Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Macon-Bibb County Government Wants $5.7 Million Drone Fleet For Emergencies

Posted by Soulskill on from the and-for-bombing-the-hatfields dept.

McGruber writes: Macon-Bibb County, Georgia is considering a $5.7 million project with manufacturer Olaeris to deploy 15 to 17 drone aircraft. The aircraft, each bigger than a king-sized bed, would operate out of individual hangars strategically placed across the county. The drones would be able to get to most places in the county within a few minutes. They would be available to the county's Emergency Management Agency, sheriff's office and fire department. "It's highly technical, and having the ability to be the first with Silicon Valley-type technology is unique," said Don Druitt, director of the Macon-Bibb County Emergency Management Agency.

Olaeris claims that for every $1 spent on their drones, a government will save $6 to $8 worth of manpower. "Ninety-five percent of all fire alarms are false, but fire departments have no choice to go, and you may have 15 (firefighters) responding," Olaeris CEO Ted Lindsley said. Lindsley also promises to work with local organizations to address any privacy concerns from residents. People will be able to track the aircraft online whenever they're used in order to learn where and why they were deployed.

87 comments

  1. Shiny Drone Fleet by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Funny

    Shiny drone fleet
    Oh Confederate meat
    Your Civil War beards
    Go down in defeat
    Burma Shave

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    1. Re: Shiny Drone Fleet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here we go again. Big government spending more money. Aha. I have an idea. Let's just pass another stupid splost! Remember you ignorant voters.....It's only a penny! Problem is they already get 8 of them of every dollar we spend. Wake up citizens. Who are they going to spy on with a drone big as a bed? Big enough to cause a solar eclipse. Back room deals for kick backs for politicians. Just my opinion.

  2. Might make sense by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I mean its kinda hard to say if the economics really do make sense or not, but its at least plausible. And frankly, if the location and purpose of use for each drone is available in near-real-time, then its hardly a spying tool, though it could still be used for surveillance in some sense. That would seem to address the bulk of the privacy issues, and its difficult to be too sympathetic with most of the other ones.

    --
    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    1. Re:Might make sense by fred911 · · Score: 1

      Especially when they find out how easy it will be to subcontract out to other interests.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    2. Re:Might make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I mean its kinda hard to say if the economics really do make sense or not, but its at least plausible. And frankly, if the location and purpose of use for each drone is available in near-real-time, then its hardly a spying tool, though it could still be used for surveillance in some sense.

      The economics do not make sense. They are trying to save money on already sunk costs. Here's the problem:

      They say 95% of the fire calls are false alarms. Fine. 95% of the time, their firefighters respond and - nothing. Wasted trip. However, the firefighters were already on duty. They are getting paid whether or not they're on a call. All you did was waste some diesel. So....you say cut the number of firefighters. Ok, problem is when you do have an event, you need all of those firefighters. So....you can't cut them. They're assuming the mean will cover all cases...when they really have to staff for the worst case scenario. Then, supposing you do use the drone for one of those real events, you have now lost that amount of time to respond. (e.g. if the drone takes 4 minutes to fly somewhere, the real equipment will be delayed by that amount of time.) This could be a big deal as a house fire can double in size every 1-2 minutes and a person can drown and suffer brain damage in 4-6 minutes.

      Yes, I was firefighter and paramedic for ten years, and I saw this kind of corner-cutting all the time. It will come back to bite them.

    3. Re:Might make sense by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I mean its kinda hard to say if the economics really do make sense or not, but its at least plausible. And frankly, if the location and purpose of use for each drone is available in near-real-time, then its hardly a spying tool, though it could still be used for surveillance in some sense.

      The economics do not make sense. They are trying to save money on already sunk costs. Here's the problem:

      They say 95% of the fire calls are false alarms. Fine. 95% of the time, their firefighters respond and - nothing. Wasted trip. However, the firefighters were already on duty. They are getting paid whether or not they're on a call. All you did was waste some diesel. So....you say cut the number of firefighters. Ok, problem is when you do have an event, you need all of those firefighters. So....you can't cut them. They're assuming the mean will cover all cases...when they really have to staff for the worst case scenario. Then, supposing you do use the drone for one of those real events, you have now lost that amount of time to respond. (e.g. if the drone takes 4 minutes to fly somewhere, the real equipment will be delayed by that amount of time.) This could be a big deal as a house fire can double in size every 1-2 minutes and a person can drown and suffer brain damage in 4-6 minutes.

      Yes, I was firefighter and paramedic for ten years, and I saw this kind of corner-cutting all the time. It will come back to bite them.

      Well, I figure that the firefighters and paramedics will still have to respond despite the drone, or they will lose precious minutes. So, the drone just adds another dollar to the equation. There is no way to cost justify the drones. What they really should say is "we want shiny drones".

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    4. Re:Might make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, if I see a drone hanging out above my shit, I'm grabbing my .308 and calling it target practice.

    5. Re:Might make sense by djradon · · Score: 1

      It's easy to justify drones economically-- if not now, then really soon when they're cheaper. (They won't always be bigger than king sized beds.)

      The important question is, do we want to let the drones get a foot in the door?

    6. Re:Might make sense by djradon · · Score: 1

      Or you could launch your drone-interceptor drone.

    7. Re:Might make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It all depends on if the data collected is repurposed later. The whole thing with NSA is collect everything and go back in time as if all domestic issues are international.

    8. Re:Might make sense by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      Watch out for the Tracebuster-buster-buster !

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    9. Re:Might make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean its kinda hard to say if the economics really do make sense or not, but its at least plausible.

