Flightradar24 able to display UAVs

[MackeyC34]

This may be old news for some, but I noticed the recent Beta version of Flightradar24 has added 'Drones' to their list of filters. It will be interesting to see if anything ever shows up on their tracking map and I'm not really sure just how they would be displayed. I guess time will tell.

 

[MA2 317]

May be related to the upcoming Remote ID in September.

 

[Droning on and on...]

I wonder if RID data is going to be integrated into ADS-B broadcast where possible (like major airports)...

 

[Vic Moss]

I wonder if RID data is going to be integrated into ADS-B broadcast where possible (like major airports)...

No. The FAA and orgs like AOPA are quite adamant that RID NOT be shown on the flight deck.

 

[Ralph thompson]

ADSB out is not allowed on drones in most places for the obvious reason an air traffic controller would not be able to handle so much traffic. As said it could be for RID in which case ATC would filter it out.

 

[ErikDF]

This is how a drone can look like when displayed on Flightradar24. It is from March last year. Larger drones over The Black Sea are displayed s regular planes

 

[solidhouse]

This is how a drone can look like when displayed on Flightradar24. It is from March last year. Larger drones over The Black Sea are displayed s regular planes

Do you have an example of what type of drone that is flying over the Black Sea?

 

[MA2 317]

Do you have an example of what type of drone that is flying over the Black Sea?

schiebel camcopter s-100 - Google Search

Probably has the ADS-B transponder?

 

[ErikDF]

Without the ADS-B transponder on, we would not have seen it

 

[HoozierDroneDaddy]

Maybe they are larger military drones. ???

 

[Droning on and on...]

No. The FAA and orgs like AOPA are quite adamant that RID NOT be shown on the flight deck.

I find that curious.

For the moment manned air traffic around airports far far outnumbers any drones in the area. (correct me if my understanding is dated)

It's puzzling to not want to have these few aircraft tracked and displayed in the information the pilot is aware of, while at the same time taking the position that a collision is so dangerous.

The data could be filtered, so that anything below a certain angle is left out. Just free-thinking here a bit.

I would think they'd want all aircraft that is in ATC controlled airspace – the upside-down wedding cake – to be displayed, at the very least. RID presents a new source of highly accurate, detailed information about these potential obstacles.

While drones are not supposed to be there, and it's tough to make that mistake with a DJI drone, they're not the only game in town.

Just speculating and thinking this through. With nothing more to go on than Vic's use of the term, "adamantly", admittedly thin gruel, I'm curious as to the reasoning – or if there is a bit of professional bias/bigotry driving some of it.

I hope not. Drones that present a safety risk in manned aircraft airspace seem to make sense to be included in the situational data the pilot has. "There's a drone flying near by" seems woefully inadequate to me, when more information is available that could help avoid a collision.

Just label it on the scope.

 

[Droning on and on...]

ADSB out is not allowed on drones in most places for the obvious reason an air traffic controller would not be able to handle so much traffic. As said it could be for RID in which case ATC would filter it out.

I don't this is correct at the present. Right now, manned traffic around urban airports dwarfs the amount of drone flights in the area, as I understand it. Adding drones to the aircraft being tracked would add little extra workload.

 

[Vic Moss]

I find that curious.

For the moment manned air traffic around airports far far outnumbers any drones in the area. (correct me if my understanding is dated)

It's puzzling to not want to have these few aircraft tracked and displayed in the information the pilot is aware of, while at the same time taking the position that a collision is so dangerous.

The data could be filtered, so that anything below a certain angle is left out. Just free-thinking here a bit.

I would think they'd want all aircraft that is in ATC controlled airspace – the upside-down wedding cake – to be displayed, at the very least. RID presents a new source of highly accurate, detailed information about these potential obstacles.

While drones are not supposed to be there, and it's tough to make that mistake with a DJI drone, they're not the only game in town.

Just speculating and thinking this through. With nothing more to go on than Vic's use of the term, "adamantly", admittedly thin gruel, I'm curious as to the reasoning – or if there is a bit of professional bias/bigotry driving some of it.

I hope not. Drones that present a safety risk in manned aircraft airspace seem to make sense to be included in the situational data the pilot has. "There's a drone flying near by" seems woefully inadequate to me, when more information is available that could help avoid a collision.

Just label it on the scope.

Think about it.

To date that have been 8 total confirmed drone/manned aircraft collisions. And that after millions and millions of drone hours in the air. That's over 10 years.

In the US, we average a bit over 400 GA fatalities a year over the last 10 years. That would be 4000 GA fatalities in the same amount of time we've been in the air in any large number.

The last thing GA and commercial airlines pilots need to monitor is drone use around airports. They have enough to do watching out for each other.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Think about it.

To date that have been 8 total confirmed drone/manned aircraft collisions. And that after millions and millions of drone hours in the air. That's over 10 years.

In the US, we average a bit over 400 GA fatalities a year over the last 10 years. That would be 4000 GA fatalities in the same amount of time we've been in the air in any large number.

