Add warning of nearby airports

[rmackay9]

With the growing frequency of news reports about near misses with manned aircraft we should add warnings to the ground station software when the vehicle (or home location?) is within some certain distance of an airport.

I've found this open database of airport data that might be a good place to start. http://openflights.org/data.html

Some other enhancements might be to adjust the size of the area around the airport dependent upon how much traffic it has. So big airports have a larger zone (5km?) and smaller airports have smaller zones (1km?).

It might be useful to have a mission check button that confirms that the mission does not stray into airport safety zones.

[meee1]

mp already shows the location of airports in the current beta.

[meee1]

and also a 3mn circle now as well.

[rmackay9]

great, thanks!

[dcwalmsley]

Recommend a few suggestions for "Add warning of nearby airports #455".

1. Remove duplicate range circles and names from map if Lat-Long is the same. If you look a Patuxent Naval Air Station in Southern Maryland, you'll two different names and circles for the same airfield. Anyway to meld the two into just one?
2. Option to adjust range circles by operator.
3. Enable/Disable display of range circles.
4. If Range circles are Enabled, then evoke a built-in feature in autopilot to not allow aircraft to fly within the circle.

[proficnc]

1. The job of maintaining correct database information is very separate from the job of mission planner showing this data,
2. The 3nm is law, so the circles show the law
3. To have it switch off is not responsible.
4. This is a warning system only, it is up to the operator to maintain control of the aircraft, if the operator wishes to set a geofence around an area, they can do that already. There may be lawful reasons someone may wish to fly within the 3nm limit

[iskess]

I also think we should be able to switch it off. If the Devs believe that is irresponsible, then I have an alternative: suppression. The airliner I fly has terrain data that overlays the navigation display. It can clutter up the screen, but it is critical safety data. To resolve this, it can be switched off but it will automatically reappear if the plane gets close to terrain. Could we use a similar model? The airport rings can be suppressed, but reappear: 1) After restarting the program 2) Upon reconnecting to the APM. This will assure the rings will be displayed prior to an auto mission. 3) When the aircraft approaches within .1 NM of the outside of a ring, along with a HUD message.

Additionally, a pop up warning could display upon saving a flight plan that violates a ring.

[dcwalmsley]

Proficnc, according to the AMA National Model Aircraft Safety Code, hobby drones fall under Class G airspace and that,

Quote: Model aircraft pilots will: (a) Yield the right of way to all human-carrying aircraft. (b) See and avoid all aircraft and a spotter must be used when appropriate. (AMA Document #540-D.) (c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator. (d) Not interfere with operations and traffic patterns at any airport, heliport or seaplane base except where there is a mixed use agreement.

No where in either the FAA or AMA doctrine specifies "The 3nm is law, so the circles show the law". That is an incorrect statement. It clearly states that an operator can fly within the range limitation upon airport operator's permission.

The main point of this request is to expand the great idea a bit further with building in airport Geo-fences which can be enabled or disables and to allow drone operators the option to adjust as they see fit any of the above parameters.

You may staunchly disagree and that is your point, but I feel that this features is incomplete and let than useful for drone pilots. Don't restrict but be open minded. All pilots, commercial, military, private, and or hobbyists are held accountable for their actions and aircrafts.

[proficnc]

Hi DC This is a complex area, where the use of mission planner blurs the line between RCModel operation and RPAS/UAS operation. Details are evolving in this law, and we should be proactive. That said, the 3nm is law, it's in the details that matters, you state correctly that it talks about bellow 400ft within 3nm, in fact, if you want to, taking off and flying within 100m of an airport is technically within the law, as long as you avoid danger to full sized aircraft, and stay below 400ft. But the 3nm is still law.
Common sence states that you will not always see or hear an aircraft coming, and within 3nm, they will not expect you there, so stay out. Unless of course, you have a lawful reason to be there, and the correct communication equipment to varify that they are also aware of your intentions.

For us to interact with the FAA, and CASA, we must be proactive, we know people are flouting the law, so we must remind people of the risks, and give them the tools to operate safely. I can't speek for US Law, but any "controlled" airport in Australia, the 3nm is to the ground, no discussion, for non controlled, it's 3nm above 400ft, everywhere else, it's within visual line of sight, so in reality, that's about 700ft max for a small model.
Oh, and if you call it a UAV, UAS, Drone, RPAS, then you come under even tighter regulations.

So, we can have a notice like that plaster all over mission planner, or we can show people where they should not fly....

I have had confirmation from CASA that we can reduce the radius around Helipads, and some ALA's (Approved Landing Areas)

As Michael releases each draft of this, CASA is contacting us with feedback, so we get it right. Sorry if I'm coming across a bit blunt, but I fly full sized aircraft as well as unmaned, and the idea of hitting a 2kg lump in the sky terrifies me.

[dscassid]

Does anyone know if airport warning messages or exclusion zones were implimented??