      When you consider a single rescue helicopter is usually in the vicinity of USD10M then USD5.7M for a fleet of 15-17 aircraft is quite a bargain. Obviously they can't be used for airlifting patients, but as a first response/inspection appliance I think it's a winner.

    10. Re:Might make sense by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      I agree with your points - they're all well-reasoned.

      What I haven't seen mentioned is the case where the drone arrives first and it's video shows the dispatchers that the fire is much larger/more involved than first reported so the dispatcher can roll additional equipment to the scene while the original trucks are still en route. That would be a major plus for having the drones.

      Similarly, if the drone finds that the original report of a massive fire is more like a tiny shed on fire, they could cancel some of the equipment en route, freeing it up for other calls.

      Another case: A train derailment or tractor-trailer accident. Much of the cargo carried in tank cars is in some way hazardous, and it would be very handy if a drone could show the dispatcher what placard numbers* are involved so that they can coordinate cordoning off the area and possibly evacuating residents. It would also help in making sure you have the right firefighting chemicals around - lots of hazardous stuff requires foam to extinguish and reacts rather violently with good old H2O.

      *If you've never read the Emergency Response Guide, you should. Some of the nasty stuff that's hurtling down the highway next to you is very dangerous and/or toxic. It's eye-opening, to say the least.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    11. Re: Might make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your view of management of a crisis is optimistically generous. That is a non liberal area. Tea party? They are looking for ways to cut the responders budget. To save a penny, here. Now. This is a attempt to limit what is needed, for public safety, and reduce the value of property and humans to a minimal level. Reduced Manning of fire, police, and ems,has already nationally cost lives. The lowering of standards and accreditions comes next, that creates a deadly mix for the responders, one cop patrols, and the rise in bad cops doing bad, is another symptom of this problem. Now the cop has to protect himself, either as a friend, or a bully? Which is easier to project to a crowd of hostile people? You pay for what you get. Either way its a tax dollar, spend it wisely, or on fines! Or spend it on funerals of those who died needing help.

    12. Re:Might make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm from that part of Georgia and "we want shiny drones" is probably the appropriate rationale behind this effort. Middle Georgia throws a ridiculous amount of money at police and firefighters to buy all the latest, unproven gadgets. "If you're a patriotic, red-blooded american then you'll support the war-figter, police and firefighters with whatever they want." They'll park these drones right next to all the assault vehicles they got from the Fed.

    13. Re:Might make sense by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Figure the responders can still head out, but because the drone can get their first, the response can be dialed back or even called off based on the drone's observations. so instead of 4 or 5 vehicles showing up, only one does (since someone still needs to show just to be sure).

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    14. Re:Might make sense by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      There is no way to cost justify the drones.

      There is if you're the one getting the kickbacks.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    15. Re:Might make sense by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I had a friend whose house was burned down, and who was injured rescuing a cat he didn't even like. The way he described it, things happened fast. After the fire, he told me he wished that the fire department had arrived five minutes earlier or five minutes later, because each of those would have had much different consequences.

      So, yes, a five-minute delay can mean a very great difference, and I wish I could mod you up instead of just agreeing.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  3. I've Been to Macon-Bibb County by Greyfox · · Score: 2

    I'm pretty sure the entire county's not worth $5.7 million. Clearly the county is just trying to more than double its value.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:I've Been to Macon-Bibb County by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 0

      That's the unfortunate side effect of having bullshit 'homeland security' slush money available to the tribal militias of failed, 3rd world, states. Hickistan's sheriffs have enough of a problem with grandiosity without the feds buying them fancy toys.

    2. Re:I've Been to Macon-Bibb County by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Informative

      I live one county over. I can tell you that Bibb desperately needs to spend that money elsewhere. Their schools are sad and the police there are some of the lowest paid in the state. All the places they desperately need money and this is what they come up with. It's typical of Bibb county. A friend of mine I worked with grew up there and moved to Houston county when he was in the 11th grade. He was an A student in Bibb schools and he said he was about a year behind when he moved. He had to work his ass off to catch up.

    3. Re:I've Been to Macon-Bibb County by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the entire county's not worth $5.7 million.

      Are you counting the meth labs?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:I've Been to Macon-Bibb County by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I live one county over. I can tell you that Bibb desperately needs to spend that money elsewhere.

      I can verify this. I watched a documentary about that place:

      http://static.stereogum.com/bl...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:I've Been to Macon-Bibb County by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the entire county's not worth $5.7 million.

      Are you counting the meth labs?

      Okay, $5.6 million.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  4. Opening themselves up to liability? by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    “Ninety-five percent of all fire alarms are false, but fire departments have no choice to go, and you may have 15 (firefighters) responding,” Lindsley said. “In most cases the drone can see if there is a heat signature or flames. Maybe you send one vehicle to monitor it and can send the other (firefighters) to a major wreck on a highway.”

    If someone calls in a fire or accident and the first department sends a drone first to see if the caller is lying, I forsee some big liability lawsuits if someone dies because the fire department was delayed by the time it takes to get a drone in the air and verify the fire. Or worse, if the drone flies out, doesn't detect the fire in the basement, and the call is cancelled as a false alarm.

    Will taxpayers really get $6M of value out of the fleet?

    1. Re:Opening themselves up to liability? by Sowelu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, it could still help with triaging emergency calls. And presumably you still dispatch the firefighters, you just get more power to recall them early if it's obviously a false alarm, or (maybe even better yet) you give them eye-in-the-sky information about what the fire looks like. I could see a view like that improving outcomes in some proportion of calls: either they fight things more effectively, or they save fifteen seconds trying to locate that basement fire on foot and get the water on it faster.

      I'm pretty willing to believe what they say about heat signatures. Hot air has a way of escaping. A couple minutes after an alarm goes off, there's got to be heat showing SOMEwhere, even if there's not necessarily a lot of smoke yet. If the experts say you can affirm where there's a fire or not the vast majority of the time, I'm inclined to take their word for it, especially if (going back to triage) there's more fires than manpower at the moment and the opportunity cost of making sure is measured in lives lost at another call.

    2. Re:Opening themselves up to liability? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Holding the country liable because it's a government entity may be difficult. On the other hand, when you deprive hicks in the sticks a legal means of recourse, they tend to get violent. The real life version of the Dukes aren't above setting fire to a nursing home insulated from their misdeeds by tort reform.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:Opening themselves up to liability? by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, garbage all the way down. If an alarm goes off, they don't just send firefighters to cruise around the outside of the building; they have to go inside and verify that there's no fire. I can't imagine what a drone could report that would prevent a truck from rolling.

      This doesn't even begin to pass the sniff test.

    4. Re:Opening themselves up to liability? by Rei · · Score: 1

      If the drone is the size of a king sized bed, I don't see why they couldn't outright include some degree of fire suppression hardware - not enough to put out a major building fire, but a couple dozen kilos of fire suppression system rapidly deployed to a fire would certainly not go awry until ground crews can get there.

      But anyway, the example given was when the fire department has a call for a fire and a call for a major accident on the freeway - the drone could check out the probable false alarm while the fire crew heads out to the freeway. If there's a real fire, they can divert. Since the drone would use an IR camera, it should be able to tell if there's actually a fire from quite a ways away - I would expect in many cases it'd probably just have to clear the trees and surrounding buildings (a matter of seconds) to get line of sight; fires kick off a ton of IR. And if it doesn't see anything right away and has to get closer for a better look? Then indeed the odds are higher that it is a false alarm, and even if it is real, it's certainly not some huge out-of-control blaze.

      And firefighting was just part of it. They also give examples of, say, getting a 9-11 call for someone at night having a heart attack. Instead of wasting precious minutes searching for them, the IR camera could pick up exact location for the medical crews.

      I'm someone who really hates the whole "police state" deployment of CCTV cameras everywhere, like they do in Britain. But this strikes me as a very good use of technology, driven by genuine public interest rather than paranoia or fine collection.

      --
      The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
    5. Re:Opening themselves up to liability? by hawguy · · Score: 1

      If the drone is the size of a king sized bed, I don't see why they couldn't outright include some degree of fire suppression hardware - not enough to put out a major building fire, but a couple dozen kilos of fire suppression system rapidly deployed to a fire would certainly not go awry until ground crews can get there.

      Assuming you're talking about a house fire, unless the fire has burned through the roof, all a couple of kilos of fire suppression chemicals is going to do is stain the roof. And if the fire *has* burned through the roof, all it's going to do is piss off the fire -- it'll take thousands of gallons of water to suppress it at that point.

    6. Re:Opening themselves up to liability? by hawguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm pretty willing to believe what they say about heat signatures. Hot air has a way of escaping. A couple minutes after an alarm goes off, there's got to be heat showing SOMEwhere, even if there's not necessarily a lot of smoke yet.

      911: what's your emergency?
      Homeowner: I called 30 minutes ago for a firetruck because of an electrical fire in my basement, where are they!?
      911: Oh, we sent a drone to look at your house, it didn't see any fire from the air.
      Homeowner: Well my basement is still full of smoke, and I can hear electrical arcing
      911: Can you see smoke or flames from the outside of your house?
      Homeowner: No, just the basement
      911: Wait until the flames have burnt through the roof or walls of the house then give us a call and we'll send another drone. If we see a fire at that time, we'll refund the $99.99 "false alarm" fee from the first drone. Please make sure that you really see flames this time, as you only 3 false alarms before we stop sending out the drone. Those things are expensive to operate, you know.... maybe go down and try fanning the flames to see if you can really get the fire going you call us again.

      If the experts say you can affirm where there's a fire or not the vast majority of the time, I'm inclined to take their word for it, especially if (going back to triage) there's more fires than manpower at the moment and the opportunity cost of making sure is measured in lives lost at another call.

      Have any fire fighting experts claimed that you can reliably detect an early stage house fire with a drone? Will you be as inclined to take their word for it if you call in a fire, and the fire department says they couldn't see it from the air, so you must be lying about it?

    7. Re:Opening themselves up to liability? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Once it's fully engulfed the fire department is pretty much limited to making sure none of the neighbors houses catch fire.

    8. Re:Opening themselves up to liability? by McGruber · · Score: 1

      Will taxpayers really get $6M of value out of the fleet?

      One of the articles claims that the drones are intended to eventually replace helicopters. If the drones do actually replace helicopters, then I can see taxpayers getting $6M value from the fleet.

      Back in 2012, two Atlanta police officers were killed when their police helicopter crashed; they had been flying very low while looking for a lost child. The subsequent NTSB investigation determined that the crash was caused by “the pilot’s failure to maintain sufficient altitude during maneuvering flight, which resulted in his failure to see and avoid a power pole and wires.”

      I suspect that one accident will end up costing more than Macon's drone fleet. Several lawsuits have been filed.

    9. Re:Opening themselves up to liability? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      There is no way they would not respond to a human calling in. However many many calls to the fire service are from automated systems. If you can get a drone on site in 4 minutes and your first crew on site in 12 you have an additional 8 minutes of information on the event to plan responses. Currently they will be making assumptions based on the source of the call. Ok this is an industrial site with lots of false alarms, send 1 crew. This is a site that never had a false alarm with high population count send 5 crews.

      Having a drone on site in a shorter period of time will allow them to go. Oh shit this is a huge fire send everyone, or only small or no heat signatures detected the 1 crew on route it enough until further advised.

    10. Re:Opening themselves up to liability? by Rei · · Score: 1

      A drone the size of a king-sized bed probably has a payload in the ballpark of maybe 20 kilos - the weight of a refrigerator**. We're not talking about a little kitchen fire extinguisher here. You could haul around a 120psi hose system powerful enough to break windows with that kind of payload.

      "thousands of gallons of water to suppress it"? Given that those are the sort of quantities planes drop on wildfires (per run) over several acres per run in order to suppress them, you're thinking too big.

      ** - I'd call this the size of 2 or 3 king-sized beds and it carries a freaking person ;)

      --
      The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
    11. Re:Opening themselves up to liability? by hawguy · · Score: 1

      A drone the size of a king-sized bed probably has a payload in the ballpark of maybe 20 kilos - the weight of a refrigerator**. We're not talking about a little kitchen fire extinguisher here. You could haul around a 120psi hose system powerful enough to break windows with that kind of payload.

      20kg is around 5 gallons of fire supression - even a home sprinkler head will discharge around 20 gpm, and you'll have more than one in a typical room. Set off a pair of those for 15 minutes and you've already got 600 gallons of water in the house.

      "thousands of gallons of water to suppress it"? Given that those are the sort of quantities planes drop on wildfires (per run) over several acres per run in order to suppress them, you're thinking too big.

      A 1.5" handline can supply up to 200 gpm, so I figured it'd take at least 5 or 10 minutes to knock down the fire. This house fire took 75,000 gallons of water. When a nearby house was on fire, I saw 3 pairs firefighters each with a line (2 looked like maybe 1.5", the one they were spraying up through the roof was larger, maybe 2 or 2.5") spraying a constant stream of water for at least 10 minutes to douse the fire.

      ** - I'd call this the size of 2 or 3 king-sized beds and it carries a freaking person ;)

      An 18 rotor aircraft designed to carry a person for up to 20 minutes is not really comparable with a 3 fan long endurance surveillance drone.

    12. Re:Opening themselves up to liability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      “Ninety-five percent of all fire alarms are false, but fire departments have no choice to go, and you may have 15 (firefighters) responding,” Lindsley said. “In most cases the drone can see if there is a heat signature or flames. Maybe you send one vehicle to monitor it and can send the other (firefighters) to a major wreck on a highway.”

      If someone calls in a fire or accident and the first department sends a drone first to see if the caller is lying, I forsee some big liability lawsuits if someone dies because the fire department was delayed by the time it takes to get a drone in the air and verify the fire. Or worse, if the drone flies out, doesn't detect the fire in the basement, and the call is cancelled as a false alarm.

      Will taxpayers really get $6M of value out of the fleet?

      Is there a reason we're not punishing the shit out of those causing a 95% false alarm rate, to perhaps include jail time?

      I know lawyers are expensive, but I highly doubt the county will have to spend $6M in order to curb that bullshit, which creates far more liability than any drone fleet likely would (nothing like tying up county fire department resources chasing a false alarm when on the other end of town, someone is actually needing help). I really hate it when we waste money while ignoring the shit out of root cause. This looks like they have zero punishment in place for screwing with the E911 system.

    13. Re:Opening themselves up to liability? by Rei · · Score: 1

      We're not talking about completely dousing a housefire. We're talking about buying a small amount of time until ground crews can get there. And I notice you have no comment about the analogy with aircraft-based wildfire suppression.

      An 18 rotor aircraft designed to carry a person for up to 20 minutes is not really comparable with a 3 fan long endurance surveillance drone.

      1. Smaller numbers of larger rotors are more efficient than larger numbers of smaller rotors.
      2. Endurance is a function of payload. So if you want to operate in a surveillance role, leave behind the fire suppression hardware. If you want to operate in a fire suppression role, go there, discharge your suppression hardware, and go back for recharge or battery swap and refill. There are to be, what, 17 drones operating?

      --
      The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
  5. Don Druitt's Dick Is Big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looky here, Silicon Valley-type technology outside Silicon Valley! Dick-waving contest won! By Don Druitt's BIG DICK!

  6. Worst possible example. by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

    So most fire alarms are false alarms so the solution is to delay deployment of the fire department until a drone can see if the fire is real? He can't really be suggesting that because that would mean he's a complete fucking moron. The faster the response time of a fire department to an actual fire the lower the loss of life and the less property damage. If you are going to wait 30 minutes for a drone to launch and fly over the fire you are going to basically kill everyone that's in the building and burn down everything that catches fire.

    And the Ironic thing is he acts like sending the fire department out to a call costs money. The firemen are sitting there on their ass all day long getting paid whether they respond or they don't. Sure there is a very small cost in fuel and other expendables if they do respond but to act as if the entire cost of the fire department is saved if they don't respond is completely idiotic.

    This guy wants a toy and he's trying to convince the public to pick up the cost. That and he didn't think through his "example" at all.

    1. Re:Worst possible example. by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's a very poor example.

      Monitoring wildfires is probably a better use so that resources can be deployed more efficiently. Sending drones out as forward recon for significant police calls might be valuable.

      With the right back end, it could allow for regular low level photography of the entire county so that their property tax records can be sync'd with the actual # and size of structures on land, but that's probably no something the population would be interested in (and it can be done with sat photos for less).

      Besides, I would presume that each drone in flight would need at least one operator - which means at least 12 positions in order to operate them simultaneously. Even if you're on a schedule and most are "on call", that's half a million a year (prob closer to 3/4 million including g&a and overhead) in addition to the cost of the units and hangers and an airstrip.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:Worst possible example. by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      You forgot the fuel, maintenance and spare parts. I'd be willing to bet daily operating costs will be equivalent to having a plane up.

      A plane is a plane, doesn't really matter if it's manned or not, it's still going to cost about the same, unless you think you can train bob the high school drop out to fly a drone and the drones operate on hugs and happy thoughts.

    3. Re:Worst possible example. by Rei · · Score: 1

      So most fire alarms are false alarms so the solution is to delay deployment of the fire department until a drone can see if the fire is real? He can't really be suggesting that because that would mean he's a complete fucking moron.

      Or, we could RTFA before calling someone a "complete fucking moron". What was actually said:

      Maybe you send one vehicle to monitor it and can send the other (firefighters) to a major wreck on a highway.

      He's not saying "ignore fires because we have drones". He's saying "use drones to be able to use your limited resources more intelligently" - for example, focusing on getting that jaws-of-life to a potentially critically injured car accident victim rather than diverting to a probable false alarm house fire. The fact is that budgets are limited and you can't have an infinite number of rescue workers responding to everything. There's tons of different tasks to which your limited number of workers' attentions can be allocated, and they have different payoffs in terms of helping the public, but assessing the potential payoff requires intelligence. Having additional intelligence at your disposal can help allow your finite resources be allocated toward more productive purposes. And compared to the salaries and overheads of humans, drones are very cheap. And their utility stretches across multiple departments - police, fire, paramedics, search and rescue, etc. If you're collapsing in a gutter at night with a heart attack, how long do you want the paramedics to have to spend searching for you while your brain cells die? If your child gets lost in the woods, how long do you want them to be out there alone? If call in to report someone trying to break into your house or run away with your stuff, how long do you want it to be before they find themselves with a police-controlled camera pointed at them?

      And beyond all that, drones can get you the information you need fast. The ability to get an IR camera up to an altitude with a line of sight to your target in a matter of seconds, and all the way to the location in just a couple minutes, is of no small benefit. A drone could probably confirm a major fire before your firefighters could even get suited up.

      --
      The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
    4. Re:Worst possible example. by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He's saying "use drones to be able to use your limited resources more intelligently" - for example, focusing on getting that jaws-of-life to a potentially critically injured car accident victim rather than diverting to a probable false alarm house fire.

      If you honestly think that such a thing even happens you are as foolish as him. You are creating a straw man with an event that's as rare as unicorn sightings.

      The fact is that budgets are limited and you can't have an infinite number of rescue workers responding to everything.

      Many of these budgets have fixed costs, for example you have 20 firefighters sitting around 24/7/365 (multiple shifts). And these firefighters aren't in new york responding to calls every few minutes. They spend 90% of every day sitting on their ass, just like every other sub-urban/rural firefighter.

      And compared to the salaries and overheads of humans, drones are very cheap.

      I see your malfunction now. You seem to think that drones fly themselves. That the guy sitting there flying the drone is invisible and doesn't cost salary and overhead. That the drone itself doesn't require maintenance, fuel, parts or will need a ground crew. You are WRONG. The drone is going to cost almost as much to operate as it would cost to put a plane up (except it's cheaper to buy than a plane). And the guy flying it? He's going to cost as much as a highly trained pilot because he's going to be one. This thing is the size of a fridge, it falls out of the sky and lands on someone it's going to kill them. The FAA isn't going to allow anything that size to be flown without someone with a pilots license behind the controls, as they've already decreed BTW.

      You also seem to be of the view that drones are miraculous and can spot people in a gutter or a lost child in a forest. People in manned helicopters have a hard time spotting that stuff, how on earth do you think a drone could do it so easy?

      Drones aren't miracles. You seem to think they are. This plan is nothing more than some jackass with a hobby that wants the taxpayers to fund it.

    5. Re:Worst possible example. by Rei · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you honestly think that such a thing even happens you are as foolish as him. You are creating a straw man with an event that's as rare as unicorn sightings.

      If you honestly think that rescue workers don't get multiple calls at the same time to deal with and that such a concept is "as rare as unicorn sightings" then you need to spend some more time with rescue workers.

      Many of these budgets have fixed costs, for example you have 20 firefighters sitting around 24/7/365 (multiple shifts). And these firefighters aren't in new york responding to calls every few minutes. They spend 90% of every day sitting on their ass, just like every other sub-urban/rural firefighter.

      The Macon-Bibb Fire Department gets 13 thousand calls per year and has to respond to all of them.

      But why don't you go down there and call them a bunch of lazy hicks who sit on their ass all day, I'm sure they'll appreciate that.

      You seem to think that drones fly themselves. That the guy sitting there flying the drone..

      "The guy". Singular. Versus up to a couple dozen people out on a call.

      You also seem to be of the view that drones are miraculous and can spot people in a gutter or a lost child in a forest.

      Given that these are the reasons that police and rescue services pay for helicopters, which are much more expensive, yes, finding things from the air with an IR camera is a demonstrably beneficial activity.

      Drones aren't miracles.

