drone dodging proposal [Archive]

View Full Version : drone dodging proposal

rans6andrew

5th Jul 2021, 21:05

An outfit called Altitude Angel is asking for feedback on a proposal to trial UAVs in unsegregated airspace, specifically a corridor to the south of Reading parallel to the M4. They are claiming to be able to do this safely and, I quote, "For the avoidance of doubt, the Arrow Drone Zone places no special or different equipage requirements on manned aircraft operating in the vicinity" The trial is to start in September.

I have further info, probably too much to post on here without getting into trouble with the mods?, possibly ACP-2021-032 has more.

I have serious concerns about this as it is an area of airspace close to my base that is specifically mentioned. The documentation I have seen so far does not indicate how they intend to detect and avoid drones and manned aircraft within the trial airspace without specific equipage and does not detail what equipage we are assumed to have installed. Along with many others my aircraft is without transponder.

Do any of you have any further information on this trial?

Rans6........

Maoraigh1

6th Jul 2021, 19:21

Is there information about successful operation with other drones deliberately flying into its path?
If not this is using non-volunteer civilians as guinea pigs.
Trials in West Scotland were mainly over sea, on a route easily avoided. Presumably they were successful.

cessnapete

7th Jul 2021, 11:10

Fl1ingfrog

7th Jul 2021, 16:35

Drones are here to stay and will grow nationally both exponentially in uses and numbers. It is already a boom industry. They have so many fantastic roles from transporting urgent drugs etc between hospitals, police aerial surveillance, traffic management and a great many commercial uses. The operators are keen to co-operate and it will be in our GA best interest to work with these people - even become one of them. Licenced aerodromes are mandatory consultees but private strip owners also have an interest and should register so..

homonculus

7th Jul 2021, 18:57

I presume Fl1ingfrog you have a vested interest in this given your enthusiasm. There is zero need for drones for drugs or blood on the mainland. Fantastic rubbish. Small drones on fixed routes are irrelevant I suspect to police and other surveillance operations. The other threads on these proposals leave me unimpressed with the willingness of the authorities or the operators to consult properly before starting their commercial operations.

Maoraigh1

7th Jul 2021, 20:20

" police aerial surveillance, traffic"
I've watched a police drone searching whins and cliff bottoms for s missing person. Not " out of line of line of sight", similar to agriculture drone operations. No aviation problem.
I tend to agree with Ffrg, but initially there's a need for discussion.
I responded to the Oban proposal. As implemented, I haven't heard of problems.
Initial proposal was likely to be problematic.

surely not

8th Jul 2021, 16:06

I have no area if interest, either for or against, with the trial quoted above, however I find the the response by homonculus to be incredibly petty. Using the same logic that he uses, we can all presume that he has a vested interest in stopping the drones. This apparently devalues his opinion in the same way he feels Ffrg's opinion is affected. I also take issue that he is remotely correct about there being 'zero need' for drone usage on the mainland. Simply because he cannot see the requirement, then there cannot be one. Wow, such presumption!
No way do I want drones buzzing around willy-nilly, but I can see that they will develop into useful tools for delivering packages to remote areas, for use on large farmland areas etc etc.
There needs to be an open discourse so that all sides can put their side of the discussion, and all sides need to be willing to understand the position of others.

homonculus

8th Jul 2021, 20:47

The reason I dispute the need for medical drones surely not is because I have been running aviation and medical services for 35 years. Away from the movies we do not suddenly need drugs and blood products. Blood tests that are not preplanned are done bedside. This is quite different from Brazil where drones are safely used over uninhabited forest to take drugs, vaccines and blood to front line workers who take days to reach isolated villagers by boat and only know what is needed on examination.

I dont think anyone has an issue with line of sight use of drones by the police, and we use them regularly in agriculture. What I am less happy with is the idea of regular out of line of sight drones when I am flying. The reason for these trials is to push the envelope and increase the number of drones in the crowded airspace in the UK. Until there is an absolute guarantee the drones will see and avoid I believe these trials should be suspended. I for one am quite happy to have my amazon deliveries by road. The promoters are not doing it other than for commercial gain.

EXDAC

8th Jul 2021, 22:06

Away from the movies we do not suddenly need drugs and blood products.

I am a volunteer pilot with "Flights for Life". I have delivered platelets, whole blood, and COVID plasma many times in my PA-28 after responding to a page or text alert. Vitalent (formerly United Blood Services), and the hospitals they serve, think there is a need to urgently and quickly move blood products in Arizona. I suppose it could all be a ruse to encourage pilots to fly but when I fly a mission I assume the product is actually needed.

Fl1ingfrog

8th Jul 2021, 22:53

I have no involvement in drones and nothing to gain from their growth.

The reason I dispute the need for medical drones surely not is because I have been running aviation and medical services for 35 years.

