Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FAA under pressure to open US skies to drones
Yahoo News ^ | June 14, 2010 | JOAN LOWY

Posted on 06/14/2010 2:54:35 AM PDT by Bad~Rodeo

Edited 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 ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: domesticdrones; drones; dronesfaa; dronesus; faa; lping; washington

1 posted on 06/14/2010 2:54:35 AM PDT by Bad~Rodeo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Bad~Rodeo

“If you’ve got nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.” ~The German People, 1933


2 posted on 06/14/2010 2:56:47 AM PDT by Boucheau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bad~Rodeo
State police hope to send them up to capture images of speeding cars' license plates.

This doesn't jive. Seems to be quite a bit of investment for little comparative return.

3 posted on 06/14/2010 3:10:27 AM PDT by P8riot (I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bad~Rodeo

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.


4 posted on 06/14/2010 3:13:05 AM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice

Skynet


5 posted on 06/14/2010 3:26:29 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: P8riot

The return would be a police state where the United States once stood.


6 posted on 06/14/2010 3:47:12 AM PDT by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946

>>>>>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.


7 posted on 06/14/2010 3:53:11 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Boucheau

I’m a strong believer in the right to hide nothing.


8 posted on 06/14/2010 4:11:58 AM PDT by Prospero (non est ad astra mollis e terris via)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: P8riot

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.


9 posted on 06/14/2010 4:15:01 AM PDT by Prospero (non est ad astra mollis e terris via)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Prospero

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.


10 posted on 06/14/2010 4:25:01 AM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

“Skynet”

They will turn on us.

The ONLY place we need these things is ON THE BORDER.


11 posted on 06/14/2010 4:33:33 AM PDT by wolfcreek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsd7DGqVSIc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bad~Rodeo

Well, you know Google wants one.


12 posted on 06/14/2010 4:47:04 AM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bad~Rodeo

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 2005—2030, 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.


13 posted on 06/14/2010 4:53:34 AM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bad~Rodeo

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.


14 posted on 06/14/2010 4:58:07 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 ("You seem to believe that stupidity is a virtue. Why is that so?"-Flight of the Phoenix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hulka
The introduction of UAVs into the NAS is challenging.

Yes it is and I say screw the bureaucratic red tape and go this route instead.

DIY DRONES

15 posted on 06/14/2010 5:00:28 AM PDT by Bad~Rodeo (INTEGRATE or VACATE: BoycottMexicoNow.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946

Good point.


16 posted on 06/14/2010 5:00:31 AM PDT by P8riot (I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bad~Rodeo
If they do they need to allow private aircraft to carry missiles!!
17 posted on 06/14/2010 5:01:19 AM PDT by dalereed (in)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hulka

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.


18 posted on 06/14/2010 5:03:52 AM PDT by tickmeister (tickmeister)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Bad~Rodeo

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?


19 posted on 06/14/2010 5:04:20 AM PDT by Texas resident (Outlaw fisherman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bad~Rodeo
This would make a cool drone:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvH2f-AewX8

20 posted on 06/14/2010 5:06:45 AM PDT by P8riot (I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Bad~Rodeo
..."a few hundred feet off the ground"

A good marksman with a 30.06 and a decent scope could probably take one out at that range.
21 posted on 06/14/2010 5:11:42 AM PDT by mkjessup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P8riot

That thing is crazy and quick. I wonder how quiet it is


22 posted on 06/14/2010 5:12:33 AM PDT by Bad~Rodeo (INTEGRATE or VACATE: BoycottMexicoNow.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; Allerious; ...



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
23 posted on 06/14/2010 5:25:56 AM PDT by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

*


24 posted on 06/14/2010 5:29:54 AM PDT by TornadoAlley3 (Obama is everything Oklahoma is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Bad~Rodeo

That is one cool site it sure got my attention.


25 posted on 06/14/2010 5:34:41 AM PDT by Rappini ("Pro deo et Patria.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Rappini

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


26 posted on 06/14/2010 5:51:09 AM PDT by Bad~Rodeo (INTEGRATE or VACATE: BoycottMexicoNow.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Bad~Rodeo

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!”


27 posted on 06/14/2010 5:59:34 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
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

28 posted on 06/14/2010 6:10:30 AM PDT by Bad~Rodeo (INTEGRATE or VACATE: BoycottMexicoNow.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: tickmeister
No worries. I think you missed the point because perhaps I wasn't clear—written for those in the aviation world.

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.

29 posted on 06/14/2010 6:42:31 AM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Eye in the sky ping.


30 posted on 06/14/2010 9:20:11 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bamahead; Bad~Rodeo

31 posted on 06/14/2010 10:12:31 AM PDT by Lady Jag (Double your income... Fire the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: bamahead

They just go on and on and on....


32 posted on 06/14/2010 11:22:30 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Bad~Rodeo

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...


33 posted on 06/14/2010 12:35:35 PM PDT by swarthyguy (KIDS! Deficit, Debt,Taxes!Pfft Lookit the bright side of our legacy -Ummrika is almost SmokFrei!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bad~Rodeo

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.

Crazy? No.

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”.

See.....?


34 posted on 06/14/2010 2:46:25 PM PDT by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gaijin
acutally now called UA’s

A buddy says UA stands for UrinAlysis. /s

35 posted on 06/14/2010 2:52:14 PM PDT by Bad~Rodeo (INTEGRATE or VACATE: BoycottMexicoNow.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek
The ONLY place we need these things is ON THE BORDER.

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.

36 posted on 06/14/2010 4:44:26 PM PDT by SteamShovel (If the RAT party is for Hippies, the "Tea Party" is for "Teapies".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: swarthyguy
Well, as we will hear, if you don’t have anything to hide...

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.

37 posted on 06/14/2010 4:53:28 PM PDT by SteamShovel (If the RAT party is for Hippies, the "Tea Party" is for "Teapies".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Boucheau
Long-distance skeet.

So be it.

38 posted on 06/14/2010 6:34:58 PM PDT by elkfersupper (Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Prospero
I’m a strong believer in the right to hide nothing.

I almost misinterpreted (I hope) that and your following post and lit into you.

39 posted on 06/14/2010 6:45:02 PM PDT by elkfersupper (Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bad~Rodeo
I swear, I thought it was a duck...


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

40 posted on 06/14/2010 6:59:12 PM PDT by The Comedian (Evil can only succeed if good men don't point at it and laugh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Comedian

Daaaamn, that’ll work, LOL~


41 posted on 06/14/2010 7:00:22 PM PDT by Bad~Rodeo (INTEGRATE or VACATE: BoycottMexicoNow.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson