USA ADS-B

[licensed pilot]

The cheapest UAS ADS-B I've found so far is $1200 US.
Anyone knows of anything cheaper?

 

[The Editor]

The cheapest UAS ADS-B I've found so far is $1200 US.
Anyone knows of anything cheaper?

And I bet it's heavy as well!

How does $175 sound?

Products

Looks like only for PixHawk presently though sorry.

 

[licensed pilot]

And I bet it's heavy as well!

How does $175 sound?

Products

Looks like only for PixHawk presently though sorry.

$175 is just a receiver . The full transceiver is $1200.

 

[The Editor]

$175 is just a receiver . The full transceiver is $1200.View attachment 8855

Sorry - I'm useless.
Only for PixHawk anyway so a bit moot

I will now crawl back into my man cave and work on evil things.

 

[licensed pilot]

Sorry - I'm useless.
Only for PixHawk anyway so a bit moot

I will now crawl back into my man cave and work on evil things.

I don't know who the hell they think is going to pay$1,200 for it. If you can afford this you are probably a big company flying UAVs the size of Cessnas!

 

[AngelAndres]

Hi,

give this one a look: Skysense |

Search for their product named "BCON1". It's supposed to be a lightweight, low-power consumption ADS-B Out solution for drones. Not sure if it'll be powerful or accurate enough to meet FAA specs though.

Color me curious for sure!

-Angel

 

[Kilrah]

I don't know who the hell they think is going to pay$1,200 for it. If you can afford this you are probably a big company flying UAVs the size of Cessnas!

Probably everybody the day it becomes mandatory... that's most likely the way it's going to go.

 

[licensed pilot]

Probably everybody the day it becomes mandatory... that's most likely the way it's going to go.

You are probably right, but the cost will have to drop considerably, mandatory or not. Not too many folks are going to put a $1200 device in a $1,000 Phantom.

 

[Kilrah]

But the government couldn't care less that the average Joe is still able to buy/fly a $1000 Phantom, or even that DJI can sell it in the first place! Quite the opposite, they'd rather keep the sky clear and wipe them all out! And requiring something that pushes the cost out of what most would be ready to pay is probably the easiest way to achieve it.

IMO the Phantom's category as a consumer product will be forced to disappear pretty soon, you'll have choice between small and light toys you can't fly beyond your backyard or do any damange with and pro machines with high reliability equipment and tracking for which $1200 is peanuts, and about nothing inbetween except DIY - just like it was before the Phantom took advantage of the temporary lack of regulation.

It might come back once the required high reliability equipment becomes small and cheap enough to be included - but that won't be before said equipment can be sold at high prices for a few years, and until the whole support system around can accomodate it. Imagine if ATC suddently had to handle drones - it would probably add a few decades' worth of workload increase overnight.

 

[licensed pilot]

But the government couldn't care less that the average Joe is still able to buy/fly a $1000 Phantom, or even that DJI can sell it in the first place! Quite the opposite, they'd rather keep the sky clear and wipe them all out! And requiring something that pushes the cost out of what most would be ready to pay is probably the easiest way to achieve it.

IMO the Phantom's category as a consumer product will be forced to disappear pretty soon, you'll have choice between small and light toys you can't fly beyond your backyard or do any damange with and pro machines with high reliability equipment and tracking for which $1200 is peanuts, and about nothing inbetween except DIY - just like it was before the Phantom took advantage of the temporary lack of regulation.

It might come back once the required high reliability equipment becomes small and cheap enough to be included - but that won't be before said equipment can be sold at high prices for a few years, and until the whole support system around can accomodate it. Imagine if ATC suddently had to handle drones - it would probably add a few decades' worth of workload increase overnight.

But the government couldn't care less that the average Joe is still able to buy/fly a $1000 Phantom, or even that DJI can sell it in the first place! Quite the opposite, they'd rather keep the sky clear and wipe them all out! And requiring something that pushes the cost out of what most would be ready to pay is probably the easiest way to achieve it.

IMO the Phantom's category as a consumer product will be forced to disappear pretty soon, you'll have choice between small and light toys you can't fly beyond your backyard or do any damange with and pro machines with high reliability equipment and tracking for which $1200 is peanuts, and about nothing inbetween except DIY - just like it was before the Phantom took advantage of the temporary lack of regulation.

