Slashdot Mirror
When Drones Fall From the Sky
schwit1 sends this report on the perils of imperfect drone technology:
"More than 400 large U.S. military drones have crashed in major accidents around the world since 2001, a record of calamity that exposes the potential dangers of throwing open American skies to drone traffic, according to a year-long Washington Post investigation. Since the outbreak of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, military drones have malfunctioned in myriad ways, plummeting from the sky because of mechanical breakdowns, human error, bad weather and other reasons, according to more than 50,000 pages of accident investigation reports and other records obtained by The Post under the Freedom of Information Act.
Commercial drone flights are set to become a widespread reality in the United States, starting next year, under a 2012 law passed by Congress. Drone flights by law enforcement agencies and the military, which already occur on a limited basis, are projected to surge. The documents obtained by The Post detail scores of previously unreported crashes involving remotely controlled aircraft, challenging the federal government’s assurances that drones will be able to fly safely over populated areas and in the same airspace as passenger planes."
Commercial drone flights are set to become a widespread reality in the United States, starting next year, under a 2012 law passed by Congress. Drone flights by law enforcement agencies and the military, which already occur on a limited basis, are projected to surge. The documents obtained by The Post detail scores of previously unreported crashes involving remotely controlled aircraft, challenging the federal government’s assurances that drones will be able to fly safely over populated areas and in the same airspace as passenger planes."
More BS from people against the emerging corporate police state. They are just desperate to go back to the days of freedom and privacy. Those days are OVER and are never coming back.
It is important to regulate drones, not stop them. From what I'm reading drone related problems are being misdiagnosed as an issue with the hardware. It seems obvious that it's more due to the irresponsible nature of how they are deployed.
Drone related problems that are mechanical in nature is related to carelessness of the producers and owners based on the conditions which they are deployed. Without humans aboard, drones are being deployed without thorough safety regulations being enforced since there is no risk of fatality to the passengers. In addition, since we lose drones in areas such as Afghanistan, it seems obvious that since we see them as unfriendly or as enemies, we don't take the safety measures to ensure that the people below aren't at risk of major failures. This is terrible and disgusting behavior. Drones are also deployed under irresonsible flying conditions. Small aircraft with human pilots should never be in the air in these conditions, yet we send drones because there is no one on board.
In short, the issue isn't specifically with drones, it should be identified as issues with the people deploying them. When deploy in them at home, drones should be heavily regulated to ensure responsible deployment and operation.
Oh I'm pretty sure at least in one of those "accidents" someone got injured or even died. It needs to kill someone who counts. Like, say, a politician. Or, god forbid, someone owning one. THEN, and only then, you'll see the discussion. Else it's just a "tragic mishap that is an unfortunate side effect in our strife against international terrorism", or similar bull.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Big deal. I'm sure the ones soon to be used by businesses and local law enforcement will be much more safe & reliable, because they will be produced in a competitive market environment (instead of by government contract) by 3D printers.
A 50,000 page report packs a whallop. Whether it is read or not. Keep these people away from hadoop, they might crash the cluster.
I feel a little embarrassed by being shocked by this. Did anyone else have a wtf moment? Or should i go back to my lawn chair?
...THEY'RE MINE!
Those drones cost a lot more than my cheap vanilla toy drones from the local hobby store, so if they dare enter MY territory, and they fall down on my property - they become MY property! Bring'em on!
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
The problem I have with 'drone' is there isn't a clear definition of what a 'drone' is.
A thousand-kilogram General Atomics MQ-1 Predator raining freedom (via Hellfire missiles) down upon terrorists is a 'drone' as is one-kilo quadcopter taking webcam pictures of some housing development.
Back in my day, the former was a 'drone' and the latter was a 'remote controlled plane.'
While drone activists and commercial drone aircraft operators/manufacturers have tried to downplay the numerous problems with drone aircraft use, the facts remain:
--most of today's drone aircraft are hobbyist-grade devices without significant, controlled testing;
--major issues remain unresolved (and will worsen if usage increases) related to radio interference;
--many "hobbist" drones use crowded, common radio spectrum for control (some drones are semi-autonomous or may have basic loss-of-signal processors but again these are largely untested in controlled envionments);
--it is unclear whether insurers (especially in commercial uses as an insurer defines commercial) will cover the damages from drone aircraft, damages which can be significant including death or property destruction (fires from overheated motors hot enough to melt solder, etc.);
--with no licensing or registration of drones, it is hard to hold the drone aircraft operator accountable when problems that arise (after all, it's your kid who lost an eye from a drone strike over a playground but hey, the drone operator got away the police say); and
--the willful violation of the long-standing R/C model aircraft guidelines places R/C model aircraft operator privileges in jeopardy (which is a shame because these hobbyists have decades of responsible operation AWAY from populated areas, AWAY from noise sensitive areas, and AWAY from other aircraft).
This does not even account for the numerous privacy issues which are equally pressing.
Thus, looking at the issues posed by drone aircraft (and especially for commercial uses) and failure of the drone aircraft industry / drone aircraft activists) to take a meaningful lead on these issues, fair and practical regulations of drones are needed from both the FAA and the FCC such as testing of drone aircraft and components, radio spectrum limits, licensing of pilots, required training, mandatory liability coverage, drone aircraft inspections and certifications, and drone aircraft registration. No one says drones cannot be operated at all; but if operated, people need adequate protections and assurances just as with any other aircraft. That is common sense.
and when a drones crashes into an airplane the FAA will come down so hard and then the airlines will sue all party's who owned and controlled that drone and if they any thing left other people hurt / killed in the crash will have people sue as well.
