Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on January 23, 2013, 10:37:49 PM
-
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/assets/img/posters/rise-of-the-drones-vi.jpg)
Anyone catch this on NOVA? Great program with a surprising amount of detail. It's amazing how fast and how cheaply they have advanced the technology. Like a drone that can cover a complete medium sized city in minute detail, track every object and store that image for days on end for review later. Big Brother is real and cruising at 35,000 ft.
-
over the USA or our enemies?
-
132nd FW in Des Moines is in the process of being retasked from F-16's to UAV's. There's still a few steps to be taken, but it looks like it's going to happen in the next couple of years.
Why we need UAV's flying out of Des Moines, IA, I can't say.
Possibly to monitor those crazy Canadians. You know, with all of their highly trained Moose and their disturbing politeness.
I for one, feel that UAV's in Iowa would be an effective deterrent to the great northern devils...
Moose. Those things are pretty darn big dont'cha know.
-
over the USA or our enemies?
The one with the massive camera is over enemy territory. But it is only a pod that can be attached to any Predator. The way they made the camera to capture everything was genius.
Just use hundreds of cell phone type camera chips. They can open dozens of different windows to closely monitor individuals and still track the rest of the city instead of being target fixated.
-
Drones don't talk back, or refuse an order. They will take pictures, or if weaponed, target whatever and whomever they're tasked to.
-
Drones don't talk back, or refuse an order. They will take pictures, or if weaponed, target whatever and whomever they're tasked to.
the drone is piloted by a human that can talk back or refuse orders
-
Drones don't talk back, or refuse an order. They will take pictures, or if weaponed, target whatever and whomever they're tasked to.
:bhead
-
(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/22175232.jpg)
-
over the USA or our enemies?
yes
-
Drones have been and are currently being used in the US, particularly along the Southern border. By Govt admission. No mention of how far "inland" they are being used, but they have been openly acknowledged on the Border Wars show.
-
We should install internet controlled non-lethal projectile launchers all along the border fence and charge money to the people who want to man them.
-
Really enjoyed the program. Interesting that traditionally trained pilots suck at controlling drones. Different skill sets/expectations. "hiring Officers off the street with NO flight training".
-
We should install internet controlled non-lethal projectile launchers all along the border fence and charge money to the people who want to man them.
That would be fun on the xbox or ps3.
-
132nd FW in Des Moines is in the process of being retasked from F-16's to UAV's. There's still a few steps to be taken, but it looks like it's going to happen in the next couple of years.
Why we need UAV's flying out of Des Moines, IA, I can't say.
Possibly to monitor those crazy Canadians. You know, with all of their highly trained Moose and their disturbing politeness.
I for one, feel that UAV's in Iowa would be an effective deterrent to the great northern devils...
Moose. Those things are pretty darn big dont'cha know.
See thats all you need to protect your border....... some well trained Moose!!
Us Canuks may be crazy but we aint stupid!!!
:salute
-
It was an interesting show. Look up what is happening with R/C and FPV stuff. The future skies will be cluttered with personal drones and quadcopters :lol
-
They have been authorized for domestic use. Many cities, counties and state entities (read, police, sheriff and state police/bureaus) are using them. I know there are many in Tennessee. The "creep" of government reach is upon us. This goes to the issues of warrantless searches and seizures. In fact, an appropriation allowed us up to 30,000.
Interesting legal discussion, not political.
-
Law is the very essence of politics...
-
Drones don't talk back, or refuse an order. They will take pictures, or if weaponed, target whatever and whomever they're tasked to.
Actually, they do talk back and refuse orders. See, they were built/designed as engineering demonstrations and the AF bought a LOT of them without putting in place a framework to update the hardware, software, and pilot interface to some semblance of military standards. So while GA has done great work with the USAF in being responsive to urgent operational requirements, the thing still flies like a science fair project.
No ADI. Seriously. No "engine gauge cluster", so you have to look at about 5 separate screens of engineering data to do a single ops check, that in a "real" airplane should take less than 5 seconds looking at a single spot on the panel. The autopilot was designed with airspeed priority, so, lets say your UAV is established in a CAS stack with 10 other aircraft each separated by 1000 ft altitude, and you tell your UAV to accelerate prior to a bomb run, the stupid thing may dive all on its own below its assigned altitude, right through everyone else's altitude, in an attempt to gain airspeed a little faster. Stupid stupid stupid design, but that's what we bought, and we bought so many so fast that we haven't been able to fix it. They did modify the parameters where it switches to altitude priority (based on coefficient of lift not speed, so it's still anyone's guess whether it will do a level or diving acceleration) but the autopilot is still based on airspeed.
