|
uniqs
64 |
|
 |
|
OZO
Premium Member
join:2003-01-17
1 recommendation |
OZO to armed
Premium Member
2012-Oct-28 4:51 pm
to armed
Re: San Fransisco police getting dronessaid by armed:What's the difference between them having a few drones as compared to having helicopters, airplanes, boats, unmarked cars, tracking devices, drug sniffing dogs, long rang hearing devices, infra red scanning devices, phone tapping equipment, or any other device that has been invented in the last 100 years?
They may start falling on our heads (and I mean, literally) right from the sky? Not to mention, adding one more tool for "all seeing eye" pocket, that common people are rushing to create upon themselves... | |  BlackbirdBuilt for Speed
Premium Member
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
1 recommendation |
said by OZO:said by armed:What's the difference between them having a few drones as compared to having helicopters, airplanes, boats, unmarked cars, tracking devices, drug sniffing dogs, long rang hearing devices, infra red scanning devices, phone tapping equipment, or any other device that has been invented in the last 100 years?
They may start falling on our heads (and I mean, literally) right from the sky? ... Or fly into each other... or into commercial airliners... or into general aviation... My understanding is that this is a very real problem already in Djibouti where the US flies drones over various hotspots in the Middle East. Remote U.S. base at core of secret operationsquote:
...The drones and other military aircraft have crowded the skies over the Horn of Africa so much that the risk of an aviation disaster has soared. ... Predator drones in particular are more prone to mishaps than manned aircraft, Air Force statistics show. But the accidents rarely draw public attention because there are no pilots or passengers. ... The frequency of U.S. military flights from Djibouti has soared, overwhelming air-traffic controllers and making the skies more dangerous. ... Drones also pose an aviation risk next door in Somalia. Over the past year, remote-controlled aircraft have plunged into a refugee camp, flown perilously close to a fuel dump and almost collided with a large passenger plane over Mogadishu, the capital, according to a United Nations report.
| |
1 recommendation |
to OZO
said by OZO:said by armed:What's the difference between them having a few drones as compared to having helicopters, airplanes, boats, unmarked cars, tracking devices, drug sniffing dogs, long rang hearing devices, infra red scanning devices, phone tapping equipment, or any other device that has been invented in the last 100 years?
They may start falling on our heads (and I mean, literally) right from the sky? Not to mention, adding one more tool for "all seeing eye" pocket, that common people are rushing to create upon themselves... "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety...Ben Franklin, 1759" | | | |
StuartMW
Premium Member
2012-Oct-28 5:33 pm
And they'll get neither--at least not in the long run. | |
1 recommendation |
to OZO
said by OZO:said by armed:What's the difference between them having a few drones as compared to having helicopters, airplanes, boats, unmarked cars, tracking devices, drug sniffing dogs, long rang hearing devices, infra red scanning devices, phone tapping equipment, or any other device that has been invented in the last 100 years?
They may start falling on our heads (and I mean, literally) right from the sky? Not to mention, adding one more tool for "all seeing eye" pocket, that common people are rushing to create upon themselves... Dangerous? So what about helicopters or airplanes? What about cops with weapons? What about cop cars in car accidents? What about tazers that kill? Is it only new technology that must meet unstated safety requirements? Got an evidence that drones are more unsafe than planes? I had a neighbor that set his house on fire then hid on the hill behind my house with guns. They had no idea where he was because he had delay timers to start the fires. He damned near burned down the whole neighborhood. They found him because they tracked his cell phone and used helicopters to pin point him. I had helicopters hoovering over the top of my house so low I could see the guys inside and I'm glad they were there. So they used modern technology to track him. He was angry, dangerous and armed and committed suicide as the formed a line of cops to go up and get him. What.... they should have used nothing invented in the last 75 tears to track him? Its a new tool, not anymore invasive nor dangerous to us than any other tool they have to track and arrest criminals. There is no evidence that use of a drone has anymore implications in the loss of our rights than when they fist started to use helicopters or planes and they are a lot cheaper to boot. In reply to the old "its an invasion of our rights and loss of our freedoms" crowd I must ask.... when cops first started to use horses and buggies did we lose it all and become a controlled society? How about cars? I find most responses in this vein to be without merit and fueled more by paranoia than reason. | | BlackbirdBuilt for Speed
Premium Member
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN |
said by armed:said by OZO: ...
