Clear and Present Danger to Warbird Aircraft..All Aircraft

[L-4Pilot]

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.

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.

Ryan, I hate to see things change from the way they are now but the Genie is out of the bottle and I don't think we have a prayer in stopping the evolution of unmanned flight. It's here but we just are not dealing with it in a sane fashion.

[seagull61785]

First off it is both welcome and refreshing on here to see a serious thread discussed in a mature and serious manner - hats off to all of you have contributed thus far.

Thinking about the issue(s) we are discussing I believe there is already a growing risk of these 'drones' being used for Evil.

This is based upon the fact that whenever new technology/leisure equipment/sports gear comes along it is unavoidable that the nature of 'mankind' is to build bigger/faster/more capable models.

Once you reach a size where one is capable of carrying a significant explosive or dirty weapon payload then I have no doubt that somebody will do so.

It is probably already too late and the bad guys are laying their plans.

What a terrifying prospect - food for thought and further discussion.

Barry

[Punisher05]

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.

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

[RyanShort1]

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

The stuff you are talking about isn't what I was talking about. I'd agree on your use and it fits within current general FAA guidelines as well except for the commercial stuff. I wouldn't put a manned aircraft near a leaking storage tank (thinking of the West, TX explosion) either!

[Punisher05]

Fair enough!

And in case anyone from the FAA is reading this, I should clarify that I was asked to come in due to my work with Dept of Emergency Management, as a volunteer, and received nothing but a pat on the back for my services.

They have their uses, as well as their issues. The key will be to find the acceptable, safe, and productive balance between the two.

-Brandon

[GregP]

Hi punsher,

I strongly disagree with your 1) above. They need to stay out of flight paths entirely, not "as much as possible." I flew RC aircraft for 18+ years and have been a full scale pilot since the early 1980's. There is NO EXCUSE for a powered RC to be in federal airspace other than radio failure. Our old RC's had no altitude reporting function, but we knew when we were getting too high ... it just isn't all that difficult. The "violators" were doing so specifically yo TRY to get higher.

I say "powered" because RC sailplanes can get caught ina thermal that they can't get out of. I has one do that and never saw it again despite chasing it for 2 hours ... that wasn't fun since it was my first high-performance sailplane. I had the rudder locked at full over, the elevator at full up and the spoilers out and it still circled up and away. I even tried full down and it went inverted and climbed away again in the thermal. That was in Tennessee.

The rules are clear.

It should be simple for commercially-available RC's / drones with video cameras ... require built in software that stops at 400 feet AGL, and won't climb any higher except when specifically enabled by ATC for licensed and complying air vehicles with flight plans. still and video Cameras are fun until someone starts buzzing YOUR back yard when you are out there expecting privacy.

The privacy concern should be simple, too. If you are found guilty of specifically targeting people who are nude there should set penalties. Specifically targeting means zeroing in on them on film, be it still or video.

The general airspace is a great discussion topic. Is the airspace over your house private? If so, how to commercial airliners get away with flying through it? If not, what are the implications of a private drone or RC filming your yard from a stationary position for some period of time? If the public doesn't buy, simply outlaw the sale of such items to non-business entities and make the business entities file flight plans for their units, regardless of height, for each and every flight for which a camera of any sort is mounted on the airframe.

I have no problem with non-camera-carrying hobby RC's at all within line of sight at RC flying club sites or even on private property as long as they fly with mufflers and are not in residential areas for glow or ignition engines. Electrics would be OK due to very low noise. They are still responsible for any damage they cause, and every RC should be required to have the name and address of the owner inside the fuselage in clear letters. When you start mounting cameras on them and going outsdide your own property / flying site or getting into airspace where aircraft carrying people are flying, that's when my tolerance stops.

[Scott Rose]

I like the high governor idea, limited commercial drones to 400 ft. Larger ones, like aircraft should probably be licensed and I would think a transponder requirement would not be to big a burden. I think it would be good to try and get regulations in place rather than have draconian ones implemented after a fatal incident.

If you want to read an interesting book on a future use of drones, I recommend this techno-thriller

Kill Decision by Daniel Suarez

[K5DH]

A transponder! That's an interesting idea, Scott. It would sure help ATC to spot violators and warn pilots of manned aircraft of the presence of "drones" where they shouldn't be.

[k5083]

I predict that there will be fatal accidents involving drones. More than one. These may result in significant regulation, especially to cut back on the activities of hobbyists, not because they are the most dangerous - actually the opposite - but because they are the ones without the political power and financial interest to prevent restriction of their activities.

Commercial users of drones for inspection, delivery, surveillance and many other uses will dwarf recreational use, and their machines will be bigger and capable of doing more damage. Regardless of what safeguards are put in place, some of these operators will break the rules and injure others either intentionally or through incompetence. If we can't stop train drivers from going too fast and killing folks, neither can we completely stop what will soon be legions of drone operators from going where they shouldn't. The fatalities that result from these accidents will be shrugged off as a cost item on the balance sheet of what will still be an economically important technology. We don't hold general aviation, dog ownership or even football up to a zero-fatality standard; nor will we with drones.

The RC aviation hobby has done a great job minimizing the personal injury risk resulting from their hobby despite the significant potential that their aircraft have always had to harm both occupants of aircraft and people on the ground. The RC modeling organizations have been quick to take credit for this, but the recent growth of the hobby among those not affiliated with such organizations who do not fly at sanctioned flying fields, with no corresponding uptick in injuries, suggests that much of the credit belongs with the individual operator.

My next greatest concern will be police use of drones, but that is more from a civil liberties viewpoint than accidental injury.

August

[C VEICH]

Well said August and I concur with everything you have stated. I've been flying fixed wing r/c for 25+ years and drones/quadcopters threaten our hobby like nothing else I have seen in that time. (By far I would suggest!)

[Punisher05]

Hey C VEICH--

I apologize if what I said was misunderstood, because I'm in complete agreement with you. When I said "as much as possible" that was recognizing there are some times when things happen outside the son of the operator's control, such as a transmitter/receiver failure or the thermal incident you mentioned. There is simply no place for untrained, uninspected, and unsafe craft in our nation's flight paths. Those who do so are threatening those of us who use our hobby for good and productive means.

Scott and others have some really great ideas that have been considered and we are working to try and bring the technology up to that level. One of the things a lot of folks haven't considered is how to integrate UAVs with agricultural spraying operations. UAVs are getting massive interest from farmers who want to check their fences or crop conditions remotely. In these situations, UAVs could still be flying legally below 400' AGL and still be a hazard to crop dusters. High-Viz paint is one method, but we're working to find a more effective method of communicating, scheduling, and prevent incidents before they occur.

As with any new technology, it will take time to iron out the problems. Until then, we should aggressively locate and prosecute those who willfully endanger others.

-Brandon

[C VEICH]

No misunderstanding Brandon and it appears we are pretty much on the same page in all respects.

[TankPanZeR]

You have to ask yourselves this question first: How many birds fly above 500 feet agl each day? Likelihood of a bird strike is higher than meeting a multi-rotor aircraft in the air.

[RyanShort1]

You have to ask yourselves this question first: How many birds fly above 500 feet agl each day? Likelihood of a bird strike is higher than meeting a multi-rotor aircraft in the air.

Birds have a LOT more self preservation instincts and are generally easier to spot. Birds also have a lot less vertical capability.

[C VEICH]

Birds have a LOT more self preservation instincts...

Exactly!