All Posts (11086)

Sort by

3689670178?profile=original

This post is a follow up to a previous post: Is ADS-B Right for Small Drones and also appears in sUAS News ‘The Market’

---

What the heck is ADS-B and why should I care?

I asked myself that question a year-and-a-half ago, because I kept seeing the term ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast) come up in discussions and articles on unmanned aircraft traffic management (UTM). 

You may have seen it yourself in the UTM solutions proposed by Amazon, Google, PrecisionHawk, and NASA, with NASA trying to coordinate it all.  They all know that someday unmanned vehicles will share airspace at low altitudes with general aviation equipment such as airplanes, helicopters, and gliders. Agreeing on a safe and efficient system that will manage both manned and unmanned traffic is a vital concern for the FAA, NASA, private companies, and academic users.

NASA’s UTM Fact Sheet summarizes the concern that there is currently no infrastructure system in place for UAS flight:

“A UAS traffic management (UTM) system for low-altitude airspace is needed, much like today's surface vehicles that operate within a system consisting of roads, lanes, stop signs, rules, and lights, regardless of whether the vehicle is automated or driven by a human… Civilian use of UAS has many growing applications: product delivery, surveillance security, agriculture, film industry, mapping and planning, real estate, and search and rescue.”

This was never envisioned when the FAA conceived the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) for manned aviation, which is due for implementation across the U.S. in stages between 2012 and 2025 and proposes to transform America’s ground-based air traffic control system to a satellite-based one. So, here we are looking for an infrastructure solution to low-altitude flight management, and the mistake may be that we are trying to solve it with an “all-altitude” flight management solution.

Regardless of the origin, all of these system proposals all have one thing in common - ADS-B.   This technology is the key element for the system ‘tracking’ and reporting a drone’s position to other aircraft.

But is it right for all small UAS operating in Class G airspace?

With that question in mind, we conducted an in-depth research study and have just released it: ADS-B and Its Use for Small Drone Traffic Management.

The study is both qualitative and quantitative. The qualitative portion includes information gleaned from academic sources as well business sources -- including interviews with aircraft avionic vendors working on ADS-B solutions for all size UAS. Data collected for the quantitative portion study comes from a survey we conducted over the web in August 2015.

The study gives six key insights and seven recommendations. For example...

Read more here: http://droneanalyst.com/2015/11/01/uncertain-case-for-ads-b-in-small-drone-traffic-management/

Read more…
Moderator

Screen%2BShot%2B2015-10-30%2Bat%2B1.43.35%2BPM.png?width=300

Probably everyone who hangs around diydrones is familiar with Eric Cheng, who has done as much as anyone to pioneer drone photography as a modern day art form.

He's written a book about it, and EastBay RC has reviewed it here:

http://eastbay-rc.blogspot.com/2015/10/book-review-aerial-photography-and.html

executive summary: it's great!

Read more…

Novel UAV Airplane Launch and Recovery System

3689670061?profile=original

FLARES - Flying Launch and Recovery System from Insitu on Vimeo.

Recently I ran across this really interesting system being used to launch and recover the Scan Eagle, which is a 40+lb airplane. That makes this a VERY large octocopter!  It's a very interesting concept.  The launch seems much gentler on the airframe than a typical catapult launch.  And even though it's a huge octocopter, it replaces two separate launch and recovery mechanisms, which normally are trailer mounted.  They can be seen in this video to get a sense of the scale.

Paradise Fire Olympic National Park, Washington, USA from Insitu on Vimeo.

Read more…

3689669969?profile=original

Hi All,

We have a very short window of opportunity to comment on the FAA's proposed registration process.

I have sent in the following comment which you are welcome to copy, edit, do whatever you want with, but I think it realistically presents a decent case for moderation and common sense on the part of the FAA.

(Yeah I know good luck with that!)

In any case, here is my comment:

I understand the need for increased accountability when dealing with UAS of all types and some sort of registration process if appropriately limited can provide the access needed to better assure safety for everybody.
But there are some very important issues that should not be ignored.
There is a very large hobby market already in existence including RC Planes and toy quadcopters with many tens of thousands of people already owning and flying.
And so far these have been flying for decades with a very good safety record.
There are several classes of remotely controlled flying things that represent little or no real hazard to anyone, based on light weight, low mass and short range.
Individual UAS registration seems excessive, I personally have over 20 RC planes and quadcopters and registering each of them would be an unnecessary burden and serve no practical purpose.
So I propose that you consider the following.
1. Register "pilots" not UAS and make it free or very cheap in order to encourage compliance. Provide a pilot registration number that is required to be affixed to each of the "pilot's" qualifying UAS.
You could even provide some legal obligations information in the course of the pilots registration process.
This is much less ponderous than trying to deal with huge numbers of each individual UAS.
2. Set some reasonable limits on what is to be defined as a UAS.
At a minimum their should be a weight limit below which registration is not required.
For Multicopters I would suggest 1 Kilogram as this is a common cutoff in Europe and the UK but I realize that 1 kilo could still be dangerous and even 1 pound could be OK and would represent very little hazard.
You could also consider exempting specific examples of both quadcopters and fixed wing UAS based on specific construction benefits such as foam construction, short range and low mass.
It is my feeling that if you do not exempt toys and small UAS you will create an unenforceable and ponderous mess and damage the existing hobby and toy markets severely for no reason other than that you can.
I sincerely hope that you choose to take a conservative and reasonable approach to this that truly serves all of the American Public.