They may start falling on our heads (and I mean, literally) right from the sky?
Not to mention, adding one more tool for "all seeing eye" pocket, that common people are rushing to create upon themselves...
Dangerous? ... Got an evidence that drones are more unsafe than planes? ... The only real direct comparison at present is for one of the few agencies that actually flies drones and other kinds of aircraft, the USAF: Drones Most Accident-Prone U.S. Air Force Craftquote:
...
The U.S. military’s three biggest drones, made by Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC) and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc., are the most accident-prone aircraft in the Air Force fleet.
...
The Air Force in a 15-year period through Sept. 30 recorded 129 accidents involving its medium- and high-altitude drones: the MQ-1 Predator, MQ-9 Reaper and RQ-4 Global Hawk. ...
Vertical-lift aircraft, including helicopters and the tilt- rotor V-22 Osprey made by Boeing Co. (BA) and Textron Inc. (TXT), had the second-highest accident rate, with 6.33 per 100,000 flight hours.
...
The Predator, made by General Atomics, has had 9.26 accidents per 100,000 flight hours, while its Reaper has had 7.96. ...
Obviously with other, smaller types of drones that civilian agencies will probably use, these military craft will not be equivalent in safety. For the smaller drones, the safety records are... unpublished. So we'll be left to assume the operation and maintenance performed by your friendly local police (or whomever) will exceed the US military's aircraft maintenance and standards or the FAA monitored/inspected commercial and general aviation requirements. Which, frankly should scare the daylights out of anyone. In particular, there's the operation of a drone in potentially crowded airspace: FAA Documents Raise Questions About Safety of Drones in U.S. Airspacequote:
...Many drones and other small aircraft don’t have elaborate on-board detection systems to help them avoid crashes in the air, said Mel Beckman, a California mechanic and pilot who’s been flying for more than 30 years. People who don’t fly planes often are surprised to learn that pilots are required to “see and avoid,” which is exactly what it sounds like – keep a naked eye out for other aircraft. "There’s no way for a drone pilot to do that,” Beckman said. “He’s on the ground, and he’s looking through a small aperture..."
...
The FAA predicted four years ago that a sophisticated collision-avoidance system for drones could cost as much as $2 billion and was still far into the future. Regulators also anticipated then that a framework for broader drone flights in the United States wouldn’t be ready until sometime around 2020, according to the Government Accountability Office (.PDF), the investigative arm of Congress.
| | OZO
Premium Member
join:2003-01-17
3 recommendations |
OZO to armed
Premium Member
2012-Oct-28 10:29 pm
to armed
said by armed:Its a new tool, not anymore invasive nor dangerous to us than any other tool they have to track and arrest criminals. There is no evidence that use of a drone has anymore implications in the loss of our rights than when they fist started to use helicopters or planes and they are a lot cheaper to boot. Please read followed cite again. I really hope you'll finally get to its essence some day: said by jaykaykay:"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety...Ben Franklin, 1759"
This cite reminds us about extreme importance to keep the right balance between desire to have an "absolute safety" (even though there is no such thing and never will be) and what we could loose, when we ask our government to provide it to us... said by armed:In reply to the old "its an invasion of our rights and loss of our freedoms" crowd I must ask.... when cops first started to use horses and buggies did we lose it all and become a controlled society? How about cars? I find most responses in this vein to be without merit and fueled more by paranoia than reason. We may easily slip into "controlled society", if people continue to ask powers to make it this way... Be careful with what you're asking for - you may get your wish to become a reality. | |
1 edit
1 recommendation |
armed
Member
2012-Oct-29 12:33 am
said by OZO:said by armed:Its a new tool, not anymore invasive nor dangerous to us than any other tool they have to track and arrest criminals. There is no evidence that use of a drone has anymore implications in the loss of our rights than when they fist started to use helicopters or planes and they are a lot cheaper to boot. Please read followed cite again. I really hope you'll finally get to its essence some day: said by jaykaykay:"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety...Ben Franklin, 1759"
