In the following video taken in Paris at LeWeb in 2012 Rafael Pirker talks about Team Black Sheep and what they do.
Nice to see him talking personally after hearing so many things about this guy, and seen so many of the great TBS videos such as this:
this:
and this:
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has taken initial steps to start a process to increase access to airspace in the next five to 10 years.
The new rules will have to regulate a wide range of devices, from small, privately owned multirotors to military predator drones
“Government and industry face significant challenges as unmanned aircraft move into the aviation mainstream,” Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said in a prepared statement.
The road map “is an important step forward that will help stakeholders understand the operational goals and safety issues we need to consider when planning for the future of our airspace.”
The FAA will now have, under the indications of US Congress, to identify early this year six sites where the safe integration of manned and unmanned aircrafts can be tested.
Source: CNN
DJI has recently released firmware version 4.02 for NAZA-M V2 flight control boards.
This release contains a long awaited fix for the well known “limits bug” that resulted in loss of control of the aircraft if it flow beyond limits, as reported in several threads on RC forums, like this one.
In order to upgrade the firmware on your NAZA MC you should first download and install the version 2.20 of the naza assistant software from the NAZA-M V2 DJI downloads page.
On connecting your NAZA multirotor to the new assistant, upgrade to v4.02 of the firmware will be proposed by the software.
Good news for all pilots that were relying on limits for flying their NAZA V2 controlled flying machines.
MUWA: Multi-Field Universal Wheel for Air-Land Vehicle with Quad Variable-Pitch Propellers. A complicated name for a new prototype quadcopter that can perform a number of functions usually not associated with multirotors, such as rolling and floating.
Here’s the rolling drone:
This is not for fun. It is a research project developed in a robotics lab in Tokyo University and has a number of very serious potential applications that are briefly shown in the video that we post below. Those include capturing 3D images of environments, for example closed spaces, maybe difficult to reach otherwise.
The device can of course perform also perform as a regular quadcopter. It flies nicely.
Here’s the video:
Source and further readings:
A video from AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics) president Bob Brown explains how AMA always embraces new technologies and supports research, continuously updating AMA programs and guidelines.
First Person View (FPV), quadcopters and multirotors are no exception and it is great to hear that President Brown himself is “one of us”, owning two quadcopters and practicing FPV himself.
The video was posted on the AMA Blog
Have a look at the AMA safety code. See also the AMA document on FPV and the document on “see and avoid” guidance
The Baltimore Sun features a terrific interview to drone photographers Terry and Belinda Kilby, who just published a book about drone photography in Baltimore: Drone Art: Baltimore and run the site Elevated Element.
The interview is very generous and covers nearly all aspects of their activity, from equipment, both drones and cameras, to considerations about the workflow they have established and to the management of security.
They tend to select places and timing to ensure as few people as possible are around. Say sunday at 6AM. If required, they define a clear area for takeoff and landing, and they communicate clearly to bystanders what is going on and where to stay to remain secure.
They apparently are well known drone operators in the area, as they got a phone call from the FBI as someone else was flying a drone outside hotel rooms. They state they would never do that and take every precaution, such as the ones mentioned above, to ensure everything remains safe for everyone.
They stepped up through a couple of generations of GoPros, to Cannon S90 an then Sony NEX 5N.
They build all their multirotors themselves.
This was just a little appetizer, read the full article at the Baltimore Sun
With the raise in availability of drone technology, Merseyside police in the UK thought it would be a good idea to acquire a drone, actually a 13.000£ quadcopter, to aid in law enforcement tasks.
And here is the drone in operation live:
November 2009: Merseyside police acquires law enforcement quadcopter
The quadcopter is put to use, officers are trained.
February 2010: Merseyside police makes the first arrest in the UK based on drone technology, by helping in locating a car theft suspect – BBC article
However about one week later, it turns out that the police did not have the required Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) permission to fly the quadcopter.
“CAA said it needed to be consulted over any use of the drones, that can fly up to 400ft and reach speeds of 30mph.”
