Civilian Use of Drone Aircraft May Soon Fly In the US 196
An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from the Seattle Times:
"Drone aircraft, best known for their role in hunting and destroying terrorist hideouts in Afghanistan and Pakistan, may be coming soon to the skies near you. Police agencies want drones for air support to find runaway criminals. Utility companies expect they can help monitor oil, gas and water pipelines. Farmers believe drones could aid in spraying crops with pesticides. 'It's going to happen,' said Dan Elwell, vice president of civil aviation at the Aerospace Industries Association. 'Now it's about figuring out how to safely assimilate the technology into national airspace.' That's the job of the Federal Aviation Administration, which plans to propose new rules for using small drones in January, a first step toward integrating robotic aircraft into the nation's skyways."
FTFY (Score:2, Insightful)
"Drone aircraft, best known for their role in hunting and destroying houses and children"
Re:FT"FTFY"FY (Score:2, Insightful)
"The US military, best known for their role in hunting and destroying houses and children"
Re:FT"FTFY"FY (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not just a troll. The drones get much bigger headlines (just outside the USA?) for blowing up wedding parties and other civilians, than for killing enemies, even though they hopefully do the latter more often.
I was going to comment about blowing up allied border posts, but that particular massacre was done by piloted planes. So are drones really the problem?
Are drone pilots any more detached from the carnage than the WWII high-altitude incendiary bomber crews?
As for civilian use, we could use a couple of these for aerial shark patrols. Not too dangerous flying over the ocean. They could even be armed with a .50 cal gun.
Re:FT"FTFY"FY (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a relatively new technology: it makes sense that it's being used more and more as time goes by.
That said, it's a f**king killing machine, and using it amounts to murder. But's that your today's Amerika.
Re: (Score:2)
In use since 1995, so the reference to Obama's prediliction to murder by remote control is perfectly appropriate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RQ-1 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Murder by remote control has been around since the invention of...well...probably the rock. Or language, depending on your definition.
FAA Director Yoda quoted: (Score:5, Funny)
"Begun, the Drone Wars have."
Oh he many uses (Score:2)
How shall we count them?
Traffic reporting
Speeders/ Speed traps Hey someone has to pay for Maintenance, Fuel and Pilot for this thing!
Forestry service
Fire fighting
surveillance (Abuse of powers, Gonna happen)
Night vision, Infrared/Thermal imaging
Knock, Knock! Who's there!? Search Warrant!
BOOM! precision guided munition right into your toilet.
Let's not forget alien Centipedes for Senator assasinations.
Re:Oh he many uses (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
hehe. Shoot them out of the air. That would be fun!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Modern Day Kite Fights? (Score:5, Funny)
Kite Fighting [wikipedia.org] is a common festival in many parts of Asia. In a few years from now, imagine if a bunch of dudes do that with drones ( and the drones shooting at each other with Spud Guns in mid-air).
It will soon become and industry of its own. Microsoft and Sony will soon come out with Fighter Drones.
Microsoft's will have a "ring of death" ( It'll circle your house twice before crashing into your house and destroying the ceiling/attic.
Sony's will have the ability to fly carrying a dog as a passenger. But one day it'll disable it via software update and your mutt will no longer be able to fly.
Nintendo will come out with a cheaper, smaller drone will require you to flap your arms like a bird, which the drone will faithfully imitate.
I see a good future for the gaming industry with this.
Re:Modern Day Kite Fights? (Score:5, Informative)
Newsflash: Sometimes people leave the city for recreation.
And now I'll really blow your mind: Some people don't even live in cities to begin with
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Newsflash: Sometimes people leave the city for recreation.
And now I'll really blow your mind: Some people don't even live in cities to begin with
Newsflash. Majority of the population lives in cities. Newsflash, modern life means opportunities to go away have severly decreased. Newsflash: r/c flying requires practice and upkeep.
With so many news flashes perhaps you should take up photography.
