Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
#1828128
ICAO has issued a letter to States prohibiting the use of 1090 MHz below 500 feet for UAS and the UK is exploring the use of 978 MHz.

Does that not indicate that a drone is unlikely to interfere with aerobatics, because the UAV and the aeroplane will be doing their thing at different altitudes?
#1828147
RipAndTear wrote:Not wanting to sound too negative here, but after reading all the posts above I have a question. Are we sure that WE are not going to be phased out as licences pilots along with our hobby, sooner rather than later?


Don't get O'Leary's hopes up.
#1828176
patowalker wrote:ICAO has issued a letter to States prohibiting the use of 1090 MHz below 500 feet for UAS and the UK is exploring the use of 978 MHz.


I don’t believe that is correct. I think ICAO actually requires individual states to establish procedures to ensure the proper utilisation of 1090 MHz. The UK and many other countries have conducted this work and I believe this will have been influential in the UK’s decision to retain 978 as a second ADS-B frequency however I suspect that for certain UseCases including BVLOS UA Ops that require close interaction with ATC systems and should be capable of triggering the ACAS safety net, UAs will be equipped with 1090 transceivers or even full power transponders with ADS-B Out/In according to their operating environs.

Procedure to ensure proper utilization of 1 090 MHz and for non-allocation of (24-bit) aircraft address for UA

3.1 There is increasing pressure to use 1 090 MHz Mode S or ADS-B OUT applications by UA. Given the large forecasted increase of UA and the fact that transmissions from their transponders or ADS-B OUT devices will impact the already congested use of 1 090 MHz by existing aeronautical surveillance and collision avoidance systems, States are urged to:
1) perform radio frequency spectrum analysis to analyse the degree of congestion of 1 090 MHz and, based on the outcome of this analysis, consider how 1 090 MHz ADS-B UA operations might impact the performance of the air navigation service provider (ANSP)-operated surveillance systems in airspace of interest as well as the automatic collision avoidance systems on board aircraft operating in that airspace;
2) formulate the circumstances and define procedures to determine the potential requirement for 1 090 MHz ADS-B OUT equipage on UA in order to allow or prohibit such equipage as appropriate. During this process, States should consider:
 the degree to which individual UA may or may not require air traffic services. For example, a UA operating in uncontrolled airspace may not be required to use ICAO-compliant aeronautical surveillance systems; and
 the degree to which the operation of individual UA may or may not interoperate in the airspace with traditional manned aircraft. For example, if UA are not operating in proximity to traditional manned aircraft, then the use of ICAO-compliant aeronautical surveillance equipment by UA may not be justified.
3) in cases where UA are not required to equip with ICAO-compliant aeronautical surveillance equipment, States should not allocate 24-bit aircraft addresses.
#1828238
@Cub
If this was an ACP consultation dialogue I think we would be getting to the point that it would be regarded as vexatious.
Well, luckily this in not an ACP consultation then.

What I find strange (seemingly inconveniently for you) is your claim that you have lots of data for your company's devices in various airframes and mounting positions and yet you have never produced any evidence of the same. When people have asked direct questions about the performance of SE2, the various factors influencing obscuration (e.g antenna design) or some indications of how well they are going to see and be seen, there has been a decided silence from you/uAvionix. Small wonder that people, such as myself, think "what's he trying to hide if he's not prepared to give those answers with the evidence he claims to have and yet the likes of Pilot Aware are extremely open and even provide free applications for all to try and see how their kit is shaping up?" Then, going one step further, the conspiracy theorist in me (usually non-existent) thinks "well, if he doesn't want to reveal the data he has for the performance of his ADSB unit then how will that influence the way business is done in a drone trial?" I expect there is quite a lot of vested interest in the success of the trial.

Of course, all of these inconvenient questions and thoughts could be put to bed quite easily if you/uAvionix were more open about the performance of SE2 and provided the data you already have. Nobody is asking for revelations about secret development that might be in the pipeline but there should be no reason why you wouldn't reveal what is happening with the equipment that is already out on the streets.
IMCR, Aerials, townleyc liked this
#1828252
PaulSS wrote:@Cub
If this was an ACP consultation dialogue I think we would be getting to the point that it would be regarded as vexatious.
Well, luckily this in not an ACP consultation then.

