Drones Still Face Major Hurdles In US Airspace 166
coondoggie writes "Communications and effective system control are still big challenges unmanned aircraft developers are facing if they want unfettered access to U.S. airspace. Those were just a couple of the conclusions described in a recent Government Accountability Office report on the status of unmanned aircraft (PDF) and the national airspace. The bottom line for now seems to be that while research and development efforts are under way to mitigate obstacles to safe and routine integration of unmanned aircraft into the national airspace, these efforts cannot be completed and validated without safety, reliability, and performance standards, which have not yet been developed because of data limitations."
The FAA and others seem mostly concerned about the drones hitting things if their GPS and ground communications are both disrupted.
How about no? (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't need thousands of unmanned vehicles zipping around in the skies malfunctioning and crashing into things and people.
And this is not even considering privacy and security implications. At least manned vehicles have a sufficient barrier to entry (expensive) and a motivation to be extremely reliable (because the occupants will die if not).
Re:How about no? (Score:5, Interesting)
You seem to be forgetting the War on Terror, Copyright Infringement and Human Rights, citizen.
Please report to your nearest re-education center.
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was Eurasia.
the sky is falling (Score:3)
We don't need thousands of unmanned vehicles zipping around in the skies malfunctioning and crashing into things and people.
And this is not even considering privacy and security implications. At least manned vehicles have a sufficient barrier to entry (expensive) and a motivation to be extremely reliable (because the occupants will die if not).
"We don't need" is hardly a reason to make something illegal in itself. The phrase is a lazy rhetorical device.
Further, what makes you think such machines wouldn't be orders of magnitude more reliable than human drivers (who can get drunk, old, preoccupied, poisoned by testosterone, or succumb to idiocy), who operate much heavier equipment, and in closer proximity to potential victims? You seem to be presuming no one can come up with an effectual means to prevent a malfunctioning device from causing damage,
Re: (Score:3)
Because drone aircraft is wildly incompatible with the 4th amendment?
It's blanket surveillance of the citizenry without any judicial oversight, lacking any probably cause, and generally not the kind of thing a free society does.
The idea that people should become accustomed to constant surveillance is a sure sign that the terrorists are winning,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except of course, they aren't being introduced for those reasons.
So now we're working backwards to find uses for drones which we might be okay with, so that we can justify the use of drones for the purposes we disagree with -- all the while glossing over the fact that by all rights, this should be illegal and unconstitutional.
Sorry, but your argument boils down to "think of the children", and has
Re: (Score:2)
Except of course, they aren't being introduced for those reasons.
yet.
Sorry, but your argument boils down to "think of the children", and has nothing at all to do with how and why they're deploying drones.
"think of the children" is an argument used to justify regulation.
Now you're suggesting we should allow drone surveillance on the chance that while they're up there spying they could use it to call an ambulance. There's reasons why the police are prohibited from doing certain things.
are you sure you read the right post?
Re:the sky is falling (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, since I'm pretty sure I've yet to hear anybody talking about deploying these drones for cargo purposes, you might as well as me about how this impacts the Easter Bunny.
So far it's just law enforcement.
Re: (Score:2)
There's this pilotless helicopter [dailymail.co.uk]
And this patented concept [cargouav.com]
And this article from PopSci [popsci.com]
So yeah...no one is considering that type of use.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You'd do better to focus on why the privacy and security issues cannot be similarly resolved,
No addition to police capabilities has led to better security or better privacy in well over a thousand years. Why should we expect this tool be any different?
Re: (Score:2)
You'd do better to focus on why the privacy and security issues cannot be similarly resolved,
No addition to police capabilities has led to better security or better privacy in well over a thousand years. Why should we expect this tool be any different?
Setting aside the veracity of that statement, law enforcement applications are surely a small fraction of possible uses for drones. Imagine, for example, a fire department sending drones into a burning building in order to assess damage and locate victims before sending personnel to locations where they can do the most good, or an ambulance drone ferrying medication and supplies to accident victims within minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine, for example, a fire department sending drones into a burning building in order to assess damage and locate victims before sending personnel to locations where they can do the most good, or an ambulance drone ferrying medication and supplies to accident victims within minutes.
This story is not about radio controlled (RC) toy surveillance drones that might fit in a building. Its about fixed wing Reaper/Predator/Global Hawk sized craft [airforce-technology.com] that fly high over cities used for spying. Good luck flying that into a burning building. Firefigters will laugh you out of the skys.
