Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lifesaving Drone Makes First Rescue In Australia (yahoo.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the first-of-its-kind dept.

Zorro shares a report from Yahoo News: A pair of Australian swimmers on Thursday became the first people to be rescued in the ocean by a drone when the aerial lifesaver dropped a safety device to distressed teens caught in rough seas. In what is believed to be a world-first drone surf rescue, two boys on Thursday got caught in three-meter (10-foot) swells while swimming off Lennox Head in New South Wales, near the border with Queensland. Beachgoers onshore raised the alarm to the lifeguards who then alerted the drone pilot, and the aerial lifesaver was deployed in moments.

Along with their ability to spot swimmers in trouble and deliver life saving devices faster than traditional lifesaving techniques, like launching surfboards or rubber dinghies, drones are being used in Australia to spot underwater predators like sharks and jellyfish. Artificial intelligence is being developed using thousands of images captured by a drone camera to build an algorithm that can identify different ocean objects. The software can differentiate between sea creatures, like sharks which it can recognize with more than 90 percent accuracy, compared to about 16 percent with the naked eye.

45 comments

  1. Not that we're keeping score by rmdingler · · Score: 0

    One water rescue by autonomous aerial vehicles saves two lives, and there have undoubtedly been more stranded-asshole, mountain-climber/hiker rescues, versus, how many targeted assassinations?

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Not that we're keeping score by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Think of all the jobs for locals who did maths and can now help with 5 eye missions.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re: Not that we're keeping score by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The name "five eyes" raises *SO* many questions.

      How many people are there? 2.5? 3? More? Less than 2?!? Do 5+ people have to cover one eye each for the duration?

      Why do they count the number of eyes involved?

      How did that .5 person lose their eye?

      How did the no-eyed people lose their eyes, or were they born without eyes? (Which is distinct from people without sight, as they usually have non-functioning eyes).

      If there are more than 2.5 people, could they not have found competent people with 1+ eyes? And why was it important to make certain people knew the eyeless people were involved?

      Is there some benefit to have people with zero eyes involved?

    3. Re: Not that we're keeping score by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there are more than 2.5 people, could they not have found competent people with 1+ eyes?

      "Two and a Half Eyes", with Charlie Sheen and Sammy Davis Jr.

      Me and my shadow...

    4. Re: Not that we're keeping score by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      Between the Great White sharks, and the deadly almost microscopic jelly fish (box jelly?)....I can't imagine why ANYONE would ever want to set foot in the waters off the coast of Australia....???

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  2. AI crap again... (Not AI) by ls671 · · Score: 1

    Artificial intelligence is being developed using thousands of images captured by a drone camera to build an algorithm that can identify different ocean objects. The software can differentiate between sea creature...

    There we go, AI crap again! (Not AI) ;-)

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    1. Re:AI crap again... (Not AI) by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      Hey! They're doing pretty good given they have to stop and write their own press releases...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    2. Re:AI crap again... (Not AI) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's part of the VC package. You HAVE to have a hot ditz sitting at a copy of Photoshop trying to write press releases for the concept to be investible.

    3. Re:AI crap again... (Not AI) by jblues · · Score: 1

      There they go calling it intelligence again! For a a specialised application and not a general intelligence at all. Its just so counterfeit, synthetic, manufactured . . . bah! Its artificial, damnit!

      --
      If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
    4. Re:AI crap again... (Not AI) by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Nonono. Anything with a computer is AI.

  3. I remember they trialled this on Bondi Rescue by Scoldog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They trialled this on Bondi Rescue a while back. They raced the drone, a lifeguard on a board and a lifeguard on the jetski. The jetski won. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    This space for rent
    1. Re:I remember they trialled this on Bondi Rescue by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      Not only did the jetski win, the victim can be taken back to shore with the jetski. All the drone can do is drop a floatation device that the victim must catch and use to keep afloat while real help arrives. If they miss, too bad, it only has one shot.

      The person on the jetski can also help people who have started drowning and are unconscious.

    2. Re:I remember they trialled this on Bondi Rescue by Scoldog · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I thought the same thing when I watched this episode. However, I reckon the drone, depending on its battery range, would do be good for shark spotting. It would also be cheaper than calling out the chopper all the time.

      --
      This space for rent
    3. Re:I remember they trialled this on Bondi Rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a school project where they gave the drone a significant disadvantage (Why would you keep the drone near the water's edge then run the length of the beach when you can keep the drone at the surf live-saving tower and fly that distance). The drone involved in this rescue was a purpose designed commercial UAV (http://littleripper.com/our-fleet/)

      Additionally Jetski's are great if you happen to have a Jetski in the water and with working communications. If you don't, the drone has a much faster launch time. For instance, in this case, from the time the drone pilot was made aware of the issue, the drone had been launched, found the swimmers, verified they were in distress, and dropped the flotation device within 70s.

