Electronic Conspicuity, the CAA and Model Aircraft

[Rob Buckley]

The CAA has made a public statement on the future of electronic conspicuity in general aviation and launched a survey here-

**LINK**

Although the survey doesn’t include model flying, please fill it in if you also fly full-size aircraft and haven’t already done, or if just interested.

How does this involve us model flyers? Well, I’m on the CAA working group for electronic conspicuity representing model flyers, as it’s better to be involved than have something foisted on us from out of the proverbial blue. It also shows the intent from our side that we are responsible users of airspace, and are keen to be involved with improving aviation safety.

And now I come to it, what is electronic conspicuity? Similar to the very expensive TCAS systems that airliners have, there is a desire to have smaller aircraft fitted with machinery that will make them visible to each other electronically so that the pilots can be warned they might be about to his something without relying solely on seeing it out of the window, either with an audio 'bandits 3 o'clock high' a visible warning on a moving map display, or both.

Based on this, there are also clear benefits to having model aircraft electronically visible to other airspace users, to reduce the risk of midair collisions, and models / full-size getting too close to each other. This helps from both the perspective that none of us wants to have our models in a midair collision / near miss with a full-size aircraft, but also from the perceived threat that ‘drones’ are to full-size aircraft. If full-size aircraft can ‘see’ us electronically and be given traffic warnings of model aircraft, they are less likely to be agitating for models to be lumped with ‘drones’ and banned as a menace to manned aviation.

Having every single model fitted with a transponder is clearly not going to work (even though the technology exists – at around £2000 per model it’s on the spendy side!), but having the model flying site itself electronically visible would serve the purpose.

There is a widespread expectation in full-size aviation circles that whenever model flying takes place a NOTAM is published to warn full-size aircraft of the presence of the models, and some surprise when explained that this isn’t the case. This then leads to proximity reports being filed by full-size aircraft when they are surprised to find models flying.

Some model flying sites are now marked on the full-size aviation charts, but aren’t in operation all the time, and rely on the full-size pilots both noticing and knowing exactly where they are..

A ground-based solution that creates an electronic ‘bubble’ around the model flying site is currently seen as the best way forward, so any aircraft that is potentially going to fly into he ‘bubble’ of model flying would be given a warning, and the ability to steer around the area. The ground machinery could also give a warning to the model flyers of approaching full-size traffic, and give them the opportunity to move out of the aircraft’s path.

I’m currently speaking to manufacturers of the equipment about the potential of a ground based device that would generate a ‘Temporary NOTAM’ of model flying, with the aim to have a cheap, simple solution that could be used at flying sites (temporary or permanent) to make the model flying electronically visible.

The same equipment could also be used for ground-based operations that project into the sky, such as large kite gatherings, glider winch cables etc., and the CAA working group is aimed at adapting the rules to make electronic conspicuity equipment available and attractive to use. There’s no intent to mandate any of this, but there are those who would like to see electronic identification of all unmanned aircraft. Having a working solution in place that addresses safety concerns would be a good defence against such mandated burdens on our current model flying freedoms.

Any questions or comments, please let me know.

Also, don’t forget that the window to comment on EASA’s proposed rules for unmanned aircraft closes on the 15th (this Friday), so if you’ve not commented there is still time.

**LINK**

Rob Buckley

LMA Secretary

[i12fly]

But isn't this all covered by the stipulation of heights?

With EASA's height restriction of 120m we will not clash with full size unless they (or we) are breaking regulations?

Hobbyist flying is looking to be getting very expensive.

Incidentally what happens with free flight?

[TigerOC]

Commendations Rob and I wish you success and would love to see a commercially viable option.

Our club files from a remote farming area in Devon. The area is used extensively for military training. We regularly see low fly military aircraft. Although we are some 10 miles from the designated training area, these aircraft can come through very low and below the EASA 120m height ceiling. We have been in contact with the CAA and RAF safety groups to no avail. We would hate to be involved in an incident that involves an accident.

Rob

Edited By TigerOC on 13/09/2017 22:29:20

[ChrisB]

Thanks for the information Rob.

A published NOTAM on the **LINK** or equivalent is probably the most realistic in the short term. That assumes that pilots of full size have checked the NOTAM. Any electronic devices will be good but again that's ok if all full size aircraft are equipped with compatible receiving equipment.

Our club flies in uncontrolled airspace (Surface to 4500ft) and from a microlight strip. Within around a 10 mile radius there are about six microlight grass strips and a larger grass airfield. We also get lots of general aviation traffic and some military. As we sit between two international airports, the GA traffic funnels along the open airway which is about 6 miles wide.

Most of the aircraft we get in our area are microlights, ranging from cheap flex-wings to more sophisticated 3 axis aircraft. We also see the usual Cessna's etc. Do/are/will all aircraft have the suitable equipment to detect flying sites? That is the key question.

Cheers

CB

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I thought that one of the main suggestions coming out of the EASA exercise was that flying sites would be identified and registered? This sort of electronic solution would be ideal for lone or casual flyers but these are the most unlikely users to be in a position to use them.

Operated legally, smaller (under 7kg) gliders probably present the most difficult case - as we should know, all models above 7kg can't be operated anywhere over 400' above launch height without arranging permission.

Edited By Martin Harris on 14/09/2017 00:53:25

[ChrisB]

To some extent a one size fits all solution isn't necessary, as each site is very different. But, in terms of a regulation its has to apply across the board.

[Jon Laughton]

Rob thanks for this information; is your involvement with the CAA coordinated with the BMFA's involvement with the new EASA prototype rules?

Jon

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Rob Buckley]

Posted by i12fly on 13/09/2017 21:58:20:

But isn't this all covered by the stipulation of heights?

With EASA's height restriction of 120m we will not clash with full size unless they (or we) are breaking regulations?

Hobbyist flying is looking to be getting very expensive.

Incidentally what happens with free flight?

Some military flying is very low level, and there have been airproxes reported by them flying under models.

The 120m proposed by EASA should not be an absolute height limit for model flying, the aim is to have model flying limits as per today, with specific permissions for greater height limits as necessary.

It depends on how expensive 'very expensive' is. Under £200 using today's technology for a flying site isn't a massive expense.

Free flight would work very well with a ground-based unit at the launch site, provided they are fitted with dethermalisers and limited fuel so they don;t fly outside the electronic 'bubble'.

[Rob Buckley]

Posted by ChrisB on 13/09/2017 23:24:38:

Thanks for the information Rob.

A published NOTAM on the **LINK** or equivalent is probably the most realistic in the short term. That assumes that pilots of full size have checked the NOTAM. Any electronic devices will be good but again that's ok if all full size aircraft are equipped with compatible receiving equipment.

Our club flies in uncontrolled airspace (Surface to 4500ft) and from a microlight strip. Within around a 10 mile radius there are about six microlight grass strips and a larger grass airfield. We also get lots of general aviation traffic and some military. As we sit between two international airports, the GA traffic funnels along the open airway which is about 6 miles wide.

Most of the aircraft we get in our area are microlights, ranging from cheap flex-wings to more sophisticated 3 axis aircraft. We also see the usual Cessna's etc. Do/are/will all aircraft have the suitable equipment to detect flying sites? That is the key question.

Cheers

CB

The CAA don't want to issue repetitive NOTAM's for model flying. That's why some sites that have regular use of large models have had NOTAM's as a trial and are being put on the air charts.

That relies on pilots reading the chart and knowing exactly where they are, but the electronic technology that the CAA is trying to encourage all full-size aircraft to use will give warnings of proximity to hazardous areas automatically.

[Rob Buckley]

Posted by Martin Harris on 14/09/2017 00:51:48:

I thought that one of the main suggestions coming out of the EASA exercise was that flying sites would be identified and registered? This sort of electronic solution would be ideal for lone or casual flyers but these are the most unlikely users to be in a position to use them.

Operated legally, smaller (under 7kg) gliders probably present the most difficult case - as we should know, all models above 7kg can't be operated anywhere over 400' above launch height without arranging permission.

Edited By Martin Harris on 14/09/2017 00:53:25

No. The EASA proposal give the option to have designated model flying areas, but the intention is not to monitor, register and define all model flying sites. Even if they were, an electronic machine would make all aircraft in the vicinity aware when the model flying site was active and models were in the sky. Glider sites & winches are marked on the CAA charts, and pilots still try flying through them.

[Rob Buckley]

Posted by Jon Laughton on 14/09/2017 08:42:28:

Rob thanks for this information; is your involvement with the CAA coordinated with the BMFA's involvement with the new EASA prototype rules?

Jon

Yes, and coordinated with the LMA's involvement with the new EASA prototype rules, the CAA and the DfT.

[Geoff S]

Full size military aircraft fly very low sometimes. We fly on an old WW2 airfield on high ground just to the east of Ashbourne. A few months ago I was astonished to see the fin of a Hercules flying north to the west of us and obviously very low in the valley over the town. We didn't see the rest of the aircraft until it climbed out.

I don't what its height above the town was but we're only about 200' higher so work it out.

Geoff

[Rob Buckley]

Posted by Steve J on 14/09/2017 08:48:40:

So, how many people are using the Drone Assist app to tell NATS where you are playing with your toys?

**LINK**

Steve

It's quite a funky app, that gives airspace information, pertinent NOTAM's and weather information. It is aimed at folk doing recreational / commercial 'drone' flying rather than model flyers, but doesn't give real time electronic conspicuity that this current project is aimed at. It does generate some interesting maps of where dorne flying activity is being reported to be taking place though.

[Erfolg]

Requirements as suggested, would be a problem for many loan fliers, be it on a hill or field, just because of the expense. My other issue, that I keep returning to, is, typically such requirements put obstacles in the way of those who want to try flying a model for the first time alone and those who only fly models by themselves on a very occasional basis.

I am always left with an impression that there are some people who have issues with lone fliers, for me, it is a question of why not. Historically they are no greater problem than occurs occasionally within a club.

There are still places in the UK where the local club is many miles away, examples would be Scotland and some islands

All discussions seem to revolve around flying within a club environment.

[Rob Buckley]

The working group the CAA are running has the aim of enabling technology (using the increasing power and reducing cost of computing 'muscle' that makes the low-level general aviation airspace safer for everyone who uses it.

If an electronic conspicuity machine was free, are there any modellers that wouldn't use it to make themselves electronically visible to fullsize aircraft, and have fullsize aircraft electronically visible to them? If not, why not?

Whether flying alone or in a club has no bearing on the concept, if it's just an issue of price.

There's no particular reason why, with some development, such technology couldn't be in every model radio control transmitter, and effectively automatic in use.

Edited By Rob Buckley on 14/09/2017 18:55:35

[ChrisB]

Posted by Rob Buckley on 14/09/2017 18:55:18:

The working group the CAA are running has the aim of enabling technology (using the increasing power and reducing cost of computing 'muscle' that makes the low-level general aviation airspace safer for everyone who uses it.

If an electronic conspicuity machine was free, are there any modellers that wouldn't use it to make themselves electronically visible to fullsize aircraft, and have fullsize aircraft electronically visible to them? If not, why not?

Whether flying alone or in a club has no bearing on the concept, if it's just an issue of price.

There's no particular reason why, with some development, such technology couldn't be in every model radio control transmitter, and effectively automatic in use.

Edited By Rob Buckley on 14/09/2017 18:55:35

That sounds quite a sensible option. Once switched on, the TX transmits both the RC signal and a transponder signal for full size. The only fairly significant issue is retro fitting to the many thousands of existing transmitters in circulation.

[Mike T]

Posted by ChrisB on 14/09/2017 19:40:51:

That sounds quite a sensible option. Once switched on, the TX transmits both the RC signal and a transponder signal for full size. The only fairly significant issue is retro fitting to the many thousands of existing transmitters in circulation.

Agreed. LBT functionality could be used so that only one tx need transpond when there are several switched on.

As for retro-fitting, this can be got around by using a stand-alone modules (issued free to Clubs by your local airport   )

Although this is yet another imposition on us, I think the BMFA/LMA should press the CAA to get some reciprocal benefit for model flyers, not least acceptance of the principle that if an established Club, flying in a known/recorded location is transmitting their 'bubble' then full size aircraft have an absolute responsibility to avoid flying into it and are entirely responsible for any consequences if they do...

Edited By Mike T on 14/09/2017 21:21:10

[ChrisB]

Posted by Mike T on 14/09/2017 21:20:35:

Posted by ChrisB on 14/09/2017 19:40:51:

That sounds quite a sensible option. Once switched on, the TX transmits both the RC signal and a transponder signal for full size. The only fairly significant issue is retro fitting to the many thousands of existing transmitters in circulation.

Agreed. LBT functionality could be used so that only one tx need transpond when there are several switched on.

As for retro-fitting, this can be got around by using a stand-alone modules (issued free to Clubs by your local airport )

Although this is yet another imposition on us, I think the BMFA/LMA should press the CAA to get some reciprocal benefit for model flyers, not least acceptance of the principle that if an established Club, flying in a known/recorded location is transmitting their 'bubble' then full size aircraft have an absolute responsibility to avoid flying into it and are entirely responsible for any consequences if they do...

Edited By Mike T on 14/09/2017 21:21:10

Its all about see and be seen and use of common sense and taking reasonable steps.

It would be interesting to know how many airprox in the last,10 years have involved model aircraft and what conclusions were drawn.

Will the older breed of TX's, particularly 35meg ones, be capable of equipping with any such system.There are several people in our club who fly older Challenger and Conquest type TX's.

I understand that the CAA don't want to spend their time creating NOTAMS but with a bit of work, much of which has been done by the BMFA and its affiliated clubs, with the club finder system, surely that geographic information could be used to assist in setting NOTAMs, particularly as most clubs are in established locations?

[John A H]

Posted by ChrisB on 14/09/2017 19:40:51:

Posted by Rob Buckley on 14/09/2017 18:55:18:

The working group the CAA are running has the aim of enabling technology (using the increasing power and reducing cost of computing 'muscle' that makes the low-level general aviation airspace safer for everyone who uses it.

If an electronic conspicuity machine was free, are there any modellers that wouldn't use it to make themselves electronically visible to fullsize aircraft, and have fullsize aircraft electronically visible to them? If not, why not?

Whether flying alone or in a club has no bearing on the concept, if it's just an issue of price.

There's no particular reason why, with some development, such technology couldn't be in every model radio control transmitter, and effectively automatic in use.

Edited By Rob Buckley on 14/09/2017 18:55:35

That sounds quite a sensible option. Once switched on, the TX transmits both the RC signal and a transponder signal for full size. The only fairly significant issue is retro fitting to the many thousands of existing transmitters in circulation.

That might cause a bit of panic if you switch on you TX to setup a model in your workshop and you live on the approach path to an airfield. Might need the ability to switch of the feature !

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by John A H on 15/09/2017 01:49:51:

Posted by ChrisB on 14/09/2017 19:40:51:

Posted by Rob Buckley on 14/09/2017 18:55:18:

The working group the CAA are running has the aim of enabling technology (using the increasing power and reducing cost of computing 'muscle' that makes the low-level general aviation airspace safer for everyone who uses it.

If an electronic conspicuity machine was free, are there any modellers that wouldn't use it to make themselves electronically visible to fullsize aircraft, and have fullsize aircraft electronically visible to them? If not, why not?

Whether flying alone or in a club has no bearing on the concept, if it's just an issue of price.

There's no particular reason why, with some development, such technology couldn't be in every model radio control transmitter, and effectively automatic in use.

Edited By Rob Buckley on 14/09/2017 18:55:35

That sounds quite a sensible option. Once switched on, the TX transmits both the RC signal and a transponder signal for full size. The only fairly significant issue is retro fitting to the many thousands of existing transmitters in circulation.

That might cause a bit of panic if you switch on you TX to setup a model in your workshop and you live on the approach path to an airfield. Might need the ability to switch of the feature !

That's a massive fly in that particular ointment...

I can't see general aviation being keen on routing around multiple ad-hoc operators on a sunny Sunday morning - what height is envisaged as the ceiling for these areas? If it's 120m then existing legislation already gives a good level of separation. In terms of risk management, reliance on detecting a signal from a "black box" operated by a club or individual might give false confidence. Prior knowledge of areas of intense model flying would enable flight planning to avoid these areas.

Many decades ago, full size gliders were given dispensation to cross airways in suitable meteorological conditions based largely on statistical evidence presented by the British Gliding Association which estimated the likelihood of a collision at tiny odds. I don't know if this is still valid in these days of EASA influence but the fields of Britain were hardly littered with the smoking remains of airliners with bits of gliders embedded in them despite the concentration of traffic within the airways. Unless a model is being operated very close to an airfield or directly under an approach, I'd imagine the odds of a collision, bearing in mind that the majority of model flying is conducted at 300' or less, are similarly small?

Is this initiative really a solution looking for a problem? At least Rob is in a position to advise and maybe influence the process but it seems we are under ever increasing threats to our hobby - a position shared by the full size recreational aviation community who are facing "airspace grabbing" which is presenting a real threat to cross country gliding and safety by forcing traffic into narrow corridors.

