UK's Civil Aviation Authority hashing out rules for crash-proof cargo pods on drones The UK's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is drawing up guidelines so that crash-proof cargo containers can be attached to drones to transport medical items such as blood samples and vaccines. The CAA is working with the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA) and Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to create a …
Aside from ensuring the integrity of the containerised cargo, I would like to see the levels of redundancy in commercial drones addressed to minimise to likelyhood of a midflight failure.
If that means the drones would be more expensive and energy imtense, affecting the profitability of their use, then the technology is not yet advanced enough to use them in this way.
I have been watching some of the footage taken with drones of the Geldingadalur eruption in Iceland, they are a game changer in photography and the recording of historical events. Even to the point of the 'amateur' footage being good enough and of sufficient quantity to have scientific value.
I don't see the current quad copter type drones as an everyday delivery vehicle for smallish packages though, for emergency medical makes sense but for pizzas or Amazon not so much.
Indeed. A four-engined aircraft can do pretty much everything on three engines that it can on four, while a quadcopter drone is in plummet mode if a single motor or propeller fails.
Fixing this would require the motors and propellers to be uprated so the drone could fly on two, and a more sophisticated control system to recognise and deal with the failure eg by shutting down the opposite motor.
That would require motors that could go to 200% of normal in the event of one failing and the opposite one being shut down. Might be cheaper to start with five that can go to whatever a pentagonal drone with one motor out would require. The chair you're sitting on probably has 5 legs and would still work if one leg fell off. (Hmm, maybe I should rush out and patent that idea).
> why it shouldn't apply to UAV flying over populated areas
Because commercial interests. Aviation guidelines were made in a more innocent time, when greed was still shamefully hidden away. Nowadays it is worn as a badge of corporate honor, a sign that one has the stuff to create great profits.
The main advantage of drones is that they are dirt cheap, so nobody will accept adding expensive safety features to them. At best they'll stick a smiley face with "So sorry we hit you..." on them.
It does, that's why they have two engines. Single engine helicopters are much more limited in where they can go over built up areas. E.g. over London they have to follow the heli routes along the Thames, anything goes wrong that's where they're supposed to land. Google Performance Class 1 Helicopters.
IIRC at the moment the safety standards overflying a residential area require redundancy (ie; helicopters actually have two engines) and almost anything flying over a residential area is required to be able to clear the boundaries of that area which is why almost everything flying over a town does so at quite a high height (1000ft minimum) to provide the ability to glide or autorotate clear.
It is reasonably obvious that an unpowered cargo drone is going to have the flight characteristics of a breezeblock, and that for cargo deliveries by drone to work, you have to slash those safety standards.
It's also currently illegal to fly a drone within 150 metres of a residential area horizontally, and completely illegal to fly over them at any altitude with a drone, so if you want to do deliveries to a residential area then that's right out with the current rules so they'll be wanting exemptions from those safety rules.
If something is up in the sky and either fails or hits something it is going to come straight down to ground. Even if drones get parachutes or feather their rotors it's still coming down and possibly landing dangerously.
Also I wonder how long it is before seagulls decide to attack them. If drones are used to carry food then this is inevitably going to happen.
It sounds like this is mean to address what happens to the cargo after such a sudden loss of drone integrity. I'm not sure what kind of scenario they are trying to cover though:
If your cargo is transplant organs, or eggs, then you'll want them to survive the ordeal 100% intact.
If your cargo is plutonium or novichok, you'll need to ensure that your cargo stays completely sealed.
If your cargo is cash or other valuables - you'll need to ensure the bad guys can't get at it.
There's also the issue of minimising any collateral damage to people & property from plummeting cargo.
etc
Dunno how far they'll get with just 50K though... Bubble-wrap & parachutes maybe.
> It sounds like this is mean to address what happens to the cargo
Indeed, for that's what is expensive. For damage on people/animals/propriety getting hit by a falling drone, refer to the "We take our victims' life and property very seriously..." blurb.
Seriously, if you want to make a business case for drone transport, the first thing your prospective clients will want to know is how you'll make sure their cargo won't be lost or destroyed. What you'll do about innocent people you kill is your problem, not theirs. So the only point to be addressed is to make sure the transported cargo has the highest survival chances possible, even if it means it will do extensive damage hitting whatever it falls upon.
When you look at the price of a few grams of snail slime, wrapped in a fancy container with a load of pseudo-scientific bullshit on it and a price anywhere up to several hundred pounds, a drone container full is probably worth more than a replacement kidney.
Of course if you are in need of at least one kidney, they are priceless but I suspect you get my point.
What a pity Professor Heinz Wolff is no longer with us to judge the winning design. :-)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
