From Soaring Cafe:
One of the pilots in our local soaring club was surprised to discover that he was sharing a thermal with a model aircraft [commonly referred to nowadays as 'Unmanned Aerial Vehicles' (UAVs)] at ~2,500′ MSL (~1,800′ AGL). With the proliferation of such aircraft, glider pilots may need to be especially vigilant for unmanned aircraft. As one of our club instructors informed us, in the United States, UAVs are required by the FAA to remain below 400′ AGL or have a Certificate of Authorization (CoA) to operate at higher altitudes (but see the link in the quote below for clarification on the FAA’s stance regarding UAV operating altitudes). CoAs are currently only issued for restricted areas in the Continental U.S.mIn any case, we need to be on the lookout for unmanned aerial companions while soaring.
Here’s the pilot report:
Today I had what looked like a fast quadcopter join me in a thermal above Cecil Ashburn Drive.
I think I was at about 3,100 feet MSL. The copter was about 500 feet below and gaining.
At first I though it was a bird, then a mylar balloon, then a manuevering craft with a red blinking light.
He was turning the same direction I was, but turning at a different rate so I couldn’t continuously see him.
I bugged out.The thing that bugs me is that if there was a midair, he’d be out a copter, I’d just be out.
Anybody know what the rules are in this situation?
Prior arrangement for formation flying.
Glider versus powered right of way.
Anything goes if you can get away with it.Here’s a link to the quadcopter community’s thoughts on the rules.
http://diydrones.com/m/blogpost?id=705844%3ABlogPost%3A1551726
The quadcopter folks agree that AC-9157 does specify a limit of 400 feet and line of sight, But they say that the process that makes an AC is not a rule- making process with a public comment period and so is not binding on the general public. They claim that the FAA has admitted that this is correct in court. They say this leaves 14 CFR part 91. Does a particular section come to mind in there that might apply?
Comments
Another point, we've had posts about people using onboard computers to use thermals to keep aloft autonomously, and above our 400' USA guidelines, albeit outside of the USA. We need to determine where the community guidelines start, and do the proper policing of these guidelines ourselves, posts overachieving our chosen guidelines should be discouraged at best, banned if abused. I saw a mention of flying 50km out then back, which has been done, but what was reported was within the acceptable guidelines, therefore acceptable.
It's a tough time for us right now, we need to discourage operation outside of the guidelines, or the US congress criters will give the FAA the same type of oversight as the TSA and the NSA (notice they all end in A) this would not be a positive outcome.
It all comes back to individuals doing things that we know to be really a "Bad Idea!"
As a matter of fact these would mostly qualify as a Saturday Night Live "Bad Idea"
Unfortunately, it's kind of the old an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriter thing.
Only in reverse.
The more pervasive these become and more accepted and in use by untrained and disinterested people, the more of these we are going to see.
We here at DIYDrones really need to do our part where we can by pointing out correct procedures and methods (and attitudes) and we can at least reduce the number of "Bad Ideas".
You might check out the new Wiki page here for a start in the right direction:
http://copter.ardupilot.com/wiki/if-you-are-new-to-multicopters-sta...
By the way all you get with an infinite number of monkeys and an infinite number of typewriters is an awful lot of broken typewriters.
You got me man!
I amend my response: boring and on edge, I can see that. :-)
I feel compelled to comment on a couple things at this point,
#1, WTF! was a quad doing up at 1800 feet? Taking video/pics of a target object in the sky, in this case, that appears to be the glider. This is unacceptable without coordination of the glider pilot, and still "against guidelines"
Sounds like the quad was following the glider, most likely running FPV collecting video, and not autonomous. Arducopter is not required to achieve this feat, massive batteries are, if you expect your Quad to not crash.
Indication from the glider operator that the quad was so massive as to be a problem if contact occurred, possible but not likely, but still a concern, when in a plane in the air, you are happiest not seeing any other object in your "space". Bottom line, this community does NOT need a mid-air collision!
Seems to me this is an out of the ordinary occurrance, I would suggest calmness and a strive to get all the facts straight before completely freaking out.
@ brent, 100km flights would be pretty exciting if they were 50km out and back. But alas, my flight was about 50 times around a 2.5km lap (radius about 300m) at 60m above ground level. Gary is right, boring at times, but I only remember being on edge for 2 1/2 hours monitoring all the performance data especially the relationship between kms flown with battery remaining.
Whether or not your jurisdiction has a 400' rule, the risk is the same. There's a very real risk, albeit statistically small. That risk must be balanced off against potential benefits of allowing 400+ foot flights. So, what exactly are those benefits? So you can have a bit of fun?
There's a principle I believe in "Your right to throw your fist, ends where my nose begins."
If we have ANY hope being allowed to fly UAV's with a reasonable amount of freedom, we are going to have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. UAV's below that line, manned craft above.
And this really is just self-preservation in my mind. If we don't pro-actively try to be part of the solution, then we will most assuredly have rules foisted on us that we will not like. It's just that simple.
I have seen tens of thousands of dollars in damage to a Cessna 180 climbing out of an airport near the California coast, at approximately 85-90kts. A seagull tore a nasty gash.
A sailplane is much more fragile, and more expensive to repair. Multi's are more dense, and often heavier. On top of this, 85+kts is well within range of every sailplane.
I have seen small bashes in the full scale soaring world cost thousands, and I would be pissed if a multi hit me.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 5 Next