Slashdot Mirror

Ahh nuts, I included the wrong link for my 2015 incident -- that one wasn't confirmed.

But this one was :

2011: http://www.suasnews.com/2011/0...

Looks like their link to the video is broken, but here's another copy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

This incident was shown to be a structural failure rather than unmanned aircraft collision. Your link actually says that -- they originally thought it was a drone, but further investigation showed that there was no collision at all, only a structural failure.

That said, there have been some incidents in the US over the years that have been confirmed/well documented ...

1990: http://articles.latimes.com/19...

2009: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

2015: http://www.suasnews.com/2015/0...

And outside of the US, there's this --

2011: http://gizmodo.com/5831849/her...

Except they aren't testing (solely) in developing countries; this test and whatever anomaly ensued took place in Arizona. Not exactly the population center of the US, granted, but the tests are being done here at home.

Facebook isn't alone in this regard, either, as Google has its own fleet of experimental drones. N749G flew over my house in the Memphis suburbs last Monday night enroute from KSIK to KOLV. The FAA says it's an "Ashfloyd Hummingbird," whose manufacturer has essentially zero public presence, but the model has been tied to Google's Project Wing. I kinda wish they'd keep their testing a little more remote.

http://www.suasnews.com/2016/0...

hot off the press - like 10 minutes ago; http://www.suasnews.com/2014/0... includes a link to the faa appeal

Take a look at this, and it's back from 2011. Boeing is calling a 6 person X-37C, yet I believe that the Air Force probably already has a flight-capable (and probably tested) one or two man "modual" that can put in the experiment bay. After watching Astrospies on PBS, someday we will probably find a couple of space suits stuffed in a dark closet somewhere in 30 years, with an X-37 mission flag, Air Force officers involved in "training"...there's no way the AF will give up US-based manned space travel, even if just for intelligence and access to the ISS.

Here is the relevant section from the 2007 Notice:

The current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may operate a UAS in the National Airspace System without specific authority. For UAS operating as public aircraft the authority is the COA, for UAS operating as civil aircraft the authority is special airworthiness certificates, and for model aircraft the authority is AC 91-57. The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers might be flying UAS with the mistaken understanding that they are legally operating under the authority of 6 AC 91-57. AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and thus specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes.

The policy statement makes no new rules, and therefore needs no review process, but points out that the commercial operation of UAS's in US airspace has no authorization while private use does (CA 01-57). The point is that for a civil aircraft to operate in the US it requires a special airworthiness certificates. No UAS has one of these certificates therefore no UAS is allowed to fly commercially in the US.

I found the document that you quoted. I consider what you did as selective quoting in taking one sattement out of context. Here is the next sentence which you didn't quote:

However, insofar as those policies reflect regulatory requirements, those requirements are manadatory.

This is referring to the regulatoryrequirements governing civil aircraft ie certification.

The Raphael Pirker is not a test case as to whether or not commercial UAS's are allowed because he was not charged with that. He was charged with 14C.F.R.91.13(a)states that"[n]o person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

NOTE: The term 'drone' is being mis-applied here, just as 'hacker' is mis-used by the general public to mean a bad thing.

  As a rural landowner who also flies Radio-Controlled aircraft and UAVs, I see this issue from several angles.

  - Hunters and fisherman who conduct themselves ethically and within the law deserve to not be disturbed or have their 'prey' scared off.
  - Despite earlier remarks that hunters 'have the right' to hunt/fish unmonitored- this is obviously untrue since game-wardens exist.
  - Simply flying an RC Airplane or AUV with a video downlink does not constitute monitoring or invasion of privacy any more than your next-door neighbor kid in his treehouse. The fact that he may be able to see into your yard or back windows does not give you the right to shoot him dead.
  - UAVs are noisy- too noisy to sneak up on people, but they sure can spook wildlife...
  - This issue is being blown completely out of proportion. Nearly all UAVs are flown for recreational purposes, there are very -very- few UAVs being used anywhere for this or any other surveillance purpose.
  - The odds of ever encountering one of these outside of town is amazingly tiny- the odds that one is being used to monitor your hunting/fishing is orders of magnitude smaller than than your chance of winning the PowerBall lottery.
  - It is foolhardy to use any method (e.g., noisy car stereo, UAV or otherwise) to harass anybody.
  - Although I do not agree with many of the extreme views and methods of PETA, I do feel the use of game-cameras, UAVs, and other methods to substantiate/verify reports of abuse or illegal activity by hunters or polluters is valid and beneficial.
  - Some of my neighbors own small aircraft and have full visibility of my place, they even sometimes do touch-and-go landings on my RC airstrip. Does this bother me? No, its good, friendly fun- we just wave and smile and often take pictures of them (they love the copies! ). If UAVs bother you so much, you can always 'moon' them. ;)
  - This is being used as a diversionary issue for simpletons to get themselves all worked-up over, yet it really has no impact on their lives. It is being used to distract your attention from other more important things. Please pay attention to the man behind the curtains instead...
  - Not all uses of UAVs are so controversial- my neighbors benefit from aerial photos showing which parts of their cotton fields need special attention (insect infestation, weeds, erosion, dry spots, inundation).