You can send your commentst in via the link here:

http://www.regulations.gov/?mc_cid=0b6392ab70&mc_eid=07facd12d4#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-4378-0022

3DRs link on this weeks download doesn't work and is already closed for some reason, but this one is still open (as I write this anyway).

Only have a few days to comment (probably don't want a repeat of all those comments they got last time).

Best Regards,

Gary

Read more…

How many copters did we sink? :) Check the video above. The development of Precision Landing hardware and software has progressed since our last blog post. The existing controls code has been added to master in APM:Copter (i.e., V3.4-dev). The two demo videos included in this post were produced with a modified version of APM:Copter V3.3 (similar to the master code). This documentation (link) should provide some clarification for advanced users who want to experiment with the features. And the relevant APM Wiki link is here: link. 

CONTROLS: Keep in mind that the Precision Landing controls code will probably undergo significant changes in the future. As it stands, the sensor detects the target and outputs an ‘angle-to-target’ reading. The roll/pitch of the copter is subtracted from these readings, assuming the sensor fixed to the copter frame. Coordinates are transformed from body-frame to earth-frame. Then, the altitude of the copter and angle-to-target in earth-frame is used to calculate the distance-to-target in the ‘x-y’ plane. This distance-to-target is used to re-position the copter over the target. One limitation of the current controls method is that the relative altitude wrt the target is required. Fortunately, there are good range-finder options available now.

3689669928?profile=original

VARIABLE LOGS: One helpful improvement is that the Precision Landing variables are logged, enabling much more effective post-flight troubleshooting and analysis.

bX/bY: Angle-to-target measurement in the body-frame reference BEFORE accounting for roll/pitch of copter.
eX/eY: Angle-to-target measurement in the earth-frame reference AFTER accounting for roll/pitch of copter.
pX/pY: Calculated distance of target from copter in earth-frame. Note that the distance calculation depends on the altitude measurement. Also, the altitude variable in this particular instance is range limited, such that a negative value or very small value is not used to calculate the position offset.

3689669751?profile=original

SENSING: There are improved sensor system options for professional users (MarkOne). There has been significant interest from industrial users/developers regarding the development of automated UAV systems: automated charging, safe automated landing, copter-on-vehicle landing, etc. The boat landing demo video is useful for demonstrating the improved reliability of the sensor readings, which is critical for professional use in automated systems. 

Some of the logged sensor readings from the boat landings are plotted below. The green line indicates the altitude of the copter. The red line ('bX') indicates the angle-to-target measured by sensor in the x-direction, relative to the sensor (fixed to the copter). We no longer have issues with false detections, even in challenging operating environments. False detections which would be indicated by immediate, large changes in the ‘bX’ value. (see an example of false detections here: link).

INTERPRETING LOGS: When the LAND mode is initiated, the copter begins moving toward the target, driving the angle measurement toward zero. Oscillations in the angle measurement are typical. 'Flat lines' in the bX/bY plot indicate periods of time when no target is detected. This may due to the target being out of range of the sensor, or out of the field of view of the sensor. In this test (below), the MarkOne beacon is detected at distances of over 15 meters.

Toward the end of the landing, the angle measurement may increase significantly and/or turn into a 'flat line'. A flat line is expected if the copter does not land directly on top of the marker (i.e., 5-30cm away). The marker can easily escape the field of view of the sensor during the final ~10cm of descent. Also, the detection angle can easily become very large when the sensor is very close to the marker.

DEMO 2: Here is a demonstration with 5 consecutive Precision Landings. Below, you will find the following content:
->Video
->Plot of logged variables for 5 landings
->Plot of logged variables for a single landing

3689669947?profile=original

3689669789?profile=original

Read more…

GoPro’s been working on this camera thing for a while now, so you’d expect anything it makes to capture great footage. This video is still impressive. GoPro’s launching a drone in the first half of next year, and released a two-minute video captured with a prototype. “The footage has not been stabilized in post-production,” the video says, and if that’s true GoPro’s got a winner on its hands.

The color and dynamic range aren’t the point—the footage is shot on the Hero 4, which you can already buy. What’s amazing is the perfect, almost dolly-like stability of the shots of an idyllic farm and a journey through the forest. The sleepy guitar music, though, has nothing to do with the drone. It’s just nice.

source: http://www.wired.com/2015/10/gopros-unreleased-drone-already-shoots-great-video/

Read more…

Dashboard for Agriculture Drone Data: Early Preview

3689669898?profile=originalhttp://www.harvesting.co 

First I would like to Thank you to this wonderful community here, who have helped us learn latest and greatest about drones, agriculture in specific. Past several months team at Harvesting have been working on building a innovative dashboard for farmers, to provide them data driven insights. This dashboard is now available for early preview for this group and would like to get your feedback. Tell us how we can make it better My email is ruchit@harvesting.co

How to sign-up for free public preview?

Visit http://www.harvesting.co and click on 'free trial' button

What functionality this solution have currently?
Once you sign-up for free trial, you would be able to :
  1. Upload and manage NDVI, Ortho processed imagery from drones.
  2. Create time series of your imagery to see how its changing over the period of time.
  3. View satellite image of your farm.
  4. See hyper-local historical weather information as well seven days forecast.
  5. See water-stress in your area (mostly useful for rain harvested farms)
  6. Analyze crop-growth for following supported crops Barley, Canola, Cotton, Oat, SugarBeet, Sunflower, Wheat, Corn
  7. See soil information, a pie-chart which shows what type of soil you have on your farm.

What functionality coming in future?

There is a lot in our pipeline, but our primary focus would be to make it easy for agriculture drone operators/farmers to easily manage and share their data online and get meaningful insights on click of the button. Some of things we are exploring includes auto-detection of certain pests, digital classification, detailed field health reports, etc.

Thank you so much again, please visit http://www.harvesting.co and sign-up for free trial. Keep your feedback coming.

RuchitG

Read more…
Moderator

3689669725?profile=original3689669864?profile=original

This is the first preview of Next Gen STm32F7 flight control by Virtualrobotix.  New core , much power and a reliable solution based on industrial micro controller. 

A new oem and hobbyst platform with full support for :

  • Copter 
  • Helicopter 
  • Plane
  • Rover
  • Boat

This new form factor is simple fast prototyping platform for your own custom design but a reliable design for your final solution. The standard version of VR Brain core 6 support classic STM32F4 micro controller.

Will be available in mass production Q1/16 prototypes for our OEM customers will be available in December 2015

If you are not already our OEM partner and are interested to the product  contact me at r.navoni@virtualrobotix.com 

Suggestions are welcome.

Best

Roberto 

Read more…

All new Hubsan H107D+ With Alt. Hold.

3689669806?profile=original


3689669769?profile=original

Hubsan announced it's new models for their mini quadcopter product range, one of them is H107D+. It's announced on January,however; it is not fully available neither online or on site, not even a curtain release date. Currently only a UK Company sells it online and on site. I got mine from their Peterborough store with price tag 169 GBP. 

Unlike H107D, D+ has a different control mechanism. Throttle stick is centered just like Aileron/Elevator stick. To fly it you first arm it with a stick configuration than you raise the Throttle more than %50 percent. As soon as you release the Throttle stick it tries to hold it's altitude. As an Engineer i could not stop my self to open and see the electronics inside. From the photos above it has a outstanding build quality. As you can guess barometric pressure sensor is covered with foam to read more accurate pressure sensing.

I had i couple of flights with it both indoors and outdoors. Battery lasts ~6 Min,which you charge it via usb on quad.It has a special battery and battery compartment, no more plugging cables. I like this compact military design. Indoor flights are not as perfect as 107D or X4 because alt. hold mode can't hold the altitude rock steady, it oscillates within 20cm up and down at a low frequency to manage it's altitude . On outdoors, it's much more stable and fun to fly. Video feed range is very good, it can hover in a point where you can barely see it without loosing transmission. 

You can start stop video recording and take photos from TX. Video quality is good day/night (with 720P resolution).My overall opinion on D+ is it requires firmware update to fly much more stable and solve rare bugs, i hope that usb connector build this in mind.

Read more…
3D Robotics

New at Skysafe.io: 

3689669712?profile=original

The SkySafe system can take control of a rogue drone over the air and safely land it.

With detailed event history and real-time notifications, SkySafe offers an unprecedented level of airspace security.

  • Real-time detection and notification
  • Uninterrupted protection
  • Does not rely on radio jamming
  • Does not interfere with legitimate drone operation
  • Searchable event history
  • Enterprise management
Read more…

successful airboat with apm 2.6

Hello Arduboat skippers

https://youtu.be/80TgolR7aeI

Here is a video about an rc airboat with an apm 2.6 controller and the latest version of ArduRover software. Only a minimal tweaking was necessary for a rock solid track. The speed of the boat is 3 km/h. It's purpose is mapping the bottom of an acid lake. So no metal parts in the water and only air propulsion. The boat is covered with 5 layers of epoxy paint. In a previous life it was a bait boat.

It still has to be equipped with a sonar. Do you guys have any ideas about what sonar would be suitable?

Thanks

Guy Van Rentergem

Belgium

Read more…

3689669447?profile=original

This post also appears in sUAS News

---

These days it seems just about anyone can get an FAA Section 333 Exemption that allows them to legally use small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) for commercial purposes in the U.S.  As of October 20, 2015, almost 71% of all Section 333 grants have gone to firms claiming that their primary operation/mission is Film/Photo/Video (and most claim multiple uses).  This includes companies that are using drones for movies, as well as for art and real estate, among other things. Inspection and Monitoring has seen the second highest issuance rate, at 31%, while Mapping and Surveying for land and commercial construction, rounds out the top three at 20%.

Looking further into the data, AUVSI reports that at least 84% -- and perhaps as many as 94.5%-- of all approved companies are small businesses. While we don’t agree with their astronomical forecast (see our write-up here), we concur with this analysis.

But here’s the catch.  With the bar so low for starting a commercial drone service, what’s the guarantee these businesses will succeed? According to Bloomberg, eight out of 10 entrepreneurs who start businesses fail within the first 18 months. A whopping 80% crash and burn. So given the risk, it makes sense to assess which markets and use cases provide the best chance of success, the skills you’ll need, and the value-add services you should be offering those markets.

Here are five services we think you should consider offering as part of your commercial drone business..

Read more here:  http://droneanalyst.com/2015/10/26/five-skills-you-need-to-succeed-in-the-commercial-drone-market/

Read more…


Maybe you are one of those who googled for the difference between Quadcopter & Tricopter. For sure you found many feedback and comparisons. 

Mainly the difference will be regarding power consuming, or mechanical complexity. Some prefer Quadcopters for its simplicity to build and fix, others prefer TRICopter for its ability to YAW more aggressively.

In this acticle we will discuss deep differences between Quadcopters & Tricopters, and the point here is flying & stability equations difference between quadcopter and Tricopter.

First Lets discuss Quadcopter Equation - no details here just a fast review-:

more details in broken english is here

3689669589?profile=original


There are three core equation for Stabilizing & Flying quadcopter is:

assuming M1, M2, M3, M4 are thrust for each motor.

equation #1:

Thrust(M1) + Thrust(M2) + Thrust(M3) + Thrust(M4) = Total Thrust  ... and this is determined by Thrust Stick only.

equation #2:
Thrust(M1) + Thrust(M3) = const. ... determined by Thrust stick equation #1
Thrust(M2) + Thrust(M4) = const. ... determined by Thrust


so for example when you want to roll anti clockwise, you increase M2 thrust by x and decrease M4 thrust by x. so that Equation 2 is always Valid under the same Thrust Stick position.

So for a roll a typical equation is:


M2 = Thrust + StickRoll * factor + PID (IMU ROLL)
M4 = Thrust - StickRoll * factor - PID (IMU ROLL)

so what you add to a motor is substracted from the other one on the same bar. That is because we need to keep the third equation valid:

equation #3:
Moment (M1 + M3) = Moment (M2 + M4)


This is very important because this is HOW QUAD make and correct YAW. Quadcopters -hex & octa- correct YAW using moment difference between motors on different bars.

So when we want to Roll equations are:


M1 = M1 + Stick YAW * factor + PID (IMU YAW)
M3 = M3 + Stick YAW * factor + PID (IMU YAW)
M2 = M2 -  Stick YAW * factor -  PID (IMU YAW)
M4 = M4 -  Stick YAW * factor -  PID (IMU YAW)

What you can notice here from above equations is that no equation CONTRADICTION with the other two. Ideally of course, as in real world we make some assumptions:


1- thrust is linear with motor signal sent to ESC - which is false but works :) -.
2- motor response to signal change instantly, so we read the very last IMU signal and send correction. especially if we use P only no I or D, we read the only last value, which is not true as it may has nothing to do with the last change because of inertia of propeller, quadframe ...etc. but again it works :)

Now lets go to Tricopter

3689669626?profile=original
The following equations are used:


equation #1:
Thrust(M1) + Thrust(M2) + Thrust(M3) = Total Thrust ... and this is determined by Thrust Stick only. same as quadcopter.

equation #2:
Thrust(M1) + Thrust (M2) = const for ROLL
but wait. Motor M1 & M2 acts as one virtual motor with M3 for pitch stabilization.
so Thrust (M1 + M2) = virtical Thrust (M3) = Thrust (M3 ) * Sin (ceta)

This is OK as for Roll we add x for M2 & subtract same x from M1 and it will not affect the pitch stabilization -at least in theory-.

Now lets go to the equation of YAW:

equation #3:
Moment (M1) + Moment(M2) = Thrust (M3) * Cos (ceta)

to correct or make YAW motion, you need to change ceta of Motor 3 using the Servo. But wait This will affect equation #2.

changing ceta will not only correct the YAW but will corrupt the pitch balance in equation #2, and then thrust of M1, M2 & M3 needs to be corrected
again to correct the picth. but wait this will corrupt equation #3 because the YAW will be affected again and again in infinite loop :)

So if you correct YAW using Motor thrust angle, and correct Picth using M3 Thrust then equation #2 & #3 will affect each other, but the Tricopter will be balanced as a whole, because correction is so fast and accurate especially when using a digital servo.

THERE IS A BIG difference between Quadcopter & TriCopter in flying concept.

The main advantage I can find in Tricopter because of the Servo:

1- You can get more agressive YAW motion compared to Quadcopter, as Thrust is used for YAW not moment, and thus force for YAW control can be higher.


2- You do not need to care about CCW & CW props as long as motors & their props rotates in the right direction, the servo will correct any moment even if all motors are CW or CCW. does not matter.

Best of All is Tilt motors for Racer FPV:


in Quadcopter if you fly in X mode and made front motors tilted to gain speed while keeping the frame horizontal for better aerodynamic.


In this situation the Roll correction will YAW deviation because thrust vector is not vertical to frame and when one motor corrects the Roll by increasing thrust it will cause YAW motion because of thrust horizontal component.
Things will be worst if the same motor is used to correct YAW using moment in the opposite direction, then YAW will not be stabilized at all.

in Tricopter this will not happen, actually you can build a fast Tricopter with tilted motor, and just ignore this effect, because YAW correction happens by the third motor servo, and equations 2 & 3 already affect each other, and will actively stabilize.

Read more…

Thus Drone.bo was born. BOLIVIA.

Drone.bo is a Bolivian company with OpenSource and OpenHardware ideology that develop, design and manufacture drones or UAVs technology, Rovers and Robotics.

This enterprise was born with the desire and dream show to the world that in Bolivia, we realize our dreams, we believe in our people and their ability to make advanced technology, respecting and recognizing the rights of national and international author, and from this how to share and work together in harmony with the Bolivians and the world people.

Thank you very much to all team and authors of MultiWii, ArduPilot, 3DRobotics and community DIYDrones.com for making this all possible and allow to study every detail of their technology.

Thanks for believing in BOLIVIA!

Music Credit:
Audio Title: Submotion Orchestra - Swan Song (Kidnap Kid Remix)
Author: MrSuicideSheep

Read more…

Size does matter – choose wisely!

DSC_0183.jpg?width=700Howdy, just some thoughts..

Costs for camera drones rise exponentially with its size, so does the risk if something goes wrong. While you only loose your equipment when crashing e.g. in Islands deserted wilderness, you risk much more when crashing over crowded areas or just locations with people on the ground. Although in most countries it’s forbidden to fly over people at all, Youtube or Vimeo are full with videos that show the opposite content.
Wether you stick to the rules or not, depending on the spot you plan to fly at, serious consideration is recommended regarding the question what camera is required to get the job done. Usually, the bigger the camera – the better the footage, – you have a bigger sensor, higher quality lenses, you get more dynamic range and higher resolution etc. But with heavier cameras, you need a bigger, heavier multicopter, wich always goes with higher risk for everyone below.
Two years ago, I developed and flew a copter whos job was to carry the Red Epic + brushless gimbal you see in the picture on top. It had 12 engines in coax configuration, roughly 5kW of electrical power and a maximum take off-weight of 13kg/26lb. Everytime I flew it, I imagined the crater occuring if this beast would go down. Since I never experienced a critical situation like that, my safety record is (still) as good as it can be, but it’s the same with safety as it is with perfection or efficiency – we never reach the 100%.

In conclusion I tend to encourage every multicopter pilot to choose the smallest possible camera that is able to get the money shot your clients require. Not only is it cost-efficient, more importantly you significantly lower the risk of hurting anyone on the ground in case of an epic malfunction. Furthermore, please consider, no insurance will pay a cent if it’s obvious you ignored resonable rules.

Yours truly, Robert Zimmermann, Köln 2015.

3689669500?profile=originalMy website..

Read more…

Non-planar quadrotor layout flight test!

3689669381?profile=original

This project started out as an experiment. Most multirotors have their rotors in a planar configuration. I noticed this is mostly true even when the props are titled in racing quads. (which is actually unnecessary). The idea is that if the moment arms do not change, standard flight controllers should be able to control non-planar shaped quadrotors as long as the control board is mounted near the center of gravity. I decided to try the idea out and it turns out it is able to fly pretty well.

