Electronic Conspicuity trial in operation at 4 model flying sites

[John Lee]

When checking the NOTAMs before flying (full size) at Manchester Barton airfield recently I noticed an 'ADS-B Beacon trial nearby:

 

 

Upon investigation it turned out to be based at the LMA's North West site and part of a trial for ground based beacons that can be used to identify  active Gliding, Hang Gliding & Model Flying sites. Other beacons are presently based at Buckminster and the Phoenix & Wimbourne Clubs.

 

Further information is available here:

 

https://uavionix.com/projects/UKObsBeacon/

 

I've not heard anything previously of the trials & would be interested to learn of any background and experiences to date. 

 

Edited September 13, 2022 by John Lee
Typo

[Andy Stephenson]

Perhaps this will obviate the need for RID.

[Martin Dance 1]

This seems like an intelligent response to a perceived problem, that of the incursion of GA activities into airspace used by fixed  operations such as winch launched gliders and conventional model flying sites . I suspect such beacons will be many more times reliable than any ID system being carried in a model aircraft could hope to be. My only misgiving about this trial is that it is taking place during the Autumn/Winter when recreational aviation of all sorts is reduced thus meaning that the amount of data that can be gathered will be reduced and may be skewed towards aircraft that are very well equipped with up to date avionics. This could mean that results are going to have a positive skew.

[SIMON CRAGG]

Nice of somebody to tell us about this.

 

I am the club secretary of one of the clubs involved after all.

[MattyB]

3 hours ago, Andy Stephenson said:

Perhaps this will obviate the need for RID.

 

It hasn't stopped the authorities progressing RID in the US, and I don't expect it to be any different here. I don't doubt that a CAA equivalent of the US FRIAs ("FAA recognised identification areas") will be proposed alongside RID when the government decide to progress this, but there is no way they will drop RID completely - they will always want to be able to ID any SUAS flying outside such sites.

 

1 hour ago, Martin Dance 1 said:

This seems like an intelligent response to a perceived problem, that of the incursion of GA activities into airspace used by fixed  operations such as winch launched gliders and conventional model flying sites. I suspect such beacons will be many more times reliable than any ID system being carried in a model aircraft could hope to be. My only misgiving about this trial is that it is taking place during the Autumn/Winter when recreational aviation of all sorts is reduced thus meaning that the amount of data that can be gathered will be reduced and may be skewed towards aircraft that are very well equipped with up to date avionics. This could mean that results are going to have a positive skew.

 

Maybe, but the devil is in the detail. How easy will it be to get a FRIA/CRIA? How long will they last, and what will the limits be on their use? What equipment will be needed, and how much does it cost? Right now in the US all the FRIA details are still up in the air despite the new regs coming in for "shop bought" drones in a matter of days. It's frankly an almighty mess.

 

1 hour ago, SIMON CRAGG said:

Nice of somebody to tell us about this.

 

I am the club secretary of one of the clubs involved after all.

 

Interesting. Hopefully the BMFA will communicate something about this in the near future,  @Andy Symons - BMFA can you enlighten us? Thanks in advance.

 

EDIT - From the page linked in post 1...

 

Edited September 13, 2022 by MattyB

[MattyB]

Tagging @Rob Buckleyand @LMA Dave as they may also be able to shed more light on this, though it doesn't look like they have been active here for quite a long time...

[SIMON CRAGG]

Bit miffed that we have heard the square root of nothing about this from anybody.

 

Be nice to know what is going on, as we have co existed with full size gliders since day dot.

 

Oh well, another topic for the AGM!.

[MattyB]

26 minutes ago, SIMON CRAGG said:

Bit miffed that we have heard the square root of nothing about this from anybody.

 

Be nice to know what is going on, as we have co existed with full size gliders since day dot.

 

Oh well, another topic for the AGM!.

 

It doesn't surprise me that this is being kept relatively quiet by the BMFA/LMA at this stage to avoid members jumping to conclusions about the end game, but I am surprised committee members in the related clubs are not aware. 

