It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FAA Pressured to Open US Skies to Drones

page: 2
32
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Remember according to Michael Weston the burned spy on USA Network's Burn Notice the best way to survive a drone attack is to get out of the immediate vicinity of the drone attack!

Thanks for posting!




posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


I'm less concerned with them peering into our homes with the drones, since they can already do that perfectly well with orbiting satellites.

However, the picture of a drone placing a few pieces of ordinance on our heads, that is a bit more disturbing.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ionized
reply to post by airspoon
 


I'm less concerned with them peering into our homes with the drones, since they can already do that perfectly well with orbiting satellites.

However, the picture of a drone placing a few pieces of ordinance on our heads, that is a bit more disturbing.


It may become incumbent upon us all to start breeding pidgeons!

I imagine a drone does not fly well through a flock of pidgeons!

Just a guess!



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Americans are so smart and inventive, I wonder how hard it would be to build a radio tracking missile? I'm sure that if TSHTF, we'd have them in no time, even if imported. Although, I doubt that TS would HTF in the way that is generally excepted. Most people won't even realize that TSHTF, they will just think that TPTB are fighting terrorism within our borders or something similar.

I like the pigeon idea, though I don't think the creatures can fly at the same altitudes. Our best bet would either be to invent or import jamming equipment or effective missiles. I bet that we wouldn't have trouble finding a supplier if TS did HTF.

--airspoon



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Well Yes I see your point. But enforcing white collar crime is a different animal
than say Illegal border crossing, drug smuggling, gang warfare, etc. And,
The Professional mentioned tracking kidnappers,etc. So do the benefits outweigh the possible downsides? I mean really, with thermal imaging,
FLIR cameras, etc. Not to mention satelites, I'm sure if the law had reason
to take interest in you there wouldn't be much you could do about it. In fact,
there is a good chance you wouldn't even know until they were ready to let
you know. However, I think they have Much bigger fish to fry at this moment,
unless of course your a real Bad A$$. In which case, you are assuming the risk.
The old adage holds true..."If you can't do the time, don't commit the crime."
Wouldn't you say? By the way, believe me I would cheer to see some real
justice brought to Wall St. I'll quote again.."Behind Every Large Sum of Money, there is usually a crime". -Balzac



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Wildmanimal
 


Actually my annual counterintelligence budget exceeds 3 billion USD! I keep very close track of the government keeping very close track of me.

Oddly enough neither of us is sure who started it, or what it was over, but currently it’s a 10 billion dollar a year industry and growing.

I started out small with a Captain Crunch Decoder Ring when I was 6, then moved up to a Dick Tracy Watch when I was 8, by the time I was 11 I had had a shoe phone and from there it just mushroomed.

Hey did you know President Obama numbers each sheet of the toilet paper in the Oval Office bathroom?

Money well spent, that’s what I say, thanks for posting.


[edit on 14/6/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Thats pretty funny, and quite a history I might add. I always appreciate
White House trivia as well! Spend your $$$ wisely on weekends


Wildmanimal



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Hmm I will call hysteria on this one.

In order for any aircraft (manned or otherwise) to operate inside regulated civilian air space. The said aircraft will need to comply with all the FARs applicable to operate in it's chosen area.

1, The said aircraft will need to demonstrate that it is capable of RVSM flight. (reduced vertical separation minima) in order to operate over FL190
2, Again in order to operate above FL050 outside of Terminal Areas (other than general aviation area) the said aircraft require to be fitted with TCAS II Ch7
(Traffic Collision Avoidance System II (Change 7). This would ensure that any encroaching aircraft, or any that it encroaches of it warned of a loss of separation, and TA/RA (Traffic / Resolution Advisory Can be issued)
3, Engines MUST meets the ICAO Chapter 3 requirement on departure and arrival noise. 89 - 91 Db. Soon Chapter 4 is going to be mandated.
4, As of 2014 ALL aircraft operating in US airspace, has to be fitted with a nitrogen generating system for the fuel tanks. Will they do this too!!??

This is just some of the things they WILL have to do. They cannot just skirt around becuase it's unmanned. If they want to operate in heavy traffic areas, are at higher altitudes. then they have to think about other Skyway users. and COMPLY with the Regs.

OK lets look at the logistics.

Currently Aircraft are tranferred from controller to controller for guidance and en route clearance, departure arrival etc.

