We stay connected
DroNav concept was born when everybody was excited about the arrival of a new toy. As pilots, we quickly realised the potential of UAVs for the industry. But we also saw problems, which had to be addressed. While many were discussing the direct, indirect and induced impacts, we got down to business. Business of making our skies safer, and lives of everybody better and more convenient.
And early on in the process, we realised that only by inclusion of all the stakeholders in the process, we will be able to achieve our goal. And we are confident, that we have found the winning formula. DroNav is the tool not to benefit any individual group at the expense of others, but a platform connecting all the stakeholders.
We work towards one goal
We most certainly do. That's why we keep talking to different groups, who we believe may be affected by the widespread utilisation of UAVs, and trying to come up with solutions, which would address their concerns. And of course it also means a participation in public consultations. As representatives of the industry, we have provided our responses to the FAA's proposed rule making on sUAV regulations:
... and we are listened to:
"<... Many commenters, including NAAA, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and Professional Photographers of America, supported the flight-over-people provision as proposed in the NPRM. Other commenters objected to the proposed requirement.
DronSystems stated that the proposed ban on operations over non-involved persons would impact e-commerce and “a number of other sectors,” and would be difficult to enforce. The University of Washington said that banning operations over non-operators is over-burdensome. WAG said the proposed prohibition “could have a significant chilling effect on both the commercial application of sUAS technology as well as the future development of sUAS technology,” and is inconsistent with the “model aircraft” protections afforded by part 101 and section 336 of Public Law 112-95...>" (Page 247)
"<... DronSystems stated that a preflight inspection is unnecessary, asserting that a remote pilot could safely forego a preflight inspection by instead using “sophisticated asset management tools” or “UAS self-diagnostic” equipment...>" (Page 360)
"<... The Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District supported the proposed requirement to disqualify persons with known physical or mental conditions that could interfere with the safe operation of the aircraft. Conversely, DronSystems commented that it would be impossible to enforce a prohibition on operations if an operator knows he or she has a medical condition that could interfere with the safe operation of the small UAS. ...>" (Page 399)
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Office of the Secretary of Transportation
14 CFR Parts 21, 43, 61, 91, 101, 107, 119, 133, and 183
[Docket No.: FAA-2015-0150; Amdt. Nos. 21-99, 43-48, 61-137, 91-343, 101-9, 107-1, 119-18, 133-15, and 183-16]
Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems
Concerns around liability, which our team believes is one of the fundamental issues to be covered, led to our participation in ALIAS (a network Addressing the Liability Impact of Automated System) 3rd Conference Presentation (2015), where we were one of the key speakers (53:14 marker):
ALIAS DronSystems Presentation
RPAS Industry Perspective: Who is in Charge?