Kroger begins drone delivery on a rainy Wednesday.

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Evolving truck depots into drone depots is a great idea! For better or worse, driving a truck is a dying occupation.

In another post on this, someone wrote that there would be nest trucks that travel close to deliveries, or several deliveries, and drones would deploy from such trucks to do the final delivery.
Solves range issues, and to a point single payload deliveries, because it's probable deliveries would be done in say under 30 mins as a possible example.

It certainly will be interesting to see where all this is in a decade.

 

[Rich QR]

The instrument rating is a very close analog to what's needed to safely fly BVLOS. I've had my instrument rating for almost 40 years, and I've flown aircraft in the clouds that didn't have the awesome level of situational information provided by DJI Fly.

There should be a BVLOS path for anyone who wants to pursue it, but the path for instrument rated Part 61 pilots should be vastly simpler and shorter. Instrument rated pilots have already put in most of the work that it takes to learn to safely fly BVLOS.

Except that, under current rules, a drone pilot is always fully responsible for seeing and avoiding human-carrying aircraft. And drones typically fly slow enough that aircraft can approach them from behind, where a drone's camera is useless for spotting them.

Drones are so tiny that it's impractical to expect a VFR aircraft to see and avoid them. So the drone pilot either needs enough situational awareness (including behind the drone) to take on the full burden of seeing and avoiding, or else some other method of avoidance must be devised. Maybe it's time to require all VFR aircraft to have ADS-B out? But the VFR aircraft most likely to be sharing airspace with drones are often things like ultralites, powered (or even unpowered) parachutes, gliders, etc., which aren't likely to be outfitted with ADS-B out capability.

Aircraft flying under IFR get their traffic separation provided for them by ATC. But so far, the FAA doesn't seem eager to expand the ATC system to provide traffic separation for all the drones that may want to fly BVLOS.

 

[Chaosrider2]

The 107 test for current Part 61 pilots is indeed shorter and simpler. Basically, if you're current in Part 61, they assume you already know all of the basic airspace rules, that kind of thing.

Part 61 pilots are required to get what used to be called a Biennial Flight Review, BFR, evey 2 years. It's now just called the Flight Review, but it's the same thing, and still has the 2 year requirement.

They spefically ask for not just your Pilot License #, but the date of your most recent BFR, if you want to go that route.

TCS

 

[Chaosrider2]

Except that, under current rules, a drone pilot is always fully responsible for seeing and avoiding human-carrying aircraft. And drones typically fly slow enough that aircraft can approach them from behind, where a drone's camera is useless for spotting them.

Drones are so tiny that it's impractical to expect a VFR aircraft to see and avoid them. So the drone pilot either needs enough situational awareness (including behind the drone) to take on the full burden of seeing and avoiding, or else some other method of avoidance must be devised. Maybe it's time to require all VFR aircraft to have ADS-B out? But the VFR aircraft most likely to be sharing airspace with drones are often things like ultralites, powered (or even unpowered) parachutes, gliders, etc., which aren't likely to be outfitted with ADS-B out capability.

Aircraft flying under IFR get their traffic separation provided for them by ATC. But so far, the FAA doesn't seem eager to expand the ATC system to provide traffic separation for all the drones that may want to fly BVLOS.

Well, I didn't intend to identify all the issues involved in BVLOS with my initial suggestions...

;-)

I'm not suggesting that BVLOS would allow unlimited BVLOS. It probably shouldn't be allowed in controlled airspace without ATC approval. But in uncontrolled airspace? In my canyon, the biggest aircraft flying around, by far, are the bald eagles. If I'm bombing along in a C-177RG (my favorite of the planes that I've owned) I would MUCH rather hit a Mini-2 from behind, than an adult bald eagle.

The fact the something is possible doesn't make it a problem. The appropriate question is, what are the odds that something Very Bad will happen? There are many cases where the odds will need to be quantitatively evaluated during the BVLOS rating deveolpment process.

I'm a bit skeptical about the wisdom of the requirment for ADS-B at all in uncontrolled airspace.

Certainty is not an option. The only relevant question is, what are the odds? Quantum physicists, of course, are well aware of this...

;-)

In my judgement, the right solution isn't to ban BVLOS, but to restrict it to locations where the odds of a significant Bad Event are no greater than other kinds of risks that we accept every day. Like the odds of getting into a serious car accident, for example. The only way to be certain that you won't get in a bad car accident is to never be in or around a car. That's not the solution that our society has adopted.

Thank God!



TCS

 

[Ron Staats]

I live not to far from that Kroger. I have heard of the initial delivery and have heard nothing about it since. I should stop in there and ask them how it's going.

 

[maelstrom]

What the industry really needs is a standardized, non-waiver-based, BVLOS (Beyond Visual Line of Sight) rating, similar to the instrument rating for Part 61 pilots. Based on my experience with my Mini-2s, a competent instrument rated Part 61 pilot would have zero problem flying BVLOS.

How would having an instrument rating help you fly BVLOS? Most drones have built-in stability and don't need the interpretation of flight instruments to be able to control them. Most modern drones don't need any special level of piloting skill. The big problem with BVLOS operations is not controlling the drone but avoiding aircraft and other drones. The relatively narrow field of view of drone cameras significantly limits what you can see and removes the spatial awareness you have in a full-sized aircraft. That has to be replaced by extra sensors and levels of onboard AI which are not available in most off-the-shelf drones. Waivers for BVLOS are as much, if not more, about the technology in the drone than the skill of the pilot.

In my judgement, the right solution isn't to ban BVLOS, but to restrict it to locations where the odds of a significant Bad Event are no greater than other kinds of risks that we accept every day. Like the odds of getting into a serious car accident, for example. The only way to be certain that you won't get in a bad car accident is to never be in or around a car. That's not the solution that our society has adopted.

Just because no one in a particular location has ever seen an aircraft flying around in the past, that doesn't mean that there won't be one there on the day you want to fly BVLOS.

Your car analogy isn't really valid. Cars don't routinely move in three dimensions. They're organised into lanes which go in the same direction and the flow of traffic is controlled (speed limits, traffic lights, road markings and so on). In a car you have good visibility and, more importantly, your peripheral vision helps a lot with the detection of threats. Most open airspace has no lane system to control the direction of flight and there is no predictable flow to the air traffic. You have poor visibility through a drone camera and no peripheral vision at all, hence the standard requirement to keep your drone in sight so you can monitor the airspace around it.

Personally, I would be against getting rid of the requirement to apply for a waiver to operate BVLOS. There are too many variables that could affect the safety case that you couldn't just give an individual a blanket clearance to operate.