FAA and Civil UAV's

[cbergen]

Guys,

My opinion holds no more weight than any other here, but my phone calls with the FAA leads me to agree with the asessment that their intention of this policy clarification was to ground all the civil UAV's, and yes, this includes our birds used for commercial purposes.

Their definition of a UAV includes our birds used for commercial purposes, therefore must have a certificate of some kind. Unfortunately, at this time, there is no avenue for us to obtain a certificate as civil UAV's.

I have been told they are working on it, but the time frame when we may have a workable solution is a guess.

We do have Governmental customers who are going through the process of obtaining their COA's, but since most of them only fly in restricted airspace, their applying for a COA is purely an administrative paperwork thing, but may help us in the future, having our birds already cleared for use.

At this time, my advice is to fly your heli's, practice, test, work on business proposals and marketing, but do not tempt fate and fly commercially. When you fly, do it safely and in the confines of AC 91-57.

When we have regs in place that allow us to fly commercially again, you can bet that we will be doing our part to help with whatever airworthiness needs are met, documentation, flight testing, minimum requirements, etc, and will pass this on to our customers.

[MarkWebber]

Thanks for the heads up, Chris.

[MicroMan]

Hopefully the COA wont be too intrusive for you guys, good luck.

[Crjbenny]

Thanks for the info Chris. I agree with you 100% on your assesment.

I went out today in a 172 XP and took 5 jobs that the Observer could have done. Not worth the risk to me. Not until I talk to my FSDO.

Maybe a Jet Ranger Fuse is on the horizon in the down time.

[Brady Longmore]

From what I understand by reading all the threads, and corrrect me if I'm wrong.

Techincally if I want to I can still take my camera ship up with all the equipment strapped to it, and hover all around taking pics of the neighborhood and video and still be in compliance with FAA regulations....but, the minute someone pays me to do it, I"m in violation.

Is that right? Or am I wrong? :dontknow

[cbergen]

No, you would not be in compliance with any FAA regs, you would be operating under AC 91-57.

Forget about all the $hithouse lawyers attempting to find a loophole or twisting of words.

The point is, the FAA IS the governing authority when it comes to the airspace that we all use, and their INTENT with the clarifying of the policy was to GROUND all civil UAV's, and yes that includes the ones that we use.

There will be no "Man in Black" waiting for someone to hand you a dollar for flying then throw cuffs on you, they don't do that.

What they WILL do is wait until you have an "Incident". Then they will fine you, usually in the neighborhood of $10,000 per incident (meaning each time you flew), confiscate any equipment, if they determine that a law may have been broken, then they will press charges and have you arrested.

This is all based on my experiences as an A&P Mechanic for 14 years with Delta and Valujet, dealing with the FAA in both places involving "Incidents".

We'll all be better off to wait, let the wheels turn, let the regs come into play, then comply with them.

[vapochilled]

So, does this now mean that I can't strap a digi cam to my rex, purely for fun anymore? this seems so over the top, even for this country. :arggg:

[cbergen]

You would be operating under AC 91-57.

[Brady Longmore]

Best to just play it safe it sounds like. As for me, I will probably go out into the countryside and practice taking pics of pine trees and boulders. That way if there is an incident the only damage will be to my equipment. No chance of property damage. No need for a report of any kind. sigh....just as I was about to get going. :arggg:

Does anyone have a copy of this AC 91-57, or know where to access it?

[Crjbenny]

Hey Brady!

Here is the link to 91-57.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1acfc3f689769a56862569e70077c9cc/$FILE/ATTBJMAC/ac91-57.pdf

Here is th UAS one.

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/uas/reg/media/frnotice_uas.pdf


Its on FAA.gov just search AC 91-57 on the site.

[Brady Longmore]

well, after reading those, I get the feeling that they are mainly concerned with the "big boys" out there developing bigger aircraft such as the predator. Although at the time we do fall under the umbrella of the current uas document, I wonder how much attention aircraft like ours will be paid in the end.

[redneckteddy103]

well after talking to my local fisdo office that crap dont apply to rec use and if you are playing with a camara or video for rec use your fine , i was told that it was set for guys that are doing crazy crap with heli's and planes , and as long as we dont break the 400 foot rule there aint nothing that could be done about it someone just trying to rattle his or her opinoin

that crap applys to guys like this

[cbergen]

You are correct in that if used for recreational/hobby purposes, you should have no trouble.

The problem is, and this is difficult to get people to understand, that IF used for COMMERCIAL purposes, ie, YOU GET PAID, then the FAA is interested. They are also interested even if you are using it for NON-PROFIT purposes like SAR.

We KNOW this for fact as Gene Robinson was CALLED by the FAA and told NOT to fly using his foamy airplane for a SAR mission. He was NOT using a Yamaha R-Max, NOT using a Navy Firescout, but a FOAMY airplane at less than 400 ft, or at least was planning on it........This is not conjecture, this is fact.

[Skiddz]

I spoke to the FAA about this just a few days ago and I was told (paraphrasing here) that AC 91-57, written in 1981, was aimed at the large UAV/UAS and that to be safe, if you were going to be operating commercially, talk to the local FSDO *FIRST* and make sure they're cool with it.

The one thing this guy told me was that this area was very "squishy" (his word) and just do your best to CYA.

It'll be interesting to see how it all pans out. I wish there was more publically available information...

[WillJames]

You are correct in that if used for recreational/hobby purposes, you should have no trouble.

The problem is, and this is difficult to get people to understand, that IF used for COMMERCIAL purposes, ie, YOU GET PAID, then the FAA is interested. They are also interested even if you are using it for NON-PROFIT purposes like SAR.

We KNOW this for fact as Gene Robinson was CALLED by the FAA and told NOT to fly using his foamy airplane for a SAR mission. He was NOT using a Yamaha R-Max, NOT using a Navy Firescout, but a FOAMY airplane at less than 400 ft, or at least was planning on it........This is not conjecture, this is fact.


I think it is WRONG for SAR missions to be hindered in any way. Is a human life not the most precious thing or what? Man.... :arggg:

[BCRCtech]

Sounds you are right Longmore:(

[Skiddz]

Just an FYI: The FAA is having a safety forum to discuss UAS (Unmanned Aerial Systems) April 29 and 30 and evidently will be webcasted:

http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2008/080303.html

http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/webcasts.htm

[Hrob2Ate]

I see the last post here was in April, Is there any new info comming out of the FAA yet ? :confused:

[Skiddz]

Not that I've heard, but I'm close to trying to earn some money with AP/AV so I'll have to investigate. I may be ok in that I hold a commercial rotorcraft license and I know that's mentioned in the current UAS Advisory Circular.