It almost seems like I'm living in the start of an Orwellian novel.. "See how good and beneficial the drones can be?"... I love the technology part, I love the possible benefit for transportation etc, I hate the surveillance connotation (Which seems to be the primary intent here albeit for "good purpose")
I am as much against mass surveillance as the next guy - but I don't understand why we should be worried about drones in that context? Should we not work big to small and worry about our own governments (and foreign) spying on our every electronic move?
I'm not sure why you think of internet and phone spying as big and drone spying as small. You can opt out of internet and phone spying by not using the internet or your own phone. The only way to escape from potential drone surveillance is to stay in your house and avoid the windows.
I agree, but it's not just mass surveillance. I was standing around recently and a guy was flying his drone around, presumably taking video of me and other people in the area. It was not pleasant and this was only an incidental, recreational use of the technology.
Hate the way the word "drone" is being conflated to mean giant bombing machines and small home helicopters. I imagine this is deliberate. Article feels like propaganda.
They're both radio-controlled pilotless flying machines, why wouldn't they both be called drones? Should we stop calling "ship" to the Navy boats, since it's also used for cruises?
> They're both radio-controlled pilotless flying machines
Are you sure the 'drone' in the BBC article pilotless?
> Should we stop calling "ship" to the Navy boats, since it's also used for cruises?
Probably not, but there's a big ethical debate about drones at the moment and pro media pieces showing "drones are good!" is only going to confuse the debate.
Are you sure the 'drone' in the BBC article pilotless?
By pilotless, I mean without a person inside it. If being remotely controlled disqualifies it as a drone, then neither is Predator a drone. That wouldn't make much sense, would it?
Probably not, but there's a big ethical debate about drones at the moment and pro media pieces showing "drones are good!" is only going to confuse the debate.
On the other hand, if the media doesn't show that "drones" include private "toys" as well, the backlash may affect them unjustly.
> On the other hand, if the media doesn't show that "drones" include private "toys" as well, the backlash may affect them unjustly.
Any unjustified backlash restricting people's use of toys is pretty low on my list of things to be concerned about when the bigger issue is mass killing.
I think the military, with its billion dollar funds, political action groups, and supportive senators will far better survive any anti-drone backlash than a bunch of hobbyists building things out of kits.
FWIW He wasn't really in the bush. He was in a suburb of Madison called Middletown where there are corn fields on the outskirts of residential neighborhoods and the weather was fairly mild last weekend. Low humidity and 80ish F.
Well the "town" is a township[1], not really a town as people outside the Midwest US (edit: and parts of New England) would think of it. Just a level of municipality lower than a county, a last vestige of the Northwest Ordinance[2]. Lots of incorporated cities tend to border or be surrounded by towns of the same name.
Worse than that, what does drone even mean in this context? Five years ago this would have been "Man with toy helicopter finds missing man". Today it should have been the same if not for the intended effect of removing the idea that there is a difference between these toys and the 30ft wingspan eyes in the sky hardware.
What about devices like the Wasp III, which have less then 2.4ft wingspan, has two cameras and GPS and is used by the Navy for recognition ("eyes in the sky")? Should it not be called a drone?
Don't police helicopters usually have thermal / infrared cameras? There's very little chance this drone had an infrared camera, correct?
I'm thinking that the drone pilot just got lucky. Or he saw the man previously and then found out he was missing, then knew almost exactly where to look (complete speculation but more reasonable than the needle in a haystack scenario)
What is the max range on a reasonably priced drone these days (transmitter range or battery range)?
I am quite sure there are non commercial drones with the same technology for searching as police helicopters and I am also quite sure this technology will come down in price to where hobbyist and small businesses alike can afford them.
image processing becomes the next obstacle after range. It is still very possible to overlook your target when the drone is moving quickly through an area, but it could be made easier with image recognition software.
>Don't police helicopters usually have thermal / infrared cameras? There's very little chance this drone had an infrared camera, correct?
The one in question more than likely used a normal visual spectrum camera. Cheap, repurposed security board cameras or GoPros are the norm.
FLIR cameras are available[1], but they're very expensive, so, yes, it's very unlikely this guy was using thermal imaging.
