Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 11
#1828032
I'm in two minds over all of this. I do actually see the potential of drones, particularly for SAR and possibly urgent medical deliveries.

The rescue capability has been demonstrated in a basic form for surf rescue in Aus.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/18/16904802/drone-rescue-australia-video-ocean
It doesn't take much thought to upscale the drone, add a grab line and tow the casualty to the beach, or increase the range and drop a dinghy.

The full day my RNLI colleagues and I spent searching for a missing , elderly veteran on the Norfolk marshes. We couldn't find him, but a drone might have spotted him lying in the ditch where he eventually died. Drones didn't exist then, but I would have taken your arm off for one on that day.

But this is localised emergency response. It's justified and it tends to be low level.

Hot shoting emergency medical supplies in adverse weather BLVOS, yes, I get that too. As I do National security applications like we are seeing in the channel.

All localised essential services. All under some level of state control.

But, we all know these trials will be the "thin end of the wedge" for the likes of Amazon to create a small packet by drone service here, the one they are already bragging about working on. That's a definite No in my book.

On the subject of DAA, it's all a bit garbage still at the moment. Different standards, with CAA/DfT handing out cash, with the message "we don't care what you fit, just fit something". All of which displays on a selection of non-approved apps on whichever non-approved tablet you choose. Lets face it, I bet there are a few "installations" held in with velco and USB cables everywhere that look a bit like the "Goodwood drone" wiring!

If we are going to have wide scale drones and a nation wide TMZ, which lets face it, that's what some want, do it properly with a proper plan. One type approved standard on conspicuity, including how it is displayed. No more wobbly USB cables and Angry Birds running in the background.

We don't have a choice over which set of radio frequencies we use, we use one set on type approved radios, why can we for DAA?

For the record, I don't want compulsory DAA or a Nation wide TMZ and I certainly don't want unnecessary drones everywhere, but that is where I see this heading.
Cub, gaznav, Shoestring Flyer and 1 others liked this
#1828034
@Sooty25

That is a very reasoned argument, thank you for posting it. I also agree with many of your points. Sadly, I believe that a ‘nationwide TMZ’ is almost inevitable unless we want to see the continuation of the ‘airspace grabs’ that we have seen in the past 10 years or so. So to me, it is a ‘necessary evil’ to secure as much freedom as possible. :thumleft:
#1828036
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.
JodelDavo, bogopper, Flyin'Dutch' and 9 others liked this
#1828038
GrahamB wrote:[

I’m not quite sure what point you are trying to make with your second question. If you mean that it’s inconceivable that I’d be prevented from entering my street while a driverless DPD van is making a delivery to my next door neighbour, then I’d tend to agree with you, it wouldn’t reach discussion stage.


But that is exactly what is being done here isn't it.

Introduction of new technology without any backwards compatibility.
#1828039
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.


Andy

You may not believe me but again, I am completely with you except about the giving up bit. I am completely comfortable with switching on the SkyEcho in the Cub for my benefit and the benefit of others but not interact with it at all and certainly leaving the radio very much switched off.

Again, you may not believe me but enabling new necessary technology in the form of BVLOS drones with proper use cases while still allowing me to float around unfettered in the Cub with the door open is exactly where I would love to get to with this.

I can’t give up now, it has taken me years to pluck up courage to go back to it ;-)
gaznav, Edward Bellamy, IMCR and 5 others liked this
#1828043
@gaznav

Why would I be bothered about receiving FLARM from a ground station when my chosen device receives FLARM via DIRECT means unlike another well known brand?


I'm just glad for the Tornado fleet that Link managed to provide them with a complete picture, instead of relying on failed pilots/those who weren't good enough in the first place to be pilots, sitting in the back to try and do the same with a DIRECT and extremely narrow radar picture.

@Cub:

(a)
We already have data about the air/air performance of these devices in various airframes/positions


(b)
This is exactly the sort of question that the trial is set up to test, evaluate and report upon


If you already have (a) why are you mucking around, inconveniencing real aeroplane pilots with your TMZs for toys etc, to provide (b)?
Last edited by PaulSS on Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#1828050
PaulSS wrote:@gaznav

Why would I be bothered about receiving FLARM from a ground station when my chosen device receives FLARM via DIRECT means unlike another well known brand?


I'm just glad for the Tornado fleet that Link managed to provide them with a complete picture, instead of relying on failed pilots sitting in the back to try and do the same with a DIRECT and extremely narrow radar picture.

@Cub:

(a)
We already have data about the air/air performance of these devices in various airframes/positions


(b)
This is exactly the sort of question that the trial is set up to test, evaluate and report upon


If you already have (a) why are you mucking around, inconveniencing real aeroplane pilots with your TMZs for toys etc, to provide (b)?


@PaulSS If this was an ACP consultation dialogue I think we would be getting to the point that it would be regarded as vexatious. This is a trial to confirm or not the viability of a concept of operations. It is complex in that we will be testing all kinds of assumptions and previously recorded data against a very specific and safety critical use case. That is why we are revisiting and recording all kinds of different scenarios with different emitters and airframes.

If and when we get to test the TMZ we will need to be absolute certain of the data gathered in controlled conditions at the same location with the same supporting infrastructure, at which point the whole point of the exercise is not to inconvenience any pilot, even vexatious ones ;-)
gaznav, ls8pilot liked this
#1828056
@Cub , it was more the input from others with regard to national TMZ that have me almost rolling over in despair. I spend my working life in controlled airspace, it’s the last thing I want for my private flying.

And fully respect you having plucked up the courage to go back to it. We really must catch up over a cuppa as you’re going to be spending so much time at Goodwood :wink: it’s been a while.

Another question then. How are these drones going to cope with aerobatics? Or rapidly changing rates of climb and descent? Sudden changes of direction? Is that part of the study? Genuinely interested, especially if the possibility of widespread TMZs happen down the line.
#1828088
AndyR wrote:.. How are these drones going to cope with aerobatics? Or rapidly changing rates of climb and descent? Sudden changes of direction? ...


<mere speculation with the 'benefit' of no insider technical knowledge :) >

DAA - Detect And Avoid - ie, suitably equipped (whatever that will come to mean :oops: ) drone Detecting another aircraft (including another drone) will manoeuvre to Avoid it, whatever that other aircraft is doing (although, if another drone, there may have to be mutually compliant agreed algorithms so they Avoid each other, as with TCAS) ? ie, if a Cub or Cherokee or Pitts emitting any of SE2 or PAW or a glider (or Prefect) emitting FLARM (or any other emission which is widely adopted) is trundling (or aerobatting) through the airspace where the drone was programmed to go, even in defiance of a temporary NOTAM forbidding it, the drone will manoeuvre out of its way before resuming its intended track. The human pilot might never need to be aware of it.

Presumably, this would have to be tested (as TCAS was) by despatching a drone and have another aircraft play the conflicter, to make sure it is the drone which gives way properly and safely. If it all works reliably and repeatably, then perhaps the forbidding NOTAM will not even be needed for suitably emitting aircraft, by analogy with the 'big sky' theory for See And Avoid.

Grateful for any knowledgeable insiders' comments, especially on any intentions for such 'conflict' trials. So far, I recall reading only about trials to check flights in airspace from which other aircraft are being excluded, thus not testing the conflict scenario.

</>
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 11