L-4Pilot wrote:
Good points Brandon. FPV is in it's infancy and will continue to grow and evolve. My thoughts are that it should be embraced as a useful extension of Aviation and treated as such.
I have been building and flying radio control models since 1976 in addition to being a FAA licensed pilot and believe that RC line of sight and under 400 feet should be treated differently than FPV and those aircraft flown out of sight, and above 400 ft.
Anyone flying a FPV in US airspace should be a licensed UAV/FPV pilot and the aircraft should be subject to the same rules, regulations and conditions that manned aircraft are. They should also be required to carry the same minimum equipment which will be ADS-B by 2020.
FPV/UAV aircraft will eventually replace manned aircraft for pipeline and power line patrol, aerial photography, search and rescue ETC. The size and weight of these FPV/UAV aircraft will continue to grow based on mission and required payload.
There are two reasons for my opinion, one is airspace safety and the second is Homeland Security.
The FVP/UAV aircraft have very little in common with traditional RC aircraft and should be welcomed in to the Aviation sector the same as the military UAVs have been.
I don't mind sharing airspace with a properly trained pilot flying a properly equipped aircraft. I am however very uncomfortable with the Wild West any thing goes attitude that is present right now. If someone wants to share airspace with me let them study, train, equip and pay the cost the same as us.
I would absolutely agree with all of that--and I wouldn't even mind going through a "licensing" requirement to do my type of flying in a safe and well-thought-out way. My only issue would be the cost--don't expect me to pay the gov't $25k to fly my $2500 machine. I really think that the current mindset of the FAA has been heavy-handed (e.g. the commercial flight ticket requirement), which has led to a number of people doing stupid things in protest of those actions.
RyanShort1 wrote:
The only real need for this stuff is war zones where people can get killed or in tight spaces like mountainous terrain. Most of the time these missions are just as easily, cheaply, and safely done with manned, existing aircraft. FPV still requires an operator, still requires ground crew, still requires monitoring and will cost just as much and has the additional points of concern of datalinks, hackers, and the fact that with no skin on board, risks can be taken that shouldn't be. What this is really about is big companies that are producing the drones trying to drive their very expensive costs down by forcing the market to adapt them for more missions. For a lot of domestic missions, you could loft several Cessna 182s for the cost of a Predator derivative.
However, in this I do have to respectfully disagree with Ryan. I've used my first-generation store bought quadcopter (with my own improvements) to examine leaking storage tanks and advise HazMat units from a safe distance, without having to risk personnel. Even on their best day, a Jet Ranger would have had a difficult time getting where my two-foot quadcopter can go. Furthermore, the costs are quite different, with a grand total of $2500 in my current GPS-guided one with the onboard HUD, and since it is electric there are no traditional "fuel" costs or CG shifts. In the situation I described earlier, the only personnel required were myself (as both maintainer and operator) plus one person with a set of binoculars to fulfill the FAA requirement.
Could they be used for ill? Certainly. But any tool can be used by the bad guys--as the aviation world has repeatedly demonstrated.
-Brandon
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
