Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 11
#1827951
IMCR wrote:
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?


Yes!
#1827952
kanga wrote:
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 ?

</>


If it is that much an emergency they'd use military helicopters, not a drone. How much food (or fodder for sheep) could be carried by a drone capable of VTOL, FFS? And a drone couldn't carry out a medivac?

This is a technology looking for an answer, but there is shedloads of cash riding on it. The core case is really for surveiilance, rather than delivery,
Stampe, Flyin'Dutch', JodelDavo and 3 others liked this
#1827962
Edward Bellamy wrote:
map5623 wrote:Whilst no doubt important work for the business concerned, why can't they travel to Wales where there is an existing large area designated for drone development?
This is a large chunk of airspace that will cause choke points for traffic that is / does not want / unable to comply with the restrictions that will be employed.
Yet another reason for pilots to have to go out and purchase yet more tech that they may or may not be able to install in their aircraft.


Well I would have thought because the whole point is to do it at a busy, live aerodrome with manned aircraft operations.


On that basis why are they not able to operate within the ATZ?
#1827973
Peter Gristwood wrote:Does the carriage of a SkyEcho 2 count in a TMZ? My reading of the rules is that it doesn't.

Yet at a NATS presentation a few years ago, they were really gung-ho about us all carrying a cheap low-end, uncertified GPS source that would give us access to airspace


It is proposed for the TMZ to include access for standalone ADS-B devices (CAP 1391). A SkyEcho is indeed a CAP1391 device.
Last edited by Cub on Sun Feb 21, 2021 4:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
gaznav liked this
#1827974
map5623 wrote:
Edward Bellamy wrote:
map5623 wrote:Whilst no doubt important work for the business concerned, why can't they travel to Wales where there is an existing large area designated for drone development?
This is a large chunk of airspace that will cause choke points for traffic that is / does not want / unable to comply with the restrictions that will be employed.
Yet another reason for pilots to have to go out and purchase yet more tech that they may or may not be able to install in their aircraft.


Well I would have thought because the whole point is to do it at a busy, live aerodrome with manned aircraft operations.


On that basis why are they not able to operate within the ATZ?


Subject to approval, they will be operating in the ATZ and in a additional volume of airspace around the peripheries of the ATZ. The aim of the trial is to show that the drones can interact in that airspace just like any other aircraft. You will hear the drone pilot speaking on the R/T and making position reports etc. while the drone itself will be flown in as similar a way to a conventional aircraft or helicopter as possible.
gaznav liked this
#1827976
map5623 wrote:
Cub wrote:The point being that the eventual airspace being switched on and off will be a TMZ therefore offering little or no ‘disruption’ to equipped aircraft


What happens to those poor sods that cannot/ aren't able to be suitably equiped? A DfT handout?


You could indeed take advantage of some free DfT money to help you equip. I believe there is still a large amount unspent with a few days to go. I don’t think many people are unable to equip with something like a CAP1391 device, these days?
gaznav liked this
#1827978
You will hear the drone pilot speaking on the R/T and making position reports etc.


Meanwhile, the real aeroplane pilots get told to 'standby', or similar, in the gap when the toy plane driver isn't bleating on the radio and the real aircraft cannot get into the ATZ: an area designed for real aeroplanes, not poxy toys doing a test to justify their existence.
Shoestring Flyer liked this
#1827980
Peter Gristwood wrote:
kanga wrote:..

<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 ?

</>


If it is that much an emergency they'd use military helicopters, not a drone. How much food (or fodder for sheep) could be carried by a drone ..,


<Devil still Advocating :oops: >

There are far fewer military helicopters available than there used to be (eg during 2007 Gloucestershire floods) since civilian S&R was outsourced to HMCG. And in those sorts of widespread local emergencies, military helicopters might be too busy dealing with the 'big picture' (eg, ferrying firefighters) to be able to accept 'isolated individual in trouble' tasks.

ISTR that even before that outsourcing, change of Treasury policy imposed on MoD in early '80s was that military helicopters not engaged in 'safety of human life' tasks (eg, shifting fodder after heavy snowfall) must charge the user at commercial rates. I don't know if HMCG are required to levy similar reimbursement. Medevac might qualify for HMCG, but delivery of a small packet of essential drugs to a locally-based first responder .. ?

</>

[but, obviously, in rural Devon there is the advantage of relative proximity of bases of some of those few military helicopters, at Culdrose and maybe Yeovilton :thumright: ]
gaznav liked this
#1827981
Cub wrote: I don’t think many people are unable to equip with something like a CAP1391 device, these days?


That's true, of course. But it is an argument we've heard a lot over the years; Mode S, 8.33, EC etc. from our regulator - "Isn't your life worth (usually) £1500?"

I recall in about 2008 it was proposed to make Mode S mandatory and a number of owners rushed out to re-eqip, only later to find their transponders couldn't handle ADSB - and it wasn't necessary, anyway.

We don't all have the cash or inclination to respond to these initiatives speedily. The latest EC one was notable by a rushed announcement slipped out quietly which didn't appear to take account of product availability.
#1827993
Peter Gristwood wrote:
Cub wrote: I don’t think many people are unable to equip with something like a CAP1391 device, these days?


That's true, of course. But it is an argument we've heard a lot over the years; Mode S, 8.33, EC etc. from our regulator - "Isn't your life worth (usually) £1500?"

I recall in about 2008 it was proposed to make Mode S mandatory and a number of owners rushed out to re-eqip, only later to find their transponders couldn't handle ADSB - and it wasn't necessary, anyway.

We don't all have the cash or inclination to respond to these initiatives speedily. The latest EC one was notable by a rushed announcement slipped out quietly which didn't appear to take account of product availability.


Well for a few more days, just £250 not £1500 can get you an ADS-B transceiver that, subject to CAA approval, will enable access to to the trial TMZ and also lets you take advantage of the FIS-B and TIS-B broadcasts serving the airspace.

I get that nobody is likely to make this purchase just to access a small circle of airspace in Sussex for a trial but we will be very interested in how those, that have chosen to invest in the functionality already, feel about the services provided and the integration with new air systems we hope it facilitates.
Last edited by Cub on Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
gaznav liked this
#1827996
Standby for the first MAC between a drone and a light GA type carrying a CAP1391 device where signal masking due poor positioning meant neither could DAA the other.

It's one thing to use EC to enhance visual scanning and acquisition, but drones are small, almost invisible and DAA is all they have.

Integrated airspace is going to mean GA types must try and fit ADS-B via ModeS-ES if at all possible if they want the best chance of survival in the wild west.
Shoestring Flyer liked this
#1828001
GrahamB wrote:Standby for the first MAC between a drone and a light GA type carrying a CAP1391 device where signal masking due poor positioning meant neither could DAA the other.

It's one thing to use EC to enhance visual scanning and acquisition, but drones are small, almost invisible and DAA is all they have.

Integrated airspace is going to mean GA types must try and fit ADS-B via ModeS-ES if at all possible if they want the best chance of survival in the wild west.


Before we transition to a TMZ and before any of those encounters happen we will know and understand exactly what the obscuration of ‘carry-on’ CAP 1391 devices may mean for DAA by the drone. We already have data about the air/air performance of these devices in various airframes/positions and undoubtedly will learn a lot more via the planned and controlled encounters during the trials within the initial TDA.
gaznav liked this
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 11