The rate of near misses and the effective cost of a collision.

[PeterNSteinmetz]

So Embry-Riddle has done a study looking at the rate of near misses between other aircraft and drones. In 3 years they found 24 of them. 2 actual collisions during that rough timeframe. 96% of near misses were due to not obeying altitude restrictions.

So let’s do some back of the envelope calculations for what this implies in terms of how the FAA is valuing lives with their requirements for ID on every drone. I am not an expert on this so this is very rough.

they report 1.5M operating drones. If the cost to equip is say $20 per drone, that is a total of $30M. Let’s say there is a 10% chance such a collision results in 4 fatalities. The chances of a collision look like roughly 0.7 per year.

$30M / 0.7 / 4 = $10.7M per life saved, assuming the ID requirement prevents the collisions. but will it? I could easily believe it would have no effect or perhaps just a 10% reduction. If the latter it seems that their valuation of life is off by at least an order of magnitude. If the ID requirement actually substantially reduces the odds of collisions, not so far off.

Do people think the ID requirement will substantially reduce the chances of these collisions? what would be the mechanism?

Researchers study near misses between airplanes and drones — General Aviation News

Given that most close calls happen within 1.5 miles of a runway approach or departure zone, researchers recommend extending the runway exclusion zone for drones at the ends of high-risk runways from about 1 mile to 3.5 miles.

generalaviationnews.com

 

[Jim Logajan]

There are vastly more birds than drones - but that argument was first made years ago and didn't affect the FAA's thinking at all.
I haven't read a Nall Report in years, but I recall in many years that midair collisions were so few in number that they were lumped in with miscellaneous causes. Didn't rate a category of their own.

Pedant alert! "Near Miss" was skewered by George Carlin years ago:

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

As was noted in the prior thread about mid-airs and ADS-B equippage, the rate of mid-airs is just very low and it is hard to determine which if any factors affect that rate.

 

[Bob Noel]

Apply a similar analysis to the installation of backup cameras on cars. (it is now a requirement that all new cars have backup cameras)

A number of years ago the number of fatalities was 200 annually.

The estimated cost to install a camera: $200

The number of new cars sold recently were significantly lower than when the law went into effect (iirc, some 10 million cars, mabe more)

total cost: 2 billion dollars annually

If the backup cameras prevented all fatalities, that would mean we'd be spending $10,000,000 per life saved.

 

[rotorwrench]

Do people think the ID requirement will substantially reduce the chances of these collisions?

Yes.

what would be the mechanism?

Enforcement.

However, the study only tracked a very small slice of the NAS in an area, which in my experience would be considered statistically insignificant with drone vs aircraft interactions. The fact URSA was one of the “researchers” sends a red flag for me on the entire study.

But first you need to put the ID requirement into proper context. No aviation risk management process, i.e., Q-statistics, RCAs, Bowties, etc., apply a cost per life. It is all event driven. Plus no one risk process is applicable across all disciplines as shown by critiques of those processes like Heinrich's and Bird’s safety pyramids.

In very general terms, if you ever heard the saying after an aircraft accident “all the holes lined up in the cheese (Swiss)” that is the intent of aviation safety: to keep the holes from lining up or plug a hole. You’ll also find aviation mortality rates are exceedingly rare which makes a drone mortality rate even more remote.

Regardless, the purpose of any safety initiative, i.e., AD, FAR, SAIB, etc., is simply to prevent an accident. Its also been proven within the risk management industry that the prevention or control of minor incidents does affect the rates of more seriously events. For example, the ID requirement is no different than issuing an AD even though no one was killed by the original problem.

And just a note on ADS-B: it was never designed as a standalone "mid-air" preventative measure. Its original intent was to expand controlled airspace within the NAS. The "mid-air" side was the simple result of technology as there already existed similar devices for years that nobody wanted in the Part 91 world.

So the question remains: what value do you put on your life? .......$10.7 million?

 

[Ron Wanttaja]

So the question remains: what value do you put on your life? .......$10.7 million?

Can't afford that...does that mean I can't live anymore?

But if you're asking if $10.7 million in OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY to save my life is worth it, then the answer is a resounding "yes."

Kinda like how I was forced to put a quarter of the value of my plane into equipment that makes other people feel safer.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

So the question remains: what value do you put on your life? .......$10.7 million?

