Skip to comments.FAA under pressure to open US skies to drones
Posted on 06/14/2010 2:54:35 AM PDT by Bad~RodeoEdited on 06/14/2010 5:18:59 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON– Unmanned aircraft have proved their usefulness and reliability in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now the pressure's on to allow them in the skies over the United States.
The Federal Aviation Administration has been asked to issue flying rights for a range of pilotless planes to carry out civilian and law-enforcement functions but has been hesitant to act. Officials are worried that they might plow into airliners, cargo planes and corporate jets that zoom around at high altitudes, or helicopters and hot air balloons that fly as low as a few hundred feet off the ground.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
“If you’ve got nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.” ~The German People, 1933
This doesn't jive. Seems to be quite a bit of investment for little comparative return.
You are at the age of the “new beginning”. In twenty years...at least one hundred ‘global platforms’ will be circling the United States at any given time. They will work for Homeland Security and have regional offices to connect state police and state officials to real-time imagery. It’ll be a billion-dollar a year contract.
The return would be a police state where the United States once stood.
>>>>>The return would be a police state where the United States once stood<<<<<<<
We are pretty close to that now. As soon as we aer unarmed we have it.
I’m a strong believer in the right to hide nothing.
I don’t think flying red light cameras will be any more politically popular than the stationary one’s have shown to be. There are companies ready to sell this idea to local governments, however, and there’s a sucker elected to municipal government every seventeen minutes or so.
Except that the next step is for socialists to begin discerning right behavior from wrong behavior on the premise that God doesn’t exist, but believing their thinking is inerrant independent of God. After that type of discernment, they will establish laws and regulations which now may be enforced by totalitarian methods.
Believers in God hold that the best way to live righteously is from within the heart, while those separate from God are myopic on controlling behavior from outside the heart.
The next step after the failure of socialist totalitarianism, is either to turn to God, or to reject God and attempt to change the way people think by “re-education”, again to the norms and standards adopted by those in power.
When that fails, the arrogant in power will then seek to control the thinking of those who oppose them, even to the point of any physical mechanism which leads to the Mark of the Beast.
They will turn on us.
The ONLY place we need these things is ON THE BORDER.
Well, you know Google wants one.
This is a subject I have been researching (apology for the long post):
Major General Marke Gibson, USAF Director of Operations; the main challenge to UAV NAS operations is widespread misunderstanding about the safety of UAVs. We’re dealing with a lack of understanding and knowledge about (UAVs). Because they are unmanned, there is a negative connotation that they are out roaming around like ‘machine sharks,’ but, in fact, they are remotely controlled by a qualified pilot who is in control.” Dec 9, 2009, UAV Conference, Tyndall AFB, FL.
UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES AND THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE
UAVs historically fly in restricted airspace (test and training ranges) or war zones, and have largely avoided conflict with manned aircraft. This is changing due to increased UAV military testing, training and operational requirements, as well as growing domestic security roles and the emerging role UAVs play in the commercial sector (emergency first-responders, geo-surveys, aerial photography, urban development, etc.). Consequently, it is imperative UAVs be seamlessly and safely integrated into the National Airspace (NAS).
Currently, there are a plethora of agencies and regulatory bodies that are trying to bring order to the chaos of establishing a uniform, international UAV standard. However independent or loosely coordinated these efforts are, their shared goal is to assure UAVs meet the same standards of safety for manned flights and not be burdened with higher levels of performance simply because of enabling technology. Because the most common cause of manned mishaps are mid-air collisions, UAV operations should expect the same and address the challenge of see-and-avoid.
SEE-AND-AVOID V SENSE-AND-AVOID
The overall objective failure rate for the Predator is on the order of 10-5, a value equal to that for a number of mature manned aircraft. DOD Unmanned Aerial System Roadmap 20052030, Appendix 6—Reliability, Pg H-6
Regardless of the class of airspace (controlled, uncontrolled), or Air Traffic Control (ATC) service, pilots are required to see-and-avoid other aircraft whenever weather permits. UAVs should also meet this standard.
Whereas, manned aircraft primarily use visual cues when executing see-and-avoid, the UAV operator uses technical means to see (sense). Regardless of the mode (sight or technology), pilots and UAV operators will sense to avoid potential conflicts. Whatever means used, they both sense-and-avoid (S&A) and therefore can meet see-and-avoid regulatory requirements.
Although S&A capabilities are not quantifiably defined, certain documents help circumscribe the requirements for such a capability. However, within those documents a bias regarding UAV S&A emerges, with see-and-avoid as the primary obstacle to integration and acceptance of UAV operations in the NAS. Essentially, the bias appears to overburden UAV operations with onerous levels of safety far beyond manned flight thresholds. In the United States, this issue was addressed early through an FAA White Paper, Sense-and-Avoid Requirement for Remotely Operated Aircraft, June 2004. The White Paper suggested UAV sensing technologies may actually eventually reduce air-to-air mishaps because technology is not influenced by external distractions, attention lapses or emotional overlays. Therefore, S&A technology can reasonably be expected to evolve to meet (or exceed) manned safety standards. The challenge then is to collate and synthesize the research to prove the concept beyond anecdotal research results. Of course, once proved, UAV S&A safety performance needs to be continually researched and analyzed to detect trends and identify cross-functional technologies that may enhance manned flight capabilities. Nonetheless, it is clear UAV technology and operations are in some cases achieving safety rates equal to manned systems.