[Rob Buckley]

We're not making a massive deal at this stage, as unless you're flying at one of the four clubs in the trial there's nothing to see. There's been more publicity in manned aircraft land, as they will hopefully see the transmissions from the machines we're using. Once the trial is over and some results come in we'll be able to say more of what's been found and what it all means.

Individual aircraft remote ID is a terrible idea for model aircraft, but driven by the police in their pursuit of naughtiness rather than any form of aviation safety.

 

Simon, I'm afraid I don't know about internal comms in your club, as far as I was aware the full committee was consulted in April.

[Capt Kremen]

Are the ADS Beacons battery powered?

Most flying clubs operate from fields not immediately connected to mains power.

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

2 hours ago, Rob Buckley said:

We're not making a massive deal at this stage, as unless you're flying at one of the four clubs in the trial there's nothing to see. There's been more publicity in manned aircraft land, as they will hopefully see the transmissions from the machines we're using. Once the trial is over and some results come in we'll be able to say more of what's been found and what it all means.

Individual aircraft remote ID is a terrible idea for model aircraft, but driven by the police in their pursuit of naughtiness rather than any form of aviation safety.

 

Simon, I'm afraid I don't know about internal comms in your club, as far as I was aware the full committee was consulted in April.

Rob has said all there is to say at the moment.

[Martin_K]

I found this release from ARPAS UK (Association of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems), dated 1 September. Much the same as above, but contains a bit of additional information.

[SIMON CRAGG]

5 hours ago, Rob Buckley said:

We're not making a massive deal at this stage, as unless you're flying at one of the four clubs in the trial there's nothing to see. There's been more publicity in manned aircraft land, as they will hopefully see the transmissions from the machines we're using. Once the trial is over and some results come in we'll be able to say more of what's been found and what it all means.

Individual aircraft remote ID is a terrible idea for model aircraft, but driven by the police in their pursuit of naughtiness rather than any form of aviation safety.

 

Simon, I'm afraid I don't know about internal comms in your club, as far as I was aware the full committee was consulted in April.

 

[SIMON CRAGG]

We are one of the four clubs taking part in the trial unbeknown to us!

 

In the past the BMFA have been excellent at passing info. onto me which I religiously forward to all our members whether they want it or not.

 

Either I have missed all the communications on this trial, or it has never sent in the first place.

 

The way the hobby is going, it would not surprise me in the slightest if we had to fit remote ID into all our models. 

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Is there a possibility that there is a club with the same name as yours involved?  For instance, there are certainly several Phoenix clubs around the country.

[SIMON CRAGG]

Looks like you are right Martin thanks.

 

http://pibs.nats.co.uk/operational/pibs/pib6.shtml

 

514259N 0001541W is near Colney Herts.

 

Even so, it would have been good to know!.

[MattyB]

16 hours ago, Rob Buckley said:

Individual aircraft remote ID is a terrible idea for model aircraft, but driven by the police in their pursuit of naughtiness rather than any form of aviation safety.

 

RID has never really been being driven by the  law enforcement community as far as I am aware; none of the new regs really are. Going right back to the Riga declaration in 2015 (and probably before; that was when I started to follow this in detail) the agenda has really been being driven by the desire to integrate commercial BVLOS SUAS operations into the airspace across Europe; registration and RID are seen as part of that goal whether we agree or not. Yes RID will in theory make enforcement easier for officers on the ground (if people actually fit the transponders...), but this has always really been about identifying what is there to manage access to the low level airspace, allowing big corporates to use it commercially and governments to garner the jobs and tax receipts they believe will go along with that.

 

Paragraph 1, Riga declaration 2015:

"Today Europe is taking a decisive step towards the future of aviation. The European aviation community gathered in Riga to exchange views on how, and under which conditions, drones can help create promising new opportunities in Europe, offering sustainable jobs and new prospects for growth both for the manufacturing industry and for future users of drones in all sectors of society. Drones offer new services and applications going beyond traditional aviation and offer the promise to perform existing services in a more affordable and environmentally friendly way. They are a truly transformational technology."

