News & Analysis
Comment
LarryM99
If you compare this to the problem of driving a car in an urban environment it ...
Duane Benson
Having spent some time in the pilot's seat of a small aircraft, I well ...
U.S. to begin testing future drones
George Leopold
3/9/2012 11:35 AM EST
WASHINGTON – The drones are coming.
The initial step in the process of overseeing introduction of unmanned aircraft in the nation’s skies was announced this week by the Federal Aviation Administration, which is soliciting public comments on the testing of drones that could be used for a range of “eye in the sky” applications.
In response to a legislative provision in a bill reauthorizing the FAA, the agency has launched a comment period as it selects six test sites to evaluate unmanned aircraft systems. The focus of the proceeding will be determining the location of the test sites along with establishing safety standards and integrating unmanned aircraft into the nation’s airspace, the FAA said.
The FAA test sites will chiefly determine the altitudes at which drones will fly so they will not interfere with commercial air traffic as well as developing certification standards for the pilotless vehicles.
Unmanned aircraft could begin taking off in the U.S. as early as 2015.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said unmanned aircraft could be used for a range of new applications like spotting wild fires. But critics worry that law enforcement agencies could use drones for unauthorized surveillance.
Industry groups praised the FAA initiative. “Unmanned aircraft will be the next big revolution in the aerospace industry, and the creation of these test sites will mark the beginning of what will one day be a common occurrence: manned and unmanned aircraft safely flying together in the same airspace” Michael Toscano, president of the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (Arlington, Va.), said in a statement.
|
|
|
|
|
Navigate to related information
goafrit
3/9/2012 4:05 PM EST
That is the future of warfare and U.S. seems prepared for it.
Sign in to Reply
RTewell
3/9/2012 8:52 PM EST
Lots more to this than warfare... The real question is when does it move from a "model airplane" type of regulatory situation and into a "professional use" type of regulatory situation. Unintended consequences could have the FAA creating a situation where hobbyists can no longer fly model airplanes, rockets, helicopters, multi rotors, etc.
Is the difference when a camera is placed on board? Or when they can fly further than x miles semi-autonomously? Or is it an altitude thing? What exactly is in the public safety? I hope there isn't a knee jerk reaction by the FAA...this needs to be carefully thought out.
Sign in to Reply
mickinuk
3/9/2012 9:41 PM EST
There also a huge difference between a 10lb small plane and a 1,000lb monster when they fall out of the sky. Regulation can be a lot simpler when the pilot is sitting in the plan and risking his life, it tends to moderate the risk.
Sign in to Reply
Duane Benson
3/10/2012 3:50 AM EST
There certainly are plenty of good non-war applications for pilot-less aircraft in the US. Pipeline inspection as well as railroad inspection come to mind. Wild fire spotting was mentioned in the article. With the right sensor package, search and Rescue could also benefit.
Unfortunately, these and all of the others may very well put pilots out of a job. But as with other technologies, such replacement of humans will happen whether we like it or not.
Sign in to Reply
KB3001
3/10/2012 4:07 AM EST
There are all sorts of technical, ethical and legal issues involved here. I think we should proceed very carefully by granting licenses on a limited scale (limited area and time span) for law enforcement and environment protection authorities. 4-5 years from this, we can perhaps start discussing widening the circle.
PS. I also think public representatives from local communities must be involved in the granting of licenses...
Sign in to Reply
KB3001
3/10/2012 4:12 AM EST
Standard anti-collision technology is also a must on any civilian drone.
Sign in to Reply
Rjs725
3/11/2012 3:42 PM EDT
They should have their technology powered by iPads. That would sweet to add. http://detectapple.com/ipad-demand-of-the-charts-according-to-apple/
Sign in to Reply
sharps_eng
3/11/2012 4:13 PM EDT
I don't see how a heavier-than-air drone can possibly sign up to the Laws of Robotics, except by refusing to fly. Sooner they get their own union, the better.
Am I missing something ? ;-)
Sign in to Reply
DrQuine
3/11/2012 5:47 PM EDT
"Rule 1 for drones: ensure the benefit they provide to society is greater than the risk they pose." I don't see how drones of any significant weight can logically be allowed in any populated area unless they provide a significant benefit. Not only can they not sign up to the Laws of Robotics, they can't possibly maintain total situational awareness (what about that MediVac helicopter coming in from above to rescue someone from a car crash)? Add in unexpected failures (collision with an large unregulated bird, need to avoid human crowds during a crash when the remote electronics fail) and maintaining acceptable levels of safety become challenging.
