Police Chief vows to deploy an unmanned aerial vehicle despite contentions

[Larry Dighera]

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070204/NEWS01/702040341/1006

Police drone plan draws fire

Palm Bay wants to fly device; FAA, pilot group raise red flags

BY J.D. GALLOP

PALM BAY - -- Police Chief William Berger vows to deploy an unmanned
aerial vehicle despite contentions from the Federal Aviation
Administration and a national pilots' association that his department
must first get federal approval before doing so.

Berger said the $30,000, 8-pound aircraft -- which he likens to a
model plane and would use to aid police on the ground -- does not fall
under FAA regulations. And he said he is prepared to seek assistance
from Brevard County's congressional representatives, if necessary.

....

FAA officials were steadfast in saying Palm Bay's unmanned vehicle
should be grounded until further notice from the federal agency.

"We control the airspace, and we control who can fly what, where,"
said Les Dorr, a spokesman for the federal agency. "Our primary
concern is the safety of the airways. If (the police department)
starts using the unmanned vehicle then they run the risk of being told
'no, they can't do it.' "

The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department also ran afoul of FAA rules after
attempting to put its own unmanned vehicle into service last year.
Their unmanned vehicle remains grounded.

But CyberDefense Systems, a St. Petersburg-based company that markets
the Cyberbug said the aircraft -- like a model plane -- flies below
400 feet and would not interfere with flight patterns.

Model planes -- like those used by hobbyists -- have flight and range
restrictions that typically don't interfere with air traffic, company
and FAA officials said.

Bill Edelstein, a licensed helicopter pilot and Melbourne Beach
resident, said he was concerned about the low-flying aircraft's
interaction with helicopters.


http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=6287
The FAA's Role: Safety First
The FAA's main concern about UAV operations in civil airspace is
safety. It is critical that these vehicles don't come too close to
aircraft carrying people or compromise the safety of anyone on the
ground.

When the military or a government agency wants to fly a UAV in civil
airspace, the FAA examines the request and issues a Certificate of
Waiver or Authorization (COA), generally based on the following
principles:

The COA authorizes an operator to use defined airspace for a specified
time (up to one year, in some cases) and includes special provisions
unique to each operation. For instance, a COA may include a
requirement to operate only under Visual Flight Rules (VFR).

Most, if not all, COAs require coordination with an appropriate air
traffic control facility and require the UAV to have a transponder
able to operate in standard air traffic control mode with automatic
altitude reporting.

To make sure the UAV will not interfere with other aircraft, a ground
observer or an accompanying "chase" aircraft must maintain visual
contact with the UAV.


http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v06/n172/a08.html

Video:
http://www.news14charlotte.com/content/top_stories/default.asp?ArID=114414

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> PALM BAY - -- Police Chief William Berger vows to deploy an unmanned
> aerial vehicle despite contentions from the Federal Aviation
> Administration and a national pilots' association that his department
> must first get federal approval before doing so.
>
> Berger said the $30,000, 8-pound aircraft -- which he likens to a
> model plane and would use to aid police on the ground -- does not fall
> under FAA regulations. And he said he is prepared to seek assistance
> from Brevard County's congressional representatives, if necessary.

Is Chief Berger willing to assume unlimited liability for the aircraft? No?
I thought so. I presume that he isn't a pilot.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
..
>
> Is Chief Berger willing to assume unlimited liability for the aircraft? No?
> I thought so. I presume that he isn't a pilot.
>
More so than you. At least when he sits in front of a computer,
something flies.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> More so than you. At least when he sits in front of a computer,
> something flies.

In that case, it's hard to understand why he would be foolish enough to want
to use a UAV under these circumstances.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Newps]

Richard Riley wrote:

> As long as they maintain visual contact with it at all times and the
> pilot is a member of AMA, they should be fine.
>
> If not - good luck. FAA will stomp on them.

Not an FAA issue.

[Jim Logajan]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
[ Quoting from an article by J. D. Gallop: ]
> "We control the airspace, and we control who can fly what, where,"
> said Les Dorr, a spokesman for the federal agency.

Um, that statement makes a seriously incorrect claim by the FAA. Flights
routinely enter the airspace at arbitrary times and relatively arbitrary
places without any specific permission requested from the FAA for those
flights.

I believe this is what is known as "regulatory overreach."

