Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
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



Published on

Sub Group 4 sUAS ARC Debrief

Sub Group 4 sUAS ARC Debrief

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 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.