Drones over US Airspace

[RanchPilot]

Big blind bird.


Navy UAV Crashes In Maryland
By Mary Grady, Contributing editor, AvWeb

An unmanned aircraft being tested by the U.S. Navy crashed Monday about noon on Maryland's eastern shore, about 22 miles east of the Naval Air Station at Patuxent River. The Global Hawk, about 44 feet long with a wingspan of 116 feet, was one of five UAVs being used to test maritime surveillance capabilities. "No one was injured and no property was damaged at the unpopulated swampy crash site," Navy officials said. Aerial video from WBOC-TV showed piles of burnt debris at the crash site, with scattered flames and lots of black smoke. The site is being cleaned up and Navy officials are investigating the cause of the crash.

The test program at Patuxent River has been in operation since November 2006, working to develop tactics and doctrine for the use of high-altitude unmanned patrol aircraft. The Navy's RQ-4A Global Hawk is powered by a Rolls Royce turbofan engine. It's capable of flying up to 60,000 feet at speeds up to 340 knots for more than 30 hours. Its maximum take-off weight is 25,600 pounds. It's operated by a crew of four -- two pilots and two sensor operators.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/NavyUAVCrashesInMaryland_206810-1.html

[Vick]

he he, job security for me...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... =pm_latest

[Eltee]

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06 ... n-us-soil/

[RanchPilot]

"By some government estimates, as many as 30,000 drones could be part of intelligence gathering and law enforcement here in the United States within the next ten years."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47846841/ns/us_news-christian_science_monitor/

[silvaire]

As I was flying my Champ across the Mojave on my way to Utah a couple of weeks ago, diligently trying to avoid the biggest swath of restricted airspace in the nation, I tried to imagine how I would react if I looked out the window and saw some grotesque looking robot plane flying along side or following me.

I came to the conclusion that it would REALLY FREAK ME OUT!

[JLD]

I was a law enforcement pilot in another life, so here's my take on the UAV world.

The legislation directing the FAA to integrate UAVs into the national airspace was pushed through by the UAV Caucus, look them up, see which Senators and Congressman are on it, and who is backing them financially ... and realize this is the UAV manufactuers trying to broaden their market beyond the military ... and relax, there's very little actual market for these.

1) Law enforcement: Across the country Sheriff Departments and Police Departments that have "paid for" manned helicopters and airplanes are parking them because they don't have the money to operate them. Cities and Counties are strapped for cash so these programs are grounded.

Will these cities and counties pay $14 million to buy a Predator to patrol with while paid for helicopters sit idle? Federal Agencies that use helicopters and airplanes face the same kind of financial woes.

The Border Patrol employees are represented by a union and their leader recently release documents from an internal audit by Border Patrol on the "cost per capture" using aircraft securing our national border. Predator costs $32,000 per person captured, and a manned Cessna 206 costs $40 per capture. Border Patrol employees are demanding the UAV program be cancelled because it is not cost effective. And as they are facing pressures to cut costs they've identified their UAV program as a "must go" aircraft.

2) I searched the archive here, there are no postings about how Radio Control airplanes are a serious threat to General Aviation. But the "new" approval allowing UAVs to operate below 400ft. AGL and no more than a mile away from the operator, is actually the rule that RC aircraft have been operating by for decades.

But are these effective for Law Enforcement? Actually no. Most surveillance that a law enforcement agency would conduct is "mobile", you're watching someone "move". In a manned aircraft you are dashing to a scene in hopes of arriving first and "securing a perimeter" so the patrolman on the ground can have time to arrive and really secure it with "boots on the ground".

So the requirement for the operator to remain within a mile of the aircraft prevents them from "following" anyone. And it prevents them from dashing to scene across town to "secure a perimeter".

And stationary surveillance targets? At 400ft. AGL the UAV will be heard by the person you are trying to surveil - that defeats the use of the UAV. If the "badguy" knows you're watching him, the law enforcement agency is at a great disadvantage.

There will be some early adopters for these RC size UAVs ($100k to $400k) but the real world limitations will prevent them from wide spread use. A few agencies will buy them, they'll realize how limited they are, they'll be bitter about how much money they spent on it - and that it sits on a shelf unused. And this market will die quickly.

