Model aircraft operators free to operate commercially in US, rules federal judge • Hacker News Board

Re: Model aircraft operators free to operate commercially in US, rules federal judge

#121

Post by dchichkov » Fri, Mar 07, 2014, 11:50 PM UTC

lutorm wrote: post #77

SpacemanSpiff wrote: post #31

So as a pilot of a manned aircraft what does this mean for the safety of my flights? Do I need to start trying to avoid unlicensed, unlit, and unannounced drone aircraft whenever I'm below 400ft AGL? Edit: Thanks to everyone below for your thoughtful comments. My replies are as follows: 1) Regarding model aircraft - I would argue that the low density of these operations at the moment is what has prevented an incident…

I think you're pushing it a bit there. If you exercise your privilege to operate below 500ft AGL, you'd better be sure the area is unpopulated. Since the unmanned aircraft are required to stay within LOS, one would argue that the area there is not unpopulated and hence you are required to maintain 500ft clearance. As for "will all drone operators in populated areas be made aware of local air traffic patterns?", it se…

To operate below 500ft AGL the area doesn't have to be unpopulated. As long as it is not a congested area (as in city center) and the pilot is stays 500 feet (distance) from any person, vehicle or structure that pilot is within legal regulations to operate below 500ft AGL.

Re: Model aircraft operators free to operate commercially in US, rules federal judge

#122

Post by mbrameld » Sat, Mar 08, 2014, 12:15 AM UTC

ElDiablo666 wrote: post #119

mindslight wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget it could also spook the horses, tip over apple carts, cause women and children to faint, and anger the gods.

My thought was that a kite from a nearby park might fly into the face of a skateboarder causing them to veer into the road forcing a motorcycle to evade and crash into a bus, severing the fuel line and blowing up thirty seven children but leaving the driver unharmed.

The environment they were flying in presents several challenges to maintaining a reliable control and video signal while flying. In such a populated area the noise floor is likely to be pretty high to start with. The pilot is using 433mhz for control and 1.3ghz for video, so right off the bat you have an 800mw video transmitter within a wingspan (54"?) of the control receiver. The control radio is only outputting 500mw and is considerably farther away. All the buildings close by make for a multipathing nightmare, but can be mitigated by the use of circularly polarized antennas. There is a lot of DIY involved in building one of these with plenty of opportunities for something to go wrong, they're really just hacked together from consumer-grade wireless security systems.

I hope you can see how these factors make it much more likely control could be lost and make your comparison seem pretty silly.

Re: Model aircraft operators free to operate commercially in US, rules federal judge

#123

Post by bigiain » Sat, Mar 08, 2014, 12:36 AM UTC

evacuationdrill wrote: post #61

guelo wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference between model aircraft and UAS? Is it line of sight flying?

It seems like you still have to have a chase plane[1], and the difference seems to be requiring approval for UAS as a whole system to use for commercial purposes[2]. Note in that second link that there is no size restriction for model airplanes, which I found interesting ("FAA guidance does not address size of the model aircraft."). [1] http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=14... "Because UAS tech…

Here n Australia, our equivalent of the FAA (CASA) specifically defines "model aircraft" as being over 100grams, with anything lighter than that being classified as a "toy".

It's quite practical these days to build a sub-100g radio controlled plane with a video camera and transmitter on board. This is just using art-store foam and inexpensive ordered-direct-from-china electronics. Fying a "broadcast quality" camera as under 100g is out of my level of expertise, but 720p video is quite easy and inexpensive these days at that scale...

Re: Model aircraft operators free to operate commercially in US, rules federal judge

#124

Post by jjsz » Sat, Mar 08, 2014, 12:54 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #69

cryptoz wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually I'm exclusively interested in data under 400 feet! Surface-level pressure observations are my target; recent research suggests that a dense network of atmospheric pressure observations (taken on the surface) will produce a significantly higher accuracy forecast. Smartphones work nicely for this except for their lack of even geographical distribution.

Get in touch . I'm working on making a low cost sensor box from Raspberry Pi's for wide dissemination; atmospheric/temp sensors, precision GPS receiver, software defined radio for grabbing AIS and ADS-B data, etc, and then open sourcing all of the collected data sets and the live streams. I would love to integrate with Cumulonimbus! My email address is in my profile.