There are many formulas establishing a benchmark level of a safe UAV S&A capability, but there is no uniform standard, because if there were, there would be one formula recognized as the objective safety score. To establish a standard without solid grounding in meaningful data will result in bad policy that either establishes an unreasonably high S&A standard or establishes an unsafe lower standard. Simply put, uniform, verified data is desperately needed to ensure reasonable UAV safety regulation. This regulation, internationally recognized, should require UAVs have onboard a self-contained ability to detect traffic conflicts, independently determine right-of-way, predictably maneuver well clear, and yield if the other platform does not adhere to avoidance responsibilities.
The introduction of UAVs into the NAS is challenging. Government, civil, industry and military UAV proponents are eager partners in developing and implementing operationally sound UAV practices. That said, close coordination with the US is in order to leverage their UAV advances. With mature S&A technology, coupled with professional certification standards for UAV operators, UAVs can operate safely in the NAS at a safety rate that is equal to, or better than, manned aircraft. Therefore, it is recommended efforts focus on forming a central technology development center-of-excellence that would function as an accrediting focal for collating S&A research and development findings, issuing reports and recommending reasonable UAV regulatory standards based on hard data.
First thing Obama will do with them is zap people who try to go to their doctor of choice; next they`ll blow up the new speakeasys, where people eat prohibited foods with fat and sodium... I am shocked, shocked to find that all those libs screaming about Bush creating a police state are silent now, as they have been throughout the reign of First Beaurocrat Obama.
Yes it is and I say screw the bureaucratic red tape and go this route instead.
These damn things are a major step toward elimination of all personal privacy and the imposition of a police state and you’re pimping them because you don’t think they will run into stuff?
May your chains sit lightly.
Apologies if I misunderstand your point. It’s hard to wade through that bureaucrateze verbage on one cup of coffee.
Given that they refuse to protect our southern border, why would they want to fly these drones over our country? Take pictures of tea party gatherings?
That thing is crazy and quick. I wonder how quiet it is
That is one cool site it sure got my attention.
The possibilities are endless and not to mention inexpensive. A couple of agents patrolling an area can send out one of those things to do a little recon all the while sending back video
no doubt a PC sop to the “world community” “So..how can you fly these things over Afghanistan and Pakistan when you don’t even permit them in your own airspace? Nyah nyah!”
The holdup is that they're debating whether to remove the color cameras and install black and white cameras so the racial profiling card can't be played. /s
Not so much “chains,” as UAVs are no different than manned aircraft. No different (except no man on board).
If you object to UAVs flying in NAS because of concerns about big brother, then you better be concerned about all the U-2/TR-1’s, as well as Rivet Joint and other data-collectors flying in our airspace, and they have far more intelligence collection capability than a UAV.
Issue is how to incorporate UAVs into the NAS. Military ops and training are bound and restricted by FAA rules and regs in our airspace, so, question is how to train our UAV operators before we use those things in war zones. And for border surveillance, how do we ensure safe ops as they fly along the border if we don't address the issue of safe operation and satisfy FAA regulations?
Again, they are no different than other platforms we fly every day in the NAS, they are just unmanned.
Eye in the sky ping.
They just go on and on and on....
Step by step, we march inexorably into a dystopic future of total surveillance with our behavior controlled, monitored and modified by the plethora of diktats, laws and technology all in the name of safety and reducing risk.
Drones, they’re not just for jihadis anymore.
Well, as we will hear, if you don’t have anything to hide...
UAV’s (acutally now called UA’s) have a clear mission for border security —they are ideal. My prediction is that we will NOT permit this.
Do most people know that now satellite tech does permit for tracking indiv car license plates..? No, I don’t mean simply reading the plate (possible decades ago): I mean that technically you could enforce speed limits FROM OUTER SPACE.
Chilling eh? I think this is the dark future.
Short of covering or illegally switching one’s plate, there would be no counter-measure; you’d get no warning chirp or anything. You’d be driving merrily along, and a week later get a ticket mailed to you telling you how much you owe.
I predict that will happen before this tech is permitted for use in enforcing borders.
Did you know the “pain ray” is not used overseas..? Because it could raise legal problems.
But it HAS been used against “mere Americans”.
A buddy says UA stands for UrinAlysis. /s
And that is the one place they will not be used en-masse.
It's about controlling citizens. Illegals crossing the border aren't citizens and thus are protected.
People with that attitude don't realize how naive they are.
Politicians can make ANYTHING ILLEGAL. As we have seen in the last 6 months, politicians will spit in your face and pass laws that the populace does not want and make no sense.
You could go to bed a perfect angel obeying every law written, and when you wake up you are a felon because you have a leaking faucet.
This is a hypothetical, but I'm not making the premise up. They will make increasingly ridiculous laws as time goes on to collect revenue. We must resist this trend.
So be it.
I almost misinterpreted (I hope) that and your following post and lit into you.
Daaaamn, that’ll work, LOL~