Pressure builds for civilian drone flights at home

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

California and Texas can't be too happy about this. Those two states love their illegal slave labor.

http://news.yahoo.com/pressure-builds-civilian-drone-flights-home-150120049.html

By JOAN LOWY | Associated Press – 1 hr 30 mins ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Heads up: Drones are going mainstream. Civilian cousins of the unmanned military aircraft that have tracked and killed terrorists in the Middle East and Asia are in demand by police departments, border patrols, power companies, news organizations and others wanting a bird's-eye view that's too impractical or dangerous for conventional planes or helicopters to get.

Along with the enthusiasm, there are qualms.

Drones overhead could invade people's privacy. The government worries they could collide with passenger planes or come crashing down to the ground, concerns that have slowed more widespread adoption of the technology.

Despite that, pressure is building to give drones the same access as manned aircraft to the sky at home.

"It's going to be the next big revolution in aviation. It's coming," says Dan Elwell, the Aerospace Industries Association's vice president for civil aviation.

Some impetus comes from the military, which will bring home drones from Afghanistan and wants room to test and use them. In December, Congress gave the Federal Aviation Administration six months to pick half a dozen sites around the country where the military and others can fly unmanned aircraft in the vicinity of regular air traffic, with the aim of demonstrating they're safe.

The Defense Department says the demand for drones and their expanding missions requires routine and unfettered access to domestic airspace, including around airports and cities. In a report last October, the Pentagon called for flights first by small drones both solo and in groups, day and night, expanding over several years. Flights by large and medium-sized drones would follow in the latter half of this decade.

Other government agencies want to fly drones, too, but they've been hobbled by an FAA ban unless they first receive case-by-case permission.

Fewer than 300 waivers were in use at the end of 2011, and they often include restrictions that severely limit the usefulness of the flights. Businesses that want to put drones to work are out of luck; waivers are only for government agencies.

But that's changing.

Congress has told the FAA that the agency must allow civilian and military drones to fly in civilian airspace by September 2015. This spring, the FAA is set to take a first step by proposing rules that would allow limited commercial use of small drones for the first time.

Until recently, agency officials were saying there were too many unresolved safety issues to give drones greater access. Even now FAA officials are cautious about describing their plans and they avoid discussion of deadlines.

"The thing we care about is doing that in an orderly and safe way and finding the appropriate ... balance of all the users in the system," Michael Huerta, FAA's acting administrator, told a recent industry luncheon in Washington. "Let's develop these six sites — and we will be doing that — where we can develop further data, further testing and more history on how these things actually operate."

Drones come in all sizes, from the high-flying Global Hawk with its 116-foot wingspan to a hummingbird-like drone that weighs less than an AA battery and can perch on a window ledge to record sound and video. Lockheed Martin has developed a fake maple leaf seed, or "whirly bird," equipped with imaging sensors, that weighs less than an ounce.

Potential civilian users are as varied as the drones themselves.

Power companies want them to monitor transmission lines. Farmers want to fly them over fields to detect which crops need water. Ranchers want them to count cows.

Journalists are exploring drones' newsgathering potential. The FAA is investigating whether The Daily, a digital publication of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., used drones without permission to capture aerial footage of floodwaters in North Dakota and Mississippi last year. At the University of Nebraska, journalism professor Matt Waite has started a lab for students to experiment with using a small, remote-controlled helicopter.

"Can you cover news with a drone? I think the answer is yes," Waite said.

The aerospace industry forecasts a worldwide deployment of almost 30,000 drones by 2018, with the United States accounting for half of them.

"The potential ... civil market for these systems could dwarf the military market in the coming years if we can get access to the airspace," said Ben Gielow, government relations manager for the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, an industry trade group.

The hungriest market is the nation's 19,000 law enforcement agencies.

Customs and Border Patrol has nine Predator drones mostly in use on the U.S.-Mexico border, and plans to expand to 24 by 2016. Officials say the unmanned aircraft have helped in the seizure of more than 20 tons of illegal drugs and the arrest of 7,500 people since border patrols began six years ago.

Several police departments are experimenting with smaller drones to photograph crime scenes, aid searches and scan the ground ahead of SWAT teams. The Justice Department has four drones it loans to police agencies.

"We look at this as a low-cost alternative to buying a helicopter or fixed-wing plane," said Michael O'Shea, the department's aviation technology program manager. A small drone can cost less than $50,000, about the price of a patrol car with standard police gear.

Like other agencies, police departments must get FAA waivers and follow much the same rules as model airplane hobbyists: Drones must weigh less than 55 pounds, stay below an altitude of 400 feet, keep away from airports and always stay within sight of the operator. The restrictions are meant to prevent collisions with manned aircraft.

Even a small drone can be "a huge threat" to a larger plane, said Dale Wright, head of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association's safety and technology department. "If an airliner sucks it up in an engine, it's probably going to take the engine out," he said. "If it hits a small plane, it could bring it down."

