U.S. opening up airspace to drones

Where does it stop? I just have a fealing that government does whatever it wants and we can not do anything about it. Our legislators and other elected officials don't seem to care.

I wonder what we be the fallout after the first midair with a plane with occupants? What will happen when a UAV is monitoring you on your private property? This is starting to remind me of Skynet and Sci Fi scenarios of humans vs machines.

Mechanical things fail. I will not like the feeling of one of these UAV's pointed at me in unsrestricted airspace, and at that point calling my Congressman will be the last thing on my mind.
 
I think that these should be used only as tools of war. Just like our army is not used to keep the peace (that's what civilian police departments are for), these should not either. Use to secure the border? I am probably okay with that, but not for criminal investigations. Do we really need to spend $1 Billion on these to look for someone's pot growing in the wild?
 
Anthony said:
Where does it stop? I just have a fealing that government does whatever it wants and we can not do anything about it. Our legislators and other elected officials don't seem to care.

I wonder what we be the fallout after the first midair with a plane with occupants? What will happen when a UAV is monitoring you on your private property? This is starting to remind me of Skynet and Sci Fi scenarios of humans vs machines.

Mechanical things fail. I will not like the feeling of one of these UAV's pointed at me in unsrestricted airspace, and at that point calling my Congressman will be the last thing on my mind.
Click to expand...

I think the trouble is that too many people (non-aviation) actually agree or accept these so called security measures. After all, I'm not doing anything wrong.:mad:
 
The FAA still has to write the operating rules. Expect them to be very restrictive.
Click to expand...

.....the first year.

We all know how this scenario is played.
 
We are truly giving up liberty for the FALSE sense of security.
 
Surely there will be a better system than the current method of putting up massive TFRs like those around Grand Forks AFB.
 
Ron Levy said:
The FAA still has to write the operating rules. Expect them to be very restrictive.
Click to expand...

Yeah. TFR UFN For reasons of National Security All aircraft are prohibited in any airspace below 7500 feet AGL to avoid interference with aerial security operations.
 
mikea said:
Yeah. TFR UFN For reasons of National Security All aircraft are prohibited in any airspace below 7500 feet AGL to avoid interference with aerial security operations.
Click to expand...

Ha! Scary thought.
 
mikea said:
Yeah. TFR UFN For reasons of National Security All aircraft are prohibited in any airspace below 7500 feet AGL to avoid interference with aerial security operations.
Click to expand...

No worries. To permit takeoff and landing, they open the airspace for 20 minutes every hour. Between 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11 minutes after the hour and so forth. This was scientifically chosen to prevent a rush into the airports at the start or end of any hour, and 20 minutes was deemed adequate to land any aircraft. That is all.
 
Google Earth has aerial photos of just about everywhere. USDA flies photo missions and uses the results for land management enforcement. More and more cities have traffic enforcement cameras. Many stores, banks, etc. have security/surveillance video all the time. Many agencies are looking at you, some of it real time. The privacy issue may be a bit difficult to put in black and white. Does a nudist on the approach of your airport have any privacy?
I think some people will use UAS for quasi-legitimate or illegitimate purposes. Papparazzi pilots all over the place. UAS has already been used to provide evidience to violate a packing plant in Texas. Many groups with causes will find UAS an attractive way to look in more detail than they've been able to do before.
 
I'll bet any of those things are way more expensive and way less effective than an LSA plus pilot. UAVs make sense in a war zone where the pilot could get sot down. Domestically somewhat less so. If aerial police vehicles are in that great a danger, we have systemic problems here that will not be fixed by technology.
 
I think there is a huge can of worms related to this, but the lid is pretty small right now. Take for example the nudist on your approach; aircraft flying in the vicinity (minus helo's) are generally flying fast enough the a passenger might catch a glimpse, but that's about as far as it goes. A surveillance drone with a high resolution camera on the other hand could be at the hands of a peeping tom, and such video could well show up on youtube, which we all know would go viral.
Even the more obvious concern...you're driving your car 70 mph down the highway and out of nowhere a 4 pound hunk of drone crashes through your windshield because some sort of signal disruption occurred and the operator lost control...
I am sure there are many factors being considered to avoid incidents like these, but even good intentions may and do have bad consequences....
 
Heard about this a couple weeks ago. Hopefully AOPA will team up with the FAA and tell them to **** off.

