What do you guys thing of the current initiative to let Gov't. and private agencies
turn these babies loose in OUR airspace?
Even a little 50 pounder could ruin your whole day.
I don't see how these small 'surveilance' type vehicles are going
to even maintain any awareness of local VFR traffic let alone
properly keep a remote operator, with an 'agenda', apprised of the situation.
who WAS #1?
Favorite Answer
Have you seen in the news that FAA is switching from a radar-based system to a GPS-based system? I sure hope they keep the radar systems as a backup. The airspace is becoming more automated. This will allow finer control of airspace, much like going from analog to digital allows a lot more data through a pipe.
As for the drones, law enforcement agencies are drooling over getting small ones. Nothing like the big ones the military uses but their camera gear can be impressive, including infrared so they can spot people hiding by their body heat. I do not know the state of the art but truck-based systems can just about see through your walls and hear what you are saying in your house. Eventually drones will also do this.
And of course if the government really wants to hear what you are saying it will just turn on the microphone in your cell phone, they can do that now.
Welcome to the Surveillance State.
John R
There's a lot of hype, but I'm more concerned about privacy than the effects on aviation. From an operational stand point, there is no difference between a "drone" and a "Radio Control Model". Amateurs have been operating RC planes, some as large as 1/8 or even 1/4 scale, for decades.
You're confusing what is essentially a RC model carrying a camera payload of some sort with the drones operated by the military. The proposed rules still require line of sight control of the device, and they are not going to be operating at altitudes that will have any real effect on air traffic, Unless they are operating in the approach path of an airport, I could care less how many of these are operating at a 400 or 500 ft AGL while I'm flying. They are far more likely to crash and damage something on the ground than they are to collide with an aircraft.
JetMech
Some answers critisize the asker for saying "pilotless drone" as being redundant, but that's not always true. Now days they are making pilotless aircraft that don't need a pilot either in the air or on the ground. They are "autonomous" . They can be programmed and fly an entire mission without human intervention. That's right, be afraid of these soul-less combat vehicles. Be VERY afraid of them.
Zaphod Beeblebrox
1) A drone, by definition is pilotless, so "pilotless drone" is redundant.
2) What you are referring to are not actually drones, they are RPV's (remotely piloted vehicles) and within U.S civil airspace they must be flown by a licensed commercial pilot.
3) When ADSB becomes the standard, I won't have a problem sharing airspace with one. Until that is instituted, I'm sure that RPV ops will be highly restricted and won't really mingle much or at all with other aircraft.
0NE TRlCK P0NY
Can't wait until one of these babies with an unregulated operator wanders into the path of and airliner.
Maybe then the government will wake up and make some laws to cover these things. And people WILL DIE before that happens. Even the FAA knows that and has publicly admitted it. As such, if I see one of these babies circling my property, it is coming down Iranian style.