Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1846118
Cub wrote:
Dave W wrote:Yep. So no basis for a mandate - the point of the thread.


Perhaps, unless you are contemplating BVLOS drone ops in your Class D or Class E - also the point of the thread?

Yes, but if the BVLOS drone ops are in Class D, and I can be seen via transponder and the drone can be seen via ADS-B, why would I also be driven to require ADS-B?

Class E is a wider issue but again a compelling case should be necessary before extracting funds from my VFR (or even IFR) pocket.
User avatar
By Cub
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1846123
Dave W wrote:Yes, but if the BVLOS drone ops are in Class D, and I can be seen via transponder and the drone can be seen via ADS-B, why would I also be driven to require ADS-B?


Because, as I mentioned previously VFR flight is currently not mandated to carry a transponder, with or without ADS-B inside Class D. So, if a mandate was proven necessary to integrate rather than segregate BVLOS ops, I would be pushing for the most cost effective solution to address the safety requirement, which is likely to be standalone ADS-B rather than a full fat transponder.
User avatar
By Cub
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1846125
Marvin wrote:Or maybe those mitigating risk in GPS approaches at small airfields unable to go down the conventional radar route.


I am a little scared of going off (Dave’s) topic and being told off ;-), but I agree entirely that this is the most compelling UseCase to deliver enhance functionality and safety for GA.
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1846127
There are eleventy-million, thirteen hundred and squinty other threads that deal with that stuff.

This thread was created to determine whether there is, in fact, any justification for "mandate it".

I conclude so far that there is not, and in due course I hope this thread does not need entering into evidence, m'lud.

(I don't really mind people going off the point - it's the Flyer Forum after all. What niggles is when the point is clearly being avoided.)
User avatar
By Cub
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1846128
Dave W wrote:Why is this so hard?

If I already have a transponder, what would be the case to compel me to then also equip with ADS-B?


It MAY prove problematic or less safe for a BVLOS drone pilot to achieve an equivalent level of safety to see and avoid using multilaterated Mode S rather than an associated or stand alone ADS-B position.

I don’t think we know yet but we may have a better idea in the next few months.
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1846131
That's what the BVLOS drone person wants to enhance their business, sure.

But [stuck record]what's the case[/stuck record] to potentially compel GA pilots to help them out with that?

Cub wrote:Told you we would get a bollocking! ;-)

Not a bollocking - a thoroughly deserved calling-out for being disingen.. Nope, not going there.
User avatar
By Cub
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1846135
Dave W wrote:That's what the BVLOS drone person wants to enhance their business, sure.

But [stuck record]what's the case[/stuck record] to potentially compel GA pilots to help them out with that?


The case, I suggest is to achieve an acceptable level of safety while endeavouring to accommodate multiple, diverse demands on a volume of airspace.

Why do we have heliroutes and mandatory transponder equipage in the London CTR? I suggest, it is to mitigate and manage the risk of integrating diverse operations in a (normally) pretty busy piece of airspace. I suggest that the case for mandating ADS-B equipage in certain volumes and during specific periods MAY be to safely achieve a new demand for integration with BVLOS ops.

I just don’t believe that we yet need an FIR wide mandate or even a permanent TMZ requirement with the current level of demand, development and proper UseCases but I do suspect we will need such a mandate to realise integration rather than segregation in Class G and perhaps Class D.
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1846136
Cub wrote:The case, I suggest is to achieve an acceptable level of safety while endeavouring to accommodate multiple, diverse demands on a volume of airspace.

That is not a case, that is an opinion.

It ignores several points e.g. the presence of a functioning transponder.

What I am asking for is a compelling argument; what I am getting from you is "Because I say so".
User avatar
By Cub
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1846141
Dave W wrote:
Cub wrote:The case, I suggest is to achieve an acceptable level of safety while endeavouring to accommodate multiple, diverse demands on a volume of airspace.

That is not a case, that is an opinion.

It ignores several points e.g. the presence of a functioning transponder.

What I am asking for is a compelling argument; what I am getting from you is "Because I say so".


It won’t be because I say so but rather because the Regulator agrees with an airspace change applicant that such a mandate is a safe and proportionate method to achieve such integration.
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1846143
Which <kicks record player> would need to actually happen, based on a proportionate formal assessment, rather than be asserted by somebody without an underlying case.

"Leaping to conclusions" is a phrase that comes to mind.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10