What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Commercial Unmanned Drones Approved by the FAA

topgun260

Member
One Giant Leap for Unmanned-kind

July 26? The Federal Aviation Administration has issued restricted category type certificates to a pair of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), a milestone that will lead to the first approved commercial UAS operations later this summer.

http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=73118

We all knew this was coming and where it is going but what does it mean for VFR pilots trying to see and avoid these things?

They say these drones are "small" being less than 55lbs with wingspans of 9 and 10 feet. That would definitely leave a mark in a collision!
 
One of my biggest fears about them is I wonder when these things will next be approved for routine pipeline and powerline patrol flying... and you know they're gonna make it happen to save money too.
 
I hate flying around these things. Anyone who has probably agrees. One of those necessary evils I guess. I am hopeful traffic awareness via adsb improves greatly as these come online. We certainly don't have any traffic in our helicopter and those things have scared me more than once. Not to mention the colossal trouble they cause on launch, recovery and sustained airspace closures while they are up. Even in small scale tightly controlled restricted areas they are cumbersome, don't talk, etc. I'll be interested to see how the integration goes!
 
I developed a deep seated hatred for these things in Iraq. We were CONTINUALLY altering our flight paths to avoid them. Night after night we endured countless vectors for spacing to avoid them. It seems it's much easier and more reliable for the ATC guys to to maneuver the manned aircraft to avoid the drone. Where radar was unavailable we had to stay very vigilant to avoid them. We were flying NVG's which was great, but that's one of the reasons the C-23 community started using goggles in the first place - near misses with UAV's.

I've been dreading the day that UAV use becomes accepted/widespread in CONUS. I fear we'll find that GA traffic becomes subservient to the remote control toys. These little ones are very hard to see, but it will certainly take you down if you hit one.

Of course you'll already find the Predator, it's variants, and other types being operated by the Military in some areas. It's not been extensive - yet, and it's tightly controlled. I think the type certification of these things, while perhaps inevitable, is going to bring us some grief.
 
They are already available for pipeline patrol. Seen them at petrochemical trade shows. Very sophisticated. Live video feed. You can point/click waypoints using a Google Earth type interface, then it is all autopilot at a specified AGL. At any point you can hit "Circle here" or click on a point shown on the video feed and go there and circle, etc. Saw a fair sized one that was about 30 HP.

Here are a few. There are many more. There are fixed and rotary wing versions.

http://www.servovision.com/aeroscout UAV,VTOL/UAV.html
http://www.aeronautics-sys.com/?CategoryID=259&ArticleID=188
http://www.barnardmicrosystems.com/L3_oil_pipeline.htm

Really small one:
http://www.marcusuav.com/

If they stay below 500AGL and away from airports maybe they won't be much of a problem for us. But for helicopters - big issue! Is the gov't overstepping its boundaries on these? Did you see the article about a Colorado town that is considering making it legal to shoot them down? FAA is warning that could be a federal offense.

Interesting question - if the EPA had a small track-wheeled device (think small Mars Rover) and sent it on your land to see if you were violating some regulation, and without a search warrant - would you be within your rights to either seize or destroy it? But it makes a difference if it flies? Very interesting issues...
 
It's only going to take one mid-air and a massive lawsuit before people think twice about buying/operating these things.
 
It's only going to take one mid-air and a massive lawsuit before people think twice about buying/operating these things.
Or allowing us to share the sky with them. Being there first doesn't count for much, anymore, but having deep corporate pockets certainly does. It could go either way.
 
Think of how that midair over the Grand Canyon all those years ago changed everything forever.

Interesting how there is never a problem

...Until there is one.
 
It is my hope that they require them to fly in areas covered by adsb and are required to broadcast their position to atc and all adsb users. Im guessing they'll just issue a notam though. Everyone reads those, right?:rolleyes:
 
Gyros

There's always the trick the Spit guys used to do to upset the V1 Buzz Bombs. Fly up along side them and flip 'em with your wing :rolleyes:

Along with improved gyros they have Hi-res cameras and they'll nail you like the "red light" cameras. The ticket won't come in the mail though, the jack-booted thugs will just beat your door down.:eek:

A Sidewinder from a couple of miles back would work better.:D
 
ummm....Wow!

great discussion. Love the 110 page document from the UK ( which appears to be an excellent use of 10 pages of info, 30 pages or so 'intentionally left blank', and a couple flowcharts.)

