I think extra segregation poses an even greater threat to the majority of
It does, I am more concerned about having to avoid “drones airspace” and hitting a ULM doing the same on the other side than hitting the “drone object” itself when flying straight: not changing my heading seems to lead to better resuuts “on average” in the “long run”…if there is something I want to avoid, I like to see it on a display as “object” to avoid not as “airspace” to avoid
Random collisions rarely happen in low traffic density but they start to appear when you restrict and saggretate airspace…the restrictions such as clouds, terrain, airspace, routes, terrain, castles, beaches, rail, roads, valleys…all seems to lead to traffic concentration and the naked eye is less equipped to cope in those corners
It way easier to keep Golf as “open bar” with everybody radiating his position…
gallois wrote:
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.
Nothing to forgive here ;-) We just have different opinions.
I do not believe that the Airspace belongs to us as the traditional users and any new user has to pay an entrance fee. When ULs/Microlights became big some 20 years ago, did “they” pay “us” as the traditional GA airspace users any equipment that would help navigating more crowded airspaces? Did “we” pay the airliners any equipment they need to avoid being hit by us?
We would not have the discussion around FLARM and/or ADSB if any existing SEP would have gotten an anti-collision system paid for by the microlight industry.
Now we have again a new class of airspace users – even lighter than microlight – and same thing happens again: We all have the same rights to use the airspace and we need to discuss how we get organized so that the burden is evenly split.
The claim: “We are the incumbents and therefore have all rights to do as we did until a newcomer pays us to do differently” in my opinion is not only unjustified, but will also never happen.
When ULMs came on the scene they integrated into the GA system. Obeyed a set of rules and were restricted by those airspace rules.
GA never had to integrate into the commercial scene because GA flying was here before a passenger ever set foot on plane.
Commercial aircraft pay for certain services, used by GA.
The big difference here is that the drone industry are not thinking of integrating, they are thinking in terms of taking over large areas of lower airspace where it will become unsafe for the current GA aircraft without installing some form of expensive TAS/TCAS kit. That or the sky becomes smaller because of them.
We are already seeing this with military drones where swathes of airspace are shut down by trigger Notam for exercises during the week. Fortunately for the moment it is not every day and is limited to short periods of the day. But at the moment, they are only trialling.
Anyone going from the UK to Northern Spain down the West Coast of France during the week will already know how difficult that can be. French pilots tend to be more familiar with how to deal with these areas.
So I do not claim any ownership of the airspace but I do feel that anyone using it should have respect for others and their safety. If it is our duty in those areas to see and avoid, surely it follows that that they too have a duty of see and avoid, and as there are no mark 1 eyeballs in a drone, they will have to have some sort of technology unless airspace is shut down.
