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.
Comments
I've talked with a few people who are familiar with the conversations going on between researchers and the FAA. There are groups that have created vision/lidar/microwave/etc. systems for detecting and avoiding other aircraft. They run their simulations and trials and end up with something like a 95% detection rate. They take that to the FAA and they get a "not good enough" response.
The technology is there; what is lacking is someone with authority at the FAA willing to put their career on the line by stamping something as "good enough". That is not likely to happen without some serious external pressure.
Tom
And maybe we'll all end up underwater one day, who really knows.
I take your point about a car crash vs. a UAV crash. That's the problem with these hypothetical comparisons. Who can really say what the publics' reaction will be, or whehter one accident will be bigger than another. I probably should have left out that comment.
Anyway, here's Futurama. I particularly loved the underwater city. I don't recall if there we any AUVs.
Some people love change, and a challenge. I like to believe there are more ways to skin a cat, so if there's a slim chances of google succeeding, and a slimmer chance it might impact on UAV regulatory controls, then slim is better than nothing.
And a 3 tonne car at 50 miles an hour is as deadly as anything falling out of the sky, maybe not a 747, but a 4 to 6ft UAV would have nothing on an out of control car in a crowded street.
@Others -- Regarding the Google discussion, while there are some similarities with UAVs, I think the differences are bigger. If my very brief reading of what Google is doing is anywhere near correct, the idea seems to be that a robot can drive more safely and economically than a human. We'll still be in the vehicle, we just won't be in control, unless maybe we have to take over. (Anyone see Minority Report?)
I might be off base here, but I think there is also a difference in the public's mind. If a car with an autopilot causes a crash, it's just another car crash with a twist. If a 50 lb. UAV falls out of the sky and causes damage or harm, the perception is worse. In other words, general use of UAVs will most likely move very slowly.
Finally, and for what it's worth, I just don't see car-loving Americans giving up control of their vehicles. I gave up my gas guzzling land yacht kicking and screaming--don't ask me to turn over the wheel too!!! ;)
P.S. -- For anyone not familiar with the movie Minority Report, one of the opening scenes was of super highways and feeder streets with driverless cars. In an interview, Steven Spielberg said he didn't want any traffic jams in his movie city!
I dunno about right, but I am "hopeful" there might be something in what google are doing with cars, for UAV's.
Down here we can fly whatever, wherever, whenever, but if the trend is for tighter regulations then its only a matter of time before it hits everyone.
But if the trend starts leaning toward technology solutions to address collisions and spectator safety, then imposing tighter regulations would be seen as interim, and a waste of time and money.
I am a bit puzzled why collision avoidance isn't already a big part of a UAVs navigational framework. Isn't that a problem that can be solved using a cheap ultrasonic range finder to detect oncoming targets out to 6 meters? eg, detect something that wasn't there a millisecond ago, avoid it?
Article link;
http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=221386221&a...
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next