      Nope. What they are is cheap helicopters with minimal pre-launch delays and in which that the pilot doesn't have to be physically inside. Which is in all regards a great thing for emergency services.

      --
      The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
    6. Re:Worst possible example. by adolf · · Score: 2

      The Macon-Bibb Fire Department gets 13 thousand calls per year and has to respond to all of them.

      I don't see that number anywhere in the link you provided.

      What I do see is that it has a population of 156,462, over 266 square miles. The FD has a budget of $25.6 million. None of that seems unreasonable.

      13,000 fire calls, though? Detroit, Michigan is blatantly famous for its ongoing and recurrent structure fires with its population of ~688,000 [citation]. Even Detroit only sees 30,000 fire calls a year, of which 7,000 involve fires that are actually fought.[citation]

      Give me a citation that actually supports your claim, or GTFO.

      --
      Kid-proof tablet..
    7. Re:Worst possible example. by Rei · · Score: 1

      Really, you couldn't find that number? Under "Suppression"?

      I did give you the cite. You suck at using the internet.

      --
      The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
    8. Re:Worst possible example. by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Surely that should be "citation" and not "cite"...

    9. Re:Worst possible example. by adolf · · Score: 1

      Rather, you suck at making citations.

      --
      Kid-proof tablet..
    10. Re:Worst possible example. by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

      Go to the link provided, click on "Suppression." The citation is found within the paragraph there.

  7. My BS detector is tingling.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The king-sized drones seem like massive overkill if they're just doing surveillance. I was just reading about a start-up that's selling 3 sizes of drones, the largest runs over $100K each, but the smaller ones, which are perfectly adequate for carrying a small camera, are a few grand. I smell a kickback.

  8. Flame retardant payloads? by Sowelu · · Score: 1

    Anyone know how much flame retardant you'd need in order to have an effect? Not every kind is useful on every fire, but if you could feasibly actually start fighting a fire before humans arrive on the scene...well, score. I have no idea if you could realistically put enough to be useful on a drone of this size though.

    Hell, even if you aren't directly fighting an industrial fire or something, it'd be nice to dust nearby buildings' roofs with something to keep it from spreading as fast.

    1. Re:Flame retardant payloads? by Rei · · Score: 1

      If you picture it as "aircraft with 1-2 orders of magnitude more payload are used to control wildfires", the concept of a drone-mounted fire suppression for house-scale fires to buy time for ground fire crews really doesn't sound that unrealistic. It's not going to put out a 3-alarm blaze, but it's going to buy you time.

      --
      The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
    2. Re:Flame retardant payloads? by thesupraman · · Score: 1

      And if you picture it AS that, then you need a quick lesson in critical thinking.
      "aircraft with 1-2 orders of magnitude more payload are used to control wildfires" is patently false - at best they make many many runs to try and wet down areas to control the flow of wildfires in locations where they think that may help.

      That and the fact the a drone could, for example, dump a small load of retardant foam on your nice (almost certainly not flammable) roof, while the fire enjoys spreading like 'wildfire' throughout the inside of the building....

      Perhaps it could make a small dent on a few outdoor bbq fires - you know, the ones where a garden hose does the job also.

      It wont buy you any time, what it is most likely to do is delay useful responses and add to costs significantly.

    3. Re:Flame retardant payloads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. Structure fires are fought inside the structure. If you're pouring water on the roof, it's already completely burned the building and you're trying to save the neighborhood.

      Let's look at it another way. A typical moderate sized fire truck has a 750 - 1500 gallon tank. And the first thing that moderate sized fire truck wants to do is to snuggle up to a hydrant. Those 1500 gallons go fast. That's also 12 000 pounds of payload. Now you're talking hefty helicopter sized payloads, not drones. Further, the firefighters aren't going to dump all that heavy water on the roof, they are going to go inside if at all possible. Which isn't at all possible with a drone.

      So drones might have some utility as a scout. They are not going to be useful as a fire fighting device for a long while.

    4. Re:Flame retardant payloads? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Yes, they make many, many runs. And that doesn't apply here... why? Especially given that they're looking at, what, 17 drones available?

      A drone the size of a king-sized bed doesn't have to just "dump"; you're talking a payload in the ballpark of maybe 20 kilos. That's more than enough to have a ~120 PSI pump that can break windows. Or a fire grenade launcher, or many other options.

      --
      The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
  9. that's Olaeris's story by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    and he's sticking to it.

  10. Hellfire + stingray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Equip these bad boys with a few hellfire missiles and a stingray...they could stop unlimited crimes!

  11. Go fly a kite Mr Druitt by catsRus · · Score: 1

    Buy Mr Druitt a kite and a go pro, problem solved for about 500 bux!

  12. Make it friendly-looking by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    Like this one, maybe?

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    1. Re:Make it friendly-looking by Rei · · Score: 1

      It should refer to everyone as "citizen" when giving them orders, with each sentence containing a mix of friendly and not-so-friendly words. Examples:

      CITIZEN, PLEASE RETURN TO YOUR DWELLING AT ONCE.
      CITIZEN, WE REQUEST THAT YOU COMPLY IMMEDIATELY.

      Double points if whatever display it uses as its face is jarringly discordant with the implicitly (or explicitly) threatening commands it's giving. ;)

      --
      The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
  13. Ninety-five percent of all fire alarms are false? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ninety-five percent of all fire alarms are false, but fire departments have no choice to go, and you may have 15 (firefighters) responding

    Uh, seriously? What type of morons do you serve?

