VFR in the soup

[Banjo33]

I foresee all UAVs being required an autonomous traffic avoidance system based on the same rules as TCAS advisories driving autopilot inputs.

We're already experimenting with that. Locally, we're tied into ATCs DASR-11. We pull the feed and run a software algorithm on it that sanitizes a corridor of airspace between our Class D and the Restricted Areas 7 miles away. If a plane is non-cooperative (operating VFR) and can penetrate that corridor in the time it would take us to get safely across (plus a hefty fudge factor), then we wait. Our next upgrade to the software will tie a protective bubble of airspace around our UAV. This will give us additional flexibility. So far, in the last 3 years, we've probably not been within 2 miles of a VFR aircraft in Class E. We're operating about 500 flight hours per year locally.

 

[Henning]

We're already experimenting with that. Locally, we're tied into ATCs DASR-11. We pull the feed and run a software algorithm on it that sanitizes a corridor of airspace between our Class D and the Restricted Areas 7 miles away. If a plane is non-cooperative (operating VFR) and can penetrate that corridor in the time it would take us to get safely across (plus a hefty fudge factor), then we wait. Our next upgrade to the software will tie a protective bubble of airspace around our UAV. This will give us additional flexibility. So far, in the last 3 years, we've probably not been within 2 miles of a VFR aircraft in Class E. We're operating about 500 flight hours per year locally.

Sounds good, kinda what I figured,with today's technology, it's not that big of a problem to achieve autonomous separation as long as everyone is equipped for it.

 

[flyingron]

You can't really do effective traffic separation with only one plane playing. This is why the rules are drastically different in class B than in lesser airspace. ADSB out (even with those legitimately IFR having ADBS in) isn't going to solve the illegal IFR situation.

 

[jsstevens]

Sounds good, kinda what I figured,with today's technology, it's not that big of a problem to achieve autonomous separation as long as everyone is equipped for it.

And there's the rub. I think fighting UAVs is like holding back the tide. It won't be successful for long. And the only reliable ways for UAVs (particularly autonomous ones) to "see" and avoid is with electronics in all the players.

It's coming folks. Even you cub drivers (who I respect and enjoy) will have to get some kind of electrical system and deal with it.

John

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

only problem.....they aren't "autonomous"....they do have a team of operators....standing by.

now....if when we say UAS....we are describing the HobyLoby toys....all bets are off then.

 

[Palmpilot]

Just wait until UAS hobbyists start operating them in IMC.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Just wait until UAS hobbyists start operating them in IMC.

so....how would that be different? You think they fly any different in the soup?

Oh....and the HobbyLobby UAS will likely not be flying in the soup.....think about it.....they want CAUV for the optics....not cloudy min viz weather.

 

[RalphInCA]

It's interesting that simple airplanes that have - in some cases – been flying around for more than 60 or 70 years are now called "non-cooperative".

 

[Banjo33]

It's interesting that simple airplanes that have - in some cases – been flying around for more than 60 or 70 years are now called "non-cooperative".

"Non-cooperative" meaning you're VFR and ATC may not be talking to you and has NO way of guaranteeing you'll fly a predictable path. Even if you're on flight following, ATC can recommend a heading change and you could reply "nope." The local AV-8s, F-15s, -18s, and C-130s are occasionally non-cooperative too.

 

[Henning]

It's interesting that simple airplanes that have - in some cases – been flying around for more than 60 or 70 years are now called "non-cooperative".

What else would be a better term, 'Non Participatory'? If you aren't squawking (except 1200) and aren't talking, how can you cooperate with the system? If you are insulted by the terminology, you have "Touchy Feely syndrome" and should report to your nearest wellness center for a group hug.

 

[RalphInCA]

What else would be a better term, 'Non Participatory'? If you aren't squawking (except 1200) and aren't talking, how can you cooperate with the system? If you are insulted by the terminology, you have "Touchy Feely syndrome" and should report to your nearest wellness center for a group hug.

Not insulted. I just thought it was interesting. I had just never heard that term before. That's all

If you were insulted by the question you have "high and mighty syndrome" and should report to your nearest wellness center for an intervention.

 

[Henning]

Not insulted. I just thought it was interesting. I had just never heard that term before. That's all

If you were insulted by the question you have "high and mighty syndrome" and should report to your nearest wellness center for an intervention.

I wasn't insulted, just confused. I choose not to get insulted.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Attached are some screen shots of WingX showing traffic from an ADS-B In/Out system. Two of them were snapped within a minute of each other. I was using a low-altitude IFR chart to decrease useless ground clutter so nearby aircraft could be better seen. The third was taken maybe 2 months later with a standard VFR chart as background.

Thanks for posting the screenshots, Jim. I prefer traffic displays that show relative altitude compared to mine on the target (+02, -10, 00, +25) so I can instantly know if they are high, low, or even with my altitude. WingX appears to be showing actual altitudes--which means I've got to look at mine, then do some interpretation to know who is a threat, and if the TREND is closing or opening. If I'm level, not as big of a deal, but with multiple targets in the vicinity, or if I'm climbing or descending, this become more critical to have an "easy to parse" interface.

Does WingX color code the targets, so ones that are getting "too close for comfort" change to yellow then red, for example? That'd at least be helpful, to draw your eye to threats... if everybody is black, no big deal, focus on the one or two in color.

I agree with you; viewing traffic against the IFR lo-alt enroute is easier!!

 

[Jim Logajan]

Does WingX color code the targets, so ones that are getting "too close for comfort" change to yellow then red, for example?

I don't know. I've yet to see anything other than yellow circles around the targets - but I haven't had a lot of flights with it yet, either (and weather here is for rain for the next 10 days - but work would interfere with flying anyway even if it were nice. Sigh.)

There is a WingX option to "filter" out ADS-B targets that are outside a puck centered on one's aircraft. I think the puck is 30 mile diameter/7000 ft high. I haven't tried it since it seems redundant most of the time.

That'd at least be helpful, to draw your eye to threats... if everybody is black, no big deal, focus on the one or two in color.

I agree with you; viewing traffic against the IFR lo-alt enroute is easier!!

Yes it would be nice to have some visual or audio alert, but compared to the Zaon MRX I had been using, just knowing the distance and relative bearing and the target's flight direction at a glance is gobs more data than I had available.

 

[champ driver]

And there's the rub. I think fighting UAVs is like holding back the tide. It won't be successful for long. And the only reliable ways for UAVs (particularly autonomous ones) to "see" and avoid is with electronics in all the players.

It's coming folks. Even you cub drivers (who I respect and enjoy) will have to get some kind of electrical system and deal with it.

John

Wrong, according to this FAQ on the FAA web site.
Read the last paragraph. My Champ has no electrical system and will never have one as long as I own it. I don't fly into class A, B or C airspace and have no desire to.


How will the new ADS-B Out rule affect me?
On January 1, 2020, when operating in the airspace designated in 14 CFR § 91.225 (outlined below) you must be equipped with ADS-B Out avionics that meet the performance requirements of 14 CFR §91.227. Aircraft not complying with the requirements may be denied access to this airspace.

Under the rule, ADS-B Out performance will be required to operate in:

1. Class A, B, and C.
2. Class E airspace within the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500 feet above the surface.
3. Class E airspace at and above 3,000 feet MSL over the Gulf of Mexico from the coastline of the United States out to 12 nautical miles.
4. Around those airports identified in 14 CFR part 91, Appendix D.

The ADS-B Out rule does not apply in the airspace defined in items 1 and 2 above for any aircraft that was not originally certificated with an electrical system or that has not subsequently been certified with such a system installed, including balloons and gliders.

 

[Henning]

Wrong, according to this FAQ on the FAA web site.
Read the last paragraph. My Champ has no electrical system and will never have one as long as I own it. I don't fly into class A, B or C airspace and have no desire to.


How will the new ADS-B Out rule affect me?
On January 1, 2020, when operating in the airspace designated in 14 CFR § 91.225 (outlined below) you must be equipped with ADS-B Out avionics that meet the performance requirements of 14 CFR §91.227. Aircraft not complying with the requirements may be denied access to this airspace.

Under the rule, ADS-B Out performance will be required to operate in:

1. Class A, B, and C.
2. Class E airspace within the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500 feet above the surface.
3. Class E airspace at and above 3,000 feet MSL over the Gulf of Mexico from the coastline of the United States out to 12 nautical miles.
4. Around those airports identified in 14 CFR part 91, Appendix D.

