Aerial Drones To Help Cops In Miami

Catoonsis writes "Reuters is reporting that 'Miami police could soon be the first in the United States to use cutting-edge, spy-in-the-sky technology to beef up their fight against crime.' The police force is planning to make use of a small aerial drone, capable of hovering and quick maneuvers, to monitor the Miami-Dade area and alert officers of potential problems. The device, manufactured by Honeywell, is awaiting FAA approval before it can be put into use. This decision is just the latest chapter in the developing relationship between law enforcement and robotic assistants. 'U.S. Customs and Border Protection has been flying drones over the Arizona desert and southwest border with Mexico since 2006 and will soon deploy one in North Dakota to patrol the Canadian border as well. This month, Customs and Border Protection spokesman Juan Munoz Torres said the agency would also begin test flights of a modified version of its large Predator B drones, built by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, over the Gulf of Mexico.'"

Comments

Car chases are going to get even better!

[binaryspiral]

I'm going to start tuning into more car chase coverage on the news if those drones are packing a pair of hellfires!

Yes, yes... I'm sure they'll be unarmed, or at least the ones they show you up close.

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[jb68321]

I'm going to start tuning into more car chase coverage on the news if those drones are packing a pair of hellfires!

Yes, yes... I'm sure they'll be unarmed, or at least the ones they show you up close. RTFA. The thing is only 18.5 lb when fully loaded with fuel, and that wiki you link to says Hellfires are at least 99lb, with >18lb warheads. The weight alone doesn't make sense... remember this thing flies/hovers.

More like "Landing airliner collides with drone. 400 dead. Including 10 on the ground. The drone was mistakenly armed with nuclear weapons and exploded when the drone crashed, killing 50,000 more". I think dropping tear gas capsules would be a lot more likely than sending off missiles/nuclear arms anyways.

And this thing is "designed to fly between ground level and 500 ft," which tells me that it'll be rather easy to keep away from light aircraft. Sure, it can go up to 10,500 ft in optimal conditions, but what good would that do? That'd be an enormous amount of climbing time for such a small vehicle, wasting tons of fuel. Especially in the heat of Miami, they'll probably keep it as low as possible. A 747 or some such large passenger aircraft, weighing between 735,000 and 970,000 lb, would probably suffer minimal damage if it ran into something like this anyways. I believe they still do the frozen chicken tests during engine design.

Here's a more informative video and website:
video
website

I hate the idea of this thing buzzing around, and it sure is ugly, but I think it's silly to think they'll throw it in front of light aircraft, which is the only way you'd really hit it... assuming only the police are using the drone. If some media/photography groups get a hold of this, sure it'll become a huge issue as it'll be everywhere and anywhere without warning. More likely it'll be infringing on your personal space rather than aircraft (ie back yard, parks, shopping areas). But given the crowd down in Miami, unless it's bullet-proof, it won't last very long.

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[cayenne8]

"I hate the idea of this thing buzzing around, and it sure is ugly, but I think it's silly to think they'll throw it in front of light aircraft, which is the only way you'd really hit it... assuming only the police are using the drone. If some media/photography groups get a hold of this, sure it'll become a huge issue as it'll be everywhere and anywhere without warning. More likely it'll be infringing on your personal space rather than aircraft (ie back yard, parks, shopping areas). But given the crowd down in Miami, unless it's bullet-proof, it won't last very long."

Hmm...next item on ThinkGeek.com, personal anti-drone missle.

:-)

Seriously, I wonder how long it will be before they have to pass a special law making it against the law to shoot these things down?

I wonder how long it will be before some enterprising civilians hack into this thing and take over control? I'm sure it will have to be some type of radio controlled thing...should be easy to jam its signal, eh?

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[electrictroy]

They wouldn't need these drones if they Decriminalized drugs and made them available via doctor's prescription.

The drug runners business would dry up.

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[TheGavster]

I've always said that CVS is a lot less likely to stage a driveby shooting of Walgreens than Racially Neutral Name 1 is to stage a driveby of Racial Neutral Name 2's illicit drug operation.

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[Omestes]

They wouldn't need these drones if they Decriminalized drugs and made them available via doctor's prescription.