      The drone is also much quicker in heavier surf conditions as it doesn't need to actually move through the surf.

    4. Re:I remember they trialled this on Bondi Rescue by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Yes.
      It's never going to be a replacement for a lifeguard though. If would always need to be sent out in addition to a lifeguard as it can't actually bring anyone back to shore. Even if it deployed a harpoon, it wouldn't have enough thrust to keep itself in the air and pull them back at the same time.

    5. Re:I remember they trialled this on Bondi Rescue by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Design a really, really big drone and fly one lifeguard out? A big flying version of the jetski but with just one lifeguard.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:I remember they trialled this on Bondi Rescue by drago177 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's obvious the jetski is by far more useful. But if it's a speed test, this doesn't seem fair. 1) They made the drone operator run from the watch tower 100ft to waterline. 2) The jetski was sitting there 8ft from water, 3) with a 4-wheeler 4) and a driver waiting to help him launch.

    7. Re:I remember they trialled this on Bondi Rescue by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Good idea but giant flying jetskis are so 2017.

    8. Re:I remember they trialled this on Bondi Rescue by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You could of course do drones on rotation, so one is always up in rescue position and of course they would be enormously cheaper. So race ignores logical application and the drone could have a strong cord attached to the flotation device and ensure the flotation device is delivered to the person being rescued, whilst a board makes it's way out there. Depending upon the power output of the drone, it could also tow the person holding onto the flotation device back into shore. Now if you have three on rotation, so one is always up in the air, all three can be deployed at the same time if necessary, more than one rescue at a time, and nearby beaches.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    9. Re:I remember they trialled this on Bondi Rescue by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 2

      I think where the drone would beat the jetski would be when they have difficulties locating the victim. There have been other Bondi Rescue episodes showing the rescuers searching the ocean for a person who, for all they knew, may have dropped below the surface. Even in the cases when dropping a floatation device would be of minimal value, being able to provide guidance to other lifeguards would be invaluable.

    10. Re:I remember they trialled this on Bondi Rescue by bgarcia · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The jetski won because:
      • There were no 10 foot swells - the sea was as calm as could be in that "test". So the jetski could operate at full speed.
      • The person in trouble was easily visible from shore. In 10 foot swells, a drone will have an easier time spotting a person in trouble far from shore.
      • The drone was stationed at the beach, instead of at the lifeguard tower. So someone had to run from the tower to the drone first. That's silly.

      The ideal situation would be to have a drone for spotting, with the capability to drop a flotation device, and have the jetski driver make use of the drone to determine where to go in rough seas.

      --
      I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
    11. Re: I remember they trialled this on Bondi Rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You don't actually need to bring most people back to shore. Most people drown due to physical exhaustion trying to fight the ocean. If you give them a flotation device they can rest a little and recompose and then make their own way to the shore, as which is what happened in this case.

      Even if they do need retrieval, the flotation device can buy a lot of time for a life saver to respond.

    12. Re:I remember they trialled this on Bondi Rescue by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Sounds very expensive to me.
      Half a dozen drones, a hundred or so batteries, a crew of pilots, a fully stocked set of spare parts. And a new drone no one has invented yet that won't fall out the sky and kill some poor swimmer when something fails while it's hovering over their head "patrolling".

      I still don't really see the need for this. If you want to patrol for sharks, a drone with fixed wings is much more efficient and safer.

  4. Thousands of images, you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who are they sold to, and for how much? ...

    Not “Are they sold?”. Because they are.

  5. Image recognition by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    So it can detect Shark or Not Shark?

    Like Hotdog and Not Hotdog?

    1. Re:Image recognition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much, they even beat human spotters with 90% recognition rate for the UAVs vs 16% for the naked human eye (though they don't mention if the spotters are on the shore or in the air, where I'd image it'd be much higher)

    2. Re:Image recognition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... a nabbo ...

      It took a while to get that: The crossword I still don't understand.

      ... SJW will pee their panties ...

      For foreigners, I'll say it's an ethnic minority that refuses to adopt 'Australian' culture and values but political correctness gives them a lot of mind-share.

  6. This story is not what it seems by Canbot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When interviewed the boys said they were not drowning but distressed because the drone is used to spot sharks and it scared them. The price is also being kept a secret. There is a lot of viral marketing on this. Someone is working really hard to builk the government of hundreds of thousands and potentially millions of dollars.

    1. Re:This story is not what it seems by another_twilight · · Score: 1

      I've done a quick and fairly limited search for a source for this, but everyone seems to be gushing about the rescue.

