Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 11
#1827916
johnm wrote:Drones are here to stay and some applications will turn out well others will be a blind alley, 'twas ever thus with innovation. The critical issue is going to be safe integration and standardised EC is going to be essential for that....


"Standardised", well that's just blown the CAA rebate to bits!
#1827924
I also find disconcerting in this is where was the CAA and the drone industry in all this when a bunch of complete amateurs were given permission to test a poorly conceived and constructed design in controlled airspace without the most basic oversight. It doesnt seem an encouraging start, if slightly tongue in cheek. :lol:
terrybarr liked this
#1827927
IMCR wrote:So far this seems just about the most poorly conceived initiative I can imagine and will result in considerable hostility between GA and the regulator. Clearly there are those involved with vested interests who will give the impression this is all very straight forward and will result in little disruption. I only wish those with a vested interest would at least disclose their interest.


@IMCR What part of the concept of operations do you feel is poorly conceived? We are genuinely interested and have tried to positively engage and respond to feedback as is reflected in the engagement report.

Obviously there are lots of people with vested interests including myself. I think my signature block makes it clear I work for uAvionix who are a partner in the consortium operating this trial. I am also passionate about the safety benefits that EC in various forms, can bring to GA particularly as an enabler to safe airspace sharing, and have been for many years, with several employers. I am also a long term fan and contributor to the forum and uphold my right to express my personal views as Cub.

Hopefully that discloses the nature of my interest to your satisfaction?
Last edited by Cub on Sun Feb 21, 2021 9:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
gaznav liked this
#1827928
The TMZ is proposed to be available to Mode S aircraft with or without ADS-B and standalone ADS-B (CAP 1391) devices. Limited Non equipped access should also be available via Goodwood Information. This combined with activation only to accommodate actual BVLOS ops should minimise the impact on other users.


Some 'interesting' non-committal vocabulary. Anything that is not an absolute positive will, inevitably, become a negative and WILL impact on us. Why should be have ANY impact imposed on us by people who are desperate to find a question to their answer of a drone? Vital medical supplies, my left armpit! It'll be like those people with the huge drone flying across the Solent who proudly stated they could carry 100kg of NHS supplies, forgetting that the supplies had to get from the warehouse to Lee-On-Solent, get loaded onto the drone, fly across the Solent and land at Binstead, to then be collected by a van and driven to St Mary's Hospital in Newport. All that, as opposed to a fully loaded Transit van going from the warehouse onto the ferry and then driving directly to the hospital. Even being generous with time and assuming the entire drone operation took the same as the direct route, you've still got 100kg as opposed to a Transit van load. As I said, an answer looking for a problem and all the get-rich-quick 'shareholders' trying to convince us we should make way for their proposals to a problem that doesn't exist.
Last edited by PaulSS on Sun Feb 21, 2021 9:32 am, edited 2 times in total.
#1827929
IMCR wrote:I also find disconcerting in this is where was the CAA and the drone industry in all this when a bunch of complete amateurs were given permission to test a poorly conceived and constructed design in controlled airspace without the most basic oversight. It doesnt seem an encouraging start, if slightly tongue in cheek. :lol:


I think the report indicates they were given permission to do a lot of things but I don’t believe that included permission to climb uncontrolled to 8000ft inside CAS ;-)
#1827931
PaulSS wrote:
The TMZ is proposed to be available to Mode S aircraft with or without ADS-B and standalone ADS-B (CAP 1391) devices. Limited Non equipped access should also be available via Goodwood Information. This combined with activation only to accommodate actual BVLOS ops should minimise the impact on other users.


Some 'interesting' non-committal vocabulary. Anything that is not an absolute positive will, inevitably, become a negative and WILL impact on us. Why should be have ANY impact imposed on us by people who are desperate to find a question to their answer of a drone? Vital medical supplies, my left armpit! It'll be like those people with the huge drone flying across the Solent who proudly stated they could carry 100kg of NHS supplies, forgetting that the supplies had to get from the warehouse to Lee-On-Solent, get loaded onto the drone, fly across the Solent and land at Binstead, to then be collected by a van and driven to St Mary's Hospital in Newport. All that, as opposed to a fully loaded Transit van going from the warehouse onto the ferry and then driving directly to the hospital. Even being generous with time and assuming the entire drone operation took the same as the direct route, you've still got 100kg as opposed to a Transit van load. As I said, an answer looking for a problem and all the get-rich-quick 'shareholders' trying to convince us we should make way for their proposals to a problem that doesn't exist.


@PaulSS The caveats in everything I describe are quite deliberate because we have to demonstrate that all the things we put in place during the work up of the ConOps are safe and robust. Also the entire functionality of our eventual procedures and systems will of course, come under the scrutiny of the Regulator who may or may not give approval for some or all of the proposal.

