An Air Traffic Control System For Drones 77
An anonymous reader writes: Personal drones are become more popular, and many companies are trying to figure out ways to incorporate them into their business. So what do we do in 10 years, when the skies are full of small, autonomous vehicles? NASA and a startup called Airware are working on a solution: air traffic control for drones. "The first prototype to be developed under NASA's project will be an Internet-based system. Drone operators will file flight plans for approval. The system will use what it knows about other drone flights, weather forecasts, and physical obstacles such as radio masts to give the go-ahead. Later phases of the project will build more sophisticated systems that can actively manage drone traffic by sending out commands to drones in flight. That could mean directing them to spread out when craft from multiple operators are flying in the same area, or taking action when something goes wrong, such as a drone losing contact with its operator, says Jonathan Downey, CEO of Airware. If a drone strayed out of its approved area, for example, the system might automatically send a command that made it return to its assigned area, or land immediately."
Name (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's right, these people are just pretending they're in a real helicopter. IS that so wrong? I mean the stuff of little boy dreams is now possible.
It is if you get in the way of an actual manned helicopter. If drone/RPV usage keeps going up regulation will be needed, sooner or later. A good part of a private pilot license exam is regarding regulations and air traffic rules. Even if you only plan to spin around a runway in a small Cessna these still apply.
Imagine what would happen if people started putting radio controlled cars in a highway. Now imaginge the highway is 3,000FT above the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
We (the responsible R/C helicopter community) have been asking, in fact begging, for regulation for some time now. Even going so far as to have pseudo-regulation via AMA. Unfortunately the FAA has continually put the issue on the back-burner....
I'm aware of this. Sadly, this won't change until there's money involved, like Amazon's recent research on using quads for package delivery. These regulations are strict and hard to change, but, again, there's good reason for it.
Also, the analogy of radio-controlled cars is absurdly non-sequitur as cars are 3,000lbs of steel/aluminum and multi-rotors are 27 oz. of plastic/carbon fiber.
The thing is, you don't need a lot of mass to damage something that flies. A RC car can wreck havoc if stepped over by a car going 70MPH on a highway, just like a quad can do even more damage if sucked into the jet intake of an airliner / helicopter. Or the propeller / attack surfac
Top to bottom (Score:2)
This is a top to bottom, centralized way of handling the problem.
Obviously a decentralized way of organizing the flight would work a lot better, but it would require coding some protocols on the drones and governments want to keep control.
This is a stupid solution, having to file a flight path befor the flight and waiting for the government official to give you the green light.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Top to bottom (Score:2)
clearly you've never seen a mass migration of 100,000 starlings, all constantly crashing into each other. What they need is a President bird to coordinate their actions.
burds using local automata rules to prevent that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
When your drone files for a flight plan, does it have to provide insurance information as well? If a $500 drone falls from the sky, it could theoretically cause millions of dollars in damages.
Re: (Score:2)
having to file a flight path befor the flight and waiting for the government official to give you the green light.
FTsummary- "The system will use what it knows about other drone flights, weather forecasts, and physical obstacles such as radio masts to give the go-ahead."
Where did you get that a "government official" would be involved?
Skynet, Obviously (Score:1)
Wouldn't this just be... skynet?
Re: (Score:2)
and... (Score:1)
and it will take how long for someone to use this system to hijack one of these and do nefarius things with it? 20min?
This basically asks for 2 things: (Score:2)
1) a protocol
2) sufficiently wide approval of said protocol
So how do we get that ? In our world, there are five ways to build systems: a) technoloy-driven ( done by the Gyro Gearlooses of our world ) 2) purpose-driven systems ( MS Office et al., ain't gonna work here ) 3) sociotechnical systems ( may work here ? ) 4) politicotechnical systems ( basically, things like the entire Internet, or national highway networks ) 5) open source systems ( seems to be the best candidate here ? )
Where have I seen this pattern before? (Score:1)
Autonomous individuals sometimes do bad things or get into conflicts. The solution is a central, controlling authority that knows what's best for them. A central, controlling authority can always work things out better than autonomous individuals, because it has all information and always knows the best way to act on it.
Wow, why hasn't anyone thought of this before?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you want a central controlling authority in the first place, whether or not it is geographically sharded? Why is there any need for any sort of databa
Re: (Score:2)
Because The Fancy Article is talking about filing flight plans, and since a central authority has to have a center, and Washington is the location of the central controlling authority in the US.
It doesn't have to be a federal center; in fact, it makes little sense to have one for that.
Why do you want a central controlling authority in the first place, whether or not it is geographically sharded?
Because hardware-wise, it's simpler to implement (basically COTS), with potentially lower amortized costs.
Why is there any need for any sort of database, 4D or otherwise?
Because computational geometry is the fundamental nature of the problem, from which the structure of the solution naturally arises. Just like using wheels is a natural solution to moving things on the ground (to make a car analogy). But of course you'd suggest mechanical limbs, because that's what apparently seem
Re: (Score:2)
"Troll"? Really? (Score:2)
Apparently I should've leaned less on snark in my original comment.
