|
The Ferret King posted:Or if they drift within 5-8 miles in any given direction of an airport having instrument approaches that go down to ~500ft that far out. Do a lot of airports have that kind of approach? A few months after I graduated from RIT, flying quadcopters was forbidden everywhere on campus due to proximity to ROC, which is only about 2 miles north of the campus. I don't think any planes ever flew over but we did have a lot of National Guard helicopters fly over.
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 19:07 |
|
|
brains posted:as someone who's flown helicopters for the last 7 years and flies almost exclusively 0-1000 AGL, i can tell you that we have a hard enough time avoiding military controlled small UAS (some of which are as big as a compact car), let alone commercial drones. I thought at least military UAVs had transponders? WTF?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Do a lot of airports have that kind of approach? The most common types of approaches in the US have aircraft at 1500-2000ft until about 5 miles from the airport/runway. Then they either drop down immediately to ~500-800ft depending on obstacle clearance, or they gradually descend toward a point about ~200ft above the runway surface. So 500-800ft at 5 miles is a common altitude in flat areas, though most aircraft would take a more shallow descent angle to the minimum altitude, they could just dump it down. My 8 mile example probably doesn't occur nearly as often. But they're not always aligned with a runway either. You can't be certain, without looking at the airport's approach plates, that the descending aircraft will be aligned with a runway centerline. Some of the approach procedures just point straight to the middle of the airport itself. The closer you get to the airport, the lower they'll be of course. But some procedures allow for pretty low instrument flight a lot farther out than you might expect. These approaches will likely become less and less common as they get replaced by GPS based approaches. The reason for their existence presently, if not for terrain/obstructions, is that the course to be flown from a radio navigational aid has to be either directly TO or FROM the navaid. So if the NAVAID isn't installed in a place that lines up with a runway, they'll draw up an approach that takes the aircraft closest to the airport in a straight line. Again I'll say that those types of approaches are on the way out, nationwide. The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Oct 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:There's nothing apalling about it, but the fact that some ultralights and very old GA aircraft don't have electrical systems isn't a good reason to regulate the quadcopter people out of existence. Not that I have a problem with requiring things like strobes, radar reflectors, what have you on the quadcopters. Ultralights can't fly in controlled airspace and older aircraft (or any GA aircraft) can't fly in class A, B, C airspace without transponders though  Are you a pilot?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I thought at least military UAVs had transponders? WTF? the larger airframes, like the predators, reapers, global chickens etc. do, but the hand-launched or rail-launched varieties? nope. the only way we avoid mid-airs is to deconflict airspace. usually what will happen is the UAS operator will open a ROZ (restricted operating zone with established boundaries and altitudes) for launch/recovery and for wherever they are operating, which is then briefed to aviators operating in that area very similar to a NOTAM. of course, for any of this to actually work safely, the UAS operators have to: 1. actually open a ROZ before firing a SUAS into the great unknown, 2. actually fly inside the ROZ, and 3. actually be trained on basic airspace rules and management, all of which is difficult enough for trained soldiers (who, full disclosure, are not pilots and mostly laymen when it comes to aviation) and would probably go a long way towards safety in the civilian world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
dev null posted:Ultralights can't fly in controlled airspace and older aircraft (or any GA aircraft) can't fly in class A, B, C airspace without transponders though
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
I just flicked through some vids related to that crosswind one and came across this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P9OAng32F0 Do runways not have to be flat? Because that poo poo is not flat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
warcake posted:I just flicked through some vids related to that crosswind one and came across this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P9OAng32F0 From your description (crosswind, undulations) I guessed BHX I watched and it was BHX
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Edit: nothing to see here
dr cum patrol esq fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Oct 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
warcake posted:I just flicked through some vids related to that crosswind one and came across this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P9OAng32F0 There are tons of runways out there that aren't flat. Either they have inconsistencies down the length of them, or they may slope up/down in a certain direction overall. Sometimes, this causes blind spots where you can taxi onto a runway end and not be able to see the other end due to the elevation change and distance. This reminds me of a runway incursion at CLT (Charlotte, NC) where the regional jet wasn't able to see a small aircraft that taxied into the middle portion of the runway until after they already started takeoff roll. The jet flight crew was able to swerve and slow. This was a combination ATC error with poor pilot phraseology contributing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpzAZR8wz08
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Yea some runways have a helluva slope or divets to them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
warcake posted:I just flicked through some vids related to that crosswind one and came across this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P9OAng32F0 The IP who I soloed under operated off of a grass strip on the side of a hill next to a lake. You took off downhill and landed uphill. It was awesome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Alereon posted:What point do you think you are making here? You're just as dead if your (manned) aircraft crashes into another one no matter what class of airspace you're in. No one cares about flying in unrestricted airspace (drones or otherwise), the issue at hand is drone operations in restricted airspaces, Mortabis commented specifically about aircraft that can't occupy the airspaces that are being discussed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
well every day is a school day!
