Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1838890
@CloudHound

Thanks - this is the info then:

uAvionix and Plane Finder are deploying a robust surveillance and broadcast environment created by a network of ground stations that receive the EC information from aircraft and rebroadcast it to all as an integrated air picture via international standards.


So this is sharing all aircraft info on TIS-B 978MHz by the looks of it. Sounds similar to the US system to me? Just that an extra RPAS/Drone layer is added.

@Shoestring Flyer
I know of many people flying with many of those devices already in the UK. The only ones I am unaware of are the Dual and Dynon receivers. But there is no reason why they couldn’t be used here if you decided to buy one (because it’s a global standard - get it?) :thumright: The good Harry Mendhelsson sells the Dynon and the Dual so there must be at least a few in the UK I would have thought?
#1838897
The safety aspects are at the end of the slides and there is an alphabet soup that suggests that someone is deliberately trying to create confusion by throwing out TIS-B, FIS-B, Mode S MLAT, ADS-B and FLARM as well 978 Mhz but without context to show how those components might create a managed known environment using Plane Finder (yes really) .

The regulatory issues are marginalised on the grounds that it's innovation so there's no basis for regulation.

Do I think this is a well managed programme? No

Do I think this is out of control and likely to stay that way until someone gets killed? Yes.
#1838907
"A comprehensive surveillance picture in combination with an
advanced UTM platform will be used to demonstrate the ‘Detect and
Avoid’ capability of the UAV operator is as good as the ‘See and Avoid’
capability of conventional aircraft under Visual Flight Rules (VFR)."

That's a bit worrying .. aiming as low as 'as good as the ‘See and Avoid’ capability of conventional aircraft under Visual Flight Rules (VFR)' given how many Airprox's are reported yearly as only avoiding an actual collision by luck!
#1838911
"A comprehensive surveillance picture in combination with an
advanced UTM platform will be used to demonstrate the ‘Detect and
Avoid’ capability of the UAV operator is as good as the ‘See and Avoid’
capability of conventional aircraft under Visual Flight Rules (VFR)."


There is no data that will allow this comparison to take place so the suggestion is simply fatuous.
#1838914
johnm wrote:It is not a great boost to one's confidence in the CAA that the person in charge of both drones and GA has already presided over one Goodwood fiasco, apparently with impunity. Nor is it encouraging to look at her profile on Linked In where her background has almost nothing to do with aviation she's basically an ex Microsoft Wonk


I am glad you mentioned that. I was looking for a way to bring that up myself.
It is also worrying that the CAA regard GA as so insignificant that taking care of it requires only a part-time role.
It looks like heads never roll there; they just get promoted sideways.

And why Goodwood anyway? There are drone testing danger areas established already.