Unmanned Aerial Drones Coming Soon Above U.S. 841
cnet-declan writes "Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been flying over Iraq and Afghanistan, but now the Bush administration wants to use them for domestic surveillance. A top Homeland Security official told Congress today, according to this CNET News.com article, that: "We need additional technology to supplement manned aircraft surveillance and current ground assets to ensure more effective monitoring of United States territory." One county in North Carolina is already using UAVs to monitor public gatherings. But what happens when lots of relatively dumb drones have to share airspace with aircraft carrying passengers? A pilot's association is worried."
Israel does this already... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Israel does this already... (Score:5, Interesting)
...and NASA plans to do it too for terrain mapping purposes (presumably within US borders):
http://esto.nasa.gov/obs_technologies_uavsar.html [nasa.gov]
UAVs are something we're going to have to get used to. Up next: pilotless passenger planes. Most modern aircraft are already equipped with auto-takeoff, auto-pilot (cruise), and auto-land. What more do you need? The ability to control them from the ground? That's being worked on for security reasons.
-Oliver / TreasureTunes.com [treasuretunes.com]
Shouldn't be a problem?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are they armed? How long until they are?
Re:Israel does this already... (Score:5, Insightful)
Israel has lots of unamerican "problems", like a state religion and the draft. We don't want those things here.
Re:Israel does this already... (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's be careful that we don't overstate this issue. Saying unmanned reconnaisance is unconstitutional is not accurate. There is no difference constitutionally between manned aircraft and unmanned.
The angst here is against the Bush administration's policies, not unmanned drones.
Arguing the wrong point weakens the real discussion.
Re:Israel does this already... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Israel does this already... (Score:3, Insightful)
Israel has boarders? Where are they, exactly?
Israel has lots of unamerican "problems", like a state religion and the draft. We don't want those things here.
Lets put a simple list together:
1) Administrative detention without charge or trial.
2) Turture of prisoners
3) Racial segragation (in that the Israeli Arabs ha
Re:Israel does this already... (Score:3, Insightful)
The other issue is one of illegal annexation which I have not addressed in my posts. Current international humanitarian law strictly forbids military conquest as a way of making one's country bigger. In thi
Re:Israel does this already... (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally I am mixed on this program, I believe that border security needs to be strengthened but at a pilot I am kind of scared of being forced to share airspace with UAVs, and the pop-up TFRs that go with them.
TFRs are the bane of private pilots because they are often short notice, large enough to be an inconvenience, but small enough that you can transit most of the center of what they are trying to protect in under a minute, and Part 121 and often part 135 traffic is most often exempted (the aircraft that can do the most damage). Here in Florida for the shuttle launches we have 24 hour TFRs (the TFR is post 9/11 NASA had used a set of restricted airspace that was much smaller or oriented downrange), that are so large that it cuts off East coast VFR corridor between Orlando's Class B airspace and the ADIZ. Forcing pilots to fly an obstacle course of TFR, restricted, and controlled airspace to get to their destination.
Translation for non-pilots (Score:4, Informative)
TFR == Temporary Flight Restriction, a short-term restriction on flight in a specified area.
VFR == Visual Flight Rules. Flying by looking out the window rather than using instruments to maintain separation from terrain and other aircraft.
ADIZ == Air Defense Identification Zone. Airspace which is prohibited to aircraft who have not obtained prior authorization. In theory, violators will be shot down.
Part 121 traffic. Dunno.
Part 135 traffic. Dunno.
Class B airspace. Dunno.
Re:Translation for non-pilots (Score:4, Informative)
Part 135: The section of the Federal Aviation Regulations specifying rules for non-scheduled Charter/Air Taxi operations. These range from anything from large piston singles to Lear Jets being operated on a for-hire basis as-needed.
Class B Airspace: Airspace designation around large major airports or clusters. BWI/Dulles/National and JFK/Newark/La Guardia are each under B airspace. It has certain control requirements for any pilots wishing to enter, including clearance and two-way radio contact from the ATC facility controlling it and an altitude-encoding transponder.
Re:Translation for non-pilots (Score:3, Informative)
Part 135 is the section of FARs that covers charter service, these are mostly smaller operators
Other examples you might here is part 61, this is the section that deals with the certification of pilots, part 91, contains most of the flight related law for most pilots, pilots flying under part 121 and part 135 still follow all of the same rules under part 91 (though some rules m
Re:Israel does this already... (Score:3, Informative)
I'm a pilot and I can tell you that there is no such thing as commercial airspace. When I take off and fly I can go pretty much anywhere I want. Sure, there are different types of airspace that require ATC clearance to enter, but there is not such beast as commercial airspace.
Unless these Drones can 'see and avoid' just like other VFR aircraft they should not be permitted access to the
Re:Israel does this already... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Israel does this already... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a terrible idea, especially if you think it will improve security. Quite the opposite. All you need is one terrorist hacker to break into the system and grab control. Then instead of an attack by four planes you have every plane in the air becoming a weapon and/or target at the same time.
UAVs vastly superior to blimps (Score:5, Interesting)
Unmaned blimps are far more fuel efficient than unmaned planes. Plus they can stay airborne for more time. Why don't they use blimps all along ?
Because you can't reroute blimps to get a closer look at something very easily.
Funny this article gets posted while I'm in the middle of writing a proposal for follow-on funding on my research into UAV control algorithms...
Endurance is a concern. Collision avoidance is a concern. But UAVs offer incredible surveillance opportunities that stationary sensors just can't match.
I could go on and on but I need to get back to writing my UAV proposal. UAVs are one of the hottest military technologies these days. It's not surprising that the commercial and civilian sector is starting to take a look at how these maturing drones can be used to solve their problems.
GMD
Who is flying them? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a clear violation of airspace safety in which the pilot is ALWAYS reponsible for avoiding other aircraft. It's the most basic rule you learn when you become a pilot, and it's what every examiner checks for before each maneuver during the practical exam. Unfortunately, the engineers designing these things aren't pilots or air traffic controllers and have no idea how our airspace works. (They work fine in Iraq, but that's a war zone with no civilian aviation.) Apparently engineers do know how to weasel our tax dollars to fund their overpriced remote control toys.
If AI was smart enough to fly an airplane, why aren't they flying airliners? They'd be way cheaper than pilots. If there's no pilot, there's no see-and-avoid. When a camera can see and process as quickly as a human, then it might work, but before then, the only way to do this is to not allow them to fly anywhere near humans fly.
There's currently no FAA-approved technology to relieve a pilot of her duty to see and avoid other aircraft whether or not the AC is on an IFR flight plan. Next time you're on an airliner, listen to the channel with the pilots talking to TRACON or CENTER. There's a lot of human interaction.
In the late seventies, CIA funding changed from human intelligence gathering to satellite intelligence gathering. We can see every place in the world and pick up all their signals, but we still couldn't tell India was testing an Atomic bomb. With all the billions of dollars spent on overhead technology, we still haven't found Osama. Now the people selling the things tell us how similar technology will solve our crime problem...
Re:Who is flying them? (Score:5, Informative)
If, however, these things are AI-controlled, that is just braindead. Sooner or later, they'll crash into something they shouldn't. The AI just isn't going to be good enough without decent conceptual processing algorithms.
I'd also say that from the viewpoint of civil rights, the notion that these things are "just another pair of cops eyes" is too simplistic. With sensors and other technology, plus their vantage point, there are considerably more invasive than your average cop on the beat.
I'd suggest everybody watch the movie "Blue Thunder" - this is where the US is heading and it's not a good idea.
Re:Who is flying them? (Score:3, Informative)
So what you are saying is that you think engineers at defence contractors design these vehicles all on their own? So much so, that they don't get *any* input from the US Air Force or FAA? You s
Re:UAVs vastly superior to blimps (Score:5, Funny)
Even better! Build you own drones to fight the drones that stalk you or build a EMP emmiting device and watch these suckers drop from the skies like frozen turkeys.
Re:Two words (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Two words (Score:3, Informative)
I don't believe that's relevant. I see no mention about aircraft registration requirements in FAA's Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, Chapter 29, Outdoor Laser Operations [faa.gov], mainly laser operation restrictions within certain ranges of airports.
Re:SUAVs (Score:5, Insightful)
Wryness (Score:3, Interesting)
Now you won't be considered paranoid.... (Score:2)
Woe oh woe... how will we tell the real lunies from the fake ones, if they really ARE watching you?
Well you know that old saying (Score:5, Insightful)
My new sig seems even more appropriate than usual.
Re:Well you know that old saying (Score:2)
WTF are you saying?!?!
Re:Well you know that old saying (Score:5, Informative)
Place a frog in a pan of boiling hot water. He immeadiately hops out.
Place a frog in a pan of cold water, and slowly raise the temperature to boiling. He remains in the pan until being boiled to death.
Place a person in a peaceful, law-abiding (gov. & civilian) society. He doesn't speak out.
Place a person in a totalitarian nightmare. He fights back.
Place a person in a law-abiding society and slowly remove his civil rights bit by bit. He doesn't fight back because "it doesn't affect me" until he is living in a totalitarian nightmare with no rights and no one to back him up.
Re:Well you know that old saying (Score:5, Informative)
I've done it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I've done it (Score:5, Funny)
Where's that -1 Evil moderation when you need it?
huzzah (Score:5, Funny)
what happens? (Score:5, Funny)
"Security" makes it all OK? (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought that actions like appropriating the military for civilian law enforcement, spying on US citizens within the US, etc. were illegal. Why doesn't anyone seem to give a shit anymore?
