Blogs

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

Join diydrones

Comments

  • Rob_Lefebvre August 27, 2013 at 11:20am

    Ah, interesting:

    http://forum.freeflysystems.com/index.php?threads/faa-spokesman-com...

    Reported on a number of news sources this week was a comment from FAA spokesperson Les Dorr. According to news reports in response to questions about how the FAA was enforcing the current rules on UAV operations he said, "We really would only pursue a civil penalty if someone was operating an unmanned aircraft in a reckless manner". 

    So that explains it.  They basically admit the C&D letters are just window dressing, and as long as you don't hurt anyone, they won't actually do anything.  

  • Rob_Lefebvre August 27, 2013 at 10:44am

    Oliver, I agree they should focus on things that are actually dangerous.  But it will be interesting to watch how this plays out, because the FAA has been making so much noise about the outright ban on commercial use of UAV's. If they don't lay a charge for that *in addition to reckless* then it will send the message that it is in fact fine to fly UAV's commercially, as long as nothing goes wrong, which is exactly how the marketplace operates now.

    Lots of commercial operators doing work where the public isn't at risk, but technically that is still not legal.

    However:

    "If a UAV falls in the field, and the FAA is not around to hear, does it still make a sound?"

  • Oliver August 27, 2013 at 10:20am

    Robert & Adam, we have no idea from this what the FAA actually said, if anything, only what this TV station reported. Likewise the business about "experts in the field of model aviation" where we don't even know who these "experts" are (probably the news producer's nephews Billy Bob and Billy Bob who own a foamy bought at a mall kiosk).

    But if the FAA goes after these clowns for "careless and reckless" (but not wreckless) operation, isn't that exactly what we want? And isn't that what the FAA's mission is, rather than getting all wrapped up in privacy issues about which they know nothing or for that matter worrying about who should and who should not be allowed to make money doing identical things? The FAA could shed a lot of the heat it's feeling these days by simply going after dangerous idiots, of which there is certainly no shortage. That would keep them nice and busy and do the rest of us a favor.

  • Rob_Lefebvre August 27, 2013 at 10:10am

    Adam, this was very clearly a commercial operation.  3 parties are involved.  First company that built the UAV and rented it (I can't believe this part actually!), then the company that actually did the job, and finally the company that paid for the work.

    From what I can see, this event will finally push the FAA to put their money where their mouth is.  Does the FAA Commercial Prohibition have any teeth or not?  If they don't throw the book at these guys, then everybody will know all the FAA talk about commercial use being banned is nothing but hot air.  

  • AKRCGUY August 27, 2013 at 9:52am

    I was suprised by the FAA statement as well,  I don't believe there is anything currently in the regs for RC aircraft though.  Not sure how they can enforce stupidity.  Now they say the battery went dead.

  • Andy Horka August 27, 2013 at 9:37am

    There are many websites blatantly advertising aerial photography in the USA. Some even offer insurance for an illegal activity??????????????? Don't get it.

  • Rob_Lefebvre August 27, 2013 at 8:54am

    Hold on to your hats, FAA is officially launching an investigation. 

    http://wtvr.com/2013/08/26/faa-investigates-bull-run-drone-crash/

    However...

    "After viewing the video, experts in the field of model aviation said it appeared the remote-controlled aircraft lost its signal with the transmitter before it fell."

    Obviously these weren't experts in the field of MULTIROTORS! Nothing in that video made me think the Tx link was lost.

    "    “We are investigating to see if the person flying the unmanned aircraft violated any FAA regulations, particularly the part that says ‘No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another,’” the FAA said in a statement."

    This surprises me. I'd have thought the first thing they'd have been going after is the whole commercial use thing.

  • Jared Reabow August 27, 2013 at 7:01am

    ah yes low power cutoff sounds like the problem, on motors cuts forcing the left side to speed up as they speed up the voltage drops for them so they cut hence the fall to the left!

    I have to say the guy who rented his copter should be reprimanded.

  • Rob_Lefebvre August 27, 2013 at 6:58am

    And then now there's this interesting article:

    http://www.suasnews.com/2013/08/24652/cbs-6-exclusive-friends-survi...

    So the owner of the aircraft was not operating it, but "rented" it to somebody else.  But they're not saying who due to confidentiality agreements.  So we have people renting UAV's to operators with what credentials exactly? I wonder if this will finally be the event that kicks the FAA into high gear.  This whole situation is pretty ridiculous.  Because the FAA has failed to effectively regulate the market, they are losing control more and more every day. 

    On the technical side, there's a statement there about the battery dying.  We saw it dip to one side.  Anybody wanna bet that whatever clown assembled that monstrosity, it's running stock ESC firmware with LiPo cuttoff enabled?

  • Rob_Lefebvre August 26, 2013 at 6:19pm

    Yeah I know John.  Just commenting on the sniping. ;)

This reply was deleted.