rrTV-PHOTO   New HD TV
HOME   rrTV-PHOTO   GALLERIES   MY GALLERY   HELP-FAQ
myHOME PM pmRR MEMBERS 542 ONLINE 45 EVENTS SEARCH REGISTER  START HERE
 
3 pages [ <<    <    ( 1 )     2      3     NEXT    >> ]3695 viewsTOPIC CLOSED
Mikado Modellhubschrauber . GrandRC . CanoMod

.
.
UAV Autonomous Unmanned Aerial Vehicles > UAV developments in AUS
 
 
trillion
Heliman
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Just browsing around this evening I came across this article... the hardware looks a bit bulky for a mostly government funded scientific research organisation;- what do you think?

http://www.e4engineering.com/item.a...News&ch=e4_home

-Todd
01-14-2004 06:35 PM
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
MPA
Elite Veteran
Location: Australia

Been covered here.

http://runryder.com/helicopter/t78787p1/
01-15-2004 01:56 AM
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
trillion
Heliman
Location: Brisbane, Australia

whoops

I better watch out of my heli might become jelli!

Thankyou for pointing your thread out MPA, you make some quite humourous and informative posts.

-Todd
01-15-2004 02:49 AM
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
PullPitch
Senior Heliman
Location: Bend, OR

3D mapping

MPA

I liked your post too but have one comment.

I use 3D mapping every day in highway design. I think someday UAVs will do the mapping via LIDAR or Laser scanning. People often have an over simplistic view of what goes into the design highways and interchanges. I could go on forever about that.

We have mining resources in remote areas of Alaska which is relatively roadless currently. We use traditional land surveying and tedious human data reduction to generate digital terrain models from which to calculate grades, excavation quanities, gravel import quantities etc. The data collection process is very expensive. The more the engineer knows about the terrain in remote areas the better. This allows him to reduce the acreage of the land for the land surveyors to cover. Imagine spening months in mosquito swamps a hundred miles form any type of structure or civilization trying to define every topographical feature. We are talking about proposed roads hundreds of miles from no where. We have mountains and rivers that haven't even been named yet. I predict UAVs will do the surveying in the near future, bet down the road satellite technology will take over in part.

One of my main functions is to build road virtually in 3D to estimate costs and impacts. I use aerial photos on all projects. I hope to take my own aerials with a RC heli and someday do my own 3D mapping via GPS guided UAVs.

Don't underestimate the potintial of small UAVs!

Thanks again for your posts, but if memory sreves they often have a pessimistic tone towards UAV applications.

I am extremly optimistic and excited to see them applied and I hope to get involved.

PP

PullPitch
www.skybercam.com
01-15-2004 03:26 AM
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
MPA
Elite Veteran
Location: Australia

Pullpitch

Quote 
Don't underestimate the potintial of small UAVs!


You read me wrong.

I dont under estimate the potential of UAV or any technology, I under estimate the lengths humans will go to ban anything they believe may harm them.
Im sure they will defy my expectations in the future too.

They are trying to ban hot air = global warming.
They banned dog turds on the nature strip.
The public will show UAV little mercy, as they show none to anything else who they consider an annoyance.
A sad indictment upon humanity isnt it.
UAV's are a technical marvel in every sense of the word, pity the general public are too ignorant to know it and more likely to fear it.

But then some of the proposals like Mr CSIRO who states in the freakin news paper here how UAV will be able to hover next to a window and take pictures for law enforcement, fanrly, freak me out and good thing they already have a law here in Aus to prohibit him or anyone here every doing that.
Of course no-one in the paper questioned him on they just wrote it down as verbatum.

Ive tried to explain this in more ways than not but in all cases it is viewed as negativity when in fact it is simply stating the plain facts without candy coating it.
It I can make a fair argument of criticism of UAV proposals that you cant give a reason to discount totally then you'd have to accept that perhaps you are looking at UAV through rose colored glasses and are not applying enough scrutiny and sanity checks to the proposals to see if they fit the real world.

If you wait till the point that theory meets practice then you will work on trial and error which isnt a real method, its a recovery from many errors that you end up solving.
To have method in any madness you need to put your proposals and ideas through sanity checks and scrutiny.
After you have seen what is right with a thoery it should be next on the list to see whats wrong with it, specially before you go throwing good money at it for a practical test as in trial and error only to learn what you could have figured out long before you wasted the money.

If only, if only you had exercised a greater level of scrutiny over your ideas beforehand, you coulda saved a lot of cash.
We all know that story don't we because Im sure most of us have been there and done that.
What's worse is when smart arse pointed it out and the fact he may be right just adds insult to injury.

But hey if you got the moula and want to spend it well I cant think of a more fun you could have in a hobby than building a UAV.
Break a leg.

So long as it comes from your purse and not the tax payers coffers its a great idea.

I have respect fro the NRI folks for the fact they do it off their own or those who invest in them, they are not tax leeches like some of the unversities who soak up grants to put to UAV just to futher their edjamaction.

They **** me, I wish they's go play submarines and leave aircraft alone.
Uni students cant be trusted with a Volvo let alone a UAV.

And that UAv this thread refers to is from our our CSIRO, funded by govt working on UAV instead of diverting those resources to salinty solutions for Australia that we need solved and other things that take precedent over UAV for the general tax paying public, since they are footing the bill for all CSIRO research.

Which reminds me.
UAV regulations.

Might be worth noting
On youre example of roads, in Australia if you did in fact defy all odds and did get UAV operating certification for your UAV from CASA, here's the rub.
That will include a stipulation as it does in existing OC holders ceritifcates, that at no time you operate over....a road..cars or not.
No joke.

Regards
Dave
01-15-2004 07:38 AM
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
PullPitch
Senior Heliman
Location: Bend, OR

Ooops

Guess I missed a few posts, don't know anything about CSIRO or Uni students. Sorry if I hit a nerve. Most of the post was anger ther but I don't think it was towards me

I wouldn't dream of operating over populated areas, which means about twenty feet in any direction from here is ok.

Another practical use in my opinion is monitoring the Alaska pipeline for terrorist. They fly it with real choppers when weather premits. Hundreds of miles of otherwised untouched wilderness. With heat detectors anything sticks out here.

Another use, in my opinion, is monitoring of caribou heards. This is done currently to track their proximity to the highway. Hunting season is shut down when officails, from full scale planes, see the heard too close. Flying in these remote areas is dangerous as stroms move quickly and unpredictably.

I dont expect to attach a GPS to a picollo and have it fech me the paper and mow the lawn

I do think satellites will perform more rolls soon too.

If anyone hasn't checked out UVonline.com I thought it was worth a visit.

PullPitch
www.skybercam.com
01-15-2004 08:10 AM
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
MPA
Elite Veteran
Location: Australia

No raw nerv, I just dont like the govt banning us from operating Helicams here, I think Ive got a right to be angry about that but its directed to the right place.

Dont take anything said personally.

CSIRO is basically, govt science organisation.

Your views on how UAV can be used are a lot more practical than other UAV proposals Ive seen to date.

Having no people around where they are working is a real good start to exploring viability.
01-15-2004 08:39 AM
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
trillion
Heliman
Location: Brisbane, Australia

getting off topic now....

PullPitch do you have any pics taken from youre copter of that magnificent Alaskan wilderness?

-Todd
01-15-2004 08:39 AM
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
PullPitch
Senior Heliman
Location: Bend, OR

Photos

Im actually only on my 5th gallon of glow fuel. I am building my second heli (Hawk) after losing my Concept30 SR-T trianer.

I have played with servos on cameras and started building my own mount, but I think I'll buy an airfoil mount instead. No time, but hopfully some extra money soon - I am very anxious but am working seven days a week in road design. A shortage of transportation engineers has left me with too much of a good thing. Cant even find time to finish a freakin ARF!

MPA - sorry about the Government oppression. I had a friend visit there and he said a lot of people owned and used ultralight aircraft in the outback. I thought it would be a more amature aviation friendly place. Too bad.

Sounds like New Zealand looks a lot like Alaska, according to my friend who visited, and the Lord of The Rings movies

PullPitch
www.skybercam.com
01-15-2004 04:03 PM
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
GUAVA
Heliman
Location: Australia

MPA

You're so full of crap.

As an OC holder in Australia I CAN operate over roads and have NO such stipulation on mine or as far as I know, anyone elses OC.
I can even fly in the cities, and within airport control zones so don't bull**** people that your some sort of authority on the subject.
YOU KNOW ZIP.

If you stopped bleating about the so called injustices and made a proper attempt at trying to do the right thing and get an OC instead of playing hobyist you would realise that there are no nasties to deal with.


By the way 2 more OC were granted in December last year and both are doing fine.
That makes 5 now in 18 months and many more to follow.
01-23-2004 06:21 AM
 
 
flyboy
Elite Veteran
Location: California

I will second that.

Take the babble back to the rock that you crawled out from under.
01-23-2004 04:26 PM
 
 
MPA
Elite Veteran
Location: Australia

Your a scamming sack of shiit Guava.

Roads
1 Your other OC pal stated it as a specific restriction on his OC.
2 You fly over cities or roads you are breaking state law and local bylaws and what you think CASA allows doesnt mean a thing.

If I dont stop bashing CASA about it you and your retarded pals will just contrinue on with your moronic idiocy supporting a set of bull**** regulations that are purely for your financial advantage.

And more OC holders you say, what a coincidence, NOT.
The only reason you have two more OC holders is CASA got a flogging in Novemeber over the very matters that I refer to and Mal Walker had to do somthing to defend the indefensible.

Youve got no idea how many people are opposed to the regulations nor do you care.
Youve got an OC and screw the rest of us and it suits you financially to have less certitfied, means more for you..
From you Id expect that.

Plenty are opposed to them, they mail me about it often, and have good reasons for opposing them.
You have good reason to be in here defending them because you are one of the scum bags who want to keep others out of the industry so you can have a little monopoly in your corner of the world with the CASA regulations there to help you maintain it.
Your reasons for supporting the regulations are financial advantange.

FACT is CASA will not make the certification easier if they dont get a hard time over it and Im stirring up enough people who Email me and tell me they will be tackling CASA and do, a considerable number over the last 3 months suffice to fornulate a lobby assocation to remove these regulations that serve you and a few others.
AND allow all the rest of us to have the same rights to operate without regulations as everyone else in this forum, including the mop jockey.

Im not done by a long shot Guava so you can scurry back down your hole or run around and slap the sides of your head I dont give a ****.
I am acting for the interests of many orhers who I get the support of.
You are acting for the interest of your wallet and a few of your crusty old club pals.

And which Helicam company did you say you ran ?
And where did you post the evidence of your work ?
And these new OC holders are who ?
And will you be back to post a 5th time in RR ?
We can see the other OC operators number on his web site.
What's your OC number "Guava" ?
01-23-2004 05:43 PM
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
MPA
Elite Veteran
Location: Australia

Flyboy.

Do we assume by your post you support Guava and his poxy regulations ?

How about you take on the concept of those same regulations covering you and your activities in the USA.
I dont think youd be laughing to loud.

In fact they do apply in the USA
All it needs one legal spark in the FAA to do the same as the lawyers at CASA did and you will be under the same regulations we have here in Aus.

Dont beleive it ?
Read it and weep.

- On the issues of regulation

http://www1.faa.gov/avr/afs/news/ar...b2003/scale.htm

Not only has the progress of radio-controlled aircraft development raised issues within the U.S. Air Force, but also it has raised one issue within FAA about the use of such craft in the National Airspace System (NAS). Someday, you may hear an air traffic controller issuing you a traffic advisory about an unmanned vehicle at 12 o’clock and three miles. Before you panic, that aircraft may also have sensors onboard to help it “see” and avoid you. Now who has the right of way?

If the idea of flying crosscountry with an unmanned aircraft near your aircraft bothers you, you might as well start getting use to the idea. It may happen. But such aircraft will be subject to regulation.

They will be regulated both for your protection and the protection of those on the ground. A basis for that requirement is contained in the FAA’s definitions in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), title 14, part 1, Definitions and Abbreviations. The FAA definition of “aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.” Nowhere in that definition does it say the device has to be manned. Under this definition, a small or reduced scale aircraft such as a R/C model aircraft is just that. It is an aircraft subject to rules governing its operation in the NAS.


- And here is FAA Working with ICAO

(the term "model" used there is not refering to model aircraft explicitly it refers to the "regulation model" other regulators can adopt to work to ICAO)
http://www1.faa.gov/avr/iasa/calr.htm

And the existing rules that state as much as they do in Aus that all Helicams in the USA do require certification to operate, already if some FAA lawyer takes it to the end point of law.

Part 1 — General Policies, Procedures, and Definitions
http://www1.faa.gov/avr/iasa/PART01.doc
1.1.1.4 Definitions
(a) For the purpose of these regulations, the following definitions shall apply:


(5) Aeroplane. A power-driven heavier-than-air aircraft, deriving its lift in flight chiefly from aerodynamic reactions on surfaces which remain fixed under given conditions of flight.
(8) Aircraft category. Classification of aircraft according to specified basic characteristics (e.g., aeroplane, helicopter, glider, free balloon).
(42) Helicopter. A heavier-than-air aircraft supported in flight chiefly by the reactions of the air on one or more power-driven rotors on substantially vertical axis.
(iii) Class 3 helicopter. A helicopter with performance such that, in case of engine failure at any point in the flight profile, a forced landing must be performed.

(65) Small aeroplane. An aeroplane having a maximum certified take-off mass of less than 5,700 kg. (12,500 lbs.).


- And there is no exepmtion from that

1.3 Exemptions and equivalent SAFETY case
1.3.1.1 Exemptions and Equivalent Safety Case
No person may introduce procedures contrary to those prescribed in these regulations unless needed and an equivalent safety case has first been approved by the Authority.


Model Aircraft and UAV are by definition aircraft
Therefore bound be the same regulations unless otherwise stated.
Thus the rules to determine the need for operators certification for commercial activites should be the same criteria.


Part 8 — Operations (with Implementing Standard)

Aerial Work
http://www1.faa.gov/avr/iasa/PART11.doc

11.1.1.2 Definitions
(a) For the purpose of Part 11, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) Aerial work. An aircraft operation in which an aircraft is used for specialised services such as agriculture, construction, photography, surveying, observation and patrol, search and rescue, aerial advertisement, etc.


- And then you look to movie or filming.


11.6 TV AND MOVIE OPERATIONS
11.6.1.1 Applicability
(a) This Subpart applies to those operations involving movie filming, appearance in flight in movies, and airborne direction or production of such filming when those operations are conducted as part of a business enterprise or for compensation or hire.
(b) For purposes of this Subpart, “movie” shall include film, videos, and live broadcast in any format, and the preparation and rehearsal for those operations.
11.6.1.2 Certificate or Authorisation Required
(a) The Authority shall require each person conducting operations covered by this Subpart to hold a certificate or equivalent authorisation.
(b) The Authority will issue a certificate or authorisation to each applicant who qualifies for it under the provisions of this Subpart.
11.6.1.3 Aircraft Requirement
In order to be used in motion picture and television filming operations, aircraft in the experimental category shall have an airworthiness certificate issued for the purpose of exhibition.
FAA Inspector Handbook 8700, Chapter 53
11.6.1.4 Experience and Training Requirements
(a) No pilot may conduct television and movie operations unless he or she has:
(1) A commercial license with ratings appropriate to the category and class aircraft to be used under the terms of the waiver.
(2) At least 500 hours as PIC.
(3) A minimum of 100 hours in the category and class of aircraft to be used.
(4) A minimum of five hours in the make and model aircraft to be used under the waiver.
(5) If the pilot intends to perform aerobatics below 1,500 AGL, a Statement of Aerobatics Competency for the operations to be performed.
FAA Inspector Handbook 8700, Chapter 53
11.6.1.5 Waiver Requirements
(a) A waiver shall be obtained if filming sequences require an aircraft to be flown—
(1) In aerobatic flight below 1,500 AGL,
(2) Over a congested area, or
(3) In controlled airspace.
Note: When conducting any filming operation requiring a waiver, the certificate holder shall ensure that all reasonable efforts are made to confine spectators to designated areas. If reasonable efforts have been taken and unauthorised persons or vehicles enter the airspace where manoeuvres are being performed during the filming production event, efforts must be made to remove them.
(b) The holder of the waiver shall provide a schedule of events that lists the—
(1) Identification of the aircraft; and
(2) Performers in the sequence of their appearance.
(c) Any manoeuvres added or time changes to the schedule of events shall be approved by the Authority.
(d) The waiver holder shall develop, have approved by the Authority, and adhere to a Motion Picture and Television Flight Operations Manual.
11.6.1.6 Contents of a Motion Picture and Television Flight Operations Manual
(a) Each Motion Picture and Television Flight Operations Manual shall contain at least the following:
(1) Company Organisation.
(i) Business name, address, and telephone number of applicant.
(ii) List of pilots to be used during the filming, including their pilot certificate numbers, grade, and class and date of medical.
(iii) List of aircraft by make and model.
(2) Distribution and Revision. Procedures for revising the manual to ensure that all manuals are kept current.
(3) Persons Authorised. Procedures to ensure that no persons, except those persons consenting to be involved and necessary for the filming production, are allowed within 500 feet of the filming production area.
(4) Area of Operations. The area that will be used during the term of the waiver.
(5) Plan of Activities. Procedures for the submission, within three days of scheduled filming, a written plan of activities to the Authority containing at least the following:
(i) Dates and times for all flights.
(ii) Name and phone number of person responsible for the filming production event.
(iii) Make and model of aircraft to be used and type of airworthiness certificate, including category
(iv) Name of pilots involved in the filming production event.
(v) A statement that permission has been obtained from property owners and/or local officials to conduct the filming production event.
(vi) Signature of waiver holder or a designated representative.
(vii) A general outline, or summary, of the production schedule, to include maps or diagrams of the specific filming location, if necessary.
(6) Permission to Operate. Requirements and procedures that the waiver holder will use to obtain permission from property owners and/or local officials (e.g., police, fire departments, etc.) as appropriate for the conduct of all filming operations when using the waiver.
(7) Security. Method of security that will be used to exclude all persons not directly involved with the operation from the location.
Note: This should also include the provision that will be used to stop activities when unauthorised persons, vehicles, or aircraft enter the operations area, or for any other reason, in the interest of safety.
(8) Briefing of Pilot/Production Personnel. Procedures to brief personnel of the risks involved, emergency procedures, and safeguards to be followed during the filming production event.
(9) Certification/Airworthiness. Procedures to ensure that required inspections will be conducted.
(10) Communications. Procedures to provide communications capability with all participants during the actual operation and filming.
Note: The applicant can use oral, visual, or radio communications as along as it keeps the participants continuously apprised of the current status of the operation.
(11) Accident Notification. Procedures for notification and reporting of accidents.
FAA Inspector Handbook 8700, Chapter 53


Lets see you laugh loud Travis after you get an FAA letter giving you the news about your new requiremenrt to have certification for your Helicam.
Not a matter if if but when.
01-23-2004 05:44 PM
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
Balch
Senior Heliman
Location: Melbourne, Australia

MPA , you need a break mate!!, you are really over the top.
Time to get down from your soapbox and have a rest.
01-24-2004 12:35 PM
 
 
MPA
Elite Veteran
Location: Australia

Balch

Why ?
01-24-2004 12:51 PM
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
wildcard
Heliman
Location: mpa

MPA,
I have been visiting this forum for sometime now, mainly for flying tips, info etc.
And I have never posted before, and I won’t be again. Quite frankly I would sure that there are others that sick and tired of hearing from you. You do nothing but put people
Down and waste space on the forum that could be used for more constructive chat.
You sound like a cranky child who missed out on his good night chocolates.
Do you have anything else in your life apart from this forum?? Everybody has problems in this life and where sick of yours, get over it……


Big Brother is watching.
01-24-2004 01:16 PM
 
 
MPA
Elite Veteran
Location: Australia

wildcard

Are you complaining ?
01-24-2004 02:21 PM
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
GUAVA
Heliman
Location: Australia

MPA

MPA

Your implication that I am ‘scamming’ people or the industry for my own gain by somehow managing to suppress others from gaining OC’s would be libellous if it wasn’t so preposterous.
We actively promote and support others to join the UAV industry.
In fact I negotiated the first Airservices agreement for UAV’s to operate within airport control zones. This agreement is now standard format and is available to any OC holder including the last 2 and any new ones in the future.

