FAA Crack Down

[oscillator]

The FAA wrote me back!

Bruce Tarbert of the FAA sent me a very polite email thanking me for my email and stating the FAA was "evaluating the feasibility establishing policy for small UAS operations." He also stated "I would hope that if it is feasible to establish such policy that it could be put in place within the next twelve months."

Regarding AC 91-57 Bruce stated:

"The intent of AC 91-57 was never to provide an approval basis for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS), please keep in mind that this document was written in 1981. This document was and always has been intended for recreational and hobbyist use only, so I am not sure that it is fair to say the FAA created any new rules when the Federal Register Notice was published. Rather, the notice outlined rules and regulations that were already in place."

While I am glad the FAA is working on policy, it still leaves aerial photography via R/C "hobby" aircraft nowhere at the moment. Here is the response I sent back:

Hi Bruce,

Thank you for your response. Again, I welcome and encourage the FAA to regulate all UAS's - including small UAS's.

My concern is there currently is no path to certification for small UAS's and therefore a large number of business have been shut down by this action. I realize that defining a proper certification program (for both SUAS's and operators) will take time, but many of these small businesses will not be able to survive with zero revenue while a certification program is discussed.

I would encourage the FAA to grant temporary authority to small UAS's while a proper certification program is devised. Such temporary authority should have restrictions such as - systems based on hobby aircraft operated within direct line of sight of the operator, under 400 ft AGL, outside of controlled airspace (unless cleared), must have insurance to cover commercial activity, etc. The last bit is key. If the operator can get insurance, then he has satisfied the carrier that he is not a risk to persons or property on the ground. If he is otherwise in compliance with AC 91-57 and based on a small hobby platform, he should pose no danger to manned aircraft.

Thanks again for your attention to this matter.

Mark Scrivener
Private Pilot and Aircraft Owner
Operator of hobby helicopter photographic platforms - that I would like to turn into a business

I encourage everyone here to contact the FAA directly and politely voice your concerns. You can contact the FAA via submission forms on their web site. Try www.faa.gov/uas

It is your government, make your voice heard!

[Cryofix]

Also got a reply which seems pretty positive.

Ed:


02/14/2007 04:33 PM
To 9-AWA-AVS-AIR-160/AWA/FAA@FAA
cc
Subject UAS Program Information

Thank you for your email. Unfortunately there is current regulatory basis for an airworthiness certification for civil use Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). RTCA has been tasked by the FAA to develop recommendations that may lead to a certification basis. This will be a long process and will most likely require rule making activities. In the interim, the FAA is evaluating the feasibility of establishing an approval basis for small UAS that could be safely introduced into the NAS. This work is ongoing, and will take into consideration recommendations from RTCA "best operating practices" as well as other industry guidance including RCAPA.

Please fell free to contact me should you have any further questions.







This email was sent through the Federal Aviation Administration's public website.
You have been contacted via an email link on the following page: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/air/hq/engineering/uapo/index.cfm

Message:
----------------------
I am interested in more information on the process for certifications and maintenance, any and all informations would be helpful.

As current member of the RCAPA located at http://www.rcapa.net/ I urge you to work with them if you need information about small remote controlled helicopters under 20lbs and less than 400 foot.

You may find that a simple certification test and a maintenance guide would suffice for this portion of the industry.

There is alot of current pilots grounded at this moment, that require their equipment to make a living, and others like myself ready to go full force into the industry, which makes this ruling sting quite a bit.

There are many helpful people in the AP/V community that may offer extremely valuable information to help this process progress quickly efficiently and safely.

Thanks for your time,
Ed Larkin
www.skylineapv.com



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.412 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/693 - Release Date: 2/19/2007

[xfc3dcd]

[quote="Cryofix"]Also got a reply which seems pretty positive.


As current member of the RCAPA located at http://www.rcapa.net/ I urge you to work with them if you need information about small remote controlled helicopters under 20lbs and less than 400 foot.

You may find that a simple certification test and a maintenance guide would suffice for this portion of the industry.

There is alot of current pilots grounded at this moment, that require their equipment to make a living, and others like myself ready to go full force into the industry, which makes this ruling sting quite a bit.

There are many helpful people in the AP/V community that may offer extremely valuable information to help this process progress quickly efficiently and safely.

Thanks for your time,
Ed Larkin
www.skylineapv.com



Under 20 lbs.???

If you are going to write to the FAA i would really appreciate it if you would not F*ck up things for the rest of us. I am a member of RCAPA and carry insurance. Not everyone involved in AP flys Logos and Raptors.

Wendell

[DKTek]

The XLV is heavier than that without a cam.... :(

[Xcellgasman101]

I would have to agree about the 20 lbs. rule,, I think that even AMA uses a 55 lbs. rule, any thing larger than that would need a special certif. I would at least like to see it at 35 to 40 lbs. XGM/VGM

[Cryofix]

xfc3dcd, very well then where is your response about your type of equipment? did you get a reply from the FAA yet? or did you not even bother?

