Group Actions
Engagement
  • Author Author: plowe
  • Date Created: Date Created
  • Views 5681 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.

Parents

  • In both cases both the hawk and the net-firing drone are targeting stationary drones simply hovering in place.  Wow, big deal. anyone can hit the side of barn while standing next to it.

     

    There is absolutely no factual evidence to support the fear and ignorance around small personal drones. There have been more than a million hours of flight of small drones, yet there is not one verifiable report of a drone crash in the US that resulted in a serious injury as defined by the NTSB* to someone not connected to the flight. Not one. It is a safety rate that all other segments of aviation would be jealous to have. There is also not one verifiable report of a collision between a small drone and a manned aircraft. Not one. When it happens, the aircraft crew is probably not going to be aware of it, and the drone pieces will be scattered over a square mile. An FAA executive speaking to a nervous audience of helicopter operators at HAI Heli-Expo in Orlando (March 2015) and said that while there's never been a reported contact between an sUAS and a civilian aircraft, the military has some experience in that regard. In all cases the aircraft was virtually unscathed while the UAS was "smashed to pieces."

     

    Keep the risk of personal drones in perspective.

     

    Today (if this is an average day in the USA):

    1560 people will die from Cancer

    268 people in US hospitals will die because of medical mistakes.

    162 people will be wounded by firearms in the US.

    117 Americans will die in an automobile accident.

    98 people in the US will die from the flu.

    53 people will kill themselves with a firearm.

    46 children will suffer eye injuries.

    37 will die from AIDS.

    30 people will die in gun-related murders.

    18 pilots will report a Laser Incident

    3 General Aviation airplanes will crash in the US.

    0 people will be seriously injured or killed by a small drone accident.*

     

    Zero. Why are so many otherwise rational people so terrified of zero?

    The panic, here, is completely out of any sort of proportion to reality.

     

    * A band-aid is not a serious injury. CFR 49 §830.2 contains the definition of "Serious Injury" that the FAA and NTSB use in their aircraft and vehicular accident statistics. It is important to hold small UAS accidents to the same metric, otherwise comparisons are meaningless.

  • in reply to stevemann

    True, but the perceived threat is still very high.

    Unless Drone users demonstrate some restraint in their use, then I am afraid that the press will continue to shout that the sky is falling.

     

    DAB

  • in reply to stevemann

    Stephen Mann wrote:

     

    And, your point is ??

    My point is that this article was linked from a news topic posted on here....

    And given the subject of Drones and Aviation I thought it might be appropriate.

     

    Do you want a paper bag?

  • in reply to gadget.iom

    There are reports of drone "sightings" every day - most are unverified.

     

    The frequency of the reported sightings near London is a concern as it is higher than random acts of stupidity would explain.  I am suspecting that could be some idiot trying to deliberately hit an airliner.  If it is and he is caught, then yes, the authorities should throw the book at him.  The odds are that he will not succeed.  And if he somehow does, the odds are that the crew won't even notice the thump as the drone is smashed to smithereens.

     

    It would take remarkable skill or incredible luck for a drone operator to deliberately hit a target moving at 150 MPH or more relative to a top speed of 30 MPH for most personal drones.

  • in reply to stevemann

    Who said anything about deliberate?

     

    I'm more worried about the muppets

    (Not these muppets)image

     

    The kinda muppets that think a video of a plane during take off captured from a UAV from 16ft is "cool".

  • in reply to shabaz

    The airspace near airports always was regulated. Even before "Drones" became popular. And those laws apply to everything man made which occupies airspace. Just as sayed: we do not need more laws. BTW: Laser pointer are still unregulated.

  • in reply to stevemann

    I said that a single personal drone will never bring down an airliner

    Can you please elaborate on your background.

    Your statements tend to suggest you are an Aircraft Engineer, but then other statements suggest you have nothing to do with the industry.

     

    Unless the authorities can identify the person operating the other object (including another plane) they cannot verify it.

    Because 'personal' drones are not carrying any transponder, they will not show up on a radar, and therefore cannot be tracked.

    They become unverified.

     

    In order to be reported, any object closer than 3Nm or 1000ft is deemed to be a near miss.

    Most large aircraft have TCAS which uses the transponder but they may also be using the weather radar for other objects.

     

    Contrary to your earlier comment regarding pilots, the article linked earlier http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35442130

    According to the plane's pilot, the drone narrowly passed down the right-hand side of the aircraft and left no time to take action.

    So either pilot was able to see it, or he fabricated the story.

     

     

     

    I'm still struggling to see what you are trying to achieve with this "must defend all drone users' attitude.

    The commercial and legitimate users have embraced the CAA's rules here in NZ and are very happy to comply.

    They recognise that the authorities need to identify the 'cowboys' and by complying with the rules the CAA can eliminate the legitimate users from any public reports.

     

     

    Mark

Comment
  • in reply to stevemann

    I said that a single personal drone will never bring down an airliner

    Can you please elaborate on your background.

    Your statements tend to suggest you are an Aircraft Engineer, but then other statements suggest you have nothing to do with the industry.

     

    Unless the authorities can identify the person operating the other object (including another plane) they cannot verify it.

    Because 'personal' drones are not carrying any transponder, they will not show up on a radar, and therefore cannot be tracked.

    They become unverified.

     

    In order to be reported, any object closer than 3Nm or 1000ft is deemed to be a near miss.

    Most large aircraft have TCAS which uses the transponder but they may also be using the weather radar for other objects.

     

    Contrary to your earlier comment regarding pilots, the article linked earlier http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35442130

    According to the plane's pilot, the drone narrowly passed down the right-hand side of the aircraft and left no time to take action.

    So either pilot was able to see it, or he fabricated the story.

     

     

     

    I'm still struggling to see what you are trying to achieve with this "must defend all drone users' attitude.

    The commercial and legitimate users have embraced the CAA's rules here in NZ and are very happy to comply.

    They recognise that the authorities need to identify the 'cowboys' and by complying with the rules the CAA can eliminate the legitimate users from any public reports.

     

     

    Mark

Children
  • in reply to mcb1

    I am a retired commercial pilot.

    No multi engine airliner can be brought down if a foreign object comprises an engine. That's precisely why there's more than one.  I never said it would be without consequence.  Frag an engine and the airline is out a million dollars, but the aircraft will make a safe landing. You would be surprised how much engine out simulation is done during training.

     

    If you really think a pilot can IDENTIFY an object flashing by at 150 knots, you're fooling yourself.  At 150 knots I couldn't tell you if we just passed a bird, a balloon or a drone - just that we passed something close to the aircraft.

     

    Where did I ever say I "must defend all drone users'" ??  I am only trying to bring sanity back from the hysteria.  If someone really does try to endanger a flight, I want the book thrown at him. But just because a pilot THINKS he saw a drone is no excuse for "the sky is falling" attitude.