It might come back once the required high reliability equipment becomes small and cheap enough to be included - but that won't be before said equipment can be sold at high prices for a few years, and until the whole support system around can accomodate it. Imagine if ATC suddently had to handle drones - it would probably add a few decades' worth of workload increase overnight.

That's a rather gloomy assessment of the situation. Kilrah, IMHO, The FAA hasn't invested all this effort in 333s and Part 107 just to eradicate UAVs. Granted, they appeared hostile initially but that's tradition. The FAA is a pilot organization for pilots. Cultural changes take a long time. UAVs are fast becoming a multi billion dollar industry and Congress (whose mercenary culture is about nothing but $$$$/campaign contributions aka bribes) is not about to allow the FAA to put a stake through the heart of the industry. Just my

 

[Kilrah]

That's a rather gloomy assessment of the situation. Kilrah, IMHO, The FAA hasn't invested all this effort in 333s and Part 107 just to eradicate UAVs.

Of course not, but their goal is to increase safety. That means making sure untrained people are as unlikely as possible to be able to do things they should not, and making sure those who are have equipment that is as safe as possible.
That's why I think availability of "too easy and too powerful" things will be restricted, and requirements for professional ones (and thus their price) will increase.

 

[The Editor]

Start off by making machines that can go <200m ONLY accessible to licenced/certified UAV operators.
If the TX is tampered with (attempted modifications), the front end shuts down.
Because these machines will go BVLOS people will do it. Take that away from them and they will get bored and move onto another hobby or stay and be satisfied with the images that can be captured from sensible distances.

 

[AngelAndres]

Sorry I don't share your doomsday scenario. The feds didn't spend all this effort just to ban a


That's a rather gloomy assessment of the situation. Kilrah, IMHO, The FAA hasn't invested all this effort in 333s and Part 107 just to eradicate UAVs. Granted, they appeared hostile initially but that's tradition. The FAA is a pilot organization for pilots. Cultural changes take a long time. UAVs are fast becoming a multi billion dollar industry and Congress (whose mercenary culture is about nothing but $$$$/campaign contributions aka bribes) is not about to allow the FAA to put a stake through the heart of the industry. Just my View attachment 9224

I'm with you on this one.

Congress mandated the FAA integrate small drones with the rest of the national airspace system. The FAA is doing just that. The only thing is, the FAA is doing it the only way they know how: to regulate them like manned airplanes.

Could they have chosen a more efficient path? Yep. I whole heartedly believe that. Do they want this long, meticulous process they just went through to just go by the wayside? Well, let's just say that the FAA is made up of real people, with real jobs and real lives, just like you and I. Would you want to see all of your hard work be for nothing?

They aren't trying to squash drone use. They are just really crappy at dealing with the general public. They need a P.R. person.

Thanks for reading!

-Angel

 

[AngelAndres]

Start off by making machines that can go <200m ONLY accessible to licenced/certified UAV operators.
If the TX is tampered with (attempted modifications), the front end shuts down.
Because these machines will go BVLOS people will do it. Take that away from them and they will get bored and move onto another hobby or stay and be satisfied with the images that can be captured from sensible distances.

Yes,

but maybe, in lieu of restricting the purchase of any particular product, we can just require operators to obtain a specific class rating if they want to fly more capable remote aircraft? This way, the rules stay consistent with how we deal with a lot of other products. If you want a semi-truck for your business, you can totally buy a semi-truck for your business. Just don't drive it without first getting the proper training and endorsement.

But I like where you're going with this.

-Angel

 

[licensed pilot]

Yes,

but maybe, in lieu of restricting the purchase of any particular product, we can just require operators to obtain a specific class rating if they want to fly more capable remote aircraft? This way, the rules stay consistent with how we deal with a lot of other products. If you want a semi-truck for your business, you can totally buy a semi-truck for your business. Just don't drive it without first getting the proper training and endorsement.

But I like where you're going with this.

-Angel

Just like manned aircraft. A pilot rated on single-engine-land cannot fly (legally) a seaplane or a twin engine bird. Have to train/pass written and check ride...I do like your idea Editor.