Hello Fellow Yuneec Pilot!
Join our free Yuneec community and remove this annoying banner!
Sign up

FAA & DJI

True they don't even turn up to a burglary here, give you an incident number and maybe turn up next day, and very short on numbers the local police station is miles away here, we have seen
major cuts to the Police force here, some stations have had only two officers on duty in extreme circumstances, serving an area of 100. 000 people.
Sounds like Flint, Michigan
 
Recreational drones are not the bad guy but they are being vilified as a means to promoting government and large corporate interests. Delivery of packages is not even close to what all this stuff is about. The real goal is to incorporate drones in civilian airspace to keep better track of you through multiple agencies.

Power and control, with personal information used to obtain more power and control.
I disagree. It is EXACTLY about some very large corporations (Amazon, etc.) putting their thumb on the scale to enable UAS package delivery. Look at the weight range in the current and proposed FAA regulations; 0.55 to 55 lbs. That's a ridiculously large range to put under the same regulatory umbrella. Consumer drones fall into the very lowest part of this range. Package delivery drones will undoubtedly be much heavier than our consumer drones. Without changing the regulations to allow BVLOS operation, package delivery would be impossible. Take a look at this chart showing the kinetic energy of a UAS as related to it's weight:
 

Attachments

  • Weight Chart.pdf
    507.9 KB · Views: 5
The big corporations wrote the RID NPRM, and they're grinning like a chessy cat. They won't be using a drone that's under 55 lbs, so they get to use ADS-B out, and they don't have to worry about us or no reliable internet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JizzyGillespie
I’ve said it before, the FAA doesn’t have the funds or the will to even enforce general aviation regulations. Making the FAA responsible for enforcing small drone regulations will NOT HAPPEN. Once the FAA steps in and regulates your drones expect the drones and replacement parts to cost 20 times what they are now and be hard to find. Also expect mandatory maintenance cycles that can only be performed by a “certified technician” type guy.

Anyone on this board advocating for small drone oversight by the FAA has a vested interest in that occurring.
 
I’ve said it before, the FAA doesn’t have the funds or the will to even enforce general aviation regulations. Making the FAA responsible for enforcing small drone regulations will NOT HAPPEN. Once the FAA steps in and regulates your drones expect the drones and replacement parts to cost 20 times what they are now and be hard to find. Also expect mandatory maintenance cycles that can only be performed by a “certified technician” type guy.

Anyone on this board advocating for small drone oversight by the FAA has a vested interest in that occurring.
**** they (FAA) can't even follow there own rules. They had 180 days to come up with a Aeronautical Knowledge and Safety Test, because of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. Here we are in early 2020 and nothing more has been said about it, other than they are working on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JizzyGillespie
I guess you could say, they are working on it, it was included in the NPRM for flights over people and night operations. That comment period closed a year ago. Still no final rule.
 
I guess you could say, they are working on it, it was included in the NPRM for flights over people and night operations. That comment period closed a year ago. Still no final rule.
Yes, if they can't provide for that what makes them think they will be able to enforce anything like Remote ID.
 
Everyone here has discussed the obvious, however what caught my interest was the mention of tamper proof. I'd bet the industry would love nothing more than producing something no one can fix. Forget cleaning your ST16 pots or fixing anything internal.

What about DIY drones, planes, heli's etc.? Great way to destroy an entire industry and hobby.

I can already see what will happen if they go through with this. A lot of people will still pursue their interests and **** the consequences.

Law enforcement will initially respond, halfheartedly, then give up entirely. Without enforcement this is doomed to fail and is ultimately meaningless.

Law enforcement is already overwhelmed. They'll have to respond to each incident which by the time they arrive is probably already over. I think they will get sick of devoting resources to chasing their tails with nothing to show for it while serious crimes are being committed.

Sort of like illegal fireworks enforcement back in the day. They aren't going to chase down every firecracker or bottle rocket that goes off.

Now I'm off to commit a high crime and play with my lawn Jarts. You remember those. Great fun until Timmy recked it for everyone when he threw it straight up and watched it come straight down.
 
The entire basis of drone flight data tracking, data retention, user registration, and remote ID was the brain child of DJI as they developed and implemented them years before there was any government interest. Since the development DJI has been actively engaged with governments attempting to lobby governments to incorporate DJI flight restriction and flight data processes into international aviation law, using the legislative process to achieve a software/hardware monopoly. They had an easy time getting the EU and UK to take the bait but have run into a bit of a wall in the U.S.