I hope to see somewhere that these things need to be painted fluorescent yellow with black stripes, and a ton of strobes in every direction.
......so far, I've only seen them painted 'sky blue/grey', with the obvious reaction to that....( are they crazy?)
We're not in Afghanistan anymore guys! of course the pipeline patrol ones will be high-viz, but I'm sure the rest are hoping for some degree of stealth to sneak up on the bad guys. ( CBSA etc.).
Just hope I don't run into one. :(
 
I have been involved with "hobby" drones for quite some time now. There is actually quite a large community of people making home made drones, and honestly it is technically very easy to do (nowadays). People can fly these things very high and very far away, if they want. Many people have the goal of going as high as they can, or as far as they can. I personally have a system that could allow over 10 miles of live streaming data and video. These are basically foam RC airplanes or quad copters, weighted with electronics and batteries. Simple toys filled up with hobby electronics for stabilization, autopilot, and guidance, and whatever else you can dream up.

Anyway, the points I want to make is that a large number of people are operating drones regardless of the FAA. Many of these people have no idea about aviation airspace.

The discussion would arise "what if an airplane hits your drone?" Many people maintained that the drones are too small and insignificant to harm an airplane. I would argue the opposite, that the motors in the drones are a dense chunk of metal, which could easily damage a full size aircraft..in a prop strike, or windshield strike, or a fuel tank strike, etc.

I guess you never know what you will come across in the sky. I would say most people are pretty safe with their toy drones, and would rather keep their 500-3000 dollar toy out of harms way. But there are those rogues out there who will do what they want. I can think of a guy in LA whose goal was to send his drone round robin to a very popular nearby island. I have personally flown a full sized aircraft around that island at low level, and kept an active lookout for a tiny toy drone. Im not sure if he has yet succeeded.
 
More info

I found this notice from the FAA http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/reg/media/frnotice_uas.pdf
which says in part that "In general, this means the pilot or observer must be, in most cases, within 1 mile laterally and 3,000 feet vertically of the unmanned aircraft. Direct communication between the PIC and the observer must be maintained at all times. Unmanned aircraft flight above 18,000 feet must be conducted under Instrument Flight Rules, on an IFR flight plan, must obtain ATC clearance, be equipped with at least a Mode C transponder (preferably Mode S), operating navigation lights and / or collision avoidance lights and maintain communication between the PIC and Air Traffic Control (ATC)."

I like the wording "In general" and "in most cases".

I wonder if the operations approval for these two UAS's are based on the above notice or if they have some sort of special approval allowing deviations from it.
 
The AR.Drone 2.0, a commonly available quadcopter, comes with on-board cameras. Gross weight is less than a pound. An option includes GPS and the ability to store significant amounts of video. The option also includes the ability to follow a preprogrammed course autonomously.

It might even have the range to exceed that rule.

If you run into that thing while it's hovering and you're at 180 mph, the kinetic energy at impact is somewhere around 900 foot-pounds.

And there's not a chance you'll see it before hand. It's too small.

Dave
 
I like to compare the risk to that of bird-strike and wonder (out loud) whether 10,000 new drones, most of them not more than a few pounds, represent a significant proportion of airborne collision risk compared with the tens, probably hundreds of million birds flying (in flocks) at similar altitudes and speeds and also oblivious to the class of airspace they are using...
 
Birds have the ability to see and avoid and they are quite good at it. Most drones have no situational awareness. I agree with you though, the chances of a strike are low.
 
The decision makers can't seem to understand the dangers of these UAVs when guided by the likes of Barney Fife or Ken Lay (or a myriad of other examples of idiocy or lack of conscience).

Sure, I think plenty could be operated safely by knowlegable and responsible users. Not worried about them. Its the others that are a problem.

I forsee this playing out similar to gun regulation where the restriction is put on the device (limiting all users) in order to prevent the actions of some people but not being effective for the persons that willfully ignore to law. Exemptions will be put in place for use by the state of course.
 