This cite reminds us about extreme importance to keep the right balance between desire to have an "absolute safety" (even though there is no such thing and never will be) and what we could loose, when we ask our government to provide it to us... said by armed:In reply to the old "its an invasion of our rights and loss of our freedoms" crowd I must ask.... when cops first started to use horses and buggies did we lose it all and become a controlled society? How about cars? I find most responses in this vein to be without merit and fueled more by paranoia than reason. We may easily slip into "controlled society", if people continue to ask powers to make it this way... Be careful with what you're asking for - you may get your wish to become a reality. You have been less than convincing that using drones in lawful methods is any more an erosion of our rights than using say a helicopter, under cover surveillance cars, binoculars, infared machines, high powered guns, mace, tazers, dogs, undercover ops, riding bikes in the park, or using horses or wearing sneakers when on foot patrol. You can quote old saws but it doesn't change the fact that if your argument holds water it has to apply to all tools use by the police. In fact there is no law in our Constitution, or in the plethora of federal, state or local jurisdiction laws that says modern inventions cannot be used by police unless they were available in 1776. If your contention is that police can abuse power (and they can and do sometimes) then that issue is for the courts as they apply the use of these new tools. But I find it interesting that the hue and cry from the unwashed is that the police hands are tied by legal restrictions of liberals and criminals are running rampant in the streets. So despite your hysteria drones are not the issue but proper use of our laws in using them is. I'm on your side on not eroding our rights but we separate quickly when you argue that drones are bad but cars and helicopters and binoculars are fine. | |  SnowyLock him up!!!
Premium Member
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI |
to armed
said by armed:In reply to the old "its an invasion of our rights and loss of our freedoms" crowd I must ask.... when cops first started to use horses and buggies did we lose it all and become a controlled society? How about cars? I find most responses in this vein to be without merit and fueled more by paranoia than reason. That's not a bad argument but your choice of examples diminishes the point. Horses & (faster) cars were available to the general public as they were to LE. Look no further than the origins of NASCAR to prove that. It's about the ever widening gap in technological advances that's available to LE vs the public. It's not paranoia, IMO but just a healthy concern over where the line between prevention/enforcement intersects with the right to live without excessive surveillance. | | | |
armed
Member
2012-Oct-29 12:04 pm
said by Snowy:said by armed:In reply to the old "its an invasion of our rights and loss of our freedoms" crowd I must ask.... when cops first started to use horses and buggies did we lose it all and become a controlled society? How about cars? I find most responses in this vein to be without merit and fueled more by paranoia than reason. That's not a bad argument but your choice of examples diminishes the point. Horses & (faster) cars were available to the general public as they were to LE. Look no further than the origins of NASCAR to prove that. It's about the ever widening gap in technological advances that's available to LE vs the public. It's not paranoia, IMO but just a healthy concern over where the line between prevention/enforcement intersects with the right to live without excessive surveillance. Oh Snowy... do you expect me to respond to a reasoned post on this issue?  Do I have to put down my tin hat argument to discuss the issue? LOL OK then, I'll try. I'm not sure that police should not use drones because they not are readily available to the general public. That is not a test proscribed by law nor practiced in the past. I suppose a better example than cars would be helicopters and DNA testing. Neither is easily assessable to the public but we tend to accept their use. That we are inventing devices that can be more easily used for excessive surveillance is worthy of great concern. I have a problem with the idea that a device can be set up to monitor legal activity of the general populace on a continual basis. In this case say keeping a drones in the air 24/7 as it peers into our houses and backyards looking for someone pissing under their tree. But to use them in an investigation or to look for a specific issue... say trailing a suspect in committing a crime seems to me to be a proper application of a useful LE tool. But even then its a matter of semantics. Is a patrol car driving through a neighborhood really nothing more than mass monitoring for legal behaviour? So we already have an established accepted and lawful application that LE can observe the populace without any suspicion of illegal behaviour. To me its the law that is in play here and not the device. Take GPS tracking devices as an example. The cops just can't legally attach a tracking device to your car and follow you indefinitely even if they have suspicion that you are involved in illegal activity. They can try to but the law can and does get in the way. New devices are making it harder to get away with crime but I agree they may come at a cost of more mass surveillance and dangerous abuse. So we must insist that our courts and law making bodies define the differences to protect our freedoms and not just blindly prohibit use of new technology by LE because it might be abused. Now back to tin hat and paranoia land... although I did enjoy your thoughtful response and appreciate having a normal discussion rather than a war of trite sayings. | | mbeckman
Premium Member
join:2004-09-06
Ventura, CA
2 recommendations |
to armed
"Its a new tool, not anymore invasive nor dangerous to us than any other tool they have to track and arrest criminals. There is no evidence that use of a drone has anymore implications in the loss of our rights than when they fist started to use helicopters or planes..."
