Mav Ide?

[bmw330i]

Just a thought but I have no Govt or other contacts to discuss it with...so here you go.

MAV are not a concern really until they are in the path of something or fall from the sky where they may hit something|someone. Just the fact they are up there isn't really a cause for concern.

So, what if a regulatory agency could monitor every single one of them realtime? KML data basically in a central place in real time of all "legal" or "authorized" MAV flights? That data could be easily used by other systems for target avoidance. Flying MAV out there would be less risky to general aviation than birds since a bird doesn't output .kml data realtime.

Every single autopilot on there that's gained popularity has the capability to output it's data realtime. Now if google earth had an IDE with simple API and a little funding to help people use it all autopilots in use using that would create a central system showing every MAV out there flying in real time.

I say it's an awesome opportunity for Google and FAA and other agencies along with hobbyists and about anyone who wants to fly a MAV in a safe way. WHy have COA anymore the old way when you could maybe streamline it all if your autopilot is going to use Google Earth or push it's logs to Google Earth in realtime (maybe a provision can be made where after you have xx time to publish it to GOogle Earth for review).

Just an idea but I think it would help those that worry where and what altitude and what the MAV is doing to connect with those who want to fly a MAV in a safe way for whatever reason. Information can set you free.

I write this knowing much of what I write exists. Hell, maybe Google is already like they do with online searching sharing the .kml data all of you are pushing into their site...why wouldn't they. I suppose I just think it could all make flying MAV so much safer and easier to do for fun/profit.

Scenario: Person X flies their FunJet one day and like the tree falling in the forest did anyone really care? However, at the same time a plane falls out of the sky in the same general area. With this system in place investigators could link the .kml files the autopilot output with the data from the planes data. This could either show evidence of a connection or no connection. It's a plus for Person X who flew in a safe manner and was no where near the aircraft.

Senario: Person Y powers up an autopilot near a very sensitive place at a sensitive time. Maybe a helicopter was just cleared to fly at low level through that area unknown to him. He takes off and now his MAV position is known to the control tower (This is in the future of course). They warn to keep a lookout for a MAV|UAS in the area and direct them to climb and keep a lookout. Who knows maybe the code in the Paparazzi software can accept the software used for air traffic control to instruct the MAV to descend and take corrective action. I know the Paparazzi software has collision avoidance and multi UAV code already.

Maybe this is already in the works?
-BMW

[Quandumphone]

One of the most basic rules of the air is see and avoid. The inability of the UAS to see and avoid other aircraft and obstructions will keep the UASs from gaining unfettered access to the skies. You'll have to trust me that this responsibility will never be offloaded to ATC. I think people would be surprised if they knew how many aircraft never even talk to ATC on a daily basis, especially in non-congested areas. Even some congested areas have airspace designed specifically to allow aircraft to fly in certain areas without mandating contact with ATC. Believe it or not, the San Diego area is one of them.

The digital information could be helpful but to a limited extent. Somehow that information would have to get to ATC and would need to be certified to FAA standards in order to be useful. They'd most certainly reject anything considered uncertified.

The altitudes in question would probably be low, which is an area that is typically not controlled by ATC except in a Tower environment like you mention. Chances are, most towers would not let you operate in their airspace. They'd probably tell you to find another location.

[bmw330i]

Interesting. Thank you for that. I suppose I considered simply the monitoring aspect first. The interacting between systems would be pretty far down the road. However, for the first scenario something could be in place already or could be put in place rather quickly. I had the thought that it's not hard to think that everyone sending their .kml files into Google might already be monitored. Not a bad thing really if you truly fly in a safe manner. I believe AttoPilot makes use of Google Earth for GCS ... hence it would seem to be the first autopilot I can think of that would be easy to monitor this way.

[Tuner]

Essentially the gist I got is this is a must. But the FAA is only slowly upgrading the antiquated AirTrafficControl systems.
In reality this all can be done.

Then you have people like the Pilot's Union making it as hard as possible for UAV's with lobbying.