There are a number of reasons, actually. (Score:4, Insightful)
The first is the same bread-and-circuses problem that plagued the Roman Empire. As long as they have beer and football, Mountain Dew and XBox, or their cell phones and MTV, most Americans are quite content.
The second is a lousy mass media. Many people who might take a stand against anti-freedom activities such as this aren't even aware of the issue, just because it isn't reported well by major news outlets.
The third is a lack of understanding. Low-quality history lessons in schools, often teaching what amounts to idealistic propaganda, have resulted in many youths (and now adults) not even being able to comprehend the issues at hand. They are unaware of how such 'security' measures were the hallmarks of numerous totalitarian regimes, just in the 20th century alone.
It's a multifaceted problem, and no solution is readily available.
problem is not 'accidental' (Score:5, Interesting)
The way I see it, the problem is by design. It's well known that there's been a lot of "media consolidation" over the past few decades, so that the major outlets are controlled in the hands of a few corporations (e.g. Clearchannel).
John Taylor Gatto [johntaylorgatto.com] tells us in his books & presentations that the government's schools were set up to provide workers for industry. Before government schools, the American dream was an independant livelihood. After government schools, the expectation shifted to finding employment with a good company with good benefits.
The problem is that the same group of people are behind both efforts. Is it really so odd to propose that a small, dedicated group of families has been steadily concentrating wealth in their own pockets for centuries?
Furthermore, why is it that the same group of rotten scoundrels install themselves in government? George H. W. Bush was in the CIA at least as far back as the 60's. Head of the CIA, Vice President for 8 years, president for another 4.
Donald Rumsfeld [wikipedia.org] was in the Nixon, Ford & Reagan administrations, according to Wikipedia. He even got his picture taken [gwu.edu] with Saddam Hussein back in 1983. Now he's secretary of defense. Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense under Papa Bush, and before that he got himself elected as representative from Wyoming.
I'm sure there are more examples. The problem, as I see it, is that the same rotten bastards keep getting recycled through the political system. Watch for the keywords: Project for the New American Century, Bilderburg Group, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, etc... And that's not even mentioning the more secretive enclaves. See The Controllers: Secret Rulers of the World [amazon.com] for a timeline of the consolidation of power over the last 100+ years.
What's more, anytime this sort of observation comes up, the masses have been conditioned to just snicker and dismiss the messenger as a "conspiracy theorist". But how do said masses know that there is no conspiracy? They don't "know", but social conditioning has implanted a nearly impervious belief.
Expose the so-called "illuminati" and their plots, and the problem will begin to go away.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Parent post summarized in one sentence: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Personal freedom? WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you joking? OK, one example off the top of my head. There are plenty more.
You are in an unfamiliar neighborhood. You pull over and waive someone down and ask for directions. He comes up to your car and you ask him for directions to the hotel. He points and gives you directions and you drive off.
That man later turns out to be a terrorist or drug dealer.
Now, thanks to ubiquitous surveilance, you are on videotape associating with a terrorist. This information can and will be taken out of context and used against you if, say you ever run for office or are accused of a minor crime.
Re:Contrarian view (Score:5, Funny)
That thing is freakin' awesome.
Except for the whole Deathbringing, and suppression of my rights and stuff. But still...
Re:Contrarian view (Score:5, Insightful)
In the end they developed a largely new system of government that vastly differed from what else was around at the time and put a great deal of emphasis on limiting the powers of the government in favor of personal rights (note how the Bill of Rights largely makes use of negative rights by stating that "Congress shall make no law restricting the right of foo" rather than explicitly guaranteeing that right).
These are people that would be (rather rightly I think) seen as dissidents, potentially dangerous seperatists, and enemies of the state. It's quite likely that the average American would fear and distrust them if they were acting today.
Perhaps their biggest flaw was that, like most idealists, they assumed that people were as deeply passionate about these things as they were. That they cared strongly about injustice and the abuse of power and were willing to act on it.
They weren't patriots because they supported the current government. They were patriots because they didn't.
Re:Contrarian view (Score:3)
Perhaps their biggest flaw was that, like most idealists, they assumed that people were as deeply passionate about these things as they were. That they cared strongly about injustice and the abuse of power and were willing to act on it.
They weren't patriots because they suppo
Re:There are a number of reasons, actually. (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to be missing a point. That point being that the first 3 wars that you mentioned actually had goals that were achievable. The latter does have achievable goals. Or are you so naive to think that a "war on terrorism" can actually be won?
You also seem to be justifying an erosion of freedoms as ok and something that'll be returned after the conflict ends. Well since this war cannot be won, those freedoms will never return.
For that matter, what justifies this increase in surveillance? Are there operatives about everywhere? Must we fear everyone?
If we all remember the Simpsons episode (paraphrase):
Lisa: I have a rock. It keeps bears away.
Homer: How do I know this rock works.
Lisa: Do you see any bears around?
Momer: I'll give you $10 for it.
Lise: Dad, it doesn't really work.
Homer: $20!
Thus the administration is keeping everyone safe from the terrorists. Because do you see any of them around. Let's just keep letting them do whatever they want.
Re:There are a number of reasons, actually. (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps, but it isn't "The War on Islamic Terrorism", it's "The War on Terrorism". Even if we pacify the Islamic terrorists, there will always be the potential that some other miscreants will get up to the same tricks. Since you can't brainwash everybody to forget that the techniques of terrorism exist, the threat of terrorism can never go away, and therefore the War on Terrorism can never be won. And I rather suspect that that is just how certain parts of our government like it.
Everybody is blinded (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Security" makes it all OK? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your take on democracy is a joke, and you don't seem to care while your over-inflated military launches illegal invasions against countries with oil or strategic significance. Your secret service and other agencies and corporations prop up dictators while it suites them (e.g. Saddam Hussein, Pervez Musharraf, the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the Teliban), giving them power, sophisticated weapons of mass destruction (missiles, illegal armaments, fighter jets), all while turning a blind eye to their various crimes (genocide, drug trafficking, torture, etc.), and of course giving them lots and lots of money.
You don't care about corruption at home (e.g. Florida vote rigging), you don't care about inaction at home (e.g. New Orleans), you don't care that you have a completely insane attitude to firearms (everybody should have one (which the rest of the world sees as ludicrous)), drugs (the war on drugs can be won, all pot smokers are criminals, drug abuse is a disease (for crying out loud)), etc., etc.), and you actually voted in George W. Bush. Is that guy really the very best example of humanity you could find to be your surpreme leader?
To the rest of the Western world, and then some, the U.S. is a country of lazy, fat, stupid, nut jobs who are too pathetic to question their leaders, question their government, or question the U.S. democratic system which keeps things as bad as they are. You are quite simply hopeless. All (a very few of) you do is winge and wonder how your rights could be slowly ebbing away and why nobody cares. Well *YOU* don't care, or you'd be protesting in the streets, you'd be throwing down your governement, you'd be routing out corruption, you'd curtail the corporations who would otherwise bleed the world dry for the sake of their shareholders' greed.
Re:"Security" makes it all OK? (Score:3, Insightful)
Won't the weapons come in handy when rebelling? In fact, isn't that the reason the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected, so that the people will be able to overthrow their government?
You don't care about corruption at home (e.g. Florida vote rigging)
If the vo
Re:"Security" makes it all OK? (Score:3, Insightful)
A few other factors to take into account:
Internal problems in the armed forces...
1. Reluctance/hesitation or even refusal to fire upon lesser or un-armed american civilians (by low-level troops)
2. Mass disobedience of orders (while following orders is deep rooted, the concept of "unlawful orders" is planted right alongside it)
3. Any given region
Re:"Security" makes it all OK? (Score:4, Interesting)
1.) Not every American has a gun. In fact, there are many who think that noone should even have so much as a pointy stick. We also have to go through an extensive (by some measures too extensive, by others not extensive enough) system of registration and permit application, depending on the class of weapon. We ban the mentally ill, criminals, and many other people from owning firearms.
2.) Depending on the numbers you use, the United States has fewer violent crimes than many other nations (I don't remember the exact details, however. I am sorry), and that crimes such as muggings and home invasions are down due to the fact that many criminals are afraid of being shot. Of course, like many numbers, these are subject to debate, so we can practically ignore them. But still, it is a compelling possibility. However, it is a documented fact that in many countries where gun possession is illegal, knife and other weapon crimes increase substantially.
3.) So most of the rest of the civilized world thinks our gun policies are "ludicrous"? Switzerland [wikipedia.org] actually has a required period of military service for all able males, and many afterwards serve in a militia capacity, and are therefore ISSUED an assault rifle by the government. Also, it is the "only country in which it is lawful to make your own black powder". From what I gather they have quite a low crime rate. Australia [wikipedia.org] also has historically lax laws on guns due to high need for guns as pest control and a low crime rate, which is kinda funny for a nation decended from a penal colony. That is changing due to increased crime rates in some areas, but still, they're relatively hands-off on guns. Finland [wikipedia.org] also has similar gun laws, as they have alot of huntil in their nation. They are also one of the few countries where silencers are completely unregulated (here in the US I believe you can apply for a permit, but not always, and it's very difficult to get). Many of these countries also have a high emphasis on gun safety, which many of the true hardcore gun people in the US would also say is very important.