Further, if you are going to deliver medication via drone, you better be able to land the drone anywhere, and have someone there ready to receive the payload. Its a lot cheaper to to send the Paramedics on the chop
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, fly a drone out, land it somewhere, and deliver an epi-pen somehow, to someone.
Because we all know every possible epi-pen is stashed on drones that are on orbit around a city 24/7.
Sending a chopper (or ambulance) full of Paramedics is PRECISELY what you are going to be able to do in almost ALL situations.
In what situation could you not do the same with a simple ambulance dispatched from the nearest fire department, or by sending a helicopter? And when that ambulance or helicopter arrives it will not
Re: (Score:2)
And when that ambulance or helicopter arrives it will not only have the epi-pen, but oxygen, a defibrillator, a, trache kit, plasma, bandages, most drugs you would ever need in the field, back board, stretcher, and, let me see, there was something else, what was it, OH YEAH, I remember now, TRAINED PARAMEDICS, and TRANSPORT.
those will certainly useful if the patient's still alive when you get there.
Re: (Score:2)
It works this way today. Surprisingly well, in fact.
Waiting for a drone to be dispatched from the nearest airport? Not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
It works this way today. Surprisingly well, in fact. Waiting for a drone to be dispatched from the nearest airport? Not so much.
who says they'd need to be dispatched from an airport? use the helicopter pad on top of the hospital, or dispatch from the roof of the local police station. you're simply not going to be able to send paramedics in a helicopter to every medical emergency where they could be useful, because of the expense, whereas sending a drone in lieu of, or in advance of, an ambulance could be cost effective for more cases. Who knows how many more? I don't claim to.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need thousands of unmanned vehicles zipping around in the skies malfunctioning and crashing into things and people.
And this is not even considering privacy and security implications. At least manned vehicles have a sufficient barrier to entry (expensive) and a motivation to be extremely reliable (because the occupants will die if not).
"We don't need" is hardly a reason to make something illegal in itself. The phrase is a lazy rhetorical device.
"We don't need" is not the reason; "malfunctioning and crashing into things and people" is.
I take it this misunderstanding is a result of the fact that schools don't require students to do sentence diagramming anymore? That's sad.
Further, what makes you think such machines wouldn't be orders of magnitude more reliable than human drivers (who can get drunk, old, preoccupied, poisoned by testosterone, or succumb to idiocy), who operate much heavier equipment, and in closer proximity to potential victims?
Uh, you do realize that "unmanned" does not equal "un-piloted," right? Those drones have the exact same shortcomings as the manned aircraft you mentioned (i.e., chance for pilot error); the difference is, in a manned aircraft, if the pilot doesn't correct or compensate for a malfun
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, you do realize that "unmanned" does not equal "un-piloted," right?
presumably drones will use autopilot for the most part, rather than the manual piloting on which cars presently depend. there isn't much to steer around up there.
Again, this is not a mutually exclusive concept - if one can come up with an "effectual means" to keep drones from crashing, those same measures should be applicable to manned aircraft.
there are plenty of applications for which a drone aircraft is suitable but for which a manned aircraft is not, generally on account of the cost of their operation. applying the same safety measures to manned aircraft will not help.
"We don't need" is not the reason; "malfunctioning and crashing into things and people" is.
I take it this misunderstanding is a result of the fact that schools don't require students to do sentence diagramming anymore? That's sad.
"We don't need" is a rhetorical device employed to justify forbidding something on the basis of its being unnecessary,
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, you do realize that "unmanned" does not equal "un-piloted," right?
presumably drones will use autopilot for the most part, rather than the manual piloting on which cars presently depend. there isn't much to steer around up there.
Hmm, something tells me that won't fly with the FAA, lol. Just like with the autonomous cars, there will be a requirement for a human 'controller' at all times, if for no reason other than legal liability.
Again, this is not a mutually exclusive concept - if one can come up with an "effectual means" to keep drones from crashing, those same measures should be applicable to manned aircraft.
there are plenty of applications for which a drone aircraft is suitable but for which a manned aircraft is not, generally on account of the cost of their operation.
"Plenty of applications" is hyperbolic nonsense that tells me precisely shit. Name some, specifically.
"We don't need" is not the reason; "malfunctioning and crashing into things and people" is.
I take it this misunderstanding is a result of the fact that schools don't require students to do sentence diagramming anymore? That's sad.
