"Airplane nearby" How does it know

[Deleted member 170899]

Most of those very expensive ADS-B transponder units combine fancy display screens with standard transponder capability to squawk on various frequencies, which wouldn't be required for drones. DJI's system already provides all the necessary ADS-B receiver capability displayed on their app screen. It would only require the addition of an ADS-B out transmitter function. Depending on the power required to achieve sufficient range, how much cost would that add compared to the current Remote ID systems?

But wouldn't ADS-B functionality be far more beneficial for aviation safety?

I like your thinking and your concern for safety! ADS-B Out certainly has a place for delivery drones and operations BVLOS. And yes, costs will surely come down. There are good companies deliver ADS-B out for drones now (Sagetech, e.g.).
Aviation continues to evolve and recreational drones are very new. The most important factor in safety right now for remote pilots is our professionalism. A few bad actors really hurt us. What I would like to see personally is bumping the passing grade for uas to at least 80. Of course, that won't happen.

 

[Ty Pilot]

Instead the FAA is foisting Remote ID on UAS, which have killed nobody.

If transportation of people and goods by air stopped tomorrow, modern civilization would suffer greatly. If drone flying stopped tomorrow nothing would happen. Deaths due to travel of humans and goods by air (and land for that matter), are a necessity of life. That is why we accept them from manned aviation and not UA.

There might be a time in the distant future where that balance changes but right now that is simple fact

 

[Deleted member 170899]

All of those examples are in controlled airspace. General aviation in Class-G uncontrolled airspace is not required, correct? And General Aviation is by far the most dangerous and lethal category and would benefit significantly from ADS-B preventing frequent mid-air collisions.

Instead the FAA is foisting Remote ID on UAS, which have killed nobody.

Yes, but not class D.
General aviation is really not that lethal when compared to other areas in aviation (IMHO). And except for helicopters and crop dusters, pilots are very, very rarely near 400' agl. I did used to fly a Lake Buccaneer just a few feet agl, but that was over lake Pontchartrain.

 

[Zbip57]

Not sure why anyone thinks being tracked is an issue, [...]

The bigger question for me is, why is it a higher priority that drones need to be tracked, rather than the general aviation currently without ADS-B?

[...] if you have a smart phone or modern automobile, many of your actions and location are constantly tracked.

And that's the really ironic thing. The Karens in your neighbourhood, the ones who are convinced you only ever flying your drone in order to spy on them through their bedroom windows, they're the ones who will be pulling out their smart phone so they can use their Remote ID apps to track you, when all the while it's Google and everyone else who's already spying on them via that phone.

There are loads of Jetson style personal flying vehicles being developed [...]

But those will be manned aircraft.

ADSB will be mandatory in most airspace in North America and Europe in a few years.

That would certainly make sense.

 

[Ty Pilot]

The bigger question for me is, why is it a higher priority that drones need to be tracked, rather than the general aviation currently without ADS-B?

95% of drone pilots are unskilled and clueless about airspace and potential hazards they may cause with a UA. Manned aviators are skilled, trained and tested, and; have an added responsibility that if they mess up, they can loose their life.

Drone pilots mess up and just go buy another drone. Also, drones' history in the decade they've been around indicates to regulators that there is a problem there that needs to be addressed - drone pilots must be more responsible and RID is an effort to do that.

 

[djwak59]

ADSB technology was "just over the horizon" and "coming soon" for years. Some (many?) pilots and aircraft owners resisted it (or just complained about it) for years -- kind of like Remote ID for drones. The FAA pushed back the mandatory implementation date for years, while most aircraft owners fretted (the cost to replace a perfectly good, working transponder, with a new one that supported ADSB was not cheap - many thousands of dollars). Eventually the FAA said no more delays, it's coming and required (in most cases) as of January 1, 2020. People scrambled, most got it done (I had a transponder upgrade in October 2019 just barely beating the deadline). Many pilots and aircraft owners resisted because they saw little or no useful benefit from the new technology. But that depends on how/where you fly and what kind of aircraft you fly. Some pilots/aircraft get great benefits from ADSB.

There were some who groused about Big Brother, life in a surveillance state, loss of freedoms, etc. (sound familiar?). There's no argument about the added cost (my transponder upgrade cost around $5K, but I could have gotten away with a cheaper, less sophisticated unit); others spent considerably more. With the airplane I have and the kind of flying I do, I don't really get much benefit from it. If I ever crash, finding the wreckage (and maybe me) probably will take less time, so I'll call that a benefit (I fly with a useless ELT and a quite capable PLB, but that requires me to press a button on it so if I'm disabled or killed in the crash, they'll just follow my ADSB track to my body).

