Interesting Trappy follow-up article
- Thread starter PeterLester
- Start date
DucktileMedia
Drone Enthusiast
If they say 2015, it will be 2016 at best before anything remotely solid comes out of Washington. In the meantime, this will most likely give the millions of phantom owners a chance to negatively or positively affect their legal structure. I am still not happy about the idea that a recreational rc craft is less dangerous than someone with much more time and money in the air on top of their reputation. The people doing this seriously don't want to mess up and take extra care to keep their rigs tuned and safe as possible. A kid going to the park with a Trex 700 might be deemed "legal" but he poses a much greater threat to everyone around them. Now what happens when that kid slaps a gopro to his Trex 700? Just my $.02.
Benjamin Kenobi
Easy? You call that easy?
I still don't understand why the FAA is having such a hard time coming up with a set of rules for UAVs? The CAA did it years ago and so have many other countries. I wouldn't be here if I couldn't earn a good living from it. Why don't they just adopt a similar set of guidelines?
TheUFGadget
Member
Hi Ben!
In my personal opinion the reason is simply greed. It is no secret that the FAA has been issuing "special permits" for "certain" companies. In reality they are holding off until they get all the contracts to their friends and give them a head start. Money is dictacting this timeline and it is very clear to me that it is what is happening. I think it is against American ideals. I see so many amazing designers on these forums that design awesome crafts and would blow some of these "connected" companies out of the water! I think they are holding us back so that the so called big players can get their ducks in a row to create strong barriers to entry for the market. As of right now anyone in their city can just call realtors (just as an example) and start making money. It's a shame and shouldn't be happening, I just hope that they expedite the process and low for a true free market policy for this sector.
jimmygixxer
Member
Well said.
R_Lefebvre
Arducopter Developer
Not Invented Here Syndrome.
DucktileMedia
Drone Enthusiast
You mean the FAA won't approve us by simply having a stamp on our helis saying I passed the Kloner High Speed test? 
R_Lefebvre
Arducopter Developer
Just like shooting womp rats back home...
Sorry, I can't buy that. the industry in the U.S. is nowhere nearly well enough developed for anyone in the FAA to be "holding out" in favour of setting up their friends first...that's paranoia. What "contracts" would they be issuing? I think a far more likely scenario is that the FAA badly misread and underestimated the potential for UAV's...I think they Still are, when they make statements like they expect there to be 7500 UAVs in the US by 2020...there would be 5 times that many lic. applications the first week.
I think they have put the entire issue on "ignore" to a large degree, expecting it to go the way of the airship, and the power paraglider, gyrocopter, etc.
Sure, there are examples of all of those things around today, but not many, and usually in "niche" applications, when at various times all of them were touted as the "next Big Thing". I truly believe the FAA (who had the same challenges thrown at them with each of the things I mentioned) look at UAV's , which had been around in two basic forms for years; the militarized "small airplane" and the hobby builder version made from fibreglass or CF arrow shafts and airplane motors that barely flew, and said..."No one is going to have a use for these things, why kill ourselves writing legislation for something that isn't going to turn into anything anyway? The pay is still the same if we do it, or not"
Well...all of a sudden, they were way off base, they were really under the gun, and they hadn't put word one to paper, and UAV's were becoming a very vibrant industry, very quickly. Panic time.
I worked in the aviation industry in Canada for 40 years, half of that with the Canadian equivalent of the FAA, Transport Canada. I've seen countless occasions on BOTH sides of the border where the two agencies have done exactly what it appears the FAA is doing now; procrastinate, and hope the "problem" goes away. Transport Canada was surprisingly pro-active here, and actually has a rudimentary program in place where a Special Flight Operations Permit can be issued for commercial UAV operations. It's FAR from convenient, or perfect....it's head and shoulders ahead of what's available in that regard in the U.S. though. Now that both agencies have seen and felt the pressure that modern UAVs have imposed on them, they have no choice but to do something. The fact that Trappy's fine was turfed is a wonderful thing; they also learned that they cannot continue to ignore the obvious and avoid the inevitable by fining their way along for another couple of years. They have to start earning their pay and start developing regulations. My biggest fear is that they will do what many Government agencies are wont to do; over-regulate.
