Slashdot Mirror
FAA OKs US UAVs
Two unmanned aerial vehicles have received approval from the Federal Aviation Administration to perform commercial operations in United States airspace. The Scan Eagle 200 from Insitu will be launched from a ship and used to monitor icebergs and migrating whales in parts of the Arctic where companies are looking for oil. The PUMA from Aerovironment will be used by emergency response teams for monitoring oil spills. (Both are referred to as unmanned aircraft systems, or UAS, by the Administration.) "Issuing the type certificates is an important step toward the FAA's goal of integrating UAS into the nation's airspace. These flights will also meet requirements in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 that define Arctic operational areas and include a mandate to increase Arctic UAS commercial operations."
WTF OMG?
(I have nothing further to add to this conversation. I apologize for having wasted your time.)
I hate to agree with the gun nuts, but if I see a drone, I'm grabbing the shotgun and firing at it.
If you think about it, that doesn't really make sense except that the FAA is keeping the power dynamic unfairly tilted. The taco copter should be free to delivery to you and welcome, but only law enforcement and oil companies are being allowed access to airspace, apparently.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
It'll happen right after huge amounts of collateral damage on home soil become acceptable to the public.
They can't just call all dead adult American males "suspected militants" and Americans won't just say "meh" to their own dead women and children either.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Sorry, grammar wins, internet fashion loses. The title was nearly entirely acronyms, acronyms should be capitalized.
If you want to complain about a title being nearly entirely acronyms that is fine, but complaining about all caps is incorrect in this case.
Looking at each of the two systems you will see that these are fairly range limited, one having only a two hour endurance and a 9 mile range, the other (Boeing) having 20 hours endurance, 62 mile range, (and a ceiling of 16000 ft, high enough to interfere with commercial flights).
Most of the range issues are telemetry for remote piloting.
Still, you can expect some states and agencies to pick up the 20 hour Boeing ScanEagle, based on search and rescue justifications, while the shorter range craft will probably be bought in larger numbers by law enforcement, (And will quickly be proven a money and manpower wasting boondoggle).
(Dispatch: All searchers and helicopters please return to base so we can send the Drone into a clean environment! News choppers, please clear the airspace and maintain 20 mile distance for drone operations!)
You can soon expect to hear the lament: If only one lost child's life is saved.....
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
FTFY. It is a new program and the FAA is trying to avoid mid air collisions.
I've heard that for a few years ... so I wonder:
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
To start with, PUMA's and ScanEagles weigh much less than a single Hellfire missile, so cool the hyperbole. They have cameras that still can't see you in your Mom's basement eating Doritos in your underwear. And while we're name-calling other people "gun nuts" you're probably a Halo Hero who likely couldn't shoot anything to save your life, much less hurt a flying fixed-wing vehicle with a shotgun.
Regarding local law enforcement exclusively I was at a UAS event a few months ago where the Executive Director of the Airborne Law Enforcement Association spoke unequivocally that the agreement in the law enforcement community is that arming UAS in domestic soil is a "BAD IDEA". At this same event, many discussed other issues regarding positive civilian uses of Unmanned systems.
http://www.auvsi.org/1832013/2232013CapChapter
On the other hand, considering the Federal Government's track record over the last decade, I wouldn't trust them not to cross the boundary with armed UAS, but they will do it bit by bit so as to not cause a stir until they've come up with a good way to sell it to the public. Customs and Border Patrol are already using Predators and Reapers at the border, so it may only be an "Executive Order" away.
http://libertycrier.com/customs-and-border-patrol-considered-weaponizing-drones/
And no, you can't shoot those down with your shotgun either.
"Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."
FTFY. It is a new program and the FAA is trying to avoid mid air collisions. They are working on the rules.
As an interesting sidebar...
The missing piece of technology required to *safely* integrate drones into a country's national airspace is something called "Sense And Avoid" (SAA).
Now for the past year or so, I've been developing an SAA system that does not rely on transponders (as most existing SAA systems do) and so far the test results are very encouraging. In effect, this SAA creates a virtual sphere around the craft to which it is fitted and then tracks any objects entering that sphere - plotting and extrapolating their course while constantly checking to see if it is convergent with the host craft. Also, unlike other SAA systems, this unit is small, light and cheap (under 250g and could be mass-produced for around US$300 each).
The next phase of testing is to strap the hardware to a small foam RC model and fly it over a grassy meadow so as to generate some "real world" datasets for refining the software algorithms and coding.
You'd think that would be simple right? You'd think that the authority responsible for ensuring the safety of the national airspace would be pulling out the stops to support such a valuable piece of safety technology -- right?
Well in a world free of politics and bureaucracy it would be -- however, that's not the world in which we live.
Here in NZ, the CAA (our version of the FAA) has declared that because my development work is "commercial" in nature (even though it's entirely self-funded), I must get a "commercial operating authority" before I can fly my toy plane over a grassy meadow.
If I do not get this authority, which they tell me involves gaining various full-sized pilot qualifications at significant cost, before flying my toy plane, they will take "enforcement action" against me (stiff fines and/or a term of imprisonment).
WTF?
CAA has openly acknowledged that this device has huge potential to increase the safety of the national airspace by reducing the risks of mid-air collisions between UAVs and full-sized, and even between full-sized and full-sized (there were 10 reported "near misses" at an airfield near here last year alone).
However, because *they* have deemed my project (despite my suggestions I might eventually open-source it) to be "commercial", I am now unable to continue working on this device.
I can fly a 7Kg gas-powed model with a 5hp engine up front over the grassy meadow quite legally. I can fly a 200mph jet-powered RC model over that grassy meadow without fear of prosecution. But... if I strap 300g of passive electronics to a 900g RC model made of foam while developing technology to dramatically improve air-safety then it's "do not pass go, do not collect $200, go straight to jail".
Unbelievable!