How does this fit with your plan?
"• Visual line-of-sight (VLOS) only; the unmanned aircraft must remain within VLOS of the operator or visual observer."
"• At all times the small unmanned aircraft must remain close enough to the operator for the operator to be capable of seeing the aircraft with vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses."
mac 'curious' gyvr
it fits fine.
Ask Josh. I used to fly so high and far that no one could see it other than me anyhow.
With a larger aircraft I can see it at 2 miles. Would I be able to discern it's orientation for manual flight control? Probably not, but there's nothing in the regs that says I have to be able to manually fly it at that range, only that it's visible.
This is mostly for the "see and avoid" requirement.
Due to the lack of an onboard pilot, small unmanned aircraft are unable to see and avoid other aircraft in the NAS. Therefore, small UAS operations conflict with the FAA's current operating regulations codified in 14 CFR part 91 that apply to general aviation. Specifically, at the heart of the part 91 operating regulations is § 91.113(b), which requires each person operating an aircraft to maintain vigilance “so as to see and avoid other aircraft.”
The FAA created this requirement in a 1968 rulemaking that combined two previous aviation regulatory provisions, Civil Air Regulations (CAR) §§ 60.13(c) and 60.30. (6) Both of the provisions that were combined to create the “see and avoid” requirement of § 91.113(b) were intended to address aircraft collision-awareness problems by requiring that a pilot on board the aircraft look out of the aircraft during flight to observe whether other aircraft are on a collision path with his or her aircraft. Those provisions did not contemplate the use of technology to substitute for the human vision of a pilot on board the aircraft. Similarly, there is no evidence that those provisions contemplated a pilot fulfilling his or her “see and avoid” responsibilities from outside the aircraft. To the contrary, CAR section 60.13(c) stated that one of the problems it intended to address was “preoccupation by the pilot with cockpit duties,” which indicates that the regulation contemplated the presence of a pilot on board the aircraft.
They don't care if you crash, only that you don't crash into manned aircract or into houses/people. That's why they only require reporting an accident if it damages property or causes injury.
I plan for double that with my radio gear. Of course all of the radio calculations are based solely on output and theoretical gain. Actual real world performance will be less, that's why I've built the test mule to do real world evaluation of antennas and transmitters before I build big platform.
Sorting out the relationships of vTX, telemtryTX and flight control RX to maximize sensitivity and noise rejection is a big part of making all of this crap coexist in a small area. I already know I'm likely to need a notch filter on the 1200mhz equipment to avoid interference from the 433 kit.
really the most maddening prospect of the rules is the anticipated costs.
2500 to go take a test?
a grand for a TSA backround check?
I can go buy a firearm with a $25 NICS fee, but a backround check to fly a model airplane with a camera is a grand?
It's obvious that the FAA still intends to close out the NAS by making it so only the wealthy can afford it, just like private aviation. Whatever. At this point it's just a new path in my hobby, and I can develop the methods and means non commercially and not fall under any of those rules.
When it's ready to go I can determine if the money for the licensing is worth it based on the prospect of monetizing my hobby.
So this is all just a grand nerd experiment for the time being, until the final regs drop at the end of this year.
