Quadcopters and FAA Rules

[Luis R. Ramos]

Recently my Group bought each cadet squadron two quadcopters, and is now starting to look at the ptoposed FAA rules.

I would like to know whether any Group, Wing, or Region has published rules for cadets to fly quadcopters. I realize that any FAA rule would override any CAP rule, but this would be I think the best way to start training cadets.

[Holding Pattern]

I am quite interested in this. We have an aviation consortium in the area that would love to help propel UAV initiatives the moment we get rules and regs for them.

[Гугл переводчик]

Our wing straight out doesn't allow it

[Luis R. Ramos]

Which Wing is that...?

[PHall]

Which Wing is that...?

It's in his signature.

[Гугл переводчик]

Which Wing is that...?

It's in his signature.

I took it out of my signature recently 

As for my wing, I'm in Idaho Wing. They don't want any kind of liability risks involved with UAV's or any kind of drones, so they don't allow it. It's a huge bummer for us because we had some Air Force folks that really wanted to start a program with our squadron.

[PHall]

Which Wing is that...?

It's in his signature.

I took it out of my signature recently 

As for my wing, I'm in Idaho Wing. They don't want any kind of liability risks involved with UAV's or any kind of drones, so they don't allow it. It's a huge bummer for us because we had some Air Force folks that really wanted to start a program with our squadron.

Nope, it's still there, Boise, Idaho.

[Гугл переводчик]

Which Wing is that...?

It's in his signature.

I took it out of my signature recently 

As for my wing, I'm in Idaho Wing. They don't want any kind of liability risks involved with UAV's or any kind of drones, so they don't allow it. It's a huge bummer for us because we had some Air Force folks that really wanted to start a program with our squadron.

Nope, it's still there, Boise, Idaho.

Fixed it! 

[Holding Pattern]

Which Wing is that...?

It's in his signature.

I took it out of my signature recently 

As for my wing, I'm in Idaho Wing. They don't want any kind of liability risks involved with UAV's or any kind of drones, so they don't allow it. It's a huge bummer for us because we had some Air Force folks that really wanted to start a program with our squadron.

That's some serious irony in not allowing drones but flying aircraft about and participating in ES activities.

[Thonawit]

I did this a couple of years ago, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45XEXtW7NNs - the flight was 100% autonomous. I have a few more of the same but with much closer passes of the rocket, just have not uploaded any of them.

Currently there are no FAA Rules for recreational use, for commercial use there are rules (you can't fly with out a 333 exemption), I have applied for an FAA 333 Exemption for business purposes.

I build and fly Remotely Piloted Vehicles that have Autonomous capabilities for Aerial Photography and Mapping applications (aka. Drones).

Most 'copters have unprotected propellers spinning at about 10,000 rpm, they can cause serious injuries up to and including removal of fingers. When things go bad it happens in an instant and usually in a direction that involves you, or worse, spectators. The same can be said for a fixed wing RC aircraft and CAP does have a Model Aircraft AE Program.

Where the issue arises is from IDIOTS. They are the ones that decide the rules don't apply to them and will fly their newly bought Quad over people, airports, etc. They are the ones that cause the bad press and soon to be overwhelming regulations for Model Aircraft of all types (can you say N number).

[PHall]

I did this a couple of years ago, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45XEXtW7NNs - the flight was 100% autonomous. I have a few more of the same but with much closer passes of the rocket, just have not uploaded any of them.

Currently there are no FAA Rules for recreational use, for commercial use there are rules (you can't fly with out a 333 exemption), I have applied for an FAA 333 Exemption for business purposes.

I build and fly Remotely Piloted Vehicles that have Autonomous capabilities for Aerial Photography and Mapping applications (aka. Drones).

Most 'copters have unprotected propellers spinning at about 10,000 rpm, they can cause serious injuries up to and including removal of fingers. When things go bad it happens in an instant and usually in a direction that involves you, or worse, spectators. The same can be said for a fixed wing RC aircraft and CAP does have a Model Aircraft AE Program.

Where the issue arises is from IDIOTS. They are the ones that decide the rules don't apply to them and will fly their newly bought Quad over people, airports, etc. They are the ones that cause the bad press and soon to be overwhelming regulations for Model Aircraft of all types (can you say N number).

You mean like the idiot that caused a major power failure in Hollywood today by flying their drone into power lines and causing a short circuit that blew several transformers?

[TheSkyHornet]

We did some quadcopter flying at an aerospace camp we held over the summer. We set up an obstacle course inside our hangar that allowed people to follow a designated track, hover around traffic cones, and fly through hoops before landing on a designated helo pad. They absolutely loved it, and they got to learn about the principles of flight while doing it. I believe the one we used had enclosed rotors so they wouldn't be easy to fly into someone and clip an ear, but we were able to set it to a maximum height from the ground and made sure we had a designated "play area" to avoid anyone walking near a flying "aircraft."

[Holding Pattern]

I did this a couple of years ago, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45XEXtW7NNs - the flight was 100% autonomous. I have a few more of the same but with much closer passes of the rocket, just have not uploaded any of them.

Currently there are no FAA Rules for recreational use, for commercial use there are rules (you can't fly with out a 333 exemption), I have applied for an FAA 333 Exemption for business purposes.

I build and fly Remotely Piloted Vehicles that have Autonomous capabilities for Aerial Photography and Mapping applications (aka. Drones).

Most 'copters have unprotected propellers spinning at about 10,000 rpm, they can cause serious injuries up to and including removal of fingers. When things go bad it happens in an instant and usually in a direction that involves you, or worse, spectators. The same can be said for a fixed wing RC aircraft and CAP does have a Model Aircraft AE Program.

Where the issue arises is from IDIOTS. They are the ones that decide the rules don't apply to them and will fly their newly bought Quad over people, airports, etc. They are the ones that cause the bad press and soon to be overwhelming regulations for Model Aircraft of all types (can you say N number).

You mean like the idiot that caused a major power failure in Hollywood today by flying their drone into power lines and causing a short circuit that blew several transformers?

Looks like the DoD wanted in on the action.

[SarDragon]

Looks like the DoD wanted in on the action.

Bad link.

[PHall]

I think he was trying to link to the story about the Aerostat that broke free from it's moorings today Dave.

[Holding Pattern]

Bah. That's what I get for trying to correct one link issue before the lockout on posts happens:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/10/breaking-jlens-aerostat-breaks-loose-over-pennsylvania/

[Luis R. Ramos]

Unmanned balloon?

Place a remote controlled switch to open a discharge valve. Follow it, and when it approaches a suitably deserted area, hit the switch. Deflated balloon, goes aground. If no area available, have police or Army contingent close part of one...

But this happened during both wars. One anti-aircraft weapon used extensively were the barrage balloons. Sometimes a balloon would break loose, and had to be chased and retrieved. I guess they never learned...

[SarDragon]

There is a much greater effort in place these days to conserve helium. The world's supply is diminishing. Simply venting it does not fit that goal.

[Luis R. Ramos]

I see... So it is preferable to cause hundreds of millions (billions?) in $$$$$$$$$, and put people's lives in probable jeopardy than to vent it?

[SarDragon]

I see... So it is preferable to cause hundreds of millions (billions?) in $$$$$$$$$, and put people's lives in probable jeopardy than to vent it?

Lighten up, Francis. I think there could have been more of an effort to retrieve the helium. The potential damage you propose seems to a gross exaggeration.