"We don't need" is a rhetorical device employed to justify forbidding something on the basis of its being unnecessary...
Oh, my ass.
See, there's this little thing called 'context,' and it's absolutely important to successful understanding of a sentence. In this case, you've chosen to ignore the context of the sentence, and f
Re: (Score:2)
focus on unnecessary phrasing to justify your position
That's the point. The phrasing "we don't need" is unnecessary to the argument. It is a rhetorical device implying that the decision to outlaw drones depends on whether we need them crashing out of the sky. A lack of things crashing out of the sky is not a need drones are intended to fulfill. To say "there would be a negative effect if drones crash out of the sky" avoids this rhetoric, as it does not pretend to address the possible benefits drones are intended to provide.
Agree with the former, disagree with the latter.
given that weapons are generally dang
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, I can't see anything bad coming out of this. No sir-ree.
Re: (Score:2)
Add $15 worth of proximity detecting radar to the design, with software interrupt, and that shouldn't be that big of a problem.
OTOH, if my solution is taken seriously, just wait until the local police try to catch a UAV with fouled up communications programmed to play keep-away.
Re: (Score:3)
Well your argument is null and void as soon as you used the word sheep. I just wanted to say, for me, i find that kind of way of arguing a bit childish. Its no wonder why you are annon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They can be much smaller and quieter and some can hover so they can be much more intrusive of people's privacy.
They are also much cheaper to deploy and operate than manned systems so its just a matter of time before they will be pervasive, like fixed cameras already are in a lot of places, but they can move around so you can pretty much abandon any residual illusion you have of privacy, unless maybe its deep in your personal bunker. Once they have drones with ground penetrating radar that will probably be
that's a lot of jetpacks! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need thousands of horseless carriages zipping around on the roads malfunctioning and crashing into things and people.
See how stupid that sounds now?
An engine failure in an autonomous car doesn't lead to is crashing thru someone's roof. A communications failure, doesn't send them headlong into buildings .
They skies are relatively empty compared to the roads. Still there is the problem of keeping these things in the sky. Its bad enough when well trained professionals sitting in Creech can't keep the Taliban from hacking video feeds or the Iranians from capturing a drone. Imagine handing one to Barney Fife or Seattle PD (already on the DOJ watch list)
Th
Re: (Score:2)
There is no legitimate reason police in America need this technology. Let alone private industry.
FTFY - I'm sure they could come up with all sorts of reasons (cough cough Chris Dorner [latimes.com] cough cough), though none of them have an ounce of Constitutional legitimacy.
That said, my question regarding domestic drone use is this - what legitimate purpose could they possibly serve, that manned aircraft do not?
Re: (Score:2)
That said, my question regarding domestic drone use is this - what legitimate purpose could they possibly serve, that manned aircraft do not?
Probably nothing, since none of the L.A. PD air assets proved useful in the Dorner case.
Per Wiki,
The Los Angeles Police Air Support Division resources include 17 helicopters ranging from four Bell 206 Jet Rangers to 12 Eurocopter AS350-B2 AStars.
They also have one lame drone, which they didn't even employ, yet which was purchased with riot and barricade situations being publicly stated use scenarios.
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard the concept of providing support to fire and rescue crews thrown about as well; of course, what the people who posit such nonsense don't think of (or intentionally omit) is that, compared to a rescue chopper and properly equipped crew , an unmanned, 25kg drone flying at 30,000 ft is about as useful as tits on a bull gator.
Re: (Score:3)
Yup, way cheaper. Cheap Drones only costs $20,000 each.
No thanks, I'll take the pimply faced kid driving the beat up toyota delivering my pizza any day. If he gets lost he calls me on his cell phone, and delivers the pizza from a "hot-bag" direct to my door, not frozen in flight, and crashed thru my windows, or delivered three houses away because GPS reception is spotty.
"We Privates" do not want these things buzzing around.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need thousands of horseless carriages zipping around on the roads malfunctioning and crashing into things and people.
See how stupid that sounds now?
As stupid as someone comparing apples to Grade 8 bolts.
FYI, ground-based vehicles that experience equipment failtures aren't very likely to fall from the sky, damaging persons and/or property. Hence, apples and bolts.
Of course, please do not take this application of reality as a request for you to stop your hate filled, nonsense rants. I find them, as well as the mental image of your face turning beet red as you type, quite hilarious.
Re: (Score:2)
So, how many of those horseless carriages are remote operated?
