Slashdot Mirror
Drones Still Face Major Hurdles In US Airspace
coondoggie writes "Communications and effective system control are still big challenges unmanned aircraft developers are facing if they want unfettered access to U.S. airspace. Those were just a couple of the conclusions described in a recent Government Accountability Office report on the status of unmanned aircraft (PDF) and the national airspace. The bottom line for now seems to be that while research and development efforts are under way to mitigate obstacles to safe and routine integration of unmanned aircraft into the national airspace, these efforts cannot be completed and validated without safety, reliability, and performance standards, which have not yet been developed because of data limitations."
The FAA and others seem mostly concerned about the drones hitting things if their GPS and ground communications are both disrupted.
We don't need thousands of unmanned vehicles zipping around in the skies malfunctioning and crashing into things and people.
And this is not even considering privacy and security implications. At least manned vehicles have a sufficient barrier to entry (expensive) and a motivation to be extremely reliable (because the occupants will die if not).
My suspicion is that once drones start to become more ubiquitous in US Airspace, pecople here will come up with ways to interfere with them. In other countries directly targeted by the drones, they haven't been very successful, but in the US all it will take will be a few backyard hobbyists who really really really have issues with drones, and they will come up with an easy way to interfere/take over/destroy/ shoot down said drones...and this technology, whatever it is, will be then used by people in other countries to take out OUR drones.
So putting drones in US airspace is actually a stupid counterproductive thing, on many fronts.
The only UAV that's close to airworthy is Northrop's billion dollar disaster of the Global Hawk. Of course, airworthiness is a big part of the reason that they cost $50M apiece. None of the rest of the UAVs are airworthy. Not even remotely. They all have severe design flaws that render them reasonable only for overwater, over the ocean, or combat zones. None of them are designed with the rigour or safety focus that's required for a small airplane, much less something that's in commercial service. All of them have software single point of failure problems that will cause them to crash in an unpredictable place.Triton and the Global Hawk will, at least, crash in a pre-planned, surveyed spot. None of the rest.
I see no reason to allow anything over 55 lbs to fly unless it's designed to the same level of safety and airworthiness as "real airplanes", because the physics works the same way when it hits you. I'm not saying "no" to UAV's, but start over and do it right.
So if there's a mid-air collision between a private or commercial aircraft and a drone flown by a government agency, the usual legal protections will probably shield the drone operators from liability. The thought of that kinda sucks.
I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
hey, as long has they have a man with a red lantern proceed each drone so horses aren't spooked, I'm sure the Pennsylvania legislature will be fine with it.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
We don't need thousands of unmanned vehicles zipping around in the skies malfunctioning and crashing into things and people.
And this is not even considering privacy and security implications. At least manned vehicles have a sufficient barrier to entry (expensive) and a motivation to be extremely reliable (because the occupants will die if not).
"We don't need" is hardly a reason to make something illegal in itself. The phrase is a lazy rhetorical device.
Further, what makes you think such machines wouldn't be orders of magnitude more reliable than human drivers (who can get drunk, old, preoccupied, poisoned by testosterone, or succumb to idiocy), who operate much heavier equipment, and in closer proximity to potential victims? You seem to be presuming no one can come up with an effectual means to prevent a malfunctioning device from causing damage, which seems implausible, given the fact that a simple airbag like mechanism that slows the rate of descent would probably serve reasonably well in many situations, especially in conjunction with the same kind of laws that restrict helicopter flight over populous areas.
You'd do better to focus on why the privacy and security issues cannot be similarly resolved, instead of merely mentioning them whilst waving your hands wildly about. Surely photography and recording technology itself poses serious privacy and security issues, but this would have a been lousy reason for banning the public use of cameras and microphones.
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
On another note it's illegal to toss a moose out of an airplane in Alaska - that most certainly is a state law, so I submit states can make their own laws where airspace is concerned.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
I want to see an electronics box which:
- scans for the unencrypted video feed on the frequencies drones use
- sounds an audio alarm when it finds one
- displays the video feed on a local screen
- immediately begins streaming the video off-site (for record-keeping)
Anyone have an idea on how affordable / expensive / reliable such a thing could / would be?
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.