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..."

43 of 390 comments (clear)

  1. Great... by elmegil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Who needs cameras on light posts anyway? They're too easy to avoid.....

    --
    7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
  2. Not to mention by Aggrazel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember reading a story about using high altitude aircraft for broadband applications, basically getting most of the benefits of a satelite without a lot of the latency issues.

  3. requisite paranoid response by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They could also be used for crowd control, or spying on dissidents, or attacking remote outposts of constitutionalist militias...

    1. Re:requisite paranoid response by buswolley · · Score: 5, Insightful

      or hacked into and then crashed into buildings in NY

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    2. Re:requisite paranoid response by EvlOvrLrd · · Score: 3, Informative

      To make a satellite 'stationary' above a single geographical point, it would have to be in geo-sync orbit of roughly 22,000 miles. One, I don't think that spy optics are that strong to support such distances in any real-time capacity. Plus, the costs alone to reposition the bird to cover a specific area, makes it financially futile.

      Aircraft will always be more 'affordable' than satellites.

      --


      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear to be bright. Until you hear them speak.
  4. What's the big deal? by release7 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Didn't they just recently invent a drone that could serve as President of the United States?

    --

    <a href="http://www.joblessjimmy.com">Work is dumb and so is Jobless Jimmy.</a>

    1. Re:What's the big deal? by mark_space2001 · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, that was just Al Gore.

    2. Re:What's the big deal? by beta21 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Didn't they just recently invent a drone that could serve as President of the United States?

      Yes but the speach synthesis chip fails from time to time...also the moral setting somehow got soldered on permanently to the hawk setting

  5. Great by Cyclone66 · · Score: 5, Funny

    except that these things still crash occasionally. No one cares if it lands on a afghani mud hut, but if it hits some power lines and crashes to the ground killing some americans in an city that might just be a problem..

  6. These drones are way too expensive by zrodney · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I just saw an article about these drones on another site yesterday. What many of the stories forget to
    mention is that each drone plane costs more than FOUR MILLION DOLLARS, so they are not the inexpensive
    throw-away solution that it appears.

    I think it will be many many years before FedEX and other freight haulers seriously consider using
    something like an unmanned drone for delivery.

    It's much cheaper to hire a pilot and use a plane, or hire a truck, and it will still be much cheaper for a long time to come.

    1. 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
    2. Re:These drones are way too expensive by gUmbi · · Score: 3, Informative


      Typical cargo planes costs dozens to hundreds of millions. Passenger planes are approaching $1B for new models.


      Passenger planes cost $1 billion? Are you high? Try $50 million for an Airbus A320.

    3. Re:These drones are way too expensive by evocate · · Score: 4, Funny

      $4M is the price for spy drones. The freight route from Memphis to Denver has fewer hostile SAM sites to avoid. And the folks in St. Louis are less likely to execute a downed Fedex pilot. The drone makers might lower the price to accomodate the softer market in the less complex and less risky freight hauling market.

      --
      sed 's/terror/commun/g' mccarthy > bush

    4. Re:These drones are way too expensive by canadian_right · · Score: 5, Informative
      747 prices range from 70 to 250 million (frieght only versions seems to be less).
      The a380 airbus lists for around 230 million (most people think this price is subsidised by gov in Europe)
      A brand new Peterbilt tractor is about $90,000 (much less than $500,000!!), and a trailer is only $30,000.

      So... $35 million isn't a bad price for a large jet, but it maybe a bit high for a small one.

      All you people who modded this price list up, should have a look at Google first.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
  7. Great, except the crash rate is high... by User+956 · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is all great, except that during the Kosovo conflict, 10 times as many drones were lost as manned vehicles.

    Three of the Air Force's six Global Hawks, which cost about $35 million a piece, have crashed. About half of the 50 much smaller, $4.5 million Predators have been lost, including some that were shot down, according to the Air Force's own data.

    I don't want to send my packages by drone, thanks.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:Great, except the crash rate is high... by javahacker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is all great, except that during the Kosovo conflict, 10 times as many drones were lost as manned vehicles.
      Isn't that the point. We use them for things that are either risky, or make demands (like many hours on station) that we wouldn't attemp with a crew on board.

