Gliding Parachute Systems

[burkefj]

Not if your flying at a site that is granted a FRIA exemption .

Correct except you are still limited to the altitude restriction for the flying site, whether 400' or higher depending on what FAA has granted, many have been granted higher altitudes, but there is no mechanism for class g airspace yet..

 

[burkefj]

The 400' exception refers to recreational drones and drones are defined as small unmanned aircraft systems. Forgive me but I wouldn't consider an R/C glider recovery system to be considered an "aircraft". It can be piloted sure, but it can't be flown upwards unless you hit an unlucky thermal at which point you would just glide it out of the thermal so it can continue it's descent.

Also, I have trouble believing that Tim would go through all this effort without his lawyers going through the regs first.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-107#107.51

there is nothing in the FAA language about "sustained flight" any more so they don't care whether it goes up down or sideways or just down...

 

[jazzviper1]

Not if your flying at a site that is granted a FRIA exemption .

Sorry those exemptions still include the 400-foot ceiling.

 

[UncleJoe]

If you think the FAA is going to get off their asses and come out and watch what you fly over 400ft I've got some land you've going to love. Ever launch with out a waver? You should fine yourself or turn yourself into the FAA. People complained to FAA of drones with cameras on them being in the wrong place. Now we have them micro management from them. We had simple rules till the ATF was called on. That one we made all the rules by ourselves thinking it would satisfy them yet if it was their way motors would still be banned. Grow some balls, bend the rules.

 

[MikeT]

Correct except you are still limited to the altitude restriction for the flying site, whether 400' or higher depending on what FAA has granted, many have been granted higher altitudes, but there is no mechanism for class g airspace yet..

Sorry those exemptions still include the 400-foot ceiling.

And? I don't see a issue here. Waivers are granted if requested and to be honest I'm not even sure if this is covered under the UAV rules. Kinda a grey area IMO. What if you use a Chute Release set for 500ft bythe time it deployed you would be right about 400ft.

Mike

 

[bobby_hamill]

I remember an article where this type of recovery was being considered for the Project Gemini Spacecraft
I can see the GI Joe Gemini Spacecraft being recovered with the parachute "wing"

 

[RAM]

I applaud Apogee for the bold step of marketing their "guided" recovery system and am amazed at what a then 17 year old French citizen developed (R2Home). They both illustrate why Rocketry is so fascinating for me, there are so many avenues of development and investigation that it would take several lifetimes to cover it all!!! What is equally as interesting to me is that everyone has the capability to design their own R2Home system using off the shelf parts that are commercially available. For those of you interested in GPS guided recovery (despite the many threads on regulations by whatever powers that be) A search on ebay yields many pages of simple low cost "Flight Controllers" for every conceivable type of flying machine. Designed for pre-programmed autonomous flight of small "drone" vehicles they have been successfully used to fly gliders and powered aircraft for hundreds of miles along programmed routes. A "gliding" parachute is just a glider, albeit a slow and inefficient one. The simplicity of the dual keel rogallo is hard to beat as is the performance of ram-air or single surface parafoils. Sail winch servos for flight controls (I'd use two, the single Apogee servo steers but cannot "brake" which reduces capability. Also, control "stroke" is very limited), flight controllers (I like Matek), software (Ardupilot, INAV, and Betaflight for "Return To Home" programming and telemetry). The possibilities are endless!!!!

On a final note, Collapsible Pilot Chutes used on skydiving rigs are perfect for use as a drouge and deployment device for a bagged rogollo or parafoil and can be had in different sizes. I had two made for me with 20" diameter on 4 foot bridles but the combination of size and bridle length can be customized.

I hope to see a lot of development in this arena in the future, I've had a knee replaced and a hip is coming soon!! It'd be nice to avoid those long hikes if I could!!

 

[burkefj]

And? I don't see a issue here. Waivers are granted if requested and to be honest I'm not even sure if this is covered under the UAV rules. Kinda a grey area IMO. What if you use a Chute Release set for 500ft bythe time it deployed you would be right about 400ft.

