VIDEO
HIGHLIGHT
Log InSign up
Дронопорт
SummaryTranscriptChat

Дронопорт

Discussion on Droneport Standards

Introduction to Key Players and Companies

  • The discussion opens with the introduction of key players involved in droneport development, including representatives from companies like Radar and Russ-Dranaport.
  • Mark Sokchachevsky is mentioned as a significant figure present at the meeting, indicating his role in discussions about droneport technology.

Overview of Droneport Development

  • Dmitry Melnik represents Kalibria, emphasizing their position as developers of standards related to droneports.
  • There is a consensus that no major decisions will be made during this meeting; rather, it serves to document interests and discussions among stakeholders.

Standardization Efforts

  • Participants are encouraged to collaborate on forming comments and suggestions regarding the standard for droneports.
  • Gleb Vladimirovich confirms audio connection, ensuring all participants can engage effectively in the discussion.

Defining Droneports

Purpose of the Meeting

  • The primary goal is to establish normative definitions for "droneport" within aviation infrastructure contexts.

Presentation by Dmitry Khal

  • Dmitry Khal discusses Kalibria's role in developing national standards for unmanned aerial systems (UAS), specifically focusing on requirements for droneports alongside scientific partners.

International Standards Reference

  • The definition of a droneport is based on international standard ISO 21384, which describes it as any aerodrome or vertiport designated solely for takeoff and landing operations without manned aircraft involvement.

Clarifications and Proposals

Updates on Definitions

  • A new version of the standard was released in 2025; however, core definitions remain largely unchanged except for clarifications regarding non-manned aircraft operations at droneports.

Proposed Definition Adjustments

  • A consolidated proposal defines a droneport as any aerodrome or vertiport designed exclusively for UAS operations. This includes both stationary and mobile configurations tailored to operational needs.

Legal Compliance Considerations

  • Discussions highlight compliance with existing aviation codes while integrating ground elements into UAS frameworks. This ensures alignment with both legal standards and practical applications within Russian regulations.

Organization of Technical Maintenance and Standardization Proposals

Overview of Sections and Changes

  • Discussion on the organization of technical maintenance, specifically mentioning sections seven and twelve that require minor changes while keeping sections one to seventeen largely unchanged.
  • Emphasis on preserving the interests of drone developers who plan to utilize land areas for their operations.

Proposal Submission Guidelines

  • A call for colleagues to adhere to established rules when submitting proposals and comments regarding standard revisions.
  • Importance of providing justified definitions and suggestions in both initial and final drafts, ensuring clarity in communication.

Terminology Adjustments

  • Request from a colleague for terminology adjustments related to aerodromes, suggesting replacing "any equipment imitating" with "highly automated means" for better clarity.
  • Clarification on mobile versus stationary drone ports, noting that some products are designed for long-term installation rather than mobility.

Infrastructure Considerations

  • Discussion about distinguishing between capital construction and temporary structures concerning drone ports; emphasizing the need for clear definitions.
  • Open question posed regarding how best to approach categorizing these installations within regulatory frameworks.

Impact on Standards and Exportation

  • Highlighting the importance of defining whether drone ports are considered infrastructure elements or components of unmanned systems, which affects funding channels.
  • Concerns raised about potential restrictions on exporting solutions if standards do not align with international requirements.

Regulatory Framework Implications

  • The necessity to incorporate international requirements into domestic regulations affecting drone port infrastructure.
  • Mention of current capabilities at aerodromes accommodating both piloted and unmanned aircraft, indicating evolving standards in aviation.

Droneports: Definition and Functionality

Concept of Droneports

  • The discussion suggests that creating a new category for droneports may not be necessary, as existing frameworks like EKAO might simply add a fourth category.
  • It is proposed that droneports will likely be multi-use facilities, shared with traditional aircraft operations, rather than dedicated solely to drones.

Technical Specifications

  • Nikolai Ayashin emphasizes that a mobile droneport is essentially a technical system designed for the takeoff, landing, and maintenance of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
  • A droneport is defined as a complex of devices intended specifically for UAV operations, which can be located on various surfaces including land or water.

Categorization and Standards

  • There is an indication that categorization of droneports may need to consider size and types of UAVs they accommodate, such as only accepting multirotors up to 15 kg.
  • Establishing standards for what constitutes a droneport could facilitate market entry by presenting comprehensive solutions alongside UAV systems.

Infrastructure Considerations

  • The conversation highlights the importance of distinguishing between traditional airfields and droneports in terms of infrastructure requirements and operational protocols.
  • The definition of UAV systems includes ground components; thus, the location where takeoff and landing occur should not limit the classification of these systems.

Operational Flexibility

  • One droneport can service multiple types of UAVs over time without being restricted to one specific model or type.
  • The adaptability of a single droneport allows it to support different helicopter models at different times while maintaining operational efficiency.

Regulatory Consensus

  • There appears to be an emerging consensus among aviation authorities regarding the understanding and regulation surrounding droneports.
  • Current practices indicate that there are still gaps in regulatory frameworks concerning operational standards for existing droneports.

This structured summary captures key discussions about the concept, functionality, categorization, infrastructure considerations, operational flexibility, and regulatory consensus surrounding droneports based on the provided transcript.

Discussion on Dranaport and Droneport Standards

Overview of Dranaport System

  • The Dranaport system is integrated within the SLB (presumably a larger framework), offering free registration for its use.
  • This year, prototypes have been developed that accommodate four types of free patotolety (drone vehicles) and two types of convertiplanes, showcasing versatility.

Proposal for Standardization

  • A suggestion was made to establish a standard for the system, with an emphasis on collaboration among stakeholders.
  • A proposed formulation was shared regarding the operational capabilities of droneports, emphasizing their adaptability to various surfaces including airfields and ground transport.