Armed,
You're wrong, and you could well be dead wrong. Drones are dramatically more dangerous than manned helicopters and aircraft, because drones are technically incapable of complying with current aircraft traffic separation rules. I'm an instrument rated pilot and also a licensed aerospace technician, and I can assure you that drone operators do not have the visual acuity through onboard video to "see and avoid" other aircraft in the visual flight rules (VFR) environment. "See and avoid", not radar, is the only FAA-sanctioned method for maintaining aircraft separation in VFR, which are the only rules under which drones can operate.
If a drone were to hit an airliner full of people, the results would likely be catastrophic. Perhaps you recall the Cerritos disaster in Los Angeles a few years ago? That happened despite four sets of active human observers, which are far more reliable than radar or remote video imaging.
Someday the technology may exist for safe mixing of drones and human-piloted aircraft. That day is years, if not decades, away. Until then, drones must not be permitted to share airspace with civil aviation in the US. | | | |
Our drones have a much bigger range of 'visual' then humans as our sensors can see things that no human eye can, toss in we have a better range of view both in terms of distance and coverage around the drone (how many mid air collisions were caused by planes colliding on the vertical (particularly around airports) as pilot vision above and below their planes is limited at best). I'm more worried about human pilots then drones anymore.
Blake
Hey for you next party, want some pyrotechnicals that are better then your neighbor's last party, no problem we are now renting MQ-9 Reapers for parties as nothing beats the pyrotechnical show of 14 hell fire missiles hitting your neighbors house. Finally Shock and Awe for the average Joe who is just trying to keep up with (and maybe eliminate) those pesky Jones. | | BlackbirdBuilt for Speed
Premium Member
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN |
said by Link Logger:Our drones have a much bigger range of 'visual' then humans as our sensors can see things that no human eye can, toss in we have a better range of view both in terms of distance and coverage around the drone (how many mid air collisions were caused by planes colliding on the vertical (particularly around airports) as pilot vision above and below their planes is limited at best). I'm more worried about human pilots then drones anymore. ...