Mike

Mike the only issue is you're talking about waivers as in rocketry waivers that has nothing to do with the FAA drone altitude increase requests of which there is no mechanism right now in class g airspace to request an altitude increase for drone operation like there is for regular rocketry waivers, this is a separate issue and that's the main problem right now this affects all RC or GPS guided models at this time.. with regards to a chute release that 500 ft with deployment at 400 a typical descent rate is 15 to 20 ft per second which only gives you about 20 to 30 seconds of steerable recovery time which really doesn't do you that much good unless you had a purely vertical flight and descent. I'm sure eventually they will have mechanisms worked out, right now ama just got their CBO classification from the FAA and they're working on getting altitude restrictions lifted over controlled airspace for clubs that are in those areas so they're not even working on class g at this time even if there was a mechanism in place through the FAA to request it. I think this guided chute idea is neat and this issue takes nothing away from that. It will just take some time for FAA to get their act together and have a formal mechanism, that said I don't know that they are going to allow altitude restriction to be unlimited, mostly people are looking at 700 or 1200' which still doesn't help that much.

 

[Planecrazy]

I applaud Apogee for the bold step of marketing their "guided" recovery system and am amazed at what a then 17 year old French citizen developed (R2Home). They both illustrate why Rocketry is so fascinating for me, there are so many avenues of development and investigation that it would take several lifetimes to cover it all!!! What is equally as interesting to me is that everyone has the capability to design their own R2Home system using off the shelf parts that are commercially available. For those of you interested in GPS guided recovery (despite the many threads on regulations by whatever powers that be) A search on ebay yields many pages of simple low cost "Flight Controllers" for every conceivable type of flying machine. Designed for pre-programmed autonomous flight of small "drone" vehicles they have been successfully used to fly gliders and powered aircraft for hundreds of miles along programmed routes. A "gliding" parachute is just a glider, albeit a slow and inefficient one. The simplicity of the dual keel rogallo is hard to beat as is the performance of ram-air or single surface parafoils. Sail winch servos for flight controls (I'd use two, the single Apogee servo steers but cannot "brake" which reduces capability. Also, control "stroke" is very limited), flight controllers (I like Matek), software (Ardupilot, INAV, and Betaflight for "Return To Home" programming and telemetry). The possibilities are endless!!!!

On a final note, Collapsible Pilot Chutes used on skydiving rigs are perfect for use as a drouge and deployment device for a bagged rogollo or parafoil and can be had in different sizes. I had two made for me with 20" diameter on 4 foot bridles but the combination of size and bridle length can be customized.

I hope to see a lot of development in this arena in the future, I've had a knee replaced and a hip is coming soon!! It'd be nice to avoid those long hikes if I could!!

This is my longer term plan to introduce a second servo to give elevator and rudder mix so I can play with angle of attack on decent. Full brake on landing to reduce sink rate.

I'll be getting started on the Lance Delta when I get back from Xmas holidays soon, then aiming for test flight on 8th Feb at our next launch

 

[MikeT]

Mike the only issue is you're talking about waivers as in rocketry waivers that has nothing to do with the FAA drone altitude increase requests of which there is no mechanism right now in class g airspace to request an altitude increase for drone operation like there is for regular rocketry waivers, this is a separate issue and that's the main problem right now this affects all RC or GPS guided models at this time.. with regards to a chute release that 500 ft with deployment at 400 a typical descent rate is 15 to 20 ft per second which only gives you about 20 to 30 seconds of steerable recovery time which really doesn't do you that much good unless you had a purely vertical flight and descent. I'm sure eventually they will have mechanisms worked out, right now ama just got their CBO classification from the FAA and they're working on getting altitude restrictions lifted over controlled airspace for clubs that are in those areas so they're not even working on class g at this time even if there was a mechanism in place through the FAA to request it. I think this guided chute idea is neat and this issue takes nothing away from that. It will just take some time for FAA to get their act together and have a formal mechanism, that said I don't know that they are going to allow altitude restriction to be unlimited, mostly people are looking at 700 or 1200' which still doesn't help that much.