Consider: http://www.suasnews.com/2012/01/11389/dallas-meat-packing-plant-investigated-after-drone-images-reveal-pollution

It seems this is more a topic for the FAA vs the state of Illinois. I do recall there being something in FAA FAR's about operation of a drone by commercial entities and that operation requiring a COA for the drone and pilot training.

The very least they could be reported to the FAA for unsafe operation of aerial vehicles.

For an idea google Trappy of Team Black Sheep. http://www.suasnews.com/2013/10/25471/the-faas-complaint-against-trappy/

The QinetiQ Zephyr laughs aloud at this with its two week high altitude endurance record. There are several two day platforms out there, look harder ;-) http://www.suasnews.com/2010/07/470/after-14-nights-in-the-air-qinetiq-prepares-to-land-its-zephyr-solar-powered-unmanned-aircraft/

It's talking about a way of controlling RC aircraft using your smart phone with a map-view control system rather than using a standard stick-controller to control the plane's pitch/yaw/roll using the control surface actuators directly. It's a shame that even software to do basic things like this has to deal with patent crap. Boo software patents!

You're probably right, but I think this does have "regular people" implications beyond paparazzi and government spying.

For instance, I imagine most of us have heard about the repeated issues with anti-hunting activists flying UAV's over a hunt club property to record people hunting. At least four times, hunters have just shot the thing down. The activists complain that the hunters shouldn't be able to damage their uav, where the hunters complain that outside parties shouldn't be harassing people engaging in a legal activity on private property. It's obvious to me that this is the kind of extreme assholery that (perhaps prematurely) forces us to consider what should and shouldn't be ok.

http://www.suasnews.com/2012/11/19719/activists-drone-shot-out-of-the-sky-for-fourth-time/

As someone with a passing interest in hobby UAV's, I don't want to see this kind of thing turn into a government-only, legal nightmare. As a human being, I don't want people being assholes with this technology, as it has gotten ridiculously easy to operate and very inexpensive. Any jamoke can own and operate a quadcopter with an HD camera.

I don't agree or disagree with Schmidt, but while I don't share his specific personal concerns, it's something that's going to have to be dealt with, somehow.

There are people in Texas smart enough to make/run a robotic unmanned drone?

Carmack for one!

I think that this story was on slashdot last year, I wonder if it's related to this law.

But I did, and then browsed around and ran across this totally offtopic but rather cool project. A range finding radar project using tin cans, candar?

http://www.suasnews.com/2012/12/20299/build-a-small-radar-system-capable-of-sensing-range-doppler-and-synthetic-aperture-radar-imaging/

It does carry the X-37. http://www.suasnews.com/2010/10/2374/x-37b-missing-again/
But as the reader below notes - it can't carry the necessary X-37 space booster as well.

A bit re-engineering and you might not be far off - but to do useful shit up there, the X-37 needs manoeuvring fuel too...

This is actually an old story a couple of weeks later very sadly the same type of UAS flew through its control cabin killing the operator. http://www.suasnews.com/2012/05/15515/schiebel-s-100-crash-kills-engineer-in-south-korea/ Don't expect it to be operating in civilian hands until that little issue is sorted out. Schiebel also have to answer questions about the few they sold to China.

Knowing where and when power is used and developing trends based on actual fine-grained information helps the electric grid be run more efficiently. The whole effort in the 2006 energy bill was to reduce the number of power plants and transmission lines the need to be constructed by using the existing facilities more efficiently, and better planning for new facilities. DO you think the power companies are actually going to go through 100Ks of customers to determine when they wake up, do laundry, eat meals, etc...We might need a HIPPA type lay for utility companies to prevent them from selling data to 3rd parties who might be willing to pay a high price for raw meter data, but for the most part people are over-reacting to smart meters. I'd be more concerned about my Sheriff's dept flying a drone over my home (my sheriff's dept in northeast ND actually is http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2012/03/grand_forks_police_to_begin_regularly_using_drones_this_spring.php http://www.suasnews.com/2012/03/12582/grand-forks-sheriff%E2%80%99s-department-launching-uas-program/ )

Predator drones are serious overkill for routine police work, and their purchase and operational costs reflect that.

I've got a sub-$100 RC helicopter with a camera mounted in it. Video quality sucks, it's too light weight to fly anywhere but indoors except on exceptionally calm days, and the range is abysmal. However, with a single order of magnitude increase in acquisition cost, you can buy an off-the-shelf products that will solve most -- if not all -- of those problems. Bump the cost up to two orders of magnitude, and you've got a very capable machine for routine police work. Spend some time poking around on the SUAS News web site, and I think you'll be surprised at the tech that's available at hobbyist -- much less municipal government -- prices.

