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
John, I was sending that out in general. People need to start thinking about the implications of the terms.
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.
Dang, can't edit. 1986 is "Unmanned" not "Unmaned." No offense meant to our equestrian friends, or lions for that matter, or... Never mind.
Hello John,
It's nice to see you posting on DIY Drones. Welcome. This is just to add to the topic of names, nothing more.
I'm sure most folks who follow UAV development are aware that there has been an evolution in the names applied to aircraft without on-board pilots, but I actually found a chronology that I'll post here in case it's of interest to anyone. This comes from the book "Unmanned Aviation, A Brief History of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles" by Laurence R. "Nuke" Newcome (gotta love that name!). And it is Laurence with a "u." Anyway, chapter one of the book is pretty much dedicated to defining what a UAV is.
First, in the for-what-it's-worth category, here's how the Department of Defense (Joint Publication 1-02) defines UAV in their dictionary (I never knew they had one; a dictionary, that is):
"A powered, aerial vehicle that does not carry a human operator, uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift, can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely, can be expendible or recoverable, and can carry a lethal or nonlethal payload. Ballistic or semiballistic vehicles, cruise missiles, and artillery projectiles are not considered unmanned aerial vehicles."
For me personally, I have never liked this trend of applying the terms UAV, sUAS or even drones to model airplanes with or without autopilots. I don't know if it matters in the end, but it could depending on how future regulations are worded. Indeed, since you dedicated an article to defining a term, I guess it might matter. If those of us in the model world are trying to adopt these terms to add prestige to what we do, it could come back to bite us.
So, here's that chronology (actual years are approximate from chart). Also, the fact that these terms are military is unavoidable since that's where the technology originated.
1895 -- Tesla's "Telautomaton"
1915 -- Sperry's "Aerial Torpedo"
1923 -- Pilotless Airplane
1935 -- Drone
1950 -- Radio Controlled Aerial Target (RCAT)
1955 -- Surveillance Drone
1967 -- Special Purpose Aircraft (SPA)
1968 -- Remotely Piloted Vehicle (RPV)
1986 -- Unmaned Aircraft (UMA)
1987 -- Automatically Piloted Vehicle (APV)
1992 -- Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
1996 -- Unmanned Tactical Aircraft (UTA)
1998 -- Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV)
1999 -- Remotely Operated Aircraft (ROA)
The chart ends there. Since then we have seen terms UAS and sUAS come into being (Unmanned Aerial Systems and Small UAS), although UAV seems to be the survivor and "drone" is having a comeback. There is also MAV, for Micro Aerial Vehicle. I'm sure there are others.
For a time "Unmanned Aerial Vehicle" fell out of favor since it was gender specific and the terms "Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle" and "Uninhabited Aerial Vehicle" were tried, but I guess the PC police gave up since "Unmanned" is here to stay.
So, there it is. I hope this is informative if nothing more.
Thanks,
Paul
Hi John, I am sorry if my comments were harsh. I feel for those that are trying to do good things with unmanned platforms and the balance of reporting is negative and suspicious.
Would you ban or investigate kites? They have a similar vantage point to UAS and if its windy enough fly for much longer?
http://activetectonics.la.asu.edu/kites/06eq.html
http://scotthaefner.com/beyond/san-francisco-100-years-later/
It is an issue that needs to be visited for sure.
How does the manned flight community in the USA deal with privacy concerns?
@Jason
I agree, there has been a veritable EXPLOSION of coverage of drone/uavs in the mainstream media over the past ~6 months. The whole idea of a personal drone is now a "household name". I think anybody who is even remotely tech-savvy is now aware of the idea. Further, I think we are on the cusp of an explosion in usage.
Personally, I don't really get too concerned about the semantics of the name, UAS, sUAS, UAV, Drone... I don't really see what it's that big of a deal what we call them. I understand that different names bring different connotations to the uninitiated, but that will happen no matter what the media calls them. If UAS's are used for a bad purpose, the public will get bad perception of them whether or not the media calls them a UAV, UAS or Drone.
I'm not so down on the article. I do think 'drone' is a powerful word and UAS means nothing outside of the community or military. I'm shocked at the rise of 'drone' articles lately in popular media and I think the concept of a drone is fascinating to many. It's a mixed bag of positive and apprehensive feelings for laymen, but that's what makes it so compelling. And then people find out they can make their own drone? Most negative feelings go away.
Jason
I was going to pull this post down as its a bit ranty man, lots of the stuff I am reading at the minute makes me put my head in my hands and tut alot.
The wrong team is driving the UAS tour bus at the minute, its TV's out of hotel windows all around.