Operational Flexibility

  • The discussion highlighted that droneports can be utilized in diverse locations, allowing for technical systems to be deployed anywhere.
  • There is potential for human operators to manage operations from within the droneport or allow automation to handle tasks independently.

Categorization by Automation Levels

  • Participants agreed on categorizing droneports based on their level of automation and operator involvement.
  • Larger droneports are expected to become more universal, accommodating various aircraft types while smaller ports may require specialized equipment due to their limited capacity.

Regulatory Considerations

  • Emphasis was placed on addressing regulatory issues related to certification and safety standards as they pertain to infrastructure development.
  • The responsibility concerning ground infrastructure elements was discussed, highlighting the need for clear accountability in operational zones.

Infrastructure Challenges

  • Historical context was provided about similar developments since 2016, indicating ongoing evolution in responsibilities related to transportation security.
  • It was noted that not all droneports will be universally adaptable; specific adaptations are necessary depending on the type of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).

Certification Requirements

  • Current regulations dictate that UAV landing systems must be certified alongside their respective aircraft if they exceed certain weight thresholds.
  • Ongoing discussions aim at resolving existing gaps in regulations while ensuring developers' needs are met without complicating processes.

Discussion on Droneport Certification and Standards

Overview of Perspectives on Export and Certification

  • The speaker emphasizes the importance of considering various perspectives regarding the benefits and risks associated with droneport certification. They advocate for viewing it as an export element while also stressing the need for thorough certification processes.

Definition and Functionality of Droneports

  • A droneport can be defined both declaratively and operationally, suggesting that it should function effectively in real-world applications, such as launching and servicing drones from various surfaces (land or water). This highlights its role within unmanned aviation systems.

Infrastructure vs. Aviation System

  • There is a critical distinction made between droneports as infrastructure versus their classification within unmanned aviation systems (UAS). The speaker argues that current definitions do not adequately encompass droneports' roles in technical ground services, which are essential to UAS operations.

Standardization Principles in Russia

  • The discussion touches upon Russian Federal Law 162, which mandates aligning national standards with international ones. This alignment is crucial for export considerations, especially given potential future demands for droneports in challenging environments like Greenland.

Challenges with Current Definitions

  • The speaker expresses concern over existing definitions that may limit the understanding of droneports' functionalities within UAS frameworks. They call for clear terminology that accurately reflects their dual nature as both elements of infrastructure and components of aviation systems to avoid confusion among stakeholders.

Standardization Efforts and International Collaboration

Need for Clear Terminology

  • There is a pressing need to establish unambiguous definitions regarding whether droneports are classified as basic elements or infrastructure components to ensure consistent understanding across different organizations involved in standardization efforts.

Sovereignty in Standard Development

  • The speaker critiques reliance on Western standards, advocating instead for developing unique Russian approaches that reflect local practices while maintaining sovereignty over national regulations related to exports and technology development.

ISO Standards Participation

  • Mentioned is the participation in ISO committees concerning standards relevant to docking systems for small multicopter unmanned aircraft, indicating ongoing efforts to align with international norms while contributing local insights into these discussions.

Information Gaps in Standard Development

  • Acknowledgment of insufficient information flow regarding ISO developments suggests a need for better communication channels so that Russian experts can contribute effectively during standard-setting processes at international levels.

Strategic Positioning in Unmanned Aviation Market

Emphasizing Domestic Capabilities

  • The discussion concludes by highlighting the competitive advantage held by Russian developers in the unmanned aviation market due to domestic innovations, urging them to leverage this strength strategically against foreign competitors who may not meet local operational requirements effectively.

Discussion on Droneports and UAV Systems

Current Utilization of Drone Technology

  • The current usage of drone technology is only at 5% of its potential capabilities, particularly in information exchange with airfields and aircraft. This indicates a significant gap in operational efficiency.

Categorization of Droneports

  • There is a suggestion to categorize droneports based on the takeoff weight of drones, especially for those under 30 kg, which do not require certification and can be integrated into existing systems. This highlights the need for tailored approaches depending on drone size.

Infrastructure Considerations

  • The discussion emphasizes that infrastructure must accommodate various types of drones, including heavier models that require specialized handling and storage solutions. This points to the evolving nature of droneport design as technology advances.

Functionality and Features of Droneports

  • A call was made to review previously circulated documents detailing the functionalities of different droneport designs, suggesting that many features beyond basic operations (like takeoff and landing) are crucial for effective operation. This reflects an ongoing effort to enhance operational standards in the industry.

Ground Technical Maintenance Requirements

  • It was noted that ground technical maintenance should be included in discussions about droneport functionality, emphasizing that these services are essential for ensuring operational readiness and safety compliance within UAV systems.

Integration with Existing Regulations

  • The conversation touched upon integrating new terms related to UAV systems into existing regulatory frameworks, indicating a need for updates in guidelines governing their operation and maintenance practices as they evolve over time.

Importance of Comprehensive Maintenance Procedures

  • Emphasis was placed on developing comprehensive maintenance procedures as outlined by relevant regulations (FAP), which include pre-flight checks and system diagnostics necessary for safe UAV operations. This underscores the importance of rigorous maintenance protocols in aviation safety standards.

Automation Capabilities of Droneports

  • Questions were raised regarding whether droneports could automate payload changes or apply reagents automatically; while theoretically possible, practical implementations may vary based on specific designs and technologies used in different models. This suggests an area ripe for innovation within the field.

Certification Challenges Ahead

  • The discussion highlighted challenges surrounding certification processes for new UAV technologies, stressing that distinct categories may need separate certifications due to their unique operational requirements as they become more prevalent in aviation sectors globally.

This structured summary captures key insights from the transcript while providing timestamps linked directly to specific parts of the discussion for easy reference.