The ADS-B Out rule does not apply in the airspace defined in items 1 and 2 above for any aircraft that was not originally certificated with an electrical system or that has not subsequently been certified with such a system installed, including balloons and gliders.

That's what the rule says today, what do you think the rule will be Jan 1 2021? Don't expect it to last.

 

[jsstevens]

Wrong, according to this FAQ on the FAA web site.
Read the last paragraph. My Champ has no electrical system and will never have one as long as I own it. I don't fly into class A, B or C airspace and have no desire to.


How will the new ADS-B Out rule affect me?
On January 1, 2020, when operating in the airspace designated in 14 CFR § 91.225 (outlined below) you must be equipped with ADS-B Out avionics that meet the performance requirements of 14 CFR §91.227. Aircraft not complying with the requirements may be denied access to this airspace.

Under the rule, ADS-B Out performance will be required to operate in:

1. Class A, B, and C.
2. Class E airspace within the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500 feet above the surface.
3. Class E airspace at and above 3,000 feet MSL over the Gulf of Mexico from the coastline of the United States out to 12 nautical miles.
4. Around those airports identified in 14 CFR part 91, Appendix D.

The ADS-B Out rule does not apply in the airspace defined in items 1 and 2 above for any aircraft that was not originally certificated with an electrical system or that has not subsequently been certified with such a system installed, including balloons and gliders.

I know you don't have to today, but I strongly suspect you will before the UAS systems are fully integrated. Especially if autonomous UAS are included-which I believe they will be.

John


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Henning]

I know you don't have to today, but I strongly suspect you will before the UAS systems are fully integrated. Especially if autonomous UAS are included-which I believe they will be.

John


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

The funny thing is everybody complains that Govt doesn't have a plan for the future, but the FAA actually does, and the future is to support autonomy. The FAA has been at it for over a decade, but we don't want it.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

I know you don't have to today, but I strongly suspect you will before the UAS systems are fully integrated. Especially if autonomous UAS are included-which I believe they will be.

John


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

autonomous UAS is an oxymoron....

they are no more autonomous than when one clicks engage.....on the autopilot.:wink2:

 

[Banjo33]

They're not all strictly "autonomous" either. Yes you can flight plan routes and they'll nav on their own or, like the ones we're flying, you can, in a sense, hand fly them. It just depends on the circumstances, as to which mode you're operating in. For our flights around here, we're constantly switching modes as we transition through the airspace.

I'm not so hung up on the principle of "see and avoid." It matters more what the capabilities of the aircraft are. For instance, with the ability to cycle between an EO (color) and IR camera, zoom, 360 degree rotation of the turret, and the possibility of being equipped with moving target indicator software, our ability to "see" and avoid is better than the majority of pilots relying on eye sight alone. Combine this capability with always tying the aircraft to a form of IFR-control when operating outside of protected airspace, deconfliction shouldn't be an issue. The biggest concern is a lost datalink scenario...then we're back to "big sky/little airplanes."

 

[Clark1961]

Combine this capability with always tying the aircraft to a form of IFR-control when operating outside of protected airspace, deconfliction shouldn't be an issue.

If operations are above 10,000 ft (transponder required) then I'd agree. Below 10,000 and I'd have to know a heck of a lot more about your systems before I'd agree. Of course my agreement/disagreement means squat...

 

[Banjo33]

If operations are above 10,000 ft (transponder required) then I'd agree. Below 10,000 and I'd have to know a heck of a lot more about your systems before I'd agree. Of course my agreement/disagreement means squat...

When many of the military's Group 3+ systems can put a laser designator on a person and maintain PID from over 20,000 ft away (3+ miles) day and night, an airplane, even a cub, could easily be identified at ranges our eyes would fall well short of. Combine our sensor with range/bearing via ATC's ASR and even non-squawking aircraft can be located miles before they'd ever be a collision hazard, providing ample opportunity for our aircraft to alter course if necessary. Our local ASR (DASR-11) is sensitive enough to illuminate small thunderstorm cells during the summer and flocks of birds during migratory season, over 10 miles away (I don't know what its max effective range is).