My line of work I need a logo/raptor and thats all I need, and I need it as soon as possible, I voiced my opinion and it was heard and responded to, if you use a 50lb UAS then tell them about it, I didnt F any thing up; I tried to advance my cause and the casue of others that use under 20lb machines. My intentions were no to F up people with birds as big as your ego

Did I ever use something thats over 20 or 30 or even 50 lbs.... no, do I plan on it? maybe but I will cross that bridge when and if I get to it.

My point is I did try and get to them is to leave us alone and go after the big fish and I feel knowing only my business and not everyone else's business that I offered the appropriate wording.

Also I am not sure how I alone could F things up seeing that it is in the hands of the RTCA and possibly the RCAPA, these are the people that will untimely have the last word and not my email, but thank you for regarding me so highly.

If you are going to post on this board I would really appreciate it if you could be a little more positive about things and if you cant be; please take you whole whopping 8 posts you have here on the freak and go elsewhere.

Ohhh Yea your slogan is appropriate for you "We Look Down on You But in a Good way"... you still look down on people; that don't sound good, maybe change that a bit and you may get some more business.

Thanks and have a GREAT day Wendell


DKTek and Xcellgasman101,

Sorry about the weight limit thing, I really was'nt aware that I would hinder anyone buy blurbbing out 20 lbs, I am only a small ant in the army so I doubt they will notice at all.

Cryofix

[xfc3dcd]

Sorry about the weight limit thing, I really was'nt aware that I would hinder anyone buy blurbbing out 20 lbs, I am only a small ant in the army so I doubt they will notice at all.

Cryofix


I apologize for my previous comments as I know you have the best of intentions.

Wendell

[MLaBoyteaux]

Bashing each other for our own personal perspectives will get us nowhere. What's important is that we all keep moving forward, even if it is in our own way.

Each of us wants to get back in the air as soon as possible, whether it's a 3 lb foamy or a 35 lb gasser/turbine.

Please be respectful of each other's opinions, and don't take them personally if they differ from your own.

I too have found it hard to resist posting about weight class restrictions that would impact me, but I realize each of us just wants to get back in the air. I don't agree 100% with the RCAPA letter, but I believe the organization has more clout representing us collectively than each of us has on our own.

I've drug my feet doing my part for RCAPA, but I'm trying to make up for it.

[Gary Travis]

Collectively is the answer Mark, several of the people at RCAPA have been on this for quite sometime my self included and progress is being made. The sqabbles everybody needs to stand together and we can get this solved. Without getting into it to much I can say that all of my conversations and e-mails with the people at the FAA have been extremely positive and my opinion based on these is very positive. The people at the FAA are trying as hgard as we are to get things done.
Patrick in another post has stated the RCAPA position and the support of all of you is what is needed. Get with RCAPA and see what YOU as individuals can do to help. We as a group are the key here.
Gary

[Xcellgasman101]

I'm not putting any blame on anyone, but I don't have a logo/raptor, all my stuff is between 25 and 30 lbs, and really don't want to change all my helis just to get below 20 lbs, I have lots of dollars in all this, and dont want to start all over again, to, only be able to fly for 8 to 12 min. when I'm in the air for 30 min. at times,, no dissrespect to anyone, just want to make sure that I don't get bumped out.. due to weight.. :lol: :lol: XGM/VGM

[Gary Travis]

John
Most of the guys doing it professionaly are dealing with the heavyer machines myself included. WE have this in mind in our efforts.
Gary

[Cryofix]

The whole point is I m not aware of what any UAW weights are other than what I use, and even with contacting the FAA and specifically stating 20 lbs, do you guys truly think it will matter that I said that?

I think the RTCA and the RCAPA will know best as to what weights to use in certain classifications, and not me.

I did not post this to be disrespectful to the rest of the AP/V community by limiting the weight I sent in the email, I posted this to emphasize the positive response I got back from a government official.

If I had equipment over 20 lbs and I saw this post I would not be upset in any way about it. I would know that it will have no impact on me because it was sent in a standard form email along with hundreds of others and they only warranted a courtesy response from the official.

[DavidH]

I don't have a horse in this race. But I have done some aerial photography and video. I have been the pilot for some operations.
I also think it is best to not give the FAA any ideas about weights or sizes of the helis. In my opinion that gets them thinking to much about it and they may just pull figures out of no where that could put a lot of AP pilots out of business.
NRI has some nice rigs that are available. They are not small rigs, but they will do the job well. I would think the AMA and RCAPA would be the best source to voice opinions and let them voice them to the FAA. Everyone emailing the FAA in my opinion is just going to make everything cloudy for them. And by doing that they may just take the easy way and say ground them all.

David

[Gary Travis]

Well said David, RCAPA is ttrying it's hardest to resolve the issues at hand. I have also spoken with the AMA in regards to the issues.
Gary