Alamosa County has just received approval for two COA's allowing UAV/UAS testing over a 8000 square mile area of South Central Colorado.
The first COA is good from the surface to 15,000 MSL. Autonomous operations, being chased by a manned aircraft. Operations to be announced via Distant Notams. There is no radar coverage for the entire area below 15K.
There are five more COA's in the application process. Supposedly a lot more companies in line, now that the precident has been set.
Here is how it is supposed to work: Alamosa County leases the platform from the UAS company. That platform now becomes a Public Use Aircraft, owned and operated by Alamosa County, via the UAS company, for testing.
Here is something I don't agree with:
According to the Regs, Public Use Aircraft are not supposed to be used for commercial purposes. The surrounding Counties are actively pursuing collecting fees for the use of their airports and the airspace overhead from the UAS companies. See this article in a local paper:

[url]www.crestoneeagle.com/saguache-countys-leach-airport-approved-to-test-commercial-unmanned-aircraft-drones/[url]

From AC 00 1.1A Public Use Aircraft:

"c. What Constitutes a “Commercial Purpose” that Removes Someone from PAO Status? In general, the FAA interprets the commercial purpose prohibition in 49 U.S.C. § 40125(a)(1) to mean that there can be no type of reimbursement to government entities for PAO, except under the one set of specific circumstances described in that section. Specific instances of whether an operation has a commercial purpose may be submitted for interpretation to the FAA Office of the Chief Counsel, International Law, Legislation, and Regulations Division (see Appendix 2). As detailed in Paragraph 8 above, a government entity may contract with a private operator (and pay that operator) to conduct a PAO on behalf of the government entity. The statutory prohibition on commercial purpose prevents a government entity from getting paid or reimbursed to operate a PAO, not for paying for contracted services."

The company that initiated this program with Alamosa County is known as UAS Colorado, a 501 c(3) nonprofit. They helped with the COA process. Now that the first COA's have been approved, the principals (they are the same people) in the COA application process have switched to using Rocky Mountain UAS, for profit LLC. Rocky Mountain UAS will charge UAS companies for the COA application process!!

When the issue of the Drone testing area came up a couple of years ago, I ran it by AOPA. Their response was that it did not meet the definition of Public Use Aircraft, couldn't happen. Now that it is reality, AOPA's stance is "if the FAA has approved it, it is OK by us". Repeated emails asking about the commercial use part of it have gone unanswered by AOPA.

Here is the biggest issue: Now that the FAA has allowed a Government Entity their own UAV/UAS Test site, there is nothing out there to stop other Government Entities from doing the same. These test sites could be popping up all over the Country.

Win/win for the FAA as the owner of Public Use Aircraft certifies the airworthiness and assumes all responsibility. Great way for the FAA to get out of the mess they got themselves into, IMHO.

Tom

flynbeekeeper wrote:Win/win for the FAA as the owner of Public Use Aircraft certifies the airworthiness and assumes all responsibility. Great way for the FAA to get out of the mess they got themselves into, IMHO.

Tom

There you go. Government employees get rewarded equally for good or bad performance, so most things that need sorting out, end at the easiest exit point for them.

It won't matter to them until one of us hits one and lands in a school yard.

Like most FAR's, it needs to be written in blood.

The applicants for the airspace are all military development companies no matter what they say about civilian uses. Their boards are comprised largely of present or former military aero people, their funding is mostly from military branches or contractors, their product descriptions emphasize hard points, dropping payloads, ISR,and association with Ball, Lockheed, Selex, and the rest of the usual line up of military bona fides. I don't see much effort for their purported search and rescue missions to save lost kittens in anything they are attempting to do here.

Why not give them what they really want and keep them in MOA's or restricted airspace instead of adding new headaches to airspace?

How about keeping them in the six test sites set aside for this purpose in 2014? The FAA spent a ton of money and time setting these sites up.

From the FAA UAS Test Site web page:
"FAA Announces Six UAS Test Sites
After a rigorous 10-month selection process involving 25 proposals from 24 states, the Federal Aviation Administration has chosen six unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) research and test site operators across the country. In selecting the six test site operators, the FAA considered geography, climate, location of ground infrastructure, research needs, airspace use, safety, aviation experience and risk. In totality, these six test applications achieve cross-country geographic and climatic diversity and help the FAA meet its UAS research needs."

I will save you the research time to find out why the Test Sites are not being used:
1) Platforms are required to gain an Experimental Airworthiness Certificate via Special FAA designated DAR's. Lots of $$ and time involved.
2) This is a big one: Operators are required to develop, publish and abide by a Congessionaly Mandated Privacy Policy. From the FAA UAS Test Site FAQ page:
"Why are you requiring test site operators to have a privacy policy?
While the FAA recognizes that UAS-related privacy solutions will require a whole-government approach, the FAA also understood that moving forward with the test site selection process required us to develop a privacy approach for the operation of the sites. We believe this was a prudent approach to address privacy concerns and enabled us to move forward with the selection process.

What are the privacy requirements for test sites?
The requirements were developed with public input and the final requirements were published on November 14, 2013 in the Federal Register. Among other requirements, test site operators must: comply with federal, state, and other laws protecting an individual's right to privacy; have publicly available privacy policies and a written plan for data use and retention; and conduct an annual review of privacy practices that allows for public comment."

No such requirement for the Alamosa County Test Site for either requirement.

I stopped in Alamosa in 1989??? and they were high altitude testing the Blackhawk helicopter. Pretty cool to watch. Guess the area is popular for that sort of thing?

The military helo producers love Alamosa for the High DA experience. There is one or more there every summer.

Public use ISR ops are already all over the skies of Colorado (and everywhere else). Stingrays, cameras, possibly Dirtboxes (although I've never seen a DRT unit myself). These include state, county, and municipal operating agencies in addition to the usual federal three letter acronyms. It is not a trend I see as net positive, and one that includes a lot of incidental and some intentional heart burn for 4th amendment debates. It has been a bag of worms kept out of view for a long time. Private companies gather this info up all day long, and the only oversight they get is a wink and a nod by the operating agency, which is to say almost none at all.

Nonetheless, I think the economic benefits to the county will be very small and the occasional irritations to residents will be countable. Does the county have the ability to shut down airspace via a TFR for these activities? That would be the point I'd move it to MOA's or restricted areas. It just doesn't make sense to block off civilian airspace for that.

The COA's say no new SUA, all operations defined and announced via Distant NOTAMS.
Apparently, the FAA feels that two sets of eyeballs in the chase plane will be safe enough.
You know, of course, where both sets of eyeballs will be looking.
Imagine trying to fly formation with a platform the size of a garbage can that is significantly slower than the chase plane.
Which brings up another point: The company planning on flying the chase missions view this as a Part 91 operation. As such they are going to use it as a time builder. Little or no pay, come build time towards your certificates.
I think we will see more accidents from the chase operation than the UAV testing.

flynbeekeeper wrote:The company planning on flying the chase missions view this as a Part 91 operation. As such they are going to use it as a time builder. Little or no pay, come build time towards your certificates

That would be a big departure...how can they pay at all?

Might all be a moot point. Alamosa County just hit (finally!) Rocky Mountain UAS with some very directed questions about the program. They were told no more help or info until the County signs a contract with Rocky Mountain UAS (remember all the COA help till now was done by UAS Colorado, a non profit). The County asked to review the contract and was told "not until you promise to sign".
What could go wrong?
We will see where this goes......

Sounds like somebody is giving some good advice to the County.

But these people will probably keep trolling. Reminds me of a Simpsons episode...

https://youtu.be/ZDOI0cq6GZM

so long as they don't get in the way of La Garita!