Most police drones will be significantly smaller than a light airplane... which means the visual cross-section they present will be far harder for others to detect. It's much like the problem of motorcycles on roadways... most cycle-car collisions occur because a motorcycle subtends a much smaller visual angle than a car at the same distance and approach speed, and this is tremendously significant when a car driver is looking down a road for oncoming traffic before he pulls out. Too often, he simply cannot discern the changing motion angle of the cycle... that is, it appears either invisible or as a fixed object to his glances. In piloted aircraft, this phenomenon gets magnified many-fold, since the velocities of the objects involved can typically be anywhere from 10 to 50 times greater than the scenario with automobiles and motorcycles. The ability to visually detect a moving object against a background depends on the ability to discern the changing position of that object against the relatively slow-moving background. Doing this repeatedly or continuously produces a sense of object velocity and direction. But if the object is small and moving fast, there will usually be great difficulty in picking up the object as it moves - that is, at best it will seem to pop in and out of view as it moves across various background contrasts. This robs the brain of its necessary data updates for detection and decision-making, which causes impairment of its ability to even sense movement, let alone determine direction and velocity. All of this occurs against a backdrop of potentially very high-speed closing velocities where increased detection and faster reaction is actually demanded. Frankly, there's little concern about the low-probability case of two drones hitting each other... other than the small area affected by the debris field, it's not likely to be a big deal. But one should care a great deal if they're in a conventional aircraft (commercial or general aviation) that gets mid-air'd by a drone that was too small to see and avoid. Moreover, the pilot of a police drone is not going to be staring at 15 different, omni-directed sensors on the craft looking for airplanes - he's going to be staring at the primary down-looking sensor output that shows what ground objects are beneath and directly ahead of his flight path. These drones are not going to be equipped with effective collision-avoidance systems that somehow magically alert the operator to incoming traffic or automatically cause the drone to take effective evasive action... the former would be false-alarm prone and the loop-time too slow to be of any use, while the latter would cost far too much money to install and maintain for the drones to be economically feasible. | | | |
I have to disagree with you as the reason why motorcycle are involved in more accidents has to do with the speed at which they travel relative to the speed of cars, as they tend to travel faster which means they are constantly moving into and out of blind spots and hence statically spend more time in blind spots then cars. If you and me are driving cars down the freeway, typically we will travel at the same speed (likely over the posted limit), but we will setup such that we can see each other (ie you won't sit in my blind spot). Now motorbikes tend to drive faster then cars means they are passing more cars when means they are passing through more blind spots, hence the majority of the problem (one of the reasons for speed limits).
Now flying in and around major cities (and hence airports) is always fun as typically there are paths/areas you are required to avoid because of commercial air traffic and if there is a reason for police helicopters etc to be in those areas everyone and their dog gets the messages or they might even re-route air traffic as required (remember Pink Floyd's Pig and the fun it cause over Heathrow). The fun part about drones is being smaller its easier for them to operate lower if needed (or for really small drones lower is the only option), so its easier for them to avoid air traffic.
The other thing is if my drone is going down, I don't mind going vertical if it means I miss everything, ie my drone doesn't even register on the importance scale (ie I'm not trying to save it) unless of course it has ordinance onboard in which case a nice big bay is always a good place to lose the boom to (reason why the English Channel is full of all sorts of goodies).
Blake | | mbeckman
Premium Member
join:2004-09-06
Ventura, CA |
to Link Logger
Link Logger,
You simply don't know what you're talking about. The sensors in drones give operators nowhere near the visual acuity and collision avoidance capability of human pilots. The idea that a drone pilot has anything approaching a panoramic view with the slew rates of human eyes is a total fantasy. You're falling for the "CSI" effect: believing science fiction represents today's technical capability. | | | mbeckman |
to Link Logger
"Now flying in and around major cities (and hence airports) is always fun as typically there are paths/areas you are required to avoid because of commercial air traffic and if there is a reason for police helicopters etc to be in those areas everyone and their dog gets the messages or they might even re-route air traffic as required (remember Pink Floyd's Pig and the fun it cause over Heathrow). The fun part about drones is being smaller its easier for them to operate lower if needed (or for really small drones lower is the only option), so its easier for them to avoid air traffic."
Link Logger,
I'm a helicopter pilot. We fly at 500 feet AGL, out of the flow of fixed wing traffic, which fly enroute only at 1000' AGL and above. By law. Drones will be operating at both high and low altitudes, breaking the existing physical separation between fast fixed wing and slower rotary wing aircraft. That's an unacceptable increase in risk and a recipe for catastrophe.