In conclusion, our gun laws may be among the more "loose" or "unrestrictive", and there are many unfortunate things that happen due to this. Personally, I think we could due to have slightly better control of the situation and tighten certain parts of our gun laws up. But we're not the only ones who like our guns. There are a number of other, well respected nations, that have fairly loose gun laws, much like our own. We're only a target on this matter because we're the biggest nation of the bunch, and we have a large imprint on the world scene in other matter.
drugs (the war on drugs can be won, all pot smokers are criminals, drug abuse is a disease (for crying out loud))
It could be won, but even if it can't we should still fight it to at least reduce the damage done. Drug abuse is a disease, much like manic depression and other mental disorders are diseases (for example, cocaine abuse renders the brain incapable of gaining any joy from anything but cocaine. That's why it's called abuse, boys and girls. As for the pot-heads, perhaps our laws are a bit too heavy on them, and that maybe it should be legalized along the same lines as alcohol and tobacco, but frankly I don't know enough about the situation to make a judgement.
You don't care about corruption at home (e.g. Florida vote rigging), you don't care about inaction at home (e.g. New Orleans)
O RLY? I was pretty sure I heard much angry debate about both issues over here!
and you actually voted in George W. Bush. Is that guy really the v
Re:"Security" makes it all OK? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course that is possible... but it is also possible that foreigners are misinformed. Which is more likely? If I believed half of what I read in the Guardian, I'd hate America too.
Re:"Security" makes it all OK? (Score:3, Insightful)
Same situation in most places around the world right now. There is turmoil brewing in th
Re:"Security" makes it all OK? (Score:4, Insightful)
We can't control our own borders... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone else find that just a little weird?
Re:We can't control our own borders... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone else find that just a little weird?
The people in charge can control the borders. They just choose not to.
Re:We can't control our own borders... (Score:2)
In response to the original question, spying on our own citizens is framed as a national security issue (so it immediately gets at least 300 votes in the House and 70 votes in the Senate). Border control isn't. I could spout off theories as to why this is, but I don't want to stray off topic.
Hollywood, anybody? (Score:2)
They Live: We Sleep (Score:2)
Re:They Live: We Sleep (Score:2)
UAVs whan? (Score:2)
Homeland... and the future... (Score:3, Insightful)
Raises a question: (Score:2, Funny)
Time for tinfoil (Score:2)
America's new twist on an old sport (Score:2, Funny)
Re:America's new twist on an old sport (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, saying it publically in my town (via letter to the editor) will get you arrested:
http://www.wlio.com/localNews.aspx?NewsID=3246 [wlio.com]
I know what they're going to use it for. (Score:2)
Goddamn Homeland Security Slush Fund... (Score:5, Funny)
Every fucking time I turn around another police outfit from Bumblefuck, U.S.A. has bought itself a shiny new toy with my "homeland security" tax dollars. (Add your least favorite story about the new SWAT team in a county with three homocides a year, an armored car for a town of 50K people, etc.) And because there usually aren't any terrorists anywhere near them, these knuckledraggers end up figuring out a way to chase the usual crowd of inbred drunks around town with it.
Re:Goddamn Homeland Security Slush Fund... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Goddamn Homeland Security Slush Fund... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, you're omitting training, storage and repair costs and the time lost putting a cop in front of a TV screen instead of out on the streets.
Re:Goddamn Homeland Security Slush Fund... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, please. I'm guessing that you only pay attention to negative details about people you disagree with. Look around some blue states now and then. Tell me why back-woods suburbs need a fleet of SUV patrol "cars" and a million dollar 4" thick bullet-proof vestibule in their police station lobby when the only violent crime in town in the last decade involved a drunk guy and a knife. Pick a party... Pick a state
2084 (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, I'm too drunk to continue so please correct and extend what I've said. Goodnight.
Re:2084 (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because we know about a lot doesn't mean that there isn't a lot more that isn't public knowledge. By analogy: if you turn on the light and see several cockroaches, it's a very good bet that your house has many other unseen cockroaches in it as well.
You must. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:You must. (Score:3, Interesting)
By locking yourself in a room you have not relinquished any essential liberties (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) since, one, you're not dead, two, you are still able to say what you want, practice whatever religion you want, walk back out through the locked door (available option, however ill-decided), and three, you still have the ability to pursue happiness, even if it includes using the firearm you keep in the room (
Time to move... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are only two choice at this point in my opinion:
1) Openly take back the government by hook or by crook. This is costly in life, money, and security but has been shown by other people of the world to work.
or
2) Leave the country until it collapses or someone cleans it up. Depending on how you look at it this could be construed as an abandonment of one's responsibilities as a US citizen but those of you with family and small children, like me, should seriously think about what kind of country they are going to grow up in. If they can't defend themselves then you have to move them elsewhere.