In fact, none because it remains illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
This is downright funny coming two posts after in slashdot's strange threading method from the guy who wants to use quadcopters to deliver pizzas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea but most of the prescient sci fi works were intelligent, well written fiction. Terminator 3 was just bad on every level. I seriously doubt it is an indicator of much beyond the high probability that when Hollywood tries to milk a franchise it will often completely trash the franchise. They should have stopped when James Cameron stopped which was at the end of Terminator 2.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know whether to mod this funny or insightful....
drones shmones (Score:2, Insightful)
My suspicion is that once drones start to become more ubiquitous in US Airspace, pecople here will come up with ways to interfere with them. In other countries directly targeted by the drones, they haven't been very successful, but in the US all it will take will be a few backyard hobbyists who really really really have issues with drones, and they will come up with an easy way to interfere/take over/destroy/ shoot down said drones...and this technology, whatever it is, will be then used by people in other
Re: (Score:2)
Which will unleash the full fury of the machine to track down these 'terrorists', because, as Bush said, "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists".
And clearly objecting to this kind of thing is something only a terrorist would do.
Re: (Score:2)
And clearly objecting to this kind of thing is something only a terrorist would do.
No, but working out a method to cause crashes of drones being used to survey power lines or railroads or interstate highways or dams or bridges is probably something a terrorist would do.
Did we consider that there is a significant difference between objecting to something and actively causing it to fail, thus creating the problem that you hypothesized?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
a few backyard hobbyists who really really really have issues with drones, and they will come up with an easy way to interfere/take over/destroy/ shoot down said drones
Those people will disappear very, very quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Not in the US there isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is very productive. It will lead to new generations of EMP cannons and other cool stuff.
Black box solution (was Re:drones shmones) (Score:2)
I want to see an electronics box which:
- scans for the unencrypted video feed on the frequencies drones use
- sounds an audio alarm when it finds one
- displays the video feed on a local screen
- immediately begins streaming the video off-site (for record-keeping)
Anyone have an idea on how affordable / expensive / reliable such a thing could / would be?
Re: (Score:2)
will come up with an easy way to interfere/take over/destroy/ shoot down said drones...and this technology, whatever it is, will be then used by people in other countries to take out OUR drones
You mean... the drones taken out by the hobbyists on US soil will be foreign drones (as opposed to OUR drones flying overseas)?
Re: (Score:2)
My suspicion is that once drones start to become more ubiquitous in US Airspace, pecople here will come up with ways to interfere with them. In other countries directly targeted by the drones, they haven't been very successful, but in the US all it will take will be a few backyard hobbyists who really really really have issues with drones, and they will come up with an easy way to interfere/take over/destroy/ shoot down said drones...and this technology, whatever it is, will be then used by people in other countries to take out OUR drones.
So putting drones in US airspace is actually a stupid counterproductive thing, on many fronts.
This [wickedlasers.com.hk], for instance?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How To Kill A Drone [beforeitsnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They already have a solution to this problem. Under new policy, the drone operators will have the right to take out backyard hobbyists on U.S. soil, just like they currently do overseas. Try to test an interference device, and you'll soon be at the unpleasant end of a hellfire missile trajectory.
Don't forget the double tap procedure... needs to become an operational standard.
Re: (Score:2)
On the plus side it may breed a whole new generation of engineers specializing in avionics, ballistics and signal jamming techniques.
Hmmm radar guided, computer controlled, surface to air paintball canon...
Not only that, but there's a bunch of retired or near-retired old fogeys out there with skills in this arena, left over from the cold war. (Don't ask how I know.)
But the paintball cannon -- funny you should mention that, I had the same idea. You'd need a compressor with fairly large capacity with some alterations, a long tube on a gimbal, and some sort of aiming mechanism.
Maybe some intelligence for auto-targeting? Raspberry Pi project, perhaps?
The fact states are scrambling to pass laws (Score:2)
banning drones in their air space is going to be a major hurdle.
Seems like systematic reduction in rights and progressively more 1984 and Brave New World type policies have caused a reaction. Just in time too, Houston got caught trying to sneak drones into service with absolutely no public input. Texas responded recently with a state-wide ban. Last thing we need is a president checking his smile for food particles in his reflection on his Nobel Peace Prize right before ordering U.S. citizens murdered lik
Re: (Score:2)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he already order a U.S. citizen to be murdered? Anwar al-Awlaki?
