Beyond VLOS ! what is it going to take?

[Phantomrain.org]

Besides
1) where, on a small aircraft, could it take an impact that the pilot could be certain posed no threat to the aircraft?
2) An impact could cause injury to someone on board.
3) Virtually any such impact is going to cause damage that is going to be expensive to inspect and or repair.

We could say this about any small aircraft , especially those single engine motors strapped onto a person that have full rights in the sky . So because there are so many small aircraft up in the sky without any Redundancy back ups as of now , I have to believe that DJI is on the right track.

With that Said one thing became apparent : That those in the sky desperately need the ADSB an that may be where the FOCUS needs to be for now .

Mandatory ADS- B transponders should be the Focus as this is the what they look like for the Pilots to carry them and many come with smoke and Co detectors as well as weather, g force ect. Retail for $300 on up.



I still believe Birds are a much bigger threat than other planes and think that a Rear Camera could be yet another add in the Future as we step closer to this type of flying , that I should add is Likely already being done my the Mass General Public. , something DJI must already know.

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in the Rain. land on the Water and wanting to fly BVLOS

 

[moldorf]

I'm nervous enough flying a 2 pound Mavic 3. Flying an 8 pound drone just seems well beyond my comfort level

 

[MS Coast]

In my opinion, every single vehicle flying in the air should be broadcasting their presence so that the proper evasive actions could be taken.

You're suggesting the drones should be required to have ADS-B transponders?

 

[Crash Pro]

You're suggesting the drones should be required to have ADS-B transponders?

No. Other aircraft should. That way drone pilots could land their drone safely prior to the arrival of the oncoming air traffic

 

[Droning on and on...]

Seems odd to me that the oweness for flight safety rests on the shoulders of drone pilots. In my opinion, every single vehicle flying in the air should be broadcasting their presence so that the proper evasive actions could be taken.

Not so odd when you consider the big differences between the two. As mentioned already, one is manned the other not. Big difference in risk (yours is only losing a cheap drone).

Also, perhaps more import is size. A drone is very hard to see compared to a manned aircraft. While you may be able to easily see it against a uniform background sky, a pilot above or level with your drone may have a very hard time picking it out again an urban landscape or mountains in the distance.

There are other reasons, but these two are enough to put the onus on drone pilots to avoid manned aircraft.

 

[Crash Pro]

Not so odd when you consider the big differences between the two. As mentioned already, one is manned the other not. Big difference in risk (yours is only losing a cheap drone).

Also, perhaps more import is size. A drone is very hard to see compared to a manned aircraft. While you may be able to easily see it against a uniform background sky, a pilot above or level with your drone may have a very hard time picking it out again an urban landscape or mountains in the distance.

There are other reasons, but these two are enough to put the onus on drone pilots to avoid manned aircraft.

That IS my point. Drone pilots have little to lose while manned aircraft have EVERYTHING to lose! If I were a pilot of a manned aircraft I’d want to do everything in my power to avoid a collision with a drone.

If every aircraft in the sky had to be equipped with something that would broadcast their presence, it would give drone pilots half a chance to land their drone and avoid a collision

 

[Droning on and on...]

Dual redundancy isnt ideal. Its ok if one system has total shutdown, but if its just sending incorrect info, how does the system know which sensor is correct and which is incorrect. They need to move into triple redundancy if they want to be serious

Agreed that triple redundancy is the platinum standard. However dual is used all the time, for good and effective reasons.

There are all sorts of ways sensors (and other electronics) fail that is 100% detectable. For example, the valid output voltage of a sensor may be in a limited range (say 2.5-4.0V in a 5V system), so any output outside that range indicates the sensor is faulty. In that case the backup can be used with confidence.

Also, a faulty sensor can return a valid output, but it makes no sense in context; took off at an altitude of 1000ft, in flight the barometer indicates your at 9,000ft, obviously faulty. Again, you can switch to the backup.

In fact, the cases where triple redundancy is necessary to determine fault are more rare than the cases where a backup is sufficient. In a dual system both sensors would have to return different, but completely valid results that both "fit" the current flight context, and it turns out these kinds of failures are pretty rare compared to all common failure modes.

 

[Phantomrain.org]

That IS my point. Drone pilots have little to lose while manned aircraft have EVERYTHING to lose! If I were a pilot of a manned aircraft I’d want to do everything in my power to avoid a collision with a drone.

If every aircraft in the sky had to be equipped with something that would broadcast their presence, it would give drone pilots half a chance to land their drone and avoid a collision

This is 100% true , and keep in mind that the ADS - B is only a few years old so it simply has not been indoctrinated fully in the air space yet as surprising as this is . If I were to take a guess as to why the FAA cannot enforce such laws , I would say it falls into the category as to why they cannot stop drones from taking to the Air space .

With that said I fly mainly from the inside of my Truck so it becomes even more critical when you cannot hear the sound of a plane if not see it.

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in the Rain. Land on the Water

 

[Droning on and on...]

That IS my point. Drone pilots have little to lose while manned aircraft have EVERYTHING to lose! If I were a pilot of a manned aircraft I’d want to do everything in my power to avoid a collision with a drone.