This is one of those times I wish I hadn't been right to wear my tinfoil. I wish I could see a path to be able to remove it. But I don't see that in my lifetime especially if these things get worse as I suspect they will.
In my opinion this is one step before the wall.
(Why isn't this article in the YRO section?)
I await the inevitable mod down by those that think I'm OT, Troll, Overrated, or Flamebait...
Closing down of airspace (Score:5, Interesting)
Looks like this class might be eliminated completely to allow drones to fly around anywhere. Which means a general aviation airplane will have to always file a flightplan and possibly remain on IFR, except on airport approaches, where they can request a VFR type approach. Flying will never be the same.
Its easy to sell this to the general public. "We dont want to let anyone fly just anywhere" and "we could use the extra security" and "War against terrorism" whatever that means. But somewhere in the future Americans will realize what they lost.
Re:Closing down of airspace (Score:5, Insightful)
So unless most airspace is declared class B, it's not really an issue. I really don't think the FAA / ATC want to deal with the millions of clearance requests, etc they'd encounter if they did something so drastic.
What's more likely is that they'll swiss-cheese the airspace with temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) around areas where the drones operate. Presumably they could become so numerous as to make private flight planning a bit difficult. Before then, however, there will probably be enough crashes with drones to result in them be forced into small saftey zones. If the Predator is any indication, there will be many, many crashes as UAVs get used more extensively -- which would totally undermine any safety-selling approach that might be tried.
Re:Closing down of airspace (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, but if you've been paying attention the past few years, the FAA and the major airlines seem hellbent on removing general aviation from the US altogether (closing non-airline airports, insisting on implementing per request fees for ATC, trying to ground all aircraft built before the last few decades. And don't get me started on the stupidity of every major city wanting a Washington D.C. style Air Defense Identificaton Zone). I suspect having nothing flying anywhere near the ground except governemnt controled drones would suit them just fine.
What's more likely is that they'll swiss-cheese the airspace with temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) around areas where the drones operate. Presumably they could become so numerous as to make private flight planning a bit difficult.Or they'll just make private flying illegal.
Re:Closing down of airspace (Score:5, Informative)
A: 18,000+ feet, IFR flight plan required
B: Major airport (LAX, SEA, ORD, etc.), 10,000 MSL and below
C: Medium airport, usually only to 4,000 AGL
D: Small airport with tower, usually only to 2,500 AGL
E: Everywhere else above 1,200 AGL
G: Everywhere else below 1,200 AGL
You are thinking of Class E and G airspace.
Just remember in Class G to stay *at least* 500 feet from my barn.
MSL = Mean Sea Level
AGL = Above Ground Level
Re:Closing down of airspace (Score:3, Insightful)
IFR -- Instrument Flight Rules; there are no visibility and ceiling requirements when you're IFR since you're required to be in contact with ATC and controlled by them. VFR is Visual Flight Rules, i.e. you're flying by looking outside, so obviously there are various visibility and ceiling requirements. Airspace is not d
The UAV communications spec is an open protocol. (Score:3, Informative)
This is the TCS specification. [fas.org] Used in the U.S.
This is the NATO standard, a bit newer. [navy.mil]
Of course, people should use VPN or similar, but it isn't required.
Obligatory HSR reference. (Score:3, Funny)
A pilot's perspective (Score:3, Informative)
The issue with UAVs from a pilot's point of view (OK, THIS pilots pov) is mostly one of safety. One of the AOPA articles referenced noted the creation of a TFR, which is a flight-restricted zone of the national airspace. (TFR stands for 'Temporary Flight Restriction')
If a TFR is created, it is the responsibility of the pilot to determine its existence before venturing into that airspace. This is burdensome, but is not difficult. Literally hundreds of resources are available online and via the phone to help pilots plan flights.
For me it isn't a big deal to fire up the computer and check to see if anything is going on that might make for an overly adventursome day in the sky. (I live 100 miles from DC so it is also a way of life for pilots here.) Older pilots, however, have great difficulty adjusting to these TFRs.
Most non-pilots have absolutely no idea how unregulated the vast majority of our airspace is. For example, there is no requirement whatsoever for a personal flight conducted in good weather (VFR) to communicate with air traffic control unless the aircraft ventures into the airspace near a busy airport or flies above 17999 feet. Hell, you are not even required to HAVE a radio or transponder to fly into most of our airports. If you have such equipment (and most planes do) you still don't have to use it unless the specifics of the situation demand it. (Another disclaimer - I do not believe that minimum adherence to the rules results in the safest possible flying conditions. In other words, if you've got a freakin' radio, use it.)