Yer people keep buying their stuff...

Two weeks ago or so you were all for a FAA STCs (Supplemental Type Certificate) enforcement for our little drones that would ruin recreational drone use. I must ask, did you change jobs or have a change of heart?
 
Two weeks ago or so you were all for a FAA STCs (Supplemental Type Certificate) enforcement for our little drones that would ruin recreational drone use. I must ask, did you change jobs or have a change of heart?
I don’t think I have ever seen @PatR against recreational drone use. Against illegal drone flight for profit, a most resounding YES. So flying with intent to take photos or videos for a friend, organization, business, charity, etc. whether for free or fee requires a 333 exemption or 107 certification. For that he has been steadfast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rchrdbarnard2
Two weeks ago or so you were all for a FAA STCs (Supplemental Type Certificate) enforcement for our little drones that would ruin recreational drone use. I must ask, did you change jobs or have a change of heart?

I’ve always supported a verifiable minimum performance standard for multirotors. The majority of the people buying them lack any sophistication with their operation, don’t understand how or why they work, or how to recognize or deal with issues stemming from defective code or components. They have no hope of flying the aircraft if the autopilot can’t do it for them. In that respect nothing has changed.

When you purchase a drone you have absolutely no assurance that the programming was properly designed and tested, you don’t know how good or bad the components used to make it are. How many hours they should be expected to function correctly, or even how to repair it. All you have is flamboyant advertising written by an offshore manufacturer that can’t be touched in a court of law. Worse, most of you actually believe what they say.

Multirotor manufacturers are like the two last guys in a bar at closing time on Saturday night trying to get the fat, ugly, sweaty broad to go home with one of them. They will tell them anything they think that gal wants to hear to close the deal.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rchrdbarnard2
So you think it's just Amazon and UPS? Take a look at these links.




Well it almost here in a little town outside of Dublin Ireland. This is where I think the main bulk of the work for small drone traffic will come from. *** they say the sky's the limit. Well I do have to admit it is a good idea.
Mike
 
My guess is that with the exception of remote locations, drone deliveries will be predominantly business to business activities performed in dense metropolitan areas in close proximity to each other.
 
My guess is that with the exception of remote locations, drone deliveries will be predominantly business to business activities performed in dense metropolitan areas in close proximity to each other.
You are probably right on the package delivery, but I also know that BNSF RR is right in the middle of this. This past summer, they tested track inspections using a UAV up here on the highline in Montana. The aircraft they used was defiantly larger than 55 pounds. From the detentions I was given, it was about the size of an Aeronca Champ. Here they won't even have to use ADSB-out.
 
Here is an update to my original question/statement: I called Yuneec U.S. >No Answer, no surprise there. I tried their on-line customer support> no one available to chat, shock shock.. So I e-mailed them> They opened a trouble ticket? WTF.. i have a question, not a issue with my Typhoon H.

Yuneec use to have one of the best CS Dept's in the industry..
 
I was working for the company that performed the first commercial UAS inspection trials for BNSF using a Scan Eagle. The location was a 70 mile or so route in New Mexico around 2014 IIRC. I recall BNSF ended up pretty enthusiastic with the results so it comes as no surprise they have continued with those efforts. The Scan Eagle was a 10’ span, 4’ long, 44lb. gas engine powered UAV with a flight duration well in excess of half a day.

I remember some sort of fun informal discussions about how a platform could be fitted with several different payloads collecting a diverse data set on such a mission. So equipped, a long mission night be contracted by one customer but have additional data collected that would suit other customers. After fulfilling contract requirements the additional data that did not conflict with the contracting customer could be sold to numerous other end users, multiplying profit potential for a single flight many times over what a single payload flight could provide. All while remaining under the 55lb. sUAS limitation. Imagine the profit potential where a single flight could service 5-10 or more different types of customers, each being delivered their own proprietary mission data set.

