Drones

[T8]

This is crazy. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/7/coming-to-a-sky-near-you/

To steal a rhetorical device from Andrew Napolitano... "What if all
the paranoid conspiracy nuts.... worked for our government?"

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Bob]

On Feb 8, 9:03*am, T8 > wrote:
> This is crazy. *http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/7/coming-to-a-sky-near-you/
>
> To steal a rhetorical device from Andrew Napolitano... "What if all
> the paranoid conspiracy nuts.... worked for our government?"
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

What a boon for the paperazzi / sleeze newspapers at the grocery store
checkout stand! Backyard skinnydippers beware.

Bob

[Mike the Strike]

On Feb 8, 10:39*am, Bob > wrote:
> On Feb 8, 9:03*am, T8 > wrote:
>
> > This is crazy. *http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/7/coming-to-a-sky-near-you/
>
> > To steal a rhetorical device from Andrew Napolitano... "What if all
> > the paranoid conspiracy nuts.... worked for our government?"
>
> > -Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> What a boon for the paperazzi / sleeze newspapers at the grocery store
> checkout stand! *Backyard skinnydippers beware.
>
> Bob

By all accounts, drones of various shapes and sizes are currently
being flown by several agencies in Arizona and not just at the
border. The fun is about to begin!

Mike

[Mike[_28_]]

I know its been asked here before but how can a drone "see and avoid"?
After all, this type of collision avoidance works much better if the
pilots of both aircraft are looking. Will there be/are there NOTAMs
that drones are in the area? Will they have N numbers? How secret can
they be if someone, somewhere might have to talk to ATC? It should be
interesting.

Mike

[Tom Gardner]

On Feb 8, 7:52*pm, Mike > wrote:
> I know its been asked here before but how can a drone "see and avoid"?

I would expect the phrasing to mutated to "sense and avoid". I would
guess that "sense" implies some form of transponder in all aerial
vehicles.

Note that I have zero specialised knowledge in this area; it is all
conjecture.

[aerodyne]

Maybe these 30,000 vehicles will spur the development of a "mini"
FLARM, and drive down the cost/size/weight/power draw for all us
glider folks.

Since the FAA is in charge, I won't hold my breath, nor give up my
PCAS!

MM

[David Dyck]

On Feb 8, 12:05*pm, Tom Gardner > wrote:

> I would expect the phrasing to mutated to "sense and avoid". I would
> guess that "sense" implies some form of transponder in all aerial
> vehicles.

But not all aerial vehicles are even required to have electrical
systems, never mind transponders....

[Darryl Ramm]

David Dyck > wrote:
> On Feb 8, 12:05 pm, Tom Gardner > wrote:
>
>> I would expect the phrasing to mutated to "sense and avoid". I would
>> guess that "sense" implies some form of transponder in all aerial
>> vehicles.
>
> But not all aerial vehicles are even required to have electrical
> systems, never mind transponders....

Well that us easy, the ability to legally fly without an electrical/battery
system might be taken away.

The whole point is for the FAA to look at what is needed to allow drone
flight and you may well see requirements for all flights to be ADS-B
data-out (or even data-in equipped), which may or may not also include
transponder capabilities (it may also be possible to do 1090ES data-out
without being a full transponder). Its certainly possible to power modern
transponders and/or ADS-B data-out or data-in electronics from modern (or
even old) battery technology.

For many reasons the drone stuff in this bill is a major worry for GA and
sports aviation... AOPA and EAA etc. need to be all over this,
unfortunately their effectiveness in helping moderate ADS-B related
silliness in the past has not been that great.

Darryl

[JS]

An excellent "big picture" observation made in the original post.
Jim

On Feb 8, 8:03*am, T8 > wrote:
> This is crazy. *http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/7/coming-to-a-sky-near-you/
>
> To steal a rhetorical device from Andrew Napolitano... "What if all
> the paranoid conspiracy nuts.... worked for our government?"
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

[Hagbard Celine]

My guess would be that they would first try that OR just attempt to
restrict access to large blocs of airspace where they intend to use
drones.
>
> Well that us easy, the ability to legally fly without an electrical/battery
> system might be taken away.
>

[Tom Gardner]

On Feb 9, 1:31*am, David Dyck > wrote:
> On Feb 8, 12:05*pm, Tom Gardner > wrote:
>
> > I would expect the phrasing to mutated to "sense and avoid". I would
> > guess that "sense" implies some form of transponder in all aerial
> > vehicles.
>
> But not all aerial vehicles are even required to have electrical
> systems, never mind transponders....

That's correct so long as you use "are". If you change it to
"will be" then the truth is not self evident.

[Darryl Ramm]

On 2/9/12 11:09 PM, Hagbard Celine wrote:
> My guess would be that they would first try that OR just attempt to
> restrict access to large blocs of airspace where they intend to use
> drones.
>>
>> Well that us easy, the ability to legally fly without an electrical/battery
>> system might be taken away.
>>

Or do both :-(

I've got a very bad feeling this really is not going to be pretty.

Darryl