If every aircraft in the sky had to be equipped with something that would broadcast their presence, it would give drone pilots half a chance to land their drone and avoid a collision

You completely ignored the practical detectability of a drone vs. a manned aircraft, which I further charactized as "more important", which it is.

Simply put, you can easily, with near 100% reliability, hear and see a manned aircraft close enough to be a collision risk. The reverse is not true – exceedingly so.

Doesn't matter how much you value your life, if you don't know something's there, you can't avoid it.

This is why the burden of avoidance falls chiefly on the drone pilot. It's that simple, and shouldn't need more explanation.

 

[Droning on and on...]

You're suggesting the drones should be required to have ADS-B transponders?

I'll strongly suggest it. It's not like it's expensive. Wouldn't surprise me if the chip being used in DJI drones already for receiving ADSB doesn't already have ADSB Out capability, just not being used.

It will never happen, though. Professional pilots are against it, not wanting the extra traffic on their scopes to deal with. Or so I've heard.

But wouldn't it be nice. I'd love to have that sort of "radar" for other drones that might be flying in the area when I'm in the air.

 

[Phantomrain.org]

Jet Pilots dont want Air Liners in the sky and Air Liners dont want Private Jets in the sky and Private jets dont want single engine planes in the sky and Birds dont want drones in the sky . Drones are hear to stay an they will be gaining more freedom as people push for more, that is why a few responsible renegades is good for the soup. lol

Big Corporations are pushing for further air space and opening new doors , the key for DJI is to just be Ready with a few Key safe guards on there drones. We all need to share in the Responsibility of the Drone both Pilot and manned Pilot as Motorcycles do today with be aware of Bikers Signs , as it was not enough for bikers to just look out for cars.

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in the Rain. Land on the Water

 

[lookout]

I'll strongly suggest it. It's not like it's expensive. Wouldn't surprise me if the chip being used in DJI drones already for receiving ADSB doesn't already have ADSB Out capability, just not being used.

It will never happen, though. Professional pilots are against it, not wanting the extra traffic on their scopes to deal with. Or so I've heard.

But wouldn't it be nice. I'd love to have that sort of "radar" for other drones that might be flying in the area when I'm in the air.

The FAA was against drones using ADSB. But even the 2 or 3 mile range of bluetooth on remote ID is useless for reception by manned aircraft. ADSB with a significant range and power consumption to be received would be impractical for drone use. Take an ADSB module and strap some propellers on it and you'd have a drone with no room for plastic housing. And how do you manage something going 10 mph versus your 120 mph?

 

[Phantomrain.org]

I think at this point we need to put some Context as to the size and how the ADS- B Transponders are being marketed.
Note: No mention of Drones what so ever as maybe its a non issue thus far.

Signal:
Weather Reports
GPS indicator / Maps
Records Flight Logs
Back up Flight Info for flying
C02 Detector.
No mention of signal for Drones other than Position indicator and Farm Traffic which does not work in the US ??
So gliders and such do not show .

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

The more videos I watch the more I realize drones are not a topic or even a thought..for that matter.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in the Rain. Land on the Water.

 

[Droning on and on...]

The FAA was against drones using ADSB. But even the 2 or 3 mile range of bluetooth on remote ID is useless for reception by manned aircraft. ADSB with a significant range and power consumption to be received would be impractical for drone use. Take an ADSB module and strap some propellers on it and you'd have a drone with no room for plastic housing. And how do you manage something going 10 mph versus your 120 mph?

Under current regulations, where min ADSB transmit power is 75W, maybe.

But that's not necessary for a drone. Compared to the smallest (not experimental ultralight) manned aircraft, drones are ponderously slow, and therefore only present a risk when relatively close.

ADSB that has a similar range to O3, up to 5 miles, would be very useful. And that's doable within the hardware and physical design of current drones.

ADSB differs from the O3 transmission in completely irrelevant ways when it comes to hardware, if the output power is the same. It can use the same antennas, and if the output amp has enough bandwidth, the signal (900-5000Mhz) no additional hardware is needed... just add the ADSB signal to the O3 signal before the transmitter amplifier.

 

[AnzacJack]

Agreed that triple redundancy is the platinum standard. However dual is used all the time, for good and effective reasons.

There are all sorts of ways sensors (and other electronics) fail that is 100% detectable. For example, the valid output voltage of a sensor may be in a limited range (say 2.5-4.0V in a 5V system), so any output outside that range indicates the sensor is faulty. In that case the backup can be used with confidence.

Also, a faulty sensor can return a valid output, but it makes no sense in context; took off at an altitude of 1000ft, in flight the barometer indicates your at 9,000ft, obviously faulty. Again, you can switch to the backup.

In fact, the cases where triple redundancy is necessary to determine fault are more rare than the cases where a backup is sufficient. In a dual system both sensors would have to return different, but completely valid results that both "fit" the current flight context, and it turns out these kinds of failures are pretty rare compared to all common failure modes.

Sure. I agree with what you say. However all of our big craft all have triple redundancies as the cost is really negligible on expensive machines. When operating BVLOS at significant range, anything that can improve safety makes for a safer environment. Also helps with getting approvals