What worries me is what's going to happen after someone collides with one of these things and the pilot/passengers get hurt or killed...will they call it "pilot error - failure to see and avoid" on the part of the pilot in the air?

What I'm inclined to would be a rule that says if anything bad happens involving an unmanned vehicle, it's the owner of the unmanned vehicle's fault...period. No exemptions for law enforcement, either. Somebody gets hurt or killed because of your drone, YOU are responsible for it.

The idea of local LE agencies flying these things around gives me the willies from an aviation perspective, and the creeps from a privacy perspective.
 
When it?s the piloted planes with our butts on the line along with passengers, it?s just not the same kind of level of commitment I expect from the other flying drones behind a desk knowing they still go home in a worse case scenario.
 
...will they call it "pilot error - failure to see and avoid" on the part of the pilot in the air?

Exactly. In VFR airspace, all participants are required to be looking out the window to see and avoid others. How exactly, does the remote drone driver do this? I don't think they can and therefore have no business being in VFR airspace. Now I suppose they could eliminate VFR airspace. Is this what it's going to come to?

Bevan
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I deal with Unmanned Aerial Systems almost every day. In fact I may be one of the very few people that have been able to log UAS time legally when operating a UAV under a certificate of authorization. With that said, what about to say is my opinion and does not represent MGSC, the FAA, NASA, or the state of Georgia.

First let’s get the terminology right.
- A drone is something that the air force uses for target practice, they tend to blow up and where they blow does not seem to be too much of the concern of the DOD. (On a Florida highway, for example).
- A RC airplane is one that is a remotely controlled airplane, that is piloted line of sight and under 400 AGL for recreation.
- A UAS or Unmanned Aerial/Autonomous System, is one that is operated for commercial or research purposes that must be operated under a COA or Certificate of Authorization.

Currently UASs are not allowed to operate in the national airspace system unless under a COA, even when under a COA, they cannot conflict with any manned air traffic. For example, Middle Georgia State College does UAS testing at Heart of Georgia RGNL airport in Eastman. We have the tower restrict access to the delta airspace until we can recover the aircraft (in most cases it is the twin-jet PTERA). Once we vacate the runway, the tower will then will allow the traffic outside the delta back in. (wait is about 5-10 minutes)

LEGAL UAS/UAVs will not be allowed to fly beyond line of sight in other then controlled airspace until 2020 when the ADS-B requirement comes in to play. Most UAV/UAS manufactures already are testing auto sense and avoid with ADS-B and TIS.

Now, regarding to what you see in the news. What you see are not legal UAVs, they are not being operated under a COA, and are normally some RC guy who is violating AC 91-57 which governs unmanned and model aircraft. Also DOD UAVs are different, they are not what we in the industry call UAVs, they are not made to operate in a space with other aircraft. UAVs in the industry are all designed with the purpose of flying in the same airspace as manned aircraft.

The FAA is also scrambling to meet a deadline set by congress. Congress, who has cut the funding for NEXGEN many times, told the FAA they have to permit UAVS in the national airspace system by 2015. Well the only way to do this properly is with NEXGEN in place. Currently there have been a few type certificates given however, the FAA is still limiting these aircraft to the same rules that RC aircraft have been limited too.

Remember that safety is in everyone’s best interest. For the pilot on the ground flying the UAV, for the pilot in the airplane flying and for the controller on the ground. Currently there is more of a chance of you hitting a bird then you hitting a UAV. In addition, in order to legally fly a UAV for commercial purposes post 2015, you are requires to be an instrument rates commercial pilot in either fixed or rotor wing manned aircraft.

If anyone would like more information, or have questions, please ask. If you have a comment or concern I can’t address, chances are I know someone that will.
 
Last edited:
I have seen videos of kids sending their drones up thru the clouds just to see what it looks like above [2500' agl]. this is no different than the 14 year old with a laser, "hey, let's go point them at landing airliners and see what happens". I'd like to see software limits of 200' agl mandated to help enforce regulations.
 
UAVs in the industry are all designed with the purpose of flying in the same airspace as manned aircraft.

