UPP 2 Demo – Use Case 2: VT Tech

In the second episode of a 5-part series, VT tech demonstrates high-density drone operations and strategic de-confliction for a future UAS Traffic Management System.

[james_]

All these ideas are good, but please keep it affordable for the hobbyist. (Don’t kill the hobby )

[edwill]

LOL..., stop the the "plane" should be flying at a SAFE altitude ( navigable airspace 500 feet + PLUS ) to start with and the "Drones" should be flying below that manned aircraft limit at or below 400 ft AGL with a buffer of at least 100 feet between them and more in most cases ( unless near an airport in which case most of those operators would not be there anyway.
and IF there had been a "rogue drone" in the area, it would have No RID as anyone wanting to do nefarious actions will NEVER have RID to start with and unless seen visibly by any of the other pilots, including a law officer in the area they would NEVER KNOW it was ever there anyway...and the manned aircraft will NEVER KNOW any of the drones were there regardless of the situation !!
the whole RID nonsense for the most part is just that, NONSENSE and the FAA and others will soon see how useless it will be overall and the ONLY ones it will help is the FAA's bottom line after receiving $$ from commercial entities that are buying the airspace while punishing hobbyists and the little guy who wanted to make a dollar with a drone...yeah it is that simple.

[furonwarrior]

Remote ID: Because the first thing criminals think of before committing a crime is will I be able to comply with FAA laws and identify myself to the general public.
If any manned aircraft is flying 400’ or below that isn’t making a landing or takeoff approach, maybe it’s not the fault of the sUAV pilot, but the pilot who is flying recklessly?
If a sUAV pilot can only fly within line of sight, less than 400’ and can schedule a flight in a Class B, C or D airspace... what would be the point of the Remote ID... pilots are able to fly in military operated airspace while being advised to take extreme caution where they can literally be shot down, but cannot be able to avoid a drone in mid flight when given authorization to fly in said airspace, especially when the sUAV is most likely nowhere near a manned aircraft when flying legally?

The FAA wants to eliminate sUAVs or make them so irrelevant that it will be impossible to enjoy the hobby or fly commercially for drone photography...
The only real problem that quadcopters have caused was when it flew without airspace authorization and above 400’....

This is all overly unnecessary and creating too many problems with pilots flying legally and ethically...

The FAA has to rethink and to ensure that the laws they want to produce will be reasonable enough where pilots will want to follow them because if you try to eliminate the hobby and commercial activity by created redundancy... there is plenty of the USA where Americans will fly and will not care what the FAA will think in their free time regardless of the consequences.

I personally advise for the licensing approach- because it will keep a record of pilots based on recreational or commercial activities. I agree with the FAA ID number on the sUAV aircraft to be recognizable by another person.
I believe more education is important for better pilots... restricting them will create more rebellion and less appreciation for the FAA and authority to protect their hobby and careers... the FAA should allow private organizations such as the AMA to govern model aviation so that the FAA can focus on manned aircrafts the exact same way the FCC allows the ARRL to govern Amateur Radio to allow for more focus, energy and resources on larger aspics of radio communication.

[furonwarrior]

5:46 You’re talking as if sUAV pilots are flying at the same AGL as manned aircrafts... we’re not supposed to be flying near airports... why the **** would we be anywhere near a manned aircraft during an incident? It wouldn’t be the motor that would be the cause of failure, most likely it would be the electronic speed controller. You would know this if you ever built a quadcopter or repaired one....
One could improve control link by working with the FCC to allow for more remote controllers to have up to 1 watt of 2.4GHz and 5/5.8GHz wifi bands... these remote controls are under powered, especially with Chinese sUAV being sold on the market.
6:25 Could you imagine while flying a sUAV, that your phone would block your video feed to notify you of other sUAV that caused a failure? That sounds like a domino effect of one quadcopter failing after another because of constantly being notified of an unrelated sUAV being crashed in your area. Wtf would I even care? The chances of it hitting another sUAV is slim to none... you’re fabricating a story that is more flavors of bull**** to justify remote ID.
6:56 Unsolicited dick flight zone. Can’t be unseen.
8:11 Look me in the eye if you really believe that bunch of crap. Americans would rather shoot first, ask questions later to a drone they find uncomfortable or looks like an Amazon package drone piñata.