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."

9 of 841 comments (clear)

  1. Israel does this already... by mongoose(!no) · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Israel does this already... by Keebler71 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I have extensive experience with military UAVs and can address at least a couple of these. Currently the military does control smaller UAVs without rated pilots at the controls provided the UAVs stay within restricted airspace. For Global Hawk, which primarily operates within the FAS but above the jetways, there exists an agreement (COA) that requires the pilots to be commercial-instrument rated. Climbs and descents to/from altitude occur within restricted airspace, but once above, the GH can pretty much go wherever (subject to the same restrictions placed on any other high-altitude aircraft, IFR aircraft). Oh, and the GH pilots are required to fly manned aircraft as well to maintain their proficiency as per the FARs.

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
  2. Re:Well you know that old saying by MyNymWasTaken · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  3. Re:Well you know that old saying by Txiasaeia · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is an urban myth, but I get your point.

    --
    Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
  4. Re:BY and FOR the people? by failure-man · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  5. Re:Goddamn Homeland Security Slush Fund... by Voltageaav · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  6. Re:America's new twist on an old sport by 42Penguins · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  7. Re:Closing down of airspace by zamboni1138 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  8. Re:Who is flying them? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 4, Informative

    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!