I think this is what concerns many of us. Whether autonomous or remotely controlled, *how* are they going to abide by the "see and avoid" rule? And if they fail in that regard, and an accident results, whose fault is it going to be? The software architect who designed the autonomous system's "see and avoid" behavior, or the pilot of the 172 who hit the UAV?

Remember that safety is in everyone?s best interest. For the pilot on the ground flying the UAV, for the pilot in the airplane flying and for the controller on the ground.

Clearly, safety is a primary concern for *most* of the stakeholders (including pilots, UAV pilots, controllers, etc.). I'm not so sure about some entities, though, such as local/state LE agencies (I have what I think is a healthy distrust of LE in some respects) who may not have the overall system experience/knowledge that pilots, controllers, UAV designers/engineers/pilots do.

Sooner or later, there will be a conflict between a UAV and a GA pilot (with any luck, it won't cause an accident), and my concern is that the GA pilot will get hit with an enforcement action for "failure to see and avoid" while the UAV pilot (being, in all likelihood, a local, state or federal LE officer or employee) will not be held responsible.

Color me skeptical...
 
I have seen videos of kids sending their drones up thru the clouds just to see what it looks like above [2500' agl]. this is no different than the 14 year old with a laser, "hey, let's go point them at landing airliners and see what happens". I'd like to see software limits of 200' agl mandated to help enforce regulations.

UAVs will operate later up in the flight levels, I also don't see software limits really being enforceable.(the limited would be 400 AGL if you could do it)



I think this is what concerns many of us. Whether autonomous or remotely controlled, *how* are they going to abide by the "see and avoid" rule? And if they fail in that regard, and an accident results, whose fault is it going to be? The software architect who designed the autonomous system's "see and avoid" behavior, or the pilot of the 172 who hit the UAV?

UAVs would operate under a different system. Manned Aircraft would ALWAYS have priority and right-of-way. The DSA, or Detect, Sense, and Avoid system would allow a UAS to use Radar and ADS-B to find you in your RV or 172 and avoid you.


Clearly, safety is a primary concern for *most* of the stakeholders (including pilots, UAV pilots, controllers, etc.). I'm not so sure about some entities, though, such as local/state LE agencies (I have what I think is a healthy distrust of LE in some respects) who may not have the overall system experience/knowledge that pilots, controllers, UAV designers/engineers/pilots do.

Sooner or later, there will be a conflict between a UAV and a GA pilot (with any luck, it won't cause an accident), and my concern is that the GA pilot will get hit with an enforcement action for "failure to see and avoid" while the UAV pilot (being, in all likelihood, a local, state or federal LE officer or employee) will not be held responsible.

Color me skeptical...

http://droneu.org/the-drone-census
That is where pretty much every legal UAV is currently in the US. There are very few law enforcement agencies still on the map because its really not effective this early in the game. Getting a COA approved can take up to 120 days making reacting to any situation near impossible.

Also as I said before, you CANNOT operate a UAS in the national airspace system with out a COA, and at least an instrument rating (after 2015). Currently I know of only a few LEs that have used there privileges to fly UAVs and they have not been used in any law enforcement activities as the COA is only to allow for flight testing of UAVs.

The PIC of the UAS will be at fault for any conflict that ever arises from a manned v. unmanned situation. When I fly any UAV/UAS, we normally have 2 to 4 spotters, we issue at least 2 notams (because EZM is on the boarder between JAX and ATL), we call up the airspace controller above the site on frequency to lets them know we are flying, we let airports know on the CTAF/Tower and we call up on guard as well(for off airport testing). That way when I start flying, we have effectively cleared the airspace.
 
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012...ary-may-be-using-drones-in-us-to-help-police/

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-06-19-la-drone_x.htm

"A spokesperson with the LAPD said the department does not have a policy on drone use. However, the Los Angeles Times reported in 2012 that the LAPD and 81 other agencies had filed for licenses to operate drones. Two of those agencies were the Department of Homeland Security?s Science and Technology Division and the department?s Bureau of Border and Customs Protection. "

http://pasadenaweekly.com/cms/story/detail/eyes_on_the_sky/12400/

This is not the proper forum to talk about whether such use is proper or any privacy aspects or constitutional issues related to their use, and I'm not making such an argument.