Don't forget the recent drone competition in Iran which had 65 participants: http://www.suasnews.com/2011/09/8080/iranian-national-uav-competition/

Your only problem is that you think people of the 9th nation which sent satellite to orbit and has 10 million university graduates are stupid and don't understand shit.

In a recent drone competition in Iran 65 teams participated: http://www.suasnews.com/2011/09/8080/iranian-national-uav-competition/

Looking at it http://www.suasnews.com/2011/12/10488/fear-of-iran-makes-us-abort-covert-plan-to-retrieve-spy-drone/ it really does not look real. It also took a couple of days to come to light. My money is on a Predator or Reaper being the downed aircraft, but I stand to be corrected. Just look at the wing joiner, its horrid.

Whilst Europe and Australia enjoy commercial UAS operation the USA are years behind. Both in technology and regulation. Yes there might be lots of military drones but the small civil stuff is rising from the East. The regulators have not even had open discussions yet http://www.suasnews.com/2011/11/10245/uas-arc-2-0/ so January is a silly idea!

They have a news article about this machine and are speculating themselves as to what it might be

http://www.suasnews.com/2011/08/7869/that-mystery-bird-shaped-drone/

Looks pretty close.. http://www.suasnews.com/2010/07/421/afrl-bird-sized-uav-project/

I don't like these guys any more than I like the government and don't trust them any further than I could throw them.

Tassey and Perkins will demonstrate the WASP’s high-flying exploits at next week’s Black Hat Security Conference in Las Vegas...Tassey, a security consultant to Wall Street and the U.S. intelligence community and Perkins, a senior security engineer supporting the U.S. government [emphasis mine]...

In this case, the difference between "hackers" and "the government" appears to be negligible, at best.

That Wii U photo makes it look a whole lot like one of several makes of Small UAV hand controllers.

A lot of work goes into the ergonomics of these things, because soldiers spend a lot of time using them, so there's a reason they all look very similar. Several ergonomic factors, obvious from the convergence of these designs, appear to be universal:

- Touchscreens are sexy but impractical. They're imprecise without a stylus, awkward to hold, and you have to obscure your view of the action to effect a control.
- It's nearly impossible make the screen too large. There's a reason the screen is big and dominates the faces of all of these units.
- Controls are arranged on the sides so that the fingers can take the weight while the thumbs work the controls without requiring the user adjust his grip.
- Control paradigms are borrowed from the original Playstation hand controllers because most users have prior experience with them.
- Light weight tradeoff against battery life, screen size, and ruggedness.

Looks like the convergence is happening from both directions. And it's not surprising because the human interface requirements are very similar in both applications.

It was a fail sadly they are trying again today looks very cool! http://www.suasnews.com/2011/05/5475/human-powered-helicopter-has-part-failure/

It's probably not a question of who may see it, but how much it cost. The gov't (and therefore we) pay a small fortune for every one of these innovative new devices deployed. It's definitely worth while for the gov't to want to go collect a stolen unit, rather than just ordering a new one. According to the USAF, that item cost approximately $173,000

That's a single system cost with bulk discounts. An individual aircraft is much cheaper (?) at only $35,000. That's still far too much considering what's in them - your government could make substantial savings if they hung out on diydrones.com and built their own drones.

A single Raven costs about $35,000 and the total system costs $250,000. The RQ-11B Raven UAV weighs about 1.9 kg (4.2 lb), has a flight endurance of 60–90 minutes and an effective operational radius of approximately 10 km (6.2 miles).

Wow, I get that this has search and rescue applications, but the first time I read it I thought this was developed as a way to kill ejected pilots.

Exactly. I mean, these are *drones*, right? Since when is technology like this actually designed from the get-go for "good"?

Is this some sort of sick joke?

I for one am *not* amused by what is surly once again a sick, sick cruel abuse by the Military-Industrial Complex. Shame on garymortimer for submitting this astroturf, and even more shame on samzenpus for posting it.

They've got to you, haven't they, samzenpus? How much did they pay you?

No its not entirely autonomous, all the pilots hold ATPL licences and are involved in flying other platforms. It met its design criteria and will fly again in the new year for longer. Type in Zephyr at http://www.suasnews.com/ and you will find a video of the take off and landing, sorry I can't seem to paste in a link here. I believe it had enough power left to fly for several weeks more.

The Boeing A160 was taking a trip to Belize before crashing into the rainforest.
That hummingbird has goals for 2,500-mile (4,000 km) range, _24-hour endurance_, and 30,000 ft (9,100 m) altitudes.

But then perhaps its objective was to sip nectar from a rare jungle flower -- IE don't name your UAVs hummingbird for the fun of it.