Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Sg4arc
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Sg4arc

125

Published on

Sub Group 4 sUAS ARC Debrief

Sub Group 4 sUAS ARC Debrief

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
125
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. sUAS ARC Participants Perspective Prepared by Patrick Egan for the membership of WG-73, Sub-group 4.
  • 2. Proposed sUAS NAS Integration Guidelines
  • 3. • No “data” or safety risk analysis going in • Bins and boxes are a rehash of unacceptable RTCA work • Those with operational experience are woefully underrepresented • Overall document lacks comprehensive tone • International Harmonization = Weights in kilo’s??? • Economic impact of recommendations are devastating sUAS ARCObservations
  • 4. • Unwarranted and heavy-handed regulation of model aviation • Type I operations leave little in the way of viability • Operating greater than 3 NM of an airport • System certification (what does it look like???) • Manual flight control • Type II operations put small operators in direct competition with vendors (major enterprises for profit) sUAS ARC Observations continued...
  • 5. • Type III operations shut out small operators • Operating greater than 10 NM sometimes 30NM from an airport • System certification • Required equipment takes most of payload • Type IIII way beyond the reach of many. • Type V LTA Lighter Than Air left out of recommendation. sUAS ARC impressions continued...
  • 6. Unanswered ARC Questions Impeding Integration • Confines of what is safe is yet to be scientifically defined? • Were is the empirical data that proves AC 91-57 type sUAS OPS are unsafe? • If we are to be held to the same level of safety as manned aviation, what is the relative differential? (size/weight/speed how does 10-6 apply, if at all?) • Required “data” yet to be identified/quantified? • Are these arbitrary operating envelopes viable ( e.g. 400’ AGL) for empirical data gathering and business? • Can a Data-set be captured in this small of an operating envelope? • Do we fit the definition of comp and hire? 14 CFR FAR Part 1.1 and 119?
  • 7. Consequences • Lack of empirical data gathering. • Too onerous = Lack of compliance • Regulatory apathy/denial • Law abiding operators locked out • Airspace safety suffers • No closer to a workable solution • Operators not purchasing insurance • Investment in technology will suffer
  • 8. Post sUAS ARC and the Road Ahead • Testimony by RTCA President Margaret Jenny to the House Aviation Subcommittee - No reference to UAS. RTCA timeline for commercial UAS in the NAS is out to 2018. • “Not in my Airspace!” J. Randolph Babbitt • F-38 participation has an overall lack of objectivity and a feigned sense of regulator involvement.

×