Many clubs have received altitude waivers for R/C contests for soaring and turbine events. Our club ( which is in the FRIA approval process) supports rocketry holds a waiver for high powered rocketry. It would be simple for me to request a waiver for glided parachute flight/recovery and based on my experience dealing with the FAA I see no reason why this would not be granted as it would be for specific dates and times. AS far as the chute release working it would de[end on several factors and Just tossed that out there for a "what if"

 

[RAM]

This is my longer term plan to introduce a second servo to give elevator and rudder mix so I can play with angle of attack on decent. Full brake on landing to reduce sink rate.

I'll be getting started on the Lance Delta when I get back from Xmas holidays soon, then aiming for test flight on 8th Feb at our next launch

Good luck on your test flight!!!! I'm looking forward to your flight report!

 

[jbr]

my ama club was cited a month ago for a close encounter with a plane, when they gave us the coordinates it was at 1000 feet and 2 miles away from our site which was highly unlikely that anyone from our club would have flown a drone that far, and it was dismissed, we have to wonder what the pilot was thinking and who was the drone pilot

 

[Planecrazy]

Hi all,

After what has been a bad year so far, I was finally able to fly this Parachute today aboard an NCR Lance Delta.

Everything was packed in the rocket following the instructions in the manual. This is stressed in the manual so I guessed it was a good idea to follow procedure,

Everything deployed at apogee and I quickly set to work with the transmitter to test it out, I have an issue with the steering line lengths as with no control input it was flying in circles and full left stick the chute would glide in a straight line. Not bothered about this as I'm sure it can be rectified by adjusting the steering lines.

Another error I made was going for the 32" canopy but when I started putting stuff together found some specs that suggested the 24" canopy would be better suited to the Lance Delta, descent was very slow and if there was any wind I would have had a long walk as even holding the chute into wind it would have drifted downwind. I may get a smaller canopy for next season,

Anyhoo I can say this product does work and to the naysayers "don't knock it till you've tried it" )

I still have some Ideas for this parachute but we won't be flying here until Sept so I have months to adjust and find a way of testing canopy trim to get it to straighten up and fly true. Something to do over the off season.

Regards Plane Crazy

 

[MikeT]

I just may have to give that a shot.

 

[jazzviper1]

Hi all,

After what has been a bad year so far, I was finally able to fly this Parachute today aboard an NCR Lance Delta.

Everything was packed in the rocket following the instructions in the manual. This is stressed in the manual so I guessed it was a good idea to follow procedure,

Everything deployed at apogee and I quickly set to work with the transmitter to test it out, I have an issue with the steering line lengths as with no control input it was flying in circles and full left stick the chute would glide in a straight line. Not bothered about this as I'm sure it can be rectified by adjusting the steering lines.

Another error I made was going for the 32" canopy but when I started putting stuff together found some specs that suggested the 24" canopy would be better suited to the Lance Delta, descent was very slow and if there was any wind I would have had a long walk as even holding the chute into wind it would have drifted downwind. I may get a smaller canopy for next season,

Anyhoo I can say this product does work and to the naysayers "don't knock it till you've tried it" )

I still have some Ideas for this parachute but we won't be flying here until Sept so I have months to adjust and find a way of testing canopy trim to get it to straighten up and fly true. Something to do over the off season.

Regards Plane Crazy

Never said it wouldn't work, just that it is illegal over 400 feet.

 

[cerving]

So, if a rocket uses a parasail that is NOT steered but just circles overhead on the way down, is that a problem? I'm thinking that might be a good alternative... it may be easier to see and track than a standard parachute.

 

[Titan II]

So, if a rocket uses a parasail that is NOT steered but just circles overhead on the way down, is that a problem? I'm thinking that might be a good alternative... it may be easier to see and track than a standard parachute.

No

 

[Handeman]

So, if a rocket uses a parasail that is NOT steered but just circles overhead on the way down, is that a problem? I'm thinking that might be a good alternative... it may be easier to see and track than a standard parachute.

Sure, if it's NOT steered, no more legal issues than current chutes.

I don't see any advantage to it over a standard chute. It wouldn't be much different that just popping a main at apogee.0 It would all depend on overall decent rate.

The one disadvantage I could see is landing impact if the parasail was moving downwind when the rocket contacted the ground. It could lead to much higher risk of damage than a conventional chute coming straight down.