I suspect most of the paranoia and whining from drone owners will disappear after remote ID is in use for a while, just as it did after ADSB was implemented. There will still be hold-outs who regard it as an Orwellian nightmare, but you can't live in a society designed for these guys...

View attachment 159540

Ha. Reading till the last paragraph was worth it.

 

[Deleted member 170899]

BTW, people are working hard on solutions.

Detect and Avoid & Collision Avoidance Solutions - Sagetech Avionics

Detect and Avoid & Collision Avoidance Solutions Providing Safe Airspace Integration for All Aircraft Why choose acas x The Foundation For BVLOS Operations Sagetech ACAS solutions help Defense, Civil Government and Commercial customers realize the next generation of UAV-based services faster! We...

sagetech.com

 

[Zbip57]

If transportation of people and goods by air stopped tomorrow, modern civilization would suffer greatly. If drone flying stopped tomorrow nothing would happen.

The commercial air carrier system is likely the safest means of transportation available with a truly enviable record. But please note, I was talking about General Aviation, by which I mean Private Pilot recreational aviation, which has a horrendous record of killing people. I compare that to the current safety record of consumer grade recreational multi-rotor drones which still stands at ZERO fatalities.

ALL of the safety statistics to date show that drones are thereby infinitely safer than manned aviation.

Deaths due to travel of humans and goods by air (and land for that matter), are a necessity of life. That is why we accept them from manned aviation and not UA.

Recreational flight of manned single-engine Cessna or Piper hobby planes are far more dangerous and certainly no more a necessity of life than that of recreational model aircraft.

95% of drone pilots are unskilled and clueless about airspace and potential hazards they may cause with a UA. Manned aviators are skilled, trained and tested, and; have an added responsibility that if they mess up, they can loose their life.

Do a Google search on "US Civil Aviation Fatalities" and tell me again how many of those skilled and trained manned aviators manage to lose their lives every year, compared to how many deaths have been caused by all the unskilled and clueless drone pilots over the last ten years during which drones have become commonly available.

Example: 2020 U.S. Civil Aviation Fatalities

Also, drones' history in the decade they've been around indicates to regulators that there is a problem there that needs to be addressed [...]

There are potential problems, yes, and someday, inevitably, there will be fatalities involved. But if you're basing your risk assessments on the "drones' history in the decade they've been around", everything points to unmanned aviation being infinitely safer than manned aviation.

 

[Zbip57]

BTW, people are working hard on solutions.

Detect and Avoid & Collision Avoidance Solutions - Sagetech Avionics

Detect and Avoid & Collision Avoidance Solutions Providing Safe Airspace Integration for All Aircraft Why choose acas x The Foundation For BVLOS Operations Sagetech ACAS solutions help Defense, Civil Government and Commercial customers realize the next generation of UAV-based services faster! We...

sagetech.com

In such long-range BVLOS operations, like pipeline and powerline inspections, where the unmanned aircraft is operated far beyond the pilot's range of being able to perceive what's around the drone, absolutely there's a need for sophisticated systems to provide automated traffic conflict resolution.

But is Remote ID really needed to trigger an alarm on your neighbourhood Karen's cellphone every time you want to fly your toy drone in your own backyard?

 

[Deleted member 170899]

The commercial air carrier system is likely the safest means of transportation available with a truly enviable record. But please note, I was talking about General Aviation, by which I mean Private Pilot recreational aviation, which has a horrendous record of killing people. I compare that to the current safety record of consumer grade recreational multi-rotor drones which still stands at ZERO fatalities.

ALL of the safety statistics to date show that drones are thereby infinitely safer than manned aviation.



Recreational flight of manned single-engine Cessna or Piper hobby planes are far more dangerous and certainly no more a necessity of life than that of recreational model aircraft.

Do a Google search on "US Civil Aviation Fatalities" and tell me again how many of those skilled and trained manned aviators manage to lose their lives every year, compared to how many deaths have been caused by all the unskilled and clueless drone pilots over the last ten years during which drones have become commonly available.

Example: 2020 U.S. Civil Aviation Fatalities



There are potential problems, yes, and someday, inevitably, there will be fatalities involved. But if you're basing your risk assessments on the "drones' history in the decade they've been around", everything points to unmanned aviation being infinitely safer than manned aviation.