I think that if folks don't take this victory as justification to develop the mass "stupids" and start flying everywhere and anywhere with no regard for safety or common sense, something good may come of it. The majority will; it's the minority that worry me. Good news...10 thousand UAV operators doing it the right way, with no incidents; isn't newsworthy. One idiot launching a Phantom off his balcony in Manhattan and flying it into a building...that wipes out those 10 thousand safe evolutions in a heartbeat.
I think they have put the entire issue on "ignore" to a large degree, expecting it to go the way of the airship, and the power paraglider, gyrocopter, etc.
Sure, there are examples of all of those things around today, but not many, and usually in "niche" applications, when at various times all of them were touted as the "next Big Thing". I truly believe the FAA (who had the same challenges thrown at them with each of the things I mentioned) look at UAV's , which had been around in two basic forms for years; the militarized "small airplane" and the hobby builder version made from fibreglass or CF arrow shafts and airplane motors that barely flew, and said..."No one is going to have a use for these things, why kill ourselves writing legislation for something that isn't going to turn into anything anyway? The pay is still the same if we do it, or not"
Well...all of a sudden, they were way off base, they were really under the gun, and they hadn't put word one to paper, and UAV's were becoming a very vibrant industry, very quickly. Panic time.
I worked in the aviation industry in Canada for 40 years, half of that with the Canadian equivalent of the FAA, Transport Canada. I've seen countless occasions on BOTH sides of the border where the two agencies have done exactly what it appears the FAA is doing now; procrastinate, and hope the "problem" goes away. Transport Canada was surprisingly pro-active here, and actually has a rudimentary program in place where a Special Flight Operations Permit can be issued for commercial UAV operations. It's FAR from convenient, or perfect....it's head and shoulders ahead of what's available in that regard in the U.S. though. Now that both agencies have seen and felt the pressure that modern UAVs have imposed on them, they have no choice but to do something. The fact that Trappy's fine was turfed is a wonderful thing; they also learned that they cannot continue to ignore the obvious and avoid the inevitable by fining their way along for another couple of years. They have to start earning their pay and start developing regulations. My biggest fear is that they will do what many Government agencies are wont to do; over-regulate.
I think that if folks don't take this victory as justification to develop the mass "stupids" and start flying everywhere and anywhere with no regard for safety or common sense, something good may come of it. The majority will; it's the minority that worry me. Good news...10 thousand UAV operators doing it the right way, with no incidents; isn't newsworthy. One idiot launching a Phantom off his balcony in Manhattan and flying it into a building...that wipes out those 10 thousand safe evolutions in a heartbeat.
TheUFGadget
Member
There can only be so much win in a statement...that being said this statement = 100% win!
Kloner for FAA prez.
TheUFGadget
Member
While I respect your opinion and experience I have to disagree. If you go on the FAA website there are a number of powerpoints, handouts, etc from meetings the FAA was having about possible regulations, classifications, etc. Most all of these presentations or materials have companies listed that are planning large scale roleouts for agriculture, real estate, contruction, etc. There ARE already temp/expirimental permits issued by the FAA and there are already companies developing and producing products for when this goes live. While your points are valid they are clearly setting up the people with a lot of money and potential gain to be first in the industry "FAA Approved." With the head start, capital investments, and other external factors like immediate licensing this is going to create many barriers to entry a key economic component when creating business models. It may be as big as I say or it may be a small portion but it is happening. Thanks for the reply!
DucktileMedia
Drone Enthusiast
These are some really valid points. But can we, ourselves, think of a system that satisfies all parties? I can't.
The issues at hand:
1.Real aircraft are scared of collision with UAV's.
2.People are worried about being spied on
3.UAV's being used by terrorists.
4.Public safety.
Currently proposed ideas:
1. varying weight class certifications.
2. commercial versus non-commercial use.
3. Background checks?
4. Basic aeronautical and radio understanding requirements.
5. Electronic distance limiting.
6. Beacons to allow full size aircraft to alert of collision.
7. Kill switch requirements.
8. Vehicle certification and stress testing.
So clearly we have a start to the solution by simply understanding the hurdles to cross. But much like politics, there is NO way to satisfy everyone. And that is why human's are the prime example of inefficiency! We will no doubt argue about this for years to come. and it will cost tax payers billions in tax dollars every year. Much like a drivers license, how do you weed out the bad drivers without secluding certain demographics? You cant! And to top it off you have car and oil companies making sure everyone has a car no matter what. It is more important that the insurance, auto and oil companies make trillions than to try and start a cultural war. It's no different with UAVs. The old lady who thinks we are spying on her changing her granny panties every night will fight to the bitter end that we are doing people harm. The police that want to use them will arrest us for using UAVs because they will feel they have a lack of power. Our neighbors think we are trying to spy on them. Every airport thinks we will lose control and take down a commercial jet. And every kid who just bought a DJI Phantom thinks they are the next George Lucas and there is no way their lack of knowledge will outweigh the potential to lose control and hurt someone.