[george]

On Feb 12, 11:20 am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> [ Quoting from an article by J. D. Gallop: ]
>
> > "We control the airspace, and we control who can fly what, where,"
> > said Les Dorr, a spokesman for the federal agency.
>
> Um, that statement makes a seriously incorrect claim by the FAA. Flights
> routinely enter the airspace at arbitrary times and relatively arbitrary
> places without any specific permission requested from the FAA for those
> flights.
>
> I believe this is what is known as "regulatory overreach."

The average cycle for an ag pilot is around 8 minutes.
Are Les Dorr and his workmates aware of all those movements they don't
boss ?
Or microlights?

[Blueskies]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message ...
: On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:12:26 GMT, Larry Dighera >
: wrote:
:
:
:
: As long as they maintain visual contact with it at all times and the
: pilot is a member of AMA, they should be fine.
:
: If not - good luck. FAA will stomp on them.



AMA membership is NOT required to fly an RC aircraft, most folks join so they comply with a club's requirements and for
the AMA provided insurance coverage...

FAA can try to stomp, but this 'small' aircraft will be flying ~400' high and will be within sight of the operator, not
real different from a plain ol' RC airplane. Sounds like it would be an interesting test case at least.

I say go for it; we need better surveillance type police work these days, not the blanket searches like in front of
'airline security' or the so-called sobriety check points...

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:28:48 -0800, Richard Riley
> wrote in
>:

>
>My company has many people working full time on COA's to allow our
>various unmanned aircraft to fly outside the limits of the AMA
>exemption.
>
>http://www.uavm.com/uavregulatory/certificatesofauthorization.html

On this page:
http://www.uavm.com/uavregulatory/airworthinesscertification.html
This link is broken:
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/sp_awcert/experiment/uas_faq/

Here is the updated link:
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/uas/uas_faq/

What does a special airworthiness certificate in the experimental
category allow me to do?

The operating limitations issued with this type of certificate
allow a UA to be operated only within the line of sight of an
observer, during daylight hours and when other aircraft are not in
the vicinity.


According to this General Atomics blurb:


http://www.ga-asi.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1127929600&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&
Today Altair routinely operates in NAS under a national
Certificate of Authorization (COA) which allows it to fly in
restricted airspace during takeoff and landing before quickly
ascending to altitudes high above commercial air traffic. Under
its new one-year experimental certificate, Altair will not only be
able to fly at higher altitudes, but also expands its geographic
operations. Similar to a COA, an UAS experimental certificate
contains certain conditions that must be met to ensure a level of
safety equivalent to manned aircraft operations in the NAS. This
includes “good weather” conditions and a requirement for a pilot
and observer, both of whom may either be on the ground or in an
accompanying “chase” plane. While COAs are issued to the customer
(e.g. NASA, NOAA), the experimental certificate has been issued
directly to GA-ASI, providing it with the opportunity to use
Altair for company purposes such as experimental flight testing,
marketing demonstrations and crew training.


Operation of their Altair must:

"ensure a level of safety equivalent to manned aircraft operations
in the NAS."

So I suppose that means, that at altitude it must be accompanied by a
manned chase plane, and that ensures that the UAV operates with the
equivalent margin of safely as a "flight of two." Is that correct?

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 00:48:11 GMT, "Blueskies" >
wrote:

>> As long as they maintain visual contact with it at all times and the
>> pilot is a member of AMA, they should be fine.
>>
>> If not - good luck. FAA will stomp on them.
>
>AMA membership is NOT required to fly an RC aircraft, most folks join so they comply with a club's requirements and for
>the AMA provided insurance coverage...
>
>FAA can try to stomp, but this 'small' aircraft will be flying ~400' high and will be within sight of the operator, not
>real different from a plain ol' RC airplane. Sounds like it would be an interesting test case at least.

When you consider that 12-year-old kids can go to Wal-Mart and buy an electric
RC plane...complete with camera...for $150, this is going to be an interesting
problem to try and squash.

Here's a couple I took last Friday, flying one of those.

http://www.wanttaja.com/rcpix.jpg
http://www.wanttaja.com/rcpix2.jpg

Plane supposedly can go to 1,000 feet, and fly for ten minutes on a NiMH battery
pack (the camera is powered by two "button" cells). I suppose for another
$29,850, the cops'll have one that'll fly longer and have better resolution.

