Good article at The Atlantic's Quartz site comparing DJI with 3DR. Sample quote:
The UAV industry is a fairly new one, and right now its main focus is on consumer products. That’s partially because it is growing from a consumer base: What has made them possible is the smartphone revolution, which drove down the price on the tiny electronic components needed to turn low-power remote control aircraft into flying robots that navigate, communicate, and sense. While defense contractors were making expensive and powerful drones for the US military, hobbyists were basically bolting iPhones onto remote-controlled helicopters.
Comments
Dennis - ADS-B only works with mode-S transponders, and there is an awful lot of airspace that doesn't require any transponder. Or radio, for that matter. I am confident that if our light commercial UAV's are required to incorporate ADS-B Out, someone will come up with a lightweight transponder. But the biggest problem will be the battery for the transponder will outweigh the craft, and the system will easily cost north of $1000. (Typical transponders put out 200-Watt pulses.)
As a group of users, we need to strongly advocate an exemption for light UAV's flying below 400 ft. Since passenger aircraft may not normally fly below 500 ft (except takeoff and landing), the use of transponders on those aircraft would only add useless clutter to the ATC radars. Not to mention mission compromising weight and expense.
That number (30K) was just a baseline for FAA action.
Gary said: "Perhaps they should happen at AMA fields to start changing attitudes from within."
Question Gary - What ever makes you think that the AMA represents us?
@Circuitburner- you touched on an important issue.
I don't see a any common voice to protect or speak on behalf of the small UAV's and to protect us from unnecessary legislation.
We (users of small UAV's) have several advisories. Some of them just don't understand the small UAV's while other groups don't care - they just don't like small UAV's and want them controlled. We are being pinched between large UAV companies, pilot associations, privacy activists and various institutions who support legislation. Of course the common thread is either unfounded fear or greed.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2114345456001/new-frontiers-of-drone-tec...
interesting to know, based on discussion here and our concerns about what the media perception is currently, and who else outside this forum is pushing what....heck may be one of your people i dunno lol...check it out, I feel this type and tempurature media is nearly spot on for promoting the little UAVs eventual acceptance...as the engineer points out regarding privacy concerns, "theres already a very high chance today with all the internet connected portable devices that your picture will get taken somewhere and end up on the internet without your knowledge or consent" .... Now, this doesnt particularly make the case for us privateers but anything to make public perception in general favorable isnt bad... what do you think?>
One big chunk of fear, combined with at least some political power, is the manned aviation industry. I've been a pilot since the 70's, advanced ratings and such, so I know a bit about it.
This has probably been what has kept the US behind those overseas regarding UA regulation. We've got a sort of healthy aviation industry, while overseas it's just a few big airlines, and that's it. Europe killed their GA, except for ultralights, and most of the rest of the world never had much.
The big worry pilots have are Predator drone type aircraft. That's what they envision when they hear about a "UAV". If you tell a pilot there will be "30 thousand" UAVs in a few years, they panic. Without Googling, I doubt there are 30 thousand active manned aircraft in the US (not counting those corroding on some tie down).
What pilots don't realize is that most of these UAs are going to be tiny little things, flying below 500 feet. If they knew that, their opposition would dampen down quickly.
For the larger, higher UAs, someone needs to light a fire under the FAA and get what they now call "Next Gen" on line ASAP. This is a system where aircraft carry GPSs, and broadcast their location to the world, and receive the location of other aircraft.
The underlying technology is called ADS/B (automatic dependence surveillance / broadcast) (I think). There are two types, ADS/B "out", and ADS/B "in". Sometime in the future, all aircraft will be required to have the "out" flavor. This is where GPS data is broadcast, but not received. Just a location beacon. The "in" flavor, also receives, and can show traffic of all other aircraft on a cockpit display. This would be optional (I believe).
I was actually on the ADS/B committee for a short time in the 90's. The original idea was to replace ELT (emergency locator transmitters) now required in all aircraft, with a requirement for ADS/B "out". Even airport ground vehicles would get these, so that tower controllers could see if they were in conflicting locations, and even pilots could see if a crew bus was crossing a runway in the fog.
