Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Wants a Piece of Air-Traffic Control for Drones

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 26 posts

Re: Google Wants a Piece of Air-Traffic Control for Drones

#11

Post by cmurf »

Today, we're still using AM line of sight radio, on a frequency that can only accept one transmission at a time.

First innovate a better system for drones. Then replace the legacy ATC system in stages for Class A, Class B, Class C, Class E IFR, and finally Class E VFR. And only then can the altitude restriction on drones be lifted, and integrated into the rest of the ATC system. But even getting Class A and B under the same modern and scalable system as drones, even if they aren't sharing airspace, is something pilots, airlines, ATC, and the FAA have needed/wanted for a long time.

Re: Google Wants a Piece of Air-Traffic Control for Drones

#12

Post by hn9780470248775 »

pmorici wrote: post #10
throwaway859876 wrote: post #6

Retailers will be in for a lot of heartache if they hope that the FAA will "work with them." ADS-B is already mandated for 2020. The spec is cast in stone, and the only thing that could change is the month it's enforced. As we've seen with the SoCal fires last week, integrated tracking is essential for safe low-level flight. Certified ADS-B avionics prices have ranged from $10,000 - $1,000,000+. Experimental prices a…

Hobby ADS-B receivers are super cheap is there any reason an ADS-B transmitter for a drone couldn't also be made cheaply?

1. For ADS-B out, you, of course, need all the requisite sensors (GPS, etc).

2. The correctness of ADS-B data protects human life. Naturally there will be much stricter requirements (certification of reliability) on something that produces this data and introduces it to the system, than for a "just for fun" receiver.

Re: Google Wants a Piece of Air-Traffic Control for Drones

#13

Post by cmurf »

throwaway859876 wrote: post #6

Retailers will be in for a lot of heartache if they hope that the FAA will "work with them." ADS-B is already mandated for 2020. The spec is cast in stone, and the only thing that could change is the month it's enforced. As we've seen with the SoCal fires last week, integrated tracking is essential for safe low-level flight. Certified ADS-B avionics prices have ranged from $10,000 - $1,000,000+. Experimental prices a…

ADS-B is effectively to replace Mode C. There's nothing in the mandate that expands Mode C required airspace. So that leaves a metric ton of space not covered by the rule for conventional airplanes, let alone drones. Drones of course need a totally different and scalable system.

Something possibly like a centralized flight plan, that's given an ack/nack/patch, and then the drone flies that plan on its own without needing constant comm like today's aircraft do (more like IFR plans where you're expected to complete the entire cleared flight plan, to the minute, in a comm failure). And then all drones share all flight plans that affect their routing. And all nearby drones rat each other out if any drone deviates from their flight plane. That'll scale. ADS-B may not.

Re: Google Wants a Piece of Air-Traffic Control for Drones

#14

Post by cmurf »

jamespitts wrote: post #5

This is very exciting, and inevitable. This sort of infrastructure will lead to a lot of innovation because it alleviates many of the questions about operating drones in shared spaces.

It deals with drone on drone, but not really drone on non-drone. And also doesn't deal with the "virtual pilot" firmware drones will run, that should have an analog to FAR 91 rules such as the obstacle avoidance and being able to avoid injuring people and property on the ground. I have to be able to do that as a pilot, there's no good reason why an up to 55lb drone going up to 100mph should be exempt.

Re: Google Wants a Piece of Air-Traffic Control for Drones

#15

Post by ytdht »

cmurf wrote: post #11

Today, we're still using AM line of sight radio, on a frequency that can only accept one transmission at a time. First innovate a better system for drones. Then replace the legacy ATC system in stages for Class A, Class B, Class C, Class E IFR, and finally Class E VFR. And only then can the altitude restriction on drones be lifted, and integrated into the rest of the ATC system. But even getting Class A and B under t…

Enabling Super Wi-Fi[1] nation-wide would be a good start to a better system for wireless communications for drones and other internet-connected devices

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Wi-Fi

Re: Google Wants a Piece of Air-Traffic Control for Drones

#16

Post by w-ll »

ytdht wrote: post #15
cmurf wrote: post #11

Today, we're still using AM line of sight radio, on a frequency that can only accept one transmission at a time. First innovate a better system for drones. Then replace the legacy ATC system in stages for Class A, Class B, Class C, Class E IFR, and finally Class E VFR. And only then can the altitude restriction on drones be lifted, and integrated into the rest of the ATC system. But even getting Class A and B under t…

Enabling Super Wi-Fi[1] nation-wide would be a good start to a better system for wireless communications for drones and other internet-connected devices 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Wi-Fi

I actually worked with Spectrum Bridge and the city on the implementation in Wilmington, North Carolina while in college.

At the time it was called 'Whitespace Wifi' and we actually had a handful of services other than public wi-fi. It was good fun.

Re: Google Wants a Piece of Air-Traffic Control for Drones

#17

Post by cmurf »

ytdht wrote: post #15
cmurf wrote: post #11

Today, we're still using AM line of sight radio, on a frequency that can only accept one transmission at a time. First innovate a better system for drones. Then replace the legacy ATC system in stages for Class A, Class B, Class C, Class E IFR, and finally Class E VFR. And only then can the altitude restriction on drones be lifted, and integrated into the rest of the ATC system. But even getting Class A and B under t…

Enabling Super Wi-Fi[1] nation-wide would be a good start to a better system for wireless communications for drones and other internet-connected devices 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Wi-Fi

Does it work at 45000'? Seems ideal to have one comm system for low and high altitudes, but at least there should be at most two and no gap in coverage.

Re: Google Wants a Piece of Air-Traffic Control for Drones

#18

Post by sopooneo »

Animats wrote: post #7

This is actually an FAA/NASA initiative.[1] They're trying to figure out how this can work. The FAA's first round is out, with the proposed "drone pilot licenses" and coordination with existing ATC for drone operations in controlled airspace. That won't scale up to large numbers of drones, but can be done now. The FAA is considering fewer restrictions on very small drones ( The FAA is trying to get this under control…

Thank you for the information, most of which is new to me. However, one minor point of correction, is that I believe the birds are thawed, not frozen, when fired into jet engines to test them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_gun

Re: Google Wants a Piece of Air-Traffic Control for Drones

#19

Post by ytdht »

cmurf wrote: post #17
ytdht wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enabling Super Wi-Fi[1] nation-wide would be a good start to a better system for wireless communications for drones and other internet-connected devices 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Wi-Fi

Does it work at 45000'? Seems ideal to have one comm system for low and high altitudes, but at least there should be at most two and no gap in coverage.

I would think so because analog TV over the air was able to travel more then 9 miles, but I don't think that toy drones can go that high, but that will probably change...

Re: Google Wants a Piece of Air-Traffic Control for Drones

#20

Post by ytdht »

w-ll wrote: post #16
ytdht wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enabling Super Wi-Fi[1] nation-wide would be a good start to a better system for wireless communications for drones and other internet-connected devices 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Wi-Fi

I actually worked with Spectrum Bridge and the city on the implementation in Wilmington, North Carolina while in college. At the time it was called 'Whitespace Wifi' and we actually had a handful of services other than public wi-fi. It was good fun.

Do you know of any plans to expand it further? or was there any substantial problems discovered that could not be solved?
Post reply on HN