Amateur (Ham) Radio and RC (Radio Controlled) Flight

[VenomBallistics]

I have some hours. So that could be two potential pilots.
One last consideration is a Comm segment to the link. This lets us follow the rules like a full scale flight and scare the hell out of Gadwick a bit less when we buzz the tower.

Autonomous flight ... I've heard of some drones that could fly waypoints. I don't mind the idea for as long as a human element has the ability to assume control immediately. Our feet remain on the ground. Those we share airspace with don't have that luxury.
No matter how we progress, we need to do so with bent metal in mind.

Perhaps a non satellite method might be a system where we can hand off control to pilots for subsequent legs

 

[hevans1944]

No matter how we progress, we need to do so with bent metal in mind.

Amen to that. Collision with a UAV large enough to cross oceans and continents could be fatal to anyone in an airplane carrying human passengers and crew. If it gets to that, and a LOT of rules would have to be amended to allow it, then it would make sense to require UAVs capable of such flights to carry transponders.

Most of the flying public (paid passenger seats) probably don't realize that even full-size airplanes at cruising altitudes are virtually invisible to commercial airport radar. So, all commercial air traffic uses transponders that receive a radar "ping" as the aircraft is "painted" by a radar beam, and the transponder then responds with (transmits) a signal that is much larger than the radar echo from the airplane, said signal also containing additional digital data to help identify the flight. The interrogated transponder shows up as a strong, annotated, return on the traffic control radar screens.

Fitting drones with transponders would certainly greatly add to the already overloaded burden of ground-based flight controllers, but perhaps other aircraft could be equipped with collision avoidance avionics that would respond to drone transponders that have been interrogated by ground radar. Not that this would be of much help for very long distance flights away from airports with radar facilities, but some federal agency surely is responsible for "tracking" such flights and would activate the transponders... well, one would hope.

We have had collision avoidance technology for more than twenty years, but AFAIK it has never been deployed commercially on a wide scale. It is expensive, and maybe because commercial flights fly so high, on well-known routes, with well-known flight plans, an air-to-air collision is considered to be a negligible threat. Bird strikes during landing and takeoff are probably a much more likely hazard. For whatever reason, the commercial airline industry is not ready, and will probably never be ready, to share airspace with drones. They barely tolerate private aviation.

 

[(*steve*)]

Collision with a UAV large enough to cross oceans and continents

Even smaller ones are potentially

There is an excellent video of the effect a small "recreational" quadcopter can have on the leading edge of an aircraft wing when the collision happens at the speed that commercial jets fly.

I believe the test was done at 250kts, which is a speed you'll often see a commercial jet fly on approach while clean. Jets on departure and on short finals will be going far slower, but a messed up leading edge is not something I'd like to have to manage, especially in a smaller jet (where the effect would be proportionately larger).

Here (correction, video claims 238mph which is 207kts)

The manufacturer of the specific quadcopter used was a little miffed.

The problem with this video is, that the wing is actually from a light aircraft, and one would be suspicious that a commercial jet would have a stronger leading edge, presumably to cope with higher wind loadings etc.

These tests were done by the University of Dayton, a fact which Hop may find interesting...

 

[VenomBallistics]

The manufacturer of the specific quadcopter used was a little miffed.

Yeah, the test was weighted into the realm of improbability. But that's science today. Studies versus experiments, results favor the highest bidder with a university gone shameless grant whore.
That said, we can blow holes in the test all day. They didn't have to fudge the numbers and thumb the scale.
A race quad can make the closure speed with a frame whose major portion is best described as a carbon fiber shuriken.
Their expert ignorance probably avoided a glorious result that'd have their coffers salivating all over the next check.

So, all commercial air traffic uses transponders that receive a radar "ping" as the aircraft is "painted" by a radar beam, and the transponder then ....

There is a possibility that these could end up being required on RC craft too. At least thats some of the chatter. If it comes to pass, it'll probably be a fixed squawk code to generically designate a drone like 1200 designates a VFR joyride
If we must ultimately deal with it, it should be known that 7700, 7500, 7777 and probably a few more I forgot are to be avoided. 7500 is a good way go get sodomized by an AIM 9L

 

[(*steve*)]

I would not like to be in a 737 if a collision resulted in an uncommanded and asymmetric retraction of leading edge devices in a critical phase of flight.

I think it's undisputable that even a recreational quadcopter has the potential to penetrate an aircraft.

The fact is that if you're flying in controlled airspace you are subject to the rules. Around airports those controlled airspaces can start from ground level.