      Three of the Air Force's six Global Hawks, which cost about $35 million a piece, have crashed.
      In the same amount of time as those Global Hawks you are talking about, the Air Force had a number of fighter aircraft go down during training missions. Those aircraft cost more than the Global Hawks do, cost way more to run, and involved the loss of some pilots. Aircraft are not risk free, gravity always wins, and sometimes not very nicely.

      About half of the 50 much smaller, $4.5 million Predators have been lost, including some that were shot down, according to the Air Force's own data.
      We send up drones in conditions that we wouldn't send normal aircraft and pilots. The Predators have a limited flying altitude, limited flying speed, limited visibility for the remote pilot, and can't fly above some kinds of weather, which resulted in some of them coming down the hard way. If you need information, you don't want to risk a pilot, or you need on station capabilities that manned aircraft can't give you (like shifts of controllers), you send in a drone. Naturally more of them are lost than piloted aircraft. That's one of the reasons we use them. Remember, in a war situation, someone has to fly in with a helecopter to rescue the downed pilots, risking another multi-million dollar aircraft, and many more soldiers. The drone can be abandoned, people can't be.

    2. Re:Great, except the crash rate is high... by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "This is all great, except that during the Kosovo conflict, 10 times as many drones were lost as manned vehicles."

      What does this have to do with civillian flights? How many UPS planes fly into combat zones regularly?

    3. Re:Great, except the crash rate is high... by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It's called forming an opinion based on facts. Most educated people are familiar with the concept.
      No, in this case it's called plagiarism. The original poster intentionally copied and pasted from the article, changed the word "war" to "conflict", and removed the source reference. Most people, if caught doing this in a university setting, would be kicked out.

      Here is the original text from the article (differences between this and the plagiarized text are bolded):

      During the Kosovo war, 10 times as many drones were lost as manned vehicles, according to a report from Teal Group Inc.. Three of the Air Force's six Global Hawks, which cost about $35 million each, have crashed. About half of the 50 much smaller, $4.5 million Predators, which can get closer to potential targets to send pictures and coordinates, have been lost, including some that were shot down, an Air Force spokesman said.

      Now, the plagiarized text:
      This is all great, except that during the Kosovo conflict, 10 times as many drones were lost as manned vehicles. Three of the Air Force's six Global Hawks, which cost about $35 million a piece, have crashed. About half of the 50 much smaller, $4.5 million Predators have been lost, including some that were shot down, according to the Air Force's own data.

      So this went from a set of quoted statements to a set of unquoted and misquoted statements, with a few occasional word changes. This entirely constitutes plagiarism, and it should not be tolerated by you, me, or slashdot moderators.
  8. 1) light fire. 2) open gas can... by Moray_Reef · · Score: 4, Funny

    Have you ever met a radical gun 'nut' who said that we all needed the right to have anti-aircraft guns for home defense??

    THIS IS WHY.

    The following is just a sig. (And truer everyday.)

    --
    If you voted for Nader, THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT!!
  9. 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.
  10. Patrolling the Border by PM4RK5 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... won't be the only application; you can bet they'll be patrolling internal areas too.

    I don't mean to be a pessimist, but patrolling the border will most likely be one of many surveillance applications. Especially with the growing 'power' (so to speak) of the FBI, NSA, and other government agencies, there is a high likelihood that these will end up being used for domesetic spying too.

    Are you a suspected terrorist? I'll bet these will show up shortly.

    Supporters, of course, won't point out this application, for one of two reasons. One is that it never occurred to them, so they support it blindly, or they're such ardent supporters that they're ignoring and/or accepting this use.

    I have nothing against unmanned aircraft, I think they have many wonderful applications. It's just there are some less-than-desirable applications, which we must all be aware of. They're just like guns - they have good applications (sports) and bad applications (as a lethal weapon); the better applications such as traffic monitoring are great, but it's potential uses as a spying mechanism are somewhat unnerving.

    We've just got to be careful how we monitor the use of these. Just my $0.02.

    I will now prepare for my first flamebait mod.

  11. 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.
  12. So will they blame terrorists... by gillbates · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When one goes out of control and crashes into a commercial passenger jet?

    The problem with drones is that they don't have a thinking pilot. Where as two pilots will do everything in their power to avoid a midair collision, a drone is not even aware that a collision is imminent in such a situation. Which basically leaves the pilot in the situation of having to "guess" which way the drone will steer next.

    Now it is possible that these drones are radio controlled, however, that's even worse, as the terrorist will need do little more than hack the signal and fly the drone into a commercial aircraft, all from the safety of their white van...