Controllers want drone operators to be required to have instrument-rated pilot licenses — a step above a basic private pilot license. "We don't want the Microsoft pilot who has never really flown an airplane and doesn't know the rules of how to fly," Wright said.

Military drones designed for battlefields haven't had to meet the kind of rigorous safety standards required of commercial aircraft.

"If you are going to design these things to operate in the (civilian) airspace you need to start upping the ante," said Tom Haueter, director of the National Transportation Safety Board's aviation safety office. "It's one thing to operate down low. It's another thing to operate where other airplanes are, especially over populated areas."

Even with FAA restrictions, drones are proving useful in the field.

Deputies with the Mesa County Sheriff's Office in Colorado can launch a 2-pound Draganflyer X6 helicopter from the back of a patrol car. The drone's bird's-eye view cut the manpower needed for a search of a creek bed for a missing person from 10 people to two, said Ben Miller, who runs the drone program. The craft also enabled deputies to alert fire officials to a potential roof collapse in time for the evacuation of firefighters from the building, he said.

The drone could do more if it were not for the FAA's line-of-sight restriction, Miller said. "I don't think (the restriction) provides any extra safety," he said.

The Montgomery County Sheriff's Office, north of Houston, used a Department of Homeland Security grant to buy a $300,000, 50-pound ShadowHawk helicopter drone for its SWAT team. The drone has a high-powered video camera and an infrared camera that can spot a person's thermal image in the dark.

"Public-safety agencies are beginning to see this as an invaluable tool for them, just as the car was an improvement over the horse and the single-shot pistol was improved upon by the six-shooter," said Chief Deputy Randy McDaniel, who runs the Montgomery drone program.

The ShadowHawk can be equipped with a 40 mm grenade launcher and a 12-guage shotgun, according to its maker, Vanguard Defense Industries of Conroe, Texas. The company doesn't sell the armed version in the United States, although "we have had interest from law-enforcement entities for deployment of nonlethal munitions from the aircraft," Vanguard CEO Michael Buscher said.

The possibility of armed police drones someday patrolling the sky disturbs Terri Burke, executive director of the Texas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"The Constitution is taking a back seat so that boys can play with their toys," Burke said. "It's kind of scary that they can use a laptop computer to zap people from the air."

A recent ACLU report said allowing drones greater access takes the country "a large step closer to a surveillance society in which our every move is monitored, tracked, recorded, and scrutinized by the authorities."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which focuses on civil liberties threats involving new technologies, sued the FAA recently, seeking disclosure of which agencies have been given permission to use drones. FAA officials declined to answer questions from The Associated Press about the lawsuit.

Industry officials said privacy concerns are overblown.

"Today anybody— the paparazzi, anybody — can hire a helicopter or a (small plane) to circle around something that they're interested in and shoot away with high-powered cameras all they want," said Elwell, the aerospace industry spokesman. "I don't understand all the comments about the Big Brother thing."

Edited February 26, 2012 by Why_Me

[웃 910]

California and Texas can't be too happy about this. Those two states love their illegal slave labor.

[xebec 195]

California and Texas can't be too happy about this. Those two states love their illegal slave labor.

Welcome to modern America....exploitation is our specialty:

http://www.alaskool.org/projects/ancsa/articles/crd1969/dest_ak_native.htm

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Welcome to modern America....exploitation is our specialty:

http://www.alaskool.org/projects/ancsa/articles/crd1969/dest_ak_native.htm

LOL is all I can say to that hack piece. I live in remote Alaska in a village/town on the Bering Sea populated by Eskimo's. Eskimo's...most Alaskan natives don't pay for jack sh*t. The US tax payers cover their ####### with houses, medical, dental, optical, etc... and it isn't cheap. Most of them CHOOSE to live in the middle of nowhere so whenever a dental team (like my wife is part of), medical team, etc.. fly's to one of their remote villages it cost the US tax payers a fcking mint and then some. What did the Eskimo's have before the US purchased Alaska from Russia? Not jack sh*t. What do they have now? A fck lot more than before. And what do they do with their new HUD houses paid for by the US tax payers? They destroy them for the most part. Same with their new snowmobiles, atv's, etc... they run them to death and then buy new ones. You figure in the cost to build a house in remote Alaska where it's barge and fly in during the summer, and fly in only during 7+ months of winter.

Now figure the cost of maintaining brand new medical facilities these villages ...some with populations of less than 100 people. They don't maintain these facilities themselves for the fact they don't like to do manual labor and they know someone is going to fly hundreds of miles to fix the heat, water, sewer, etc... at the cost of thousands of dollars for each fly in trip to fix something simple so they can have new million dollar medical buildings and schools.

