Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 11
#1827210
... subject to the 'Detect and Avoid' capability of the Unmanned Air System being as good as the 'See and Avoid' capability of conventional aircraft under Visual Flight Rules


That good?

What could possibly go wrong?

Rob P
#1827228
I guess this is quite important in order to establish the principle that UAV's can share airspace without establishing exclusions zones. If we dont get that sorted out somehow then complete chaos will ensue with TDA's popping up all over the country.... I'm not up to date with how advanced UAV "detect and avoid" technology is - an update or summary would be useful.

Interesting statement in the reply to some queries from the BMAA

We advised that we expect the carriage of CAP1391 approved devices will enable access to the TMZ not just Mode S transponders.
#1827239
Understanding the challenges and whether it is actually possible to integrate BVLOS drone operations with other airspace users is a pretty essential bit of work if we don’t want to be plagued by ‘pop-up’ TDAs or more permanent airspace segregation’s in years to come.

The Goodwood Trial is different from the majority of other BVLOS related ACPs, currently on the books, in that it seeks to establish a TDA for activation on a maximum of 90 occasions to allow the robust testing and experimentation of operation of BVLOS drones operating inside a known electronic conspicuity environment.

Other aspects of this trial that will be of interest to the wider GA community will be that the ‘air picture’ established in support of the BVLOS ops will be rebroadcast for any other suitably equipped member of the aviation community to utilise via TIS-B and the area will also be supported by elements of FIS-B including the tactical notification of the airspace via the TFR function. The trial will also test the deployment of ADS-B Obstacle beacons to help electronically notify the activation of fixed location aviation activities such a paragliding and model flying.

This work is conducted to establish whether it is possible to safely transition the TDA into a TMZ of similar dimensions within which a BVLOS drone could interact and deconflict itself from other airspace users in line existing ICAO see and avoid principles but achieved via Detect and Avoid (DAA) in the known electronic environment.

The aim of this trial is to take all of the ‘building blocks’ now enabled by the UK CAA and put them together to potentially enable BVLOS drone operations with no other impact on the rest of the community than the requirement to be electronically conspicuous.

It is probably worth pointing out that the consortium and operators involved in the latest Goodwood Trial have nothing whatsoever to do with the operator or vehicle reported on by the AAIB today however, I agree with Dave, in that the report makes fascinating reading and in my opinion should and will drive fundamental safety considerations by operators, developers and regulators for years to come.

You can track the progress of the Goodwood Trial via the CAA’s Airspace Portal at https://airspacechange.caa.co.uk/Public ... ea?pID=298
Last edited by Cub on Thu Feb 18, 2021 1:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Steve J, Edward Bellamy, ls8pilot and 1 others liked this
#1827240
Cub wrote:... the area will also be supported by elements of FIS-B including the tactical notification of the airspace via the TFR function.

Thanks, Cub, Sounds fascinating.

Don't understand this bit. What is a TFR, and what is it a function of?

Is it Temporary Flight Restriction (FAA-speak) and if so how is it intended to work in the UK?
#1827241
Dave W wrote:
Cub wrote:... the area will also be supported by elements of FIS-B including the tactical notification of the airspace via the TFR function.

Thanks, Cub, Sounds fascinating.

Don't understand this bit. What is a TFR, and what is it a function of?

Is it Temporary Flight Restriction (FAA-speak) and if so how is it intended to work in the UK?


Dave, we are interested in getting granularity into the activation and deactivation of pieces of airspace. It is the concept of not activating via NOTAM with several days notice a large volume of airspace that may or may not be used to it’s full extent for a potentially far shorter period than originally notified.

One of the ‘safety nets’ to deliver this granularity could be the electronic depiction of this volume of airspace only when it is ACTUALLY being utilised. A facility to ‘switch on’ and off that electronic depiction is potentially achievable by utilising the Temporary Flight Restriction field in the FIS-B broadcast which would mean that a suitably equipped aircraft would receive that tactical notification of the airspace via reception of the FIS-B broadcast and their EFB application.

We thinks this has far wider potential applications with the notification of switching on and off of other airspace volumes such as runway dependent CTAs or CTRs or Danger Areas which up till now, has not been considered because of traditional notification limitations.

Hope that helps?
Iceman, Ben K liked this
#1827242
Cub wrote:the ‘air picture’ [...] will be rebroadcast for any other suitably equipped member of the aviation community to utilise via TIS-B and the area will also be supported by elements of FIS-B including the tactical notification of the airspace via the TFR function. The trial will also test the deployment of ADS-B Obstacle beacons to help electronically notify the activation of fixed location aviation activities such a paragliding and model flying.


On which frequency? 978MHz or 1090 MHz ?

What input goes in establishing the 'air picture' ? Flarm, PAW, PSR, SSR ?
#1827246
xtophe wrote:
Cub wrote:the ‘air picture’ [...] will be rebroadcast for any other suitably equipped member of the aviation community to utilise via TIS-B and the area will also be supported by elements of FIS-B including the tactical notification of the airspace via the TFR function. The trial will also test the deployment of ADS-B Obstacle beacons to help electronically notify the activation of fixed location aviation activities such a paragliding and model flying.


On which frequency? 978MHz or 1090 MHz ?

What input goes in establishing the 'air picture' ? Flarm, PAW, PSR, SSR ?


You will appreciate that I need to be really careful that I don’t describe something in detail here that we have not detailed within our ACP paperwork however, TIS-B and FIS-B both operate on 978 MHz for which we received approval to deploy by the CAA and have been issued Ofcom licences to utilise. The rebroadcast of a surveillance picture established from multiple sources does provide the opportunity to deliver some ‘unification’ of technologies and frequencies all of which will be described via NOTAM and/or AIC before being transmitted operationally.

It is also very important to point out that the DAA capability of the drone is in no way dependent on the TIS-B broadcast. The broadcast is just another safety layer to enhance the situational awareness of all airspace users, that wish to utilise the ‘picture’, to assist in mutual deconfliction within Class G airspace.
ls8pilot liked this
#1827256
Cub wrote:Hope that helps?

Yes, thanks Cub. So it is 'Temporary Flight Restriction'? Transmitted via FIS-B which from context I assume has a specific airspace data packet or whatever? I can see how SkyDemon, Runway HD or whatever could display and warn of that.

I can't say I am immediately comfortable on the face of it with dynamically appearing airspace (and yet another airspace characteristic for the pilot to manage) but that's a gut reaction not a considered one and will be most interested to see how this progresses.
#1827257
I don't think GA needs to react in a negative way to this ACP, it is important work and it sounds like a lot more thought has gone into the tech behind it than most of the other 'drone' ACPs of the recent past.

Another thing to note is that this will be a ADS-B TMZ, hopefully this will become the norm when previously only Mode S was allowed for an official TMZ.
Dave W, G-BLEW, WhoWhenWhy? and 5 others liked this
#1827261
My general concern is whether the regulator will be using the 1 in 10^9 fatalities per year threshold for CAT or the 1 in 10^7 fatalities per year of GA (and corresponding number of risk events at less damaging outcomes) to determine the outcome of the experiment.

The argument that nobody dies in the trial, and we want to do drones and electronic only separation because it suits HMG and NATS on cost grounds and EC suppliers cos of extra revenue is in my view not a compelling one.

Since the actual collision risk these days is actually outside controlled airspace we should be asking for a regulator that more vigorously pursues its duty.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 11