>What is the max range on a reasonably priced drone these days (transmitter range or battery range)?
The answer is a solid "it depends." For a multirotor, your biggest limitation is battery capacity. 10-15 minutes of flight time would be above average.
As far as radio systems go, again, it depends on the frequencies and antennas being used. The most common systems use 2.4GHz for control and 5.8GHz for the video downlink. 1-2KM is pretty typical. A fixed wing with a 433MHz/1.3GHz system and directional antennas can potentially make 20-30KM flights. This is all with readily available equipment at fairly low cost.
Police aren't going to task a helicopter to find a missing person.
Not unless that person shot at or killed another officer.
The low cost of drones is going to make good things like this happen.
But it is also going to allow the law enforcement to track every person at a protest, figure out who they are and put them on a no-fly list or some other watch list. I am completely convinced drones will be used at the next DNC and RNC conventions for 2016.
> Police aren't going to task a helicopter to find a missing person.
Different country and circumstances but just out of curiosity, in London the police helicopter searches for missing people quite often https://twitter.com/MPSinthesky
I expect it differs from city to city, but the police will sometimes search for missing people with helicopters. It's not an across the board guaranteed no as ck2 seems to believe.
In the states they wouldn't. They would spend the first day trying to convince you not to bother them and refuse to take a missing person report for various reasons.
If it was a young child and someone directly witnessed some kind of "abduction" they would respond with an "Amber Alert" to make everyone else look for them.
The article said, "Search teams using dogs, helicopters and volunteers".
Aren't "search teams" usually police? And other than police who else would have dogs trained to track people?
"But it is also going to allow the law enforcement to track every person at a protest, figure out who they are and put them on a no-fly list or some other watch list. I am completely convinced drones will be used at the next DNC and RNC conventions for 2016."
The world is constantly changing. Laws will need to be put in place to limit this. More open government and more participation by people interesting in privacy rights in government would help dramatically.
Why is the FAA so against drones (or whatever you want to call them) is any case? Sure none of us want police drones circling our backyards, but there are so many positive uses that the FAA seems intent on stifling like search and rescue, agriculture and surveying.
I suspect that the FAA's reaction is mostly just "Oh shit, we need a ruling on this before it gets out of hand and something becomes fait accompli. We'll default to no and let up later once we have some visibility."
However, if you want reasons:
1) Hazard to the uninvolved
A car is confined roughly to roads. A car failing on a road is unlikely to deviate much from the road (likely to encounter telephone poles, trees, curbs, guardrails, etc.) and is unlikely to kill unrelated people even it it hurts another motorist.
A drone falling from the sky is a hazard to non-drone people--when it fails it IS coming out of the sky.
Sure, you could confine the drones to over roads, but the disruptive effects, as you point out, are mostly about NOT being confined to a road.
2) Liability
How do you trace that failed drone back to the person controlling it? It's wireless. Now all drones need to be registered.
3) Autonomy
Do you want a drone to have some autonomy? Before you say no, I would personally rather have a functioning drone fly home safely if it loses radio link rather than drop out of the sky. Who's responsible for that autonomy?
4) Collisions
Drones would be a huge hazard near where planes are flying. Sure, banning drones near airports can be done. However, commercial airplanes have fairly heavily traffic corridors by virtue of the ATC system, and some of the corridors go over land in the middle of nowhere where drones would like to be operating.
5) Law enforcement/military
Drones render terrain control suspect. This has NOT sunk in to most law enforcement (and probably not much military, either, since the US hasn't yet fought an enemy armed with drones of its own.). Using a drone to put even something as simple as a flashbang behind a police line would cause total chaos. Police are used to winning by surrounding--smaller overall force, but only deployed as a greater number against a smaller number in terrain control. Drones can come from any direction, can be totally automated, and are extremely hard to target (we use shotguns for bird hunting instead of rifles for a reason). I would be stunned if some of the drug gangs aren't already deploying drones--we're talking about people who deploy submarines for crying out loud.
There are good reasons for the FAA to knee-jerk to "NO! STOP!"
