Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Google to Introduce Low Cost ADS-B Out boxes

An interesting story here about Google’s plans.
Google/

It would seem that they want to do stuff with drones and realise that will only be possible if everyone is transmitting ADS-B, and the they way that that will happen is if they make it attractive for people to equip.

EIWT Weston, Ireland

Hmmm… If they are really keen on doing it, it won’t take much effort to knock the bottom out of the market – a mere willingness to accept a lower profit margin will suffice.

LKBU (near Prague), Czech Republic

But in aviation, the profit margin isn’t just there to make the company profitable and sustainable, part of the profit margin is to ensure the company has sufficient cash to cover litigation if (when?) something goes wrong. My thoughts are Google will realise double redundancy won’t come cheap and even if they can resolve the issues, they’ll need to ensure sufficient margins are left to “cover their arses” for when the system fails and their ADS-B system diverts a GA into the path of a drone…

EDL*, Germany

They probably have quite the headstart on that. Autonomous driving algorithms must account for random (non-ADSB equipped) pedestrian movements – one would hope they factored litigation in the “what if the algorithm is wrong” pricing.

Now, this is cool news. Not only the electronic devices themselves, but also a system to work with them.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

An autonomous car, just like a human, uses sensors to detect, identify and track obstacles. A drone would need something similar – ability to detect an aircraft without active transponder. A human pilot doesn’t rely just on TCAS.

A drone would need something similar – ability to detect an aircraft without active transponder.

I wonder how they do that. I don’t think the technology for that exists. You cannot detect a non-emitting target, other than with radar, and a small drone isn’t going to have radar. Even a big drone might have only forward facing radar (like a fighter aircraft has).

There were some tests done years ago on picking up wingtip strobes, based on the fast risetime of the pulse. I recall they sort of worked, but loads of planes don’t have strobes.

A human pilot doesn’t rely just on TCAS.

True but a human pilot cannot see most of the traffic even if looking directly at it

If you don’t believe me, fly with me someday in the SE UK, say 1500ft, on a sunny Sunday, and see how many of the targets on TCAS you spot. And – at 1500ft for sure – for every one showing there will be 5-10 who don’t have a transponder or have it intentionally turned off.

I just don’t believe there is a solution, short of ADS-B being mandatory for all traffic, and I cannot ever see that happening for VFR in Class G. Not in the UK, anyway. It will never happen. Well, not unless there is a huge change in attitudes, driven presumably by a wide acceptance of drones for stuff like parcel delivery.

But can parcel delivery be fuel efficient? How fuel efficient are helicopters? They are terribly inefficient, compared to a road vehicle. Model aircraft of all kinds drink fuel like there was no tomorrow.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

But can parcel delivery be fuel efficient?

I am not an expert, but it seems clear to me that the fuel is only a small part of the total cost for delivering a parcel – the main factor must be paying the van driver. If the drone process can be more or less automatic, savings must be possible.

EBZH Kiewit, Belgium

A drone would need something similar – ability to detect an aircraft without active transponder. A human pilot doesn’t rely just on TCAS.

I don’t see why. This is just a definition of sensor mechanism. Each drone has the capability of transmitting and receiving, so each drone also have the capability of self diagnosing if they are able to receive and transmit, the same goes for each aircraft. This could also be linked to some ground stations for checking or similar. Besides, the main idea is separation to avoid collision, and this does not necessarily require confirmation of exact position.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

You cannot detect a non-emitting target

Who said the target is non-emitting? Most aircraft emit electromagnetic radiation in the 400-800THz (or 400-800nm) range. Even stealth military jets do, most of the time (during the day).

Humans are equipped with a receiver for this radiation, usually called the “Mk 1 eyeball” in the UK.

I see no fundamental reason why a machine cannot incorporate cameras and achieve a similar or better track record in identifying and tracking targets.

Modern cars already contain enough sensors and image processing to refuse to run over pedestrians emitting nothing else than above mentioned electromagnetic radiation.

It might not yet be feasible for a small quadrocopter, but we’re talking about something bigger, something capable of delivering a reasonably sized package.

LSZK, Switzerland
29 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top