Ron "My wife buys me neat toys for Christmas" Wanttaja

[Aluckyguess]

This would not comply with the AMA
"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:12:26 GMT, Larry Dighera >
> wrote:
>
>>http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070204/NEWS01/702040341/1006
>>
>>Police drone plan draws fire
>>
>>Palm Bay wants to fly device; FAA, pilot group raise red flags
>>
>>BY J.D. GALLOP
>>
>>PALM BAY - -- Police Chief William Berger vows to deploy an unmanned
>>aerial vehicle despite contentions from the Federal Aviation
>>Administration and a national pilots' association that his department
>>must first get federal approval before doing so.
>>
>>Berger said the $30,000, 8-pound aircraft -- which he likens to a
>>model plane and would use to aid police on the ground -- does not fall
>>under FAA regulations. And he said he is prepared to seek assistance
>>from Brevard County's congressional representatives, if necessary.
>>
>>...
>>
>>FAA officials were steadfast in saying Palm Bay's unmanned vehicle
>>should be grounded until further notice from the federal agency.
>>
>>"We control the airspace, and we control who can fly what, where,"
>>said Les Dorr, a spokesman for the federal agency. "Our primary
>>concern is the safety of the airways. If (the police department)
>>starts using the unmanned vehicle then they run the risk of being told
>>'no, they can't do it.' "
>>
>>The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department also ran afoul of FAA rules after
>>attempting to put its own unmanned vehicle into service last year.
>>Their unmanned vehicle remains grounded.
>>
>>But CyberDefense Systems, a St. Petersburg-based company that markets
>>the Cyberbug said the aircraft -- like a model plane -- flies below
>>400 feet and would not interfere with flight patterns.
>>
>>Model planes -- like those used by hobbyists -- have flight and range
>>restrictions that typically don't interfere with air traffic, company
>>and FAA officials said.
>>
>>Bill Edelstein, a licensed helicopter pilot and Melbourne Beach
>>resident, said he was concerned about the low-flying aircraft's
>>interaction with helicopters.
>
> As long as they maintain visual contact with it at all times and the
> pilot is a member of AMA, they should be fine.
>
> If not - good luck. FAA will stomp on them.

[Morgans]

"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
> This would not comply with the AMA

The AMA wants you to think that you need to fly under their protection, but
they are nothing but a lobby group and insurance provider. They don't mean
squat, to a police chief flying a RC observation plane.
--
Jim in NC

[AJ]

Since when does a local police chief outrank the authority of the
federal government? Yet another headline-grabbing fool.

AJ

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 17:50:38 -0800, Ron Wanttaja wrote:

> When you consider that 12-year-old kids can go to Wal-Mart and buy an
> electric RC plane...complete with camera...for $150

Ugh. The way I flew RCs, back when I was trying, this would be an
expensive way to use up cameras.

- Andrew

[Morgans]

"AJ" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Since when does a local police chief outrank the authority of the
> federal government? Yet another headline-grabbing fool.

Perhaps he has decided to stand up against a stupid ruling. If it is kept
in sight, it is a RC airplane, and not able to be prevented from flying.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"AJ" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Since when does a local police chief outrank the authority of the
> federal government? Yet another headline-grabbing fool.

Perhaps he has decided to stand up against a stupid ruling. If it is kept
in sight, it is a RC airplane, and not able to be prevented from flying.
--
Jim in NC

[C J Campbell]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:48:43 -0800, Morgans wrote
(in article >):

>
> "AJ" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Since when does a local police chief outrank the authority of the
>> federal government? Yet another headline-grabbing fool.
>
> Perhaps he has decided to stand up against a stupid ruling. If it is kept
> in sight, it is a RC airplane, and not able to be prevented from flying.
>

Big "IF," though. The police chief sounds just as arrogant as the FAA.

There are plenty of aircraft that routinely fly below 400 feet. We have no
guarantee from this police chief that he intends to abide by FAA rules; quite
the contrary. For all we know he might fly it miles away from where the
operator can see it, out in open country among the cropdusters and
microlites. Or over the freeway among the traffic copters. He could decide to
fly it over a runway. He might decide to fly it at 10,000 feet. I don't
think it is too much to ask for him to do the paperwork and assure the FAA
and everybody else that he is going to abide by some basic rules. If he
doesn't, then the model aircraft guys are going to be the losers. If the FAA
sees the RCA rules as a loophole for somebody like this police chief, they
are going to put some very restrictive rules on RCA, whether the AMA lobby
likes it or not. In fact, AMA should be in the forefront in opposing the
deployment of this device for that very reason. Otherwise, they could lose
their right to fly.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:20:22 -0800, Jim Logajan wrote
(in article >):

> Larry Dighera > wrote:
> [ Quoting from an article by J. D. Gallop: ]
>> "We control the airspace, and we control who can fly what, where,"
>> said Les Dorr, a spokesman for the federal agency.
>
> Um, that statement makes a seriously incorrect claim by the FAA. Flights
> routinely enter the airspace at arbitrary times and relatively arbitrary
> places without any specific permission requested from the FAA for those
> flights.
>
> I believe this is what is known as "regulatory overreach."

