Group Actions
Engagement
  • Author Author: plowe
  • Date Created: Date Created
  • Views 5685 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

Comment Children
  • in reply to DAB

    I disagree with your assessment that unless "Drone users demonstrate some restraint".

    There's more than a million of them in the wild and how many have been seen AND VERIFIED near an airport? A dozen? Two?  That would be 2.4E-5 - a miniscule number.  You put a million of anything in the hands of consumers and there will always be a small percentage who don't know or care about the potential problems they may cause.

     

    The math says that 99.99040023039% of the users are flying responsibly. And yet you tarnish the whole community for the irresponsible acts of an extreme minority? No amount of legislation or rulemaking will achieve 100%, but denigrating the entire drone community is certainly not the answer.

     

    I seriously doubt the veracity of many of the drone "sightings" since the vast majority of them are unverified.  Go back 50 years when pilots were saying "I saw a UFO". The transcripts are almost identical. I am a retired commercial pilot and reading the FAA Drone Sighting database is laughable.  It would be hilarious if so many people didn't take it as "the sky is falling".  One of the reports was a drone found in a tree. Wow, the public is in imminent danger from that one.  Another is a drone that followed a twin-engine general aviation airplane 30 miles to an airport at well over 120 knots.  Show me a drone that can follow an aircraft for 30 miles at 120 KPH, and I'll show you the USAF markings on it. Certainly not a personal drone.  Or how about at 24,000 ft and 30 miles over the ocean?  No personal drone can go that high and that far.  There is absolutely no way that most of the reported sightings are actually personal drones, and almost every one of them is unverified. No airline pilot has eyesight so good that they can see a dinner-plate object five hundred feet away from them, especially when the super observer is moving at over 150 KPH.

     

    As I said, the panic, here, is completely out of any sort of proportion to reality.

     

    On the OT of Drone v Drone - it ain't gonna happen.

     

    Unless you are in the same general location of the suspected intruder drone, and the intruder drone is going to hover for you to intercept it, there's no way the net or falcon "solution" would work.  By the time you can deploy the magical defense, the intruder drone's batteries have run out and the operator is packing up and going home. Just another dumb solution in search of a real problem.

  • in reply to stevemann

    The stats might be right or may be out because of under-reporting.

     

    Whatever it is the problem will only get worse unless users are educated and do start observing the relevant regulations.

     

    There are many small and very cheap drones becoming available, but with remote viewing technology becoming so much more afordable, the potential problem will grow.

     

     

    Deciding to ignore it until it is a problem is rather foolish IMO.

    Making people aware now before it becomes an issue os the best method ot ensure it doesn't result in a fatality

     

    Mark

  • in reply to mcb1

    The threat of a collision between a personal drone and a manned aircraft isn't being ignored - IT'S NEVER HAPPENED!

    People are panicked over something that has never happened and are trying to legislate the imagined threat out of existence.

     

    Most personal drones, especially the toys that are most likely to be found near manned aircraft, most often by accident or ignorance, 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.

     

    This is what we in the rational world call "Fear Mongering". Seriously, a solitary drone in an accident with an air carrier aircraft is never going to bring down the airplane. It took a flock of geese to bring down Captain Sullenberg's "Miracle on the Hudson". One personal drone could, though unlikely, cause enough damage for the airplane to return for a landing, but the likelihood of causing a catastrophic crash is so remarkably remote that it probably won't happen in my lifetime or my kids' lifetimes. Notwithstanding the sensational news reports. "Oh - the pilot saw a drone, we're all gonna' die".

     

    The most likely first contact between a personal drone and a civil aircraft is going to go unnoticed by the crew and pieces of the drone will be scattered over a few square miles.

  • 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