  •  Basic Theory

Quadrotors control their attitude using thrust generated from each rotor on the arms. The torque which control the attitude can be calculated as the picture below.
Moving the rotors along the z axis of the quad does not change the moment arm which results in the same amount of torque. The moment of inertia may increase due to the displacement of the motors(further out from the center of gravity) but this can be controlled with a little more of P gain in the controller.

3689669312?profile=original

  • Build

The configuration and part list is shown below.
– Motors : Turnigy Brushless motor Aerodrive 1200kv
– Props : 10X4.5 SF props
– ESC : Multistar 20A UBEC
– Flight Controller : KK2.1
– Battery : Zippy Flight Max 11.1V 3000mAh
– Frame : Tarrot carbon fiber quadrotor frame v2
Used two tarot quadrotor frames and mounted each frame using pennuts. Below is the picture of initial fitting the parts before wiring.

3689669409?profile=original

The battery was mounted just below the flight controller so that the center of graivity should be near the flight controller.

3689669455?profile=original

ESCs are mounted on different plates. I tied mounting everything symmetrically to prevent it from messing up the inertial moments.

3689669329?profile=original



I am so excited what I can do with this quad!

You can also view the project in the 404warehouse blog:
http://404warehouse.net/2015/09/22/symmetric-non-planar-quadrotor/

Read more…
Moderator

dotusa.jpg

Find this and comment here http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-4378-0001 Thanks Steve Zeets for the heads up.

4910-9X

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Chapter I

[Docket No. FAA-2015-4378]

 

Clarification of the Applicability of Aircraft Registration Requirements for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and Request for Information Regarding Electronic Registration for UAS

 

AGENCY: Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration.

ACTION: Clarification and request for information.

 

SUMMARY: This document clarifies the applicability of the statutory requirements regarding aircraft registration to UAS, including those operating as model aircraft. In addition, the DOT announces the formation of a UAS registration task force to explore and develop recommendations to streamline the registration process for UAS to ease the burden associated with the existing aircraft registration process.

 

This document requests information and recommendations regarding what information and registration platform would be appropriate for UAS registration and ways to minimize the burden to the regulated community.

 

In addition, we request comment on which UAS, based on their weight or performance capabilities, warrant a continued exercise of discretion with respect to requiring registration because of the negligible risk they pose to the national airspace system (NAS).

 

DATES: This clarification goes into effect [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. To assist the task force in developing its recommendations, the

 

Department requests that comments in response to the request for information be submitted to

docket FAA-2015-4378 at

 

www.regulations.gov, by [INSERT DATE 15 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

 

The docket will remain open after this time and the Department will consider all comments received in developing a registration process.

 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

• Fax: 202-493-2251.

• Mail: Dockets Management System; U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Operations, M-30, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

• Hand Delivery: To U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Operations, M-30, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., Washington, DC, 20590-0001, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Instructions: Include the agency name and docket number FAA-2015-4378 for this document at the beginning of your comment. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov including any personal information provided. If sent by mail, comments must be submitted in duplicate. Persons wishing to receive confirmation of receipt of their comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard.

 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor

union, etc.). You may review DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

 

Docket: You may view the public docket through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations office at the above address (See ADDRESSES).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding this document may be directed to Earl Lawrence, Director, FAA UAS Integration Office, 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington DC, 20591; phone: (202) 267-6556; email: UASRegistration@faa.gov.

 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 

Background

 

In the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-95) (the Act), Congress mandated that the DOT, in consultation with other government partners and industry stakeholders, develop a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of civil UAS in the NAS.

 

Since 2012, the Department has made progress in enabling UAS operations, through issuing exemptions under section 333 of the Act to permit commercial operations; creating a UAS test site program to encourage further research and testing of UAS operations in real-world environments; issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking, Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (RIN 2120-AJ60) (small UAS NPRM), that sets forth a framework for integrating small UAS operations in the NAS; and developing a Pathfinder program to encourage research and innovation that will enable advanced UAS operations.

 

A foundational statutory and regulatory requirement that the Department has employed for each of these integration programs is aircraft registration and marking. In order to operate in the NAS, the Department must ensure that operators are not only aware of the system in which they are operating, but that we also have a means to identify and track the UAS to its operator. One means to accomplish this is through aircraft registration and marking. To date, UAS operators that the Department has authorized have been required to register their UAS through the FAA’s existing paper-based registration process under 14 CFR part 47. As an exercise of discretion, historically we have not required model aircraft to be registered under this system.

 

UAS hold enormous promise for our economy and for the aviation industry. But for the industry to develop to its full potential, we have to ensure that it develops safely. Over the past several months, we have received increasing reports of unauthorized and unsafe use of small UAS. Pilot reports of UAS sightings in 2015 are double the rate of 2014. Pilots have reported seeing drones at altitudes up to 10,000 feet, or as close as half-a-mile from the approach end of a runway. In recent weeks, the presence of multiple UAS in the vicinity of wild fires in the western part of the country prompted firefighters to ground their aircraft on several occasions.

