111–120 of 143 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know of several engineering companies who took aerial photos with R/C airplanes. Ranging from project sites, to land surveying, to real estate, etc. Does this ruling stop them from doing what they have been doing since the 1990s?
Looks like this makes that legal.
Let's stick with some facts (I'm a pilot and work closely with the FAA for my dayjob so I know a bit about this space) ... - The FAA is responsible for the safety of U.S. airspace from the ground up. This misperception may originate with the idea that manned aircraft generally must stay at least 500 feet above the ground. - There are no shades of gray in FAA regulations. Anyone who wants to fly an aircraft—manned or…
It's not quite so big as the headline, but it's still good. Here's the scoop: The FAA has long had rules for model aircraft, which would include many small "drones", and under which you can personally operate them now. You're supposed to stay low and away from stuff you could damage. They also (as of fairly recently) have some rules for UAS (unmanned aerial systems) that are more like the rules for real aircraft, and…
Do you know what the software certification criteria are for a sUAS and UAS?
FAA generally won't force you to do it a specific way. Which is both good and bad from a development standpoint. You might take a look "at Airworthiness Certification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Optionally Piloted Aircraft":
This is simply awesome news for startup/small business UAS operators in the US in the short term. I do have some concern, though, that this could cause the FAA to now rush the rule-making process which could result in half baked, ham fisted regulations. This is especially possible if we see several high profile accidents during this new free-for-all period. Cheap plug: if you want to play with aerial photography but…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there's a pretty low risk of serious damage occurring from this drone colliding with much of anything. This is the model being piloted in the videos: http://www.ritewingrc.com/Zephyr_II_ARF.html It's basically two pieces of EPS foam with some electronics and a pusher prop. If you were going to be hit in the face by a "drone" - you couldn't really pick a less damaging one.
If the drone has any significant speed, it will cause serious damage to an individual if hit. If it causes a traffic disruption, the danger then comes from a vehicle that may make a maneuver to avoid getting hit or if a driver loses control after colliding with the drone. It it shatters glass, serious lacerations could occur for pedestrians. This kind of flying is highly reckless and only an asshole would do this.
I cannot wait to watch the FAA mow down your dreams. You have NO idea the power of the organization you are dealing with and their commitment to safety.
UAS are not and will not be (for decades) up to the FAA standards. If you are an investor putting money behind these outlandish businesses proposed here then you are even stupider than I thought.
From a different article[0], it sounds like the guy being sued in this case may have been operating the drone irresponsibly, which opens a window for legislators to put laws in place that will gives the FAA power to regulate drones: > Pirker operated the aircraft within about 50 feet of numerous individuals, about 20 feet of a crowded street, and within approximately 100 feet of an active heliport at UVA, the FAA all…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZnJeuAja-4
Definitely some questionable flying in my opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you know what the software certification criteria are for a sUAS and UAS?
The FAA usual procedure is "prove to us that it's safe". You can point to other certified craft using the same or similar technologies or systems, and say "it works there, so we'll be okay". This is what most of the aircraft manufacturers do. For novel systems you have to demonstrate for them that it will work as intended and safely. How you do that is negotiated with them. Plenty of time on flight tests is likely re…
> FAA generally won't force you to do it a specific way.
I don't know if they "force" but practically you cannot certify commercial aircraft without adhering to DO-178 and a bunch of other standards.
So my question is what mandates or recommends use of those standards and will the same apply to UAS?
edit: Found it: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/A...
Turns out you are correct, using DO-178B is optional but I can't imagine anyone implementing alternative means given the complexity of DO-178.
The question that remains for me is do UASes have or will have the same or similar airworthiness requirements as other aircraft?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the drone has any significant speed, it will cause serious damage to an individual if hit. If it causes a traffic disruption, the danger then comes from a vehicle that may make a maneuver to avoid getting hit or if a driver loses control after colliding with the drone. It it shatters glass, serious lacerations could occur for pedestrians. This kind of flying is highly reckless and only an asshole would do this.
Don't forget it could also spook the horses, tip over apple carts, cause women and children to faint, and anger the gods.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm interested in controlled drones not by radio control, but with waypoints, and telemetry provided over LTE. Further investigation required!
Very much possible. Ardupilot is one of the more full-featured open source packages, but there are simpler autopilots out there as well. It's pretty common practice to at the very least have a GPS based "return to launch" system on long-range FPV craft as a failsafe for the connection to the ground station being dropped. http://ardupilot.com/
The current software for configuring ArduPilot boards has tremendous depth, but I think the UI could use some work. Especially for non-hobbyist users.