What I find strange (seemingly inconveniently for you) is your claim that you have lots of data for your company's devices in various airframes and mounting positions and yet you have never produced any evidence of the same. When people have asked direct questions about the performance of SE2, the various factors influencing obscuration (e.g antenna design) or some indications of how well they are going to see and be seen, there has been a decided silence from you/uAvionix. Small wonder that people, such as myself, think "what's he trying to hide if he's not prepared to give those answers with the evidence he claims to have and yet the likes of Pilot Aware are extremely open and even provide free applications for all to try and see how their kit is shaping up?" Then, going one step further, the conspiracy theorist in me (usually non-existent) thinks "well, if he doesn't want to reveal the data he has for the performance of his ADSB unit then how will that influence the way business is done in a drone trial?" I expect there is quite a lot of vested interest in the success of the trial.

Of course, all of these inconvenient questions and thoughts could be put to bed quite easily if you/uAvionix were more open about the performance of SE2 and provided the data you already have. Nobody is asking for revelations about secret development that might be in the pipeline but there should be no reason why you wouldn't reveal what is happening with the equipment that is already out on the streets.


Paul

SkyEcho is designed and sold primarily as an air/air conspicuity device in compliance with an equipment standard, CAP1391. As such users can expect the devices to be detectable air/air at a range to enable an appropriate warning in a receiving aircraft at a range to assist in achieving visual recognition and manoeuvre, if deemed necessary. This range would typically be between 3 and 5 miles. In a similar way devices should enable detection of ADS-B and FLARM emissions at a similar range. The actual performance and detection range achieved by a carry on device, with no external aerials is obviously heavily dependent on the orientation and positioning in the airframe of the device and clear guidance is given about these factors in the user manual.

Up until now, in the UK, the concept of ground based detection has not been a primary concern for the CAP 1391 concept excepting that formal trials of the Flight Information Display (FID) utilising ADS-B data from transponders and CAP1391 devices has provided comprehensive data to indicate that performance is compatible with robust detection in support of FIS operations within and adjacent to an ATZ.

Clearly, when contemplating being reliant on the ground based detection of such devices within a TMZ, we will need to thoroughly test various combinations of devices and airframes to know whether this category of emitter can be detected and safely integrated into that environment. The trial report and any development of the ACP will include that detail for public consumption.

Please believe me when I say, given my background and career, that I will personally need to be absolutely convinced that detection, sharing and rebroadcasting capabilities are safe and robust for any category of emitter within the trial airspace. More importantly, my view will be just a small contribution to the range of evidence presented to the CAA when approving or otherwise this concept.
IMCR, kanga, ls8pilot liked this
#1828305
Up until now, in the UK, the concept of ground based detection has not been a primary concern for the CAP 1391 concept excepting that formal trials of the Flight Information Display (FID) utilising ADS-B data from transponders and CAP1391 devices has provided comprehensive data to indicate that performance is compatible with robust detection in support of FIS operations within and adjacent to an ATZ.


Clearly this is the reason for your trial and the obvious reason for you to collect the data but I hope the results prove the equipment more capable than the 3-5nm air-to-air detection range (thank you for furnishing us with a figure). Presumably the ground based units would be able to detect traffic at greater ranges, given their higher gain antennas, because I can only imagine the smaller ADSB units in a drone are going to be weaker signals than, for instance, a full-size SE2.

Talking of that sort of range; how do you suppose this might work in the future if an aircraft is using his SE2 to gain entrance to an ATZ etc. If he only shows up at the edge of the airspace I rather think this is leaving everything a bit too late. Hopefully he might get the 5nm figure but that's probably not the best assumption.

On the plus side, at least Gaz can now stop blaming the ATOM stations and Vector analysis for the lack of range seen in detecting his aeroplane, as anything more than approx 5nm is a bonus and likely the result of the higher gain ATOM antennas.
#1828436
Cub wrote:
kanga wrote:
T67M wrote:.. other countries INTEGRATE their airspace rather than SEGREGATE it....


hmm.. I'm not sure what present situation is (I'd be interested to hear), but:

after 9/11 in US, when the absolute restriction on GA VFR leisure flying was lifted, in the Washington area the routes between White House, Andrews FB and Camp David could be NOTAM-activated as Restricted at no notice whatsoever, with no way for the GA pilot flying VFR to discover this after takeoff. Violation would probably lead to intercept by F16 or armed helicopter, and (for survivors :roll: ) likely severe FAA and Federal criminal sanctions. As a result, local GA pilots had to treat these routes as Permanently Restricted.