The possibilities were, and still are, endless, with the only limitations being weight and system capabilities. The difference in thought processes is why we are at where we are today. Corporate aerospace thought about diversity for profitability using 5 and 10 year planning processes, creating systems with vastly superior optics appropriate for multitasking. The recreational/ small commercial UAV was too busy planning for just the next single purpose public release, typically with only small, inconsequential improvements for each new model using minimal performance small sensor cameras. Something that really disturbed me was the move by consumer manufacturers to provide very expensive thermal cameras with performance so low the product was virtually useless, yet we got pretty excited and bought them anyway. That corporate planning goes back a long ways as I held one of those aircraft in my hands that was FAA registered in the experimental category and provided N numbers in 2013, well before the 333 program was initiated.

Ultimately, we had too many users and too few inventors or people with vision and the users were too busy arguing over which consumer brand was better. They didn’t understand how severely they were being limited by manufacturers more interested in selling new models with minor incremental improvements to obtain maximum profitability when consumers should have been demanding far more performance and versatility from any sequential release before making a purchase.

The history is readily available for review using a little open source research. With a little analysis we can see how we allowed ourselves to be fleeced by our own short sightedness and stupidity. We were just too narrowly focused to realize the true potential of what could be done while others with more vision planned for the time they could take control of our airspace for great monetary gain. For us, obtaining more and more cheap but limited products had higher priority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rchrdbarnard2
ArtCox

Sorry to say it, but with Yuneec we seem to keep doing the same thing over and over again, hoping for a different result. You said it best wen you mentioned Yuneec USED to have the best CS in the consumer drone industry. IMHO that service will never be seen again with Yuneec. Any service at all would be a surprise.
 
I was working for the company that performed the first commercial UAS inspection trials for BNSF using a Scan Eagle. The location was a 70 mile or so route in New Mexico around 2014 IIRC. I recall BNSF ended up pretty enthusiastic with the results so it comes as no surprise they have continued with those efforts. The Scan Eagle was a 10’ span, 4’ long, 44lb. gas engine powered UAV with a flight duration well in excess of half a day.

I remember some sort of fun informal discussions about how a platform could be fitted with several different payloads collecting a diverse data set on such a mission. So equipped, a long mission night be contracted by one customer but have additional data collected that would suit other customers. After fulfilling contract requirements the additional data that did not conflict with the contracting customer could be sold to numerous other end users, multiplying profit potential for a single flight many times over what a single payload flight could provide. All while remaining under the 55lb. sUAS limitation. Imagine the profit potential where a single flight could service 5-10 or more different types of customers, each being delivered their own proprietary mission data set.

The possibilities were, and still are, endless, with the only limitations being weight and system capabilities. The difference in thought processes is why we are at where we are today. Corporate aerospace thought about diversity for profitability using 5 and 10 year planning processes, creating systems with vastly superior optics appropriate for multitasking. The recreational/ small commercial UAV was too busy planning for just the next single purpose public release, typically with only small, inconsequential improvements for each new model using minimal performance small sensor cameras. Something that really disturbed me was the move by consumer manufacturers to provide very expensive thermal cameras with performance so low the product was virtually useless, yet we got pretty excited and bought them anyway. That corporate planning goes back a long ways as I held one of those aircraft in my hands that was FAA registered in the experimental category and provided N numbers in 2013, well before the 333 program was initiated.

Ultimately, we had too many users and too few inventors or people with vision and the users were too busy arguing over which consumer brand was better. They didn’t understand how severely they were being limited by manufacturers more interested in selling new models with minor incremental improvements to obtain maximum profitability when consumers should have been demanding far more performance and versatility from any sequential release before making a purchase.

The history is readily available for review using a little open source research. With a little analysis we can see how we allowed ourselves to be fleeced by our own short sightedness and stupidity. We were just too narrowly focused to realize the true potential of what could be done while others with more vision planned for the time they could take control of our airspace for great monetary gain. For us, obtaining more and more cheap but limited products had higher priority.
Well, that pretty much sums up the difference between consumer and commercial customers. We see a lot of people successfully using consumer drones for commercial applications. Why? Because they can. What I worry about is the larger corporations that fly larger commercial drones making it much harder, if not impossible, for the millions of recreational fliers like myself to use the airspace.
 
That’s pretty much where we are at. 3/2/2020 will likely end up the day the music died for consumer drones and RC aviation.

I would love to be less doom and gloom but a constant review of various multirotor sites since the release of the NPRM continued to show a heck of a lot more interest in what people should buy next, which was better, and how to fix minor issues than concern for the future of our activities.
 

New Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
20,955
Messages
241,599
Members
27,284
Latest member
csandoval