    Either way, it's a terrible safety threat. To allow unmanned drones to fly in U.S. airspace is bad safety practices at best, and potentially deadly at worst.

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    1. 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.

    2. Re:So will they blame terrorists... by gilroy · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Blockquoth the poster:

      "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.

      Indeed, in that awful crash over (IIRC) Sweden last summer, it turned out that the pilot of one plane chose to listen to the human traffic controller (who did not have the right information) and to ignore the onboard system (which was giving the right instructions)...

      But why stop there? The cause of almost all vehicular accidents on the highways is human error. In a century of automobile engineering, the only system that has failed to become safer is the driver. I think, seriously, that we should be working hard on removing humans from that loop.

  13. I'm all for it by jmb-d · · Score: 4, Funny

    Supporters envision the use of drones, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles, for such tasks as moving cargo, pinpointing traffic problems

    Yep, there's the problem right there; that clown in the Beemer that just cut me off.

    Target lock acquired.... *poof*

    Problem solved!

    --
    In walking, just walk. In sitting, just sit. Above all, don't wobble.
    -- Yun-Men
  14. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  15. In other news.... by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 3, Funny

    recent sales of ESTES model rocketry kits have skyrocketed in apparent attempts to make shoulder based rocket lauchers young domestic terrorists (previously known as teenagers) have been trying to shoot down the drones seen flying over american neighborhoods. These drones have been enlisted to keep a watchful eye in "Operation Neighborhood Surveillance" but recently have come under attack as many of americans youth sees the drones as model aircraft targets for saturday afternoon rocketry studies.

    Seriously though, do we really need this? I just see these as prime targets for getting your hands on some really great RC plane gear.

  16. Finally by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 3, Funny

    At long last a brilliant technology has arrived that will enable society to lower the salaries of overpaid pilots worldwide. In as little time as one decade, no more $100k-200k per year hotshot airliner pilots! wh00 h00!!

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
  17. This will interfere with the Black Helicopters by burgburgburg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But at least the drones will be armed with missles, as opposed to the helicopters which are just filled with multinational troops armed to the teeth. A few of those missles can sure clear up a traffic jam caused by those the administration have determined to be so obviously guilty that no trial is necessary. So don't even ask about it.

  18. Sober drones? by supabeast! · · Score: 4, Funny

    How about replacing drunk, overworked, sleep-deprived pilots?

  19. Need better air traffic computers first! by dpbsmith · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Before adding to the air traffic control load, it might be a good idea to wait until the FAA has worked the bugs out of their controversial new STARS gear. Critics say it doesn't work and is being rushed into operation...

  20. yeah but.... by _avs_007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What's the cargo capacity on one of those drones? I don't think FedEx will replace its 747 with those anytime soon. Its like saying look, this miata is bunches cheaper then that cargo-bus... Lets get Greyhound to swap out their fleets of busses with these self-driving miatas :)

    1. Re:yeah but.... by MyHair · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's the cargo capacity on one of those drones? I don't think FedEx will replace its 747 with those anytime soon.

      There's nothing particularly special about a small drone versus a large drone. The big planes already have autopilot for mostly straight flight and automated landing systems. Many newer large aircraft can land themselves in zero-visibility weather at properly equiped airports.

      The issues I see are safety concerns and public outcry. I'm not sure where I stand on this issue; I intuitively feel that it's better to have a human at the controls, but most aviation accidents are human errors. The control systems are redundant, and almost always it's two or three human mistakes together that cause a crash. (Some of these mistakes are maintenance mistakes, though, and the drone mechanics will presumably still be human.)

      And the cargo companies will probably be the first to fly drones. People are nervous about what they fly on, but cargo doesn't complain or care. And jet pilots are expensive and spoiled and bratty and demanding, generally speaking. The only roadblocks for cargo companies will be the public complaining they don't want a 200,000 lb plane falling out of the sky onto their houses.