Re: (Score:3)
Newsflash, modern life means opportunities to go away have severly decreased. Newsflash: r/c flying requires practice and upkeep.
Newsflash: so does surfing, mountain biking, rock climbing, horseback riding, kayaking, sailing, skiing, hang gliding, golf, or plenty of other activities. Any of these can be done in under a 4 hour drive from the heart of Silicon Valley, a *fairly* populated area (toss out skiing and it's more like 1 hour). And I have have various friends who combined to every one of these, reg
Re: (Score:3)
Did you orgasm as you finished writing that?
Why do you ask? Do your fingers double as keyboard-sensitive erotic zones, also?
Re: (Score:2)
Do your fingers double as keyboard-sensitive erotic zones, also?
Oh, yes.
Yes, YES, YES!!!!
And I'm spent.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see what's to stop... (Score:2)
...people from taking pot shots at them, be it with firearms, slingshots, toy rockets, what have you. I suppose that the best way to prevent this from happening is to make them so hideously expensive to insure or operate that no one bothers.
A. Your local SWAT team (Score:2)
I don't see what's to stop people from taking pot shots at them...
The SWAT team that will kick in your door and haul you away.
Re: (Score:2)
How does closing the barn door after the horse as left work for you?
The GP referred to people, plural. So there is an effect by making an example of an early adopter of such activities. Plus, it deters repeat offenses. :-)
Really... (Score:5, Interesting)
Government by popularity with a decision making process funded by corporations is an insanely dangerous thing.
No. I will not willingly give a blind government hierarchy a cost effective way to micromanage our lives and to automate the fleecing of the people. WE ARE NOT THEIR SOURCE OF INCOME. They are supposed to be our servants.
Think about this: It is impossible for a government, a corporation, or a committee to be moral. Morality requires a conscience and only an individual can have a conscience.
Re: (Score:2)
It is impossible for a government, a corporation, or a committee to be moral. Morality requires a conscience and only an individual can have a conscience.
Wrong. For example a corporation can be as moral as those who run it. Keep in mind that many corporations are small. I've worked at corporations who lied and cheated both customers and employees, and I've worked at corporations who treated customers fairly, who treated subcontractors fairly, and who treated employees both fairly and equitably (ex. real profit sharing). I control a corporation, LLC actually, it is precisely as moral as I am. For example I've told a potential client that I can do that job but
Re: (Score:2)
I want my own drone to take out red-light cameras.
Re:I don't see what's to stop... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you also smash speed limit signs? Torch cop cars? Maybe you don't like TV, so you dig up and cut cables? To hell with all the anarchists who want society to be like the wild west. Believe it or not, we already have flying machines that can do all these things. Drones just make them cheaper and more accessible to everyone.
Go ahead. Shoot one down, if you want. If you're that violent a person, society will be better off with you in prison.
Re:I don't see what's to stop... (Score:5, Insightful)
taking pot shots at them
Cops routinely round up numpties that point lasers at pilots. You go firing at a UAV that is most likely returning real-time video of your brilliant self to the operator and you can bet they'll be at your door inside an hour with a picture of you drawing a bead someone's expensive aerospace equipment.
Have you not seen the video out of Iraq or Afghanistan of individual insurgents being hunted down by UAVs? Just replace the Hellfire with a patrol car and you've got the picture.
Re:I don't see what's to stop... (Score:5, Funny)
Are you suggesting that civilian UAVs should be outfitted to fire rocket-propelled patrol cars at ground targets? Because that sounds simultaneously awesome and impractical.
Re:I don't see what's to stop... (Score:5, Insightful)
...people from taking pot shots at them, be it with firearms, slingshots, toy rockets, what have you. I suppose that the best way to prevent this from happening is to make them so hideously expensive to insure or operate that no one bothers.
Discharge of firearm in a populated area: bad, jail bad.
Slingshots: good luck hitting a small, erratically moving target 20 stories up.
Toy rockets: you got a gyro guidance system with optical tracking on that thing?