Off topic, but one problem with this; I really doubt that most people do drugs for health problems, though those that do should probably get them, granting that full medical studies would be needed. I really don't see my average pothead freind going to a doctor, then a pharmacy just to get a bag of weed he could probably still got on the street cheaper.

I say cheaper, since it seems classifying drugs as pharmacudicals would raise the price, just look at the average cost of American prescriptions.

I think in the dim possibility of legalized drugs they should be handled like alcohol in the states that still have state governed distribution, or like the shops in Amersterdam.

That said, I rather doubt the wisdom of legalizing ALL drugs, pot probably should be legal, but heroin less so. We should definatly not go after users though, and basically decriminalize small quanities of drugs so we can instead focus more on the supply chain, clear up the people that don't belong in our prison system, and divert some man power to keeping the druggies safe (clean needle exchange, better rehab and treatment programs, etc..), at least.

Back on topic: I don't know whether to put on my tinfoil hat or not on this story. The police already have plenty of survelience in the air in the form of helicopters, adding unmanned drones doesn't seem that big of a move. That said, helicopters generally go where the crime is, instead of generalized survalience, if these drones acted the same way I wouldn't worry. But if they hover around looking for crime, then I worry.

Why, also, do the police need drones? I can see in combat situations where they exist to keep the pilots out of danger (dead technology is worth less than dead people), but I don't see this true in metropolitan areas. I don't think Floridian cities are so crime ridden as to the point where the criminals have an ample supply of shoulder-fired missles. How many police helicopters have been shot down in Miami in the last ten years?

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[c6gunner]

Seriously, I wonder how long it will be before they have to pass a special law making it against the law to shoot these things down?

A special law? Do you have any idea how many existing laws you'd break by shooting down one of these over a populated area? Last I checked the unsafe discharge of a firearm, destruction of government property, and public endangerment are all illegal in most cities/states.

Not to mention that the Department of Homeland Security would probably drop by, looking to "get to know you" in the biblical sense....

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[Some_Llama]

"The drug runners business would dry up."

As well as gangs and their warfare. Why doesn't anyone else see this when reports of gang violence on the rise is shown nightly on the news?

Oh yah because our own government has a media campaign aimed at convincing us that drug use makes you a bad person (unless it's pharmaceutical, then it's fine, esp for wieners).

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[easyTree]

Your government wants you to be afraid of the gangs - that way you'll turn to them for help and they can exploit you (at the very least financially) in the name of helping you. If they wanted a peaceful and caring society for all, there would be one.

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[armada]

Fact: I have never met someone that does not do drugs because they are illegal. Fact: I do not do drugs quite simply because the risk/reward ratio is not appealing to me. And by risk I mean health risk not jail risk. Full disclosure, I race offroad and supersport motorcycles. In that case risk/reward works out for me. Note to self (I live in Miami) I wonder what the range of my paintball gun is when fired stright up?

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[DavidShor]

"I say cheaper, since it seems classifying drugs as pharmaceuticals would raise the price, just look at the average cost of American prescriptions."

Once a drug is approved for one use (Say... lymphoma or thyroid cancer), loopholes allow for the drug to be prescribed for "off-label" uses. Such prescriptions become legal, but there can be liability issues if something happens to the patient (And these are mostly skirted if there are any studies to back it up).

For example, anti-depressants are often prescribed to treat ADD, even though they were never (to my knowledge) approved for such. In the same vein, there is no reason to assume that Marijuana would be prescribed for back pain, stress, depression, etcs.

Doctors most likely go along with such requests, happy to receive the office pay premium from insurance companies, and secure in the knowledge that Marijuana's non-toxicity mostly protects them from lawsuits. (If this doesn't seem plausible, see how freely amphetamines and pain killers are prescribed, despite far higher risks)

Obviously, people are not going to all go to their doctor to get some weed. But the number of legal semi-legitimate Marijuana users will drastically increase. Once this hits a critical mass, the means of obtaining Weed for illicit purposes changes drastically. Teenagers will begin to steal from their parent's weed stash, instead of buying from dealers. College students and adults will probably start sharing weed with their friends.

With that, the demand for illegal marijuana production most likely will not be enough to cover fixed costs.

