Blog Post Actions
Group Actions
Engagement
  • Author Author: plowe
  • Date Created: Date Created
  • Views 2271 views
  • Likes 5 likes
  • Comments 59 comments
Related
Recommended

Drones Vs. Drones

plowe

image

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Robotic falconry via Wired.Com)

 

The rise of Quadcopters and Drones has been a pretty quick one. You only have to look back to Christmas and see the numerous gadget shops that offered all sorts of cheap, off of the shelf remote controlled quadcopters to see that the technology has captured the imaginations of thousands of people around the world.

 

But what happens when that technology then needs to be kept in check? What happens, if that technology is being used for evil instead of good? (Insert your own version of 'with great power comes great responsibility' anecdote here). Well, it appears that the answer is to fight fire with fire...or more accurately Drones with Drones. Mechanical engineers from Michigan Tech University have developed an anti-drone drone that has abilities Spiderman himself would be proud of.

 

The weapon of choice is a giant net that not only fires at the offending drone, but remains attached for the attacking drone to drag its prey off to pretty much where ever it chooses. Mo Rastgaar, associate professor of mechanical engineering, said "It's like robotic falconry. What makes this unique is that the net is attached to our catcher, so you can retrieve the rogue drone or drop it in a designated, secure area."

 

Effective from up to 40 feet away, the drone catching net brings its target down upon impact and the idea of being able to carry it off means any intel that the drone has collected (as long as it's stored locally) is reclaimed and, in worse case scenarios, if the Drone is armed with explosives it can be brought down in a designated safe zone to reduce casualties and/or damage to surrounding buildings.

 

It's not the first attempt at using drones to police other drones,  in August Boeing unleashed their ground to air laser drone defense system which pretty much does what it says on the tin- spots a drone, fires laser, drone is dead...scary stuff. Others seem to be turning to more tech related methods to stop unwanted attention from the sky in the form of geo-fencing systems which prohibit a drone from flying in places by using GPS.

 

With rumors that the UK may be under threat from drones carrying explosives (Disclaimer: not sure just how true that is or how big a risk it is- please don't panic and buy anything to shoot down drones) it appears that this rise in anti-drone tech could be the start of an influx of tech based defenses to protect people from miniature aerial threats...

 

However, seeing as bears and even an eagle has been reported to have taken drones out then maybe a more natural solution could be considered- everyone is familiar with the resident Eagle at the Wimbledon Tennis Tournament which is employed to keep pigeons off of the courts; could we soon see homes and estates employing birds of prey to ward off drones?

 

Cue an epic battle in the skies that will ring throughout the ages: Drones Vs. Eagles...think I'll stay indoors for that one.

 

This video is unavailable.

  • in reply to Former Member

    Hi George,

     

    A similar regulation does not apply in the UK if a drone is flying over your property (assuming the drone is flying low). All rights to your land extend to a certain height of space above the ground (and under the ground). That height is supposed to be that sufficient " to a height necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land".

    Anything in that space can be captured or retrieved by the land owner and provided one doesn't keep it (that would be theft), you're entitled to throw it off your property.

  • in reply to stevemann

    I've sat out of a bunch of this having kicked all of this off, but that's because I've been waaay too busy with developing the site, not because I've been keeping my head down.

     

    My original post, I included three links from the UK Airprox board. The Airprox board's job is to investigate anything that an air user reports as being a "risk of collision". Their aim is to investigate and look for common factors and do something about those factors, usually through education or recommendations of regulation. You can find out more here if you're interested.

     

    In their last annual report (here), they said

     

    drones appeared to be deliberately or unthinkingly flown in locations that were obviously close to airfields or aircraft operating areas; the seeming disregard for safety, or at best ignorance of risk, of casual  drone operators is a cause for concern that is only likely to deepen as drones become more prolific due to their ease of availability and relatively low cost. 

     

    And if you look at any of their reports about near collisions (here, here, here), they * all * seem to have a key phrase in it.

     

    Despite extensive investigation, a drone operator could not be traced.

     

    This is the major challenge for any legislation. You might legislate that all drones must be polkadot and have on board kittens, but if you can't enforce that legislation, then what exactly will that legislation achieve?

     

    And to answer a point made above, it's feasible that some of these might be pilot error - they might see a bird and think it's a drone, especially if for whatever reason, a pilot has drones on the mind (for example, if he's heard another pilot complaining about a drone on the radio, he might think that black shape that he just saw disappear under his wing was a drone and not a crow). But I think it's a mistake to think that all pilot reports are cases of mistaken identity.

     

    I also think it's a mistake to dismiss out of hand the risk of any damage. The CAA defines a "small" drone or UAV as being a vehicle with an maximum take off weight of less than 20kg (source). It also has relaxed regulations for drones that weight less than 7kg. For perspective, a Condor weighs 15kg. I don't think a collision between an airliner and a drone would bring the airliner down - but I don't think it wouldn't cause damage or cause the airliner to turn around. And I suspect if there was a collision between a large drone and a slightly more fragile bit of the plane that it could cause enough damage to cause those on board some concern (like if it hit a nose wheel for example).

     

    But not everything in the air is an airliner. An R22, cessna or a glider colliding with a 7kg drone will not have a good day.

     

    As I said before, I'm very keen on drone tech and am really looking forward to seeing what gains civilisation will get from it. But I worry that irresponsible users will kill it before it has a chance to change the world.

     

    What I'd say to you Steve is that presently there is regulation in for drones, and it's quite light, but if there is an incident that scares people (and you admit that people scare easily), there will be an outcry, and the politicians will clamp down on it. Isn't it in the interest of the drone community to not let this happen, and to ensure that irresponsible users can be identified and be seen to be prosecuted?

  • in reply to stevemann

    Perhaps, but I can only judge you from your statements.

     

    I am trying to provide you with my 40+ years of experience in the aerospace industry as to how and why these regulations are created.

     

    I agree, for most of the smaller drones, no problem exists, though there are some perceived problems.

     

    For the larger drones, I agree, they should be licensed and the owner/user must have a unique ID on their drone clearly visible to show ownership and responsible drone use training.

     

    That is all and good, but there will be those individuals who will not follow procedures or laws.  If they act up, the rest of you will pay the price.

     

    So please curb your attitude.  We are all friends here and just trying to help.

     

    DAB

  • in reply to stevemann

    Licensing the operator is an excellent idea! If only to instil a sense of responsibiity.

    IMHO The FAA's drone registration service is an excellent idea, and the feasibility of a similar approach here in the UK should be investigated.

  • in reply to DAB

    You understand nothing about me.  It is wasted time and money investing in "solutions" that simply won't work- hawks, eagles, nets fired at hovering drones- none of these will work in the real world.

     

    There will be no technological solution to reported drone sightings for a number of reasons. There is no supporting evidence to verify that the vast majority of the sightings near aircraft and airports are in fact, drones. Additionally, there are hundreds of different models of drones. Many do not need nor have GPS and the control links cover a wide variety of technologies.

     

    I won't make any friends by saying this, but the most expedient solution is to go the route of licensing the operator. All model aircraft operators should have to pass a written test to get a license to fly. Amateur Radio is a perfect analogue of how this could work.