What have you: apparently you have nothing that can take out a drone, even the guns aren't going to be easy, trying to hit a 2' target at 100+ yards with a major elevation change.
Insurance: is based on risk, it's a business. The only way risk will be increased by lawmakers is if the chance for lawsuit is increased. Since most applications are downright illegal right now, drones are un-insurable. As for liability after they are legal, how much damage can 2 lbs of plastic do falling on whatever? O.K., now, how much damage does a Cessna do when it crashes while flying low for pipeline monitoring, crop dusting, etc.?
People hate change, drones are change. Don't hate the drones, they really are better than what we had before.
Go ahead and hate the people who will misuse them, but remember that you don't need to fly to install cameras on every intersection, automatic license plate readers in every squad car, or facial recognition cameras at the entry to every store.
Re: (Score:2)
Drones (and drone operators) are extremely ill-suited to dealing w
Re:I don't see what's to stop... (Score:5, Interesting)
Depending on the size and complexity of the drone, I would wire up an appropriately-sized radio control airplane(or copter) with a camera and a light payload of explosive, probably using a servo instead of electronic signal as the detonator for safety reasons. It would be more expensive than firing off a few rounds, but the fact that the oppressors paid a hundred or even a thousand times more for their drone than I did would be worth it.
Stick with rifles, you'll have a hell of a time hitting it with an RC aircraft and they're more likely to know you did it - with the rifle you can shoot from a concealed location and disappear before they can find you. Either way, gunshots or flying explosive charges around, your're in jail when caught.
Drones (and drone operators) are extremely ill-suited to dealing with level playing fields. But you're right about everything else, though. Guess its time to move to a rural area, growing and hunting all of my food and saving up enough money to flee the country before its military is turned loose against the general population.
Point of the article is that drones are shrinking. Sure, the Predator is the size of a 707, but take a look at Switchblade [avinc.com], smaller than the RC plane you can get at your hobby shop, faster too, not cheaper, but it costs less than your legal fees will trying to deal with the legal charges you'll face for putting RC explosives into the air.
The rural area plan sounds good, but unless you can afford hundreds of acres, it's not much more secure than living in a normal city. And, as for fleeing, to where? Try to take comfort in the fact that we've got less than 1% of our population in the military [wikipedia.org], half of them as reservists, even if the military does consume nearly 5% of our GDP, those numbers have been generally falling from 10% of GDP and more soldiers (in absolute numbers) in 1960.
Re:I don't see what's to stop... (Score:4, Interesting)
Hate to break it to you, but Hobbyist FPV (First Person View) RC pilots have been building and flying planes that are smaller AND faster than that, with greater range.
From the spec sheet:
Size: Unlisted. but from the picture it appears to be roughly 2 feet long, with a 1.5 foot wing span.
Weight: 5kg!! This is VERY heavy for a UAS of this size. Most short range FPV birds clock in less than 4kg, preferably closer to 2 or 3. Long range birds weight more, mostly due to larger batteries.
Speed: 55knots (a bit over 63mph) about average for a UAS of this size, there are MANY very cheap foamy planes in use right now as FPV platforms that will easily crest 100mph. (Stryker, Funjet)
Range: 5KM Again, fairly average for a plane this size. For FPV round trips, that's 2.5km out and back. Many FPV planes can go 5 out and back, 10 out and back and more. So 5km one way isn't impressive.
So it's not faster, not smaller, and yes, not cheaper. Mostly because it's a flying bomb, NOT the type of plane we are likely to see used for reconnaissance. Don't get me wrong, it's a great tool. Just not what you thought it was for.
