Group Actions
Engagement
  • Author Author: plowe
  • Date Created: Date Created
  • Views 6011 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.

  • 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 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 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

  • 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

    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".