I suspect that what you're doing is something different than what all of these other agencies are doing, by and large, but rest assured that many LE agencies *are* looking at, planning for (and in some cases, already using) UAVs for surveillance and other purposes.

My concern here is safety of flight. It's not reasonable to think that every time Podunk City PD wants to put up a "drone" they "clear the airspace" of all other aircraft, and that can lead to some very serious issues. How the FAA intends to manage this, while not crippling GA every time the sheriff wants to fly his latest toy, remains to be seen.

But don't think for a minute that this technology will not be high on the list of every LE agency in the country to acquire and use...

LA Sheriffs have already used them, apparently, by the way.
 
We have the tower restrict access to the delta airspace until we can recover the aircraft (in most cases it is the twin-jet PTERA). Once we vacate the runway, the tower will then will allow the traffic outside the delta back in. (wait is about 5-10 minutes)

That way when I start flying, we have effectively cleared the airspace.

Great, We will have a pop-up NOTAM or TFR every time the local sheriff wants to get some UAS time and I have to spend my gas money to loiter until he is done with his flight.

I am not so concerned about the collision part because I know the FAA will make the rules restricted enough to maximize safety. The way they will do that is restrict general aviation in favor of COMMERCIAL UAS activities since they will have more political clout then us GA pilots. Heck the one guy that the FAA went after for violating the rules now has a whole bunch of politically connected friends defending him using Freedom of the Press terminology.

This is all going to be about additional restricts/equipment required for GA aviation.
 
Last edited:
I like to compare the risk to that of bird-strike and wonder (out loud) whether 10,000 new drones, most of them not more than a few pounds, represent a significant proportion of airborne collision risk compared with the tens, probably hundreds of million birds flying (in flocks) at similar altitudes and speeds and also oblivious to the class of airspace they are using...

Birds are actually pretty good at seeing and avoiding aircraft. I also think a 5lb bird would do less damage to a aircraft then a drone.

George
 
I deal with Unmanned Aerial Systems almost every day. In fact I may be one of the very few people that have been able to log UAS time legally when operating a UAV under a certificate of authorization. With that said, what about to say is my opinion and does not represent MGSC, the FAA, NASA, or the state of Georgia.

First let?s get the terminology right.
- A drone is something that the air force uses for target practice, they tend to blow up and where they blow does not seem to be too much of the concern of the DOD. (On a Florida highway, for example).
- A RC airplane is one that is a remotely controlled airplane, that is piloted line of sight and under 400 AGL for recreation.
- A UAS or Unmanned Aerial/Autonomous System, is one that is operated for commercial or research purposes that must be operated under a COA or Certificate of Authorization.

Maybe some in the AF will use that first example for a drone, but seems like drones are pretty much synonymous with UAV's and RPA's and the media uses it as such these days. In the brief time I looked at some of the on-line dictionaries for drone, none used that first example as a definition for it.
 
Wow, lots of posts that I haven't read, nor the FAA info. But lack of facts doesn't stop an opinion!

As long as UAVs operate under 500 feet, I don't much care. I quit flying low decades ago, there are too many fixed hazards anyway: cell towers, unmarked/poorly marked cables, you-name-it. I'm below 500 feet on takeoff and landing, and I assume drones, if they operate from airports, will be brightly painted with flashing strobes. We have to watch out for No-Radio piloted aircraft now, so I just don't see much change for pilots.
Let me know if I'm wrong :)
 
Birds are actually pretty good at seeing and avoiding aircraft. I also think a 5lb bird would do less damage to a aircraft then a drone.

Not sure about this. A local pilot was killed summer 2013 when he hit a bird at below 1000 feet AGL; apparently it hit the leading edge of his wood wing structure, causing a complete failure of the wing and subsequent fatal crash.

I knew an RV-6A pilot some years ago that suffered a huge dent in his leading edge striking a bird (don't know his altitude).

Another RV-7 pilot I know totaled his aircraft on takeoff striking a bird and losing control...luckily surviving to build another one.