Putting your head in the sand and keeping it there will result in a very sore backside.

Away from the movies we do not suddenly need drugs and blood products.

If you truly do have an involvement in medical services I do not see how you have your view. Particularly in accident and emergency it is common for hospitals to urgently search for many things, not only blood, that are needed to save life. Speed can be critical when patients are on the operating table and sedated. The Surgeons must wait whilst what is required is located and transported. But parallels also exist in many industries with parts or samples urgently required at the last minute. We live in a world of an increasing just in time culture and drones will be part of it. Traffic management, power line and pipe inspections are an obvious growth area for drones. Arial photography and filming gives an opportunity for helicopter operators to expand into drone usage.

Smart phones are an example of how uses can rapidly evolve. Often, when operating a survey, I would encounter a problem and need advice, With a smartphone I could simply take a photo or video and within seconds the picture was with the expert or customer. People now navigate both in their cars and also when flying aeroplanes utilising their smartphone GPS. The translating apps are becoming a must for instantaneous communication when working or travelling around the world. The smartphone applications are endless and the same will happen with drones. It is incredibly important that all parts of aviation gets involved with drone developers to ensure the evolvements are safe, compatible with and complement all aviation generally. Pilotless heavy transport is well advanced in development. Passenger carrying services will follow, for that be assured.

Maoraigh1

9th Jul 2021, 08:30

From Avweb, today 9 July:
https://www.avweb.com/recent-updates/unmanned-vehicles/thales-uas-100-completes-first-flight/

FullWings

9th Jul 2021, 18:21

As a GA and professional pilot, I think widespread use of drones of all shapes and sizes is inevitable. I also think that routing and collision avoidance will be sorted out to the satisfaction of other airspace users, eventually.

It’s not only urgent supplies of whatever, it’s normal stuff too. Instead of white vans screaming through villages throwing fragile parcels over hedges (I’m talking about you, Hermes...), a high-capacity drone, or droneship with multiple drones, taking stuff straight to the customer from the warehouse seems like a more efficient and greener way to do things.

Jan Olieslagers

9th Jul 2021, 19:37

... as long as the drones are not programmed to throw the delicate parcels over the hedges :) ...

Seriously though: yes, drones are here to stay, if only because they look good. I cannot imagine they'd be more efficient or more green, though, especially not in a point-to-point mode of operation. After all, if the parcel vans are screaming through, it is due to a race to the bottom in shipment cost - drones are not going to change that.

But I am concerned that the "eventual" sorting out of traffic rules will only be seriously entered upon after a few serious accidents have occurred. The days of "gouverner c'est prévoir" are long gone.

Maoraigh1

9th Jul 2021, 19:39

https://mol.im/a/9772241
Drone. Airmiss with helicopter.
As regards drone delivery being "greener" than van delivery, vans use an exceptionally energy efficient technology to keep the body above the ground surface.

homonculus

9th Jul 2021, 20:10

Hi EXDAC. Although I am a Texan I am in the UK. We can get the UK into the state of Arizona with room to spare and we dont have desert. In fact you are hard pressed to see any non built up area. In addition we do not pay volunteers for blood....We have a state blood service that provides free blood to all hospitals. Hospitals have blood banks; emergency blood transfers are rare and normally within 4-12 hours over a distance of under 60 miles. I agree medical transport by air is of use in the USA. I was referring to the UK

Fl1ingfrog I am not going to use this thread for a yes no argument. You are welcome to PM me and I will enlighten you. My operating theatre is very boring compared with your belief. You have though made my point by saying sometime in the future drones and manned aircraft will safely share airspace. I agree. Then I will happy to support these projects.

scifi

12th Jul 2021, 20:39

Don't the present rules afford some separation in airspace..?
Large Model Aircraft (+drones.) are not allowed above 400ft agl, and GA aircraft are not allowed below 500ft agl.
.

Fl1ingfrog

13th Jul 2021, 08:12

Large Model Aircraft (+drones.) are not allowed above 400ft agl, and GA aircraft are not allowed below 500ft agl.

The not below 500ft agl rule doesn't apply in the UK for aircraft. It is a EU requirement but the UK filed a difference to that regulation at the time it was introduced. The restriction not to fly within 500ft of a person, vehicle, building or structure continued to apply, together with the other elements of the 'low flying regulations. I assume that the drone operator will be applying to the CAA for the most appropriate height/altitude for their operation. It may well be higher than 400ft above agl of course.

phiggsbroadband

13th Jul 2021, 11:17

The not less than 500ft from a person, vehicle or structure, pretty much excludes all of the UK from flight below 500ft.
When doing low level flight for my PPL, the only place we could use was over water of the Dee Estuary, and even then we had to zoom climb over a pleasure boat.