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
dev null posted:No one cares about flying in unrestricted airspace (drones or otherwise), the issue at hand is drone operations in restricted airspaces, Mortabis commented specifically about aircraft that can't occupy the airspaces that are being discussed. One way to do this is to restrict drones to below the "navigable airspace" that could be occupied by aircraft. As The Ferret King mentioned, it can be hard to know where aircraft will be flying low, so it's hard to imagine a good technological solution to enforce this. The closest thing I could think of is some sort of electronic map with maximum altitudes associated with GPS coordinates, but this seems like a recipe for outdated data killing people. Also, sometimes it's necessary to fly above certain minimum altitudes either for mission reasons or for improved radio signal. Another way to deal with this is to treat drones like manned airplanes and their operators like pilots, expecting them to "see and avoid" other aircraft and provide their own separation. This is impossible for pilots in actual airplanes, as the increasing rate of mid-airs even in controlled airspace should make clear. The only thing that could potentially work is a technological solution that allows drones to know the position of aircraft around them and avoid them, and/or vice versa. This is why the requirement for ADS-B keeps coming up, but in order for that to work ALL aircraft need to be capable, hence the discussion about what to do about GA jackasses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Edit: Oh, nevermind.
Godholio fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Oct 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
brains posted:the larger airframes, like the predators, reapers, global chickens etc. do, but the hand-launched or rail-launched varieties? nope. the only way we avoid mid-airs is to deconflict airspace. Absolutely false. Everything from scan eagle (~35-50lbs) on up has at least a mode C transponder. What base are you near that has Mil UAS flying around in non-mil airspace?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Can we make a drone thread
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:Can we make a drone thread It'll have to stay below 400 posts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
ZING! Does it come with psueo macho bullshit about how drones should be allowed to kill civilians because they have just as much right to be there as any other post?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:Does it come with psueo macho bullshit about how drones should be allowed to kill civilians because they have just as much right to be there as any other post? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeted_killing#Legal_justifications_for_targeted_killing
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
warcake posted:I just flicked through some vids related to that crosswind one and came across this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P9OAng32F0 Lmao have you seen courchevel France?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Butt Reactor posted:Lmao have you seen courchevel France?  NO
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
buttcoinbrony posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeted_killing#Legal_justifications_for_targeted_killing You know we're talking about mid air collisions and close calls within the contiguous United States, right? You know we're not talking about drones in a military application abroad, right? Actually, what was your point? The post was awfully low content.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Have you seen Goldeneye? (I was going to post a video from Courchevel but couldn't remember its name) e- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pK9uqF4y7c
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
While I do find it funny when pilots suggest that a kid flying a drone twenty feet up in their back yard needs a no-poo poo pilot's license, the drone users who are just like "move over gramps, I'm droning here" are even more hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:While I do find it funny when pilots suggest that a kid flying a drone twenty feet up in their back yard needs a no-poo poo pilot's license, the drone users who are just like "move over gramps, I'm droning here" are even more hilarious. TBH they deserve each other.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
What in God's name It's like the airport was constructed on a dare.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
It's a somewhat remote ski resort. There's not a ton of options. Also I believe it was constructed in the 50s? Edit: There is no runway lighting, there is no ILS or any kind of positioning assistance. There is no go-around procedure. Apparently you need to be specially certified to do the landing. There are worse runways in the world. Edit 2: This is a neat overview of the approach. https://youtu.be/IJvjeA4Znts Jonny Nox fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:Edit 2: That's pretty good, using a sim and all that, but how bout the real deal in a Dash-7  https://youtu.be/55SswKIn18A
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
A Dash-7 is my second on my list of ultimate gently caress-you-got-mine airplanes. Just show up in your -7 to every backwoods bush field get-together full of Super Cubs and Maules with twenty or thirty of your closest friends. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
The short-fieldiest way to make a large pile of money disappear!
