[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Paparazzi-devel] FAA Memo + need for new autopilot features

From: Chris Gough
Subject: Re: [Paparazzi-devel] FAA Memo + need for new autopilot features
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 21:00:52 +1000

I think we are in furious agreement about reckless behaviour. I only almost 
half agree with you about ADSB though. Your points 1.a through 1.c seem like a 
good idea.  I think at the sUAS scale though, it's simply a matter of raising 
the alarm if there's a ADSB trajectory through your area of operation. But 
sure, TCAS is very cool :) I only played with it a couple of years ago and it 
seemed like a proof of concept at that stage. Is that code actively 

1.d; I'm not sure how that would go. We are not first class citizens of the 
airspace, we avoid everybody else, nobody avoids us. If we are doing something 
over the horizon it's by arrangement, there's a NOTAM in place, etc. Even if 
all the paparazzi UAVs were streaming real time telemetry into he cloud, would 
anyone except us look at it?

Wrt yours second point, I would like to be proven wrong but expect we would not 
be allowed to transmit ADSB even if we had the capability. And how small could 
the hardware actually get? I thought the reason (manned) gliders had their own, 
non-ADSB system for collision avoidance was that they couldn't make/buy ADSB 
transceivers small enough.

Chris Gough

> On 25 Jun 2014, at 5:25 pm, onefastdaddy <address@hidden> wrote:
> No one should need to fly something invisible above 400' out of sight with
> general aviation. That is completely foolish behavior. Unfortunately FPV
> flights and autonomous sUAS flights have been mixed together as usually no
> distinction is made between the two in the videos posted showing dangerous
> FPV behavior. RTH to me is not sUAS operations. 
> Paparazzi would be a great first platform to integration with the FAA for
> sUAS for many reasons. Paparazzi is the most reliable platform out there
> with documented evidence to demonstrate this. Thousands of fault free
> (autopilot hardware or software) flight hours in every condition. Pick
> Paparazzi because although other projects are very good let's get one
> through the door first as an example for others. Set a good first example. 
> How to do it is fairly straightforward. Technology is pretty much there. The
> operators need some adjusting. Just some basic guidelines really and
> training on professional sUAS operations. Maybe a registration with FAA?
> Obviously to work they have to have someone to hold accountable and to know
> who's doing what. 
> Technology we need created to help this integration:
> 1. AIS/ADSB support. It is already COTS but we can do better. 
>   a. Trivial to get BeagleBone to use an SDR dongle to pick up ADSB and AIS
> info
>   b. Paparazzi has TCAS built in already. ADSB targets could be simply
> other aircraft to Paparazzi
>   c. With the data from the autopilot overlaid on ADSB data you can
> demonstrate and log how close / far apart aircraft are. You could enforce
> separation easily and show evidence of success/failure to do so. 
>   d. with an Internet connection this data could be uploaded to the FAA.
> Possibly available to air traffic. I mean really not so difficult to give
> ATC a Paparazzi groundstation and let them see also. At the very least
> upload the data realtime or after. 
> 2. Some hardware should be created. Most importantly open sourced ADSB / AIS
> transceiver that are inexpensive and lightweight. There should be no
> financial or practical reason all sUAS should not have ADSB transmit
> capabilities to make them visible. So make this hardware open and freely
> available. I suppose hopefully addressing isn't an issue. Just sUAS are so
> small the only hope is make them visible with technology. Like a small boat
> in an ocean. It's in everyone's best interest to be seen. 
> About FPV? I have nothing but praise for FAA stepping forward. RC is left
> alone. Flying a model aircraft using only goggles and a small camera out of
> sight above 400' AGL is putting lives at risk and completely anonymous for
> the operators. Fly close to the ground I see no issue. But enter the same
> skies as the manned aircraft and yes you absolutely must not be invisible
> and anonymous. 
> This is an old topic for me. I am certain in the archives I have mentioned
> similar things. I suppose the discussion was too early to have back then. We
> have new reasons to discuss them seriously now. 
> -David
> -David
> --
> View this message in context: 
> Sent from the paparazzi-devel mailing list archive at
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]