"Why, also, do the police need drones? I can see in combat situations where they exist to keep the pilots out of danger (dead technology is worth less than dead people), but I don't see this true in metropolitan areas. I don't think Floridian cities are so crime ridden as to the point where the criminals have an ample supply of shoulder-fired missiles. How many police helicopters have been shot down in Miami in the last ten years?"

And as a Miami resident, I'll say that Miami has somewhat corrupt local government and a large inflow of Federal Homeland security funds. This leads to a lot of wasteful projects.

More seriously, Miami has a serious problem with urban balkanization, where most of the police belong to extremely small cities (Mine has 300 residents) that exist for tax purposes. The unified Miami-Dade police force has a very hard time projecting its force throughout the country for this reason. So it's not hard to imagine that this is meant to counter that.

Re:Car chases are going to get even better!

[Eivind]

Making something a drug makes it more expensive, true. But legalizing it makes it much cheaper. Pot is kinda a special case since it's a common plant that grows by itself more or less in most climates. There's a reason it's also known as "weed".

But heroin, cocain and the like cost orders of magnitude over production-cost. Because they are illegal and need to be smuggled in or produced in secret at significant risk.

There are two sides to this, damage to the addicts, and to society. The damage to the addicts is similar if they take similar doses of the same drug, actually probably sligthly lower if legalized because of less overdoses from unknown-strength drugs etc.

Damage to society is today tremendous.

Street-price is somewhere around $100/g, yeah it can vary WILDLY over the map as supply and demand fluctuates, but it's a guesstimate as good as any.

A junkie may consume 2g/day, which works out to $6000/month or thelike, which he/she won't be able to finance legally unless they're well-off, especially since using drugs ain't precisely likely to boost your earnings-potential.

So, there are various low-level crimes commited, by the boatload. Damages are typically MUCH higher than the $6000/month, because replacement-cost is much higher than second-hand value on the black market.

A junkie breaks into your car, damaging the lock in the process, and steals your GPS-unit and stereo. You pay $300 for a new similar GPS, $200 for a new similar stereo and $100 to have the car-lock replaced. A loss of $600, plus the time and annoyance-factor. The junike sells the equipment to some shady character for $75, if that. Having caused 8 times the damage, comapred to the cash gained.

If he/she keeps doing that, the damages caused over a month, just to finance the $6000/month drug-addiction adds up to aproximately $50000/month or $600000/year

That is the cost of a SINGLE junkie that finances the drugs with petty theft. A gargantuan sum.

There's no reason to think heroin should be very different in cost from morphine, if both where legalized. A single user-dose costs something like $0.75 so we're talking $1200/year versus $600000/year, a rather significant difference.

The reason the Predator flies only over desert

[DustyShadow]

There's a reason why the Predator stays over the desert. Predators have crashed numerous times and do not have FAA approval to fly over populated areas in the US. Do we really think this thing from Honeywell that most definitely has less flight time than the Predator is air-worthy enough to fly over a super populated area like Miami? If this thing crashes and kills someone, I hope the city is sued into oblivion.

Re:The reason the Predator flies only over desert

[autocracy]

1. The article states that this is "pending FAA approval"
2. This is only like the Predator in that it is a drone. Since the thing is capable of hovering, it's not the same design at all. See picture in TFA.

Re:The reason the Predator flies only over desert

[TripMaster Monkey]

The device featured in the article only weighs 18 pounds fully loaded. While this weight plummeting from a height is sufficient to kill anyone directly below, the risk is much less than that of a Predator drone crashing and burning on the streets of Miami.

I'm more concerned about plans to have drones of this sort fitted with Taser rounds, myself.

Re:The reason the Predator flies only over desert

[mea37]

"Something that big dropping on your head from even a few feet up could easily kill you."

So can a car, but I doubt we'll be outlawing those.

I'm not really convinced either way on the safety of this plan. The FAA will decide whether it's safe enough to approve, and while I don't know that I can trust their judgement 100%, it's far from the first time my safety has been impacted by their decisions.

So, pending more information, I'm not alarmed by the "crashing drones" issue.