Scott

[Gary Mortimer]

Mode S transponders will stop all those aircraft not talking primary targets.

Even gliders and ultralights.

I doubt if google would be very happy with the litigation issues should there be an airprox or worse.

Hopefully you guys will get some sensible rules for Mavs sub 7kg and anything larger quite rightly will require more equipment.

Until those rules are in place the FPV / photo crowd better behave because the Faa might not easily see the difference if nuisance complaints start coming in.

I have already seen in another forum somebody building a uav for news gathering with a police scanner/repeater onboard.

He better be jumped on hard!

Thats exactly what the Faa dont want I expect the news gathering heli people, who are licenced and talking dont want a small aircraft in the mix as well. We all saw that footage of the helis colliding showing us what can happen.

The police would be delighted to have a tiny target to avoid in the chase as well.

Oh im ranting, and off topic, sorry.

What I should have just said was elegant idea BMW but I doubt it could work.

Pilot licencing and defined operational requirements will.

If hairbrained schemes are allowed, everyone will be grounded.

[Gary Mortimer]

Oh I should also have said if the mav operator is operating within controlled airspace, low level heli, then surely its his responsibilty to get out of the way of the manned vehicle.

Steam gives way to sail.

Or in this case machine gives way to life.

Another instance where the operator should perhaps be in two way radio comms with the tower.

Having the heli look out for an avoid a MAV is just wrong!

Yes I fly helis ;-)

[Pack AE]

Having the heli look out for an avoid a MAV is just wrong!

Gary -- If I may play devil's advocate... what do you do about birds when you're flying your heli?

RCers have been flying for decades without serious trouble under very simple rules. For the life of me, I don't understand why SMALL UAVs (let's say sub-5lb) couldn't operate successfully under similar guidelines.

[bmw330i]

This is good debate.
Old ways are hard to change but like the president I hope all can appreciate respect and an open mind. As long as we are simply disagreeing and discussing this is good for all.
I have a question though. Did I butcher the idea beyond recognition? I'll try again. The idea is that monitoring of large traditional UAV is already in place with a system already in place. The gap is the MAV flights going on now. They happen regardless. I have no thoughts about preventing them nor desire to prevent them.
I am saying that if I had a desire to monitor these flights, possibly in real time it could be done now with technology we have now. So I thought, maybe it's already happening now and posted here to gauge by responses if maybe it is or how close we are to doing it.
Discussing automation as I did in my scenario would be the 2nd generation, the what you do with the information but that discussion is future tense not present.
-BMW

[Quandumphone]

There's nothing wrong with increasing awareness. That's always a good idea. The main problem for future technology is to find an on-aircraft equivalent substitute for the see and avoid aspect. Only then, I think, will the regulatory agencies start warming up to opening the skies more for UAS. Just to give you an idea how serious the FAA is about this rule, in the U.S. below 18,000 feet it's generally required for military UAS's to have manned chase planes outside of special use airspace. Once again, this is to provide a form of equivalency for the see and avoid requirement.

For small (micro) aircraft that are within visual range of a ground observer, I don't think you should be restricted except maybe in close proximity to airports. As the aircraft get larger and move outside visual range, more consideration needs to be given for other aircraft (and obstacles).

If you reverse the original idea, I think there could be great benefit for the ground observer to be able to see where manned aircraft are. Obviously this could get expensive but there probably are internet based applications that could get you this information cheaply now. Unfortunately, I think they inject delays into these displays for the general public but you'd still have some awareness of potential aircraft if you can monitor the situation for some time before operating. I don't know if they show aircraft not receiving ATC services and I'm sure they won't show aircraft without a transponder.

[Pack AE]

bmw -- I don't think your idea is bad in any way, and I see the benefit, but I don't see why anyone would say that should be a "requirement" for small UAV operations. I continually wonder why the FAA can't set some very simple ground rules (similar to what RC enthusiasts operate under) for small and micro UAVs.