A more appropriate and less sensationalist title would be "Man on holiday uses his remote controlled quad-copter to search for missing man", or "Man with remote controlled helicopter got lucky, found missing man after just 20 minutes because he searched in the right place".
The 'drone' is not the news here, he could have been flying around in a helicopter, if he looked in the same place he would have found him.
If by 'drone' you mean 'unmanned multirotor', it's actually quite an accurate topic. What's more, it provides more insight into why this is actually a big deal in modern society.
A 'drone' is a cheap and effective way to have a camera with a huge field of view operating in areas that humans and helicopters cannot, or just doing things that it would be prohibitively expensive to do otherwise.
You can fly a 'drone' over a river, where a human would be hard pressed to follow, and you can fly a drone amongst trees where helicopters could not fly. You can do both of these things cheaply, and in a far more scalable fashion. 'Drones' don't need roads or other such infrastructure, and can carry decent sized payloads practically anywhere.
The application of 'drones' has huge impact on a large number of areas of applications, and it would be silly not to recognise that.
Somewhat sensationalist it may be, but in my opinion the advent of these things is worth it.
Yeah, the startup costs of helicopters are large. A Marine quartermaster once told me that it costs $N,000 just to turn a military helicopter on, because after you turn it off you have to do a bunch of maintenance tasks no matter what. And chopper technicians aren't cheap.
I completely agree that mass surveillance is and will be a problem, and drones like that might very well be a part of the problem in the future.
But the 'drone' in this case did not do anything. It is a remote controlled vehicle, and it did not do any thinking, the operator did.
The title implies the drone was the key element in finding him, and not the person controlling the drone.
I agree that drones will make surveillance easier, but until they fly autonomously without human control then it is a much smaller problem.
Using drones to find missing people is a good usage case though, and I like that.
> The title implies the drone was the key element in finding him, and not the person controlling the drone.
In a sense, that is accurate. The person alone would likely have taken far longer to find the person, so the drone was a key (if not the key) element in finding the missing person so fast.
Helicopters are really expensive, and require a lot of manpower.
>"Had we had not seen him then, the drone would have seen him a few minutes later since he was in the search area we were given to look at. If nothing else, the drone helped us cover a huge area in a short amount of time that would have taken many volunteers hours to search."
I think that the cheap and quick aspects of drones are really important here.
Even a small piston powered Robin helo is around $500 to operate per hour[1], and the smallest turbine powered ones are going to be around that figure just for the fuel: ~500 lb/h fuel consumption [2][3], JetA at > $6 / gallon [4].
So for one hour helo ops, you can purchase 2-3 parrot drones [5].
But you need to factor efficiency into that. If the top speed of the chopper is 100mph, versus 10mph for the drone. Then you can cover a much larger area quickly, furthermore a helicopter can stay up longer and has much greater range. So it's not enough to say a heli costs x/per hour therefore drones. Kind of like saying trash trucks are expensive, therefore we should replace them with wheel barrows.
From the article:
We were asked to search a large area of farmland with the drone. I covered three-quarters of it using three batteries, and the last quarter was a little too far for me to get good first-person view reception
Landing to change batteries every couple of minutes, is a serious blow to efficiency.
This is exactly what's wrong with most of today's news. Sensationalism is taking the focus away from what matters[1].
But I'm not sure if the drone is not the news here. I think a drone can be a cheap way to search from above. Instead of using a helicopter multiple drones could be used saving costs and covering a larger area.
Currently there is a big argument between us UAS hobbyists and the fed over our rights to fly our model aircraft. Search and Rescue has been deemed by the FAA to be commercial use and disallowed unless the pilot and aircraft are certified which is nearly impossible and very expensive. Just recently a judge has ruled that the FAA does not have enforcement powers over this use but it continues to go after such use throwing it's weight around, possibly at the cost of human life.
people with the ability to immediately fly a drone > people with the ability to immediately fly a helicopter. The drone/rc/quadrocopter IS the news. The fact that one guy put a camera in the sky is news.
I wish people would accept drone world wide. Unfortunately in many places they are forbidden :( This is sad, because if tomorrow someone would invent a flying car, something like the taxi from "The Fifth Element", then most probably that will be forbidden as well, on the same principles.