In truth, the private sector is very far ahead of the military in regards to small UAS craft. Mostly due to hobbyists pursuing it on their own. If you see a drone up in the sky, you can bet it isn't big brother, it's probably your neighbor from down the street.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I stand partly corrected, I was thinking of the MQ-9 [wikipedia.org] with a wingspan of 66', as opposed to the 172 [wikipedia.org] at 36', or the 707 at 130'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It is, sort of, single point of failure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Japan's Robot Overlords (Score:5, Interesting)
http://benpheneverything.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/robotic-crop-dusting-in-japan/ [wordpress.com]
http://www.gizmag.com/go/2440/ [gizmag.com]
Re:Japan's Robot Overlords (Score:5, Interesting)
Here in the UK, drones have already been used by civilians to survey the masonary of the Stirling Bridge [bbc.co.uk]
The civilian contractors, however, appear to be more adept at handling the technology than Merseyside Police, who forgot to get permission from the Civil Aviation Authority [bbc.co.uk] to use their drone, before crashing it in to the River Mersey [telegraph.co.uk] a year later.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fourth Amendment (Score:4, Informative)
This has major fourth amendment implications--When technology is in use by the civilian public, there is supreme court precedent saying the fourth amendment generally doesn't reach it. (An old thermal imaging case.)
Re:Fourth Amendment (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know which "thermal imaging" case you're referring to, but I am troubled by police using helicopters to find grow houses using thermal imaging and then getting a warrant to search the place.
Every time there's a new technology it seems the police want to jump on it. Crime levels have been falling. Yet we're spending more money on policing. This is the case in many major cities. Our city wanted to cut back our Fire service so the Cops could get a larger cut. If the police want to fight fires too, be my guest, until then stop invading on our privacy and turning our nice, (relatively) peaceful society into a police state. Its not like any appreciable increase in police or crime fighting technology has or will demonstrably deter or reduce crime.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You certainly do have an appropriate name. "Crime levels have been falling, yet we're spending more money on policing". Hmm, I guess there's zero possibility the second has anything to do with the first eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"in use by the civilian public... fourth amendment generally doesn't reach it"
Can you cite the case? I was curious about this - if a civilian uses technology the police aren't allowed to, can the civilian's report serve as probable cause? If that's the case, why don't police use more private contractors to break the law for them?
Regardless, even though the Supremes have declared it illegal for police to use IR cameras, they're doing it anyway: http://reason.com/blog/2008/12/06/gotcha [reason.com]
So what about drone de
Re: (Score:3)
Kyllo, maybe? You'll find it in a second if you google it. Florida v. Reilly is also relevant, I think. (re: airplanes and the fourth amendment).
drone aircraft used on/against civilians (Score:2)
That flies low and high
Is anon and nigh.,
Re:drone aircraft used on/against civilians (Score:4, Interesting)
only problem is -they might decide to take out the police -as the members of the Afghan military have done so often against the Alliance
In ancient Rome towards the end they would only allow foreign troops inside Rome to prevent coups and popular uprisings from having a sympathetic or communicative military...
-I'm just sayin'
Re: (Score:2)
In ancient Rome towards the end they would only allow foreign troops inside Rome to prevent coups and popular uprisings from having a sympathetic or communicative military...
Of course in Rome that only happened about 200 times...
hand size copters for media and protestors - (Score:4, Insightful)
The small copters should be autonomous and stream media to wifi.
Get it to follow a reporter/protestor into a situation like a Occupy eviction.
My camera, its up there. The foottage of you punching me in the face, that's already on google.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Our spectrum jammers, they're already deployed. We received information that terrorists were planning to disrupt your protest to make your protest's message look bad while causing panic and fear. Their nefarious plans to harm you and your cause rely on wifi access. This area has therefore been designated a no wifi frequency zone for your safety and protection, as well as to guard your right to express yourselves freely without terrorist interference. Please excuse any temporary inconvenience this may ca
Re: (Score:3)
There are lots and lots of frequencies you can transmit video on, you can even put it spread spectrum across the police tactical frequencies - if they want to jam you, they'll take out their own C&C.
Re: (Score:3)
There are lots and lots of frequencies you can transmit video on, you can even put it spread spectrum across the police tactical frequencies -
It is really really hard to put a full framerate video stream through a 7.5kHz pipe, even using "spread spectrum" or a digital voice mode.