For that matter, didn't he do in al-Awlaki's kid as well in another strike? Though that one may have been collateral damage (which apparently makes it okay)....
Re: (Score:2)
The difference being Anwar al-Awlaki was not on U.S. soil at the time - it makes a difference when you're in this deep.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're saying that if you were to go on vacation in the UK, say, that the President could then declare "open season" on you legally?
Or if you were to cross into Canada? Or Mexico?
And how close to shore would you have to be to be deemed "safe"? Three Mile Limit? Twelve Mile Limit? 200 Mile Limit?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying that - he is.
He's pushed that boundary and gotten away with it, on home soil is the next pushing ground. As far as I'm concerned we need to stop all overseas police activities and bring all of our troops home. I'm open to a well placed spy here and there for obvious reasons, to intercept aggression, but not to better place it.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhh, airspace laws aren't state laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights#United_States [wikipedia.org]
"In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has the sole authority to control all airspace, exclusively determining the rules and requirements for its use"
Re: (Score:2)
Well - that's up to nullification challenges then isn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
On another note it's illegal to toss a moose out of an airplane in Alaska - that most certainly is a state law, so I submit states can make their own laws where airspace is concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I bet that would be a fascinating story involving large quantities of alcohol and stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably never had a test case to determine it's validity.
Re: (Score:2)
I am a UAV pilot... (Score:5, Interesting)
The only UAV that's close to airworthy is Northrop's billion dollar disaster of the Global Hawk. Of course, airworthiness is a big part of the reason that they cost $50M apiece. None of the rest of the UAVs are airworthy. Not even remotely. They all have severe design flaws that render them reasonable only for overwater, over the ocean, or combat zones. None of them are designed with the rigour or safety focus that's required for a small airplane, much less something that's in commercial service. All of them have software single point of failure problems that will cause them to crash in an unpredictable place.Triton and the Global Hawk will, at least, crash in a pre-planned, surveyed spot. None of the rest.
I see no reason to allow anything over 55 lbs to fly unless it's designed to the same level of safety and airworthiness as "real airplanes", because the physics works the same way when it hits you. I'm not saying "no" to UAV's, but start over and do it right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I believe that's the lower weight limit set by the FAA. If your aircraft is lighter than 55 lbs, then it's not classified as an aircraft and merely a hobby aircraft that doesn't need or regulation (e.g., RC aircraft). If it's heavier, then it falls under FAA experimental aircraft rules and is regulated.
And yes, there have been model aircraft heavier than 55lbs which have undergone such testing.
As for privacy and security? Well, I think the bigger implication right now is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First off, I'm against flying them over the U.S. due to privacy rights, so I am on your side here, just for a different reason. Their time on station combined with the sensor packages and standoff range of those sensors give them a huge advantage over manned aircraft for surveillance, and that's just not something the government should be using on its own citizens on its own soil. They're instruments of war, not of police investigation. And that's not even considering their ordnance capability.
The waivers
Re: (Score:2)
They're instruments of war
Best.
Anti-domestic-drone argument.
EVER.
Of all time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except we use them outside of war all the time.
Really? How so, and where/when?
Also, who is this 'we' you speak of? Hobbyists? Soldiers? Americans in general? This is an important distinction to make, as what's legal for a civilian to do is not necessarily legal for a soldier.
Not to mention private citizens build drones all the time.
Which are built using different technologies and intentions than military/police drones. Hence, a need for distinction.
It's like using the term "assault weapon" to scare soccer moms.
Without a specific designation for separating military/non-military UAVs, you're right.
If your argument can't win on merit and you have to resort to hyperbole, maybe you're wrong?
You failing to parse OP's statements does not equate to "resort[ing] to hyper
Re: (Score:2)
2) Irrelevant to what I said and somehow implies I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BuRRRRRn!
Or is it.
CrAAAAAAAAAAsh!
Re: (Score:2)
All of them have software single point of failure problems that will cause them to crash in an unpredictable place.Triton and the Global Hawk will, at least, crash in a pre-planned, surveyed spot.
Hmm... billion dollars for crashing into a planned spot you say. Northrop may be interested in my paper airplane design...
Re: (Score:2)
Liable Party in an Accident? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
My understanding is that the rules for model aircraft would apply, which pretty much make the model aircraft operator liable for a large portion of the damage.
Disclaimer: I got a little involved in the model aircraft community for a while, but never deep enough to personally deal with liability. Input from those more knowledgeable is appreciated.
