Wildfires

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

JamesG

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
2,408
Location
Columbus, GA and Albuquerque, NM
I like that idea, it puts liability in the right hands. You could get around it by using a different frequency, but then they could just make 2.4 a legal mandate. Any legitimate uses of other frequencies require special equipment, and they could keep track of who has that equipment.
Like HAM radio licenses. The problem is that horse has already bolted out the door. There are millions of RC radio sets out there already.

Jamming the link isn't really a good idea. It will generate unpredictable results. Either the drone will go to its loss-of-link instructions or will freak out, either way it will stop doing what it was, which is more dangerous than before if you were trying to avoid it. Pretty much the same problem ultralights have.

The only real way I see of solving it is with a (more) practical "sense and avoid" strategy where everything that flies has a low cost, light, low power transmitter attached to them, so that everyone can see each other, and especally UAVs can have onboard code built in to them where they can detect the distance and heading to another aircraft (based on signal lobes) and deviate from their flight path based on it. That might even be able to be built into the existing radio hardware with just a software update.

But... that would be too easy, and we are going to get some horribly burdensome monstrosity handed down from on high. Eventually. Probably after some tragedy has greased the wheels with enough blood.
 

RPM314

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2015
Messages
724
Location
NY, USA
The other frequency thing I was thinking of was UHF, where you use an adapter to step down the 2.4 signal to a lower frequency and higher power to transmit on the order of dozens of miles. It's the only real reason to use anything other than 2.4 these days, and anybody flying 20 miles away from themselves has the potential to mess with the NAS, so they should be kept track of anyway in this brave new drone-ful world.

There are people working on sense-and-avoid systems like that, based on full scale transponders. Idk how far along they are. GPS based geofencing is also an option, but it requires full scale planes to stay in the proper airspace. *removes sunglasses, turns head towards full scale pilots and glares* The hardcore pilots don't like the idea, saying the pilot should never have control yanked away.
 

JamesG

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
2,408
Location
Columbus, GA and Albuquerque, NM
The problem is that they are all trying to out think the problem (and pad it out so that they can make more money). Really all you need is for the various "airspace users" to "sense and avoid" is for them to be able to detect within the last couple of miles of the closing distance and be able to take effective evasive action. (ie: "Hmmmmm... that signal is getting stronger. Perhaps I should go over here instead..."). You don't need to know every single parameter or the identity of the other aircraft, but that is what they are doing. Some of the proposals even go so far as to have the units "negotiate" with each other to bicker about who has the right of way and who is going to go left or right, etc. All of which is adding time and cost.

I do agree that manned A/C should retain the right o' way, if only because humans tend to be stubborn, stupid, and slow compared to robots. So a remote operator should have control snatched away from them if they bust a ROZ or if the system detects a potential collision. Biggest risk is going to be fully autonomous systems that never have a person in the loop and the potential for software glitches or hack causing the reverse to occur, the drone kamakazis instead of avoids.
 

mcrae0104

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
3,260
Location
BJC
...it requires full scale planes to stay in the proper airspace. *removes sunglasses, turns head towards full scale pilots and glares* The hardcore pilots don't like the idea, saying the pilot should never have control yanked away.
What is it exactly you're accusing the "full-scale" pilots of doing?
 

JamesG

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
2,408
Location
Columbus, GA and Albuquerque, NM
Ads-b receivers cost a few bucks. Why not make those mandatory for drones, combined with tcas?
Are you going to make them mandatory for GA and ULs too? It doesn't do any good to have ADS-B or anything on the UAVs if everything in the air isn't instrumented. And while the basic hardware might be cheap(ish) it won't be by the time the lawyers and certification consultants are done with it. AAAANND the payload on smaller UAVs is very limited. The weight of an extra antenna and bigger computer could make them less effective, or make them have to be bigger/heavier and thus an even greater threat.

IMO ADS-B is exactly an example of the gold-plated, rube-goldberg overthink to a fairly simple problem.
 

RPM314

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2015
Messages
724
Location
NY, USA
Are you going to make them mandatory for GA and ULs too? It doesn't do any good to have ADS-B or anything on the UAVs if everything in the air isn't instrumented. And while the basic hardware might be cheap(ish) it won't be by the time the lawyers and certification consultants are done with it. AAAANND the payload on smaller UAVs is very limited. The weight of an extra antenna and bigger computer could make them less effective, or make them have to be bigger/heavier and thus an even greater threat.

IMO ADS-B is exactly an example of the gold-plated, rube-goldberg overthink to a fairly simple problem.
Extremely. You'd probably need to make it around 50g (depending on size) to get people to agree to it.
 
Top