|
The Ferret King posted:There is no such signal requirement in the US that applies to all manned aifcraft. He was talking about drones, and the FAA hasn't fully hammered out the TCAS requirements for drones, but chances are after a couple collisions drones are going to be REQUIRED to carry and broadcast TCAS unless below 500 ft. I got to see the C-130 that struck a drone in Afghanistan, ripped a chunk out of the external tank, thankfully they were able to recover and land safely. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Mar 24, 2014 |
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
Unfortunately my buddy at Inmarsat couldn't say anything about the MH370 search, so all that's left for me to tell is this Gulf sheik's aircrew being all up in arms about the exact timings for testing out their new on-board internet... because they thought they had to be flying in order to get it done. Cue $$$s of Jet A-1 being wasted on desert flyovers 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:He was talking about drones, and the FAA hasn't fully hammered out the TCAS requirements for drones, but chances are after a couple collisions drones are going to be REQUIRED to carry and broadcast TCAS unless below 500 ft. He said manned aircraft. What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter. Put whatever you want on the drones. Manned aircraft are not required to have transponders or TCAS in all situations. So the drones can talk and squawk but many manned aircraft won't be listening or responding.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:He said manned aircraft. What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter. Put whatever you want on the drones. Manned aircraft are not required to have transponders or TCAS in all situations. So the drones can talk and squawk but many manned aircraft won't be listening or responding. Well, at the same time, most manned aircraft are required to have at least transponders of some sort depending on location, but yeah, sorry I was wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
You saying "most" is probably correct, however there are tons of aircraft in the US without transponders. And most of those are the kind that tend to operate at typical amateur drone altitudes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:He said manned aircraft. What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter. Put whatever you want on the drones. Manned aircraft are not required to have transponders or TCAS in all situations. So the drones can talk and squawk but many manned aircraft won't be listening or responding. And, TCAS requires training - so even if a friendly wizard put it on everything down to the smallest garage-built experimental toy, you'd still need a licensing system to make sure that everyone is trained. And, since drones are often tiny and very maneuverable, it'd likely be on drone operators to get out of the way of a potential collision. CommieGIR posted:Well, at the same time, most manned aircraft are required to have at least transponders of some sort depending on location, but yeah, sorry I was wrong. TCAS is a system that needs a lot more than just a transponder. You can't issue a "climb, climb" advisory without knowing that the other aircraft isn't going to do the exact same thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Exactly what Ferret King is saying, a lot of lighter manned aircraft aren't transmitting anything useful for avoidance and wont be unless something mandatory requirement is brought in which will be very costly. I've got a little quadcopter with a gopro on and it's great fun, but it has made me a bit concerned with how capeable it is. I often operate between 500ft-3000 and spotting one from the cockpit would be pretty difficult. Paramotors are bad enough and they've got a fabric sail to see.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:TCAS is a system that needs a lot more than just a transponder. You can't issue a "climb, climb" advisory without knowing that the other aircraft isn't going to do the exact same thing. I'm Comm/Nav for heavies, so yeah I know how TCAS works. But that isn't all TCAS is for, KNOWING that an aircraft is there is half of the battle, if you know that an aircraft is nearby and its given altitude, you can avoid it. Yes, you need more information to be able to get RAs, but being aware makes an accident all the less likely. Space Gopher posted:And, TCAS requires training - so even if a friendly wizard put it on everything down to the smallest garage-built experimental toy, you'd still need a licensing system to make sure that everyone is trained. And, since drones are often tiny and very maneuverable, it'd likely be on drone operators to get out of the way of a potential collision. Got some citation for that? Most TCAS systems are just turning it on. At least on C-130s and JSTARS, its simply select whether you want TAs only or RAs as well, and that's it. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Mar 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:He said manned aircraft. What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter. Put whatever you want on the drones. Manned aircraft are not required to have transponders or TCAS in all situations. So the drones can talk and squawk but many manned aircraft won't be listening or responding. This is confusing because Shavnir's talking about ADS-B (which certainly sounds like it'll be mandatory across general aviation by 2020 if it's not now) and hobbesmaster is pulling out FAA/FCC requirements as if manned aircraft already have them. Manned aircraft are going to need something better than a Mk 1 Eyeball to handle more crowded skies and a simple transmit beacon seems a lot cheaper and simpler than a lot of other possible solutions (including however ADS-B manifests.) It wouldn't take much sensors / logic on the UAV to sense direction of signal and run the other way. You've still got to avoid whacking Cessnas into other Cessnas but either that's a non-issue or it's being addressed elsewhere; it's unclear to me whether you guys are saying that's the role TCAS does or should play. The drone on-board solutions really should be tailored (size/weight/cost) as to whether you're talking Bobby Joe's RC GoPro Quadcopter or some sort of civilian RQ-4-size thing auto-running a GPS track.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I'm Comm/Nav for heavies, so yeah I know how TCAS works. And how are you going to know where the drone is without a pressure altimeter? RNAV? Eventually with all this equipment you're going to be looking at a microlight sized aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
A Melted Tarp posted:And how are you going to know where the drone is without a pressure altimeter? RNAV? Eventually with all this equipment you're going to be looking at a microlight sized aircraft. You realize that Radar Altimeters can be REALLY small. And Radar Altimeters are going to give you better RAs than barometric. Most RAs are based almost entirely off of the Radar Altimeter, because that gives you your ACTUAL AGL, not your barometric, which depending on your location in the world could send you straight into the ground. Unless you plan to fly about 4k feet or more, you can make a small low power Radar Altimeter that gives you everything you'd need for RAs in TCAS.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
There are also manned aircraft with no electrical systems at all. It'd be great if drones could be made to clear out of the way of aircraft every time but I suspect a reliable system would be very costly to set up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I'm Comm/Nav for heavies, so yeah I know how TCAS works. If you know that an aircraft is there and nearby, you can avoid it, until Joe Photographer decides that he needs a better angle and zips his quadcopter straight into your GA aircraft's flight path. And, TCAS is as simple as turning it on - as long as you're familiar with basic principles of airmanship. If all participants in the system don't understand how far away you have to be from another aircraft before you're safe, and the limits of how their aircraft and others can maneuver to get out of each other's way, then a system that can tell you how far you are from other aircraft and give basic resolution advisories isn't going to provide the level of safety we expect for aviation. Snowdens Secret posted:This is confusing because Shavnir's talking about ADS-B (which certainly sounds like it'll be mandatory across general aviation by 2020 if it's not now) and hobbesmaster is pulling out FAA/FCC requirements as if manned aircraft already have them. It wouldn't take much logic to just sense a transponder and run in the other direction - but if you want it to be effective, you'll need to take immediate control, and that means a much more powerful system that can recognize and avoid a potential Controlled Flight Into Crowded Playground incident. Right now, the system we depend on to take immediate control in a situation like that is called a "pilot," and they're certified just like any other safety-critical system on an aircraft. If you want UAVs to operate in airspace with manned aircraft, you're going to need one of two things. You can do it with automation capable of near-human-level decision making, which doesn't really exist right now. Or, you can do it with sophisticated sensors and extensive pilot/operator training. Finally, you can opt out of the whole "same airspace" thing, and put strict limits on where and how they operate so that an inexperienced or stupid operator can't get into a position to hurt people without breaking all kinds of rules. No matter what, you can't have both sophisticated, highly capable* commercial civilian UAVs and easy hobbyist access under the same set of regulations without sci-fi technology. *highly capable compared to the typical hobbyist FPV setup - on a level with, say, a ScanEagle