 

Section on RID within the declaration:

When a drone service is delivered in prohibited airspace, in an unsafe manner, or for illegal purposes, the authorities should be able to act and hold the operator accountable. Where lacking, this will need to be clarified in national law. Moreover, in order to enforce responsibility, it will be necessary for drones to have at all times an identifiable owner or operator. The regulator should seek the least bureaucratic way to achieve this. For instance, the mandating of electronic identity chips on drones – “IDrones” – as is today envisaged in some states, could be formalised through a safety rule, which would contribute to the effective implementation of privacy and security requirements. 

 

[John Lee]

16 hours ago, Andy Symons - BMFA said:

Rob has said all there is to say at the moment.

 

I'm just a little disappointed that a praiseworthy co-operative venture, which may in due course affect the future of our sport, was not deemed worthy of at least a mention in the News section of the BMFA Website or Facebook page (like the BGA did). I'm sure it would have been of interest to at least some of the Membership.

[SIMON CRAGG]

36 minutes ago, John Lee said:

 

I'm just a little disappointed that a praiseworthy co-operative venture, which may in due course affect the future of our sport, was not deemed worthy of at least a mention in the News section of the BMFA Website or Facebook page (like the BGA did). I'm sure it would have been of interest to at least some of the Membership.

Could not have put it better myself!

 

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Personally I don't much care this hasn't been communicated to us all, If it had the BMFA would get swamped with negative comments, when there's  something to say, no doubt they will. Proactive works for me though.

[Dave Bran]

It better come with automatic machine gun backed exclusion zone protection or a daily replacement will be needed after the local cretins find out its there. After all, they brought scaffold poles and quite competently demolished a double brick and concrete rendered barbecue that more resembled a WWII pill-box.  And every sign is promptly trashed no matter how robust.  The trial better check if it'll still operate with used condoms strewn all over it as well.      AND...........they REALLY enjoy burning things, too.

 

They are not averse to arriving while people are on site, either.

 

I jest not. Seems basically a idea worth persuing, but we are already a very long established site with fixed boundaries and are on permanent NOTAM, so the only need for this is due to lack of compliance/attention BY OTHERS.

 

However, there was a fair bit of internet talk a couple of years back on ADSB adversely affecting model radio, (see XJET videos for one) and if this is true now, I hope the triallers are prepared for losses.

[GrumpyGnome]

That's assuming it is a hardware based solution.....

[Dave Bran]

Sorry, forgot magic............ 😁

[GrumpyGnome]

Okay, to rephrase, we"re assuming a permanent / temporary structure at our flying field.

 

The vast majority of us have technology in our pockets that could easily communicate that a location is in use for model, and can be thus create a NOTAM in real time.

 

Sort of magic!

[MattyB]

1 hour ago, GrumpyGnome said:

Okay, to rephrase, we"re assuming a permanent / temporary structure at our flying field.

 

The vast majority of us have technology in our pockets that could easily communicate that a location is in use for model, and can be thus create a NOTAM in real time.

 

Sort of magic!

 

The problem is a NOTAM does not create real time awareness in the cockpit of an aircraft about to go into the area in question, and pilots frequently ignore or do not read them. An example from the Wikipedia page on NOTAM...

Criticism

In July 2017, Air Canada Flight 759 nearly crashed into four other airliners as it attempted to land on a San Francisco taxiway misidentified as a runway: the adjacent runway was closed but the information was buried in the NOTAM. In September 2018, the National Transportation Safety Board stated NOTAMs were unintelligible and ignored, and recommended a more effective information presentation for better relevance. NTSB chairman Robert Sumwalt described NOTAMs as "a bunch of garbage that nobody pays any attention to". This led to an ICAO initiative to reform the NOTAM system.^[8]

 

Edited September 15, 2022 by MattyB