    Even so, it's not like the firefighters have anything else to do. Who cars if most of their calls are for nothing. It's in the same in my city. Sure, they may waste 15 minutes responding to a non-issue but they would otherwise just be playing around in the firehouse anyway.

  14. Real helicopters by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    Buy some real helicopters, then you can get humans there to do something about the problem. You could probably get about 5 well equipped medevac equipped helicopters on the used market for $5.7 million.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    1. Re:Real helicopters by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Buy some real helicopters, then you can get humans there to do something about the problem. You could probably get about 5 well equipped medevac equipped helicopters on the used market for $5.7 million.

      5.7 million wouldn't buy you ONE reasonable sized, used, helicopter that was airworthy, much less a medevac equipped one.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Real helicopters by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Buy some real helicopters, then you can get humans there to do something about the problem. You could probably get about 5 well equipped medevac equipped helicopters on the used market for $5.7 million.

      You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you? No, you don't. Once decent intermediate twin medevac copter costs about $12M. Each. To say nothing of the enormous maintenance and crew costs.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:Real helicopters by GrabbaTheButt · · Score: 1

      Buy some real helicopters, then you can get humans there to do something about the problem. You could probably get about 5 well equipped medevac equipped helicopters on the used market for $5.7 million.

      You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you? No, you don't. Once decent intermediate twin medevac copter costs about $12M. Each. To say nothing of the enormous maintenance and crew costs.

      Not to rain on your parade of mocking him, but 5 seconds of googling turned this up... http://www.aerotrader.com/list...

      Hardly fully medevac equipped but used and under 500K. Maybe he isn't the only one who doesn't know what he is talking about.

    4. Re:Real helicopters by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Buy some real helicopters, then you can get humans there to do something about the problem. You could probably get about 5 well equipped medevac equipped helicopters on the used market for $5.7 million.

      5.7 million wouldn't buy you ONE reasonable sized, used, helicopter that was airworthy, much less a medevac equipped one.

      You are apparently severely misguided about the prices of used helicopters. The most expensive one on this page is $1.195 million, and happens to be a Medevac equipped helicopter, and all of them are absolutely airworthy.
      Here is another article in which the NJ police department tried and failed to sell their old Medevac helicopters for $3.3 million each. The NJ Port Authority did manage to sell a 2004 model for $3.3 million and a 1984 model for $1 million. The NJ Police craft we 20 years old (in 2010) and obviously weren't going to sell for what a 6 year old one sold for, but the NJ Police budgeted for $6.6 million in sales anyway and spent the money. They did end up selling an old Bell for $645,000.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    5. Re:Real helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just steal one and repaint it. Just like they did on Firefly

    6. Re:Real helicopters by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      No county government first responder crew is going to put their people up in a used $500k helicopter. They operate these things in fleets so that there are large numbers of pilots and flight crew who are trained on the same equipment, and so that they can still operate while at least a couple of them are down on the ground being completely torn down to every wire harness for regular service.

      That's why counties like the one in question don't have and don't want to get into the helicopter fleet business. That's almost always handled at the state level, where the economy of scale makes more sense.

      No, a ten year old, well used, low-power police helo isn't going to ever get put to work as a county government medevac. There's a reason that contemporary medevacs are much beefier than the machine you linked to - they need a pilot, co-pilot, and crew of two, with the ability to lift two more bodies and a large pile of equipment that police copters never need to carry. Those are $10M+ machines, period.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    7. Re:Real helicopters by dave420 · · Score: 1

      bobbied wrong? Say it ain't so!

    8. Re:Real helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting anon because I modded elsewhere in this thread, but this is wrong - they bought a salvage one and painted it.

    9. Re:Real helicopters by GrabbaTheButt · · Score: 1
      I think you missed the point of my post which was responding to the fellow mocking the poster who said you could probably by 5 used medevac choppers for $5.7 million.

      You also probably missed the part of my link taking 5 seconds of googling, so no its not a link to a used medevac chopper..

      Here is one... http://www.medwow.com/used-air...

      A hair over a million bucks and they have two immediately available.... that took another 5 seconds of googling.. I imagine an actual search could turn up something better , but it certainly seems to vindicate the first guys statement which was

      "You could probably get about 5 well equipped medevac equipped helicopters on the used market for $5.7 million."

      So it would seem that used, they aren't $10M+ machines , period.

      Maybe you should read and think before you spew.

  15. Did you notice how all the drones were white?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just kidding, but seriously, I would be less skeptical of their intentions if it were almost anywhere but the deep south. Alabama doesn't have the best track record of technical competence and ethical conduct.

    1. Re:Did you notice how all the drones were white?? by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

      Good thing this is Georgia and not Alabama. About a 2 hour drive south of Atlanta, who's trying to make themselves into a combination Silycon Valley / Hollywood for the South East. Atlanta has already started considering towns as far north as Ellijay and Blue Ridge to be "Suburbs" with a combined sustained population less than 50K over 825 square miles. Up in this region, most of the local EMCs have rolled out Fiber capable of 50Mbps symmetrical or better all over the rural mountains. These are towns about 100 miles north of Atlanta, and within 10 to 20 miles of the North Carolina Border. In 20 years time, I expect the state of Georgia above Houston County to the NC border to be known as Atlanta-Georgia; From Waycross south to become Savannah-Georgia; and everything inbetween to be Da-Sticks of Georgia.

      Of course, I still have to agree with you on the ethical conduct part. Technical Competence, though? Metropolitan Georgia is in a lot better position with their Technology Infrastructure than anyone gives them credit for. Almost scarily so.

