules...
If you read the press, you could sometimes get diffeent impressions..

And you are right about the rules! If they manage to get a car to drive "without a human" interfering, you should be able to tak these rules for UAV. Especially since car control has less options of colission avoidance and control times are much shorter.
E.G.: They probably do not have a "drive termination mode" as many UAV have to crash the plane "safely" in case of malfunctions...

So let´s see what happens.
John Ryan October 12, 2010 at 2:56am

@MarcS

I said "without a driver steering it" not "without a driver". And I understand the rule concerning "pilot in view of the UAV".

Those rules were devised I'm assuming to prevent a UAV becoming a danger to the public below or hitting another airborne vehicle. Those rules would be similar in logic to why a motor vehicle needs a driver "in control" of a motor vehicle.

So if Google are aiming to retrofit a motor vehicle with the systems needed to eliminate the need for a driver to be "in control" of the vehicle (or even "in it", as with shuttles that wouldn't need drivers). And if they can succeed, then similar technological solutions that eliminated the dangers presented by UAVs would need to be considered.

I mean. It would be pretty funny for driver-less cars to be allowed to crawl the streets and persist with the current rules for UAV's. So maybe google's work has wider medium to long term implications, particularly the interesting precedent they'll set if completely driver-less cars are permitted.
Moderator

Gary Mortimer October 12, 2010 at 12:29am

Look up optionally piloted vehicles OPV's

http://www.suasnews.com/2010/04/805/aurora-flight-sciences-opv-arri...

They are obvious things, the chap does the radio en route to an area of operation, then takes out all the ground station stuff and sets up the forward operating base for the OPV. Without his weight on board he can put a lot more fuel in.

Obviously a larger type bin than we are talking about here.
MarcS October 12, 2010 at 12:20am

And the google car had a safety driver all the time.
If you have a safet pilot(s) in view of your UAV all the time you are also allowed to do experiments today (after some paperwork, which I´m sure google also had with their car...)
Moderator

Gary Mortimer October 12, 2010 at 12:09am

The Google car had a detect sense and avoid system fitted.
John Ryan October 11, 2010 at 5:11pm

If goggle can make a car that's trusted enough to be allowed on the road without a driver steering it, then surely a similar solution exists for vehicles that occupy less cluttered air space.

I guess the issue would be the speed at which evasive action could be taken, among other things.
Jeb Bailey October 11, 2010 at 2:09pm

So, as I understand it, the main issue that the FAA is trying to get around is that of "See and Avoid" which most ALL airspace rules boil down to. As a pilot, it is your responsibility to see other aircraft and avoid running headlong into them. The issue with SUASs is that robots don't do see all that well. This is why there are few (if any) commercial UASs in use at the moment.

The big challenge is to get robots and people sharing the same airspace without hitting each other. The current estimate as far as I know is sometime next year, rule will be in place.
Dean Lamborn October 10, 2010 at 7:09pm

In the 1980's the FAA was faced with the same situation with ultralight aircraft. At that time you either were a pilot and flew a licensed aircraft, or you were in severe violation of the law.

Hang gliders had been around for years, and someone was smart enough to stick a go kart engine and a prop on one. From that point there was no looking back. In no time at all there were thousands flying . . . illegally. The FAA was faced with the problem, even back then, that they didn't have enough money or manpower to think about trying to license and enforce ultralights.

The FAA came up with rules that limited ultralights to non-restricted airspace, 250 lbs, 55 mph, 5 gals of gas, and no license. The only time the FAA ever became involved was when there was an injury accident.

Are there commercial UAS's flying? Absolutely. Facts to back that up? No, but if there is a money stream someone is doing it. The extensive lists above just scream out for this inexpensive solution.

There is going to have to be multiple solutions. Calling everything a UAS is like lumping an RC plane with an SR71. Anything over 10 lbs falling from the sky is going to be a huge problem. It is likely that even recreation use will be limited in payload.

This will take years to sort out. There isn't enough flying right now, but in a year there could be 10 times what there is now, and 10 times that the next year. At some point industry groups, recreation groups, and the FAA will have to hammer out a working package so that commercial and recreation use doesn't endanger lives.
Paul Marsh October 8, 2010 at 9:36am

@Gary & Steve -- It's nice to hear from people in the business on this topic. Thanks. In hindsight, I can't really say how I got the idea that things were further along than they are. Maybe a combination of seeing some hype and wishful thinking on my part.
Moderator

Gary Mortimer October 8, 2010 at 8:55am

Its a snake oil filled market, I had a chap trying to sell me a system last week that could fly to 20,000' and be operated anywhere in the world via satellite links, I kept him talking just to hear what he had to say.

I could'nt agree more with Steve, the examples of UAS actually being used are very few and far between. I am amazed at some of the claims made by some manufacturers, not only about legality but also performance.

The world will be populated with very simple UAS doing dull dangerous dirty work within VLOS.

Once those are starting to go well flight BLOS will be allowed for qualified operators, but in my opinion getting systems safe enough for that will make them close to fullsize aircraft in cost to operate so pointless.

Technology is coming to us, sensors lighter photogrammetry software more powerful. Its not an environment Aerovironment can compete in. Now that defence spending is shrinking paerhaps they will be trying to corner the civilian market.

of 4

This reply was deleted.