Cheaper than a cubesensor? Where can I subscribe?

Re: Model aircraft operators free to operate commercially in US, rules federal judge

#125

Post by tssva » Sat, Mar 08, 2014, 12:57 AM UTC

bostonpete wrote: post #89

skue wrote: post #66

This appears to be the video that upset the FAA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZnJeuAja-4#t=17 And here is the complaint the FAA originally filed, which includes flying through crowded streets, flying through a tunnel with traffic, flying as high as 1500ft AGL, flying at an individual causing them to jump aside [apparently moments before crashing into a hedge], and flying within 100ft of the UVA Medical Center's he…

If the video was filmed "for" UVA, it's strange that they didn't include a more complete/balanced picture of the grounds. 80-90% of the video seemed to revolve around the hospital area.

It was being filmed for the UVA Medical Center.

Re: Model aircraft operators free to operate commercially in US, rules federal judge

#126

Post by toomuchtodo » Sat, Mar 08, 2014, 1:37 AM UTC

jjsz wrote: post #124

toomuchtodo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get in touch . I'm working on making a low cost sensor box from Raspberry Pi's for wide dissemination; atmospheric/temp sensors, precision GPS receiver, software defined radio for grabbing AIS and ADS-B data, etc, and then open sourcing all of the collected data sets and the live streams. I would love to integrate with Cumulonimbus! My email address is in my profile.

Cheaper than a cubesensor? Where can I subscribe?

Different market per se. Not cheaper; its made to help contribute to a sensor fabric, less about your home environment.

Re: Model aircraft operators free to operate commercially in US, rules federal judge

#127

Post by superamit » Sat, Mar 08, 2014, 1:39 AM UTC

dougbright wrote: post #23

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…

AirBoss is really neat!

Are you in SF? I'd love to see it in action. Can lend a Moto X for testing if you want to add to the database of phones, too.

Re: Model aircraft operators free to operate commercially in US, rules federal judge

#128

Post by jrockway » Sat, Mar 08, 2014, 2:06 AM UTC

mbrameld wrote: post #122

ElDiablo666 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My thought was that a kite from a nearby park might fly into the face of a skateboarder causing them to veer into the road forcing a motorcycle to evade and crash into a bus, severing the fuel line and blowing up thirty seven children but leaving the driver unharmed.

The environment they were flying in presents several challenges to maintaining a reliable control and video signal while flying. In such a populated area the noise floor is likely to be pretty high to start with. The pilot is using 433mhz for control and 1.3ghz for video, so right off the bat you have an 800mw video transmitter within a wingspan (54"?) of the control receiver. The control radio is only outputting 500…

How do circularly polarized antennas prevent multipath propagation?

Re: Model aircraft operators free to operate commercially in US, rules federal judge

#129

Post by jrockway » Sat, Mar 08, 2014, 2:17 AM UTC

marktangotango wrote: post #79

Is anyone doing an orbiting UAV as a signal transponder for microwave radio? Ie line of site networking. Internet off the commercial backbones. The privacy and security implication should be clear.

Sure. Just bounce your signal off the moon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EME_(communications)

(There are also plenty of amateur satellites that you can use for communication. You won't like the rules, though: no encryption. You also won't like the realities of powering a radio transmitter in space: with a few minutes of sun per orbit onto a tiny solar panel, you get less radio output power than your WiFi network has.

If only some company were using tethered balloons to provide networking...)

Re: Model aircraft operators free to operate commercially in US, rules federal judge

#130

Post by tlb » Sat, Mar 08, 2014, 2:19 AM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #128

mbrameld wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The environment they were flying in presents several challenges to maintaining a reliable control and video signal while flying. In such a populated area the noise floor is likely to be pretty high to start with. The pilot is using 433mhz for control and 1.3ghz for video, so right off the bat you have an 800mw video transmitter within a wingspan (54"?) of the control receiver. The control radio is only outputting 500…

How do circularly polarized antennas prevent multipath propagation?

Radio reflection off a flat surface reverses the direction of rotation of a circularly polarized signal. A CP receiving antenna will reject them. A twice-reflected signal will go back to the original direction of rotation, but it is much weaker after two reflections.