The Alaska native subsistence lifestyle consist of hunting seals, whales, caribou, moose, etc... with a high powered rifle, new jet boat, and GPS. Not exactly like their ancestors did it before them. But they all have new laptops, smart phones, etc... and all on our dime.

And the oil companies...lol...look up native owned companies such as ASRC, NANA Corp, etc... they get all the government jobs from Alaska to Guam with no bid contracts seeing how they are native owned. We don't have reservations up here, they have native corporations...look up Alaska Native Claims Act. They are making billions from these contracts that include subcontracting for companies such as BP, Conoco Phillips, etc.. Iv'e worked for a few of these native owned corps seeing how they are the biggest employers in the state...native preference hire. Doesn't matter if the native is qualified for the job...they get paid to stand around and do nothing other than breath.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Why_Me

[xebec 195]

That "hack piece" is hosted on your state's university website. So much for higher education in Alaska....

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

That "hack piece" is hosted on your state's university website. So much for higher education in Alaska....

That would be University of Alaska and yes they are idiots. Most all of the faculty and admins are out of state lower 48 libs that don't have a clue. They might have flown to one or two villages out here if they were unlucky enough and now they are masters of the universe on rural Alaska...especially natives.

Those are the same bunch that are anti gun, drink lattes, wears North Face, or anything that cost a mint that they saw on some yuppie show or in a magazine all the while driving over priced yuppie Land Rovers...which are pure junk up here btw. They are usually single, go to lib yuppie get togethers in Anchorage where other lib freaks hang out...seeing how that's where most of them live..,the main university campus is there and Anchorage is nothing like the rest of Alaska. It's more like Seattle. We see them come out here from time to time to visit the satellite university here and it's fun to watch them. They are like fish out of water and completely out of touch with real Alaska. I think we scare them tbh.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Why_Me

[Leatherneck 693]

That would be University of Alaska and yes they are idiots. Most all of the faculty and admins are out of state lower 48 libs that don't have a clue. They might have flown to one or two villages out here if they were unlucky enough and now they are masters of the universe on rural Alaska...especially natives.

Those are the same bunch that are anti gun, drink lattes, wears North Face, or anything that cost a mint that they saw on some yuppie show or in a magazine all the while driving over priced yuppie Land Rovers...which are pure junk up here btw. They are usually single, go to lib yuppie get togethers in Anchorage where other lib freaks hang out...seeing how that's where most of them live..,the main university campus is there and Anchorage is nothing like the rest of Alaska. It's more like Seattle. We see them come out here from time to time to visit the satellite university here and it's fun to watch them. They are like fish out of water and completely out of touch with real Alaska. I think we scare them tbh.

Hahaha! Kip, is it safe to say, 'you don't have a lot of love for libs?'

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Hahaha! Kip, is it safe to say, 'you don't have a lot of love for libs?'

Close to zero. I'm all for reading books and learning, but theory and supposition nets you a big zero out here. It's more about survival than; "what should work because I read it in a book".

It's the same with those yuppie twits that fly up to the North Slope for a few days to check out the oil fields so they can give bad reports to their lib freak agencies.. They went to college yet don't have a clue. Reading about it in school and actually doing it are two different things.

We can spot those peeps as soon as they hop off the plane. They always have those over priced North Face parka's, some yuppe LL Bean boot, and that "look" about them. Get them out of their element and into our environment and they look like scared children who miss their momma.

[Leatherneck 693]

Close to zero. I'm all for reading books and learning, but theory and supposition nets you a big zero out here. It's more about survival than; "what should work because I read it in a book".

It's the same with those yuppie twits that fly up to the North Slope for a few days to check out the oil fields so they can give bad reports to their lib freak agencies.. They went to college yet don't have a clue. Reading about it in school and actually doing it are two different things.

We can spot those peeps as soon as they hop off the plane. They always have those over priced North Face parka's, some yuppe LL Bean boot, and that "look" about them. Get them out of their element and into our environment and they look like scared children who miss their momma.

I do understand what you mean about those academic 'it's in the book' or 'according to this or that study' types, they are very annoying. I experienced the same types of officers in the military, the newly minted 2nd Lt., (we referred to them as 'boots' = we enlisted NCOs possessed boots longer than they had been on active duty or 'butter bars' = 2nd Lt.s wear gold bars as their rank insignia) would try to tell us how things were to be done according to the manual. We NCOs would tell the company 1st. Sgt. or Sgt. Major (usually a crusty ole' guy with 25+ years of service) to check that 'boot' and the problem would be solved. A 24 or 25 year old 2nd Lt. would rather adjust his attitude than have a pissed off battle tested 1st. Sgt or Sgt, Major in his face more than once.

And it was usually those spoiled ivy league graduates that were the biggest jerks. Yes you are right, you can spot them from a mile away.

[Ban Hammer 13,548]

we often called them butterbars - or parkay (as in the margarine).

Edited February 28, 2012 by charles!