If it means line-of-sight with a competent RC pilot on the sticks as a failsafe, so be it. Just say so and get out of the way. For what seems like such a simple issue, the delay in coming up with feasible "regulations" is mind-boggling.

[bmw330i]

...no requirement, this is a passive system I am thinking of. However, it can be made so attractive that it becomes widely adopted because not using it doesn't make sense.

At the simplest form:
1. Autopilot of any type outputs realtime logs that can be either realtime or via utility made into .kml data
2. The .kml data is fed realtime or post flight into either Google Earth or something like it.
3. On the back-end inside that system someone or software can now on a global scale see the .kml data and on a global scale monitor flights.

Now an issue I see immediately is how to distinguish between actual flights and "virtual" flights. Just an issue to be resolved but one I see right off.

It's a passive thing. Like cell phones. You can invent you own cell phone but why since you can buy one now and use it now. However by using one you can be monitored. However, if you are not doing anything illegal why would you care? Please don't go there with legality I am only speaking about the technology. We do not have an expectation while using Google Earth that our data fed to their system is private and that they are not allowed to view or use it. However, how many posts on RCGroups show Google Earth Plots? How many autopilots have in their system the ability or an interface to use GE for realtime plotting?

All I'm pointing out is the back-end side and what can or is being done with it not the front-end and how to make people use it. Given this exists what is going to be done with it or what is being done with it already is the idea. I'd say why not do very creative and imaginative positive things with it. Imagine if every large bird around NY could be fed something that made it output .kml into a system? Imagine if software could have access to that data and could see where birds are flying above 100' around a radius that puts them in the path of commercial aircraft (starting with just commercial)? Now stop, and consider birds were MAV and that you don't have to feed them that the autopilot already creates .kml ... all you need is to have that system use another system during the flight or upload the files after. Like I said many of us already do that. Take our logs, make .kml then upload them. Boom, you're already on the "radar" and that flight is known now.

[Gary Mortimer]

Sorry all I was pretty fierce.

When flying a heli and in a country where there are big birds, especially vultures and eagles like here in South Africa you worry about the ones that are above you.

Because they tend to tuck their wings and dive. Hopefully not through the disc.

In the open FIR the uav is just like a bird I must look. But in or around an airport where I might be paying en route fees to be in the airspace and certainly a landing fee at the airport, well bugger off, I have paid.

Just like most pilots I have always flown and crashed models. I dont have much real time, close to 3k hours, but I bet I have a similar time flying models if not more.

Less than 7kgs carry on, but please be aware of controlled airspace.

Bigger than that, get a transponder and have a real pilot driving.

Standing by for flames.

I m being harsh again, Mav Uav its the future if I can send a hunk of foam out and not risk a life in the air or ground to perform a task its the way forward.

But when Mr Trump needs to go somewhere then perhaps he should'nt be clinging onto 150 zagis and perhaps he wont want his day to end with one zagi taking pictures of a shopping mall through the intake without telling anyone in the centre of a city.

[bmw330i]

...hmm...I just saw that idea about being able to see the reverse...that is a cool idea. Anyone flying wants to be safe (my assumption) and knowing traffic is there would be good to know so you could avoid it.

Thanks everyone for keeping this respectful/civil. I really hope to keep it on task for this idea of a passive system. Does it exist? Should it? Who would be the people to connect to make it happen? ...

[Pack AE]

...no requirement, this is a passive system I am thinking of.

Understood, but in your original post you suggested that a "regulatory agency" would be in charge of the system and keep tabs on "legal" UAV flights. Regulatory agencies have a bad habit of imposing requirements.

I just want the small UAV community to be careful what they wish for. If we start making people think that something like this should be required, then it more than likely will be.

Then you end up in situations where search/rescue groups in the middle of nowhere, with no hope of getting an internet connection to such a system, would technically be breaking the law in order to carry out their mission...

I think this sounds like a great "nice-to-have" feature for people that want it... I just get a little skittish when we start talking about bringing regulatory agencies in on the party.