The last new video streaming device for cops and fire had to get a waiver from the FCC so they could use amateur frequencies in the 70cm band. They couldn't find anyplace else to send the video back. Well, they could, but they'd have to redesign the hardware to use a different frequency and that would be Too Hard For Human Engineers. (google: recon robotics).
Re:hand size copters for media and protestors - (Score:4, Informative)
If you're going guerrilla, there's no 7.5KHz pipe restriction, those restrictions are purely based on national laws, and most radios are developed for international markets, compliance is handled in software. Many of the better selling radios are easily modded (against the instruction manual) to operate in modes that aren't legal anywhere.
Having said that, yes, full frame-rate video transmission is a bitch, quadruplely so for 1080p (to get wide field coverage with good detail on what you really wanted to see). But, a FHSS radio TX-RX pair that can handle it over 1km will cost less than $3K [vfmstore.com].
Re: (Score:2)
FHSS radios are HORRIBLE for transmitting video. Not only is the bandwidth not nearly enough, but the 2.4Ghz range sucks, and the frequency hopping absolutely hoses up the video recording back at the base station. And those radios you linked to are WAAAAY to bulky and power-sucking for use in an FPV craft of hobbyist size. Maybe in a Giant Scale craft, but that's not going to be hovering over your protest without being noticed rather quickly.
Spend some time over on the FPV boards at RCGroups. They will
Re: (Score:2)
Video over FHSS isn't ideal, but it can be done, and, yes, I didn't bother to look up Freewave, microHard or the other good digital radio suppliers, mostly because I've never seen them publish price or specs on the web (doesn't mean they're not there, just that I have been working from supplied datasheets that are easier to find and more complete than anything I've ever seen on the web.)
Traditional video radio links work better, that's why they're traditional. I was responding to a hypothetical scenario wh
Been done in Europe already, see the Warsaw videos (Score:2)
Yup, been done in Europe already [rawstory.com]. Check the video of the protestor in Warsaw who used a camera to fly over police lines.
Doesn't certain licensing already exist? (Score:2)
Some of these 'drones' that will be available aren't going to be much larger than R/C airplanes.
DIY Drones (Score:5, Interesting)
Civilians are already building their own drones. See DIY Drones [diydrones.com], etc.
Personally I'd like to see a drone airship that can hold a stable position around 70,000 feet (~21km) to use as a WiFi relay, which would fix the problem of getting a clear line-of-sight for point-to-point long-range wireless but good. I doubt it can be done reliably though. But if it could, and you built a fleet of them linked with Open Mesh [open-mesh.com], you could build a global drone communications network for fairly cheap. Call it Skynet... oh.
Re: (Score:2)
Only problem is: Wifi does not do 21km links, more like 100 feet [wikipedia.org]. Except if you have ultra-directional, amplified emitter-receivers at both ends.
Re: (Score:2)
Call it Skynet... oh.
Call it a Stratellite [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Take out the "stable" requirement, just require them to maneuver enough to keep decent spacing - now you can do it with solar powered balloon platforms. Sure, 80% of them will end up over the ocean, but if you make them reflective you can help reduce global warming, cost to inflate is probably far less than 1/5th the cost to orbit (assuming you can use something other than Helium...), and if the reflectivity is tunable, you might be able to do some weather control with directed heating/cooling of the ocean
See and avoid... (Score:4, Interesting)
Drones are both too small to see easily and have no pilot on board that can see any conflicting traffic.
Anyone want to open a pool to bet on how soon a drone gets sucked into a major airliner's jet intake and causes a crash? Yeah, big jets fly really high -- unless they are landing or taking off or approaching an airport. Drones fly really low -- right where the GA small-aircraft fly.
Re: (Score:2)
Thus eviscerating the decades old policy of "see and avoid" as the bedrock of flight in this country. And the rest of the world.