February 2010: Merseyside police drone is grounded for the lack of the required flight permissions by the CAA – BBC article
The police subsequently filled out the required paperwork and obtained all the permissions to fly the drone.
The drone resumes operations.
October 2011: Merseyside police drone crashes in river Mersey – see also here
During a flight training session the drone apparently looses battery power and crashes into a river. Officers responsible for the crash were “given advice” (a dressing down in police slang). The costs of the incident were covered by insurance. Interestingly
“during its use officers recognised certain technical and operational issues including staff training costs and the inability to use the UAV in all weather conditions.
“These issues in conjunction with the current financial climate resulted in the decision being made by chief officers not to replace the unit.”
October 2011: Merseyside police drone ceases operations
This story is very interesting as it is an example of trying to put to work an idea that in principle seems potentially productive, and then coming in touch with all the hidden problems involved and the technical and, not least, budget limitations. I think the idea was good but the technology was still too young in 2009 to make drone law enforcement become a reality on a limited budget. I would guess that if the very same program was started today, it would probably have more chances of success as there was so much research and development done from 2009 to today in multirotors technological development, navigation systems, better and lighter frames with higher payloads, longer flight times, better resistance to variable weather conditions etc.. We can see this as an early, brave experiment that failed. We’ll probably see other similar program succeed more and more in the future, as technology evolves and equipment prices drop steadily.
Markus Fischer and his team developed smartbird, a robot that flies like a seagull.
As for the dragonfly, the world of flying animals inspires engineers for the building of human made flying machines. Enjoy the video:
Quadcopters and multirotors are becoming devices affordable for anyone, to take aerial video and photographs or just to experience the adrenaline burst that comes from controlling the aerial evolutions of these flying machines.
A new generation of flying machines is at the doorstep. Meet the Dragonfly.
All images were taken from the dragonfly project web site
Here are some specs from the Robot Dragonfly project web site
Please note: Hybrid flight time: 25-30 minutes. This thing can hover like a quadcopter and glide like a plane.
Silent. This is a big difference with quacopters and multirotors and opens for different fields of application.
Onboard high resolution cameras and GPS.
A game changer by all means. According to the website, we could start to see some on those on the market within a few months, possibly starting from november-december 2013, based on the fact that release of the kits to distributors is scheduled for october 2013.
Here are some dragonfly videos:
It is a well known fact in the FPV/RC models community that Raphael Pirker, a swiss multirotors and FPV enthusiast also known as Trappy was fined 10.000$ by Federal Aviation Authority FAA for allegedly flying over the premises of the University of Virginia, who had commissioned him some aerial footage of the campus taken by quadcopter.
This is the University of Virginia video that triggered the FAA fine:
A main trigger of the FAA reaction was that the video footage was taken commercially, as the University of Virginia paid Trappy for this, and as it happens in many other countries, using multirotors or flying vehicles commercially requires the authorization of the aviation authorities, the FAA in the case of US.
Instead of paying the fine, or to refuse to pay the fine – he’s swiss after all – Trappy decided to defend his case before the National Transportation Safety Board. This is very appropriate since the FAA most likely decided, for the first time, to prosecute someone for the use of a private/personal drone, to make a statement and send a message to the community. So Trappy is now representing a whole FPV community defending the right to use our small beloved multirotors to take some video, as freely as possible.
In the following video, Luke Rudkowski interviews Brendan Schulman of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Trappy’s lawyer, about the case – “The 1st FAA Prosecution of a Civilian Drone UAV”
We also like to report here the opinion of the XJet youtube channel. This is the same guy running RCMoldelreviews. He’s obviously very competent in the field of RC and has quite strong clearcut opinions on a number of matters related to models flying and FPV, let’s here what he has to say on this story:
It will be very interesting to follow Trappy’s court case as the outcome might well be relevant for the whole FPV community, for the reasons reported above. So let’s stay tuned and thank Trappy for the great videos we can follow on Team Black Sheep youtube channel and for representing the whole FPV community in defending his case in court.
