RPV not UAV

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ UAV Special Interest Group Messages ]

Posted by Melbourne Remote Aerial Photography Video on December 05, 2003 at 04:22:23:

I argue that Helicams are not a UAV if one is refering to the regulations that cover the UAV operations and requirements.

A Helicam is at best an RPV(remote piloted vehicle)
As used in Vietnam War.

It has no Autonomous operations.
The current UAV regulations all appears to apply to UAV, real UAV capable of Autonomous operations out of LOS (line of sight).
Anything manually piloted for the duration of operations and operated in LOS should simply be referred to as an RPV like it always has been, to the military at least.

An RPV can simply differentiate from a non commercial use, being a model aircraft and differentiate from a "real UAV" at the other extreme and that the current regulations all seem to apply to.

Adding RPV would mean no real ammendments would be needed to "UAV" or "Model Aircraft" in 101, only to add "RPV".
Remove the regulation 101.235(2) from "UAV" and make it the applicable regulations for RPV.
That limits RPV to 25kg and LOS without the certification involved in Subpart F for UAV.
In removing 101.235(2) from "UAV" makes all UAV limited to Autonomous or non LOS that in all cases require certification.
And the regulations are there in Subpart F to cover the above adequately as is.

101.235(2)is the only part of Subpart F that appears to exclude RPV from it and as that isnt the case in reality CASA now states then place RPV against 101.235(2) outside of UAV and it solves all that issue with the least amount of effort.

I dont see why RPV should require anything more than to be registered with CASA.
That way CASA is aware of how many there are and where they are without going through the certification for UAV that RPV simply dont need anything like to operate as safely as other operations in 101, or safer than a Model Aircraft.
If they use 101.235(2)
Above all representing no greater risk to the fare paying public in full size aircraft.

Having RPV and using use 101.235(2)
would also mean angry Helicam / RPV operators like myself wont have to come around here and inflame those working on real UAV just to ensure Helicams / RPV are not left high and dry.
At this point in time being shoved into the UAV pile by CASA I cant avoid dealing with it anywhere but in here.
This is the Aus UAV forum.

Regards
Dave

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: I argue that Helicams are not a UAV if one is refering to the regulations that cover the UAV operations and requirements. : A Helicam is at best an RPV(remote piloted vehicle) : As used in Vietnam War. : It has no Autonomous operations. : The current UAV regulations all appears to apply to UAV, real UAV capable of Autonomous operations out of LOS (line of sight). : Anything manually piloted for the duration of operations and operated in LOS should simply be referred to as an RPV like it always has been, to the military at least. : An RPV can simply differentiate from a non commercial use, being a model aircraft and differentiate from a "real UAV" at the other extreme and that the current regulations all seem to apply to. : Adding RPV would mean no real ammendments would be needed to "UAV" or "Model Aircraft" in 101, only to add "RPV". : Remove the regulation 101.235(2) from "UAV" and make it the applicable regulations for RPV. : That limits RPV to 25kg and LOS without the certification involved in Subpart F for UAV. : In removing 101.235(2) from "UAV" makes all UAV limited to Autonomous or non LOS that in all cases require certification. : And the regulations are there in Subpart F to cover the above adequately as is. : 101.235(2)is the only part of Subpart F that appears to exclude RPV from it and as that isnt the case in reality CASA now states then place RPV against 101.235(2) outside of UAV and it solves all that issue with the least amount of effort. : I dont see why RPV should require anything more than to be registered with CASA. : That way CASA is aware of how many there are and where they are without going through the certification for UAV that RPV simply dont need anything like to operate as safely as other operations in 101, or safer than a Model Aircraft. : If they use 101.235(2) : Above all representing no greater risk to the fare paying public in full size aircraft. : Having RPV and using use 101.235(2) : would also mean angry Helicam / RPV operators like myself wont have to come around here and inflame those working on real UAV just to ensure Helicams / RPV are not left high and dry. : At this point in time being shoved into the UAV pile by CASA I cant avoid dealing with it anywhere but in here. : This is the Aus UAV forum. : Regards : Dave

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ UAV Special Interest Group Messages ]