I can't believe just how wrong John Villasenor can be, I guess he figured one of us would mention this here and it would drive his blog posts wild at Scientific American.
He completely misses the real definitions of UAS its not about having an autopilot onboard. What worries me more is that Mr Villasenor is asked to speak about UAS to other grown ups. There is a huge gap between the reality of UAS and what CSI tells us.
John is a member here so he can perhaps chip in and explain his definitions.
From the FAA Interim Guidance http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/aaim/organizations/uas/coa/faq/media/uas_guidance08-01.pdf
Unmanned Aircraft: A device used or intended to be used for flight in the air that has no onboard pilot. This includes all classes of airplanes, helicopters, airships, and translational lift aircraft that have no onboard pilot. Unmanned aircraft are understood to include only those aircraft controllable in three axes and therefore, exclude traditional balloons
Here is an excerpt from the Scientific American blog.
What is a "first person view" unmanned aircraft? Is it a drone?
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/04/12/what-is-a-drone-anyway/#comment-4952
A first-person view (FPV) aircraft has a front-facing video camera and transmits real-time video to an operator on the ground. The operator looks at the image on a computer screen, sees the view as if he or she were sitting in the cockpit, and flies the plane accordingly.
While “UAV” is a general term for (non model aircraft) unmanned aircraft, FPV refers to the subset of such aircraft that are flown by a remote pilot using the image transmitted from an on-board camera. Unmanned aircraft guided exclusively by GPS or on-board computer analysis of imagery are UAVs, but they aren’t first-person view UAVs.
Until now, most FPV aircraft have been operated by the military, using technologies that make it possible to fly the aircraft beyond the line of sight of the pilot. However, use of FPV aircraft in non-military settings is certain to increase with the recent enactment of a new U.S. aviation law that will open U.S. airspace to many types of unmanned aircraft in the coming years. FPV aircraft are likely to be subject to very conservative FAA rules regarding domestic non-line-of-sight operation to minimize potential safety concerns. For example, if the communication link between the pilot and the aircraft fails, then there are obvious challenges involved in bringing the aircraft back to the ground without endangering other aircraft or people on the ground.
Is an FPV aircraft a drone? Under the strictest definition of drone, it isn’t, since it is flown under the control of a human operator. However, when flown beyond the line of sight, an FPV aircraft would be characterized by many people as a drone, despite the significant skill that might be involved in flying it. This is because the definition of drone can be difficult or impossible for an observer to apply. After all, how can someone who sees an unmanned aircraft maneuvering without any evidence of a nearby pilot know whether it is autonomous or remotely piloted? From the observer’s standpoint, it’s not unreasonable to consider it a drone.
Comments
The only thing I take exception to would be the phrase "Until now, most FPV aircraft have been operated by the military." If "now" is 6-8 years ago, then I would agree....
Gary - Thanks for clarifying; much appreciated.
John, I was sending that out in general. People need to start thinking about the implications of the terms.
Seth - fair points. But, I didn't pull FPV out of thin air. It is certainly a term used by some people. For one, the AMA uses it. See
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/550.pdf
An unmanned aircraft that is flown beyond the line of sight would generally either need to be autonomous, or flown by a remote pilot who has the benefit of access to a view from a camera in the plane (or some combination of both). FPV seems to be a reasonable term to describe the "view from the plane" option, and as noted, this is not a term I made up; it's widely recognized in the modeling community. For many people, "remotely piloted" isn't nearly as descriptive as FPV, and doesn't distinguish between remote piloting accomplished by watching the plane from a distance (as in traditional RC modeling) and (possibly non LOS) remote piloting based on video from the plane. Maybe there's a better (equally crisp) designation to convey that "first person" concept and distinguish it from autonomous - if so, I'd welcome it. And, I did speak with a Grey Eagle pilot when preparing this article; he had no objection to the FPV description.
Gary - you wrote "Everything that flies and does not actually carry a driver has become an unmanned aircraft." I fully agree, and have didn't state otherwise.
The naming thing is important, as a subtle change has happened over the last couple of years.