Edited By Martin Harris on 15/09/2017 02:33:36

[Rich too]

Posted by Erfolg on 14/09/2017 17:36:46:

Requirements as suggested, would be a problem for many loan fliers, be it on a hill or field, just because of the expense. My other issue, that I keep returning to, is, typically such requirements put obstacles in the way of those who want to try flying a model for the first time alone and those who only fly models by themselves on a very occasional basis.

I am always left with an impression that there are some people who have issues with lone fliers, for me, it is a question of why not. Historically they are no greater problem than occurs occasionally within a club.

There are still places in the UK where the local club is many miles away, examples would be Scotland and some islands

All discussions seem to revolve around flying within a club environment.

Indeed, I would love to know the relative numbers ...I have been a lone flyer for over 35 years and intend to keep it that way.

I wasn't aware that we had problems with model aircraft/full size collisions.

[Rich too]

Posted by Martin Harris on 15/09/2017 02:29:48:

Posted by John A H on 15/09/2017 01:49:51:

Posted by ChrisB on 14/09/2017 19:40:51:

Posted by Rob Buckley on 14/09/2017 18:55:18:

The working group the CAA are running has the aim of enabling technology (using the increasing power and reducing cost of computing 'muscle' that makes the low-level general aviation airspace safer for everyone who uses it.

If an electronic conspicuity machine was free, are there any modellers that wouldn't use it to make themselves electronically visible to fullsize aircraft, and have fullsize aircraft electronically visible to them? If not, why not?

Whether flying alone or in a club has no bearing on the concept, if it's just an issue of price.

There's no particular reason why, with some development, such technology couldn't be in every model radio control transmitter, and effectively automatic in use.

Edited By Rob Buckley on 14/09/2017 18:55:35

That sounds quite a sensible option. Once switched on, the TX transmits both the RC signal and a transponder signal for full size. The only fairly significant issue is retro fitting to the many thousands of existing transmitters in circulation.

That might cause a bit of panic if you switch on you TX to setup a model in your workshop and you live on the approach path to an airfield. Might need the ability to switch of the feature !

That's a massive fly in that particular ointment...

I can't see general aviation being keen on routing around multiple ad-hoc operators on a sunny Sunday morning - what height is envisaged as the ceiling for these areas? If it's 120m then existing legislation already gives a good level of separation. In terms of risk management, reliance on detecting a signal from a "black box" operated by a club or individual might give false confidence. Prior knowledge of areas of intense model flying would enable flight planning to avoid these areas.

Many decades ago, full size gliders were given dispensation to cross airways in suitable meteorological conditions based largely on statistical evidence presented by the British Gliding Association which estimated the likelihood of a collision at tiny odds. I don't know if this is still valid in these days of EASA influence but the fields of Britain were hardly littered with the smoking remains of airliners with bits of gliders embedded in them despite the concentration of traffic within the airways. Unless a model is being operated very close to an airfield or directly under an approach, I'd imagine the odds of a collision, bearing in mind that the majority of model flying is conducted at 300' or less, are similarly small?

Is this initiative really a solution looking for a problem? At least Rob is in a position to advise and maybe influence the process but it seems we are under ever increasing threats to our hobby - a position shared by the full size recreational aviation community who are facing "airspace grabbing" which is presenting a real threat to cross country gliding and safety by forcing traffic into narrow corridors.

Edited By Martin Harris on 15/09/2017 02:33:36

Exactly, well said Martin.

[ChrisB]

Those are fair points you make Martin and Rich. I think the established and controlled airways such as those that our club flies under (they start from 4500ft in our location) are not the issue. I think its the open airways that are uncontrolled where the concerns are.

Without seeing a list of all the model aircraft (or suspected) airprox reports it's hard to know, but I suspect many will not necessarily be at or close to established airfields, but will be in the open countryside, which is were most clubs operate. I know of several clubs that operate near large airports and because they are controlled and have on-going permissions its not an issue.

[Tim4]

Does ADS-B *need* to be transmitted from a model flying site location, or could it be broadcast from a few miles away, perhaps from a local airport? The signal goes quite a long way and contains the GPS co-ordinates.

If a local airport could transmit ADS-B on behalf of model aircraft then perhaps us aeromodellers could simply log on to a website and state that we will be flying at location X for the next hour or two and then the airport ADS-B transmitter could broadcast that for us.