Re: [Paparazzi-devel] FAA Memo + need for new autopilot features

[David Conger]

I'd like to say the "someone" above is really a group of someones like
this list.

I may sound like a socialist but I would discourage professionals from
doing this first. Forget about profit and returns on investments. It
is a problem that needs to be solved. Solve it publicly now and share.
Worry about adding value later. Implementing it will be of great value
as there will be many ways to add value by making a business around
how to implement the best solutions.

So who do I wish this project upon? Students (of course). It would
help if they have professors with aeronautical experience (ie students
at an aeronautical institution). I would  gladly help with my
experience with Paparazzi, Linux, Unix, network security and database
design or piloting (I am a pilot in good standing). I see no reason
even a modest team of students from one of the many excellent
Universities I know have Paparazzi couldn't have something feasible to
give the FAA in 6-12mo time given what's currently available in off
the shelf parts and Paparazzi code. That would be a great foundation
to start the vetting process with the FAA and then trials.

If you are a student, professor, FAA representative and want to work
on this contact me (email first). I've been at this a very long time
and you have nothing to lose. My only goal is to see this done in the
best possible way for the safety of manned aircraft and people on the
ground. A drone is replaceable but a life is not. It is a worthy cause
and I believe this solution should be done in a very transparent way
and before all those commercial plans people have for crop surveys and
agriculture cause more issues. This needs to be done first as a
foundation for the rest. There is no safe way to survey crops or
monitor anything from the sky without first having a foundation like
this in place.

Pls do not contact me about professional for profit help with
something retail in nature. That is for you to throw money at. I
really am interested only in helping non-profit and academic ways of
seeing this done quickly and the safest possible way and implemented
by the FAA for all to use.

David B. Conger


On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:39 AM, David Conger <address@hidden> wrote:
> All good feedback into the discussion. My point at the highest level
> is this is a good place to start. The outputs go to the FAA as inputs
> again to another discussion with them. in the end something is tried
> and becomes more inputs in a continuous loop of improvements.
> I believe completely that asking FAA to do this work is no practical.
> They have enough to do already. Step in their shoes. Wouldn't it be
> nice to have a reasonable well thought out plan brought to you from
> someone willing to work with you?
> -David B. Conger
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Chris Gough
> <address@hidden> wrote:
>> I think we are in furious agreement about reckless behaviour. I only almost 
>> half agree with you about ADSB though. Your points 1.a through 1.c seem like 
>> a good idea.  I think at the sUAS scale though, it's simply a matter of 
>> raising the alarm if there's a ADSB trajectory through your area of 
>> operation. But sure, TCAS is very cool :) I only played with it a couple of 
>> years ago and it seemed like a proof of concept at that stage. Is that code 
>> actively used/maintained?
>>
>> 1.d; I'm not sure how that would go. We are not first class citizens of the 
>> airspace, we avoid everybody else, nobody avoids us. If we are doing 
>> something over the horizon it's by arrangement, there's a NOTAM in place, 
>> etc. Even if all the paparazzi UAVs were streaming real time telemetry into 
>> he cloud, would anyone except us look at it?
>>
>> Wrt yours second point, I would like to be proven wrong but expect we would 
>> not be allowed to transmit ADSB even if we had the capability. And how small 
>> could the hardware actually get? I thought the reason (manned) gliders had 
>> their own, non-ADSB system for collision avoidance was that they couldn't 
>> make/buy ADSB transceivers small enough.
>>
>> Chris Gough
>>
>>> On 25 Jun 2014, at 5:25 pm, onefastdaddy <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>
>>> No one should need to fly something invisible above 400' out of sight with
>>> general aviation. That is completely foolish behavior. Unfortunately FPV
>>> flights and autonomous sUAS flights have been mixed together as usually no
>>> distinction is made between the two in the videos posted showing dangerous
>>> FPV behavior. RTH to me is not sUAS operations.
>>>
>>> Paparazzi would be a great first platform to integration with the FAA for
>>> sUAS for many reasons. Paparazzi is the most reliable platform out there
>>> with documented evidence to demonstrate this. Thousands of fault free
>>> (autopilot hardware or software) flight hours in every condition. Pick
>>> Paparazzi because although other projects are very good let's get one
>>> through the door first as an example for others. Set a good first example.
>>>
>>> How to do it is fairly straightforward. Technology is pretty much there. The
>>> operators need some adjusting. Just some basic guidelines really and
>>> training on professional sUAS operations. Maybe a registration with FAA?
>>> Obviously to work they have to have someone to hold accountable and to know
>>> who's doing what.
>>>
>>> Technology we need created to help this integration:
>>> 1. AIS/ADSB support. It is already COTS but we can do better.
>>>   a. Trivial to get BeagleBone to use an SDR dongle to pick up ADSB and AIS
>>> info
>>>   b. Paparazzi has TCAS built in already. ADSB targets could be simply
>>> other aircraft to Paparazzi
>>>   c. With the data from the autopilot overlaid on ADSB data you can
>>> demonstrate and log how close / far apart aircraft are. You could enforce
>>> separation easily and show evidence of success/failure to do so.
>>>   d. with an Internet connection this data could be uploaded to the FAA.
>>> Possibly available to air traffic. I mean really not so difficult to give
>>> ATC a Paparazzi groundstation and let them see also. At the very least
>>> upload the data realtime or after.
>>> 2. Some hardware should be created. Most importantly open sourced ADSB / AIS
>>> transceiver that are inexpensive and lightweight. There should be no
>>> financial or practical reason all sUAS should not have ADSB transmit
>>> capabilities to make them visible. So make this hardware open and freely
>>> available. I suppose hopefully addressing isn't an issue. Just sUAS are so
>>> small the only hope is make them visible with technology. Like a small boat
>>> in an ocean. It's in everyone's best interest to be seen.
>>>
>>> About FPV? I have nothing but praise for FAA stepping forward. RC is left
>>> alone. Flying a model aircraft using only goggles and a small camera out of
>>> sight above 400' AGL is putting lives at risk and completely anonymous for
>>> the operators. Fly close to the ground I see no issue. But enter the same
>>> skies as the manned aircraft and yes you absolutely must not be invisible
>>> and anonymous.
>>>
>>> This is an old topic for me. I am certain in the archives I have mentioned
>>> similar things. I suppose the discussion was too early to have back then. We
>>> have new reasons to discuss them seriously now.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: 
>>> http://lists.paparazziuav.org/FAA-Memo-need-for-new-autopilot-features-tp15731p15733.html
>>> Sent from the paparazzi-devel mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
>>> address@hidden
>>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Paparazzi-devel mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/paparazzi-devel
>
>
>
> --
> address@hidden
> http://www.ppzuav.com



-- 
address@hidden
http://www.ppzuav.com