Don't ignore the 'flight hours' column in the link you provided. Ignoring that skews the data negatively for general aviation. BTW, what part of Canada? I lived several years in Buffalo.

 

[Deleted member 170899]

In such long-range BVLOS operations, like pipeline and powerline inspections, where the unmanned aircraft is operated far beyond the pilot's range of being able to perceive what's around the drone, absolutely there's a need for sophisticated systems to provide automated traffic conflict resolution.

But is Remote ID really needed to trigger an alarm on your neighbourhood Karen's cellphone every time you want to fly your toy drone in your own backyard?

Ha! There is far too little research on the Karens.

 

[Ty Pilot]

The commercial air carrier system is likely the safest means of transportation available with a truly enviable record. But please note, I was talking about General Aviation, by which I mean Private Pilot recreational aviation, which has a horrendous record of killing people. I compare that to the current safety record of consumer grade recreational multi-rotor drones which still stands at ZERO fatalities.

ALL of the safety statistics to date show that drones are thereby infinitely safer than manned aviation.



Recreational flight of manned single-engine Cessna or Piper hobby planes are far more dangerous and certainly no more a necessity of life than that of recreational model aircraft.

Do a Google search on "US Civil Aviation Fatalities" and tell me again how many of those skilled and trained manned aviators manage to lose their lives every year, compared to how many deaths have been caused by all the unskilled and clueless drone pilots over the last ten years during which drones have become commonly available.

Example: 2020 U.S. Civil Aviation Fatalities



There are potential problems, yes, and someday, inevitably, there will be fatalities involved. But if you're basing your risk assessments on the "drones' history in the decade they've been around", everything points to unmanned aviation being infinitely safer than manned aviation.

I stand by my point that; manned aviation is part of modern society and currently drones are not. I am well aware of the deaths in manned aviation being skewed by the general aviation population and actually follow those studies and investigations regularly.

But that doesn't change the fact that aviation is not just about what flies in the sky - how many jobs, businesses and complete industries are built around manned aviation? That is the critical part to modern society; along with the commerce and tax revenue. Those are things that are weighed against loss of life.

Drones as we see them today, are simply a drop in the bucket by comparison to the overall big picture. We are lucky that there has not been a fatality due to a drone but that will change eventually. What will these conversations look like then?

 

[Deleted member 170899]

I stand by my point that; manned aviation is part of modern society and currently drones are not. I am well aware of the deaths in manned aviation being skewed by the general aviation population and actually follow those studies and investigations regularly.

But that doesn't change the fact that aviation is not just about what flies in the sky - how many jobs, businesses and complete industries are built around manned aviation? That is the critical part to modern society; along with the commerce and tax revenue. Those are things that are weighed against loss of life.

Drones as we see them today, are simply a drop in the bucket by comparison to the overall big picture. We are lucky that there has not been a fatality due to a drone but that will change eventually. What will these conversations look like then?

Apparently two people in Germany were killed in a collision...

Aviation Safety Network > ASN Aviation Safety Database > (Suspected) drone collisions with aircraft

Aviation Safety Network: Aviation Safety Network: Databases containing descriptions of over 11000 airliner write-offs, hijackings and military aircraft accidents.

aviation-safety.net

 

[MS Coast]

I like your thinking and your concern for safety! ADS-B Out certainly has a place for delivery drones and operations BVLOS. And yes, costs will surely come down. There are good companies deliver ADS-B out for drones now (Sagetech, e.g.).
Aviation continues to evolve and recreational drones are very new. The most important factor in safety right now for remote pilots is our professionalism. A few bad actors really hurt us. What I would like to see personally is bumping the passing grade for uas to at least 80. Of course, that won't happen.

I think most of the bad actors you described are not Part 107 certificate holders, but rather people who either don't know about regulations and good practices or know and choose to ignore them.

Just bumping up the passing score might not help much with raising the caliber of Part 107 pilots. I object to licensing people (myself included) to be commercial drone pilots without them ever demonstrating that they can actually fly a drone, either to an instructor or to an examiner.

 

[Deleted member 170899]

I think most of the bad actors you described are not Part 107 certificate holders, but rather people who either don't know about regulations and good practices or know and choose to ignore them.

Just bumping up the passing score might not help much with raising the caliber of Part 107 pilots. I object to licensing people (myself included) to be commercial drone pilots without them ever demonstrating that they can actually fly a drone, either to an instructor or to an examiner.

I think you are right. I hope the public and FAA agree as well.

