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.

 

US 98 at Tyndall Blocked Due to Drone Crash

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


That's still a hell of a lot Zaph.

Im not even going into the privacy concerns I have with it all.....






posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   
If those drones keep crashing I'm really not too worried besides they will be watching us through our smart tv's,smart refrigerators, smart appliances.

A drone fails?

They still have keyhole satellites.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by madmac5150
 


I agree. Its another reason why not to leave a flying computer-control toy in the hands of the Xbox player (military). There's no second chances when it comes to lost of life or injury.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


I'm only talking about the accident part. If a7 pound quad copter crashes, even if it hits a car or something isn't gonna do much.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by MDDoxs
Except in this instance it crashed near a public highway.


And how is that different from the MANNED F-22 that crashed in the same area last year? The QF-4 and QF-16 use proven technology for their control links, as well as self destruct systems, and the best safety features they can put into an aircraft. They crash sometimes. Guess what, so do manned aircraft. There are far more manned aircraft flying than there ever will be unmanned aircraft.
edit on 7/17/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)


Zaph, I was not insinuated that there was any difference between man and non-manned planes. I just wanted to stress the point that the air ways, which are already heavily congested now have to contend with drones as well.

The above coupled with the fact that these drones in some instances are intended to fly near crowded areas for whatever their purposes may be. Thus creating an increased likelihood of people getting injured, if an accident was to occur.

That would be a hell of a day that the air force utilizes a piloted F-22 to hover and spy on the locals



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Bilk22
 


Wondering if it will be viewed by some as Featherless Duck season 365 days a year.

Could see a spike in tourist.... here comes the advert/cliche... only in the USA.... or a desert country in central Asia.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MDDoxs
 


In the case of police UAVs, one of the biggest in use is 14 pounds, and operates below flight paths. The military systems will have both an ADS-B transponder which other aircraft can receive, and see and avoid technology. In the case of the larger systems they fly well above flight paths. Will the system be perfect? Of course not, but neither is the system we have now, without UAVs in the airspace.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Just to be argumentative
, a 14 lbs objecting falling from the sky still has the potential to harm people if they are struck, especially if the air is filled with them.

I think this incidents to highlights the fact that these drones are here and they will/are apart of our every day life. Weather that be for monitoring purposes, strike purposes or police support purposes.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by MDDoxs
 


Of course it does, but contrary to the fear mongering, we're not going to see a neighborhood, or even a house destroyed by a fourteen pound IAV.

To be honest, I'm a lot more worried about some idiot dropping $1000 to buy a quadcopter, sticking a camera on it, and trying to get really cool shots of the planes landing at the local airport.
edit on 7/17/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by MDDoxs
 


Of course it does, but contrary to the fear mongering, we're not going to see a neighborhood, or even a house destroyed by a fourteen pound IAV.


True and I apologize if am coming off as fear mongering, but if the QF-4 had crashed into a house, i think it would have destroyed it and perhaps neighboring one as well.

I concede the point that it would be very very unlikely, but the more UAV's like it in the area only increases the odds.
edit on 17-7-2013 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-7-2013 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by MDDoxs
 


But again, so would a manned aircraft (which the QF-4 is on some flights). Everything possible is done to prevent that from happening with both manned and unmanned aircraft. The QF-4/QF-16 perform a very important role as targets, and generally only fly unmanned over the range (although just like their counterparts they occasionally have to fly over populated areas to get to the range). The Air Force has very strict guidelines for them and will self destruct one if it even looks like it has a problem near a populated area.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I think we are just going in circles here, but I agree that regardless of what type of vehicle, whether it be manned or not, is still susceptible to complications and/or accidents. So I agree with you here.

My emphasis was on that drones of a particular make are meant to be around the public and that instances of them interacting with people, whether planned or unplanned will increase. The same can be said for planes or any other vehicle for that matter. It seems logical that the more objects flying around the greater chances of instances to occur.

We are still facing the prospect of having the sky filled with larger and larger number of vehicles that just increase the probability of accident.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by MDDoxs
 


We are, but the QF-4 is a bad example of this, and that article was poorly written. The QF series has been flying for decades and has never caused an injury on the ground that I'm aware of, or any property damage. In fact I've only ever heard of a very small number of accidents with them, and this is one of the very few crashes of one.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by whyamIhere
I did a thread about this last year...It was ignored.

People don't seem to care about these largely untested craft.

That is until it lands on your house, besides the carry some nasty stuff.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Largely untested?????????
The F-4 Phantom II is not a untested aircraft and after conversion they are test flown with a pilot to check the remote system before they are certified for drone use

They have been flying QF-4 target drones for over 30 years since they ran out of the old QF-86 drones. they shoot them down where i live all the time for weapons testing.(china lake)
www.airspacemag.com...
commons.wikimedia.org...:AIM-54_Phoenix_destroys_QF-4_drone_1983.jpeg



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 


My two biggest pet peeves on this topic are that no one (especially the media) differentiates between a doneand a UAV/UAS, and they try to act as of this is brand new technology. I remember DC-130s sitting on the ramp with for Firebees hanging under the wings. The Firebee used to fly autonomous missions over Vietnam all the time.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MDDoxs


I am not only now concerned over the domestic surveillance these drones represent, but now they are real threats for bodily as a result of crashes.



They've been real threats to our bodies ever since Chris Dorner was the first citizen in the U.S. to be targeted by them.

I agree that they need to be wiped out. Our Gov. knows they lack the manpower to control all of us. They need these drones.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
So the cops are going to have drones, the public is going to have drones...

will police drones be pulling over public drones for illegal droning in public? drinking while droning is that it?


The madness. Glad no one was hurt in the crash btw.
edit on 17-7-2013 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Nephalim
 


You are giving them wayy too many ideas my friend!

I'm pretty sure we all are on this forum. I bet they use ATS as a think-tank for their agendas.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Maybe someone knocked it down for a reason...



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by cavtrooper7
 


That's have to be a hell of a system to knock it down. At that range the datalink would power through almost any jammer. And it would take a MANPADS to bring it down.

It's an old airframe that sat in the desert for years. Even though they test them, sometimes parts fail, and they crash. The QFs have a great safety record, but sometimes things happen.




top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join