Well the answer to that has to be effectively infinite. But from a public policy perspective, we can't value people's lives at more than the average person makes in a lifetime. It obviously just won't work.

Courts do this all the time in wrongful death suits. Typically in the US, about 2-4 million per life.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Yes.

Enforcement.

I guess the idea would be that if you can ID sloppy operators before an accident occurs, then it would prevent them from causing a future accident?

Could work but there is always a cost. And I suspect in this case the money would be better spent on other initiatives if the goal is to reduce collisions.

 

[Jim Logajan]

So the question remains: what value do you put on your life? .......$10.7 million?

Looks like about 36% of airplane owners wont shell out a few thousand:

As of June 1, 2022, the FAA data indicates 103,556 fixed wing GA aircraft are ADS-B compliant, out of roughly 161,000 active airplanes. But these numbers do not include some 35,000+ airplanes in the Experimental or non-certified LSA categories. And if many of these aircraft are only operated in the non-required airspace areas, chances are a sizable percentage do not have an Out capability.

From: What a difference ADS-B In makes—or does it?
That article links to FAA current ADS-B equipage stats: Current Equipage Levels As of July 1, 2023

One local data point: The local flight school has two airplanes, only one of which has ADS-B out. That may be an issue climbing to over 10k heading west from Rapid City to clear mountainous areas, but the nearest Class B airports to us are quite some distance away.

 

[rotorwrench]

But if you're asking if $10.7 million in OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY to save my life is worth it, then the answer is a resounding "yes."

Ha. It’s a rhetorical question I’ve asked for years. Classic answer.

Kinda like how I was forced to put a quarter of the value of my plane into equipment that makes other people feel safer.

If you’re talking about ADS-B then not really. NextGen airspace control has been on the table for decades. It was going to happen. That is the basic function for ADSB. Not for other people to feel safer. And it was not forced per se. They simply limited the airspace you can fly in without it. No different than when Mode C became required around primary airports in the mid-80s.

Courts do this all the time in wrongful death suits. Typically in the US, about 2-4 million per life.

Its more than plaintiff attorneys who calculate the value of life. It just doesn’t work on the safety side as the goal is to prevent loss of life and property.

I guess the idea would be that if you can ID sloppy operators before an accident occurs, then it would prevent them from causing a future accident?

Yes. However, I think you’ll find its more toward positive control of the airspace. Plus with UAS I think if you dig deep enough you’ll find the biggest push falls under “security” issues. Nobody saw or planned for the numbers of UAS to increase at the rate it did. I think Part 89 in its current form is more a stop-gap measure given UAS was always part of the Next Gen plan just not at its current growth rate.

Could work but there is always a cost. And I suspect in this case the money would be better spent on other initiatives if the goal is to reduce collisions.

As I’ve noted about this and ADS-B, its more about expanding positive airspace control vs mid-airs. And at $300 and $3000 on average respectively its pretty cheap in the big picture. At least on land. In the GOM, oil companies volunteered space on platforms to make ADSB work and it had zero to do with mid-airs. In some instances that space was valued at $1M per sq. foot. So it all depends what’s important to a person.

Looks like about 36% of airplane owners wont shell out a few thousand:

Same happened when Mode C became mandated. It boiled down to changing your flying habits or buy the equipment. But once drones and eVTOLs start competing for the same airspace on a larger scale will be interesting if that 36% will pony up or get pushed farther out into Class G.

 

[Bob Noel]

...

As I’ve noted about this and ADS-B, its more about expanding positive airspace control vs mid-airs. And at $300 and $3000 on average respectively its pretty cheap in the big picture. At least on land. In the GOM, oil companies volunteered space on platforms to make ADSB work and it had zero to do with mid-airs. In some instances that space was valued at $1M per sq. foot. So it all depends what’s important to a person.

Same happened when Mode C became mandated. It boiled down to changing your flying habits or buy the equipment. But once drones and eVTOLs start competing for the same airspace on a larger scale will be interesting if that 36% will pony up or get pushed farther out into Class G.

ADS-B is far more expensive than Mode C. Even moreso if the aircraft doesn't have the gold-plated approved GPS. Believe it or not, but airplanes fly just fine without certified GPS equipment.

And unlike Mode C, ADS-B is not used for collision avoidance.