The idea that some podunk police department in NC (not far from where I live!) could have one of these things cruising around at 1000 ft or more is absolutely frightening. Even if I make the required inquiries about how to safely conduct my flight, a non-FAA-regulated aircraft could ruin my day in a hurry, and the podunk police department in question would almost certainly bear no legal liability for my demise since they were operating their UAV in compliance with established law. To their credit, the podunk police department agreed to operate their drones according to the requirements for model aircraft (below 400 ft). This is below the minimum altitude for safe, legal operations unless going that low for reasons necessary for the safe conduct of the flight, i.e. taking off or landing.
On the larger, more philosophical question of whether unmanned spy vehicles should be welcome over our homes, I tend to think the answer is NO. On whether information about all such activities should be made as readily available to pilots as the weather forecast, the answer is undoubtedly yes. And that means national coordination, and that means the FAA.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE MORONS? (Score:4, Insightful)
What this says to me is that the Bush administration is fscking terrified that the tall grass is full of terrorists, and that we have zero resources capable of dealing with them in their own space (the CIA having been preoccupied with telling the boss what he wants to hear), and have so pissed off our former friends who might actually have some field intelligence, but would now prefer to see us twist in the wind, making an excellent target to draw out the terrorists.
Actually, that last bit doesn't hold water, 'cause plenty of European nations have been hit since 9-11. If anyone had any field intelligence, it would be used.
But why aren't we deploying surveillance drones over Saudi Arabia, or at least Pakistan? And we certainly ought to have every pile of rubble with a roof over it in Afghanistan bugged.
But this continued insistence on domestic surveillance looks for all the world as if the Bush administration is on the side of the terrorists, or is at least gearing up to declare martial law and replace our broken, wobbly charicature of a representative democracy with a theocratic monarchy.
Either that, or they're just incredibly, unbelievably inept.
not "unmanned" in the usual sense (Score:4, Informative)
But what happens when lots of relatively dumb drones have to share airspace with aircraft carrying passengers?
UAVs are unmanned in the sense that there is no pilot aboard the aircraft itself. NOT in the sense that they're flying around up there on autopilot, oblivious to other air traffic. A UAV is operated by a trained pilot on the ground. I don't know about these civilian jobbies, but the military ones have radar and IFF transponders so that the pilots can see other aircraft in the area and, just as importantly, other aircraft can see the UAV.
Summary of differences between normal aircraft and UAV:
- UAVs cost far less (no need for a cockpit)
- Pilot avoids hazards normally associated with flying, most of them involving gravity
Better Late then Never? (Score:4, Insightful)
I know they had something like this in Orwelles 1984, I guess it just took us a little longer.
At this point, Bush should probably just go for broke and insert RFIDs into everyone scalp. I don't think he's gong to stop until this is implimented. So go for it. Hopefully we'll have sufficient liberal backlash to bring the country back into line with reality. At this rate we'll surpass most police states in a decade. I'm not exactly a liberal or a conservative, but this stuff is getting out of hand.
A Young European's View on Things (Score:3, Insightful)
But I am surprised how many of you realize the problems that your society is having (Yes, I am adressing US citizens). We, in Europe, often speak about those issues of freedom being taken away in the name of a so-called War on Terror, and we see the same roots of the problem, being the media providing bread-and-games distraction, partial/idealistic education and other things.
But, I have come to realize, we unfairly generalize the US citizens, as if all of you didn't realize what's going on. But then, I see stuff like Sorry Everybody [sorryeverybody.com], and I am reminded that lots of you don't like the system either. And most of the comments on this article (which have been modded up) express an understanding of what is going wrong.
People - you have to do something!. I am not in the position to be lecturing you (since I am but a 19-year-old German student), but I wonder how come that so many of you see the problems, and yet Nothing Ever Happens. I wonder if it is because there's no way for the "extraparliamentary opposition" (read up on the German one [wikipedia.org]) to express itself, or because there simply is no movement which unites people who feel like you do, and like I do, too. What I see is a great potential for protest, but only in places like Slashdot does it become aparent.
There really is no important bottom line to this. It's what I perceive and what I wonder about.
All aboard...? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:more effective monitoring of United States (Score:2)
Drones don't get tired and make mistakes - if remotely piloted the operator can swap out as frequently as needed with frested personnel. For missions that don't require on-site decision making by a pilot, or neck-bending maneuvering to engage other aircraft, a drone is extremely cost effective.
Re:more effective monitoring of United States (Score:2)
Re:They're already here... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:BY and FOR the people? (Score:5, Informative)
Why is there always one of these?
Okay, I'll preface this by saying that I'm a leftist, and hate the Bush administration as much as anyone, but there WERE NO FUCKING EXPLOSIVES IN THE TOWERS.
They fell like controlled demolitions because controlled demolitions are implosions. What do you think happens when you heat and soften the trusses on an exoskelital building?
(I'll tell you because you obviously don't know.) The trusses sag and fail causing the outside, load bearing members buckle without their lateral stabilization, the top falls, and the whole thing comes crashing inward.
