Contributors to rules for small UAS

Names and contact details for people with an interest in the development of a common, global, set of rules for the airworthiness, operations and command and control of small (< 150 kg) Unmanned Air Systems.

Let me know if you would like your name removed, or if you would like to have your name added.

Analysis of injuries that may be relevant to injuries that couls be caused by a UAS.

this is the most recent article on their website. They insist that UAS be certified to the same level as a Manned aircraft. There is no divide on weight classification. Points that may come under discussion, should we only stipulate weight?, I think the max altitude, and airspace classification is also an important issue. Something that is flying at a 1000 feet in class G airspace is unlikely to encounter commercial traffic!!

So I think certification criterion should should be WEIGHT/HEIGHT/AIRSPACE/TIME (WHAT). Since we are restricting Weight, why not restrict the Altitude and Airspace and time as Well? Any thoughts?

So if want to fly higher and in regulated airspace, then it is reasonable to assume, that a UAS should have to comply with the current regulatory requirements, which is the point AOPA is trying to make.

I´m very grateful to Peter and yourself for this initiative. On the one hand I believe that either something is done now, or we could witness the stall of UAS development for decades. On the other hand this is a wonderful time for pioneers to succeed (sometimes I personally feel as the Wright brothers in 1903...... :-). There is so much we can do now with current commercial technologies which was unthinkable of only a decade ago !

But let´s be realistic. The situation is that the small companies and research institutions are the ones leading the way, by driving the UAS technologies. But the biggest problem these "small" ones face is that everything is research now (i.e. there is no market to sell their products).

Hence, without a market, all civil UAS research will end up dying and UAS will carry on as a military niche for years. And this is sad because the civil UAS use is needed NOW and will be the most important market in the long range. Consequently we have to eliminate the causes for not having such market.

As far as I can see, technology is ready now; but not the legislation. And that is the main problem. According to Steven Sliwa (from InSitu) testimony before the US Subcommittee on Aviation: "The foremost challenge in achieving growth in this dynamic market is the safe, sustained access to airspace". I agree 100% on Steven vision and feelings.

For start, we should constrain the requirements for type certification and operation aspects.

Regarding operation aspects, most of the operations will be motivated by "technology induced applications" and will be under VFR (hence no need for ATC equipment - eg transponders, etc; but need for sense-and-avoid capabilities). Consequently, and regarding type certification, I don´t think that civil UAVs will initially need more than 150Kg MTOW.

On the technical side, I see very promising future in all-weather sense-and-avoid capabilities (mostly radar-based) complemented by similar to ADS-B systems for Unmanned Vehicles. The only problem I foresee is the "sense" capabilities for low-radar-reflective airspace users such as non-metallic vehicles or parachutes (in any case it´s much better than visual systems which, for instance, don´t work at night). Additionally, to add confidence in our capability to control the vehicle, we could add some totally independent Emergency Shutdown & Recovery Systems to self-command (i.e. the system detects that either its behaving abnormally or its out of the assigned operation environment and shuts itself down) or remotely-command (i.e. it is the the operator who does it) a safe shutdown and recovery of the vehicle.

On the legislation side, we should stress the limited capability damage of UAVs with massess below 150Kg, and the capability to ensure a safe shutdown and recovery of the vehicle (this might be enforced by ensuring all UAVs have such devices fitted before being operated).

Regarding specific documentation in Spain, unfortunately there is nothing (as far as I know). As a suggestion I would start with EASA A-NPA 16/2005 as a reference document and Steven Sliwa testimony as a "spiritual" reference (for those like myself who gets lost easily).

Just in case you did not get it during the UAV 2007 Conference in Paris, I include in the attachment the leaflet announcing the International Congress on UAS to be held in Madrid on 14-16 November 2007 (Attendance Confirmation up to 31 July 2007).

I also attached a leaflet of the Spanish Programme called PLATINO, which was presented by its leader (Mr. Mulero, INTA) during the UAV 2007 Conference. The PLATINO Programme comprises a number of projects, among them the so called HADA project, whose UAS version actually is not a Small UAS since it is expected to weigh about 380 Kg (MTOW), but it gives you an idea on some of current research on UAS taking place in Spain (actually, this is the most ambitious Spanish programme on UAS, as far as I know).