The obvious solution for traffic concerns for higher flying UAs is to require ADS/B "out" for all of them. They could also implement the "in" flavor and give them automatic traffic avoidance capability.
If anyone has mentioned this concept, I haven't read about it. Why hasn't it been mentioned, or at least isn't a Big Deal?
I believe a big political damper on ADS/B was because it was pointed out in the 90's (via a NASA program called "AGATE" - google it) that it would be possible for aircraft to autonomously give each other "clearance" via such a system, allowing them to avoid traffic, even in IFR conditions, with no ground based radar or even an air traffic controller in the loop.
I don't think the Air Traffic Controller union liked this, and I don't think the government regulator types liked this one bit. Thus "Next Gen" has been put off, way into the future, and seriously dumbed down from what the NASA AGATE program envisioned. Current implementation is 2020, after many years of delay. With every mid-air collision, maybe one or two a year, where people always die, I'm amazed that this unnecessary delay isn't brought up.
Perhaps if the UA industry (bigger, higher flying UAs) quickly got behind either the existing ADS/B "out", or created their own similar system that interfaced with Next Gen, maybe the technology could be pushed along.
It's not a big deal for either manned aircraft or UAs to avoid each other with no ground involvement, given such technology, and current traffic levels. Someone needs to demonstrate it to the pilot community. Basically, they just don't believe it could work, either because the technology is lacking, or because of the bureaucratic red tape.
I'd love to get a dozen or so UAs flying in front of the crowd at Oshkosh, usually numbered in the 10's of thousands of pilots all in one place, and fly them in close proximity using autonomous avoidance. Throw in a couple of "wild" vehicles in the mix, and watch them avoid the traffic. After such a show to so many people (which does include FAA and other government types, often the FAA administrator in person), no one would be able to doubt it could work. The pressure would thus be on to make it happen.
@Bret
It's not as crazy as it sounds though. Think about this from an FAA perspective: craft needs to be standardized and licensed for airworthiness, repair and maintenance needs to be routine, and communication in the larger airspace ecosystem needs to be routine and assured. From an insurance perspective, all of these things will be essential for having predictable risk assessment.
This is pretty necessary for integration into the FAA system.
This prices out any would-be small UAV manufacturer without serious financial resources. But the real industry guys wouldn't have it any other way.
@Dennis excellent overview of potential uses for UAs.
Part of the challenge as I understand it, the pending FAA rulings may lump UAVs into three categories, over 50 pounds, under 50 pounds and under 25 (<25 pound for rescue type UAVs). Also, as I understand it - there is the potential that the pending FAA guidelines will enforce aircraft type (ASTM) certified manufacturing, components and maintenance for any UAV used for commercial applications. So, a six pound foam UAS used for crop scouting may be required to be built and maintained to the same standards as a regular aircraft.
This is insane. The only way we have a chance to get the pending legislation changed is to meet with your elected officials and ask for their help and support of small UAV's (under 12.5 pounds).
Or we revolt and overthrow washington by force with our butterknives....argh...not enough firepower after they get through with firearms regulations///
nevermind
Im seeing some art ideas here...Mr Chilcott especially pointed out excellent scenario I mentioned earlier in getting representatives aware of the good angles of small UAV operation.
WE need to note these positive attributes and do some art... and art done right can be very compelling.
Harness visual affect to influence psychological effect. If we dont get serious now, im afraid we miss the one time opportunity. And as someone else said pessimistically, we will lose out to nanny-state supporters and fear mongers.
Now, listen to the Italian, and his observation of his local environment...wheres the Italian nanny-state restrictions we might face here? They are obviously way ahead of US regs, and we know why of course (our political tarpit and its waste and slow nature)
Seems like the Italians (and euros for that matter) might end up free to operate and indoctrinate mainstream Gov to the benefits while we noosed in restriction and limited by nanny, I can envision future americans watching foreign UAV contractors doing all our domestic UAV work because we are too lame and dumb to know how.....
God, reminds me of that excellent movie "Idiocracy"
(shivers)
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 6 Next