[bmw330i]

...actually, I get an Internet connection just about anywhere thanks to my Verizon EVDO card. It can "roam" onto any broadband (i.e. no Verizon it will use Sprint). If you can get a cell signal likely this thing can get on the Internet.

[Pack AE]

There are a ton of applications for small UAVs in remote locations (search/rescue, pipeline inspection, crop inspection, etc, etc) where I would bet money that your Verizon card doesn't work...

[bmw330i]

Just being devils advocate but I'm sure there are a lot of remote locations where a radio doesn't work either.

As a solution for those areas I imagine a transponder is simply broadcasting on a known frequency that the UAV hardware should also be able to "listen" on. So the UAV would then have the data it requires to avoid the other aircraft (if any are out there in the boonies). I see it as pretty simple unless the transponders use some encryption or something making "listening" a difficult task. Once that data is know in the autopilots software it would just become another aircraft and dealt with by the avoidance software.

[Gary Mortimer]

Yep thats mode S transponders, postion and altitude transmitted.

It should I guess be straightforward to decode that and then get out of the way.

In fact thats such an obvious idea is nobody doing it??

You can get pc ssr receiving stations, which aircraft spotters the world over are going mal for. They must be decoding mode S transmissions.

You could be onto a winner BMW.

[Pack AE]

I get really confused reading this forum because I never know what kind of UAV people are talking about. Are we talking about MAVs or are we talking about Predators?

My overall point is simply to ask why a MAV needs to listen for manned aircraft. We're talking about internet KML systems and transponders all under the assumption that MAVs should actively attempt to avoid larger aircraft. Why? If you treat a MAV (or any other SUAV) like a bird, you set up guidelines that don't allow them into manned airspace (below 400-500ft, away from airports), and you ensure that trained competent operators are using them, there should never be any problems assuming everyone follows a few simple rules. An autopilot-assisted UAV is a LOT easier to fly than an RC plane.

[Pack AE]

Just being devils advocate but I'm sure there are a lot of remote locations where a radio doesn't work either.

What kind of radio are you referencing here? Radios that people use to talk to each other, or radios that are used to communicate with a UAV?

If it's the latter, typically communication with a small UAV is accomplished using point to point wireless links. You have a transceiver at your ground station and a transceiver in the plane. As long as the plane stays within range of the ground station, you're good... regardless of how remote the location is.

[airmcn_3]

I get really confused reading this forum because I never know what kind of UAV people are talking about. Are we talking about MAVs or are we talking about Predators?

My overall point is simply to ask why a MAV needs to listen for manned aircraft. We're talking about internet KML systems and transponders all under the assumption that MAVs should actively attempt to avoid larger aircraft. Why? If you treat a MAV (or any other SUAV) like a bird, you set up guidelines that don't allow them into manned airspace (below 400-500ft, away from airports), and you ensure that trained competent operators are using them, there should never be any problems assuming everyone follows a few simple rules. An autopilot-assisted UAV is a LOT easier to fly than an RC plane.


We are talking MAV's. Unfortunately the FAA does not see it the way we do, can’t really blame them given the large increase in UAV companies over the past 5 years.

Chris

[Pack AE]

Chris -- not sure I understand your statement. What does the number of UAV companies have to do with it?

[airmcn_3]

Chris -- not sure I understand your statement. What does the number of UAV companies have to do with it?


More UAV companies means more UAV's in the air at any given time. I like the idea, hope they relax on some of the restrictions.

Chris

[bmw330i]

Yep thats mode S transponders, postion and altitude transmitted.

It should I guess be straightforward to decode that and then get out of the way.

In fact thats such an obvious idea is nobody doing it??

You can get pc ssr receiving stations, which aircraft spotters the world over are going mal for. They must be decoding mode S transmissions.

You could be onto a winner BMW.

...well at least someone is getting it :)

CPU cycles are cheap these days. I say have a MAV follow the 3 laws of robotics from the start ... if everyone just put avoidance code in there it maybe we could all impress the powers to be by simply having autopilots that don't pose a threat from the get go.

