EASA workshop and NPA on IC/EC & U-space

So here, that would be big money versus the military. The AIP advises all civilian airspace users to fly above 1500ft when OCAS, due to the fast jets below that and relying on the mark one eyeball to avoid other traffic. I wonder who will win that debate.🙂

I think that the argument should be made that Drones should be allowed only if they can cope safely with existing flying objects, meaning, no need to update anything currently existing. If you think about it a little, it makes sense, otherwise, are they going to mandate ADSB devices on all birds also? See and avoid should apply, in the case of drone it translate into the drone being developed so that it can ‘see’ and avoid all other traffic.
Otherwise, it’s similar to autonomous cars mandating that all other cars, bikes, pedestrians, dogs… be equipped with some new thing so that they can be used on the roads. I hope nobody would accept this, nor should we accept modifying existing aircraft in order for new pilotless thingies to be able fly with us.
If the investors behind these new things complains, they should complain to their engineers saying that if the thing cannot safely fly with the existing, go back to the drawing board, the product is not viable.

Many people think the “George Orwell 1984” scenario will indeed be mandatory ADS-B OUT for all flying machines.

It already is thus in the US but only in transponder-mandatory areas (which is relatively logical, and met with little “ideological” resistance). Europe, particularly the mainland, is much better able to impose autocratic measures than the US. So we may get that one day.

IMHO all this is driven by drones (commercial/police/military) and some of it is really quite cynical. It isn’t airliners or bizjets since none of these can see ADS-B OUT traffic; TCAS sees only Mode C transponders (Mode S for TCAS 2 and RAs).

WingsWaterAndWheels wrote:

See and avoid should apply, in the case of drone it translate into the drone being developed so that it can ‘see’ and avoid all other traffic.

Be careful what you ask for – if we get the common “see and avoid” we will pretty quickly realize, that our traditional “Eyeball 1.0” device for see and avoid is completely unsuitable to guarantee such s&a for objects of one cubic meter size that travel at 100km/h.

I think @wingswaterand wheels is suggesting that drones should be designed, equipped and operated so that they can see and avoid all other traffic. Thus negating the need for us ,as pilots of light aircraft, should not need to see and avoid them.
IMO he has a very good point there. After all newcomers to a market should not expect the whole market to change for them, just so they can compete.

gallois wrote:

IMO he has a very good point there. After all newcomers to a market should not expect the whole market to change for them, just so they can compete.

There is also the very obvious size difference. Which is easiest to spot?

gallois wrote:

I think @wingswaterand wheels is suggesting that drones should be designed, equipped and operated so that they can see and avoid all other traffic.

Thank you, that is what I meant. And in any event, if they want their product to be somewhat useful and thus relatively safe, that is a requirement anyway, because you cannot base your design on a system on other traffic which will sometime fail (as a pilot we all know that things eventually fails, even engines does that sometimes…). And that remains true even if they had airspace dedicated only to drones equipped with whatever system to avoid each other, if one drones has a failure of this system, what happens to the other drones if they cannot avoid it without it?

gallois wrote:

Thus negating the need for us ,as pilots of light aircraft, should not need to see and avoid them.
IMO he has a very good point there. After all newcomers to a market should not expect the whole market to change for them, just so they can compete.

Is it a better expectation from the incumbents to state: “They can do whatever they want as long as we do not have to change at all and they make sure they do not interfere with whatever we might be doing.”?

This is not very likely to happen … and it doesn’t even theoretically work. How could the right of way be depending on the question if a “modern rotorcraft” is commanded by a human onboard pilot, a human remote pilot or some kind of automation? How would we practically fly if we can only decide if we or the other aircraft has the right of way after we have seen if a human pilot is at the controls?

WingsWaterAndWheels wrote:

And in any event, if they want their product to be somewhat useful and thus relatively safe, that is a requirement anyway, because you cannot base your design on a system on other traffic which will sometime fail (as a pilot we all know that things eventually fails, even engines does that sometimes…).

So you would argue that the product “commercial air traffic” is not viable from the start?

Sorry but many of these discussions boil down to “it’s always best if nothing at all changes”.

I don’t think anyone is saying that there should not be change. However here you have unmanned small aircraft coming on to the market and flying in the same areas which currently I am able to operate.
Unless there is some sort of segregation or some sort of system where separation can be maintained, either light aircraft pilots or UAV will have to be limited in the airspace in which we are able to use.
Now from a GA point of view, in VFR we already find it difficult to see and avoid larger aircraft than these drones with the Mark 1 eyeball.
Just look at the threads on this forum regarding ADSB, Flarm etc for all those people to install such devices, let alone the cost.
I think extra segregation poses an even greater threat to the majority of, more controlled airspace is likely to cause many more hobby pilots to simply say it’s too much trouble to be a GA pilot.
On the other hand, here is a newish industry which wants to use the same airspace as us or deny airspace to us just because they are a new industry whose “raison d’ être” is to do away with pilots in aircraft.
Forgive me therefore @Malibuflyer if I believe that the burden of cost should rest firmly in the hands of the new industry. Perhaps they should set aside a certain part of the huge profits, they believe they will make, to fund the equipping of the small GA non commercial world with a unified TAS/TCAS system for each and every aircraft, whether that be ADSB, Mode S,, Flarm or whatever.
Regards, someone who believes in the freedom to fly.