Driving on the Planet Mongo

[JimL]

IFR flight is permitted, uncontrolled, in Class G airspace. IFR flight in Class E airspace 'assumes' entry and exit to/from sites with let-down procedures; hence the boundary at 1,200ft lowering to 700ft around airfields - which are themselves in controlled airspace.

As was previously indicated, IFR (or AFR) flights into 'operating sites' within Class G airspace i.e. not controlled, is a challenge that needs to be faced. The capability of properly certificated helicopters is not in doubt so 'detection and avoidance' of other (legitimate) users and 'terrain and obstacle avoidance' have to be acknowledged and addressed.

It is not clear that we can compete with fixed wing in operations to/from airfields; the rotorcraft’s niche remains its unique ability to operate to very small sites.

There are a number of ways solutions can be viewed - they can be regarded as looking backward or forward:

Using existing methods and procedures i.e. making the airspace 'controlled' as the basis of a solution. All required operating sites would need to be surveyed and certificated and have their own control zones - taking us closer to a fixed-wing (and noncompetitive) world. This solution completely ignores the fact that the financial imperative of drone operation will be substantially more important than that of helicopters – so, this is likely to be resisted. It could also discourage operators from moving towards a proposed solution to DVE operations.

Using a 'nudge' solution that accepts interoperability with drones and builds on the (now inevitable) move to registration and electronic (tag) identification. If such identification is extended to universal 'electronic visibility', as appears likely, and is embraced by all airspace users, we are almost there (the use of UAT on 978Mh and ADS-B in and out in the USA encourages this uptake; a second frequency for Europe is sorely needed). This addresses the first of the issues (AFR could ensure this is a safe option); it also mitigates the ever tricky subject of ineffective VFR ‘see and avoid’.

The second issue, which is common to any solution, is how to achieve a let-down to a defined site, or to continue VFR. This requires the effective mapping and recording of terrain and obstacles and promulgation of verified electronic terrain and obstacle databases (eTODs). Most States are committed to the latest ICAO initiative in this respect. This still leaves the subject of temporary obstacles, moot.

One thing is certain: it is not possible to’ segregate’ ourselves from drones if we wish to continue to operate to remote sites in Class G airspace. Better to take advantage of the vast sums that are being invested in autonomous flight and interoperate with drones on agreed terms. Not to come to grips with this will result in them eating our lunch.

Jim