Group Actions
Engagement
  • Author Author: plowe
  • Date Created: Date Created
  • Views 5724 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 reply to Former Member

    Catching things in the air with a giant net?

     

    Like this you mean?

     

    (Warning, contains bad language)

     

    Begs the question, what happens to the person living underneath the drone that's been entangled. And whose liable for any damage? The drone owner? Or the person that wrapped the drone in a net?

  • in reply to mcb1

    Can't  drone operators find some where else to fly other than airports ...They used to Ironically after paranoia laws come in they will probably be edged out into similar  areas as planes. Once again regulations to keep stupid people in control ..only problem they dont/can't read

  • in reply to Problemchild

    Can't  drone operators find some where else to fly other than airports

     

    It isn't actually the "airport' but more the flight paths.

    On some airports this is directly inline with the Airport, but at many there are turning areas and other areas for 'missed approach', etc.

    For most commercial aircraft the closest turn onto the runway is 9nm so that is roughly a 22 mile radius of an Airport.

     

    In Chch that covers the entire city.

    image

     

    For any other non city/built-up area 500ft above ground is the lowest allowable limit, and it isn't hard to get a drone to 500ft.

     

    Mark

  • in reply to DAB

    We don't see many of those. Even when one makes global news we don't see that many except maybe that one that went out of control at the ski event.

    We should be more circumspect and not believe everything we are told after all these are the same people who believe  that some kid putting the guts of a clock into a box makes him a terrorist.

  • in reply to mcb1

    Hi Mark, yeah 500ft isn't that high for a drone to achieve. You've go to wonder why you want to do that though especially on some regular habitual basis as above 50 ish feet you can't hear it and at 500ft(especially some distance away) you can't even see it (white drone on a white cloudy sky ) except for maybe the lights.

    From a drone photography point of view most things you would want to photograph would look like dots or at least rather uninteresting from that height.

     

    That said I'm sure the world is full of sufficiently retarded and ignorant people....not sure the law however can help us here as a mass cull on them would bump off too many voters for our politicians image

  • in reply to Dudley

    Hi Dudley!

     

    As far as I understand, if something is on your land (tree height is most likely considered your property) then you're entitled to get rid of it, and eject it off your property. I think any damage during the process will not be an issue provided it was not more excessive than necessary to do that. Your freehold extends a certain amount into the ground, and a certain amount into the air as I understand!

    Basically the same as if a shrub was growing on your side of the fence : ) you're entitled to chop it off regardless of it belonging to the neighbour. Provided one throws back the trimmings over the fence (otherwise it would be theft :).

    (I think there was a case where a plane photographed from the air in order to sell photos, and I think it was ruled that was ok, because it was sufficiently high. I could be wrong though, cant remember for sure).

Comment
  • in reply to Dudley

    Hi Dudley!

     

    As far as I understand, if something is on your land (tree height is most likely considered your property) then you're entitled to get rid of it, and eject it off your property. I think any damage during the process will not be an issue provided it was not more excessive than necessary to do that. Your freehold extends a certain amount into the ground, and a certain amount into the air as I understand!

    Basically the same as if a shrub was growing on your side of the fence : ) you're entitled to chop it off regardless of it belonging to the neighbour. Provided one throws back the trimmings over the fence (otherwise it would be theft :).

    (I think there was a case where a plane photographed from the air in order to sell photos, and I think it was ruled that was ok, because it was sufficiently high. I could be wrong though, cant remember for sure).

Children
  • in reply to shabaz

    One of the airfields I used to hang around to do skydiving at had an RC plane and drone club on site. There the rule was "if there are parachutes in the sky, drones and RC planes should be on the ground". A sensible arrangement that gave drones a totally clear piece of sky (almost no planes bust a dropzone due to the inherent dangers of hitting a person in freefall, or worse, catching a piece of parachute cord) and plenty of warning of when to bring them back in. Five years of skydiving at that site, and there was only one incident in those five years, and that was on a day when the weather really wasn't jump friendly but people went anyway.

     

    Responsible users aren't the issue tho - the issue is one of what is done about the irresponsible users, and the really big issue with it is the anonymity. The airprox reports I linked earlier all have the phrase "Drone operator could not be traced", and no amount of regulation will work if that regulation isn't enforceable.

     

    And , I'm not 100% sure of the regulations here, but there is definitely a threshold in property law in the UK where ground becomes sky. From memory, I think it's 250' above your property that is "your" sky, and above that it's "public" sky (but I could be wrong). There are notable exceptions to this, for example, if you live within a 2nm radius of an airport, then the sky belongs to the airport.

  • in reply to shabaz

    That's correct according to UK Law Shabaz!

  • in reply to shabaz

    Ahh case law. Often tedious, sometimes intriguing. :)

  • in reply to gadget.iom

    I'm not often right, but seems I'm wrong again. Thanks for keeping me straight image

     

    And the problem isn't just the engine. Engines, windshields, landing gear, nose cone, wing leading edge, they all get tested for bird strike with a flesh and bone bird, but drones aren't made of flesh and bone. And while a bird is undoubtedly a lot less fragile than a drone - it's not hard to imagine what might happen to a stray piece of metal or a ballbearing hitting the fuselage at a bad angle might do to the fuselage. Bear in mind that closing speeds of 200mph are not uncommon.

     

    The analogy is if you were to hit a small bird when you're doing 110kph, it might do no damage to your car, but if you replaced it with a ballbearing of the same weight as the small bird, it's more likely to do some damage. Especially if it hits something inherently more fragile. Now make the ballbearing a sharp jagged piece of metal, and it's going to do even more.

     

    And also bear in mind that it doesn't have to be the big commercial jets when considering a collision with a drone - it could just as easily be a helicopter, or a light aircraft. They're much more prone to damage from a collision than the bigger planes.