No, but they do control the airspace, as provided by Congress. And they do
control who can fly and what they can fly. The statement is quite accurate.

The FAA has allowed, up until now, radio controlled aircraft to fly. Guys
like this police chief could get them all grounded.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:41:25 -0500, Andrew Gideon > wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 17:50:38 -0800, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>
>> When you consider that 12-year-old kids can go to Wal-Mart and buy an
>> electric RC plane...complete with camera...for $150
>
>Ugh. The way I flew RCs, back when I was trying, this would be an
>expensive way to use up cameras.

These new electric toy RC planes are wonderful. They're made out of foam and
damn near indestructable....they just slip together, and pop apart when you
crash. They don't use aerodynamic control; they have twin engines and you
control the plane solely by differential power. If the airplane gets out of
range of the controller, the motors shut down.

Some are biplanes small enough that you can fly them in a large room (preferably
with a cathedral ceiling!) and when they weigh just an ounce or two, you can fly
the full-tilt into walls and they just bounce off and keep flying. Weather bad?
Just fly the planes in your hangar.

They kind of caught on with some of my buddies at work, and I caught the "bug".
My "camera plane" has 55-inch wingspan with an AWACs saucer on the top that
holds the camera. The camera is pretty-well protected, both by the foam the
saucer is made from and the fact that the saucer is mounted on top of the
airplane (and pops off in a crash).

Spend 3% of an AMU for an "Air Hog Aero Ace" biplane. Great fun, when you can
fly the big iron (or the moderately-sized wood, in my case).

Ron Wanttaja

[Montblack]

("Ron Wanttaja" wrote)
> Spend 3% of an AMU for an "Air Hog Aero Ace" biplane. Great fun, when you
> can fly the big iron (or the moderately-sized wood, in my case).


<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYINS3XsAUY>
Aero Ace Biplane

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNfY250_F-E&mode=related&search>
Aero Ace Biplane by Air Hogs

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxaH0PTS2-8&mode=related&search>
Air-Hogging Among the Birds

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3THx2PXD8qk>
Aero Ace Jet LED


Montblack

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 17:50:38 -0800, Ron Wanttaja
> wrote in
>:

>When you consider that 12-year-old kids can go to Wal-Mart and buy an electric
>RC plane...complete with camera...for $150

Are you able to provide a link to the particular aircraft you
mentioned above?

Thank you.

[Blueskies]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
e.com...
snip: >
: > I believe this is what is known as "regulatory overreach."
:
: No, but they do control the airspace, as provided by Congress. And they do
: control who can fly and what they can fly. The statement is quite accurate.
:
: The FAA has allowed, up until now, radio controlled aircraft to fly. Guys
: like this police chief could get them all grounded.
:
: --
: Waddling Eagle
: World Famous Flight Instructor
:

Now that I agree with. I remember during the 2002 Olympics in SLC that RC planes were 'grounded' in a TFR-like
regulation for something like 50 miles around the Olympic site. As far as I know no-one challenged it?!?!

[gatt]

Some friends and I used to build battle robots for TV shows (I built Rosie
the Riveter for Robot Wars, etc) and we were contacted recently about doing
something like this for an LEA in a different state. Needless to say, it's
a back-burner project. Disappointing, 'cause I was looking forward to
trying out the prototypes.




-c

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:27:31 GMT, Larry Dighera > wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 17:50:38 -0800, Ron Wanttaja
> wrote in
>:
>
>>When you consider that 12-year-old kids can go to Wal-Mart and buy an electric
>>RC plane...complete with camera...for $150
>
>Are you able to provide a link to the particular aircraft you
>mentioned above?

http://www.estesrockets.com/products.php?number=4127

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=4196237

Target and other stores sell an F-16 that goes like a bat out of bleeding
hell...not a very good starter plane, but it's what I learned to fly these
"foamies" on, and the F-16 is damn near indestructible. One of my EAA friends
happened to be there on the first day I flew it. He said, "I've known you for
fifteen years, and I've never heard you laugh like that."

One drawback to ALL of these is that the pitch control is backwards. The stick
controls *throttle*, not an elevator, so you push forward to climb. But they
all climb at their "normal" throttle settings, so you can ignore pitch control
while you learn how to control direction. You're definitely out of the control
for the first couple of flights...but that's most of the fun.