 

[cerving]

I would think that it would be OK to have some automated control over the parasail, as long as you didn't steer it towards a particular location.

Conventional chutes don't necessarily come "down".... I've had rockets land several miles away.

 

[Handeman]

I would think that it would be OK to have some automated control over the parasail, as long as you didn't steer it towards a particular location.

Conventional chutes don't necessarily come "down".... I've had rockets land several miles away.

I totally agree that conventional chutes don't come "down". It's just that as soon as you add any type of control, automated or manual, to a recovery system, you run into the 400 ft. maximum altitude limit for legal operation of a UAV.

Hopefully the FAA will come up with something that will work for rocketry and the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA).

I also find it interesting how there doesn't have to be an actual "law" against something for it to be illegal. The federal laws creating and supporting the BATFE, FAA, DOT, etc. allow them to create "regulations" that have the force of law without any governing body actually passing a specific law. The agencies just have to follow the "rule making" procedures that have been determined thru various court rulings. This includes public comments. If you read through the NAR/TRA court records of the suit against BATFE when the BATFE had to reissue their regulations about APCP, allowing public comments, they didn't and don't have to listen to or accept any public comments and can just do what they want as long as they did the public comment part of the "rule making" process. At least the FAA has a history of listening to and incorporating public comments into their new "rule making". That is evident when they went through the process that changed the regulations about Model, Large Model, and High-Powered rockets and waivers to the current Class 1, 2, and 3 rocket designations and COAs.

The Explosives Act is what gives BATFE the authority to regulate "explosives" so they decided any ammonium perchlorate substance was a Low Explosive. The only way that can be changed is if someone is charged with a crime and as part of that trial, the court rules the "regulation" is wrong and what the person did wasn't a crime, or if someone brings a law suit that challenges the regulation and wins, like the 2000 NRA/TRA suit against the BATFE which forced the BATFE to deregulate APCP as a low explosive in 2009.

Maybe the AMA or someone else will bring a suit, or someone will be charged with violating the regulations and a court will rule against that 400 ft. limit. But until that happens, it will probably stay in place for all automated/controlled UAVs

 

[sr205347d]

I also find it interesting how there doesn't have to be an actual "law" against something for it to be illegal.

In this case, it is law. 49 USC 44809: Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft.

For all flyers of anything except free-flight, here is the FAA's summary of said law:

What are the Rules for Recreational Flyers?​

The Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft (USC 44809) is the law that describes how, when, and where you can fly drones for recreational purposes. Following these rules helps keep people, your drone and our airspace safe:

1. Fly only for recreational purposes (personal enjoyment).
2. Follow the safety guidelines of an FAA-recognized Community Based Organization (CBO).
   For more information on how to become an FAA-recognized CBO, read Advisory Circular 91-57C.
3. Keep your drone within the visual line of sight or use a visual observer who is co-located (physically next to) and in direct communication with you.
4. Give way to and do not interfere with other aircraft.
5. Fly at or below FAA-authorized altitudes in controlled airspace (Class B, C, D, and surface Class E designated for an airport) only with prior FAA authorization by using LAANC or DroneZone.
6. Fly at or below 400 feet in Class G (uncontrolled) airspace.
   Note: Flying drones in restricted airspace is not allowed. Drone pilots should always check for airspace restrictions prior to flight on our B4UFLY app or the UAS Facility Maps webpage.
7. Take The Recreational UAS Safety Test (TRUST) and carry proof of test passage when flying.
8. Have a current FAA registration, mark (PDF) your drones on the outside with the registration number, and carry proof of registration with you when flying.
   Note: Beginning September 16, 2023, if your drone requires an FAA registration number it will be also required to broadcast Remote ID information. For more information on drone registration, visit How to Register Your Drone.
   
   
9. Do not operate your drone in a manner that endangers the safety of the national airspace system.

Individuals violating any of these rules, and/or operating in a dangerous manner, may be subject to FAA enforcement action.

For more information, read Advisory Circular 91-57C.

Not sure what type of a drone user you are? We can help you!

Visit our website or follow us on Facebook or Twitter for the latest safety information, news and updates.