This applies to ALL aviation, whether low level general or higher level commercial / private.

So aircraft would require to carry transponders (of they don't already)

However. communication with ATC is by VHF. which is a short range radio freq. So would not be possible for the remote pilot to obtain clearance from his base in Arizona, to the Terminal controller in NYC or Detroit for example.

This would require a local pilot in each of the operating areas able to contact local civilian ATC.

Again they cannot bypass this, as it would cause threat to the civilian traffic.

I stand with the Federation Against Aviation (FAA) on this one.

if they want to do it. they MUST comply just like everyone else. I mean why not. Police helicopter have to! this is not a war zone, the US is one of the busiest is not the BUSIEST air traffic zones in the world.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
I got it.

Lets make giant machines(robots) to flyover the skies, each equipped with every type of above top secret camera systems installed in them so they may scan Who is in What Area at What time no matter Where they are. Gear that will make the common grandma crap her pants upon glance of our "Mean Machines". We will also equip the entire skies over heavy populated areas with COSMIC TOP SECRET weapons that will scan every person of every minute of every day, to ensure the survival of the Gulf of Mexico. Terrorists are out there, so we want to make sure that we also install these new security systems in coffee shops, street corners, bathrooms. Anyone caught trying to avoid such systems once in place will face the strictest of punishment according to Obamas New International Order.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Jacius, although we concur on 90% of things, and you did an excellent job citing FARS, the radio is something they could potentially work around.

The VHF ATC signal could be relayed from the craft to the operator via the operator/craft link. I am not sure if this would "fly" with the FAA though.....

To me, lack of a pilot onboard is simply enough. Even with autopilot engaged, and all the advanced systems we have today, pilots are still required to be scanning the sky at all times and especially when flying VFR.

I doubt ATC has the resources to handle all drone flights as IFR (to the uninitiated: VFR=visual rules and IFR=Instrument rules....and instrument rule flights are directed by Air Traffic). Consider this with the obvious limitation of a camera-operated craft under VFR and it is pretty obvious why the FAA has been against this from day one.

Keep the blue side up!



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by NightShift
 


Ahh I also forgot to mention that at least in EASA, it will soon be a requirement for aircraft to be ACARS equipped, in order to take priority for slots, enroute clearance etc etc. any without take a back seat. and from what I know the FAA is usually about 9-12 months behind regs that EASA issue and vice versa. So see that one coming soon. (ACARS is NOT cheap)

Yeah I guess you're right about the VHF, part at least could be bounced from the VHF TX/RX via satellite. Although I still don;t know how they would get around the TCAS, and RVSM certification.

(would they also need secure cockpit doors!! hehehe.

Good point on the VFR v IFR

Can you imagine, controller gives an advisory
ATC:
Hello USAF123 be advised crossing traffic 5NM at FL100, report in sight.

Pilot:
Sorry I only have a forward mounted camera and I am 2000 miles away!!

background.
"traffic descend descend

I am sure that they could work around things, but the added costs or retro fit engineering programs to make the Military UAVs, civilian compliant would be very high indeed, not taking into account the effect on weight and balance / performance for added avionics suites, and added telemetry.

is there ever any incident of one of these UAVs ever going rogue. i.e. the telemetry being lost.

That is the LAST thing you would want in a crowded sky above a city!!




[edit on 14/6/2010 by JakiusFogg]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
This is actually good, imagine the following things that could be solved:

Hit and runs
Abductions/Amber alerts
Robberies
Auto theft
Illegal Immigration monitoring
Traffic monitoring
Severe weather monitoring (floods)
Search and rescue


Why wouldn't a helicopter be able to solve any of these? We already have helicopters.


Originally posted by wayouttheredude
Swarms of drones could solve a lot of their surveillance issues. Our privacy will suffer of course. Not to mention our peace of mind that we can go out into our backyard without having a spy peaking in on us.


Did you watch the last season of 24? One of the CTU guys was using drones to spy on women sunbathing in their backyard and a coworker noticed and told him he better not get caught or he'll get fired. But I could see it happening. At least a helicopter makes enough sound to make it harder to sneak up on you, I can hear the helicopters overhead.

But the bigger concern is air safety. The lawmakers fly too, so I don't think they want their plane crashing from a drone destroying a plane control surface any more than the rest of us.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 



Remember according to Michael Weston the burned spy on USA Network's Burn Notice the best way to survive a drone attack is to get out of the immediate vicinity of the drone attack!


