Agricultural UAV

[Jay Beckman]

"Crop Cam" ... Coming soon to a cornfield/airspace near you?

http://cropcam.com/index.htm

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 00:32:48 -0700, "Jay Beckman" >
wrote in <fOjxg.16598$Nv.10337@fed1read10>::

>"Crop Cam" ... Coming soon to a cornfield/airspace near you?
>
>http://cropcam.com/index.htm
>

In Canada, Transport Canada has approved the CropCam to fly up to
a maximum altitude of 2200 feet. To ensure compliance the CropCam
is altitude is pre-set at 2100 feet. For other countries, please
consult with your regulatory body.

Does this mean that the see-and-avoid regulation is waived at some
altitude AGL in Canada?

[Icebound]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 00:32:48 -0700, "Jay Beckman" >
> wrote in <fOjxg.16598$Nv.10337@fed1read10>::
>
>>"Crop Cam" ... Coming soon to a cornfield/airspace near you?
>>
>>http://cropcam.com/index.htm
>>
>
> In Canada, Transport Canada has approved the CropCam to fly up to
> a maximum altitude of 2200 feet. To ensure compliance the CropCam
> is altitude is pre-set at 2100 feet. For other countries, please
> consult with your regulatory body.
>
> Does this mean that the see-and-avoid regulation is waived at some
> altitude AGL in Canada?
>

I don't know where the vendor got that 2200 foot AGL number, except that is
one of the common numbers that is often the base of controlled airspace in
Canada... that is: where it is not 700 feet or 1200 feet or surface, etc..

But Transport Canada specifically says that a "model airplane" must be flown
for recreational purposes..., and so, unless TC is making some kind of
waiver, it would be pretty hard for them to class a duty-specific UAV such
as this as a "model airplane" .

As a UAV, it would require a "Special Flight Operations Certificate",
whatever that may entail.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/general/recavi/Instructions/Unmanned/section2.htm


appears to be one of the relevant documents and I don't see anything in
there allowing them to operate freely below 2200. There is no waiver of
see-and-avoid that I am aware of.

If they get their certificate andoperate at 2100 feet, I presume that my
responsibility continues tobe see-and-avoid.

What is theirs?

Probably just NOTAM their activities just like para or glider ops do,I
suppose????

[Fred G. Black[_1_]]

I'm not sure about how the Canadian Regs would apply to such a thing
(actually this thread is the first I've heard of it) but there has been
a NOTAM out for an area near Winchester ON for a while:

060185 CYND WINCHESTER
CNA8 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE OPS 3 NM RADIUS 450610N 752854W (APRX
8 NM NW AD) EXCLUDING CYA528, MONITORING 126.7 SFC TO 1000 FT MSL
TIL 0611302359

Given the location (and the lack of anything more obvious I can think
of), this could be testing for such a device.

Fred

Icebound wrote:
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 00:32:48 -0700, "Jay Beckman" >
>>wrote in <fOjxg.16598$Nv.10337@fed1read10>::
>>
>>
>>>"Crop Cam" ... Coming soon to a cornfield/airspace near you?
>>>
>>>http://cropcam.com/index.htm
>>>
>>
>> In Canada, Transport Canada has approved the CropCam to fly up to
>> a maximum altitude of 2200 feet. To ensure compliance the CropCam
>> is altitude is pre-set at 2100 feet. For other countries, please
>> consult with your regulatory body.
>>
>>Does this mean that the see-and-avoid regulation is waived at some
>>altitude AGL in Canada?
>>
>
>
> I don't know where the vendor got that 2200 foot AGL number, except that is
> one of the common numbers that is often the base of controlled airspace in
> Canada... that is: where it is not 700 feet or 1200 feet or surface, etc..
>
> But Transport Canada specifically says that a "model airplane" must be flown
> for recreational purposes..., and so, unless TC is making some kind of
> waiver, it would be pretty hard for them to class a duty-specific UAV such
> as this as a "model airplane" .
>
> As a UAV, it would require a "Special Flight Operations Certificate",
> whatever that may entail.
>
> http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/general/recavi/Instructions/Unmanned/section2.htm
>
>
> appears to be one of the relevant documents and I don't see anything in
> there allowing them to operate freely below 2200. There is no waiver of
> see-and-avoid that I am aware of.
>
> ...
>
> Probably just NOTAM their activities just like para or glider ops do,I
> suppose????
>
>

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:49:31 -0400, "Icebound"
> wrote in >:

>If they get their certificate andoperate at 2100 feet, I presume that my
>responsibility continues tobe see-and-avoid.

>What is theirs?

The operators probably have to eyeball the airspace over the
160 acres being photographed. The mission is to take
photographs of fields, so it will always take place in relatively
clear conditions.

They ought to be able to see full-scale aircraft entering the
airspace and command the UAV to descend or change
course to avoid the traffic.

They might also be able to monitor air-traffic channels
and get the controllers to warn them of approaching
traffic.

