Never sure if phrases that work well in England translate, often I fail to understand Patrick so I know communication breaks down the other way. But some light reading for the weekend of special interest to our American followers some FAA thoughts that landed in my inbox.
This is what Gene had to say, “Wow!……. Fly under IFR rules. Type certifications. Full licensing and medical. Looks like AOPA and ALPA got their way.”
Patrick, postulated ”I haven’t really had a chance to give it a robust going over, but the flavour favours big business and leaves little in the way of opportunity for small business. Possible insight into why the FAA has been keeping the process as private as possible.”
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts gentle reader on our Facebook page or the forum here. Here’s the .PDF Open an adult beverage of choice and sink into a comfy chair though, lots to think about. Patrick and Gene might just be covering this one on the podcast.
There is much to read but this extract based on system that fits the sUAS News remit is a little worrying. I wonder what the French make of it.
The UA is a lightweight aircraft with limited airspeed and maneuvering performance characteristics, which are similar to that of the Aerosonde Mk47
The FOC initiates the flight planning process for the unique flight by filing early intent 48 hours prior to the anticipated departure time. The flight plan includes a 4D plan consisting of a transition through Class B airspace, a planned grid pattern maneuver (with altitude changes), and low priority assigned to each segment of the flight (see Flight Planning scenario). Initial contingency procedures are also negotiated at this time.
ATM automation processes the flight plan and determines that the congestion in Class B and Class E airspace are predicted to be acceptable for the flight operation. However, two UAS operating in close proximity are unacceptable in this instance because of the increased sector complexity, and demand by other users. Only one UA will be allowed at the desired time. The FOC determines that the mission can still be accomplished with a single aircraft and files the amended flight plan.
Once early intent is filed, the ATM automation begins to factor that intent into its calculations, and provides feedback to the FOC that the predicted level of congestion in the Class B and E airspace is acceptable for accommodating the UAS flight. As other flights file their plans, the ATM automation includes the UAS flight in determining sector complexity in the airspace.
Prior to departure, the PIC receives an IFR clearance in accordance with the filed flight plan. After the flight has departed the runway, the PIC establishes communications with ATC, who provides the UAS with separation services from IFR traffic. The PIC uses Sense and Avoid capability to self-separate from VFR traffic within the constraints of the IFR clearance.
While en-route within Class E airspace, the PIC detects VFR traffic that he deems a concern to his route of flight. The PIC contacts ATC to request a deviation to pass behind the VFR traffic. ATC checks his display to confirm that the manuever will not impact other IFR flights in the region, and approves the request. The PIC executes the proposed maneuver and re-establishes the filed 4D trajectory. ATM automation updates the time component of the trajectory and alerts any concerns to ATC.
As the flight approaches Class B airspace, ATC hands the UAS off to the TRACON controller and issues a frequency change to the PIC. ATC manages all traffic within Class B airspace to ensure separation; the PIC continues to use the Sense and Avoid capability primarily to ensure collision avoidance from other aircraft.
While the UA is transiting Class B airspace, ATM automation alerts ATC that there is a potential conflict between the UA and another aircraft. The automation provides ATC with a rank-ordered set of resolutions that accounts for all aircraft trajectories in the local vicinity.