Slashdot Mirror


Droning On

MagnetarJones writes "Another washingtonpost.com article reports that Federal regulators have begun considering rules that would allow drones, the pilotless planes being used in the war in Afghanistan, to fly in U.S. airspace. Supporters envision the use of drones, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles, for such tasks as moving cargo, pinpointing traffic problems, patrolling the border, searching for fugitives or fighting forest fires..."

5 of 390 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Cargo? by BWJones · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I see these things flying around Indian Springs all the time when I'm driving out the the Test Site, and if they're talking about the Predator model, I really don't see how they would be much use hauling hauling cargo. They're meant to be a fast & light recon plane.

    Ah, yes. I have seen these as well going back years. In fact, drones have been used by the military since the '50's I think, for target testing by converting old fighters (F-4's currently) to remote control. (I also seem to remember my grandfather telling me about a B-17 that was converted to remote control for the testing of some of the first air to air missiles. Additionally, NASA has also outfitted larger planes including a 707 for crash testing. There is nothing that limits the size of a drone and they do not have to be necessarily fast and light to be a recon plane. Look up the Global Hawk and Darkstar to see what I mean.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
  2. Re:What about crashes? by HawkinsD · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder if drones crash more because the penalty for operator error is not FLAMING DEATH.

    Think about it: the ground-based drone operator decides that, due to the staggeringly boring nature of his job, he needs to take a few minutes now and then to smoke a bowl or surf for pr0n.

    Real pilots have a lot more invested in the ship's safe return.

    --
    Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere idiocy.
  3. Re:These drones are way too expensive by acroyear · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Expensive yes, but the lawsuits that happen when people die in crashes are even more expensive. Statistics may say its safer than cars, but stats also say that in 1000 flights, you're gonna have a problem, and 1000 flights in a month is gonna be even more dangerous. Having drones handle high-turnaround flights like dumping water on forest/scrub fires in california seems like a good idea to me...Drones don't get tired of lots of little short-hop flights which can mentally fatigue humans to the point of potential carelessness.

    --
    "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
    -- Joe
  4. Re:So will they blame terrorists... by NineNine · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Thinking" pilots are the cause of most accidents. In the event of a controller fuckup (ie: near collision), the systems on commercial jets tell the pilots what to do. They even talk between themselves (ie: you go up, we'll go down). That's much safer than a pilot taking a 50/50 shot. Hell, read about 3 Mile Island. It happened because of human intervention. If the system was left to it's own accord, nothing bad would've happened at all. What about hijackings? You can't exactly hold a knife to a computer's throat, and no matter how many drunk/unruly passengers you have on a plane, they're not gonna hure the computer.

    In the history of major accidents, human intervention is usually the *cause* of most disasters. I, for one, would feel safer in or under a pilotless plane.

  5. There's a wee bit of difference by Archfeld · · Score: 5, Interesting

    between a war, and a War. Having spent several years in law enforcement, at the street level, I can honestly say the war on drugs is one of the more ignorant things this country has attempted, right up there with prohibition. If we legalized the drugs, regulated the growers, the so-called war on drugs would end next week, with the foriegn suppliers going broke, the US government generating huge funds, the prison population which is nearly 1/3 people involved in stupid possesion crimes, would return to a manageable level. The only real show stopper I can see is an on the spot test for drivers, similar to the DUI field sobriety tests, because NO ONE should operate a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs. The whole concept of the government trying to legislate morality is hypocritical in the extreme. Oh well that's my so-called .02, Happy New Year all and TGIF :)

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?