I'm sure that the UAV is not cheap. The operators will not
want to have mid-airs any more than other pilots.

Marty

[Jose[_1_]]

> The operators probably have to eyeball the airspace over the
> 160 acres being photographed. [...]
> They ought to be able to see full-scale aircraft entering the
> airspace and command the UAV to descend or change
> course to avoid the traffic.

How reliably can you eyeball 160 acres and see all aircraft in time to
descend or change course? How often have you not seen traffic called
out to you by ATC? How long does it take for you to find traffic in the
pattern when you come in to a new airport to land? Do you find it all?

> The operators will not
> want to have mid-airs any more than other pilots.

If the operator has a midair, he gets a reprimand. If a pilot has a
midair, he dies.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 15:16:27 GMT, Jose > wrote in
>:

>> The operators probably have to eyeball the airspace over the
>> 160 acres being photographed. [...]
>> They ought to be able to see full-scale aircraft entering the
>> airspace and command the UAV to descend or change
>> course to avoid the traffic.

>How reliably can you eyeball 160 acres and see all aircraft in time to
>descend or change course?

Sufficiently to avoid mid-airs.

I fly RC about four or five miles away from Niagara Falls
International Airport (IAG), which hosts a reserve air base
on the other side.

We get lots of planes of all sizes over or near our field.

I don't think it would hard to see and avoid full-scale traffic
approaching a 160-acre site.

> How often have you not seen traffic called
>out to you by ATC?

Not applicable. The few hours I've spent in a Cessna
172 as a passenger are surely not enough to answer
your question.

>How long does it take for you to find traffic in the
>pattern when you come in to a new airport to land? Do you find it all?

Same reply.

I'm speaking from hundreds of hours of watching RC planes
and local air traffic from the ground.

>> The operators will not
>> want to have mid-airs any more than other pilots.

>If the operator has a midair, he gets a reprimand. If a pilot has a
>midair, he dies.

The main burden of seeing and avoiding has to be on
the ground operator. The odds of a pilot seeing a UAV
of the size proposed for the aerial photography are miniscule--let
alone recognizing it as a threat and avoiding it.

Marty

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 15:16:27 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>> The operators probably have to eyeball the airspace over the
>> 160 acres being photographed. [...]
>> They ought to be able to see full-scale aircraft entering the
>> airspace and command the UAV to descend or change
>> course to avoid the traffic.
>
>How reliably can you eyeball 160 acres and see all aircraft in time to
>descend or change course?

160 acres is only a half mile square.

>How often have you not seen traffic called
>out to you by ATC? How long does it take for you to find traffic in the
>pattern when you come in to a new airport to land? Do you find it all?
>
>> The operators will not
>> want to have mid-airs any more than other pilots.
>
>If the operator has a midair, he gets a reprimand.

Under what regulation is a reprimand mandated?

> If a pilot has a midair, he dies.
>

Therein lies the iniquity.

[Jose[_1_]]

>>If the operator has a midair, he gets a reprimand.
>
> Under what regulation is a reprimand mandated?

None. I presume that whoever owns the UAV would be upset with its loss,
and will communicate that upsettedness to the operator.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 15:16:27 GMT, Jose > wrote in
> >:
>
> >> The operators probably have to eyeball the airspace over the
> >> 160 acres being photographed. [...]
> >> They ought to be able to see full-scale aircraft entering the
> >> airspace and command the UAV to descend or change
> >> course to avoid the traffic.
>
> >How reliably can you eyeball 160 acres and see all aircraft in time to
> >descend or change course?
>
> Sufficiently to avoid mid-airs.
>
> I fly RC about four or five miles away from Niagara Falls
> International Airport (IAG), which hosts a reserve air base
> on the other side.
>
> We get lots of planes of all sizes over or near our field.
>
> I don't think it would hard to see and avoid full-scale traffic
> approaching a 160-acre site.


This issue is not aircraft that the operator can see. A UAV may
operate beyond line of sight of the operator. I think the Transport
Canada document mentions something about the operators satisfying TC as
to out-of-sight procedures.


>
> > How often have you not seen traffic called
> >out to you by ATC?
>
> Not applicable. The few hours I've spent in a Cessna
> 172 as a passenger are surely not enough to answer
> your question.
>
> >How long does it take for you to find traffic in the
> >pattern when you come in to a new airport to land? Do you find it all?
>
> Same reply.
>
> I'm speaking from hundreds of hours of watching RC planes
> and local air traffic from the ground.

In actual fact, in clear weather is is not that difficult to spot RC
aircraft from a "real" Cessna, either... so long as the RC aircraft is
below. I have wandered over an RC field at 1000 AGL without realizing
it... and was amazed that there were aircraft "so far" below me, until
I realized they were RC.

It might be a little more difficult to spot them at the same altitude.