 

These UAS operations are unsafe and illegal. However, only a small percentage of these incidents have resulted in enforcement actions against individuals for unsafe or unauthorized UAS operation because identifying an individual or entity responsible for the dangerous operation of UAS is very difficult. This situation is troubling to the unmanned aircraft industry, to responsible model aircraft users, and to users of the NAS, all of whom always put safety first.

 

The risk of unsafe operations will only increase as more UAS enter the NAS. Some retailers

have projected huge holiday sales. We are committed to ensuring that the U.S. continues to lead the world in the development and implementation of aviation technology, and in doing so, that we create a space for the creativity, innovation and exploration that will drive this industry forward in the years and decades ahead. At the same time, we must create a culture of accountability and responsibility among all UAS operators. To maintain safety in the NAS, the Department has reconsidered its past practice of exercising discretion with respect to requiring UAS to be registered, consistent with statutory requirements of 49 U.S.C. 44101-44103, and has determined that registration of all UAS is necessary to enforce personal accountability while operating an aircraft in our skies.

 

Federal law requires that a person may only operate an aircraft when it is registered with the FAA. 49 U.S.C. 44101(a).1 “Aircraft” is defined as “any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air.”2 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(6). In 2012, Congress confirmed that UAS, including those used for recreation or hobby purposes, are aircraft consistent with the statutory definition set forth in 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(6). See Pub. L. 112-95, sec. 331(8), 336 (defining an unmanned aircraft as “an aircraft that is that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft,” and model aircraft as “an unmanned aircraft that is capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere, flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft, and flown for hobby or recreational purposes”); see also Administrator v. Pirker, NTSB Order No. EA-5730, at 12 (Nov. 17, 2014) (affirming that the statutory definition of aircraft is clear and unambiguous and “includes any air aircraft, manned or unmanned, large or small.”). Because UAS, including model aircraft, are aircraft, they are subject to FAA regulation, including the statutory requirements regarding registration set forth in 49 U.S.C. 44101(a), and further prescribed in regulation at 14 CFR part 47.

Historically, the FAA, through the exercise of its discretion, has not enforced the statutory requirements for aircraft registration in 49 U.S.C. 44101 for model aircraft. As evidenced by the recent reports of unsafe UAS operations, the lack of awareness of operators regarding what must be done to operate UAS safely in the NAS, and the lack of identification of UAS and their operators pose significant challenges in ensuring accountability for responsible use. Without increased awareness and knowledge of the statutory and regulatory requirements for safe operation, the risk of unsafe UAS operations will only rise. Aircraft identification and marking will assist the Department in identifying owners of UAS that are operated in an unsafe manner, so we may continue to educate these users, and when appropriate, take enforcement action.

 

Requiring registration of all UAS, including those operated for hobby or recreation, embraces and applies the Academy of Model Aeronautics’ (AMA)’s policy of identification to UAS operators who may not be modelers registered with the AMA. Additionally, it would ensure consistency with other UAS operations currently required to be registered, such as public aircraft, those operated under exemptions, and certificated aircraft, as well as those operations contemplated in the small UAS NPRM.

 

Based on the Department’s experience in registering small UAS authorized by exemptions granted under the authority of section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, and the comments received on the proposed registration requirements in the small UAS NPRM, it is apparent that the current paper-based system for aircraft registration is too burdensome for small UAS, to include model aircraft. To facilitate compliance with the statutory obligation for registration, the DOT is currently evaluating options for a streamlined, electronic-based registration system for small UAS.

 

The Department has convened a UAS registration task force, under the FAA’s authority in 49 U.S.C. 106(p)(5) to designate aviation rulemaking committees. This task force will provide recommendations on the type of registration platform needed to accommodate small UAS, as well as the information that will need to be provided to register these aircraft. The UAS registration task force also will explore and provide recommendations on whether it is appropriate for the FAA to continue to exercise discretion with respect to requiring registration of certain UAS based on their weight and performance capabilities. The task force will meet and provide its recommendations to the Department by November 20, 2015. To facilitate the task force’s work, we are requesting information and data from the public in the following areas:

 

1. What methods are available for identifying individual products? Does every UAS sold have an individual serial number? Is there another method for identifying individual products sold without serial numbers or those built from kits?

 

2. At what point should registration occur (e.g. point-of-sale or prior-to-operation)? How should transfers of ownership be addressed in registration?

 

3. If registration occurs at point-of-sale, who should be responsible for submission of the data? What burdens would be placed on vendors of UAS if DOT required registration to occur at point-of-sale? What are the advantages of a point-of-sale approach relative to a prior-to-operation approach?

4. Consistent with past practice of discretion, should certain UAS be excluded from registration based on performance capabilities or other characteristics that could be associated with safety risk, such as weight, speed, altitude operating limitations,

duration of flight? If so, please submit information or data to help support the suggestions, and whether any other criteria should be considered.

