[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: David Conger
Subject: Re: [Paparazzi-devel] FAA Memo + need for new autopilot features
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:39:08 -0700

All good feedback into the discussion. My point at the highest level
is this is a good place to start. The outputs go to the FAA as inputs
again to another discussion with them. in the end something is tried
and becomes more inputs in a continuous loop of improvements.
I believe completely that asking FAA to do this work is no practical.
They have enough to do already. Step in their shoes. Wouldn't it be
nice to have a reasonable well thought out plan brought to you from
someone willing to work with you?
-David B. Conger

On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Chris Gough
<address@hidden> wrote:
> 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 used/maintained?
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
> address@hidden


reply via email to

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