I think it's funny how people hate libertarianism until they agree with it's veiw points ;)
 
Ron Levy said:
The FAA still has to write the operating rules. Expect them to be very restrictive.
Click to expand...
I think you're right. I sincerely hope you're right. If that turns out not to be the case, we are in trouble....
Deputies with the Mesa County Sheriff's Office in Colorado can launch a 2-pound Draganflyer X6 helicopter from the back of a patrol car. The drone's bird's-eye view cut the manpower needed for a search of a creek bed for a missing person from 10 people to two, said Ben Miller, who runs the drone program. The craft also enabled deputies to alert fire officials to a potential roof collapse in time for the evacuation of firefighters from the building, he said.
The drone could do more if it were not for the FAA's line-of-sight restriction, Miller said. "I don't think (the restriction) provides any extra safety," he said.
Click to expand...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2017610207_apusdronesathome.html
 
Drones have been invading our airspace since my dad was getting his pilot license in the 80's. He has told me quite a few stories about sharing airspace with drones here in West Texas. The only difference is now they are telling us about them.

My CFI has dealings with USAF drone programs, and was telling me that the airspace from Eastern NM to waaaaaaaaaay out in the Pacific, and north all the way to the pole is reserved for drone traffic.

So basically no differences, they are just letting us know where and how high now.
 
jssaylor2007 said:
My CFI has dealings with USAF drone programs, and was telling me that the airspace from Eastern NM to waaaaaaaaaay out in the Pacific, and north all the way to the pole is reserved for drone traffic.
Click to expand...
I must have missed that NOTAM. Does you CFI wear his aluminum foil helmet under or over his headset?
 
What's going to Ironic ? a hole in AF1's windscreen.
 
kkoran said:
I must have missed that NOTAM. Does you CFI wear his aluminum foil helmet under or over his headset?
Click to expand...

Love the sarcasm, but why dont you do a bit of research and get back to me on that. It has been standard procedure here to look for drones in the air since the 80s. It wasnt added to the sectional until Cannon AFB switched their "mission" from housing F-16's to Special Operations in 2006. That was when the official word came out that they were piloting drones over the airspace.
 
This isn't just the government, folks. This is from the article:

That’s not to say that governments, companies and individuals shouldn’t use drones.

“We’re not standing in the way of drone technology. We are saying that there needs to be privacy and transparency rules for its use. Otherwise the American people are going to enter a rather dark period in terms of physical surveillance,” Geiger said.

That could include, for example, having drone operators’ licenses and mission information publicly available online.
Click to expand...

So this is what we've come to. We are accepting that drones will be used, so we just want to know who's using them? Then we'll feel all warm and fuzzy inside?
 
I have a pal who was almost run over by one, approach knew nothing about it. I see a market for antidrone armament for GA in the near future.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I figure he's thinking something to adorn his backyard, double-duty as an anti-anti-privacy device.
Click to expand...


It's called a 12 gauge. :D

Or maybe there are going to be a lot more unmanned rocket Notams.
 
Bob Noel said:
Hey, I'd be ok with them....as long the drones are equipped with ADS-B in/out.

<evil grin>
Click to expand...

Hey.... There is a good angle...

The government needs to provide all GA aircraft ADS-B in/out, free of charge, to prevent any midair collisions with their unmanned drones.

VFR is see and be seen, I guees the next question is .... How can a UAV see good enough to maintain VFR ? :dunno::dunno::idea:
 
jssaylor2007 said:
Love the sarcasm, but why dont you do a bit of research and get back to me on that. It has been standard procedure here to look for drones in the air since the 80s. It wasnt added to the sectional until Cannon AFB switched their "mission" from housing F-16's to Special Operations in 2006. That was when the official word came out that they were piloting drones over the airspace.
Click to expand...
There is a biiiiiiiiiig difference between...
CAUTION
UNMANNED AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
BETWEEN CVS AND R-5104A
BELOW 4000' AGL. CONTACT
CANNON APP CON FOR ADVISORIES
Click to expand...

and...
jssaylor2007 said:
...the airspace from Eastern NM to waaaaaaaaaay out in the Pacific, and north all the way to the pole is reserved for drone traffic.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
So you really think they hang out in the tiny little area where that is stated on the sectional... OKAAAAY keep on dreaming. :rolleyes2:
 
jssaylor2007 said:
So you really think they hang out in the tiny little area where that is stated on the sectional... OKAAAAY keep on dreaming. :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...
Of course not. They only transit the area to get to the restricted areas where they play or climb up to Class A airspace (where they can pretty much operate like a manned aircraft).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top