It's the fire, not the impact that caused the real damage, and if I remember rightly number seven was heavily fire damaged as well. Next time try a little science before breaking out the crackpot conspiricy theories please. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to hate the Bush administration that don't make you look like a nut.
Re:BY and FOR the people? (Score:4, Interesting)
No steel framed buildings have EVER collapsed due to fire before 9/11 even though much fiercer and hotter fires have occurred within them.
Here's a link to respected scientist Dr Steven Jones paper on his doubts. http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.ht ml [byu.edu]
Simple physics tells us the melting point of steel is 1100-1600C and a kerosene fire can go up to 600C with good oxygen flow. Why did the ( heat shielded) steel buckle? No warping of the buildings structure was observable before collapse.
Re:BY and FOR the people? (Score:5, Insightful)
-I don't know what the ends were on the floor trusses, but a sagging truss will put them in tension. I doubt they were designed for this.
-Heat shielding doesn't stand up too well to an exploding airplane.
-The design in question is not typical of steel buildings, which tend to be latticed structures rather than tubes.
Note that it's the floor collapsing that starts the process. A load-bearing exoskeleton is an inherently unstable design prevented from buckling only by the floors forcing it to stay aligned.
As you say, no warping was observed before collapse. It was the internal structure that failed before the collapse. As soon as the external structure drifted out of alignment it was over. Instantaneously. This is how buckling behaves.
(Oh, and this guy isn't much of a scientist. "Nobody has a good idea what happened. IT MUST HAVE BEEN THERMITE!" Typical crackpot paper . . . . . . )
(Science aside, how the hell could a deliberate demolition be pulled off without anyone finding out before or finding actual evidence after? Such things take rather a lot of setup to pull off.)
Yes, it did happen. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not true. I doubt you heard of it, but in 1993 the tennis hall of SALK, a large tennis club in Stockholm, was destroyed in a fire. The hall collapses because the steel frame that span the roof is softened by the fire. The frame, which was curved in a semi-circular fashion, bends near the ground, exactly where you would expect from your solid mechanics course (if you took
Re:BY and FOR the people? (Score:3, Interesting)
All I saw you responding with was an almost verbatim repitition of a NOVA story on the subject of the rafters being the cause of the building failure. A theory that has since been realized to be faulty in many ways, by such 'radical crazies' as, FEMA, and the NIST. For instance, the NOVA video shows nothing of the 47 steel pillars in the center of the building. The pillars are completly left out of the video(actually its a computer animation, you shouldnt be using that as 'e
Totally agree, and there's more... (Score:5, Insightful)
- The buildings did not fall neatly into their footprints. Look at this picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_Trade_Ce
- There were thousands of people in the buildings that day. The first attack took place around 9am--after many people had arrived at work. In fact the estimate is that at least 10,000 people were in WTC 1 and 2 when the first plane hit. They had arrived by subway, walking, cab, and driving--some had parked in the garage. They proceeded through the building that morning as normal. After the first hit, most of them evacuated safely--almost everyone below the point of impact in both buildings. YET not one of them has come forward with stories of seeing the building pillars in the parking garage wrapped with drums and det wire. No one had stories of elaborately laid wire harnesses throughout the floors of the building. Not that morning or any morning previous.
Wiring a building for controlled demolition is not a quick thing. It takes a long time to load in the explosives and wire it all up safely and reliably. And it's not something easily hidden. It's hard to bring down buildings like the WTC-- a big truck bomb won't do it. You have to distribute a lot of explosive around a lot of the support structure and set it all off in just the right sequence. It would probably be impossible to hide, especially in a building like the WTC towers, where the outer shell carries so much of the weight.
Yes, the firefighters heard noises that sounded like explosions. But I'm not interested in hearsay--I want to hear from the people who eye-witnessed demolition charges and equipment set that morning. Until then I'm not buying it.
Re:BY and FOR the people? (Score:3, Interesting)
Since this is something that you claim to "know", perhaps you could point to one other example of a fire causing a building to collapse in such a fashion.
And if this never happened anywhere else ever, yo
Re:the pilots shouldn't worry.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I wish the article said what kind of UAV is going to be used, because they can get pretty big: the RQ-1 Predator [wikipedia.org] is comperable in length, height, and weight to a Cessna 152 [wikipedia.org], and in wingspan it's 15 feet longer. The wrong paint scheme could render predator-sized UAV practically invisible, and a smaller UAV could easily be missed by a pilot. Given the damage that birds
classic "Look! There's Bigfoot!" Defense (Score:3, Insightful)
Take for example, the latest Downing Street memo. It revealed that prior to the invasion of Iraq, Bush thought the evidence of WMD was so weak that he suggested tricking
Re:Revolution is now much harder (Score:3, Insightful)
You have the right to revolt; just not necessarily the guarantee of success.