    2. Re:Did you notice how all the drones were white?? by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

      About a 2 hour drive south of Atlanta, who's trying to make themselves into a combination Silycon Valley / Hollywood for the South East

      This should have read: Macon-Bibb county is about a 2 hour drive south of Atlanta; Atlanta being the one who's trying to make themselves into a combination Sillycon[sic] Valley / Hollywood for the South East

  16. Yea, shure.... This is a good idea... NOT by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Let's see, 5.7 Million for a fleet of drones....

    I'm just wondering if that includes OPERATING costs, licensing costs and maintenance? Yes? For HOW LONG?

    What are the weather limitations? Wind speeds, visibility, rain, snow, ice?

    I'm thinking it would be much cheaper to put up a couple of tethered balloons carrying some camera gear when the weather is good and go with that. I'm guessing it will be cheaper up front, cheaper to operate and cheaper to maintain... Plus, they'd be just about as functional in the same limitations as these drone thingies... Go low tech, when it does what you want. Simple is almost ALWAYS going to be cheaper...

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:Yea, shure.... This is a good idea... NOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention, why the size of flying carpets! Smaller ones can fly just as fast (tree-toping) and even get down low to peek into windows, inspect rooftops....

      Seems to me 5mil could put fleets up round the clock

  17. $9 of Manpower? by aoism · · Score: 1

    Wait, so he's assuming firefighters are paid by the hours they are actually at a fire? That the time they are sitting in the firehouse on watch is not time they get paid for? That they get paid different rates if they respond to a false alarm, or an actual fire? If I were a firefighter, I'd take that up with my union!

  18. Country Sheriff by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    I found a photo of the Macon-Bibb County Sheriff, and I'm not sure he's someone I want in charge of a fleet of drones that are each as big as a king-sized bed.

    http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  19. Not going to help by mmmmbeer · · Score: 1

    "Ninety-five percent of all fire alarms are false, but fire departments have no choice to go, and you may have 15 (firefighters) responding."

    But this isn't going to help with that. You can't wait until you've flown a drone over a fire before you send the truck. Think about how much more property damage there would be, not to mention how many people would die, with the added delay in the case of real fires.

  20. leaving aside the potential for abuse... by djradon · · Score: 1

    Do you think that as long as an organization lets us know that "People will be able to track the aircraft online whenever they're used in order to learn where and why they were deployed" we should allow the creepy, annoying presence of machines buzzing around our visual and sonic spheres?

    1. Re:leaving aside the potential for abuse... by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe we shouldn't allow fire trucks to race down our streets with their sirens blaring! Clearly there are pros and cons to different things, but how often do you actually get bothered by a fire truck? What is any more creepy about a drone flying by than a police cruiser sailing down your street? I think its pretty clear the intent here isn't to carry out constant areal surveillance.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
  21. Suggestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know several firefighters and they INSIST it is critical to dispatch a fire engine and paramedic to EVERY call. This sounds like a union talking., I wonder if they simply dispatched only paramedics to medical calls and firefighters to fire calls and police to all calls to parse the actual issue if significant costs could be saved in drone crippled counties.

    JJ

  22. Absolutely useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some useful things such a drone could do.

    - delivery of a heart starter or other medical equipment within minutes of a call
    - supress small fires or vehicle fires. 20 kg payload = 4 fire extinguishers.
    - fast situation assesment before personell arrives. If there are simultaneous incidents, personell could be managed better.
    - delivery of floating aides for incidents on water
    - search
    - lighting during nighttime incidents

  23. Where do you begin? by chasm22 · · Score: 1

    These might be good as a supplement, but as a tool for a RIF?

    I see commentators talking about the IR for SAR and law enforcement. What do you think you're going to get at this price? What you aren't going to get is what you typically see on TV. That is the images sent from the 5 million dollars a copy military drone. Or the images from the border patrol chopper using the latest military grade IR. NO. Hell no. You're at best going to get a mid grade camera.

    Will this drone and pilot make the correct call when they are sent to an address where a smoke alarm is sounding? Let's say it's the middle of winter, the windows in the home are all closed. It's a newer home, well insulated. Lets say the couch is smoldering from a cigarette butt deposited on it by a person who has since dozed off and is now in imminent danger of dying from smoke inhalation. As well as the rest of his sleeping family. No flames, just smoke. Will the drone and pilot make the correct call. Because saving time is what the drone maker is selling. But I'm not sure I'm buying.

    And then we have the police. OMG, burglary in progress. Send the drone before they escape. Hmm. How about we send the patrol car that we have assigned to the area in response to recent burglaries? You know. The one that is five blocks away. How much time did you say the drone would save? And just what is better? An image of the top of the burglar's head or a police car on the scene? Remember, we're not talking supplemental, we are talking drones as replacements. Again, I'm not buying.

    Finally, I suggest a closer look at the words of the mayor and the sheriff. One says,"It's my understanding that there are no privacy concerns because this would be purely deployed for response to a 911 call," Reichert added." The other says, ""I think the public will need to get used to them first," Sheriff David Davis said. "They're not rockets shooting out of the sky. They're non-destructive, and they're a very useful tool."

    I say those sound like code words that suggest that the citizens of Macon are about to see not just a reduction in their police and firefighting force, but also a reduction in the privacy, if not their constitutional rights.

  24. Where there's smoke, er fire... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Ninety-five percent of all fire alarms are false, but fire departments have no choice to go, and you may have 15 (firefighters) responding".

    So presumably using drones they will know that, when where there's no smoke outside a home, there's no fire inside a home. No need to go kicking down so many doors anymore!