You should do some study about how aviation actually works before reeling off fantastical theories. | | BlackbirdBuilt for Speed
Premium Member
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN |
to Link Logger
said by Link Logger:I have to disagree with you as the reason why motorcycle are involved in more accidents has to do with the speed at which they travel relative to the speed of cars, as they tend to travel faster which means they are constantly moving into and out of blind spots and hence statically spend more time in blind spots then cars. If you and me are driving cars down the freeway, typically we will travel at the same speed (likely over the posted limit), but we will setup such that we can see each other (ie you won't sit in my blind spot). Now motorbikes tend to drive faster then cars means they are passing more cars when means they are passing through more blind spots, hence the majority of the problem (one of the reasons for speed limits).... The problem is that most motorcycle-automobile accidents occur as simple failure-to-yield types (a car pulling out of a side-street, turning right-on-red, turning across traffic into a side-street/entrance, etc), where subsequently the auto driver states he "didn't see" the moving cycle that he hit. While in some cases, the cycles may have been going abnormally fast, in most cases they were not. Of the six or seven motorcycle accidents involving friends, of which I have some close personal knowledge, every one involved a car pulling onto or across the road directly in front of a legally-operated and legal-speed motorcycle. This is the key reason that (at least at one era in time and in most places) motorcycles were required to run with their headlight on: to at least increase their visual detectability. Unfortunately a single headlight, while it does increase visual detectability under low-light conditions, does little to reveal the nearness or velocity of the cycle. Those perceptions require the light source or object be physically wide enough in the visual field for the eye to discern the rate of increase in size, which is the apparent increase in separation distance between multiple lights or apparent edges of the approaching object. That necessarily requires at least two discernable headlights spaced far enough apart to resolve both at distance. A single headlight or the unilluminated edges of a small profile simply will not provide the visual information in a timely manner. All of this becomes far more acute in an airborne setting where the closing velocities and the potential directions of approach between objects are much greater (existing in 3 dimensions instead of 2). said by Link Logger:Now flying in and around major cities (and hence airports) is always fun as typically there are paths/areas you are required to avoid because of commercial air traffic and if there is a reason for police helicopters etc to be in those areas everyone and their dog gets the messages or they might even re-route air traffic as required (remember Pink Floyd's Pig and the fun it cause over Heathrow). The fun part about drones is being smaller its easier for them to operate lower if needed (or for really small drones lower is the only option), so its easier for them to avoid air traffic.... The problem here is that many, if not most, aircraft don't fly in nicely marked-out corridors at set altitudes, evenly spaced out in-between. Only those under ATC and using transponders can be made to obey such restrictions, and then really only in regions of airport approach. The further problem is that most drone missions require at least part of the flight profile to be at multiple thousands of feet to view an adequate coverage area, only after broad survey lowering their altitude to multiple hundreds of feet or less if needed. The lower the drone, the greater the risk of its detection and some kind of counteraction being taken (if only destroying the "stuff"), as well as increasing the risks of it colliding with birds or being buffeted by the increased air turbulence above local landforms. Unless the drones are required at all times to operate below aircraft altitude minimums (which in most areas are far lower than you might imagine), the potential for air disaster with the increasing use of small drones will only increase until the unthinkable does, in fact, occur. | | | |
to mbeckman
said by mbeckman:"Now flying in and around major cities (and hence airports) is always fun as typically there are paths/areas you are required to avoid because of commercial air traffic and if there is a reason for police helicopters etc to be in those areas everyone and their dog gets the messages or they might even re-route air traffic as required (remember Pink Floyd's Pig and the fun it cause over Heathrow). The fun part about drones is being smaller its easier for them to operate lower if needed (or for really small drones lower is the only option), so its easier for them to avoid air traffic."
Link Logger,
I'm a helicopter pilot. We fly at 500 feet AGL, out of the flow of fixed wing traffic, which fly enroute only at 1000' AGL and above. By law. Drones will be operating at both high and low altitudes, breaking the existing physical separation between fast fixed wing and slower rotary wing aircraft. That's an unacceptable increase in risk and a recipe for catastrophe.
You should do some study about how aviation actually works before reeling off fantastical theories.
