Deploying Domestic Drones

High-tech surveillance hasn't worked to deter crimes; UAV's won't either. Another virtually useless multi-million dollar gadget to sell to government agencies at taxpayer's expense.

Although, if I can shoot them with my longbow, they may be fun to have around.

Of course, shooting them with a long bow will be considered a "terrorist threat". Ffej

Going to need a bigger flyswatter. (revised from Jaws)

I do work machine work for a small company developing UAV's for domestic purposes , forestry service, law enforcement, surveying etc.. They have to be FAA approved to go above 1000 ft. their goal is to make them affordable to local municipalities, not much different than a RC plane, except longer range, and use avoidance systems since they would be flying in public airspace. There is a definite need for this technology, especially with the dangers low flying "manned " aircraft

Jim C

Oops, my parabolic solar collector tracker slipped....

Ah haaa you are a bond villain in cognito

Time to call in the scottish milkman

On a serious point these 'anti terror' regulations always get used by petty fogging minor bureaucrats for tin pot crimes.

Ok so it ticks me off if someone in my area claims to be living alone to claim the single persons discount on their council tax (a local tax payable on the value of your home and one of the main ways local councils raise money in the UK) but some councils have used the full power of anti terror legislation to spy on them which is a waste of resources and probably cost negative. The original intent I think was that often things crop up in the local councils remit that might indicate terror activity - eg unusual refuse profile lock up garages etc so there was some merit in allowing them to use the powers. But now some numpty has got all grandiose and in abusing these powers has taken anyway any benefit that might have been accrued.

pah bureaucrats

Good thing is there is no daily limit on UAVs. 'Ceptin they don't taste to good.

Who will pay when these things crash ? - - and they will crash.

"Who will pay when these things crash ? - - and they will crash."

The answer will be in providing clear identification of the drone. Assuming that such a machine might be so completely destroyed in a crash as to be unidentifiable the logical answer is a computerized tracking system of the aircraft's "beacon". This appears to be technically feasible within the realm of cell phone technology.

I realize that there must be suitable coverage of the cell phone net for that to work. Thus the problem remains in rural areas. But it would be greatly reduced in areas of low population density.

Ed Weldon

wouldn't there be a black box?

there would also have to be software for the times when the control signals are interrupted...

I foresee real fun to be had shall I say "virtual hijacking" :D

And when they collide with small airplanes, hot air balloons, ultralights, parachutists, helicopters, or light sport aircraft engaged in perfectly legal activities, it will too often be the pilots who pay - with their lives. There will also be collisions with buildings, towers, birds . . . . and the crippled drones will endanger anyone in the vicinity.

Most of that stuff is restricted to 500 ft AGL* or 1500 AGL, and the idea seems to be the drones operate below 500.

But that in itself makes them fairly useless against any 'organized crime'. Especially those with a few dollars and a little technology.

I doubt in law taking out a drone is going to be viewed the same as taking down a manned craft - even if there was proof you did it - or intentionally did it - or you knew it was a drone, not say a UFO, or a predator after your cat <insert list of other creative excuses>.

Meaning; you do have a good point on the danger of raining drones to the general public.

* above ground level

"Most of that stuff is restricted to 500 ft AGL* or 1500 AGL, and the idea seems to be the drones operate below 500."

Last I checked, all of those devices need to get from ground level up to 500 feet AGL, and back down again later, even if they stay higher most of the time. And in areas with little or no human presence or structures, it is perfectly legal to fly below 500' AGL.

And that's making the assumption that the drones will never have a failure which causes them to climb above their permitted altitude. Failure modes would include mechanical, electrical, software, and input errors before flight (akin the what MAY have been done on KAL flight 007 - and what I have personally encountered regarding a military flight whose navigator missed the latitude setting by one degree when starting a long path which should have been due west). Using GPS ought to prevent that particular form of failure.

I was rather looking it as principally urban, and so generally in the slot under "controlled air space", or why would they be looking for 400 AGL?

But I'm not disagreeing on the dangers of incursion - just seeing the greater risk as operating down amongst the general public.

That depends om the classification of the area. There are areas that are governed by 500 ' from the closest object, not altitude of 500'. I hope the effort remains safe, however I am surprised that no one is screaming about big brother. I am not really thrilled with the use of military hardware to enforce civil law. When will they want to hang missiles on them?

"When will they want to hang missiles on them?"

Not later than last year - and probably a LONG time before that...........

A lot of this 'tech' has come out of the film and documentary area. Some of the latest ones may have the payload capability for the lighter classes of weapons systems.