Mil tactics simply don't work like that. If I tell the plane to hold a specific altitude and then also tell it to accelerate, I expect it to hold that altitude and do its best to do a level acceleration unless I specifically disable altitude hold and dive it myself. We build our tactics around the actual performance of the plane, so if a level acceleration doesn't give us the desired results then we modify our tactics instead of building stupidity into the autopilot. Well, the pred and reaper were not designed that way so they're really hard to fly.
That said, they offer a revolutionary addition to global power projection. I think that in the history of warfare UAV development will be ranked among the most important mil tech ever, right up there with nukes, hardened steel, and the rifled gun barrel. The big question in my mind is when will we have the discussion at the national level over what constitutes moral and ethical use of this revolutionary capability. We are in a war, so the question simply can't be discussed without compromising current operations. But it's a big topic that we as a nation, and eventually as a community of world powers, need to have. Flying into the airspace of a nation we are not formally at war with, and using a missile or bomb to kill one individual (or a group, or blowing up a bomb factory, whatever) is simply not something we could do before this. Now, it happens every day. At some point we need to work out some rules based on the same kind of moral and ethical standards that have led to restrictions on other specialized weapons.
-
Sooo. a pilot in an airplane seperated by altitude, speed and distance talking back & refusing an order is the same as person across from your desk doing the same...maybe you missed my point.
At some point we won't even need the person 'piloting' the drone...
-
...maybe you missed my point.
I think you missed his.
-
Sooo. a pilot in an airplane seperated by altitude, speed and distance talking back & refusing an order is the same as person across from your desk doing the same...maybe you missed my point.
At some point we won't even need the person 'piloting' the drone...
You missed my point entirely.
The drone pilot tells the drone to speed up. The drone instead dives out of it's assigned and commanded altitude, passes through someone else's assigned altitude. Maybe it reaches the commanded speed, maybe it wrecks into a mountain. Maybe the satcom antenna pointing gadget gets confused and it flips everyone off and trundles off for Iran or Russia. That's what they actually do. Not joking. You could have developed a better pilot interface in your sleep at age 5, because at the very least you would have labelled the buttons according to what the button actually does instead of what that button used to do a year or two ago. It's not even a physical button, it's just a text label on a touch screen, and they still don't match what they say they do. Double-negatives abound in the tech order and on menu labels. "If not using this one system, accomplish these steps" instead of "if using this other system then skip these steps", with both ways of wording the option used in the same checklist procedure just to ensure maximum confusion.
Yea, the drones DO disobey orders and talk back. Because they were designed to behave poorly according to standard military flying procedures. It is that way because GA never intended to actually sell the things since they were pretty much just engineering development systems with hardly any thought given to the user interface. 10 years later we're still crashing them because of that interface.
I recently asked someone "very important" what the status of making sure the next generation of UAVs had a military standard pilot interface including an autopilot that wasn't designed to intentionally deviate from commanded altitude. The answer was that the requirements for the next generation are not even developed yet.
-
dont quote me on this but i seem to remember reading or hearing somewhere that states were trying to pass laws that limited the use of drones in their airspace
-
'My point' has absoulutly nothing to do with flight characteristics of drones.
-
So the drone won't talk back on its way to destroy the target, instead it'll simply crash into a building, or mountain, or another drone, or the ground.
-
I dont like them flying around over cities. The first one that crashes and kills a bunch will cause a stink. Southern border, ya, need all the help they can get down there.
-
Dogfight in Drones :aok
-
Yeah I caught that one, pretty good.
-
See Rule #14
-
I'm not 100% up to speed on US laws, but as far as I know no one have any rights to privacy in a public place, like streets, roads, wilderness etc. However, if these drones start peeking into your living room...
-
You certainly have certain aspects of privacy in public places. It is called "probably cause" and before a cop can infringe they must have a compelling reason. They cannot simply just walk up and demand, unless they do. And if challenged, and probably cause is not found than any evidence found is inadmissable in a court of law and any charges brought against the person must be dismissed.
This is the legal framework.
-
I'm not 100% up to speed on US laws, but as far as I know no one have any rights to privacy in a public place, like streets, roads, wilderness etc. However, if these drones start peeking into your living room...
or your back yard
-
You certainly have certain aspects of privacy in public places. It is called "probably cause" and before a cop can infringe they must have a compelling reason. They cannot simply just walk up and demand, unless they do. And if challenged, and probably cause is not found than any evidence found is inadmissable in a court of law and any charges brought against the person must be dismissed.
