Well its simply airlaw now Chris, nothing can change that and the sooner people realise it the better, the BMFA in UK ran screaming from dealing with light UAS or sUAS so did the LMA. I can understand why, the implications for inappropriate use are huge. You can fly cameras on your models, if you apply for an operators certficate you can do it for money. If you have an incident, you will be playing with the big boys, if your private or commercial. At least aerial photography from model aircraft is completely legal and not operating in a grey area like other countries!
I'm sure things will get better as people get used to UAS but until then it would be a good plan to fly responsibly.
"Point of order Chris B, as soon as you put a camera on an airframe in the UK it becomes a UAS, you don't need an autopilot at all. That will probably roll out across Europe."
So the only legal way will be putting explosives without camera (not for a purpose of course) away from populated areas...
That's fine, it would be UNTHINKABLE for Western Cultural Circle for an individual to deliver major disaster pics faster than US military UAV after re-basing from Middle East.
Point of order Chris B, as soon as you put a camera on an airframe in the UK it becomes a UAS, you don't need an autopilot at all. That will probably roll out across Europe.
Lets end this discussion, It will only make a bad atmosphere.
But let conclude that FAA possibly are using just these examples to tighten up legislation.
Lets all think before we upload one of these "GREAT" videos on youtube, it will bite all asses some day.
they were flying off the end of a runway and close to flight paths for LAX, the Marine base etc. The helicopter was more than likely in comm with the ATC.
Mark, When programable waypoints are involved, as with Return_to_Home. Is this autonomous flight activity, even if not activated by pilot or failsafe software?
Return-home is not qualified by law as waypointing because such autopilots (return-home only) are not subject to autopilot export restrictions from US.
So by law those are not autopilots, they could be labeled 'safety automatic guidance apparatus' or something.
FYI all RVOSD exported abroad have return-home only.
Comments
All the model groups have this issue at arms length. Can't say as I blame them because they think they're dogging a bullet.
I'm sure things will get better as people get used to UAS but until then it would be a good plan to fly responsibly.
So the only legal way will be putting explosives without camera (not for a purpose of course) away from populated areas...
That's fine, it would be UNTHINKABLE for Western Cultural Circle for an individual to deliver major disaster pics faster than US military UAV after re-basing from Middle East.
But let conclude that FAA possibly are using just these examples to tighten up legislation.
Lets all think before we upload one of these "GREAT" videos on youtube, it will bite all asses some day.
Check out the sectional...
http://skyvector.com/?ll=33.6756666667,-117.868222222&chart=114...
they were flying off the end of a runway and close to flight paths for LAX, the Marine base etc. The helicopter was more than likely in comm with the ATC.
The flying field is 1.86 miles away and everybody is allowed to fly up to 400ft.
When programable waypoints are involved, as with Return_to_Home. Is this autonomous flight activity, even if not activated by pilot or failsafe software?
Return-home is not qualified by law as waypointing because such autopilots (return-home only) are not subject to autopilot export restrictions from US.
So by law those are not autopilots, they could be labeled 'safety automatic guidance apparatus' or something.
FYI all RVOSD exported abroad have return-home only.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next