  21. Already happened... by Glock27 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

    This is already happening. At least I presume the Global Hawk flew through U.S. airspace to get from Edwards to Alaska. ;-)

    Actually, Global Hawk flights over the continental US are now routine as I understand it. And these are not small drones, witness:

    Global Hawk:
    Wing span: 116 ft
    Length: 44 ft
    Height: 15 ft
    Performance Goals
    Range: 12,500 nmi
    Approx. Endurance: 35 hrs
    Endurance @1200nm: 24 hrs
    Altitude: 65,000 ft
    True Airspeed: 335 kts
    Gross T/O wt: 26,750 lbs
    Payload wt: 2,000 lbs
    Payloads: EO/IR and SAR

    I have no problem with this personally, but I can see how some might get a little nervous. ;-)

    --
    Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
    Score: -1 100% Flamebait
  22. Yes... Cargo. by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 5, Funny
    By "Cargo" they mean "Tear Gas" and/or "Hellfire Missles". Better not protest anything in public.

  23. Innocent until proven guilty ?? by Archfeld · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who doesn't deserve a trial ? You ? Who are we at war with ? I don't seem to recall congress declaring war, so the BEST we could have is a police action against an indeterminate group without a nationality. Don't get me wrong, we should be fighting terrorism but this "war" is a very poor attempt to cover up a grab for oil. If we were REALLY interested in weapons of mass destruction we'd be paying MUCH CLOSER attention to the former Soviet Union's arms and where they are going, not to mention Pakistan and India. This will be referred to as the Oil War in the future I bet, and I really doubt GWB will be remembered fondly in the years to come by anyone not a member of the Oil Cartel. The rest of us will recall him as the President who sold the US to the corp's for a bag of magic seeds. Speaking as someone who is disgusted with the Feds reversal of nearly every environmental edict on the books, the US is marching backwards in lock step stupidty.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  24. Re:Shoe on other Foot? by dougmc · · Score: 3, Interesting
    RC helis and planes over things like area 51, the White House...
    I suspect that the MIBs would get you *in seconds* if you flew a R/C plane anywhere near these places.

    It's possible to fly a R/C plane using only the view from the camera (and not being able to see the plane) but it's certainly not easy. People have made autopilots for R/C planes (and even tried to fly them across the Atlantic) but there's still many hurdles to overcome.

    At least someone could make a hobby of dogfighting the drones...
    You're probably already aware of this, but others may not be ...

    People do that now with R/C planes. Either they shoot beams of light at the other plane or they try to cut a ribbon trailing from the other plane, or they'll even deliberately ram your plane and try to make it crash.

    I haven't tried it myself (I usually just fly around and poke holes in the sky) but hope to someday. Need to make a nice slope soaring combat wing and try the `full contact' style at the local slope ...

  25. Just about true by lpret · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually, you're not far off...
    My brother is an intel officer in the USAF, and he told me about how all the pilots are b*tchin about how they are going to be reduced to remote-controlled airplane pilots just like their 8-year-old son. There's an on-going investigation into some pilots who may have purposefully crashed their drones to "demonstrate" how bad they are and how we still need planes...

    --
    This is my digital signature. 10011011001
  26. I think it's wonderful and could be cost effective by mtec · · Score: 3, Funny

    Drones in the air will mean less people at risk, safer borders, and a safer country. And hey! Let's cut the cost a bit by having them pull advertising banners!

    A - S A F E R - A M E R I C A - - - B R O U G H T - T O - Y O U - B Y - P I Z Z A - H U T

    pulled by a 3.7 million dollar plane ... I can see it now.

    Or better yet, they'll do surveillance and transmit broadband signals!

    This is America, don't dare us - we'll call you on it.

    --
    Cake or Death? Cake Please!
  27. 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 ?
  28. This has been happening for quite a while now by endikos · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's actually quite a bit of work being done to try and enable UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) to fly in the National Airsapce System without danger to other aircraft and the ground. Very cool systems are being developed to integrate them into normal airspace traffic; systems which allow them to communicate with air traffic control, "see" other aircraft and respond to them (SAA or see and avoid systems), contingency equipment for communications failures etc. It's really some fascinating stuff. I work along side one of the groups comissioned by NASA to develop a "cradle to grave" roadmap which outlines the steps that would be necessary to certify UAVs, individually and as classes of aircraft, from inception to the junkyard. One of the reports that goes with that roadmap is the concept of operations. For more information, you may want to check out AUVSI or google for "Unmanned Systems".

  29. Something to control them by Torgo's+Pizza · · Score: 5, Funny

    You know, the government needs to have some computer system to control all these flying drones. That way it'll be totally automated. They could call it, oh I don't know... SkyNet. Put some artifical intelligence in it and it'd be great system. Although I bet it wouldn't be until 2029 when a system like this really gets going.