Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

drone dodging proposal

Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

drone dodging proposal

Old 5th Jul 2021, 22:05
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
drone dodging proposal

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........
rans6andrew is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2021, 20:21
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Moray,Scotland,U.K.
Posts: 1,728
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
Maoraigh1 is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2021, 12:10
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 1,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rans6andrew View Post
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........

The proposed trail area will effect White Waltham operations, go through the circuit of a local airstrip they appear not to be aware of. And infringe the approach to R24 at Brimpton.
Other than those, no problems foreseen.
cessnapete is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2021, 17:35
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Bressuire
Posts: 712
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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..
Fl1ingfrog is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2021, 19:57
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: london
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
homonculus is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2021, 21:20
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Moray,Scotland,U.K.
Posts: 1,728
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
" 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.
Maoraigh1 is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2021, 17:06
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 1,536
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
surely not is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2021, 21:47
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: london
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
homonculus is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2021, 23:06
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by homonculus View Post
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.
EXDAC is online now  
Old 8th Jul 2021, 23:53
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Bressuire
Posts: 712
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.

Last edited by Fl1ingfrog; 9th Jul 2021 at 12:42.
Fl1ingfrog is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2021, 09:30
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Moray,Scotland,U.K.
Posts: 1,728
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From Avweb, today 9 July:
https://www.avweb.com/recent-updates...-first-flight/
Maoraigh1 is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2021, 19:21
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tring, UK
Posts: 1,731
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.

Itís not only urgent supplies of whatever, itís normal stuff too. Instead of white vans screaming through villages throwing fragile parcels over hedges (Iím 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.
FullWings is online now  
Old 9th Jul 2021, 20:37
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ansiao
Posts: 2,716
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
... 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 prťvoir" are long gone.
Jan Olieslagers is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2021, 20:39
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Moray,Scotland,U.K.
Posts: 1,728
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
Maoraigh1 is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2021, 21:10
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: london
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.

homonculus is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2021, 21:39
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Broughton, UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
.
scifi is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2021, 09:12
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Bressuire
Posts: 712
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
Fl1ingfrog is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2021, 12:17
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
.
phiggsbroadband is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2021, 19:04
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Bressuire
Posts: 712
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
..........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.

Fl1ingfrog is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2021, 19:45
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 7,088
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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
SWBKCB is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.