Everything that flies and does not actually carry a driver has become an unmanned aircraft. Making it subject to airlaw. Autopilot, or camera on board it makes no difference. Large or small either, so all those toys at (insert large American store here) as well. The FAA are not going to hunt eight year olds down at a park, but if a grown up does something really silly with something there will be avenues to pursue them. Not being able to control them in three axis keeps balloons and kites out of the regs, for now.
The AMA sat down with the FAA and they have accepted their way of working as a community based standard. There is no community based standard for sUAS in the USA. Privacy it would seem would have to be part of it. The main military contractors are going to the meetings and heading the committees to sew standards up and make sure you can't compete with them once first responders get a chance to fly.
That is going to be the first big test of what happened in congress, there should be some announcements very soon about that happening if the time table is kept to. Patrick is stirring again to find out exactly what the UAPO (unmanned aircraft program office) is expected to do. Or rather the job descriptions of the people running it.
Just a minute, let me climb up on my soap box again.
Before the NPRM it would be a good idea to get behind a community based organisation RCAPA to ensure that a combined voice is heard. Remember the AMA's position was, not sure if it still is with DIYD's numbers growing rapidly, no autonomous flight. I can see that being a little academic as most receivers in a couple of years time will have some basic wing levelling and RTL me thinks. One of the majors is bound to suddenly invent the term! GPS and sensor reporting is already standard so its only a hop and a skip away now.
So whats in a name?
You say potato and I say starchy, tuberous crop from the perennial Solanum tuberosum of the Solanaceae family. But lets not call the whole thing off.
It is important to keep up with what names mean. Things are being sneaked past us I don't like it.
Oh yeah cough
ASTM F38
John,
I'm sorry, but your article was painful to read. While yes, the terminology UAV/UAS/FPV/Drone doesn't really matter to the layman, if you're going to write an article for Scientific American on the subject you should probably consult an expert in the field. I don't think that, if you had interviewed someone at Insutu/Cloud Cap/AeroVironment/AAI, you would have heard the term "FPV" attached to any vehicle. The military doesn't operate any UAS without an autopilot of some sort. If the Predator/Reaper/Grey Eagle (which is the only commonly employed Remotely Piloted Vehicle which I am aware of) happens to loose "the communications link between the pilot and the aircraft" it's not going to spiral out of control. I recommend that you contact AeroVironment or another UAS company in your area, and ask if you can speak with someone in their training department. If you're a US citizen they might be able to arrange some time in a simulator and some hands-on with some UAS hardware. Ask them specifically to demonstrate the aircraft's lost link behavior.
Rant over, flame off.
Paul - one other quick point to illustrate the twists and turns of these terms: The DoD UAV definition you provided (which allows "autonomously or be piloted remotely") is in conflict with the DIY Drones definition which is an "aerial robot" that is "capable of both remotely controlled flight (like a regular RC aircraft) and fully-autonomous flight." Neither definition is "wrong"; it's just that these things are in flux and can mean different things to different groups.
Hi Paul - many thanks for posting your informative chronology.
One of the points I was trying to make in the article is that traditional terminology has often relied on knowledge only possessed by the operator of the UAV (or whatever we want to call it generically). In a world where the people who saw a UAV often tended to be their operators, that worked. In the future, however, lots of people are going to be seeing UAVs and be lacking any other information other than what they can see with their eyes. If they are experts, maybe they can say, that's a model XYZ, and I know it has an autopilot, etc. But for the average person on the street, who might, a few years from now, look up in the sky and see a UAV with no evidence of a nearby pilot, he or she can't be expected to know whether it is autonomous or remotely piloted. That person is going to think "drone". And, we can't really blame them.
Again, many thanks for your informative chronology. The only term I can think of to add to that, which I used to see often in the early 2000s, but almost never see these days is UAV as in "unmanned autonomous vehicle," though that of course had the ambiguity of potentially applying to something that doesn't fly.
Dang, can't edit. 1986 is "Unmanned" not "Unmaned." No offense meant to our equestrian friends, or lions for that matter, or... Never mind.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next