Group Actions
Engagement
  • Author Author: plowe
  • Date Created: Date Created
  • Views 5676 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

    Hi Stephen,

     

    We all understand that you are unhappy with the actions being taken by governments against certain sized drone users.

    Don't Panic!  You are dealing with people who have to cover their tracks just in case the worst case scenario happens.

    It is nothing personal nor intended to hinder people who just own them to have fun.

     

    Unfortunately everything can be used as a weapon by people who know how to pervert the technology.

    They create the perception of evil to which the governments must respond.

    It makes them feel better that you had to "break" the law to do something bad.

     

    It is well documented that no law has ever prevented a bad use of technology.  The law just gives the governing agency the out that they had fore seen the use and had made it illegal before it happened.

     

    So just make sure that you use your drones in a responsible fashion within the legal issues and you will most likely never be bothered.

     

    I agree, it is not right, but you should never confuse the law with right and wrong.  They are distinctly different.

     

    DAB

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 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

Comment
  • 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

Children
No Data