Re:The reason the Predator flies only over desert

[clampolo]

It doesn't sound as bad as I thought from the title of the article. Seems they are just going to use it for tactical situations. So if there is a hostage situation, they can send up one of these things over the area to get a better view of the situation. Seems pretty useful: if you are sending in a SWAT team, you could quickly notify them if someone with a gun jumped out a window and is hiding in some bushes.

The only danger is that they decide to expand the program and start having these things all over the place. Or what if they use them to videotape people peacefully protesting to get a list of "trouble makers" for the FBI to keep tabs on.

Re:The reason the Predator flies only over desert

[cayenne8]

"The only danger is that they decide to expand the program and start having these things all over the place. Or what if they use them to videotape people peacefully protesting to get a list of "trouble makers" for the FBI to keep tabs on."

What do you mean "if"?

The list of laws and powers that have NOT been escalated and used far beyond their original intent is a very short one indeed.

If they get these, I can assure you they will expand the program to catch all the terrorists, and child abductors. I mean...you wouldn't be against that would you? Sure....we'll just leave them up all the time, all over the place, just in case...

Why the Canadian border?

[GroeFaZ]

To keep US citizens in?

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[Reziac]

THIS is what makes it so obvious that all this "Homeland Security" is primarily *against U.S. Citizens*, not against external threats:

Canada is our FRIEND. Canada has not offered us violence, or a flood of illegal aliens, or a torrent of criminals, or anything worse than the occasional pot smuggler or draft-dodger haven. Canada has been our defense partner for decades, and is consistently our best friend in the world. That Canada is sometimes called "the 51st State" is not entirely a joke.

There is absolutely NO reason that Canadian/U.S. border control should be anything but a smile and a wave whether you're entering or leaving either country -- much as it was through all of the previous century.

The current situation, requiring a passport to visit Canada, tells me that it is WE THE PEOPLE who are regarded as Enemies of the State, and that any border surveillance is designed to keep us in, as much as to keep threats out.

Doesn't *anyone* remember the Iron Curtain or the Berlin Wall??

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[LoudMusic]

There is absolutely NO reason that Canadian/U.S. border control should be anything but a smile and a wave whether you're entering or leaving either country -- much as it was through all of the previous century. It's pretty easy to get into Canada, especially from the north, and if you can get into Canada undetected it would then be pretty easy to get into the United States through Montana, North Dakota, or Minnesota.

The security departments aren't trying to protect the United States from Canadians - they're trying to protect the US from people who enter the US through Canada.

Have you ever played Risk, the board game? Just because you have an alliance with your neighbor doesn't mean some jackass can't storm through his territory and blitz your ass.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[MicktheMech]

It's pretty easy to get into Canada, especially from the north

A.k.a. the Arctic. A bit more difficult than the Rio Grande, not to mention the only threat around the Pole is Russia. That's why we have NORAD. Also, any argument along this line applies equally to Alaska. Furthermore, there are two major vectors for illegal immigrants into Canada. Smugglers from China (which also applies to the U.S. West coast) and believe it or not, illegals entering through the U.S.

The security departments aren't trying to protect the United States from Canadians - they're trying to protect the US from people who enter the US through Canada.

Have you ever played Risk, the board game? Just because you have an alliance with your neighbor doesn't mean some jackass can't storm through his territory and blitz your ass.

This is complete rubish. The only practical effect of the heightened security has been to cost money and jobs on both sides of the border. The only explanation for why it's done is because politicians can score easy points on their "security" record to tout in the next election. Unfortunately it seems to work because most Americans appear to believe that every border is the Mexican border.

Just to top it off, one of the biggest domestic issues here is how to deal with guns being smuggled in from the U.S.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[JrOldPhart]

Legalize it. Tax it.

Legal items are much more easily controlled. Just like the end of prohibition ended most of the black market for liquor.

Re:Why the Canadian border?

[Reziac]

"Just to top it off, one of the biggest domestic issues here is how to deal with guns being smuggled in from the U.S."

Let me guess, this started with some new Canadian gun control laws that I don't know about?

=======

Back to the rest of your post... Aside from all the reasons you cite as to why this is rubbish, it can be directly harmful to Americans:

There is at least one place where to get from Point A, Maine, to Point B, Maine, the road passes briefly through Canadian territory (probably because the area is nothing but rocks and there's no other practical route). In the early stages of the new border restrictions, there was a case where an ambulance going from A to B was stopped at the border (where the road kinked into Canada) and held for some time while officialdom figured out what to do. I don't recall whether the person the ambulance was sent for died or not.

