Police Chief vows to deploy an unmanned aerial vehicle despite contentions

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.


http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/...fm?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/conte...sp?ArID=114414

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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?

"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...

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/ce...orization.html

On this page:
http://www.uavm.com/uavregulatory/ai...ification.html
This link is broken:
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert...iment/uas_faq/

Here is the updated link:
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert...s/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?subac..._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?

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