Lets say your in San Fran and you and your police helicopter get a call to check out a possible shooter in Walnut Park, but that is on the approach to San Fran International which is pretty much on the other side of the freeway, now what happens? The point I was making was in pretty much every major city there is a major airport or airports where you might not have the vertical separation needed to wander around as you please no matter what your flying. Put up a RQ-4 and who cares about commercial air traffic. And who says that a drone has to be fixed wing, maybe they are looking at a MQ-8 as drones come in all shapes and sizes and capabilities anymore. Maybe they want to deploy a situational drone like a Wasp that the officer pulled out of the trunk of his cruiser and deployed to get an overview of a situation before the helicopter could get there. The reality is drones are the future, and the transition has begun, for example the 138th FS switched from F16s to MQ-9 Reapers so of course anyone that uses aircraft (be it fixed or rotary wing) will be considering drones as a possible replacement. Blake | | | Link Logger |
to Blackbird
said by Blackbird:The problem is that most motorcycle-automobile accidents occur as simple failure-to-yield types (a car pulling out of a side-street, turning right-on-red, turning across traffic into a side-street/entrance, etc), where subsequently the auto driver states he "didn't see" the moving cycle that he hit. Shoots to hell their argument for requiring LOUD motorbikes for safety reasons. To pay for these drones they will likely cover then in neon billboards (think Blade Runner), so visibility shouldn't be a problem. Blake | | mbeckman
Premium Member
join:2004-09-06
Ventura, CA |
to Link Logger
Link logger,
The reality is that drones safely operating in US civil airspace are FAR in the future - a decade at least - given the state of technology. I dearly hope by then you have given at least a cursory glance at the plentiful documentation explaining how aircraft separation actually works today. You would know that your "SanFran" scenario is impossible.
Surrounding every large airport in the US, and the majority of mid-sized ones, is a complex layer cake of airspace that all aircraft require specific clearance and unique radar transponder code tracking in order to enter. In this environment, under the visual flight rules which drones must operate, many instructions are given that require visually identifying and responding to nearby aircraft. For example, a controller might instruct "Learjet N314A, traffic is a Cessna at 10 o'clock and five miles. When you pass him, enter downwind for runway 13R." This requires immediately acquiring and identifying the called traffic and responding to the controller with precise, responsive, close-in maneuvering. No drone pilot could accomplish this safely with today's camera slew rates and visibility sphere.
That you don't know this indicates you should learn the fundamentals of aviation in-flight operations before positing anything about drones working in the civilian world. | | | |
The FAA was to have picked 6 cities to host UAVs last month from a rumored list of 30 interested cities, but delayed their decision based on privacy concerns, not technology concerns. » wnewsj.com/main.asp?Sect ··· D=202984Interestingly there are people who think the sensors are an invasion of privacy and others who think they are inadequate for flight. Blake | | OZO
Premium Member
join:2003-01-17 |
OZO
Premium Member
2013-Jan-8 9:15 pm
said by Link Logger:Our drones have a much bigger range of 'visual' then humans as our sensors can see things that no human eye can... and related: said by Link Logger:Interestingly there are people who think the sensors are an invasion of privacy and others who think they are inadequate for flight. One thing is to watch a remote target from a distance (potentially violating their privacy) and another is to correctly access safety of surrounding 3D-area full with flying objects within. If it's not obvious yet, next time try to drive your car looking ahead only through x12 binoculars... said by Link Logger:The FAA was to have picked 6 cities to host UAVs last month from a rumored list of 30 interested cities, but delayed their decision based on privacy concerns, not technology concerns. It's good to know that there are some people who still value privacy of others... not trying to monetize on selling snooping devices and related technologies. said by Link Logger:The other thing is if my drone is going down, I don't mind going vertical if it means I miss everything, ie my drone doesn't even register on the importance scale (ie I'm not trying to save it) unless of course it has ordinance onboard in which case a nice big bay is always a good place to lose the boom to (reason why the English Channel is full of all sorts of goodies).
I don't care about your ordinance (which could make things even worse) or cost of your lost equipment at all. But what if your home is right beneath? Or may be mine, or may be someone else's? I know that you, trying to sell the drones, don't care. But ask the rest of the people. Do they want to see your drone to go vertical right above their heads? | |
|
Do I have to put down my tin hat argument to discuss the issue? LOL