Ahh you hit the nail on the head PT! I had been watching this episode of Burn Notice while reading this thread.

As for the concept of having this above our heads I have a few issues:

1.) Armed Drones above America spells out Occupation.

2.) Who would be making sure the CIA doesn't pull hits on Suspects they want dead on USA soil?

now three is far fetched but:

3.) Terminator the movie is becoming more real every day.

A scary 21st century we ar poised to live within...

Remove the man from the equation and the equation no longer cares about man.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:56 AM
link   
If they fully open our skies to drones, good luck having privacy (They use drones in the US in "training" missions and what not)



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
This is actually good, imagine the following things that could be solved:

Hit and runs
Abductions/Amber alerts
Robberies
Auto theft
Illegal Immigration monitoring
Traffic monitoring
Severe weather monitoring (floods)
Search and rescue


Crashing "by accident" into the homes, planes, or cars of dissidents, potential whistleblowers, political opponents... Hmmm, how convenient for them. Blame it on terrorists, hackers, rookies, virus, hardware malfunction, you name it.
And not only crashing, these things could be armed as well.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by primus2012]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Whoa. Not cool. Their concerns are for other aircraft??? That's the last thing I'm worried about. These things don't crash. But what they do do is shoot people. By our 2nd Amendment right can we civilians also own and operate drones? Since the military will very possibly be deploying them in our country, in our skies, for use against us??

I don't like this one bit, as is obvious.




posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 02:54 AM
link   
About the only non scary use I can see for these is to assist in border patrol. Since our government obviously has no desire to enforce the current border, they will not be used for such. In which case, I am completely against any government or civilian use in US airspace.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:05 AM
link   
all you need is a tesla coil and youll down these flying styrofoam coffy mugs with ease ,

i bet you at the same time as drones become a reality the technology to prevent drones from detecting you leaps forward aswell ,

technology is just as good as it get if you only look at one side of the coin ,

but before any real concern pops up in my books they need to prefect the batteries these styrofoam boxes use , its one thing to hover in mid air with a camera for a couple of hours to acturly have a thing flying with ffa regulated lights , weapons and cameras of all sorts not to mention recivers/senders and and what not gadgets,

its one thing to have a uav flying at near mach 3 around the world taking pitcures but its an other thing to have a flying "survailance drone" for more then a couple of hours that acturly is worth the cost ,

might aswell just use stationary blips with motion detectors and all the fancy stuff youd want , heck of a lot cheeper and its a better platform in general.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:19 AM
link   
They want them in the skies to get the pilots acclimated to the states. These will be used against patriots and militias and they will be weaponized. The elite know they can't win a straight up fight with the American people. They want to sit in air conditioned offices and push buttons to do thier fighting.

If you look around at everything that is going on they are gearing up for a total take over and lock down of the CUS. They are using every trick in the book for excuses to move troops and equipment into place. It is going to be time to head for the hills soon.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:20 AM
link   
They are certainly turning out to be very nice tools in a War zone and I'm certain they'd be great tools if used on a limited basis, such as borders & for extreme emergencies. I don't live in a War zone, but Law enforcement seems to want to make it one.

Problem is Law enforcement in the U.S. has proven it cannot be trusted with these tools and we all know that catching that fleeing suspect is more important than the child that gets mowed down in a police chase.

What's next UAV's plowing into airliners because some Bank Robber might have gotten away otherwise? Of course the police will blame the 168 deaths in the airliner on the Bank Robber who tried to run from their machine and he'll be charged accordingly.

Nope, the police already abuse the tools they have in their quest to catch the dope fiends and those nasty law breaking speeders. They're already putting robot speed cameras everywhere they can just in case somebody's going too fast when nobody is around. It might not be safe you know.

Regardless I'm certain it will happen eventually and we'll have a new set of Terrorist in the U.S. That is - all the wonderful folks that will shoot them out of the sky, burn holes in the side of them with lasers, jam the radio signals and hack them into the side of a mountain.

I'd say that's about when the revolution will begin - with no human face behind the machine people will no longer see them as part of the human race and the evil the lies behind their purpose will be easier to see. I think half the population already hates how law enforcement behaves these days - remove the human doing the dirty deed and the people will have no problem destroying them. Actually I'm surprised more people aren't disabling the photo ticket robots.


[edit on 15-6-2010 by verylowfrequency]



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join