This is the legal framework.
Probable cause, and that is only applicable if they want to search your personal property, like your home, car or person. As long as you're in a public place they can take as many pictures of you as they like and follow you wherever you go, right up to your doorstep. This is not limited to law enforcement... Anyone is free to take photos or conduct surveillance in public places; that's how the paparazzi make a living, and for the most part they're not breaking the law.
-
or your back yard
If it's visible from the air it's fair game. Public domain.
-
If it's visible from the air it's fair game. Public domain.
see? that's it though.........if you've got a privacy fence up, for....well......privacy, on your own property, then with this stuff, that privacy is taken away.
-
Then you'll need a privacy roof too.
-
That show was pretty much Pred/Reaper centric, it was done very well, but was still fairly tightly focused; there's other UAVs out there.......I hate the label "drone".............UAV or RPA is more accurate. I work with a UAV every day at my job (sensor operator), and I think folks are getting influenced a bit too much by Hollywood, which adds to the bad info...perhaps this is by design. The acft I fly does everything, we just tell it what altitude to fly and what heading. The computers figure out everything else, like flight control inputs and throttle setting. As "smart" as they are, they are actually pretty dumb. There isn't a way where it it would go rogue, if the acft loses link it either flies in a circle or flies it's way home on a pre planned, pre approved route. As far as having them flying domestically, that's a whole different ball of string. Some folks say it is an invasion of privacy, while others say if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. All I know is that there are many laws and regulations governing "collecting" imagery here in the states. Federal land is one thing, but looking in your neighbors window is another altogether.
-
We provide UAVs for Law Enforcement in the US. Ours are search and rescue systems. Not really a surveillance drone as they have limited flight times. 45 minutes up to 90 minutes depending on payload. We have some pretty cool video on our sight if you guys want to take a look.
www.CondorAerial.com (http://www.CondorAerial.com)
-
http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/STO/Programs/High_Energy_Liquid_Laser_Area_Defense_System_%28HELLADS%29.aspx
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/510361/star-wars-writ-small/
-
Tomorrow I'll post some case law on the subject. There are clear limitations currently, and those limitations will grow. The law contemplated an officer walking the street and stumbling into something; the law also contemplated totalitarian actions by the "state" which resulted in The Bill of Rights. The big jump came with Al Capone and organized crime leading to RICO statutes. Really interesting legal history. Should an action be a crime without a victim?
-
According to the reasoning of the 9th Circuit case Pineda-Moreno, the 9th Circuit apparently thinks the police, with or without reasonable suspicion, can follow your every move in public 24/7, even GPS track your car because you have no reasonable expectation of privacy wherever your car goes, outside a very private closed garage, etc. The 9th Circuit clearly implied exactly this, reasoning by analogy that since it was ever so clear to them under a prior case called Knotts that cops can follow someone anywhere on public roads and parking lots without any privacy invasion, then clearly, the court thought, a GPS device can be secretly installed in the driveway of someone's home (which driveway is unfenced) without even a modest requirement of reasonable suspicion - since there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in any publicly visible area. In a footnote the court said it could revisit if there were any massive violations in this area.
So, unless you live in a gated community of private roads, or have a Palin-style 14 foot fence, or in other words if you're rich enough, then you may have a tiny residue of home privacy left, but even in that case never outside the walls of your home or even inside your home if any of it can be seen in "open view" through windows, if your gated community and fencing isn't robust enough.
"{...}whereas in Knotts, as in this case, “{t}he substitute is for an activity, namely following a car on a public street, that is unequivocally not a search within the meaning of the amendment.” United States v. Garcia, 474 F.3d 994, 997 (7th Cir.2007). Pineda-Moreno makes no claim that the agents used the tracking devices to intrude into a constitutionally protected area. The only information the agents obtained from the tracking devices was a log of the locations where Pineda-Moreno's car traveled, information the agents could have obtained by following the car."
UNITED STATES v. PINEDA-MORENO, No. 08-30385, January 11, 2010 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1497005.html
-
I recently asked someone "very important" what the status of making sure the next generation of UAVs had a military standard pilot interface including an autopilot that wasn't designed to intentionally deviate from commanded altitude. The answer was that the requirements for the next generation are not even developed yet.
Designed by an engineer for an engineer. I do not know a single pilot that likes that airframe. Oh and I hear next ones' interface is even worse...
-
The discussion of law, is political. Laws are made by politicians. Any attempt to discuss the merits or points of any law, is by nature a political discussion.
It is not welcome on this board, per the forum posting rules. It will get you suspended from the board.