"...most Americans appear to believe that every border is the Mexican border."

Actually, no. I can't think of a single person I know who isn't appalled by the stupidity of restricting the U.S./Canadian border. However, Officialdom (which seldom represents the actual Will of the People anymore) is certainly trying to make it APPEAR to be as much of a problem as the Mexican border... ...but just wait til NAFTA and the Corridor makes that a reality!! Can't sneak across the Mexican border? So ride a truck north with your buddy, get off in Winnepeg, and trot back across the Parallel at your leisure (being the central Parallel is a couple thousand miles of nothing-much and no major physical barriers).

Great

[tweak13]

So if I'm ever flying over Miami in a light plane I can look forward to trying to dodge robotic aircraft that could change direction with no advance warning and tear right through my aircraft. There's a reason you won't see UAV's getting FAA approval anytime soon, they are a serious hazard to air navigation. Visual navigation of aircraft requires just that, vision. Until they have a "see and avoid" system that's foolproof they aren't fit to share airspace where human lives are at stake.

Re:Great

[Walt Dismal]

Top 5 reasons to use drones over Miami:

5) Nude sunbathing: encouraged by Miami PD!

4) It's not noisy enough, we need small jets hovering outside the bedroom window at 3AM chasing pot smokers!

3) Proof of concept that Windows Vista, Mobile Edition is totally safe in unmanned drones, except when the DRM turns on!

2) Easier to catch 93-year men soliciting hookers!

and the #1 reason to use robotic drones:

1) Seagulls, eat leaden death!

One Critical Point

[autocracy]

The unit will weigh 14 pounds. This is close to the capsule weight permitted to be launched via balloon with no FAA control. (yay scientific ballooning).

Horatio Caine will be pleased

[themushroom]

Because he's only one omnipotent man. *pulling off sunglasses*

Is it just me?

[zappepcs]

This is going to stop what kind of crime? Are they going to spot bank robbers in their hideout planning to rob banks? Are they going to stop illegals from going to work? What exactly are they planning to stop?

If it's drug crimes.. well, think of the children.... sigh

Oh wait!

"We intend to use this to benefit us in carrying out our mission," he added, saying the wingless Honeywell aircraft, which fits into a backpack and is capable of vertical takeoff and landing, seems ideally suited for use by SWAT teams in hostage situations or dealing with "barricaded subjects." Clearly they are going to use it for drug busts... nice. Wonder where the police departments would spend all that money if they didn't have to fight drug crimes because some of them had been made legal? The espionage on private citizens elevates continuously in the war on drugs, war on crime, war on civil liberties without making anyone safer IMO. They already use helicopters, now this will put the capability of putting an eye in the sky in multiple locations without the expense of a helicopter and raise the danger level to ordinary citizens most likely.

Perhaps I'm cynical, but wasn't the last great advance for police forces the taser? Yep, that worked out pretty good, don't you think?

And so beings the drone wars

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

If these drones become wide-spread, I predict that any sophisticated "bad guys" - i.e. drug runners and coyotes - will quickly get their own drones.

Maybe they won't be equipped with cameras, they'll probably be just run of the mill R/C helicopters. But they will be sufficient to take out any drones within visible range - just crash the R/C helicopter into the police drone to take it out of commission. If you miss, you just come back for another pass. Worst case, you keep the drone busy dodging the R/C helicopter instead of watching the goings on and best case you get a firey explosion in the sky. It will only take a few $500 R/C helicopter versus $50,000+ drone encounters before the police run out of drones.

Re:And so beings the drone wars

[ChrisA90278]

Why bother with an R/C aircraft? A hunting rifle with a scope would kill a drone a lot easier. A more sophisticaled attack would be to jam the drones's radio reciever so it could not be commanded from the ground.

Actually I think these will be used just like helicopers are used but maybe at 10X less cost.

They didn't show the stealth attachment

[GameboyRMH]

They'll hang a cardboard cutout from the bottom of it that looks like a seagull. Then nobody will be able to prove that the fuzzy thing they have on film is a UAV.

