http://www.draganfly.com/news/2010/02/10/faa-gives-sheriff-green-light-to-fly-the-draganflyer-x6-uav-rc-helicopter/ (http://www.draganfly.com/news/2010/02/10/faa-gives-sheriff-green-light-to-fly-the-draganflyer-x6-uav-rc-helicopter/)
"The Mesa County Sheriff's Office has, to date, conducted over 72 Search and Rescue (SAR) missions in 2009. "With the ability to attain a bird's eye view of a search area for a fraction of the cost of operating full-scale aviation assets, UAS technology is a great fit," Hilkey said."
I put this in the Lobby for the exposure. My question is, why haven't we jumped on this yet?
1. We are a Auxiliary of the USAF, you would think we could get the green light,
2. They have had almost a decade of use in the war zones,
I know Congress just passed a bill authorizing the study of the use of UAV's, but if a Sheriffs Department back in 2009 was able to start working with them, we should have been able to also.
Respectfully,
1. We don't own any UAV's
2. We don't have any UAV pilots (or controllers or whatever they call them)
3. Who will train the controllers?
4. Who will pay for the training and the repair after we crash a few?
5. Who covers the insurance?
6. How do we bill for mission usage?
The Air Force has given the U-2 a longer lease on life for exactly the same reasons.
Article (http://news.yahoo.com/us-air-force-gives-u-2-spy-plane-002520122.html)
There was a company schilling something similar at the IL SAR Council conference last year. It was 6 figures (before you get a huge add-on to the national liability insurance) - I'd rather buy a Cessna, even if they are a bit more expensive. It's hard to do a cadet o-ride in a UAV :angel:.
QuoteMy question is, why haven't we jumped on this yet?
The short answer is that it takes a lot of work to do this and a lot of hoops to jump through. Tasks that CAP isn't really interested in doing since we have a fleet of 550 Cessnas that we're trying to find uses for.
The FAA page on UAS
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/aaim/organizations/uas/coa/faq/ (http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/aaim/organizations/uas/coa/faq/)
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/aaim/organizations/uas/ (http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/aaim/organizations/uas/)
The requirements for a civilian agency to fly a UAS are different than those for a "public agency" (government). The FAA has already determined that CAP is a civilian agency with respect to our Cessna flying because the planes are registered to CAP, Inc.
The OP link is to 2009. It's 2012 now and Mesa County has more or less replaced the Draganflyer with two fixed wing Falcon UAVs. "The department also has a remotely controlled helicopter, but it costs more to fly, cannot stay aloft as long and is more vulnerable to bad weather." Here is a link to the Falcon site which has more info, including videos and flight tracks, of the Mesa County Falcons.
http://www.falcon-uav.com/falcon-uav-news/2012/1/16/-mesa-county-receives-two-falcon-uavs-and-training.html (http://www.falcon-uav.com/falcon-uav-news/2012/1/16/-mesa-county-receives-two-falcon-uavs-and-training.html)
Mesa County recently entered into an agreement with CenturyLink Communications in which CenturyLink will provide its real helicopter(s) for free to support SAR operations in Mesa County, which covers 3300 square miles.
Mike
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on February 15, 2012, 02:27:46 PMIt's hard to do a cadet o-ride in a UAV :angel:.
Nah, it's all in the folding...
Its nothing more than an RC helicopter with a camera on it. Heck, my brother built one in his garage. I dont think this is something CAP needs to get all hot and bothered about. You cant lose site of it, cant fly it in the wind. You basically need to already be where its flying. Definitely not going to fly it in the mountains or at any high altitudes. Very limited flight time. Calm down kids. That Falcon is obviously different, but not really.
You cant land a UAV and back up your partner! So they can keep it. Im curious what makes that different from an RC? My 13yr old doesnt need FAA permission and he flies his all over the place.
But, Rob, you are losing site of the fact that it is "kewl" and up to date technology. Never mind that it isn't worth the time or effort or the money.
Quote from: MSG Mac on February 15, 2012, 06:32:29 AM
3. Who will train the controllers?
4. Who will pay for the training and the repair after we crash a few?
5. Who covers the insurance?
6. How do we bill for mission usage?
The tax payers silly
also oft overlooked but important facet:
- where are you going to get the RF bandwidth for control and live data retrieval?
(not to mention the equipment to transmit that stuff with)
Quote from: Flying Pig on February 15, 2012, 05:23:13 PM
Its nothing more than an RC helicopter with a camera on it. Heck, my brother built one in his garage. I dont think this is something CAP needs to get all hot and bothered about. You cant lose site of it, cant fly it in the wind. You basically need to already be where its flying. Definitely not going to fly it in the mountains or at any high altitudes. Very limited flight time. Calm down kids. That Falcon is obviously different, but not really.
You cant land a UAV and back up your partner! So they can keep it. Im curious what makes that different from an RC? My 13yr old doesnt need FAA permission and he flies his all over the place.
Come now. How many times has your dept bit things that were really useless? I'm still upset about the pronets in our cars but it does give me some practice with my df training. :)