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
Alereon posted:One way to do this is to restrict drones to below the "navigable airspace" that could be occupied by aircraft. As The Ferret King mentioned, it can be hard to know where aircraft will be flying low, so it's hard to imagine a good technological solution to enforce this. The closest thing I could think of is some sort of electronic map with maximum altitudes associated with GPS coordinates, but this seems like a recipe for outdated data killing people. Also, sometimes it's necessary to fly above certain minimum altitudes either for mission reasons or for improved radio signal. DJI does have a "no-fly" GPS map in its drones, but they only looked at airports with IATA codes for passenger service, and if you're not an airport with class B airspace the no-fly radius may not even stretch to include the ends of the runways. So it is possible, but the map with approaches marked out would probably be complex enough to need more storage and maybe more processing power on the drone to cope. "ADS-B and avoid" is a non-starter in that ADS-B will only be a requirement where Mode C is a requirement today, which is controlled airspace, 30nm from major airports and above certain altitudes. Drones in navigable airspace and manned aircraft operating in those environments will need ADS-B, but that's not the majority of airspace. There are a good number of manned aircraft out there without transponders because their aircraft don't have electrical systems that fly outside of the transponder-needed airspace and drones will need to avoid those aircraft as well. I believe there are companies working on optical "see and avoid" solutions for drones where they can see aircraft approaching and maneuver to avoid them, though nothing ready for primetime yet. I suspect the approach the FAA will take based on their commercial standards is to say 400 feet and below and 5nm away from airports is still open for non-commercial use without additional requirements, closer to airports or higher than 400 feet will require a "drone pilot license" that is mostly about understanding the regulations, airspace, and how to read aeronautical charts, with a requirement when flying closer/higher to coordinate with ATC when near controlled airspace or arrange for a NOTAM in uncontrolled airspace until drone tech gets better at see and avoid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
brains posted:the larger airframes, like the predators, reapers, global chickens etc. do, but the hand-launched or rail-launched varieties? nope. the only way we avoid mid-airs is to deconflict airspace. This isn't accurate. Shadow / RQ-7 is rail-launched and has a mode-c transponder. Further, the training curriculum includes passing the private pilot written exam. Every single time we launched a shadow, we opened a ROZ, and talked to ATC the entire time. I can't talk for the hand-launched yahoos or that hideous flying trash can, though 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
Alereon posted:The closest thing I could think of is some sort of electronic map with maximum altitudes associated with GPS coordinates, but this seems like a recipe for outdated data killing people. Also, sometimes it's necessary to fly above certain minimum altitudes either for mission reasons or for improved radio signal. As far as the rest, drones should obviously be the ones to yield right-of-way to manned craft in pretty much any situation I can think of because they're almost always going to be more maneuverable and have the least to lose if the avoidance maneuver goes wrong. That said the easiest way to make sure this happens is to mandate ADS-B or something comparable in all GA, so IMO the solution is to tell the "no electronics" crowd to gently caress off. It's not like small, battery operated, near-1GHz, GPS equipped radio devices are expensive technology these days. There are probably regulatory issues to resolve about what would effectively be a portable transponder, but I see no technical reason why one couldn't have a box that was basically the size of a smartphone with a pair of antenna ports for GPS and transmit, otherwise packed with batteries, which would allow even the lightest of ultralights to add ADS-B with no effort other than attaching the box and antennas somewhere appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
wolrah posted:The old data thing would be pretty simple to deal with from a technical side. Anything with working GPS knows exactly what time it is, so make it refuse to operate outside of a very limited "toy" profile if the data is more than X amount out of date. Figure out a standard format for the data and make it the FAA's (or other local regulatory authority as appropriate) responsibility to provide it so we can be confident everyone's running on the same information and if a manufacturer disappears the owners of their products will still be able to get the required updates. Add digital signatures to prevent tampering. lol if you think it isn't trivially easy to spoof GPS time and location.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Midjack posted:lol if you think it isn't trivially easy to spoof GPS time and location. Isn't that how Iran tricked that UAV into landing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
wolrah posted:The old data thing would be pretty simple to deal with from a technical side. Anything with working GPS knows exactly what time it is, so make it refuse to operate outside of a very limited "toy" profile if the data is more than X amount out of date. Figure out a standard format for the data and make it the FAA's (or other local regulatory authority as appropriate) responsibility to provide it so we can be confident everyone's running on the same information and if a manufacturer disappears the owners of their products will still be able to get the required updates. Add digital signatures to prevent tampering. You've obviously never been exposed to the world of aviation regulation. This is not a technical challenge, it's a political and regulatory one: The FAA is one of the world's most glacial bureaucracies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:You know we're talking about mid air collisions and close calls within the contiguous United States, right? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 19:07 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Isn't that how Iran tricked that UAV into landing? That's the story.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:05
|
|