Also, most recreational uav pilots have no idea what flying under an exclusion within Part 107 means. Personally,I would not fly recreationally without a Part 107 certification.

 

[Ty Pilot]

I think most of the bad actors you described are not Part 107 certificate holders, but rather people who either don't know about regulations and good practices or know and choose to ignore them.

Just bumping up the passing score might not help much with raising the caliber of Part 107 pilots. I object to licensing people (myself included) to be commercial drone pilots without them ever demonstrating that they can actually fly a drone, either to an instructor or to an examiner.

I have long thought this as well. It makes no sense that a person who has never even flown any UA can actually get certified as a 107. I've held waivers for over 55 pounds and turbine powered flight, and in both cases you had to demonstrate competency of yourself and your equipment in flight as well as pass an inspection by an authorized person who can verify your experience.

Why we don't have something similar is beyond me, especially considering we're talking about getting a rating from the FAA (US).

 

[Zbip57]

BTW, what part of Canada? I lived several years in Buffalo.

I'm originally from quite near Buffalo, from a little town about halfway between St.Catharines and Hamilton. But now I'm in Ottawa.

Don't ignore the 'flight hours' column in the link you provided. Ignoring that skews the data negatively for general aviation.

Yes, General Aviation represents a huge majority of the total flight hours conducted in the US. The fatality rate is skewed negatively only because any single crash of a US air carrier flight tends to kill more people all at once, and there were none of those in that year. But General Aviation regularly kills that amount every year, and 2020 was actually a reduced number (probably due to Covid reducing the number of flights) with only 332 killed, compared to 414 the year before.

But it's interesting you raised the issue of flight hours. What do you suppose would be a reasonable assumption for the number of flight hours conducted by recreational drones, not just in the USA, but worldwide?

Everyone should read the Nov 2015 final report of the UAS Registration Task Force Aviation Rulemaking Committee. This committee came up with the 250gram threshold for requiring UAS registration. It's comes from calculations based on questionable assumptions of the likelihood of a freefalling object dropped from 500ft and hitting someone in the head. The result of the calculation was that a 250gram object had a 30% chance of causing a fatality under the various assumed conditions. Note: That also means the exact same circumstances therefore have a 70% chance of NOT causing a fatality.

They then went on to calculate the probability of such a falling drone dropped into a densely populated area ever actually hitting anyone on the head. That was also based on a lot of questionable assumptions, for example that drones can be expected to fail and fall from the sky after every 100 hours of use. I'll leave to you to read all the details. They're hilarious.

Bottom line, their calculations concluded that the probability of a single fatality by falling 250gram drone would be 4.7x10-8, or once every 20,000,000 flight hours.

On page-9 of the report, they had this to say:

Considering that the acceptable risk levels for commercial air transport are on the order of 1x10-9, and general aviation actual risk levels are on the order of 5x10-5, this level of risk at 4.7x10-8 seems to present a reasonably acceptable risk level to the Task Force for sUAS that meet the aforementioned assumptions. Some members of the task force questioned why sUAS risk level would ever be required to exceed the current general aviation risk level of 5x10-5.

Referring back to the 2020 U.S. Civil Aviation Fatalities, we see the fatalities in 2020 alone for US General Aviation is 332 fatalities in 19,454,467 flight hours.

Compare that zero fatalities attributed to the recreational use of multi-rotor drones world-wide in over ten years!

 

[Zbip57]

Apparently two people in Germany were killed in a collision...

That is true.

The mid-air collision occurred in August 1997 between a manned motorized sailplane carrying two people and a R/C motorized model airplane used to tow-launch R/C model sailplanes. Ultimately the same rule applies everywhere, that remotely-piloted aircraft must always give way to manned aircraft.

However, the incident occurred over a well known authorized model sailplane club field that's clearly marked on aviation sectional maps. Why the manned aircraft crossed this airspace is unknown, as both occupants died in the resulting crash.

The pilot of the R/C tow plane had just released the tow line to the R/C sailplane when he noticed the approaching manned aircraft. He tried, too late, to take avoiding action.

The manned aircraft took no avoiding action at all, as the pilot may have been blinded by the setting sun.

The R/C pilot should have given way earlier, and the manned pilot shouldn't have been there. Blame was not officially assigned to either pilot.

Remote ID would have made no difference in this case, whereas mandatory ADS-B would very likely have helped.