Most of the rest of the world has lightened up about "see and avoid," especially for drones that are smaller and fly lower than migratory birds. The US is falling behind in drone application business development... (cue Dr. Strangelove / Gen. Turgidson's "we cannot allow a mineshaft gap" speech.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Every commercial airliner already is a drone (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Every commercial airliner already is a drone (Score:4, Informative)
What's the big deal? The pilots on a commercial flight are just there to make the passengers feel better.
No, they are not. I wish people would stop repeating this stupid myth. Airline pilots do an enormous amount of work during a flight, particularly takeoff and landing. It may well be that their jobs could be automated away, or that this will be possible in the near future, but it's nowhere near happening yet.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No they don't. If it's not a puddle jumper, the damn thing lands itself.
How about we listen to an actual commercial pilot? http://www.salon.com/2011/08/04/can_jetliners_fly_themselves/ [salon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you don't know what the fuck your talking about you god damn moron!
In the entire state of California there are two (2) airports that have that capability, LAX & SFO that its.
It takes VERY specialized equipment for an airplane to Auto-Land, and no GPS isn't it. Both the ILS and the MLS must be upgraded far beyond the standard for normal IFR approaches with a decision height of say 300 feet.
You don't know what you are talking about so STFU!".
Re:Every commercial airliner already is a drone (Score:5, Informative)
Well, unless you count 737s, 757s, 767s, 777s, and a few dozen other 100+ seat commercial aircraft as 'puddle jumpers', you are wrong. These airplanes have the capability to autoland, under a highly restricted set of conditions, involving maximum wind speeds (on the 737, max headwind 25 kts, xwind 15 and tailwind 10), clearing a large ILS safe zone on the surface of the airport to assure no interference with the localizer & glide slope antennas, minimum visibilites (because many autopilot systems work only the ailerons & elevator, not the rudder, and once you are on the deck you need the rudder to track the centerline, which the autopilot can no longer do, and neither can you if you can't see), etc., etc., etc.
I flew 600 hours for a major airline on the 737 last year. I did exactly one autoland in the entire year, and it was because the Captain & I wanted the procedural practice, the airport had a CAT III ILS, and it was a quiet day & ATC was accommodating.
I really wish I knew what urges people to forcefully declare they know about something when they plainly don't. It only subtracts from the discussion and your credibility.
Re:Every commercial airliner already is a drone (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well I don't think that's entirely true, yet. Pilots do operate their aircraft themselves a lot, especially when talking about airliners.
But for the rest I wonder what this "integration problem" is. Communication with traffic control can be automated. When it comes to choosing flight paths, altitudes, and general collision avoidance pilots already have not much if any say in the matter, they follow instructions from the tower. Sure they can request routes, but have to get permission to do it. In a way it d
Re: (Score:2)
I'm uncomfortable with this... (Score:2)
I'm uncomfortable with this, but I'm having trouble understanding exactly why. Maybe it's that I think law-and-order should remain a point-of-tension that requires special effort on behalf of law enforcement, and that tension serves a number of reasonable social purposes; discreet direct action should probably remain possible.
Maybe I'm fighting the tide, and maybe I should find a way to pin down my discomfort more, but this still is uncomfortable for me.
Amazon (Score:3, Funny)
Free No Rush Shipping with $1 Amazon MP3 Credit
Free 2-Day Shipping
$3.99 per item Next Day Shipping
$7.99 per item 8 Hour Service (maximum 20 pounds)
MAKE IT HAPPEN
Re: (Score:2)
If Amazon has a warehouse in your city, that should be 2 hour service, not 8.
Been thinking about this for years (Score:4, Insightful)
firefighters need a temp profile of a building before they get there, send the drone
cops need eyes in the sky to find a perp, send the drone
high volume roadway monitoring, send the drone
video taping sports events (highschool, private, college, racing, etc), send the drone
monitoring wildlife/forestry/national park outdoorsey stuff, send the drone
weather monitoring and remote sensing in harsh environments, send the drone
Anything that requires helicopter eyes in the sky but doesn't need to transport human or heavy payloads (air fuel is not cheap)
many more than not 4th amendment violations, send all the drones you got baby.