This story proves how "Skynet" is wise to wait until there are enough robust robotic vehicles to take out all humans, before taking over the world. Another prerequisite is sufficiently autonomous repair systems for energy production etc. So I think the humans still have a few decades to enjoy life, before the inevitable robot apocalypse, and being strafed by military aerial drones, crushed by their own Google cars, electrocuted by their own Google glasses with neural interface, and strangled by their own Google neckties.
One of the things that keeps traditional aircraft pretty safe is that the pilot is inside the plane and is highly motivated not to crash. Perhaps to keep drones safe as well, we should keep the risk with the pilot -- if you crash a drone, the penalty is the same as if you were inside the plane you were remotely piloting (penalty up to and including death).
The range of penalties would of course need to be scaled to the size of the drone -- a toy quad-copter is not the same as a Predator, but the point is the legal infrastructure needs to ensure responsibility for those piloting drones. Note that I emphasized the pilot. The pilot needs to be on the hook, not the company employing the pilot, the manufacturer of the drone, or anyone else.
"a record of calamity that exposes the potential dangers of throwing open American skies to drone traffic,"
And not a calamity in other countries?
Weapons of war are not operated nor expected to have the same safety features as drones for civilian uses. There is also no mention of the size or weight of drones that have crashed. Many of these four hundred might have been a few ounces and fallen at very low speeds or fallen while being under heavy fire. I'll bet that in the US people flying hobby drones inside their homes have suffered some minor injuries as it is a common hobby. But is there even a single incident within the US of any drone of size causing injury to a human being by "falling out of the sky"? There has been a commercial drone making deliveries from the US into Mexico that has been in operation for some time. We also fail to note that drones save lives. Drones have prevented our war fighters from suffering wounds or death in numerous cases. Drones are being used to locate lost children and hikers and to spot poachers and thieves. Drones are also being used to inspect bridges and places that are risky for humans to reach. I would rather a twenty pound drone working for the local news channel crash than a six thousand pound copter with a pilot and newsman crash doing the same task. And as far as urban and suburban crime detection and prevention we may live in a far nicer world when drones can record numerous events. And the guy that causes that wreck in his car may well want to think really hard before telling lies on the witness stand. He might turn that greedy law suit into a twenty year prison sentence for perjury.
that doesn't count though
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I just want to see a video from a drone that got too close to a tornado.
I can go buy that old Soviet era S-75 system and put it in my front yard. The only question is can I attach it to my garden hose? Wait, I wonder if I have to get my HOA to approve that first?
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
the federal, state and local governments within the united states can't mod you down, but everybody else can tell you to go fuck a duck.
A note of caution, do not actually try fucking said duck while under observation by any representative of federal, state or local government... Even if it's obvious the duck REALLY wants it bad...
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
I wonder if the rate of crashes has changed since 2001. I'll betcha the technology and pilot skills have increased significantly since then. For sure, there are different models of UAVs flying now than there were in 2001.
I read the article, and I don't see any mention of how many drones were shot down or hit by gunfire. I don't know for sure, but I bet the drones in Afghanistan get shot at a lot, and I admit that will continue to be a problem in the United States.
The article says the US military has about 10,000 drones and 400 from 2001 through 2013 means about 40 or less a year are lost. And that's while being shot at. What would be the failure rate of a Lexus if they were shot at every day while driving around?
It said about a quarter of these are lost in the USA, but it doesn't mention if these are lost in product testing or training - situations known to cause high losses.
Gimme a break. That "package delivery" shtik was a Christmas-shopping publicity stunt. If you really believed it was going to happen, you'd be investing in pediatric and veterinary hospitals.
Good point. Also - without knowing how many flights? There are hundreds of thousands of car crashes every year - but there are millions upon millions of miles traveled by car every year, so crashes are relatively rare. If there were 1000 drone flights and 400 crashes the article would have a point, but there were probable hundreds of thousands of military drone flights in the last 10 years.
Also, Military aircraft do tend to crash very often around the world. see Wikipedia List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present). Note the string of fatalities caused by those crashes.
A 504 kg Cessna 150 is an "airplane" and a 402,000 kg Airbus A380 is an "airplane".
An apple is fruit, but fruit is not an apple.
An Airbus is a jetliner, a Cessna 150 is not.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
Well, there's been at least one report of illegal drugs being smuggled across the border by drone. Don't know if they caught anything but the drone, though.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
They either need to be designed to not fail (triple redundant, etc) or designed so that when they fail that they are not a hazard to innocent bystanders.
Or when they fail, they could access a map of insurgents living close by.
Drone engine failure, crashing in 2 minutes, list of possible crash sites:
playground: -100
unoccupied garage of elderly lady: 0
vegetable garden: -10
guy who posted anti-NSA stuff on slashdot: +20
Big deal. I'm sure the ones soon to be used by businesses and local law enforcement will be much more safe & reliable, because they will be produced in a competitive market environment (instead of by government contract) by 3D printers.
Oh gosh, it took me a second to detect the sarcasm in that statement. At first I thought, "no way - local law enforcement and safe. - LAPD drones???" But then there was that bold marker for pure sarcasm: competitive market environment hehehehe
Given that the cartels build submarines for this, the thing I'm surprised is that there's never been "drug smuggling by ballistic rocket".