We have launched a new 10-question research survey on unmanned traffic management technology to get your opinions about ADS-B solutions for small drones. You can take the brief survey here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/DBRH89H
Here’s the background: The technology for tracking small unmanned aircraft system (UAS) has advanced rapidly in the past few years. New and disparate solutions all claim great promise. Most of these solutions are based on the use of automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS–B), a cooperative surveillance technology in which an aircraft determines its position via satellite navigation and periodically broadcasts it, enabling it to be tracked by ground control station. ADS-B signals can also be received by other aircraft to provide situational awareness and allow self-separation.
While ADS-B is a cornerstone of next-gen air traffic modernization and integral to NASA’s Unmanned Aerial Systems Traffic Management (UTM) plan, some civil aviation groups like the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) say the high cost of the necessary avionics and the lack of direct benefits are the two greatest barriers to adoption.
This research invites a discussion about the role ADS-B plays in integrating civil UAS with the National Airspace System and its effect on commercial use of UAS. It seeks to determine if ADS-B is the right solution for small UAS operating in low altitude class G airspace.
The resulting research study will answer the following key questions:
- What is ADS-B, where is it mandatory, and what are the adoption rates for manned aircraft?
- What new solutions or solutions under development do and do not incorporate ADS-B as part of their technology for UAS sense and avoid?
- What are the advantages and disadvantages of ADS-B for commercial use of small UAS in U.S. Class G airspace?
Image credit: Boeing AERO
This is being pushed by attorneys abroad, as well as AOPA and other organizations that affiliate. They know that there will be thousands of people flying these things above 400 feet AGL. The FAA will be imposing a new structure of fines, and then you will see cities, as well as concerned citizens, joining in for a piece of the money pie.
This will be a money generator for the lawyers, and will provide a long list of problems for those who are using drones as part of their business. Insurance will probably not cover these violations, as these new laws and/or regulations would be made quite clear to the operator. For those who have to fly in mountainous regions, good luck on the 400 feet. I am all for safety, but I believe that the FAA is heading the wrong direction. However, I have not seen as of yet, the proposed regulations, with this technology being utilized.
What will happen when you go over 400 feet? If you are 401 feet above AGL, do they shoot it down with a laser? Do they mail you a fine? Do you have to go to court? How do they determine the tail number? Will all drones require a chip for identification purposes? Who pays for the incorporation of this? The manufacturer? Will the FAA begin requiring a monthly flight pattern report from all drone operators? The list of unknowns are quite lengthy.
Overall, I think that there will be “numerous” areas of consideration that will be overlooked by the FAA on this. In example, flying in mountainous regions. You could be 400 AGL while you’re flying up the slope of a mountain, but then on the other side, there may be a cliff that puts you at 1600 AGL. Of course the VLOS will be an issue as well in those areas. I am sure there are hundreds of examples that will be a conflict of interest, and I praise Mr. Snow for reaching out with his survey on this issue. Good Luck all!
Interesting questions. Thanks for posting them Dan.