Police Chief vows to deploy an unmanned aerial vehicle despite contentions

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/pbc...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.

"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

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

AJ

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

"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

"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

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

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

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

("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