Is a mode S receiver easy to make? I just wonder if something out there SMD size can't be programmed to listen on the right channel. PC size is too large. Sounds like a perfect AVR type programming task. Just need a way to receive the signal first.

Having that info would be a big step forward. Maybe even make getting a traditional COA simpler if you can show your MAV (Yes, talking MAV) listens to and acts on information about aircraft in the area. Just have them have built in avoidance. Being proactive couldn't hurt.

-BMW

[Gary Mortimer]

Had a little look online now I'm back at my laptop.

Perhaps something like this

http://www.transair.co.uk/Category.asp?SID=1&Category_ID=1369

Mixed with a little of this

http://www.transair.co.uk/Category.asp?SID=1&Category_ID=2109

Although I have devised a better system, train a parrot to use a hand held radio and then tape it to your aircraft. (With the radio obviously)

Should it see any traffic then of course it could cry, Boss the plane the plane!

Me thinks a mode S receivers output overlaid on the same Google earth screen that you use to track your UAV, would be a very handy add on.

After all you don't want some flipping helicopter damaging your UAV!

As mode S becomes widespread this will be ever more useful.

Balloons, Ultralights and Gliders Paragliders and Hang Glider pilots are all resisting in UK but as cheap handheld Transponders come online no doubt they will be forced to cave.

[Gary Mortimer]

http://www.coaa.co.uk/planeplotter.htm

[Pack AE]

...well at least someone is getting it :)

:confused: I give up...

Explain to me why such a system is necessary, please! That's all I'm asking for...

[Gary Mortimer]

Well it would nt be if the operator promised to play by the rules.

ie line of sight outside of CAS not above 400'

The reason the FAA et al are interested is because unlike normal rc flying most people will be out to make money or do some law enforcement/fire task.

None of these things happen in the back woods.

My best bet is a rash of operators at the start, lots of incidents, questions asked. Harder rules.

Anything to make it all seem respectable.

[Pack AE]

My best bet is a rash of operators at the start, lots of incidents, questions asked. Harder rules.
Why would you think that? These things seriously aren't that different from an RC plane... I would even argue that they're safer with all of the failsafes that are built into typical off-the-shelf autopilot solutions.

We already have a datapoint on "unmanned flight" with the RC community. We've already seen that people understand the gravity of operating an unmanned aircraft, and have done so for decades without incident.

Why would small UAVs be any different?

[Gary Mortimer]

Because Joe will be trying to get the shot so he can pay his family bills.

I understand the military stats for Mavs are shocking, so the FAA will be looking there.

Patrick or another grown up come in and tell us the accident rate.

Model aircraft are normally operated in parks with some degree of peer pressure rules applying.

I dont think they are the same as MAVs

Also never before has it been as simple to get into RC.

30 years ago when I started my first setup up cost a much higher percentage of my salary, therefore I was more careful.

You are completly right that MAVs should have less regulation.

I thought this thread was opening up an interesting idea, not starting the cyclic arguement.

Still looks like the UK will have the first decent set of regs so we will let you know what its like ;-)

[Pack AE]

Yes, MAVs crash. So do RC planes. So does everything that flies. I thought this conversation was centered around the potential for MAVs running into manned aircraft... and what to do/not to do about it.

If you're concerned about MAVs falling out of the sky (which the vast vast majority of military accidents are), that's a different argument. That's why you put a size limit on a lightly regulated UAV class, you make sure that operators have adequate training... maybe you require them to stay within line of sight with RC-override available, and maybe you don't let them fly over highly populated areas.

[bmw330i]

:confused: I give up...

Explain to me why such a system is necessary, please! That's all I'm asking for...

No worries, forums and written discussions are extremely difficult since you only have what you read to go on.

It's not necessary at all. It's an idea that it exists now. All the parts do. Now has someone already put them together or not is another thing. If not who would be brought together to do it.

