Challenges:
"As a practical matter, following ISO initiative norms as well, there should
only be one AWE ISO TC at present, and it can handle or spin-off all the
categories you list as the need arises ("needs" standard). There is no need for
formal standards for futuristic categories that have not even reached
proof-of-concept. Premature standards can be worse than no standards. There
is a very low need for recreational standards
during global crisis
(general product liability standards are well established in civil law). A
voluntary ISO standard is only meaningful if useful." DS, Dec. 10,
2012.
- A first strong focus for "needs standards" :
-
"My personal ISO focus is to work on
a narrow utility-scale AWES airspace
and
land footprint utilization intensity
standard
(area/volume by unit energy)
so that contending architectures can be fairly rated. This manageably
precise focus arises from a concern that many current developmental AWES
architectures perform poorly in this key parameter, but policy-makers,
investors, and broad stakeholders have no metric by which to judge this.
Other than this, the maze of FAA FARs and other civil codes seem to cover
most AWES technical standards well-enough. ~DaveS, Dec. 10, 2012
-
An early open effort to define useful AWE ISO standards is underway. We
believe transparent industry consensus standards will protect life and
property, and define energy-economic performance. They help ensure fair
competition for the quality-oriented companies against marketing fraud.
-
In the case of SkySails:
Sky Sails is in position to define many offshore AWE standards, based on
its superior experience. The larger industry peer group would review and
approve proposed standards, for a degree of third-party validation.
-
We would try as an industry to make "best-practice" voluntary ISO standards an
essential part of utility-scale operations.
Crafting AWES standards is a long endless job, but we are making a start.
- "Beware
of getting locked into too many restrictions before the really good AWE
answers appear." ~ PhilC Dec. 2012
- Though it may be too early in the game to actually define standards, it
probably is not too early to be thinking about the standards' process space.
~ JpF, Dec. 13, 2012.
-
- What subcommittees for forming standards?
- Land-based generators driven by kite systems (onshore groundgen)
- Utility-scale
- Airspace {volume) by unit
energy
- Land area by unit energy
- ?
- ?
- ?
- ?
- Residential-scale
- Sport
- Toy
- Traction
- Cargo-ship traction by kite systems
- Yacht traction by kite systems
- Kiteboarding sport
- Kitebuggying sport
- Long-distance rail transport of goods and materials by traction kiting
- Ocean-trash cleaning by kite systems
-
- Flygen electricity production offshore
- On traveling manned vessels
- On barges or buoys, dominantly unmanned autonomous
- Flygen electricity production onshore
- Ocean-based generators driven by kite systems
- Free-flight AWES
- Kite hang gliders
- Canopy paragliders
- Sport RC unmanned
- Sport manned
- Transportation, perhaps manned
- Energy-producing unmanned
- Cableways by kite systems
- Local
- Long-distance
- Networked aerial lofted highways
- Aerial Quarters
- Unmanned architecture
- Manned spaces
-
- Funding purchase of documents for the ISOAWESTC processing?
- *
Members ISOAWESTC? There will be subcommittees for
particular standards, as needed.
- Agreements among committee members about working in ISOAWESTC ?
-
Secretary
and the subcommittees and working groups of the ISOAWESTC ?
- Chairs?
- Balloteers?
-
Training by ISO?
-
The private
NTS AWE TUV ISO ? What is being done? Coordination with the public
ISOAWESTC ? Is
DIN
of Germany involved?
-
|