Sign in to Reply
DrQuine
3/12/2012 4:10 AM EDT
Absolutely understandable in a battlefield situation (cost / benefit makes sense) where our soldiers' lives are saved (as are innocent civilians on the other side). My concerns relate to having a half ton drone loitering over our school playground reporting on traffic, tracking shopping mall shopping patterns, or monitoring whose lawns need mowing for the lawn service. I'm presuming these are the kind of things for which the FAA is exploring regulating "eye in the sky" domestic applications.
Sign in to Reply
george.leopold
3/12/2012 9:35 AM EDT
I live near three major airports and a hospital. The amount of daily air traffic is astounding. (I've even seen the shuttle and International Space Station fly over.) Add to the mix the medivac helicopter making daily runs, the county police copters mostly wasting aviation fuel and the traffic plane telling us what we already know (all roads are backed up during rush hour). It's very hard to see how you fit drones into the mix unless they are flying at tree-top level. The best use for "surveillance" drones seems to be in remote areas, away from populated areas and airports.
Sign in to Reply
masher
3/12/2012 5:04 PM EDT
Not to mention the requirement of absolute control over the RF link which will be next to impossible from and RF engineers perspective and the technology and control that is available today.
This will open up a new arena for hackers.
Can you imagine the RF equivalent to the internet group 'annonymous' where they break in to the RF link and start messing with these drones ?
Also it seems they aren't that advanced that they are 100% safe from crashing randomly.
They will need to be 1005 safe from incidents like this otherwise the lawyers will be dictating how they will and will not be used.
See the following
http://www.helihub.com/2012/03/06/mini-uav-crashes-during-police-test-near-houston/
Sign in to Reply
masher
3/12/2012 5:06 PM EDT
that should be 100% not 1005,
Sign in to Reply
george.leopold
3/12/2012 5:52 PM EDT
Not only did the police UAV crash during a test, it hit an armored Houston police vehicle. Gives new meaning to the phrase, "Houston, we have a problem..."
Sign in to Reply
LarryM99
3/12/2012 7:18 PM EDT
Current military drones can fly autonomously and so accurately that a human pilot simply cannot compete. Check out http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/03/robots-swarm-the-stage-at-ted.ars for the state of the art on the research side on these guys. If I were a fighter pilot I would be planning my retirement right about now before I had to face one of these in the sky.
Larry M.
Sign in to Reply
pixies
3/12/2012 8:16 PM EDT
Yes, imagine if a jet fighter with a pilot on board get involved in a dog fight with a drone, the drone has no fear of death and the pilot does, this is total asymmetric warfare and the human pilot will inevitably lose.
Sign in to Reply
LarryM99
3/12/2012 11:33 PM EDT
It isn't even an issue of fear, or lack thereof. A drone can pull maneuvers that a human can't survive, and it has the "reflexes" to take full advantage of those maneuvers. The drones in the video recalc and adjust control surfaces 600 times per second with (literally) inhuman precision. How does a human fight that?
Larry M.
Sign in to Reply
Duane Benson
3/13/2012 7:47 PM EDT
Having spent some time in the pilot's seat of a small aircraft, I well understand the challenges involved in keeping away of any and all craft sharing the near airspace. It's not easy for an alert human. Today it's not easy for a robotic craft; maybe not possible.
However, that will change soon enough. If a cheap digital camera can pick out a face and wait to release the shutter until that face is smiling, the ability to see and avoid a moving object in the air is just a matter of applying the technology in that direction.
Relative to the cost of the drone, 360 x 360 degree video coverage is not that expensive. Add in a number of ARM Cortex processors to do the recognition and you've upped the cost and the weight, but not substantially.
Ultimately, even if I'm the one in the pilot seat, I would prefer that my and the other air vehicles around have a more reliable vision system than does a human. Machines fail, but so do people.
Sign in to Reply
LarryM99
3/14/2012 5:55 PM EDT
If you compare this to the problem of driving a car in an urban environment it starts to look really simple by comparison. Put the right sensors on the UAV and a little intelligence (avoid hitting anything except the ground when landing - and that not too hard). Note that vision is not necessarily the best choice. Lidar gives better ranging information and can scan across all quadrants.
Larry M.
Sign in to Reply