And given the fact that ADS-B messages are trivial to fake, thinking that ADS-B will help with security is ludicrous.

ADS-B could have been so useful, but it spiraled out of control thanks to committee and FAA ground infrastructure empires.

 

[rotorwrench]

Believe it or not, but airplanes fly just fine without certified GPS equipment.

True. But if you want to fly in certain airspaces you need it. Just like Mode C. Nothing more.

And unlike Mode C, ADS-B is not used for collision avoidance.

Nor was it ever designed to. ADSB was designed to expand and manage controlled airspace as I mentioned early.

thinking that ADS-B will help with security is ludicrous.

Never said it would. I stated one of the reasons for the Remote ID drone rule is security related. ADSB has zero to do with this. Whats ironic is the Remote ID is being pushed for reasons similar to ADSB use but Part 89 specifically prohibits the use ADSB-out equipment on drones.

One would think if the goal is to keep drones and aircraft separated they would use the same system for all to see. Unless you want to be able to segregate those “targets.”

ADS-B could have been so useful,

Useful? Don’t know what rock you’ve been under but ADSB has opened a whole other level within the NAS. For example, its saved millions in transportation costs in the GOM alone in the past 10+ years. And with its use under other Next-Gen programs like OAPM it will contribute to saving millions more.

Keep in mind, ADSB wasn’t designed with your average weekend warrior flying for $100 burger. And since the UAM/RAM/AAM programs will use ADSB as the principal airspace surveillance system, it takes that point even further.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Keep in mind, ADSB wasn’t designed with your average weekend warrior flying for $100 burger. And since the UAM/RAM/AAM programs will use ADSB as the principal airspace surveillance system, it takes that point even further.

I think this is an important point. There are rather different interests here being discussed. The large commercial airline cartel clearly has a very different set of interests from your average GA pilot.

Since the cartel is vastly larger economically and in terms of volume, it has a much larger impact on the regulatory apparatus.

OTOH, the majority of people participating in this and similar forums are GA pilots, not owners, managers, or pilots for commercial airlines.

 

[rotorwrench]

I think this is an important point. There are rather different interests here being discussed. The large commercial airline cartel clearly has a very different set of interests from your average GA pilot.

It is an important point. But it must be put into context as well. GA by definition encompasses basically all aviation outside of the airlines. And 65%+ of GA is commercial or business related using various aircraft types. All of which have the same interests as the "cartel." So that leaves about 35% of "GA" who would be considered private Part 91 pilots and owners with interests only applicable to their specific group and not to the public at large.

However, as much as you want to believe the “cartels” are the main driver, they’re not. The consumer is, i.e., the flying public. This came to a head in the 90s when commercial aviation ran out of operating room in the US and people complained to their reps.

So the FAA was tasked to increase the amount of seat miles and routes available based on public demand. The end result was the collective Next-Gen programs. Which are ongoing as they will need to make room for additional new commercial airliners, UAVs, eVTOLs, and so on. All within the same volume of airspace used by everyone.

The point is unless you can stop the increase in people wanting to fly from point A to point B quickly Next-Gen will provide the method to move them regardless the needs or wants of the private Part 91 clan. So its not the cartel per se but your neighbor, you, me, and others who drive this wagon. And if that means they have to expand Class B out to 75 miles or require ADSB in more areas then thats what will happen based on public demand. It is what it is.

I’ve watched the private Part 91 portion of GA slowly decline since the late 80s. And unfortunately, based on what I’ve seen and heard lately, that rate of decline is set to increase in the next 5 years. So while it may seem different to those who live outside the industry, this has been the path US aviation industry has been on for the past 30 years with no end in sight.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I’ve watched the private Part 91 portion of GA slowly decline since the late 80s. And unfortunately, based on what I’ve seen and heard lately, that rate of decline is set to increase in the next 5 years. So while it may seem different to those who live outside the industry, this has been the path US aviation industry has been on for the past 30 years with no end in sight.

Good numbers to know, thanks.

I think I have always viewed private 91 to be on the fringe of aviation. We are sort of just free-riders floating along on the edge of this system that is much bigger than we are. In a sense it is sort of like the feeling I get when soaring in a glider at 13,000'. I am like a leaf floating on the edge of a weather system much larger than myself. I am in a very cleverly designed leaf, but really the energies and forces involved are enormous compared to my little SGS 1-26.