 

[sr205347d]

An illogical result of the law is that free-flight model rockets can fly without altitude restriction in controlled airspace, but RC controlled boost gliders (and presumably RC controlled parachutes) must have FAA authorization in the same airspace and are limited to FAA authorized altitudes.

My NAR club's summer flying site is within Class C airspace where even with authorization, I cannot fly my RCBGs higher than 200 feet which is the max altitude for that particular spot. LPR and MPR rockets have no altitude restrictions.

 

[boatgeek]

I totally agree that conventional chutes don't come "down". It's just that as soon as you add any type of control, automated or manual, to a recovery system, you run into the 400 ft. maximum altitude limit for legal operation of a UAV.

Hopefully the FAA will come up with something that will work for rocketry and the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA).

I also find it interesting how there doesn't have to be an actual "law" against something for it to be illegal. The federal laws creating and supporting the BATFE, FAA, DOT, etc. allow them to create "regulations" that have the force of law without any governing body actually passing a specific law. The agencies just have to follow the "rule making" procedures that have been determined thru various court rulings. This includes public comments. If you read through the NAR/TRA court records of the suit against BATFE when the BATFE had to reissue their regulations about APCP, allowing public comments, they didn't and don't have to listen to or accept any public comments and can just do what they want as long as they did the public comment part of the "rule making" process. At least the FAA has a history of listening to and incorporating public comments into their new "rule making". That is evident when they went through the process that changed the regulations about Model, Large Model, and High-Powered rockets and waivers to the current Class 1, 2, and 3 rocket designations and COAs.

The Explosives Act is what gives BATFE the authority to regulate "explosives" so they decided any ammonium perchlorate substance was a Low Explosive. The only way that can be changed is if someone is charged with a crime and as part of that trial, the court rules the "regulation" is wrong and what the person did wasn't a crime, or if someone brings a law suit that challenges the regulation and wins, like the 2000 NRA/TRA suit against the BATFE which forced the BATFE to deregulate APCP as a low explosive in 2009.

Maybe the AMA or someone else will bring a suit, or someone will be charged with violating the regulations and a court will rule against that 400 ft. limit. But until that happens, it will probably stay in place for all automated/controlled UAVs

The discussion above of 49 USC 44809 is precisely why you should want executive agencies to issue regulations within their legal limits rather than having Congress issue new laws. Within agencies, there is at least some expertise in the subject matter. In Congress, you have 535 members, of whom around 50 (leadership, relevant committee and subcommittee chairs and ranking members) matter on any given topic. Of those 50, you're probably lucky if half a dozen have any first-hand knowledge of the subject at all. Committee staff can help with expertise, but they don't necessarily have first-hand experience either.

If Congress had declared APCP an explosive by law, NAR and TRA would have had no recourse. It was only by demonstrating to a court that BATFE's own rules excluded APCP that easier access to APCP was regained.

If the FAA had issued similar regulations to the 49 USC 44809, a compromise allowing RC aircraft use in a waiver cylinder could have been made. As it is, Congress has set the rules. There is some leeway in 49 USC 44809(d) for FAA to update those rules later, but I'm not clear how that would be used.

Finally, executive agencies issuing rulemaking regulations isn't the result of a court case. It's the result of specific directions in the laws either creating the agency in the first place or in an individual piece of legislation. It's very common for legislation to direct the agency to produce regulations implementing the law within a certain time after the law is enacted.

 

[cerving]

Note that there is an exception in the Remote ID transmission requirement for "FAA-recognized identification areas (FRIAs) sponsored by community-based organizations or educational institutions." I would assume that an AMA-chartered field could apply for that designation so they don't have to deal with the transponder issue.

If you look at transponders that you can buy now, their range is ridiculous... they either use Bluetooth or WiFi, neither of which will go beyond about 100m if you're lucky. Not sure how the FAA is going to identify you when they can't pick up your signal. It seems like the FAA and FCC never got together to figure out a transmission standard that would actually be useful. Another example of a knee-jerk reaction by the regulatory bodies without thinking it through...

 

[Chad]

I wonder if you could design a system that orients itself and tries to fly in the opposite direction its currently moving. Something like passive drift resistance in the same way fins are used for passive stability.