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
No, u are broke.
finish this and u are ok ;-) http://www.ibertour.com/index.php/en/courses/atpl-air-transport-pilot
They can't and they won't. Their boss, the Congress, told the FAA to find a way to integrate UAV's into the national airspace. Saying "no" is not an option.
Stephen -
I can see that Raytheon and such will want to keep a cap on commercial light UAs. But I don't think they have the ability to do it. Even if the FAA put an absolute prohibition on commercial light UAs, overseas use will drive the market anyway, and they won't be able to keep thousands of farmers from buying them and flying them. Technically, that's very much "commercial". But they'll import them as their "hobby" and use them anyway.
When everything is illegal, nothing is illegal.
Don't underestimate the lobbying capability of the AG community either. These days they're likely far more powerful vs. the military industrial complex.
There already is a company doing NDVI images, called "CropHawk" I think. Saw them at a booth at the Tulare farm show several years ago. They've probably been scared away from actively working in the US market for now, but their web site is still active. No doubt they're working overseas.
Dennis - aircraft certification is a certainty, but as you said certifying a UAV to Part 23, let alone Part 25 standards would make our small UAV weigh hundreds of pounds. Mostly in required paperwork and equipment....lol.
Unfortunately, the light commercial UAV market is not at the table with the FAA writing the NPRM, so our only hope to influence the final rules is through the public comment period of the NPRM. The ASA is at the table, which is a cruel joke due to their absolute hostility towards commercial use of light UAV's The focus will be on Predator class UAV's. With the winding down of the Bush wars, Raytheon needs the commercial public market to keep building these things. The big manufacturers are perfectly happy with a watered down version of Part 25 standards - they can afford the millions it costs to certify a new aircraft design.
Regarding issues like vehicle certification, I can imagine there might be some attempt by the FAA to do something there, but I can't imagine it would be nearly as constraining as existing aircraft certification. Even the "Light Sport" category is far, far too much for a smallish UA.
The reasoning is 1) the vehicle doesn't carry a human, and 2) most will be light. Even 50 lbs is nothing, compared to a human capable aircraft.
And last, the FAA has tried in the last couple of decades to normalize their certification efforts with other western countries. With (as I understand it), nearly an anything-goes situation in many other countries, the FAA will be hard pressed to come up with standards that would in effect make a separate US-only market, and an alternative international market. They tend to go with the international flow.
If the numerous and noisy (just look at my posts here) GA pilots can be assuaged (by altitude limitations, and reasonable distance from active airports), I think the FAA will pretty much tolerate UAs.
In fact, to the extent this "federalizes" the issue, it might be a very good thing for the FAA to issue regulations. This would prevent a zillion localities from issuing different rules for different places. The airspace of the US is considered a federal jurisdiction. Regarding regular aircraft flight, localities can often regulate ground operations, if they haven't accepted federal funds for their airport, but once an airplane is in the air, they can't do anything. A few cities have tried, but mostly without success.
Stephen - If it were necessary to fly a fully certified Mode-S for ADS/B, then it's going to be heavy and probably a non-starter for small UAs.
But there are two different data configurations allowed. I'm not sure of the details, but the other frequency I think is using a relatively off-the-shelf data radio that I believe is smaller than ModeS transponders.
I know ModeS ADS/B was tested in the 90's, and I think the result was they discovered that if every aircraft used the ModeS networking capability, it would overwhelm the bandwidth. That's why they adopted a second frequency.
My hope would be that the UA community comes up with it's own peer-to-peer ADS/B type system, and builds a (ground based?) bridge to FAAs Next Gen. There are already bridges between existing ground based radar and ADS/B (I think that's TIS if I remember right). And there is a bridge between the ModeS and the alternative data radio.
In my dreams, using genuinely modern equipment, it would be nice if a UA standard actually was superior to the old ADS/B spec, and perhaps might be adopted. But I won't hold my breath.
Bret - Pilot and aircraft certification is what the FAA understands and does. I don't foresee any additional restrictions on recreational use, but commercial use means flight for hire, and those doing the hiring are clueless and completely out of the knowledge loop. They look to the FAA for assurance that the flight operations that they are about to hire are safe. After all, if you hire a crop duster to fertilize your fields, and he crashes and injures someone unrelated to the operation, you will be sued. That's the safety that the FAA needs to mandate, and they do it through aircraft and pilot certification. As I said before, insurance companies like certification, and certification can go a long way to mitigate damages. (And this is why you can take pictures of your house and be perfectly legal as a recreational flight, but if you yaw to take pictures of the house next door to sell to the Realtor, it becomes an illegal commercial flight).
We won't be able to argue against some kind of aircraft certification for commercial use. There's just no logical argument that I can think of. But we should be able to exempt light commercial UAV's from transponders below 400 ft. But we should ask for 50 pounds as the demarcation of "light". 12.5 pounds would be a shot in the foot as some cameras alone can weigh that much.
@Stephan: Good feedback. We often overlook the power requirements of devices like transponders. That is a point well taken.
I also support your suggestion of an altitude restriction of no more than 400 AGL. If it can be this simple as a way to avoid FAA restriction, I am sure most light UAV operators will be supportive. However we may also need to include maximum weight in the mix. The agricultural UAV's we are working pn weigh under 10 pounds fully outfitted with gear and batteries. I have heard some people suggest a maximum weight of 12.5 pounds may be a good benchmark for maximum weight.
The other element that may be a challenge is the difference between commercial and non commercial use of the UAV in the view of the FAA. While it will be great if the FAA's rulings approve the recreational use of light UAV's under 400 feet AGL with no other limitation. It will be devastating to our progress if commercial applications are treated differently. Someone who we spoke to a few days ago who is working with the FAA, stated that they felt that the FAA will impose stringent manufacturing guidelines as well as commercial aircraft type maintenance procedures for any UAV used for commercial applications.
Is there anyone in the DIY community who is working with the FAA or the ASTM to protect our interest?
Bret C
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 6 Next