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

    Perhaps, but the laws will still be based upon the perception.

     

    Nobody sees the 99.99% of safe flights, but 100 of Millions of people saw the drone nearly hit the skier.

     

    No matter what you say, the onus will always be on the drone users to prove they are not causing trouble.

     

    One bad publicity event and you quickly turn public opinion.  Those events always work against peoples freedoms.

     

    The one case I remember from this past summer was the announcement that fire fighters in California had to ground their helicopters and retardant dropping aircraft because  there were people flying drones in the area trying to get pictures of the range fires.  Not good press for drones when they came back and showed dozens of homes that burned because of the grounding.

     

    I agree, by themselves drones are not a problem.  Unfortunately like any tool, they can be used for bad things and those few abuses punish everyone using them.

     

    DAB

  • in reply to stevemann

    Unfortunately for you, many of us have been around long enough to see things that would never ever happen, actually happen.

     

    I'm pleased to know that you're happy to be billed for any damage " are mostly plastic with a little metal and a battery that is mostly wet napkins. It's really no more a threat to an aircraft than a large bird."

    There is not only the cost of stripdown and inspection, but the resheduling of crew and passengers.

     

     

    It seems that there is a lot of noise being made by someone who claims to be operating legitimately.

    The last time I saw this was someone trying to sell something that didn't work as intended.

     

    There are multiple incidents within Aviation that never make the Press.

    The Authorities are aware of them, but the general public aren't, so you're basing your argument on a limited set of data.

     

    Mark

  • in reply to DAB

    In the case of the drones over the California wildfires, only one was verified, and it was many miles from the active firefighting area and not within the TFR.

    Where there are VERIFIED drones causing problems, I would agree with you. But today it is too easy to see a bird and say "I thought I saw a drone - we're all gonna die", and everyone screams for more regulations.

  • in reply to mcb1

    I NEVER said they were no threat and that contact would be inconsequential. I said that a single personal drone will never bring down an airliner.

     

    There is not a single report of a personal UAS/drone in the FAA Accident and Incident database. Not one. If there is other data I should be watching, please tell me.  The reason the general public doesn't hear about most of the aircraft accidents and incidents is because they happen every day. As I said above, today in the US, 18 pilots will report a Laser Incident and 3 General Aviation airplanes will crash.

     

    If there were a verifiable collision between a manned aircraft and a personal drone, you can bet a paycheck that it will be in every newspaper and cable news channel. After all, as hyper-sensitive as the general public and the news organizations are to personal drone news, even a broken window in a florida home was national news. (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/hialeah/article11873771.html)

  • in reply to stevemann

    For Concorde it took just 10 pounds of tyre fragment and that was sufficient to end 113 lives. If there was a drone on a runway, isn't there a reasonable risk it could cause damage?

    (Genuinely asking this question - I have no idea but the risk sounds plausible so it would be good to hear from experts). To me, some legislation on drones seems a sensible thing to do.

    Not knee-jerk legislation (no-one wants that generally) but something to reduce the risk of aircraft and objects colliding.

     

    Today other objects far smaller than some drones are banned from anywhere near an airport too, so it is not necessarily a totally new concept to have legislation concerning people's activities near airports.

     

    For example toy model rockets are banned from being launched within a 5 mile radius of airports in the UK - and they're made of paper with the bare minimum fuel. Which would be a higher risk, a drone that can be positioned with accuracy, or a paper rocket?

Comment
  • in reply to stevemann

    For Concorde it took just 10 pounds of tyre fragment and that was sufficient to end 113 lives. If there was a drone on a runway, isn't there a reasonable risk it could cause damage?

    (Genuinely asking this question - I have no idea but the risk sounds plausible so it would be good to hear from experts). To me, some legislation on drones seems a sensible thing to do.

    Not knee-jerk legislation (no-one wants that generally) but something to reduce the risk of aircraft and objects colliding.

     

    Today other objects far smaller than some drones are banned from anywhere near an airport too, so it is not necessarily a totally new concept to have legislation concerning people's activities near airports.

     

    For example toy model rockets are banned from being launched within a 5 mile radius of airports in the UK - and they're made of paper with the bare minimum fuel. Which would be a higher risk, a drone that can be positioned with accuracy, or a paper rocket?

Children