Ron Wanttaja

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:13:16 -0800, Ron Wanttaja
> wrote in
>:

>http://www.estesrockets.com/products.php?number=4127
>
>http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=4196237
>
>Target and other stores sell an F-16 that goes like a bat out of bleeding
>hell...not a very good starter plane, but it's what I learned to fly these
>"foamies" on, and the F-16 is damn near indestructible. One of my EAA friends
>happened to be there on the first day I flew it. He said, "I've known you for
>fifteen years, and I've never heard you laugh like that."
>
>One drawback to ALL of these is that the pitch control is backwards. The stick
>controls *throttle*, not an elevator, so you push forward to climb. But they
>all climb at their "normal" throttle settings, so you can ignore pitch control
>while you learn how to control direction. You're definitely out of the control
>for the first couple of flights...but that's most of the fun.
>
>Ron Wanttaja

Thanks.

Walmart is out of stock, but I did find a better price here:
http://marketplace.hgtv.com/View_Listing.asp?CompanyId=0&RegionId=&SubCategoryId=165110&Level=3&Keyword=&Page=1&PageSize=10&Sort=&SoL=&Episode=&IWTShow=5&Lid=1439-N608153

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 19:27:43 -0800, Richard Riley
> wrote in
>:

>On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 01:09:32 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:28:48 -0800, Richard Riley
> wrote in
>:
>>
>>>
>>>My company has many people working full time on COA's to allow our
>>>various unmanned aircraft to fly outside the limits of the AMA
>>>exemption.
>>>
>>>http://www.uavm.com/uavregulatory/certificatesofauthorization.html
>>
>>On this page:
>>http://www.uavm.com/uavregulatory/airworthinesscertification.html
>>This link is broken:
>>http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/sp_awcert/experiment/uas_faq/
>>
>>Here is the updated link:
>>http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/uas/uas_faq/
>>
>> What does a special airworthiness certificate in the experimental
>> category allow me to do?
>>
>> The operating limitations issued with this type of certificate
>> allow a UA to be operated only within the line of sight of an
>> observer, during daylight hours and when other aircraft are not in
>> the vicinity.
>>
>>
>>According to this General Atomics blurb:
>>
>>
>>http://www.ga-asi.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1127929600&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&
>> Today Altair routinely operates in NAS under a national
>> Certificate of Authorization (COA) which allows it to fly in
>> restricted airspace during takeoff and landing before quickly
>> ascending to altitudes high above commercial air traffic. Under
>> its new one-year experimental certificate, Altair will not only be
>> able to fly at higher altitudes, but also expands its geographic
>> operations. Similar to a COA, an UAS experimental certificate
>> contains certain conditions that must be met to ensure a level of
>> safety equivalent to manned aircraft operations in the NAS. This
>> includes “good weather” conditions and a requirement for a pilot
>> and observer, both of whom may either be on the ground or in an
>> accompanying “chase” plane. While COAs are issued to the customer
>> (e.g. NASA, NOAA), the experimental certificate has been issued
>> directly to GA-ASI, providing it with the opportunity to use
>> Altair for company purposes such as experimental flight testing,
>> marketing demonstrations and crew training.
>>
>>
>>Operation of their Altair must:
>>
>> "ensure a level of safety equivalent to manned aircraft operations
>> in the NAS."
>>
>>So I suppose that means, that at altitude it must be accompanied by a
>>manned chase plane, and that ensures that the UAV operates with the
>>equivalent margin of safely as a "flight of two." Is that correct?
>
>That's one way to do it. Another way is to fly entirely within
>restricted areas - that's what CBP is doing on the southern border
>with their Pred B

While that may work fairly well along narrow strips of airspace along
the US borders, such a policy is going to amount to a huge airspace
grab if implemented in other areas of the CONUS.

>In our testing we're keeping visual contact with the bird from an
>observer on the ground. If another airplane is in the area we see and
>avoid him - but from the ground.

I suppose that would be nearly the "level of safety equivalent to
manned aircraft operations," But it does add another member to the
ground crew. How many personnel would that make to operate the UAV?

>Of course, that means our testing area in pretty small.

Due to the angle and haze in the atmosphere the testing area could be
quite limited at times, considering the speeds involved and the time
required to see the conflicting aircraft, recognize it as a factor,
input the control commands, and have the UAV actually maneuver out of
the way.

>One unusual way, that has been done, is to put the observer in the
>back seat of a convertable, and fly parallel to the highway.

So that method requires a second additional ground crew member to do
the driving. UAV operations are a bit labor intensive at this stage
of their development, aren't they.