Here's the report in German:
www.bfu-web.de/DE/Publikationen/Untersuchungsberichte/1997/Bericht_97_3X306-1-2.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

In any case, yes, people have been killed before by model aircraft, such as the (New York?) kid who cracked his own skull while practising 3D stunt flying with his high-powered model helicopter. But the fact remains, recreational use of multi-rotor drones has not killed anyone despite all the media and regulatory hysteria.

 

[Deleted member 170899]

I'm originally from quite near Buffalo, from a little town about halfway between St.Catharines and Hamilton. But now I'm in Ottawa.


Yes, General Aviation represents a huge majority of the total flight hours conducted in the US. The fatality rate is skewed negatively only because any single crash of a US air carrier flight tends to kill more people all at once, and there were none of those in that year. But General Aviation regularly kills that amount every year, and 2020 was actually a reduced number (probably due to Covid reducing the number of flights) with only 332 killed, compared to 414 the year before.

But it's interesting you raised the issue of flight hours. What do you suppose would be a reasonable assumption for the number of flight hours conducted by recreational drones, not just in the USA, but worldwide?

Everyone should read the Nov 2015 final report of the UAS Registration Task Force Aviation Rulemaking Committee. This committee came up with the 250gram threshold for requiring UAS registration. It's comes from calculations based on questionable assumptions of the likelihood of a freefalling object dropped from 500ft and hitting someone in the head. The result of the calculation was that a 250gram object had a 30% chance of causing a fatality under the various assumed conditions. Note: That also means the exact same circumstances therefore have a 70% chance of NOT causing a fatality.

They then went on to calculate the probability of such a falling drone dropped into a densely populated area ever actually hitting anyone on the head. That was also based on a lot of questionable assumptions, for example that drones can be expected to fail and fall from the sky after every 100 hours of use. I'll leave to you to read all the details. They're hilarious.

Bottom line, their calculations concluded that the probability of a single fatality by falling 250gram drone would be 4.7x10-8, or once every 20,000,000 flight hours.

On page-9 of the report, they had this to say:


Referring back to the 2020 U.S. Civil Aviation Fatalities, we see the fatalities in 2020 alone for US General Aviation is 332 fatalities in 19,454,467 flight hours.

Compare that zero fatalities attributed to the recreational use of multi-rotor drones world-wide in over ten years!

Awesome analysis! Thanks for sharing.

Regarding flight hours for drones, it's really hard to compare even if the numbers were known. Most manned aircraft pilots - especially for the first couple of hundred hours - work hard to achieve ratings. Those who are instrument rated have separated themselves from those who aren't. I used to be a CFII and loved shooting approaches with students (or alone).

Most drone pilots (not all!) are not nearly so serious as their lives aren't in the balance. And the fact pointed out earlier that drone pilots aren't even flight tested makes any comparison an apples/oranges ordeal.

Regarding Canada... I love Canada except for the weather. I did the Mont Tremblant Ironman in Quebec. Also did a half IM at Welland. My profile pic here is a pic friends snapped during my first lap of the marathon portion of the Lake Placid Ironman. My fitness has died since then!

 

[Deleted member 170899]

That is true.

The mid-air collision occurred in August 1997 between a manned motorized sailplane carrying two people and a R/C motorized model airplane used to tow-launch R/C model sailplanes. Ultimately the same rule applies everywhere, that remotely-piloted aircraft must always give way to manned aircraft.

However, the incident occurred over a well known authorized model sailplane club field that's clearly marked on aviation sectional maps. Why the manned aircraft crossed this airspace is unknown, as both occupants died in the resulting crash.

The pilot of the R/C tow plane had just released the tow line to the R/C sailplane when he noticed the approaching manned aircraft. He tried, too late, to take avoiding action.

The manned aircraft took no avoiding action at all, as the pilot may have been blinded by the setting sun.

The R/C pilot should have given way earlier, and the manned pilot shouldn't have been there. Blame was not officially assigned to either pilot.

Remote ID would have made no difference in this case, whereas mandatory ADS-B would very likely have helped.

Here's the report in German:
www.bfu-web.de/DE/Publikationen/Untersuchungsberichte/1997/Bericht_97_3X306-1-2.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

In any case, yes, people have been killed before by model aircraft, such as the (New York?) kid who cracked his own skull while practising 3D stunt flying with his high-powered model helicopter. But the fact remains, recreational use of multi-rotor drones has not killed anyone despite all the media and regulatory hysteria.

Wow! R/C tow planes and gliders? I didn't know that existed! I've loved this conversation. Learned much!