Slashdot Mirror
Unmanned Aerial Drones Coming Soon Above U.S.
cnet-declan writes "Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been flying over Iraq and Afghanistan, but now the Bush administration wants to use them for domestic surveillance. A top Homeland Security official told Congress today, according to this CNET News.com article, that: "We need additional technology to supplement manned aircraft surveillance and current ground assets to ensure more effective monitoring of United States territory." One county in North Carolina is already using UAVs to monitor public gatherings. But what happens when lots of relatively dumb drones have to share airspace with aircraft carrying passengers? A pilot's association is worried."
At major events in Israel, they already use unmanned blimps to monitor it from a distance. If they can keep it out of commericial airspace, it shouldn't be a problem.
Place a frog in a pan of cold water. He doesn't hop out.
Place a frog in a pan of boiling hot water. He immeadiately hops out.
Place a frog in a pan of cold water, and slowly raise the temperature to boiling. He remains in the pan until being boiled to death.
Place a person in a peaceful, law-abiding (gov. & civilian) society. He doesn't speak out.
Place a person in a totalitarian nightmare. He fights back.
Place a person in a law-abiding society and slowly remove his civil rights bit by bit. He doesn't fight back because "it doesn't affect me" until he is living in a totalitarian nightmare with no rights and no one to back him up.
This is an urban myth, but I get your point.
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
World Trade Center building 7 fell in exactly the same exactly symmetrical way as WTC 1 and 2, and it was NOT hit by an airplane. ALL the collapses looked like controlled demolitions. See the news footage in the movie Loose Change. It is a work in progress, but already very informative.
Why is there always one of these?
Okay, I'll preface this by saying that I'm a leftist, and hate the Bush administration as much as anyone, but there WERE NO FUCKING EXPLOSIVES IN THE TOWERS.
They fell like controlled demolitions because controlled demolitions are implosions. What do you think happens when you heat and soften the trusses on an exoskelital building?
(I'll tell you because you obviously don't know.) The trusses sag and fail causing the outside, load bearing members buckle without their lateral stabilization, the top falls, and the whole thing comes crashing inward.
It's the fire, not the impact that caused the real damage, and if I remember rightly number seven was heavily fire damaged as well. Next time try a little science before breaking out the crackpot conspiricy theories please. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to hate the Bush administration that don't make you look like a nut.
Of course, since UAV communications are though an open standard, you could always try to hook in yourself. Then you can see what 'big brother' is looking at.
This is the TCS specification. Used in the U.S.
This is the NATO standard, a bit newer.
Of course, people should use VPN or similar, but it isn't required.
Not all UAV's are all that expensive really. The Raven UAV used by the US military costs about $35,000. Less than the average squad car and probably much more useful. This is probably the closest thing to what they are talking about using in current use by the US government. It's been used with great success in the field http://www.1id.army.mil/1ID/News/September/Article _06/Article_06.htm . Also, as they are used more widely and production increases, costs to produce them will drop.
Someone save me from this sanity.
Full disclosure up front -- I am an AOPA member.
The issue with UAVs from a pilot's point of view (OK, THIS pilots pov) is mostly one of safety. One of the AOPA articles referenced noted the creation of a TFR, which is a flight-restricted zone of the national airspace. (TFR stands for 'Temporary Flight Restriction')
If a TFR is created, it is the responsibility of the pilot to determine its existence before venturing into that airspace. This is burdensome, but is not difficult. Literally hundreds of resources are available online and via the phone to help pilots plan flights.
For me it isn't a big deal to fire up the computer and check to see if anything is going on that might make for an overly adventursome day in the sky. (I live 100 miles from DC so it is also a way of life for pilots here.) Older pilots, however, have great difficulty adjusting to these TFRs.
Most non-pilots have absolutely no idea how unregulated the vast majority of our airspace is. For example, there is no requirement whatsoever for a personal flight conducted in good weather (VFR) to communicate with air traffic control unless the aircraft ventures into the airspace near a busy airport or flies above 17999 feet. Hell, you are not even required to HAVE a radio or transponder to fly into most of our airports. If you have such equipment (and most planes do) you still don't have to use it unless the specifics of the situation demand it. (Another disclaimer - I do not believe that minimum adherence to the rules results in the safest possible flying conditions. In other words, if you've got a freakin' radio, use it.)
The idea that some podunk police department in NC (not far from where I live!) could have one of these things cruising around at 1000 ft or more is absolutely frightening. Even if I make the required inquiries about how to safely conduct my flight, a non-FAA-regulated aircraft could ruin my day in a hurry, and the podunk police department in question would almost certainly bear no legal liability for my demise since they were operating their UAV in compliance with established law. To their credit, the podunk police department agreed to operate their drones according to the requirements for model aircraft (below 400 ft). This is below the minimum altitude for safe, legal operations unless going that low for reasons necessary for the safe conduct of the flight, i.e. taking off or landing.
On the larger, more philosophical question of whether unmanned spy vehicles should be welcome over our homes, I tend to think the answer is NO. On whether information about all such activities should be made as readily available to pilots as the weather forecast, the answer is undoubtedly yes. And that means national coordination, and that means the FAA.
I'd watch myself if I were you.. these people don't exactly have a sense of humor.
In fact, saying it publically in my town (via letter to the editor) will get you arrested:
http://www.wlio.com/localNews.aspx?NewsID=3246
Classes of US Civil Airspace:
A: 18,000+ feet, IFR flight plan required
B: Major airport (LAX, SEA, ORD, etc.), 10,000 MSL and below
C: Medium airport, usually only to 4,000 AGL
D: Small airport with tower, usually only to 2,500 AGL
E: Everywhere else above 1,200 AGL
G: Everywhere else below 1,200 AGL
You are thinking of Class E and G airspace.