My reasons for supporting the regulations are purely for safety.
Those regulations were put in place to stop ignorant arseholes like yourself from putting public lives at risk.
Whatever financial gain we make is done so by actually working for it.

All 5 OC holders including myself can be found at the CASA web site under AOC holders, and don’t forget to tick the little UAV box.

Since you haven’t actually seen an OC yet or appear to know anyone that has one, you’re in no position to say what restrictions or approvals apply to OC’s.
Contrary to more of your bull****, when conducting flight operations in cities or over roads, we do so with the cooperation and approval of all relevant authorities. No laws are broken, at least not from our end. I did notice however those photos on your web site are over council and public property. Have you been breaking a couple of local bylaws David?
Try explaining to your lobby association how you intend to overcome insurance and legal issues to operate with nothing more than a hobby club membership.
You’re a hobbyist, stick to it.
The people who invest real time and money into UAV operations, and actually know what they’re talking about, don't appreciate your false misleading opinionated rubbish.
01-24-2004 11:18 PM
 
 
MPA
Elite Veteran
Location: Australia

Guava

Quote 
Your implication that I am ‘scamming’ people or the industry for my own gain


You are

Quote 
suppress others from gaining OC’s


Your words not mine.

Quote 
My reasons for supporting the regulations are purely for safety.


Liar

Quote 
you’re in no position to say what restrictions or approvals apply to OC’s


The OC holder was in here and stated the fact about flying over roads and said his OC stated he could not.

Now which roads do you fly over and where are the pics, we may need to contact the local council or the local police or report it to CASA.
You would if it was me but you cant because I only fly over council land that permit recreational flying.

Quote 
You’re a hobbyist, stick to it


Youre a self serving areshole

Quote 
The people who invest real time and money into UAV operations, and actually know what they’re talking about, don't appreciate your false misleading opinionated rubbish.


You can spout all that crap you want but it doesnt change to facts

You talking utter bull**** and pretending we need UAV regulations for safety when you cannot cite one single incident where regulations have served to improve safety or cited one incident in any other country where there are no regulations to make your point.
Everyone else in the world operates safely without and OC or certification and that is the point is case why we dont need any and you only want them to stop other from operating and give you more work.

Your an empty vessel with a predictable echo.

Quote 
Try explaining to your lobby association how you intend to overcome insurance and legal issues


It is not for the purpose of overcoming anything but these regulations
Nothing else
Insurance or legal issue is up to each operator to manage and they all manage it properly and if you are claiming they do not then cite those who do not or dont make slanderous remarks about other operators all over the world.


Quote 
when conducting flight operations in cities or over roads, we do so with the cooperation and approval of all relevant authorities. No laws are broken


And so does anyone who operates

Point in case again why we dont need CASA regulations, the matter is already served by state and local authorities equally to everyone already.
OC or not.

And do you get persmission from authorities everytime you operate in urban areas commercially ?
Only recreational rc flying is allowed in the vast majority if municiplaties and I will bet the same applies in your municipality.
01-25-2004 04:06 AM
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
MPA
Elite Veteran
Location: Australia

I can see you listed on CASA

From the look of your web paghe your a real hot shot professional, Not.
http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~eyerex/
Cant even afford your own domain and using a hobby homepage

But I dont see you listed in the Aus frequency licencing pages for your Rc controller or AV tx you use for commercail purposes.

Since you such a hot shot pro you wouldnt dare to operate RC controller frequencies in the Model Aircraft range that is for non commercial purposes.
Youd have a commercial radio licence allocation right ?
Well where is it ?
Or do you just use Hobbyist freqeuncies illegally ?
01-25-2004 04:37 AM
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
3 pages [ <<    <    ( 1 )     2      3     NEXT    >> ]3695 viewsTOPIC CLOSED
Futaba-RC . A Main Hobbies . Boca Bearings

.
.
UAV Autonomous Unmanned Aerial Vehicles > UAV developments in AUS
  UPDATE SCREEN   PRINT TOPIC Advertisers 

Subscribe to This Topic

Saturday, August 30 - 4:43 pm - Copyright © 2000 - 2008 runryder.com | email | link to rr | runryder needs cookie