All I am saying is that I can see both sides and it is not an easy answer. The only real way for this to work is if it generates tax dollars. Look at federally illegal marijuana. Somehow it is now becoming legal in more and more states. Why? MONEY!
The issues at hand:
1.Real aircraft are scared of collision with UAV's.
2.People are worried about being spied on
3.UAV's being used by terrorists.
4.Public safety.
Currently proposed ideas:
1. varying weight class certifications.
2. commercial versus non-commercial use.
3. Background checks?
4. Basic aeronautical and radio understanding requirements.
5. Electronic distance limiting.
6. Beacons to allow full size aircraft to alert of collision.
7. Kill switch requirements.
8. Vehicle certification and stress testing.
So clearly we have a start to the solution by simply understanding the hurdles to cross. But much like politics, there is NO way to satisfy everyone. And that is why human's are the prime example of inefficiency! We will no doubt argue about this for years to come. and it will cost tax payers billions in tax dollars every year. Much like a drivers license, how do you weed out the bad drivers without secluding certain demographics? You cant! And to top it off you have car and oil companies making sure everyone has a car no matter what. It is more important that the insurance, auto and oil companies make trillions than to try and start a cultural war. It's no different with UAVs. The old lady who thinks we are spying on her changing her granny panties every night will fight to the bitter end that we are doing people harm. The police that want to use them will arrest us for using UAVs because they will feel they have a lack of power. Our neighbors think we are trying to spy on them. Every airport thinks we will lose control and take down a commercial jet. And every kid who just bought a DJI Phantom thinks they are the next George Lucas and there is no way their lack of knowledge will outweigh the potential to lose control and hurt someone.
All I am saying is that I can see both sides and it is not an easy answer. The only real way for this to work is if it generates tax dollars. Look at federally illegal marijuana. Somehow it is now becoming legal in more and more states. Why? MONEY!
TheUFGadget
Member
Hi Kloner!
Lover your stuff
. While this is true there are about 20 licenses designated "expirimental" that do not fall under a category. These are all back from 2008, 2009, and 2010. I get the points everyone are making but doesn't mean there isn't a LOT of shady business going on I agree money will be at the root of this foot-dragging behaviour - in some form or other. That's the way the world works. But I can't decide if the daft statements like "US airspace is the busiest in the world" and "US agriculture is more complicated than Japanese" are pompous bluster to cover their embarrassment or simply evidence that they are "over-thinking" the problem. A bit of both, probably. If they'd just shelve their over-inflated egos and pick up the phone to their peers in the UK's CAA - we have here a complete, working regime for commercial usage and I'm sure the CAA would be happy to email them a copy
SoCal Blur
Member
kloner
Aerial DP
The issues at hand:
1.Real aircraft are scared of collision with UAV's. sense and avoid systems
2.People are worried about being spied on software to wipe faces like google- cops need a warrant period....
3.UAV's being used by terrorists. your never gonna keep something away from somebody that wants it bad enough, look at out airliners
4.Public safety. All the faa does is tell us there protecting the public, yet a helicopter comes flying off a helipad and hits a dude sitting in his car, bet he wised it was a multi rotor
Currently proposed ideas:
I can't say a lot on this, but 2 of your 8 are most likely
1.Real aircraft are scared of collision with UAV's. sense and avoid systems
2.People are worried about being spied on software to wipe faces like google- cops need a warrant period....
3.UAV's being used by terrorists. your never gonna keep something away from somebody that wants it bad enough, look at out airliners
4.Public safety. All the faa does is tell us there protecting the public, yet a helicopter comes flying off a helipad and hits a dude sitting in his car, bet he wised it was a multi rotor
Currently proposed ideas:
I can't say a lot on this, but 2 of your 8 are most likely