>
> >> The operators will not
> >> want to have mid-airs any more than other pilots.
>
> >If the operator has a midair, he gets a reprimand. If a pilot has a
> >midair, he dies.
>
> The main burden of seeing and avoiding has to be on
> the ground operator. The odds of a pilot seeing a UAV
> of the size proposed for the aerial photography are miniscule--let
> alone recognizing it as a threat and avoiding it.

I don't know if Farmers are going to line up to get an aerial view of
160 acre plots. They can walk that. Especially if they have to go the
the middle of it anyway, to set up the flight. This technology might
be useful for those farms of several thousand acres... miles across.
Where the operators will not necessarily have their aircraft in sight.

But the point remains.... I am not yet convinced that they will be able
to fly these below 2200 feet without complying with the Transport
Canada's UAV requirements, whatever those may be.

[[email protected]]

Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 15:16:27 GMT, Jose > wrote in
> >:
>
> >> The operators probably have to eyeball the airspace over the
> >> 160 acres being photographed. [...]
> >> They ought to be able to see full-scale aircraft entering the
> >> airspace and command the UAV to descend or change
> >> course to avoid the traffic.
>
> >How reliably can you eyeball 160 acres and see all aircraft in time to
> >descend or change course?
>
> Sufficiently to avoid mid-airs.
>
> I fly RC about four or five miles away from Niagara Falls
> International Airport (IAG), which hosts a reserve air base
> on the other side.
>
> We get lots of planes of all sizes over or near our field.
>
> I don't think it would hard to see and avoid full-scale traffic
> approaching a 160-acre site.


This issue is not aircraft that the operator can see. A UAV may
operate beyond line of sight of the operator. I think the Transport
Canada document mentions something about the operators satisfying TC as
to out-of-sight procedures.


>
> > How often have you not seen traffic called
> >out to you by ATC?
>
> Not applicable. The few hours I've spent in a Cessna
> 172 as a passenger are surely not enough to answer
> your question.
>
> >How long does it take for you to find traffic in the
> >pattern when you come in to a new airport to land? Do you find it all?
>
> Same reply.
>
> I'm speaking from hundreds of hours of watching RC planes
> and local air traffic from the ground.

In actual fact, in clear weather is is not that difficult to spot RC
aircraft from a "real" Cessna, either... so long as the RC aircraft is
below. I have wandered over an RC field at 1000 AGL without realizing
it... and was amazed that there were aircraft "so far" below me, until
I realized they were RC.

It might be a little more difficult to spot them at the same altitude.

>
> >> The operators will not
> >> want to have mid-airs any more than other pilots.
>
> >If the operator has a midair, he gets a reprimand. If a pilot has a
> >midair, he dies.
>
> The main burden of seeing and avoiding has to be on
> the ground operator. The odds of a pilot seeing a UAV
> of the size proposed for the aerial photography are miniscule--let
> alone recognizing it as a threat and avoiding it.

I don't know if Farmers are going to line up to get an aerial view of
160 acre plots. They can walk that. Especially if they have to go the
the middle of it anyway, to set up the flight. This technology might
be useful for those farms of several thousand acres... miles across.
Where the operators will not necessarily have their aircraft in sight.

But the point remains.... I am not yet convinced that they will be able
to fly these below 2200 feet without complying with the Transport
Canada's UAV requirements, whatever those may be.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:56:04 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>>>If the operator has a midair, he gets a reprimand.
>>
>> Under what regulation is a reprimand mandated?
>
>None. I presume that whoever owns the UAV would be upset with its loss,
>and will communicate that upsettedness to the operator.
>

So, while it appears that NavCanada has given the little UAV it's
blessing to operate below 2,200', there are no regulations governing
the competence of its operators. That should change.

[Jose[_1_]]

>>>>If the operator has a midair, he gets a reprimand.
>>> Under what regulation is a reprimand mandated?
>>None. I presume that whoever owns the UAV would be upset with its loss,
>>and will communicate that upsettedness to the operator.
> So, while it appears that NavCanada has given the little UAV it's
> blessing to operate below 2,200', there are no regulations governing
> the competence of its operators. That should change.
>
Ok, perhaps I should say "none that I know of". One should not infer
from my comments that there are no rules in place. However, I infer
from other's comments that the rules so far presented to me are
insufficient.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:49:31 -0400, "Icebound"
> wrote in
>:

[good info snipped]

Thanks for your input on this subject.

>If they get their certificate andoperate at 2100 feet, I presume that my
>responsibility continues tobe see-and-avoid.
>
>What is theirs?
>
>Probably just NOTAM their activities just like para or glider ops do,I
>suppose????
>

I wasn't aware glider operations were NOTAMed. In any event, while
regulations do grant gliders right of way over airplanes, they do not
remove the glider pilot's responsibility to see-an-avoid. And an
airplane pilot has a chance of spotting a glider in time to take
evasive action.

That approach would probably work for low density operations, but I
can foresee these cheap little UAVs becoming as thick as a swarm as
Black Flies in the future.