Just remember in Class G to stay *at least* 500 feet from my barn.
MSL = Mean Sea Level
AGL = Above Ground Level
We had a chem/uav unit attached to my scout squadron while i was in the Army. In three years, they crashed four of them. They were completely destroyed. It wasn't always due to pilot error either. Just slightly bad conditions.... like a little wind. In one situation one crashed on this abandoned AF base we were using for urban training... one of our officers was about 100-200 meters from where it crashed... it took out a bunch of a glass in the building in front of it, shrapnel, and whatnot... big mess.
I agree with the sentiment that this whole plan infringes most grievously upon our freedoms, however, this comment is a more than a little asine:
But what happens when lots of relatively dumb drones have to share airspace with aircraft carrying passengers?
UAVs are unmanned in the sense that there is no pilot aboard the aircraft itself. NOT in the sense that they're flying around up there on autopilot, oblivious to other air traffic. A UAV is operated by a trained pilot on the ground. I don't know about these civilian jobbies, but the military ones have radar and IFF transponders so that the pilots can see other aircraft in the area and, just as importantly, other aircraft can see the UAV.
Summary of differences between normal aircraft and UAV:
- UAVs cost far less (no need for a cockpit)
- Pilot avoids hazards normally associated with flying, most of them involving gravity
I'd say it depends. If you have a human monitoring the UAV from the ground, including the ability to detect its position relative to other normal aircraft, then this issue would be less of a concern - except, of course, that its unlikely the UAV could be maneuvered as well as a piloted craft. There is also the issue of whether the pilots of normal aircraft would be able to see it as well as larger aircraft in order to execute THEIR responsibility to see and avoid.
If, however, these things are AI-controlled, that is just braindead. Sooner or later, they'll crash into something they shouldn't. The AI just isn't going to be good enough without decent conceptual processing algorithms.
I'd also say that from the viewpoint of civil rights, the notion that these things are "just another pair of cops eyes" is too simplistic. With sensors and other technology, plus their vantage point, there are considerably more invasive than your average cop on the beat.
I'd suggest everybody watch the movie "Blue Thunder" - this is where the US is heading and it's not a good idea.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Well, you show me the people that had access to the wreckage afterwards, and who inspected it, and what they inspected it for. Put simply, if someone HAD inspected it, we wouldnt be talking about 'theories' of what caused the building to collapse. We would be looking at their emperical data and argueing over that.
Such things take rather a lot of setup to pull off
I guess it would be an advantage if your brother was a principal memeber of the board for the company that provided electronic security to the WTC towers...
But hey, why shouldnt I trust a government? Its not like they never lied about things before
(Waypoint) UAV's tend to navigate via GPS or beacon telemetry, so laser pointers will do squat to them navigation-wise. You'd still have the FAA on your ass for lasing an aircraft, though.
I don't believe that's relevant. I see no mention about aircraft registration requirements in FAA's Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, Chapter 29, Outdoor Laser Operations, mainly laser operation restrictions within certain ranges of airports.
TFR == Temporary Flight Restriction, a short-term restriction on flight in a specified area.
VFR == Visual Flight Rules. Flying by looking out the window rather than using instruments to maintain separation from terrain and other aircraft.
ADIZ == Air Defense Identification Zone. Airspace which is prohibited to aircraft who have not obtained prior authorization. In theory, violators will be shot down.
Part 121 traffic. Dunno.
Part 135 traffic. Dunno.
Class B airspace. Dunno.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Aircraft that are rated for ILS Cat-IIIa/b/c approaches can autoland with flare and rollout. The only thing that the pilot needs to do is pull the throttles over the numbers, and the plane will flare, settle to the runway, and rollout with autobraking (provided that brakes are armed). Cat-IIIc approaches are zero/zero - no decision height and down to zero visibility.
A Cat-III-rated aircraft has multiple, redundant autopilots, at least two of which must be functional and locked in to autoland. There are crosswind limitations, but your example (30KTS at 35 from centerline) is a headwind component of 24KTS and 17KTS crosswind component, both of which are within (for instance) the Cat-III autoland restrictions for the 747 (25KT headwind, 25KT crosswind).
At 3 A.M. you can see people's auras; at five you can see their contrails...
You know, Gaston County is a suburban county just west of Charlotte, NC, part of a metropolitan area with a population of around two million. Hardly "bumblefuck."
So what you are saying is that you think engineers at defence contractors design these vehicles all on their own? So much so, that they don't get *any* input from the US Air Force or FAA? You sir, are a fool. If you do think they get input from the Air Force, do you then think that the Air Force doesn't care about airspace?? I'm wondering how posts like this get modded insightful, really. Have you even read about the Global Hawk or Predator? I'm not going to transcribe their fact sheet here, considering you'll probably not even read it anyway, you'll just not educate yourself and keep posting FUD. Just so you know, the FAA doesn't bend their rules for defence contractors, these UAV's have to abide by every rule a passenger plane does.
Great logic there, you are like a slashdot troll extraordinaire!
Your answer: because the public doesn't even trust computers to handle their banking let alone fly a plane. Trust me, you might have a pilot up there, but many of those planes can handle fine all on their own if the pilot was being lazy. The Global Hawk, when it was still in it's infancy, flew from the U.S. to Australia all on it's own (ok well, not completely true, I think a route had to be picked) setting tons of records for UAV's. Concerning see-and-avoid: what does a human do that's so unique that a UAV can't do?
Here are some links, not that you will read them:
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=1
http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/news/3300/
"We need a fourth law of Robotics: Stop Fingering My Wife"