"Look! I taped it this time, there it is!"

"That's not a UAV, it's obviously a seagull."

"Well what's that thing on top?"

"It's a weather balloon"

"Tied to the seagull's back?"

"Yes, it's obviously part of a wildlife experiment in seagull migration"

"That's ridiculous!"

"And you mean to tell me that the government's spying on you for no reason? Man, you're paranoid."

"It's a UAV I tell you! It's out there in that exact spot EVERY DAY!"

"Pfft, you need to chill dude. Crack open a cold one and watch some TV. TV's good."

Re:"Tragedy struck Miami this morning...

[ubrgeek]

Great. Now we've got something else we need to accidently ship to Taiwan ... :)

Deja vu all over again

[More_Cowbell]

I thought this sounded a bit familiar.

Has anyone heard any news on the LA ones, success or failure?

Personally, I'm not a big fan of more surveillance, though it seems inevitable. What politician (local or national) would stand up and say more cameras in (fill in the blank - schools, roads, public places, etc) is a bad idea. I mean it's all for our safety right? Think of the children and all that?

At least with the stationary cameras you know when you are being monitored.

Could be worse...

[Dareth]

It could be much worse than hellfire missiles. Just hope the drone doesn't use "helicopter batteries"!

In use in Amsterdam

[Teun]

I don't want to melt an unsuspecting blogger's server so I'll just say search for Amsterdam police uses drone.

In the blog is a link to a BBC clip showing the drone like used in Amsterdam.
It is build by "Microdrones" in Germany and costs around $2,000.

Frog gigging

[Ethanol-fueled]

What happens when you cut its strings(jam the signal)? Will it have a hover failsafe, or will it fall straight to the ground? That could become a new sport similar to frog giggin': first you jam the signal(shine the flashlight into its eyes), then you spear it(shoot it down). You could then cook it in a fire or mount it on the wall as a trophy.

Re:Frog gigging

[Some_Llama]

I would think in the absence of signal it would be designed to keep current altitude and then circle in widening patterns until it got a new signal, i mean they obviously have to plan for sporadic interference anyway, this would seem the most logical design?

Article on one page, not 3!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USN1929797920080326
I wish article submitters, or the editors, would publish stuff on /. linking to the 1 page versions of articles. That whole trick of spreading an article over many pages just for ad impressions is just BS!

Re:Article on one page, not 3!

[phantomcircuit]

Maybe next time you criticize you could get it right yourself? http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1929797920080326?sp=true

Re:ACLU to the rescue?

[scubamage]

When you have to show your ID to go down the street, get validation from the US central database about your working at your current employer, and have every conversation logged and picked apart by the government you'll be thinking, "man, maybe those ACLU guys were right..." when someone comes to black bag you. But its ok, because the 'war on crime,' 'war on drugs,' and war on 'terrorism' will justify it... nevermind the fact that you can't really win a war on an idea.

Re:ACLU to the rescue?

[muellerr1]

Your post smells trollish, but I'll answer anyway. The ACLU statement was that they'd like to see the use of these things regulated so they aren't used to violate your rights. They are not categorically opposed to its use.

The goal of the ACLU isn't to make it easier to commit crimes, it is to ensure that you don't lose your rights to the pursuit of criminals. Sure, a police state would be easier to run and traditional crime might plummet, but is that really the kind of country you want to call your own?

Re:ACLU to the rescue?

[scubamage]

They don't, but they are the sole arbiters and interpreters of the constitution. In Katz they ruled that the fourth amendment protects people in any situation where they feel they would have a reasonable expectation to privacy, which can include anything from whispering to speaking guardedly in a phone booth with the door shut. EG: we do have a right to privacy so far as the 4th amendment, and it is also held that a right to privacy is inherent in common law. I believe you are reading the constitution incorrectly - it does not list what rights people have, but what rights the government does not have.

Return To Base Failsafe

[clbyjack81]

What happens when you cut its strings(jam the signal)? Will it have a hover failsafe, or will it fall straight to the ground?

Considering that there are commercial autopilots for radio control vehicles already that can return the vehicle to the take-off GPS coordinates, it seems that a company as large as Honeywell would have thought about how to get the UAV back to the 'base' in the event of a radio failure.