Now for the above to make any sense you'd have to understand what that "idea" is. I think Gary Got it. Others sort of get it. I think I was fairly clear in my first post and at least one follow up where I tired to elaborate.

-BMW

[Pack AE]

Glad we're coming to some understanding...

I understand the idea completely. I think it's a great idea. I don't think, in any way, it should be required for MAV flight inside the national airspace. I think there are much easier ways to ensure that MAVs don't cross paths with manned aircraft.

I hope that there are a significant number of people out there that agree with me... otherwise this hobby/industry is going nowhere fast.

[bmw330i]

...just a personal observation so take it for that. But from what I read online and see around me this industry is growing so fast I can't imagine anything slowing it down.

A phrase comes to mind used in circles with progress like this: "Keep up or get out of the way". I believe what I read recently about legislation that's going to be forced on the FAA speaks volumes. If the FAA can't adapt to this they will get pushed out of the way by an entity that can.

Eventually, likely open source, will simply solve it or come up with a solution that solves it and that will be the new direction with or without them. Just basing this on history and realizing there is not just a few MAVs out there flying. There are hundreds if not thousands.

[Pack AE]

Can't say that I share your optimism... where's the evidence of this booming, widespread MAV market? I see an industry with a few large players that have managed to sell enough MAVs to the military to actually turn profits. Then there's a handful of players who are making serious efforts at getting into that market without much success.

Then there's a huge potential market in commercial MAV sales with an unknown number of potential players, but the government is staunchly standing in the way.

Then there's the hobbyists, who are happily going about their hobby on shaky regulatory ground, and who certainly aren't making any money in doing so...

At any moment the FAA could pull the rug out from under everyone... either by serious enforcement of the existing rules (unlikely), or by creating new rules that smother the industry (more likely). I hope they do get out of the way... but only then would there be real evidence of a booming MAV market.

It's just sad to me that they're dragging their feet so much in times like these. Think of how many jobs might be created by opening up the airspace... even a little bit... to MAVs.

[bmw330i]

I think we are talking Apples and Oranges. I used MAV on purpose. You keep using UAV (on purpose?).

I have only used the term MAV here.

[Pack AE]

Haha... to me the terms "MAV" and "small UAV" are interchangeable... but I've corrected my post above to conform...

[bmw330i]

:) No worries. Thx. It's confusing enough sometimes. In my head MAV is something like a Zagi or smaller and UAV is like a predator. I guess there's a lot in between there isn't there.

[small_rcer]

So to summarize the S-Mode capabilities and maybe an objective.

S-Mode transponder sends out data that contains altitude and position in a data stream.

A Rx on board a UAV could know current and next altitude. The presets or current position would cause the sensor to ignore all S-Mode data that has the UAV present altitude + some margin.

This gives me data sets of possible incursions in the space of x meters around my known position. So if the S-Mode data says the 'intruder' is below the threshold and within the range, start to monitor the intruder direction. An intercept calculation can be made, based on the current GPS known position and next waypoint, combined with the intruder direction.

Now we have the 'sense' portion of 'sense and avoid'.

Decide what is required to avoid. A circle to one direction or the other, with radius large enough to clear. Resume course once 'intruder' has passed. Or any alternate avoidance scheme.

Now the key to this is to find a very small S-Mode Transponder receiver module. Something along the size of an Digi modem module would be just right. Maybe have its' own independent GPS module and enough computer power to calculate intercepts. Then generate a request to the main autopilot when an 'issue' arises.

Thoughts on this scenario, anyone?

Jim H

[Gary Mortimer]

Someone needs to take one of those receivers I noted earlier to bits, of course this only helps in a mode S world.

But its an interesting start

[bmw330i]

http://www.coaa.co.uk/planeplotter.htm
This is good. Unfortunately way too large and requires subscribing to a service to use.
Completely on the right track though. Just need a box like that and decoder in a 20mm x 20mm design. It has to fit inside a MAV and feed the autopilot (not the ground station) with the data.