By mandating central control, you're making so many assumptions -- the central controller is correct, the central controller scales successfully to the maximum traffic level, there is reliable communication at all times between the central controller and every autonomous agent, every autonomous agent correctly reports its position and status to the central controller, every autonomous agent responds correctly to direction from the central co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Piffle (Score:2)
I build and fly these "drones" (multirotors) for fun and work, the type of hardware that would be required wouldn't fit in most hobby level "drones" that are seen causing all the problems (DJI Phantom's etc) and the infrastructure to provide what the above implies would be extensive.
For commercial UAV's of size sure no problem, larger, more powerful radio systems and greater payloads.
At best, with the current people in charge, I can see what I do becoming illegal, or too expensive to participate in.
It's a s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I build them bigger than that, you need at least an 800 to get a DSLR into the or a smaller quad with 8 motors.
But I know what you're saying, for "commercial" use meaning several of the jobs I do will most likely be regulated so that I can't compete due to cost.
They're not autonomous. Who talks to ATC? (Score:3)
There's a park near us where people fly RC planes. Fun to watch, and people keep them over the park, and there's no question they're controlled. The first time someone put up a multi-rotor, though, someone asked, "Is that a drone? Can it go by itself?" No. It's an RC plane just like everything else. And if you keep it over the open land in the park, and stay away from people's windows, you'll be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Before they can do that, they'll have to open a chain of pediatric and veterinary hospitals.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone in the hobby, technically, any unmanned aerial vehicle is a drone. Yes, for some, that word means "weaponized", but it's obvious that your park flyers aren't weaponized. It's a good opportunity to inform the public about the hobby, safety, and different characteristics of drones (even RC drones).
Additionally, flying a multi-rotor without some level of autonomy can be quite dangerous. Most models have sophisticated controllers that will maintain altitude and position with no input from the pilot.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of multitrotors, while not completely autonomous, are partially autonomous in that they can handle a l
Re: (Score:2)
So much ignorance in one post (Score:2)
The parent's post is wrong on so many levels. Let's start with the technical:
1. Most multi-rotor toys which are bought from anywhere more dedicated to the hobby than toys-r-us ARE drones. Can it go by itself? A lot of people will answer no, and yet when their controllers drop out the drone (and I will keep using that word) will return to launch, or hold position. Most entry level drones are controlled via GPS and barometrics. That is how the hobby has suddenly taken off to thousands upon thousands of unskil
shotguns (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
What is the best load for a drone? I'm thinking #4 buck shot.
That only takes out the symptom. The problem is at the other end of the flight path.
Re: (Score:2)
Should also incorporate AIS-like facility (Score:2)
This sounds like a centralized style solution. It only works if communication between any drone and the central server/agency is maintained. For some parts, like flight planning, this is fine. But for collision avoidance I don't think this will cut it.
In the shipping world we already have a decentralized system called Automatic Identification System (AIS) [wikipedia.org]. Every vessel broadcasts its position and course on a common radio channel. Other vessels listen and if equipped with collision avoidance systems can tak
Re: (Score:2)
Would this call for custom RF hardware, which could be expensive, plus licensing a band for it? A cell modem module seems cheaper to me. But aside from some kind of data broadcast, which seems inefficient, that would still require some way of finding the closest drones to tell them that you're approaching, ergo someone who knows where everyone is.
I don't know, but to me, the conceptualization of the problem using a central authority seems very simple. Represent all drone routes or operation areas as 4D poly
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The former is only marginally controllable, and the latter is not silent.
I feel like this is solving the wrong problem. (Score:2)
It seems to me the real problem is separating drone traffic--including drones bought by amateurs and self-built drones--from passenger carrying aircraft. Meaning rather than sending commands causing drone traffic "swarms" to self-separate or to prevent them from flying outside of their desired area--which strikes me as problematic if you want ot use a drone to inspect a pipeline or inspect telephone wires (for example)--wouldn't it be better to simply create advisories to help separate drones from passenger
Re: (Score:2)
Curious what your 'passionate' beef with DJI is. They have a ways to go, but they do a good job of making an all-around consumer-friendly device at an affordable cost.
More Government - Not What We Need (Score:2)
This is just more government and not something we need. People who think the skies would be packed with drones have no concept of 3D space. Drones are tiny. Skies are huge. Value of drones is low. Air Traffic Control for drones is totally unnecessary. This is just a distraction from the much more important issue of privacy.
i think we can learn from the birds here (Score:2)
It will create a non-neutral market (Score:1)
Drone Backdoors Required? (Score:1)
Regulations will come out stating that all drones have to have Airware software running on them allowing the central control system to be able to land them or modify their flight plans in case of a need. Any drone found flying without it will be free game to bring down via other methods and/or subject to a fine and loss of the drone to the governm
Finally! (Score:2)
Too Little Too Late (Score:2)
I think they are way off the mark as to the nature of the problem they are trying to solve as well as the timing of it. I believe there is a good possibility that we will have not thousands or tens of thousands, but millions of smaller drones in the air by 2020. And, yes, they will be autonomous or semi-autonomous. Putting Google cars on the road is harder than making drones autonomous.
The key to understanding here is that these are just robots. As we move further into the age of personal robotics, there wi