3) UAVs that operate at general aviation altitudes, the senario that everyone here is concerned about will require a some sort of "see and avoid" technology. The FAA has conducted tests with UAVs using TCAS supplemented by a chase aircraft as the primary means of see and avoid. The FAA concluded that TCAS as the primary means (or say ADS-B) is insuficient to protect manned aircraft. The FAA may be pushed into allow them anyway - first midair with a UAV and the FAA will shut the whole thing down, and congressmen and senators will be hiding.

This is much ado about nothing. There isn't a market for large UAVs, they cost too much, and the small "inexpensive" ones are so limited in capability - they won't see widespread use.

[mtv]

JLD,

You make some quite valid points. As you noted, the "below 400 agl and within a mile" has been around a long time, for RC aircraft. That said, people with R/C aircraft generally aren't operating them over a city, for example.

Secondly, that is just the camel's nose under the tent flap, a decision made by the FAA to get the Congressional members and the UAS lobby off their (the FAA's) back for a little breathing room.

You are right on regarding the cost of large UAVs--they're cost prohibitive for most missions, and most entities simply can't lay out that much cash. That said, much smaller UAVs are VERY attractive right now to a LOT of people with stars in their eyes, thinking these things will be really cool to play with, and who are moving full speed ahead, and damn the torpedos. Don't let logic get in the way.

One accident shutting down UAV's???? I think not. Once the FAA develops a version of sense and avoid that they accept will provide a reasonable level of safety, they aren't going to readily admit that they screwed up, and of course, the Congressional types who pushed this will blame the FAA for establishing flawed regulations. The FAA will argue that the regs are sound, but the operators and pilots were to blame, etc, etc.....

At that point, the industry (UAV) and the FAA will have too much invested in the whole program to tube it......and so something is going to have to give.

My guess is that which has to give will be the weakest lobby....general aviation. ADS-B MIGHT have the capability of deconflicting drones from airliners most of the time, but requiring ADS-B in ALL aircraft will be the end of much of general aviation. If anything kills the drone programs, it'll be a Global Hawk size UAV dropping through the roof of a congressman's summer home......while he's home.

MTV

[Eltee]

It is traditional that the "regulators" regulate everyone but themselves.

[dogpilot]

Federal employees engage in empire building for advancement purposes. There is really no merit advancement in the GS system, only expansion of responsibility advancement or time in grade. So to advance you need to expand your tiny empire by getting more people to supervise, then by GS rules you get to go up the GS ladder. Make your empire large enough, then you go way up, all the way to the peter principal. Which, when you hit that level you do not get separated, you stagnate and block. Only re-writing the GS rules would you ever hope to achieve any form of productivity from the GS employees as the only motivation for their benefit is to spend their time on empire building, not doing their job. Simple Skinner conditioning prevails, they get a reward for the wrong behavior.

When I was an officer with Dept of Commerce (NOAA, the fish police). We interfaced with Dade County for some ops. They had a Wren 182 that would go up for 8 hour stretches and literally hover over places of interest (at about 3-4,000') all day in shifts. The cost was minimal, and they had a lot more capability than the newest wiz bang drones. It is just drones sound sexy, so they are selling. But it is akin to the big rush to put aerostats all over the place. The druggers pay people to phone home when they are hoisted down. So thats when they rush through the gap. Really low cost low tech countermeasure. However they where all the rage in big spending all throughout eh 80's & 90's.

[lesuther]

You are right on regarding the cost of large UAVs--they're cost prohibitive for most missions, and most entities simply can't lay out that much cash. That said, much smaller UAVs are VERY attractive right now to a LOT of people with stars in their eyes, thinking these things will be really cool to play with, and who are moving full speed ahead, and damn the torpedos. Don't let logic get in the way.
....
My guess is that which has to give will be the weakest lobby....general aviation.

Stories like http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_20856056/boulder-county-sheriffs-office-buys-new-armored-vehicle give me pause. The Sheriff can't even come up with use cases for the vehicle now that they realize they have to maintain the thing on their own shrinking budgets.

Basically, a lobbyist gets the DHS or some other bloated, too-big-for-accountability entity to sign up to buy a bunch of some garbage like this, and they get pawned off to local LEO's at pennies on the dollar with no vision in mind. Pretty soon, every town of 2000+ population has a black Wonder Bread van full of tactical gear that cooks in the summer sun for a few years in the back lot of the motor pool before the paint starts to peel. Meanwhile, the fire departments and basic policing needs go unfunded. It's a story that has been repeating itself all over the country at a higher rate over the past decade. A lot of smaller town LEO departments want to look just as gangsta as LA's elites.