I am completely with you on Use Cases. My professional colleagues will confirm that I have no interest in BVLOS drone applications for the sake of operating a drone. However, small scale demonstrations, safely and properly conducted are a pretty essential stepping stone to enabling wider deployment. This trial builds on lessons learnt elsewhere not least that long term use of TDAs for segregation of BVLOS operations is probably not a sustainable or efficient use of airspace.
gaznav liked this
#1827934
I would like to know following the AAIB report report of the 2019 accident fiasco does anyone now know currently if any and to what extent the Drone equipment level standard oversite is at the CAA?
The question is how and what qualifications the CAA technical personell hold that are involved in the ground oversite equipment testing and examination of Drones before they are now allowed to take to the sky?
Also to what airworthiness standard are the Drones being tested?
Does anyone have any insight to the above?
#1827936
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 AFB 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.
Last edited by kanga on Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
gaznav liked this
#1827938
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.
kanga, gaznav liked this
#1827939
Peter Gristwood wrote:..

I am still less than convinced that there is a serious purpose for which UAVs are the answer - except perhaps for Search and Rescue. I can't see an Amazon delivery drone being much use to me in rural Devon....


<Devil's Advocate :oops: >

Genuine emergency deliveries as well as S&R, eg (in rural Devon) of medicines or even food if roads are impassable through floods or snow or moorland fire ?

</>
#1827940
Cub wrote:
IMCR wrote:I also find disconcerting in this is where was the CAA and the drone industry in all this when a bunch of complete amateurs were given permission to test a poorly conceived and constructed design in controlled airspace without the most basic oversight. It doesnt seem an encouraging start, if slightly tongue in cheek. :lol:


I think the report indicates they were given permission to do a lot of things but I don’t believe that included permission to climb uncontrolled to 8000ft inside CAS ;-)


Do you not think exactly this possibility should have been considered, and that appropriate equipment and procedures were in place if it had?
#1827942
Cub wrote:I’ll lend you my SkyEcho, Andy


I’ll hold you to that.

If I don’t hit a drone taking off from the farmstrip, if I get permission to enter the TMZ by ATS, if I don’t get taken out in the circuit by one of these airborne missiles, whilst on my way to meet you at Goodwood for a cuppa and to borrow your Sky Echo.

Ok, a little tongue in cheek, but as quoted in the Lee on Solent to IoW example, I don’t see how drones will be any more than expensive toys, or search and rescue platforms. Deliveries do not make sense, it over complicates and adds additional cost and time. Man in transit van is far more efficient in so many ways.

Add in the effective closing of airspace to some groups and I just don’t see how the huge investment is worth it. It’s a bit like taking classic cars off the road because of model cars taking over that can only carry a small payload.

However, feel free to educate me :D
#1827946
I doubt the CAA has anything other than a handful of people who could inspect anything, their business plan relies on charging for approvals of organisations and individuals who do the grunt work and making them responsible if any shortcomings are found.
I cannot imagine any avionics engineer or approved organisation signing off the rats nest of a flight control system displayed in the report photographs, but if nobody has to look what do you expect.
Stampe liked this
#1827947
AndyR wrote:
Ok, a little tongue in cheek, but as quoted in the Lee on Solent to IoW example, I don’t see how drones will be any more than expensive toys, or search and rescue platforms. Deliveries do not make sense, it over complicates and adds additional cost and time. Man in transit van is far more efficient in so many ways.

Add in the effective closing of airspace to some groups and I just don’t see how the huge investment is worth it. It’s a bit like taking classic cars off the road because of model cars taking over that can only carry a small payload.

However, feel free to educate me :D


The way I look at this is as a trial in a small controlled environment. Concepts will be tried, some discarded and others adopted to enable integration of bvlos.

The fact that the trip across the Solent could be done by other means is immaterial as it’s the concept that matters so it can be proven for more worthwhile cases.

There are drones patrolling the channel looking for small boats that currently need airspace restrictions that might benefit from the work at Goodwood.

A plan doesn’t survive contact with reality and these are plans of how future operations may, or may not, pan out.
AndyR, Cub, gaznav liked this
#1827948
AndyR wrote:
Cub wrote:I’ll lend you my SkyEcho, Andy


I’ll hold you to that.

If I don’t hit a drone taking off from the farmstrip, if I get permission to enter the TMZ by ATS, if I don’t get taken out in the circuit by one of these airborne missiles, whilst on my way to meet you at Goodwood for a cuppa and to borrow your Sky Echo.

Ok, a little tongue in cheek, but as quoted in the Lee on Solent to IoW example, I don’t see how drones will be any more than expensive toys, or search and rescue platforms. Deliveries do not make sense, it over complicates and adds additional cost and time. Man in transit van is far more efficient in so many ways.

Add in the effective closing of airspace to some groups and I just don’t see how the huge investment is worth it. It’s a bit like taking classic cars off the road because of model cars taking over that can only carry a small payload.

However, feel free to educate me :D


I don’t feel the need to educate you about the economics of the User Cases, I agree with you!
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 11