Airborne_Again wrote:
It’s not a question about “saying yes” – at least not for the EU. It’s already been decided on. The question is exactly where the U-space will be.What problems do you foresee?
The problem I forsee in the UK is that it will be everywhere OCAS, and the light aviation will be a victim to a creeping invasion of drones and increasing risk of collision.
Right now if drones are operated, then the DA/RA has to be established and they are almost always of limited nature, I’m afraid it will change for worse in case of U-space…
It can’t get worse than TRA/PA and losing your licence after busting it?
Hitting the one sinngle drone flying from Lydd who is patrolling the sea is the least of my worries when crossing English Channel, especially in winter IMC conditions…I would be more worried about birds in that corner
I would think the drone issue would be addressed by not flying them above 500ft. GA in the UK can go below 500ft (absent people, buildings, vehicles, etc) legally but very few people do it.
arj1 wrote:
Right now if drones are operated, then the DA/RA has to be established and they are almost always of limited nature, I’m afraid it will change for worse in case of U-space…
I don’t know how much you know about the U-space concept, but the whole point is that there will be an ATS of sorts for drone traffic and that drone operators have a strict obligation to avoid manned aircraft. U-space by itself does not involve any restrictions on manned aircraft traffic, except the need for constant electronic conspicuity. ADS-B out is obviously one possibility, but so is PilotAware, FLARM etc. and there will even be mobile phone/tablet based options. Pilots basically should not have to think about the presence of drones.
Airborne_Again wrote:
I don’t know how much you know about the U-space concept, but the whole point is that there will be an ATS of sorts for drone traffic and that drone operators have a strict obligation to avoid manned aircraft. U-space by itself does not involve any restrictions on manned aircraft traffic, except the need for constant electronic conspicuity. ADS-B out is obviously one possibility, but so is PilotAware, FLARM etc. and there will even be mobile phone/tablet based options. Pilots basically should not have to think about the presence of drones.
@Airborne_Again, I’m aware of that, but in the UK (seeing how they’ve implemented some of the other things), it will be likely be the other way around! :)
Only partially joking.
arj1 wrote:
@Airborne_Again, I’m aware of that, but in the UK (seeing how they’ve implemented some of the other things), it will be likely be the other way around! :)
Only partially joking.
@arj1 I don’t think you need to be joking at all.
The attitude of just about every part of the British government (and certainly every transport-related part) is business and industry first, public benefit and the effect on private citizens absolutely nowhere. Although they have a slightly odd definition of business and industry, as it’s basically a shorthand for friends of those in power and other assorted crooks stuffing their pockets with taxpayers money. The basic deal is that when in power you shovel a load of taxpayers money to certain business interests and in return they give you various lucrative sinecures later on.
No-one has any idea what the drone future looks like yet, and nearly all use/research is a blatant case of a solution looking for a problem with the same fundamental limitations (payload, range) as apply to electric aircraft. That isn’t to say they won’t find a viable use though, and they’re certainly burning huge amounts of our money trying. One thing is for certain though – private light aviation is a big conceptual problem for those who see their financial future in drones and the overarching attitude of government, industry and regulators is tending towards a position that private aircraft operating at random whenever and wherever they like is not something that can or should be sustained.
There are two large projects currently in progress which in my view are steps towards legislating private GA as we know it out of existence. The first is an assessment of the environmental impact of GA – which will doubtless be a step towards saying that unless you can do it without fossil fuels you can’t do it at all – and the second is a major airspace redesign, the initial consultation document for which frames private GA almost exclusively in the context of farm strip -type operations and is probably a step towards excluding private GA from anything large enough to be described as an airport.
In short, the commercial interests have had enough of sharing the air and the runways with private users and are looking to put an end to it.
Airborne_Again wrote:
ADS-B out is obviously one possibility, but so is PilotAware, FLARM etc. and there will even be mobile phone/tablet based options.
Most likely not! Electronic Conspicuity only works if all traffic uses the same (or at leas compatible) technology. So there will be a regulation which technology has to be used.
It will for sure be not FLARM as this is not an aviation technology. If we are lucky, it will be ADS-B. If we are a little bit less lucky, somebody will come up with a new technology because they argue that ADS-B is too heavy for small drones and we will get a requirement to equip all aircraft with that new technology.
Obviously there will be no formal mandate but just a requirement to have it operational when entering U-Space – therefore basically all small aircraft need it if they want to land outside of international airports that have class D/C airspace around them.
Malibuflyer wrote:
If we are a little bit less lucky, somebody will come up with a new technology because they argue that ADS-B is too heavy for small drones and we will get a requirement to equip all aircraft with that new technology.
Long overdue IMO. It has been technically possible to provide standardised electronic conspicuity for nearly two decades (enabled by GPS and advances in battery technology), and we still have mid-air collisions like the helicopter-fixed wing one in the alps.
The existing systems are either too expensive and unsuitable for the lighter and/or unpowered end of aviation; or they are proprietary – and all of them suffer from lack of adoption.
If a system for drones is mandated, there will be considerable pressure from the drone operators and manufacturers to make it something that is light, does not reduce precious range, and that does not have a unit cost of a mid-sized car. It will also have the scale required so it can be produced at reasonable cost.
However, I share the worry that the authorities come up with something unwieldy….
Malibuflyer wrote:
Most likely not! Electronic Conspicuity only works if all traffic uses the same (or at leas compatible) technology. So there will be a regulation which technology has to be used.
It will for sure be not FLARM as this is not an aviation technology. If we are lucky, it will be ADS-B. If we are a little bit less lucky, somebody will come up with a new technology because they argue that ADS-B is too heavy for small drones and we will get a requirement to equip all aircraft with that new technology.
That is not at all what EASA says. In particular, the U-Space amendment to SERA does not mention ADS-B, but only “electronic conspicuity”.
EASA arranged a very interesting workshop on U-Space and electronic conspicuity in February. This 6 minute presentation gives the basics of electronic conspicuity:
Wouldn’t something like this address the requirement for ads-b out for UAVs?