      The boys don't look to be in distress in the drone's footage (in my totally unqualified opinion), and seem perfectly capable of heading to shore once the flotation device is dropped, so your description of events seems plausible. I presume that there are already shark spotting drones in the area, and that this new drone was mistaken as being one of those by the boys.

      Where did you find/see the interview?

    2. Re:This story is not what it seems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      From Seven News Queenland broadcast: https://youtu.be/4hAbTH9zQ_Y?t=44

    3. Re:This story is not what it seems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a customised Pulse Aerospace Vapor 55 whose base cost is $90k (excluding payload).

    4. Re:This story is not what it seems by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      When interviewed the boys said they were not drowning but distressed because the drone is used to spot sharks and it scared them.

      Completely irrelevant. They were reported to life savers by others which prompted a response. Whether or not they were drowning doesn't change that 2 people were in 3 meter swells some 700m off the coast. One way or the other they would have been fetched by lifesavers, the difference is the response time of the drone was much faster than traditionally launching the boat or worse, swimming out on a board.

      It's also worth noting that it has been a nasty few weeks for drownings in Australia. Whether or not they were in trouble or practicing Olympic swimmers they would have been rescued or "rescued" one way or the other.

    5. Re:This story is not what it seems by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      A lot of rescues are done for reasons not needing a rescue. Question: 2 swimmers are 700m from the shore in 3m swells and someone worried has reported them. What do you as a lifesaver do?

      Frankly dropping a pod from a drone sounds like a better alternative than getting a team of 2 people to swim / boat out. This has happened to me frequently. I grew up on the beach but now live in Europe where people's ability to swim leaves a bit to be desired. I was happily swimming down the coast in the north sea when I got picked up by lifesavers just because someone was worried about me.

    6. Re:This story is not what it seems by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Adding to my previous reply, you mentioned based on your unqualified opinion they may have made it back to shore. Unfortunately that's the same opinion of most people who get pulled out of the water. Very few people are able to recognize signs that they are in trouble until it's waaaaay too late.

      There's been cases of lifeguards rushing into water to save drowning children while their parents were right next to them not realising they were in distress. It's a hard thing to differentiate too. Something as simple as a head bobbing in and out of water: is the person doing breaststroke or fatigued enough that they can't consistently kick?

      Better safe than sorry. The stories I saw on this said that the swimmers who were rescued were fine showing only signs of fatigue.

    7. Re:This story is not what it seems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Swimming off the coast down at the goldie one time with my mate and we got caught in a rip. Both of us were decent swimmers so we probably weren't as concerned as we should have been. We weren't being pushed too far out thankfully. After about 30 minutes the lifeguards came out to check on us and we stupidly gave them the good ol 'yeah we're good mate' and off they went. Took us about another 45 minutes to get back into shore as we had to find an area where the current wasn't acting against us. So yeah - a lot of people may be in more trouble than they realize, or if they're stupid like apparently I am, think they have a lot more control of the situation then they actually do. Not sure how far out we were as it can be hard to tell from out in the water but it was a decent distance.

      The kicker to this story being when I was wading onto the beach I got stung by a jelly (first and only time ever) and I spent my whole life swimming on North Queensland beaches... hurt like a biatch.

    8. Re:This story is not what it seems by another_twilight · · Score: 1

      Fair and reasonable comments, all.

      I realise that I'm coming back to this a couple of days later, but on the chance you see this - thanks.

    9. Re:This story is not what it seems by another_twilight · · Score: 1

      Late reply, just wanted to acknowledge that the comments that you and @thegarbz (above) made are appreciated. Being shown points I hadn't considered or properly appreciated in a civil manner is refreshing.

    10. Re:This story is not what it seems by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You're welcome.

  7. Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You had me at distressed teens. Is there any other kind?

  8. RPAS (drones) could save millions of lives if by Max_W · · Score: 1

    it were allowed to deliver parcels from helipads on building roofs.

    A lot of traffic in cities, up to 50%, is delivering small parcels, often just papers, between business. And we are breathing all that toxic fossil fuel exhaust from traffic jams.

    All that anti-drone neo-luddism is not coming free.

    1. Re:RPAS (drones) could save millions of lives if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could just use email instead of cluttering up the airways too.

  9. I can't believe it!!!!!!!! by franzrogar · · Score: 2

    So, they knew WHERE they must go and the FASTEST won!!!!! Unbelievable!!!!

    Now, on MORE REAL SCENARIOS, where you don't have a f*c*ing idea WHERE YOUR TARGET IS... How would win?

    Fastest or the one with WIDEST POINT OF VIEW?

  10. Not a rescue. Just dropped a flotation device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not a rescue. Just dropped a flotation device.

    Last time I checked, a rescue is when the person is brought to safety, not left to fend for themselves.

    Now, if the drone dropped something and pulled the victim to the shore, THAT would be "a rescue."