 

5. How should a registration process be designed to minimize burdens and best protect innovation and encourage growth in the UAS industry?

 

6. Should the registration be electronic or web-based? Are there existing tools that could support an electronic registration process?

 

7. What type of information should be collected during the registration process to positively identify the aircraft owner and aircraft?

 

8. How should the registration data be stored? Who should have access to the registration data? How should the data be used?

 

9. Should a registration fee be collected and if so, how will the registration fee be collected if registration occurs at point-of-sale? Are there payment services that can be leveraged to assist (e.g. PayPal)?

 

10. Are there additional means beyond aircraft registration to encourage accountability and responsible use of UAS?

 

Comments received by [INSERT DATE 15 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] would be most helpful in assisting the UAS registration task force in developing its recommendations. The comment period will remain open after this period and the Department will consider the comments received, in addition to the UAS registration task force’s recommendations, in developing a stream-lined registration process for small UAS, including model aircraft.

 

Issued in Washington, DC on October 19, 2015.

Anthony R. Foxx,

Secretary of Transportation.

Michael P. Huerta,

Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.

Read more…
Moderator

chrissolo.jpg

3DR, North America’s largest consumer drone manufacturer, launched a new third party product partnership program called “Made for Solo” at GITEX Technology Week in Dubai. The Made for Solo program supports companies that want to leverage 3DR’s Solo TM “Smart Drone” platform and its open hardware bays and dual computer processing power. Made for Solo also offers partners access to 3DR’s technical and research resources and official 3DRendorsement of a product’s compatibility with Solo. The program also marks the beginning of the “drones &” movement, as companies across an array of industries will now begin applying new and purpose built hardware and software to drones for a variety of specific uses; Made for Solo provides these partners with the easiest way to get started on drone development.

“In the past, drone development was limited to dedicated engineering departments within drone companies themselves,” says Chris Anderson, CEO of 3D Robotics. “We’re excited that our open platform is already paying dividends with Made for Solo, opening opportunities for drone development to a range of companies from a range of industries. We’re about to experience a real sea change in this industry.”

Several new Made for Solo accessories are already in the program and will soon be showcased on the 3DR website. Additionally, 3DR is announcing the first three major Made for Solo industry partnerships—Epson, Kodak and Fiilex—who already have Solo accessory products under development and scheduled for later release.

“Fiilex is very excited to enter the emerging drone market by leveraging the Made for Solo program,” said Brent Siebenaler, Brand Manager of Fiilex. “We’re looking forward to creating some great and innovative lighting products for Solo.”

“We’re excited by the launch of the Made for Solo program and have been busy perfecting a suite of augmented reality flight assistance tools,” said Eric Mizufuka, product manager, Moverio AR Glasses for Epson America.“The Made for Solo program is a great opportunity for Epson to gain direct access to 3DR’s top pilots, makers, and developers.”

And Paul Meyhoefer, VP of Marketing & Product Development for JK Imaging Ltd., said, “The Made for Solo Program has opened the Virtual Reality door for our KODAK PIXPRO SP360 Action Cams to be used in a variety of new ways. “Matched with Solo, the SP360’s ability to capture 360° full spherical video with its unique lens and perspective lends itself perfectly to being a vital tool for creatives to develop and take their VR to new heights.”

Made for Solo is accessible to any company or individual that wants to take their technologies to the sky. All interested parties can apply to the program through a form available on the company’s website3dr.com/MFSapply. The company expects the program to continually grow and evolve, with Solo evolving in step with it.

“The Made for Solo program is the beginning of what we think will be an exponential expansion of our ecosystem, with many companies both in the drone industry and in other industries adopting the Solo platform,” said Colin Guinn, CRO of 3D Robotics. “From the beginning we’ve made the promise to customers that Solo will be more than just a drone, it will be a platform for aerial innovation, and it’s exciting to see that promise coming to fruition so quickly. Honestly, there’s been a deluge of these new products, and we can’t wait to see what creative people and companies will do now to enhance the Solo experience.”

In conjunction with these efforts, 3DR also offers comprehensive developer support on multiple levels. At the highest level, dev.3dr.com offers all of the resources for anyone to develop on Solo. Inside dev.3dr.com is 3DR’s open software development platform called DroneKit , which is a streamlined and simple interface that allows anyone to create customized drone apps.

When combined with the Made for Solo program, these resources make it easy for developers anywhere to tap into new Made for Solo products and contribute even more functionality. And because the company has its roots in the largest open robotics community in the world — diydrones.com — it expects that this development community will contribute to exponential advancements through the synthesis of open hardware and open software that the Made for Solo program will catalyze.

You can learn more about the Made for Solo program by visiting 3dr.com/MFS .

Read more…