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You realize that Radar Altimeters can be REALLY small. And Radar Altimeters are going to give you better RAs than barometric. Most RAs are based almost entirely off of the Radar Altimeter, because that gives you your ACTUAL AGL, not your barometric, which depending on your location in the world could send you straight into the ground. A TCAS unit with Radio Altitude as the sole input wouldn't be compatible with the current system would it? I was under the impression that the barometric info was the primary factor, and the RA was more for the inhibit functions. RAs based solely on Radio Alt would be horribly inaccurate in certain areas of varying terrain when you take a look at the lateral distances that can initiate an RA advisory. SCOTLAND fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Mar 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
SCOTLAND posted:RAs based solely on Radio Alt would be horribly inaccurate in certain areas of varying terrain when you take a look at the lateral distances that can initiate an RA advisory. But for the purposes of a drone, all you'd need is a rough estimate, not an exact as the drone cannot change altitude at the same rate (unless it's something like the Predator, in which case it would have a full fledged avionics package anyways and be able to read barometric). In the case of lateral changes, I suspect that finding a way for TCAS on the drone to detect roll/yaw would allow it to delay the altitude change reading in such a way that lateral changes could be adjusted for without barometric altitude. I thought we were refering to more like quad copters and small drones that don't have the ability to rapidly increase altitude, where RA's based on Radar alone would suffice for warning purposes. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Mar 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
http://avherald.com/h?article=4710c69bquote:In the press conference on Mar 24th 2014 Malaysia's Prime Minister said, that the experts of the AAIB briefed the prime minister stating that the satellite experts have done further computations on the satellite data using methods never used before. Based on the new computations Inmarsat and the AAIB have concluded MH-370 flew the southern corridor with its final position west of Perth, Australia at a remote area of the Indian Ocean with no landing sites. "It is with deep sadness and regret I must inform you that, according to these new data, flight MH-370 ended in the southern Indian Ocean", the Prime Minister stated. Recovery of the first debris suspected to be from the downed 777 is expected to occur in the next couple of hours as ships arrive on site. quote:In the early afternoon of Mar 24th 2014 AMSA tweeted that one of the Chinese search planes spotted objects in the South Indian Ocean within the search area of 69.500 square kilometers of today. Resources are being relocated. Later AMSA reported that an Australian search plane saw one circular grey or green object and a rectangular orange object in the search area, the objects are different from the earlier Chinese observation. HMAS Success is heading towards these objects. Tsuru fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Mar 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
I really hope they find the data recorders and they weren't switched off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Fox News told me that the airplane was hijacked and was being filled with explosives to crash into American cities, and don't think they're wrong about this! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
CharlesM posted:I really hope they find the data recorders and they weren't switched off. Or that a possible electrical fire didn't destroy the wiring to them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Interestingly, investigators can actually determine if it was deliberately shut off by circuit breaker like in this case:quote:The cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder stopped recording minutes before the abrupt descent, but not at the same time.[7] A technical analysis of the sound signature of a CVR circuit breaker trip, as recorded by the CVR, was carried out by investigators and the evidence showed that the CVR stoppage was consistent with being manually initiated. The radio continued to work after the failure of the recorders, which indicates that power failure was not the cause.[2][3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SilkAir_Flight_185#CVR_and_FDR_deactivation
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
CharlesM posted:Interestingly, investigators can actually determine if it was deliberately shut off by circuit breaker like in this case: Man, that's loving cool (the analysis of doing that). I would consult on trying to figure out things like that for free, it's really interesting and challenging. I hope they find the debris + recorders this week (assuming of course the aircraft was lost); the families need closure. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:This is confusing because Shavnir's talking about ADS-B (which certainly sounds like it'll be mandatory across general aviation by 2020 if it's not now) It's not currently mandated in the US and there is plenty of lobbying to keep it optional for general aviation. It still wouldn't be required in 2020 except for airspace that requires a transponder currently. See AOPA ADSB Brief quote:and hobbesmaster is pulling out FAA/FCC requirements as if manned aircraft already have them. Some do, some do not. quote:Manned aircraft are going to need something better than a Mk 1 Eyeball to handle more crowded skies and a simple transmit beacon seems a lot cheaper and simpler than a lot of other possible solutions (including however ADS-B manifests.) Transponders are required for manned aircraft only in the busiest types of airspace (exceptions are allowed case by case) but that's only a small portion of the national airspace system in the US. Plenty of flight occurs in areas where there is no requirement for a transponder, or even a radio. Mk 1 Eyeball is the purest form of aircraft separation, it is always the pilot's responsibility to see and avoid other aircraft when meteorological conditions permit (AIM 5-5-8). quote:It wouldn't take much sensors / logic on the UAV to sense direction of signal and run the other way. You've still got to avoid whacking Cessnas into other Cessnas but either that's a non-issue or it's being addressed elsewhere; it's unclear to me whether you guys are saying that's the role TCAS does or should play. It's certainly an issue, but manned aircraft are big enough to be visible in flight. Even then, it can be difficult to spot other traffic. Knowledge of flight pattern procedures, appropriate altitudes for direction of flight, and a diligent visual scan, keep instance of mid air collisions low. Still, they do happen. The problem with drones is that they may be far too small to acquire visually, and the drone itself will not be able to see the other airplane unless it was within a relatively narrow camera FOV. A pilot in a manned aircraft will visually scan in all directions, and conflicting manned aircraft should be doing the same, increasing the likelihood that one will see the other. movax posted:Man, that's loving cool (the analysis of doing that). I would consult on trying to figure out things like that for free, it's really interesting and challenging. As tedious as the work probably is, I always thought being an investigator for the NTSB would be an insanely cool job. Kinda like being a detective piecing together a massive case. It's probably not as glamorous as I imagine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
SCOTLAND posted:A TCAS unit with Radio Altitude as the sole input wouldn't be compatible with the current system would it? I was under the impression that the barometric info was the primary factor, and the RA was more for the inhibit functions. You're correct. Transponder/pressure altimeter correlation checks are part of the FAR 91.411 certification process, and that same altitude data is also what TCAS uses for reporting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:It's not currently mandated in the US and there is plenty of lobbying to keep it optional for general aviation. It still wouldn't be required in 2020 except for airspace that requires a transponder currently. See AOPA ADSB Brief
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:There is no such signal requirement in the US that applies to all manned aifcraft. The Ferret King posted:You saying "most" is probably correct, however there are tons of aircraft in the US without transponders. And most of those are the kind that tend to operate at typical amateur drone altitudes. And thus why GA's effort to develop sense and avoid for the Reaper (the last big technical hurdle before it can operate unrestricted in the national airspace system) has been such a lengthy process. Integrating TCAS, ADS-B, and the transponder was (relatively) easy, but they also had to develop a due regard radar in-house to fill in the gaps with aircraft that weren't otherwise broadcasting. Of note, the visual capabilities (nose cam and MTS ball) play no role in the system. And keep in mind, this is a system on a Super Tucano sized/performing aircraft that is being operated by a trained/licensed pilot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
If you've never been told by tower that there's a predator-sized uav cleared in number two behind you and you should hurry up, it's interesting to contemplate whether that guy flying it can see you or is even looking. I just hope they sort out all this mess before GA pilots have to deal with that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:. It's cool, but I'd be worried about my mental health. Well, you know, it's different for everybody but dealing with death sucks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
This image is blowing up all over Facebook and blogs. If this were just people being snarky stupid like with the jokes about Samuel L. Jackson being mistaken for Laurence Fishburne, then it could be ignored. But folks are ignoring the glaringly obvious problem with this supposed "real ad":
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
That's an A380  edit: preemptive 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Terrible Robot posted:That's an A380 Have a closer read of the text or is this a within a ? If so, how far do the go down the rabbit hole?
Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:And keep in mind, this is a system on a Super Tucano sized/performing aircraft that is being operated by a trained/licensed pilot. And also cost a few million apiece. If things follow the path this thread is laying out, the cost of equipment, training, and licensing is going to climb right up to manned GA levels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Re: drones, quadcopters, et al I don't think shoehorning manned aircraft systems into them is going to be the useful solution. I don't know how feasible it would be but an entirely drone /copter based projected IR or ultrasonic bubble that, when breached by an object, either automatically evades or simply freezes motion until the object is clear might be a more useful solution to mandate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Godholio posted:And also cost a few million apiece. If things follow the path this thread is laying out, the cost of equipment, training, and licensing is going to climb right up to manned GA levels. Which is going to do a real disservice to the compliant civic / civilian users by cranking up their costs, but isn't going to do a thing to the huge black market it'll inevitably create, as at some point it'll be cheaper to just make drones disposable and abandon them as needed to avoid potential fines than it would be to reach/maintain compliance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:If you've never been told by tower that there's a predator-sized uav cleared in number two behind you and you should hurry up, it's interesting to contemplate whether that guy flying it can see you or is even looking. I just hope they sort out all this mess before GA pilots have to deal with that. At least a Pred has a pilot in the loop if it's in the pattern...I've been told some stories about the ATC conversations that have resulted when the Global Hawk has diverted on short notice into a location...  : Chicken 01 has declared an IFE and is diverting into your airfield, ETA 30 mins, request you clear the pattern: No Chicken, no land here, too busy, no permission: I don't think you understand...that plane IS going to land at your airfield in 29 minutes, clear airspace or otherwise. Request you clear the pattern.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Have a closer read of the text If that is a fake image, I'll bet the person who wrote it works in advertising. That text reads exactly like I'd expect to see on an ad. E: Also explains why they put the wrong plane on there.
goatsestretchgoals fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Godholio posted:And also cost a few million apiece. If things follow the path this thread is laying out, the cost of equipment, training, and licensing is going to climb right up to manned GA levels. Aviation stuff costs what it does not because it's so advanced, but because it's tested, certified, proven reliable. Any technical solution that gives unmanned aircraft the burden to see and avoid will suffer from the same cost issues. Snowdens Secret posted:Which is going to do a real disservice to the compliant civic / civilian users by cranking up their costs, but isn't going to do a thing to the huge black market it'll inevitably create, as at some point it'll be cheaper to just make drones disposable and abandon them as needed to avoid potential fines than it would be to reach/maintain compliance. I feel like any scale where they're disposable you're basically just operating a short range r/c plane that has some extra sensors and controllers, and the need to be involved in GA regs is unnecessary. Do you really think someone's going to make a useful autonomous aircraft that's cheap enough to be considered disposable but will have "way beyond operator line of sight" kind of range? Sure you can make an autonomous plane fairly cheaply, but if you're gonna write it and its payload completely off then what's the point? And if you're gonna send an air vehicle beyond LOS by itself then why not just have a mechanism where you can easily notify the FAA of its intended route so real planes can avoid or be aware?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:Aviation stuff costs what it does not because it's so advanced, but because it's tested, certified, proven reliable. Any technical solution that gives unmanned aircraft the burden to see and avoid will suffer from the same cost issues. Yup. GA's sense and avoid getup is still pretty cool, though. I have such mixed feelings about that company.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:At least a Pred has a pilot in the loop if it's in the pattern...I've been told some stories about the ATC conversations that have resulted when the Global Hawk has diverted on short notice into a location... Reminds me of the old "This is a lighthouse" joke.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
bitcoin bastard posted:If that is a fake image, I'll bet the person who wrote it works in advertising. That text reads exactly like I'd expect to see on an ad. http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article3249494.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Fake-Malaysia-advert-3249494.jpg
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:I feel like any scale where they're disposable you're basically just operating a short range r/c plane that has some extra sensors and controllers, and the need to be involved in GA regs is unnecessary. Do you really think someone's going to make a useful autonomous aircraft that's cheap enough to be considered disposable but will have "way beyond operator line of sight" kind of range? Sure you can make an autonomous plane fairly cheaply, but if you're gonna write it and its payload completely off then what's the point? And if you're gonna send an air vehicle beyond LOS by itself then why not just have a mechanism where you can easily notify the FAA of its intended route so real planes can avoid or be aware?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 04:31
|
|