I'm guessing that non-radio, non-transponder flying in that area is much rarer than in UK, and it may be that there is now an effective way (eg FIS) to notify airborne pilots in the relevant vicinity by ground-air data transmission.


I believe the Temporary Flight Restriction facility in FIS-B is used in the US as an additional method of notifying the sort of airspace restrictions you describe.


And you’ve forgotten their joined up ATC system whereby 99% of pilots flying near these TDA’s will be receiving a radar derived flight following service.
JodelDavo, kanga, T67M liked this
#1828776
In my experience the reliable detection ranges that I have seen between SE2 to SE2 has been closer to 8-10nm. That was a Condor vs a Steen Skybolt - one metal and fabric and the other wood and fabric. As for ground detection then it appears that about 12-15nm is the norm against ADS-B receivers installed by amateurs for the likes of Flight Radar 24 and alike. Funnily enough that is roughly what the ATOMs are seeing too. Outside of 15nm then it gets a bit more patchy but I have been tracked intermittently at 22nm. With a higher gain receive antenna, professionally sited/installed/tested and a higher fidelity receiver then I would have thought that 20nm should be possible for reliable ground detection of a SE2. 20nm warning for a 2nm or 2.5nm ATZ is probably good enough - even 15nm. For say a 5nm TDA, then again, I would hope that would still be good enough.

But let’s get some trial data rather than buckshee anecdotes of what people experience. I’m expecting that the Goodwood trials will provide some empirical data to create a better common understanding. :thumright:
#1828779
gaznav wrote:... I’m expecting that the Goodwood trials will provide some empirical data to create a better common understanding. :thumright:


Just wondering: will the trial include various aircraft with various emitters variously installed, deliberately flying near the drones in flight, to see how close they are before the drone detects them and takes action, eg relaying that detection to the ground controller or autonomously taking avoiding action ?
#1828792
AndyR wrote:Getting close to being time to give up flying, thanks to the technology geeks.

One of the major pleasures of private flying is, soon to be was, the being free from all the Carp, being able to float along non radio, eyes out, having fun. Just flying.

Sad times.


Indeed, a lot of the stuff on here seems to be on ADSB ADSB out extended squitter, looking at the flarm, interpreting the virtual traffic display (or whatever) and that is not why I want to fly.
AndyR, Stampe liked this
#1828797
Charles Hunt wrote:Indeed, a lot of the stuff on here seems to be on ADSB ADSB out extended squitter, looking at the flarm, interpreting the virtual traffic display (or whatever) and that is not why I want to fly.


I fly with just the warnings piped into a bluetooth headset under my GA headset. No need to look at the virtual traffic display and it also calls out my proximity to airspace if I get too close too. The vast majority of my flying time is spent looking outside, and why not? I’m paying for that view, so enjoying it whilst listening for warnings is the way to go :thumright:
Ben K liked this
#1828825
kanga wrote:
gaznav wrote:... I’m expecting that the Goodwood trials will provide some empirical data to create a better common understanding. :thumright:


Just wondering: will the trial include various aircraft with various emitters variously installed, deliberately flying near the drones in flight, to see how close they are before the drone detects them and takes action, eg relaying that detection to the ground controller or autonomously taking avoiding action ?


I would love to describe to you in detail what we hope to trial and how, but I am conscious that I mustn’t describe at this stage, something that we may not yet have shared completely with the Regulator.

I can confirm, as you would expect, the trial will include lots of combinations of various aircraft categories and emitters.

The drone pilot will use the onboard features of the drone and any safety nets in it’s control system but additionally will be reliant on the multiple sensors deployed around the area that contribute to the comprehensive low level air picture that is supplied to the drone pilot as their ‘eyes’ to achieve Detect And Avoid in lieu of See and Avoid in Class G airspace. The aim being that you achieve interaction in accordance with existing ICAO rules and procedures governing that class of airspace.
kanga, gaznav, Lefty liked this
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11