Those rules can prevent the entry into those airspaces. Exceptions due to life and death emergencies simply don't apply to recreational drones.

I see a far easier solution being legislation that requires "if you can't squawk 8000, you can't fly within X km of an airport or at an altitude greater than 50 metres". I'll leave the obvious joke there to those without thumbs.

Even with all the electronic magic you might think of, collision avoidance relies on being able to see and avoid the threat (unless you're suggesting that commercial aircraft will use ACAS to avoid drones). It would be more likely to mandate a system where drones fell out of the sky if they were ever perceived to be within the threat envelope of another aircraft.

I have little sympathy with idiots who want to fly their quadcopters near airports or in other areas where they might conflict with the safety of people.

 

[VenomBallistics]

Even with all the electronic magic you might think of, collision avoidance relies on being able to see and avoid the threat (unless you're suggesting that commercial aircraft will use ACAS to avoid drones). It would be more likely to mandate a system where drones fell out of the sky if they were ever perceived to be within the threat envelope of another aircraft.

it's a function of situational awareness and communication. Flying FPV, we often times have an edge over full scale in terms of situational awareness. with the often included mic in the camera system, we actually CAN hear the surroundings of our models in some cases. Engine noise of full scale eliminates the possibility
Visual ... we are at least as well off as full scale.
Com is the primary weak point. If you can speak with the air traffic and ATC, we can yield right of way beyond visual range and take instruction from ATC to play nice with traffic.
it does not have to be the conflict CNN and the alarmist news agencies fabricate it to be.

 

[(*steve*)]

If you can speak with the air traffic and ATC, we can yield right of way beyond visual range and take instruction from ATC to play nice with traffic.

Sure, ATC would love that.

So what classes of airspace do you fly your quadcopter in, and which ATC is responsible for it?

How do you ensure that other aircraft can see and avoid you?

 

[VenomBallistics]

Actually our AMA chartered club has a permanent agreement with STRATCOM to use a designated portion of their airspace.
These things do not need to be half as difficult as our alarmist media would have you believe.
Its simple ...
see or hear an AC130 ... "mow the grass and trim the trees" (yield ROW)
Do not fly things toward the base and they will not fly things toward you.
Come time for the open house airshow, the field is an excellent place to watch the show. On this particular weekend, operations are suspended. Dont try to be the show.
If this can be worked out in Department Of Defense controlled airspace, It can be worked out anywhere.
It is always our duty to yield. We can operate at altitudes below the tree tops. At these altitudes, drone strikes are the LEAST of their concerns as they would actively be headed to their crash site.

So what classes of airspace do you fly your quadcopter in, and which ATC is responsible for it?

There's that "Q" word ...
While I and others do fly quads on occasion, most of our air time is with various fixed wing ranging from sailplanes and park flyers to pylon racers and EDF jets. Don't let the media displace the truth with images of quads.

 

[hevans1944]

These tests were done by the University of Dayton, a fact which Hop may find interesting...

Not really... I haven't had much contact with UD or UDRI (University of Dayton Research Institute) since graduating in 1978 and taking an engineering position at Mead Technology Laboratories in 1979. I did attend a class reunion one year, but since I was a part-time student during my attendance at UD, there was nobody at the reunion that I remember knowing or fraternizing with.

For a job several years later at UES, Inc., we tried to contract with UDRI to have them perform some sand erosion tests on test coupons we had prepared using a proprietary coating process. Our goal was a deliver a product for field application to the helicopter rotor blades transporting our warfighters across the desert sands of the Middle East. The UES product could be applied or replaced in the field, avoiding a return to a depot-level maintenance facility. Clearly this would result in cost savings and increased operational reliability.

The deal with UDRI fell through because they wanted too much money to perform the tests. We decided to perform the tests ourselves using COTS sand-blasting equipment aimed at custom jewelry manufacturers. I built a stepper motor controlled X-Y stage to scan our test coupons past the fixed nozzle of the sand blaster. We "estimated" average particle velocity by weighing the sand expended and measuring the total time it took to expend it. Pretty crude, but "gud enuf fer guv'mint work."

I did try to build a time-of-flight sand velocity measurement instrument, but had no success. Stroboscopic techniques didn't work either. The only thing that could reliably measure sand velocity was a laser doppler velocimeter, which UDRI had in their sand erosion lab, but which UES could not afford to purchase for this "in-house funded" research project. My supervisor wasn't interested in me building one either, although that was well within my capabilities.