The last thing GA and commercial airlines pilots need to monitor is drone use around airports. They have enough to do watching out for each other.

It would seem that you are saying drones are a very small risk. Very small.

So why are we treating them like they're the greatest aviation risk on the planet, and we're all gonna die unless we make dammn sure no one's exceeding 400' and VLOS?

I'll probably get fried for saying this here (nomex suit on), but I personally believe that most pilots on this forum break these rules routinely, almost every recreational flight, especially the experienced pilots. Especially VLOS.

I hate playing the "Emperor Wears No Clothes" game. But we have to. It's all become so political (not party politics). We can't even have open, honest conversations about it because most of us lie. We have to to stay out of trouble that shouldn't be trouble to begin with.

How many of you routinely, knowingly, consciously break speed limits while driving? Most of you.

How many are willing to admit it? Crickets.

Makes it impossible to make good policy that truly serves the public.

 

[Vic Moss]

It would seem that you are saying drones are a very small risk. Very small.

So why are we treating them like they're the greatest aviation risk on the planet, and we're all gonna die unless we make dammn sure no one's exceeding 400' and VLOS?

I'll probably get fried for saying this here (nomex suit on), but I personally believe that most pilots on this forum break these rules routinely, almost every recreational flight, especially the experienced pilots. Especially VLOS.

IMO, there isn't a drone pilot that's been in the air for more than just a few months that hasn't broken VLOS. I have. And my FAA contacts know it.

We're pushing eVLOS (extended VLOS) and hopefully that will gain traction. We brought it up last month at the AAAC meeting. Fingers crossed on that.

I hate playing the "Emperor Wears No Clothes" game. But we have to. It's all become so political (not party politics). We can't even have open, honest conversations about it because most of us lie. We have to to stay out of trouble that shouldn't be trouble to begin with.

There is the spirit of the law, and the letter of the law. The FAA realizes that there are plenty of safe BVLOS flights that happen every day. They don't condone those flights, but it nothing happens, and it's not reckless, odds are they won't spend much time up at night worrying about them. The 400' rule is another matter.

The FAA likes 100' separation between manned and unmanned. Our 400' ceiling, and their 500' floor, make that a reality.

Airspace segregation is the only way to ensure we can go above 400', but manned aviators will fight that tooth and nail.

How many of you routinely, knowingly, consciously break speed limits while driving? Most of you.

How many are willing to admit it? Crickets.

Makes it impossible to make good policy that truly serves the public.

The FAA is coming around to logical policy. Drones caught them (& CAA all of the world) with their pants down. They shoehorned drones into manned aviation based safety regs. And that just doesn't always work.

Another suggestion we gave the FAA at the AAAC is a full audit of the successes and failures of 107. It's been around for 7 years now. So we have the data to suggest things that can be changed, and things that are working great.

But the FAA moves at a glacial pace. We're working on that too.

Fingers crossed.

 

[Droning on and on...]

@Vic Moss thanks for the reminder about the 500ft general aviation floor, and the 100ft separation objective. Haven't had a current VFR ticket for 25 years, forgot about that. Very important. Don't remember if that reasoning was presented in the TRUST material, thinking it wasn't as I would have gone, "oh yeah, of course!"

Every drone pilot ought to be able to cite that rationale along with the 400' ceiling hopping on one foot while gagging on pressed wheat grass juice. Too many, IMO, are unaware of the mirror rule in general aviation, and therefore see 400' only as an arbitrary limit rather than an important collision avoidance measure.

Been so long I've forgotten what the legal exceptions are to the 500ft floor... there must be some, related to coastal flights, over water, 'cause 152s, Piper Cubs, a 172 or occasional 182 are flying practically right over the beach here in the Santa Cruz, CA area at 200-300ft all the time, sightseeing.

Near where I and others are flying drones. Legally.

 

[patcarty2]

For a long time, drones, both miltary and civil (coastguard etc) have displayed on aircraft trackers in the UK, especially PlanePlotter.

 

[BetterBizWorks]

I think it will be a good thing. I have flown in places that I was surprised by another drone in the area flying sporadically. Hopefully the app will be used for good. My concerns are if it is used by people trying to steal drones or stop them from flying.

 

[RodPad]

This may be old news for some, but I noticed the recent Beta version of Flightradar24 has added 'Drones' to their list of filters. It will be interesting to see if anything ever shows up on their tracking map and I'm not really sure just how they would be displayed. I guess time will tell.

I scanned this thread really quick, I use flightradar24 off and on.

When we get fires here, etc.

My dad told me what tail# I think? He was flying in the Indio California etc. I watched him go between two places etc I went up with him like maybe 10 times, its just not my thing.
Sorry for the details.

Anyways, is anyone actually seeing drones?

If I buy a subscription, what do guys like?

Rod..

 

[Ralph thompson]

Generally drones are ADS B IN only. They don’t transmit.