The same thing is happening to LEO entities all over the place with smaller UAV's. The larger ones...well, you read the news from NYC...they want the 'surplus' Global Hawks and Reapers. Just playing with toys.

[RanchPilot]

Drone Hacking 101
By Glenn Pew, Contributing Editor, Video Editor, AvWeb

A team at the University of Texas at Austin claims to have hacked into and taken control of a non-military drone using less than $1,000 in parts, highlighting concerns over domestic drone use. Drones operated by the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies are already flying over the U.S.. Smaller groups like Universities and branches of law enforcement have sought approval from the FAA to operate unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) of their own. The FAA is working on regulations for such operations and the researchers' claim suggests that unencrypted GPS signals could put drone hijacking within the reach of anyone with $1,000 and the requisite intellectual resources. Recent history suggests that vulnerability may not be limited to domestic drones.

The technology used by the researchers is known as "spoofing." It involves targeting a drone with false but strong signals that mimic actual GPS signals and then deviate, luring the drone from its intended path. Through careful manipulation of that alternate GPS data, hackers can effectively take control of the drone's guidance system and flight path. When a U.S. RQ-170 Sentinel drone landed in Iraq in early December, 2011, Iranian officials claimed they used similar technology to a trick the aircraft into landing. If true, it wouldn't be the first time U.S. drone systems have been compromised. Back in 2009, U.S. forces found laptops help by Iraqi insurgents included video streams from U.S. drones. Both cases suggest even U.S. military drone systems may be less than adequately protected against electronic assaults.

Source: http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/drone_hack_faa_spoof_texas_uav_regulation_206899-1.html

[Scolopax]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... hics-code/

[Eltee]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 6MCcwO8Ho#!

[benflyn]

Lummis bill targets drones

8-11-2012 Wyoming Livestock Roundup

Washington D.C.- U.S. Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) joined 22 of her colleagues in introducing H.R. 6199, The Preserving American Privacy Act, which is designed to protect individual citizens' privacy from the increasing domestic use of Unmanned Aerial vehicles (UAV), or drones.

Already deployed on the battlefield and along our nation's borders, drones are now being used domestically by private and governmental entities. H.R. 6199 would: prohibit drone surveillance without a warrant; prohibit drone surveillance by private entities without the subject's consent; and prohibit agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency from using drone-collected surveillance in administrative hearings.

[flightlogic]

Silvaire---- a while back I was trying to get home on a hot day from Yuma, AZ. up to Precott where it was cooler.
I had to skirt the restricted space for about 30 miles to the east and then head home. I guess I was pretty close to the line, what with GPS and all these days. Anyway, I look over to the left... and HOLY Shit.... a Predator.
That ominous looking drone paralleled me for 30 miles.
I waved a few times... and probably got grins from the camera crew back at base. At the end of the R marked box on the sectional... the Predator turned back to the West and I went home.
But, I gotta tell you... when they are up close... you really keep looking over your shoulder at more frequent intervals than normal.

[steve]

More thoughts. http://lewrockwell.com/orig11/wolf-n8.1.1.html

Steve

[Eltee]

http://www.brookings.edu/research/paper ... es-bennett

[Fisherman]

Saw this article this morning. http://patriotaction.net/profiles/blogs/the-latest-from-dhs-insider

[Scolopax]

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-futu ... joy-2012-6

I am really looking forward to having a micro RFID chip injected under my skin by a mosquito sized drone

It's unbelievable to me that smart people in this country can spend their energy developing technology like this knowing what kind of people will have control of it.

[clippwagon]

Guard drones could launch airport into new era
Dec 30, 2012 5:19 p.m.

PENDLETON, Ore.—The National Guard in Pendleton expects to launch unmanned air vehicles soon out of the Eastern Oregon Regional Airport to train its 23-troop platoon.

The East Oregonian (http://is.gd/N0gXJv ) says city officials are optimistic the high-tech industry could bring jobs to Pendleton and fill properties on airport land.

Gregg Schroeder with the Oregon Army National Guard says the guard is waiting for Federal Aviation Administration approval to fly the craft - commonly known as drones or UAVs - at the airport.

Operating drones from the airport would not be restricted to Guard use.

Oregon Fish and Wildlife commissioner Carter Kerns says his agency and others could fly UAVs out of the airport to spot fires, track salmon migration, locate lost hunters and hikers and gather crop moisture information.

___

Information from: East Oregonian, http://www.eastoregonian.info