, Nebraska

, United States

Posted on
2020-02-14 14:09:21
“I view this as a power grab by the FAA for commercial concerns that will actually make the situation less safe.I object to the FAA taking control of the air in my back yard which is what they seem to want to do. If this is preparation for delivery drones and arial ‘taxi’ services (currently a pipe dream used to collect investor money) to operate ‘safely’ close to the ground. Why do they have such a narrow vision? Baseballs, frisbees, soccer balls, basket balls, and everything else that ‘flies’ through the air are also ‘dangers’ to these vehicles. Will we have to add remote ID to these as well? I understand the perceived safety concerns should these services become viable in the future and agree something will need to be done to avoid collisions. I disagree with the currently purposed solution. We have time to seriously think about the solution. Currently we can’t make an autonomous vehicle that operates safely in two dimensions. Yet we are to believe three dimensional safe operation is possible today? I don’t believe in shooting down an idea without offering an alternative idea so here are my thoughts: I am an expert on GPS systems. I was the first to produce a commercial GPS tracking system for under $200/unit back in the 90s. The purposed system is based on commercial GPS without differential GPS support. On a good day, unassisted commercial GPS is accurate to ~+/- 10′ on static location. Usually static location accuracy is much worse and you can watch your model ‘move’ around while it is sitting still, on the ground. That is the government intentionally skewing the commercial signals for national security. That behavior will not change. Even though relative position accuracy is better than static, a much better, more accurate, and cheaper solution today would be to use short range beacons processed locally to avoid collisions.”