[Cub]

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.

Charles

Please see my response to Andy https://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=1828039#p1828039

If the concept is successful, we will continue to enjoy the sort of freedom in Class G airspace that we enjoy today, without the need to segregate and exclude us via the use of TDAs to accommodate BVLOS drone ops.

[PaulSS]

......but additionally will be reliant on the multiple sensors deployed around the area that contribute to the comprehensive low level air picture......

Such as the Selsey ATOM Station

Sorry, Cub, I couldn't resist




PS: I know you won't be using this for your drone trial

[VFRBimbler]

“... The aim being that you achieve interaction in accordance with existing ICAO rules and procedures governing that class of airspace...”

Please excuse my ignorance but could someone point me in the direction of the ICAO rules and procedures governing interaction in Class G airspace and/or if this goes beyond “see and avoid”.

In terms of drones, presumably the ultimate aim is that everything will be “seen” and will therefore be avoided. If the drone / drone operator cannot “see” everything, the onus will then be entirely on “unseen” manned aircraft to spot the drone and avoid it.

Bearing in mind the shortcomings of see and avoid when two manned aircraft are involved, which could mean one, two or more pairs of eyes eagerly trying to spot other aircraft (and on many occasions failing to do so), drones have to be able to see everything.

The questions are how will this be achieved; where the burden of doing so will fall; and to what extent this will impinge on e.g. recreational pilots at the lighter end of GA flying in Class G airspace.

[Sooty25]

the simple answer is to just do away with Class G

[terrybarr]

As I remember air law the precedence is as follows.
Airships give way to free balloons.
Gliders give way to airships.
Powered aircraft in the air give way to gliders.
Aircraft in the ground give way to aircraft in the air.
We just need to insert drones between aircraft in the air and aircraft on the ground.

[Marvin]

There is an Interesting ICAO Document here.

Chapter 5 covers Rules of the Air and contains this statement:

The pilot-in-command of a manned aircraft is responsible for detecting and avoiding potential collisions and other hazards (see Figure 5-1). The same requirement will exist for the remote pilot of an RPA. Technology to provide the remote pilot with sufficient knowledge of the aircraft’s environment to fulfil the responsibility must be incorporated into the aircraft with counterpart components located at the remote pilot station. As stated in Annex 2, paragraph 3.2:

One thing is clear in that ICAO do not appear to have defined the "Rules of the Air" for Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) and this remains.

The aerospace industry will continue to face a major challenge in the development of cost-effective solutions meeting RPAS detect and avoid performance requirements. It is possible that initial detect and avoid solutions which may not meet all performance requirements could nevertheless be accommodated on the basis of restricted or
ICAO Circular 328-AN/190 17
limited operational approvals and/or permits to fly as a function of associated safety assessments. Typically such restrictions or constraints would relate to airspace classifications, flight rules or specific geographical areas and associated traffic densities.

Work in progress it appears.

RPA = Remotely-piloted Aircraft
RPAS = Remotely-piloted Aircraft System

[low&slow]

As I remember air law the precedence is as follows.
Airships give way to free balloons.
Gliders give way to airships.
Powered aircraft in the air give way to gliders.
Aircraft in the ground give way to aircraft in the air.
We just need to insert drones between aircraft in the air and aircraft on the ground.

Almost - airships give way to gliders & balloons.

[Shoestring Flyer]

Cub,
Can you confirm that the Drone in the Goodwood trial is going to be transmitting and receiving ADSB on both 978Mhz and 1090Mhz?
The information I have seen so far infers curiously that it is only going to use ADSB on 978Mhz?

[kanga]

..
Aircraft in the ground give way to aircraft in the air...

aircraft in the ground are probably not going anywhere any time soon

[patowalker]

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.

Thanks for the comprehensive reply. I was paraphrasing CAP 722 3.5.2.1.1 ADS-B frequencies

[gaznav]

Well at least the CAA have done the right thing (thank you) and SkyEcho can now be SDA=1

The CAA have published version 3 of CAP 1391, which now permits CAP 1391 compliant Electronic Conspicuity portable devices with a TABS-level GNSS to broadcast ADS-B messages with an ‘SDA’ setting of ‘1’.

‘SDA’ = System Design Assurance

This is important as it means ADS-B broadcasts with SDA=1 from these portable ADS-B devices can now be recognised by certified ADS-B In receivers and collision avoidance systems.

The new version of CAP 1391 is here:
http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplic ... il&id=7275

The change is in Table 4 on page 45 of version 3 of CAP1391.

From the CAA:

GNSS receivers are now available that meet the intent of FAA TSO-C199 Class B for Traffic Awareness Beacon Systems (TABS), which are qualified to a recognised aviation standard and provide enhanced performance for relatively low cost. These robust receiver designs are capable of providing potential performance enhancements for EC devices, allowing them to report improved functional capability within allowable limits.

The CAA has reviewed the TSO-C199 Class B specification and test requirements, and amended CAP to formally recognise GNSS receivers qualified to this TSO as position sources that may be incorporated as part of EC devices or for connection to EC device transmitters.

[flybymike]

What is the difference between SIL and SDA?

[gaznav]

SDA. System Design Assurance. This parameter indicates the probability of an ADS-B system malfunction causing false or misleading position information or position quality metrics to be transmitted. It’s basically the “guarantee” of the certified standard. SDA=1 is the lowest certified standard.

SIL. Source Integrity Level. This is typically a static (unchanging) value and may be set at the time of installation if a single type of position source is integrated with an ADS-B system. Again, this is a “guarantee” of the GPS/GNSS integrity to a certified quality standard. SIL=1 is the lowest certified standard.

I hope that helps? That’s how I understand it

[patowalker]

Apologies if this has already been posted.

[JodelDavo]

Has this been posted?

PR BS at it's very best.. Nothing mentioned about the incident (although probably filmed just before the incident)

Did the world follow them to Mojave to see the first manned flight or are they still working in their garden shed?