I don't see how they can deliver parcels to any place without at least 600ft of 'runway', unless they intend to drop the goods into the back yards by parachute.
.

Fl1ingfrog

13th Jul 2021, 18:04

..........When doing low level flight for my PPL, the only place we could use was over water of the Dee Estuary, and even then we had to zoom climb over a pleasure boat.

There is no requirement to fly below 500ft agl for any part of the PPL syllabus and nor should it be necessary to "zoom" climb if the flight was properly pre-planned. Note: A waterway used by people, boats and other traffic is established as a 'structure' as is a road for the purposes of the regulation and if the estuary is used by pleasure boats this should be known.

The not less than 500ft from a person, vehicle or structure, pretty much excludes all of the UK from flight below 500ft.

Vast areas of the UK, in fact most parts, are free of the low level regulations and therefore they will not apply.

SWBKCB

13th Jul 2021, 18:45

Note: A waterway used by people, boats and other traffic is established as a 'structure' as is a road for the purposes of the regulation and if the estuary is used by pleasure boats this should be known.

Apologies for wandering off topic, but is this correct - this definition of a structure wasn't covered in the Air Law I did recently

Maoraigh1

13th Jul 2021, 19:23

That's new to me too. And what are the definitions of "Road" and "Waterway used"? I think "Navigable Waterway" might have a definition in law.

Fl1ingfrog

13th Jul 2021, 19:33

Apologies for wandering off topic, but is this correct - this definition of a structure wasn't covered in the Air Law I did recently

The definition was established in the high court when the CAA prosecuted the kind and very popular instructor/examiner Eric Thurston, flying from Stapleford Tawney He was found not guilty. Eric was conducting a PPL Skill test. There is no definition in the ANO on what constitutes a 'structure'.

The judge however decided to define, although not central to the case, that which he considered too vague, and to be of assistance for the future. A road is a structure there for the purpose of conveying people and therefore it is not unexpected to find people and vehicles, so no defence. A waterway in some cases is the same. If you fly within 500ft of a person or vessel in a busy estuary or river when it is known to be used by people, such as a pleasure boat even at the last minute then there can be no defence. If I remember it correctly he also clarified: should the flight be crossing a field of crops then it could be a defence, should a romantic young couple pop up unexpectedly from amongst the crop. It is reasonable to expect the field of crop to be normally free of people. He did not consider that the fencing surrounding a field counted as a structure for this purpose.

TCAS FAN

13th Jul 2021, 19:45

Apologies for wandering off topic, but is this correct - this definition of a structure wasn't covered in the Air Law I did recently

And so also is a runway if for some reason its not legal to land on it.

Maoraigh1

14th Jul 2021, 18:45

People, vehicles, boats I have always understood to be subject to the 500' rule. Roads, fences, water, pot buoys, I regard as not subject. It's the pilots responsibility to ensure people, vehicles, boats, and any other possible items are not present when flying low other than when taking-off or landing.
No change to Airlaw by the Judge's determination.
PS. I assume the Court was high enough for decisions to be quoted by other English courts. But even so, they would be unlikely to affect the interpretation by a Scottish Court, although Aviation is reserved to Westminster.

Maoraigh1

5th Jan 2023, 08:32

BT signs deal to create world's largest drone super-highway in the UK https://mol.im/a/11599891 via https://dailym.ai/android

Flying Binghi

10th Jan 2023, 08:00

Probably wouldn’t get to carried away with them drone delivery’s. Once a few drones turn up at peoples door step with a bomb of a litre of Molotov cocktail that will probably be the end of drone delivery’s…

Maoraigh1

10th Jan 2023, 19:41

"Probably wouldn’t get to carried away with them drone delivery’s. Once a few drones turn up at peoples door step with a bomb of a litre of Molotov cocktail that will probably be the end of drone delivery"
Car bombing campaigns had no effect on the use of cars for transport in the UK. I can see drones being a delivery solution in the near future.

Maoraigh1

11th Jan 2023, 08:28

From ANN:
Walmart Begins Drone Delivery Across US | Aero-News Network (http://www.aero-news.net/emailarticle.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=27083c9f-239d-4bc0-b98b-565348631188#.Y75_9MA2_tg.gmail)

TheOddOne

12th Jan 2023, 05:50

I'm pleased to see a prosecution of a drone operator who was found to be flying dangerously close to a BBMF Hurricane. This needs publicising more on the 6 o'clock news.
TOO

Flying Binghi

12th Jan 2023, 22:57

Car bombing campaigns had no effect on the use of cars for transport in the UK. I can see drones being a delivery solution in the near future.

We know who did the car bombs. Will we know who does the drone bombs ? Will we know who hacks the drone and makes it fly at 100 miles an hour straight at you ?

Doubtful… then how will it be stopped… ground all small drones perhaps…