With all the good that could come of this technology, I guarantee the loss of civil liberties and privacy will be ten-fold larger. First to market will make lots of money once they pay off the FAA and get through the red tape. Lockheed/Northrop/Boeing/large DoD contractors have the lock on the drone market for the gov't now, once a large demand is created in the non-government sector, we'll see more of these stateside once the red-tape and matters are worked out. Where drones are better at some things overseas, they will be utilized that way here as well (hopefully, but not guaranteed, to be ordinance free). Naturally drones are nothing new, the barriers to entry are cost, FAA regs, demand. But once contractors get the lock and private firms/governments see/feel/create the need, drones will become another fact of life here in Panopticonland.
It's about time. (Score:2)
The problem has been that the FAA and pilots have been holding this up I think. You need a pilots license to fly a drone here and that is sad.
Drone applications don't all have to be draconian in nature. There are a multitude of uses for them and they can help us with a variety to tasks. It will also help open up a high tech market sector for them here in the USA, I hope. This is one of my favorite subjects being I am in school for mechanical engineering stuff. Next year, I think they will turn me loose on
Re: (Score:2)
I understand strict requirements for being allowed to fly a drone. They're largely in their own control; if you make a mistake in the programming bad things may happen. Most are small, and not of building-destroying grade like a commercial airliner, yet being hit by normal sized RC model aircraft hurts badly at best, and may kill someone.
Now of course there may be different kinds of drone, anything between a dumb RC craft that will fall out of the sky if you're not controlling it directly, to a fully autom
Re: (Score:2)
It makes sense in the fact that you don't put it up into obvious traffic lanes and cause a wreck. Being a pilot you should know about these things. It's a safety issue, of course. I think every department should have a fast, quiet, small VTOL drone that's reliable and easy to operate. HQ can dispatch one quickly to access situations if need be, the applications in regards to law enforcement are a multitude.
Commercial applications of it are amazing too. I hate to "drone" on and on.
I just hope that they (Score:2)
No more... (Score:2)
Other uses (Score:4, Insightful)
1) intimidating crowds of protesters
2) mass delivery of casual pepper spray
3) spying on any person/house/field
4) following vehicles remotely
5) issue speeding tickets remotely
6) back-up air support for raids (Branch Davidian debacle)
Until I see law enforcement acting responsibly with the power they already have I am not a fan of giving them more.
A couple thoughts (Score:2)
The fcc and faa should force local control (Score:2)
The fcc and faa should force local control.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're looking for facts and data, you're obviously not spending that time thinking of the children. Won't someone think of the children!?!
Re: (Score:2)
"...has anyone actually ever been injured after a drone ran in to them?"
I don't know about injured, per se, but I was thrown for a loop when one of my coworkers bumped into me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Strictly speaking that's not likely to be a violation of the constitution, but IMHO it does justify amending the constitution to provide at least some protection for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Start preparing for military rule.
what about useing military to monter Utility's (Score:2)
what about useing military to monitor Utility's lines?
You can say it's tied to the national guard
Re: (Score:2)
Do you realize the twisted trainwreck of deviant thought that you have set in motion?
I just imagined "cheap, ubiquitous UAVs", coupled with disenfranchised hackers, playing "angry drones."
Story:
Angered by the theft of their privacy, the hackers swear phyrric vengence on the "pigs" which stole it.
Cue makers and hackers all over bombing police precincts with novelty makerbot derived UAVs...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know of any farmers spraying with drones yet, but some farms already using them for crop surveying too. http://www.oneearthfarms.net/operations/ [oneearthfarms.net]
Re: (Score:2)
For something larger (predator size) mandate that the pilot have an ATP. They could also mandate that the operator be located at the departure or arrival airport during operation and force them to get flight following or fly on an instrument plan. Give them N-Numbers and allow controll