Chris,
I saw that you chimed in on this thread on RCGroups: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1046195
What are your plans in relation to the UAV Certificate issue?
It really sounds like it is the responsibility of the end user to get a certificate for their UAV, if they are using it for commerical purposes like AP for hire, and not the manufacturer of the autopilot product.
Comments?
Regards,
TCIII
Okay let me let me qualify my statement..."responsible civilian use"....now I am off to join the AMA glider pilots flying at 1500 feet down the road... ;)
I agree with Howard. That's why we have good practice guidelines on the front page and I've spoken at everything from AUVSI to Etech about responsible UAV use. I've also briefed the feds and the AMA on what we're doing.
"the FAA is going to have to come to terms with civilian autopilot use for better or worse"
I have the sense that this "don't look don't tell" approach is a formula for disaster. It will only take one real incident of interference between hobby UAV and regulated aircraft for the FAA to shut down hobby / non-licensed use of autonomous flight control, and the more users we have, the higher the probability of an incident. I think that anyone designing or selling this stuff needs to take a pro-active stance in communicating how this technology is being used and needs to be visible as well to the FAA if there's any hope of a "better" outcome from "better or worse" scenarios.
The more open source autopilots that are out there the greater the likelihood that the FAA is going to have to come to terms with civilian autopilot use for better or worse....go Chris!
Correct. We don't make or sell autopilots--we give away the designs and software as open source technology and someone else (Sparkfun and anyone else who wants to do the same) makes and sells them. So we're exempt (and Sparkfun doesn't fly, so they're fine, too). But if anyone uses ArduPilot for commercial purposes it's up to them to get a COA or other necessary regulatory permission..
Comments
I have the sense that this "don't look don't tell" approach is a formula for disaster. It will only take one real incident of interference between hobby UAV and regulated aircraft for the FAA to shut down hobby / non-licensed use of autonomous flight control, and the more users we have, the higher the probability of an incident. I think that anyone designing or selling this stuff needs to take a pro-active stance in communicating how this technology is being used and needs to be visible as well to the FAA if there's any hope of a "better" outcome from "better or worse" scenarios.
Nice rationale and I whole heartedly agree with your point of view.
Regards,
TCIII