Re: (Score:2)
Model aircraft aren't run by the state and federal governments. Thus, those rules would not apply.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Drones MUST have the standard radio transponders commercial planes have. Also, they will need gyro guidance systems so if external guidance (radio, gps, etc) goes out, they will be able to fly, and should auto-return to launch site.
But flying weaponized drones over US air-space, outside of military bases, is unconstitutional, unless marshal law is declared.
And military flying of drones without weapons is also restricted to flying between bases or on training flights, where use of any spy abilities (cameras,
Re: (Score:2)
It's not unconstitutional. Or even illegal if there is an insurrection.
Posse Comitatus doesn't apply to the National Guard, Coast Guard or police forces.
It would only be illegal under PCA for Federal Armed Forces.
National Guard has it's own set of regulations, but surveillance is one of the things they are permitted to do in support of state and local police.
Re: (Score:2)
But flying weaponized drones over US air-space, outside of military bases, is unconstitutional, unless marshal law is declared.
I see nothing in the US Constitution that says that. Perhaps you are thinking of Libya or some other country? Citation required.
I'd then question why a "militarized drone" would be different than a "militarized jet fighter", or how the Founders would have known they needed to differentiate between the two when they wrote the Constitution. And yes, "militarized jet fighters" fly over US airspace outside of military bases ALL THE TIME. And I don't think marshal law has been declared, has it?
But that is just the opinion of a fol who believes the constitution means something...
Something more
Purposeful interference (Score:2)
How many have considered purposefully interfering with surveillance drones?
Since Britain is considering turning off active airport radar [slashdot.org], and using TV signals, one would think that hobbyists could do similar things to track surveillance drones.
And then actively interfering with their ability to surveil by using maybe high powered IR lasers, carefully aimed microwave transmitters, or similar aimed at them.
Re: (Score:2)
> How many have considered purposefully interfering with surveillance drones?
Oh, pretty much everyone here.
Sense and avoid (Score:2)
This is why I have been working on a practical "sense and avoid" (SAA) system for UAVs and FPV RC models.
So far so good (very good in fact) and I expect to start the airborne testing of a prototype very shortly.
The goal was to have the reliable detection of full-sized aircraft at a minimum range of 1.5Km and not rely on transponders or other equipment in those aircraft and it appears that this objective is attainable.
It's been a lot of fun developing this thing and it's something that has really only become
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I have been working on a practical "sense and avoid" (SAA) system for UAVs and FPV RC models.
So, how does it feel to be part of the problem, you bastard? LOL, just kidding... kinda...
odds are that I'll be releasing this as an open-source, copyleft project so hobbyists can use it instead of it becoming the sole domain of the "drone" companies.
Well, alright... I suppose that's a good enough reason to let you live...
(seriously, no offense meant, I'm just messing with you)
Waiting on an Acceptable "Death by Drone" Metric (Score:2)
>> these efforts cannot be completed and validated without safety, reliability, and performance standards
Translation: We know that drones falling out of the sky will kill and main a lot of our citizens. However, we need someone to make a call on how many deaths-per-million-flights (or other metric) is an acceptable number.
You will comply... (Score:2)
So glad that my fellow Americans are baying sheep and happy to allow these to watch them.
I have lost ALL respect for my fellow Americans. They all love the PATRIOT act, they all love being fondled at the airport, and they all WANT to be watched.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. I'm fat, so that makes me the cow...
Mooooo....
What about bulk applications for drones? (Score:2)
If they can make small, lightweight drones, why not large ones? It would be an interesting take on delivering the mail.
Large drones, distribute to smaller drones, distribute to single mail delivery sized drones dropping little packages off on your door step. Maybe not today, but a potential future application? Sets the imagination a'buzz...
Sounds fun (Score:2)
Send a few drones over my city and see how long it takes some bored hacker to gain control of one and smash int into a police cruiser or something. Bonus points if they're armed with missiles.
Re: (Score:2)
Silly answer (Score:2)
Why can't they just fly OVER the hurdles?
They could, but it would be too expensive in terms citizens' taxes spent on fuel.
The FAA and others seem mostly concerned about the drones hitting things if their GPS and ground communications are both disrupted
Fear not, hurdles are only temporary... I mean... look: if one is able to use explosives and still doesn't have the desired results, it simply means one is not using enough of them. Hitting the hurdles with the appropriate amount of explosives will surely clear them... after that, everybody (still living) will be protected by them drones.