I became interested in GA flying during the 60s when there was a much larger section of aviation doing this. I also think it will slowly die and in the process become more expensive. I will likely be able to continue to enjoy it until I can't maintain a medical anymore. And then I will be grateful I was able to fulfill a childhood dream while it was still possible.

Of course, politically I tend to dislike regulatory systems and the cartels they engender. But actually just now it occurs to me, perhaps private 91 flying would actually be cheaper if we still had the CAB. It tended to limit traffic and keep prices up. So the small usage on the edges by private 91 may have been less noticeable.

What would actually happen in a more free market approach? I have to wonder if private 91 would become even more expensive. We would have to compete on an economic playing field for airspace and landing rights in the more congested areas. Of course things might be freer in less congested areas I suppose.

In graduate school I had an advisor who re-kindled my interest in flying small planes. He himself had made a very deliberate decision to remain in the US rather than return to his homeland in Europe because it was so much more restricted and expensive to fly there.

 

[rotorwrench]

I will likely be able to continue to enjoy it until I can't maintain a medical anymore.

In general, I think most people will be able to enjoy private Part 91 flight for years to come even with a Basic Med if thats your inclination. Your location will have more influence over that enjoyment but still provide an option. However, I think the support/maintenance side will be the deciding factor in the next 5 years on how this works out for the future.

IMHO, I think the 91 world will move into a cottage/boutique industry model where owners and mechanics form co-ops in certain areas. Think of it as owner-assisted maintenance on steroids. It was something I was looking at when I retired, however, I decided to walk away from everything instead.

But actually just now it occurs to me, perhaps private 91 flying would actually be cheaper if we still had the CAB.

I would think doubtful. The CAB was very old school that hindered expansion on many levels especially after deregulation. However, the biggest hit to private 91 was when society went from analog to digital.

Before a kid would hear an airplane, look up, and wonder what it was like. Once he could go on his computer or phone or VR or drone, jumping on a real airplane was no longer required or in a lot cases wanted. Plus it allowed most anyone to participate vs only those who could go flying.

Now for less than $100 anyone can see what its like from above with their own personal drone… and see things that even a person in an aircraft cannot see. Then you have the Jetson One to combine both experiences. If I was only younger...

What would actually happen in a more free market approach?

I think in a pure free market private 91 would get swallowed up by the bigger factions overnight. The private 91 market is not big enough to protect itself. While it might not be apparent, there are a number of protections within the FAA rules that keep that from happening now.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Now for less than $100 anyone can see what its like from above with their own personal drone… and see things that even a person in an aircraft cannot see. Then you have the Jetson One to combine both experiences. If I was only younger...

That does look awfully cool!

 

[RandomDroneGuy]

Sorry for being late to the party. August has been... interesting.

It's hard for me to think of a way in which Remote ID, as currently implemented, will be of much benefit to anyone except the manufacturers of the devices. The short range and lack of interoperability with literally anything else aviation-related limit its usefulness to manned aircraft operations to the theoretical.

In my case, the Dronetag Beacon signal range matches the maximum distance from the base station at which I typically would operate the drone; but it doesn't even come close to having the range at which I am capable of operating the drone, even within VLOS. I mean, it's Bluetooth. There are limitations of physics at play.

Given those limitations, even assuming that the base station has a network connection to send the data to Big Brother, the transponder lacks the range to send the data to the base station beyond a relatively small radius from the controller that is only a fraction of the drone's actual flight range.

Remote ID also lacks interoperability with ADS-B (which is explicitly prohibited for sUAS, by the way); so even within its short range, the signal is invisible to manned aircraft unless they have additional equipment specifically to read the BT signals broadcasted by the drones. Even if they do have that equipment, the range would be so short as to cast doubt on its usefulness at manned aircraft speeds.

About the only practical usefulness I'm aware of is for multiple drone / RC pilots operating in the same area. All of the apps I know of are capable of displaying other sUAS operating in the area, which would help situational awareness for pilots in that situation. I suppose that's a pretty common situation in the recreational world, and not unheard-of in commercial operations (although I've never experienced it).

What I predict is that Remote ID will be revamped in a few years in ways that make all existing equipment that operators have been forced to buy even more useless than it already is, with the primary effect of more pilots simply ignoring the rules altogether.