See this Chris Anderson article on Wired aswell: Drone Pilot Fights for Right to Profit in the Unmanned Skies
Raphael Pinker motion to dismiss (pdf)
Here what we found here, which is a repost of an article on law360.
Law360, New York (October 03, 2013, 2:05 PM ET) — A model airplane operator facing fines from the Federal Aviation Administration for allegedly buzzing Virginia buildings and pedestrians at dangerously low heights to snap photos has asked an administrative judge for exoneration, saying the FAA lacks authority to penalize civilian drone pilots.
Raphael Pirker argued to a National Transportation Safety Board judge last Friday that the FAA contrived a case against him for allegedly flying his model aircraft around the University of Virginia in response to political pressure over its failure to regulate commercial unmanned aircraft systems.
So-called civilian drones have earned the scorn of civil libertarians for their purported privacy infringements and potential for abuse by law enforcement, and the FAA responded with an impermissible effort to expand its Federal Aviation Rules to a 5-pound plastic foam device, according to Pirker’s motion to dismiss.
“The FAA, aware of this change in public perception, has made an effort to delay and curtail civilian ‘drone’ activity by asserting in policy statements that ‘business’ or ‘commercial’ operations are prohibited and that some or all of the FARs apply,” the motion said. “However, neither the commercial ‘ban’ on drones nor the application of the FARs … is legally enforceable because the FAA has failed to undertake the requisite rulemaking procedures that would be required to put in place such new regulation.”
The motion says there is no existing federal aviation regulation restricting the operation of model aircraft, and that small unmanned aircraft have historically been governed by voluntary safety guidelines, with plane operators being kept in check only by state tort laws holding reckless flying activities to account.
Pirker, a Swiss citizen residing overseas, was hit with a $10,000 proposed fine by the FAA in June for allegedly piloting a small gliding aircraft at low heights around the university’s campus to take aerial shots for an advertising agency. According to the complaint, he did not have FAA piloting certification, and flew as low as 10 feet above ground near buildings and pedestrian walkways.
The FAA claimed that the flights violated a single provision of the FARs stating that “that no person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another,” the FAA said.
The enforcement action was the first ever against an unmanned aircraft system operator, according to Pirker’s attorney Brendan M. Schulman of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP.
In his response on Friday, Pirker contended that the FAA has failed to move forward with steps to promulgate new regulations to integrate civil unmanned aircraft safely into the national aerospace system despite a congressional mandate to do so by 2015 in the FAA Modernization Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2012.
“This inability by the agency to move forward with new proposed regulations in a timely manner accounts for why the FAA has resorted to delay tactics such as cease-and-desist letters and, here, the unprecedented pursuit of a civil penalty against a model airplane operator,” the motion said. “But it has done so by issuing ‘policy statements,’ not by valid rulemaking.”
The FAA is purportedly relying on a 2007 policy statement articulating two new rules outlawing model aircraft operation for business purposes without a waiver or special airworthiness certificate and subjecting operators to the FARs.
The statement formed the basis for the instant complaint, according to Pirker’s motion, but is unenforceable under the Administrative Procedure Act because the FAA never complied with the notice-and-comment requirements for publicly binding rulemakings.
The statement, which was touted as a de facto ban on commercial drones, could plausibly be viewed as an “interpretative rule” exempt from APA requirements, but in that case its extension of FARs to model aircraft is invalid because such an interpretation conflicts with existing laws and long-standing agency practice, the motion said.
Schulman told Law360 that the FAA’s approach of sending cease-and-desist letters to drone operators has put the country’s nascent commercial drone industries on hold for over six years and kept beneficial, safe and noncontroversial applications from being developed.
FAA efforts to accommodate drone use took a step forward in July, when the agencyapproved the first two such aircraft for commercial use. Bills have also been floated in both houses of Congress addressing concerns that current privacy laws do not adequately protect the public against drones’ surveillance capabilities.
Representatives for the FAA were not immediately available for comment on Thursday.
Pirker is represented by Brendan M. Schulman of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP.
The case is Administrator v. Raphael Pirker, Docket No. CP-217, before the National Transportation Safety Board.