That would certainly make the street interesting if any kind of failure or control issue arose.

And I recall great times as a youngster flying kites from various locations, some as convenient and somewhat challenging as the front yard of my home. I'd often let out over a thousand feet of string.

More busts for selling dime bags of pot on the street corners. Better start building more prisons now.

They have been doing this openly in the U.S. since 1998 that I know of using Blackhawk and Apache Helicopters, and all other surveillance and attack aircraft that I know of by civilian and military U.S. Intelligence agencies.

Drones would be cheaper.

I think there needs to be a distinction between remotely controlled "drones" based on their size. Clearly a drone the size of what our armed forces are using in Afganistan to deliver ordnance to targets presents different regulatory issues than a drone that can be picked up with one hand.

The miniature technology is here today and has been demonstrated. We're talking here of a video camera carrying remote controlled hovering aircraft. The demos have shown amazingly clear overhead photos and videos.

These little guys are not capable of inflicting crash damage at anywhere near the level of what a large military drone could do. Nor is it likely that they would be operated at altitudes where they are in conflict with manned aircraft. The hazards these little guys would offer are things like running into power lines, people, cars, windows and other fragile objects on the ground. And certainly one could injure or even kill someone on the ground in an accidental collision

This is analogous to the legal distinctions we make between automobiles and bicycles in our traffic laws. In the extreme case a bicycle is capable of killing someone other than the rider. But automobiles regularly do that on the highways. Same laws of physics apply to both based on their respective masses.

Ed Weldon

I finally found the link to the Hexacopter:

http://vimeo.com/6194911

This is what I'm talking about in comment #17. They are pretty good camera platforms and will only get better. Current flight time is around 30 minutes on the battery they are using. Expect this to increase in the future. Note the 1kg payload in the video.

A google search on hexacopter or mikrocopter will turn up lots of info.

I think one would have to be pretty good at skeet shooting to bring down one of these things with a shotgun.

Ed Weldon

Will these domestic drones come and do the housework chez Cat?
Del

Well I guess in Illinois, they will have to make sure the drones don't make video of any policeman, or the drone could end up in prison for 15 years...

The powers that be assume us all to be Chattel. Owned, corralled and controlled for their social designs. GA. Thanks for your post.

Good points Chris - but how do curb the approach of "authority" when it's painted as "it's for your own good".

Clearly the way is to point out, on balance, it's not ....

and the 'true colors' of this idea is a significant physical danger to the public.

Then, again, maybe Paint Ball is the answer

(Probably better to be in line of fire of that, than bullets, or a high intensity microwave beam, wielded by those objecting to a drones presence)

I think developing a very deep culture of 'root cause' thinking, that pervades deeply into the social awareness, would really make the danger and criminals go away, in a way that policing never.... never can.

I'm one of the first to engage in fantasy thinking of solutions. I recognize that aerial drone surveillance is a great fantasy to those of the policing (and nwo) mindset.

while there are multiple causes to violent crime, I believe there are some simple solutions based on accurate root cause determination. Seek and ye shall find.

Chris

I agree - and probably why I find the makeup of crime in Japan, a couple of Scandinavian societies, even Canada, so interesting.

Perhaps why I think "the drone", is escalation of velocity on the slippery slide a suppressionist approach has built. "Suppression" being the antithesis of "Education".

But then again I think "Education" is the only real path to "Freedom".

yes!

sadly, when one begins to figure out why things are the way they are... one is faced with the near impossibility of changing minds.

such an education system would have to be even more incontrovertible... more goal oriented and dedicated to well defined objectives than say... the american constitution. (another system aimed at equality, liberty and justice for all citizens)

Chris

Glorified skeet!

To be cost effective they could have the Microsoft operating system on board and be controlled by distributed Wi-Fi.

That should make us all feel safe and secure.

After a period of creative falconry, we finally see a cartoon of two goshawks comparing notes for the day:

Gimli: I bombed 17 of those bots today; and you?

Legolas: Hah! 18!

Hey Tony, I think the cops is spyin on us wit a airplane.

That ain't no airplane, that's a lawnmower yah joik.

Oh yeah, you is right, fugittaboudit.

They ain't nuthin like that built local, so it must be extra-terrestrial. Call the Captain!

I think it's more of that Chinese retro engineering - & they just got the motor axis a bit wrong

Great. Now we'll have organized crime using creative techniques to blow these drones out of the sky. Then we replace them with better ones. And guess who foots the bill. Maybe I can get a job at a drone factory, but production will probably be outsourced to China.