I've always heard the larger birds don't avoid aircraft. Either the aircraft are too fast, or the larger birds don't have natural predators so don't have an instinct to avoid.
 
Great, We will have a pop-up NOTAM or TFR every time the local sheriff wants to get some UAS time and I have to spend my gas money to loiter until he is done with his flight.

I am not so concerned about the collision part because I know the FAA will make the rules restricted enough to maximize safety. The way they will do that is restrict general aviation in favor of COMMERCIAL UAS activities since they will have more political clout then us GA pilots. Heck the one guy that the FAA went after for violating the rules now has a whole bunch of politically connected friends defending him using Freedom of the Press terminology.

This is all going to be about additional restricts/equipment required for GA aviation.

Currently there are no standard or rules to allow for UAVs to operate in the same airspace together so the best way so far has been to keep them away from each other. I know when ever a system is in place for SDA then there wont be a separation. We also can not use a TFR for UAVs, we can only make a notam for notice, and the only reason why the college restricts access to class Delta is because when we fly at the EZM airport we are flying a UAV about half the size of an RV, that is about the same speed rang as one.
 
I have seen videos of kids sending their drones up thru the clouds just to see what it looks like above [2500' agl]. this is no different than the 14 year old with a laser, "hey, let's go point them at landing airliners and see what happens". I'd like to see software limits of 200' agl mandated to help enforce regulations.

people are making the software themselves, there is no realistic way to enforce a software limit.
 
Reported yesterday

Here is more stuff on drones, they are talking the small drones but what about the ones bigger than our aircraft!!!!

A U.S. Airways regional jet came dangerously close to a potentially "catastrophic" midair collision with a remote-controlled drone over the Florida Panhandle, news reports said Friday.

A pilot reported the March 22 incident to the Federal Aviation Administration, James Williams, chief of the agency’s unmanned aircraft office, said in a speech at the Small Unmanned Systems Business Exposition in San Francisco. The speech was posted to YouTube.com, and reported by The Wall Street Journal.

According to The Journal, U.S. Airways Flight 4650 from Charlotte, N.C., a 50-seat jet, was approaching the Tallahassee airport, flying at an altitude of 2,300 feet, when it passed a drone described by the pilot "as a camouflaged F-4 fixed-wing aircraft that was quite small."

"The airline pilot said that he thought the [drone] was so close to his jet that he was sure that he had collided with it," said Jim Williams, head of the unmanned-aircraft office at the FAA, The Journal reported.

Inspection of the airliner after landing found no damage — but officials said a collision with a drone could be as frightening, and as potentially "catastrophic," as a jet flying into a flock of birds, USA Today reports.

"The risk for a small [drone] to be ingested into a passenger airline engine is very real," Williams told The Journal.

Geese that flew into the engines of a U.S. Airways plane out of LaGuardia Airport in 2009 forced the jet into the icy Hudson River in a landing by now-retired pilot Chesley Sullenberger nicknamed the Miracle on the Hudson.

According to FAA regulations, drone operators are required to get an experimental airworthiness certificate that precludes the operator from flying at certain times and in certain areas, Business Insider reports.

The government has also limited the operation of model airplanes to altitudes of less than 400 feet and away from airports and all air traffic.

The FAA has said it plans to propose rules by the end of the year governing civilian drones weighing less than 55 pounds, which have grown in popularity as prices fall and the crafts become more widely available.

American Airlines, the parent of U.S. Airways, is investigating, spokesman Matt Miller told USA Today.

"The safety of our passengers and crew is our top priority," Miller said. "Any information will be shared with the FAA as part of our normal procedures, and we will not comment on any matter that may be under investigation."

The Journal reported the incident appears to be the first case of a big U.S. airliner nearly colliding with an airborne drone, although there have been other occasions of aircraft pilots seeing drones in flight.

In March 2013, an Alitalia aircraft approaching John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York observed a drone within 200 feet, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The FBI Friday told The Journal it’s still investigating.

And the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported last month that a rescue helicopter service evaded a drone flying too close.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is investigating the incident, which happened at around a thousand feet as the chopper returned to its Newcastle base. The agency said the crew was forced to take evasive action to avoid a collision as the drone tracked toward them.
 
Back
Top