Feds Under Pressure To Allow UnManned Surveillance Planes In US

[MA-Caver]

Feds under pressure to open US skies to drones



WASHINGTON – Unmanned aircraft have proved their usefulness and reliability in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now the pressure's on to allow them in the skies over the United States.
The [COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]Federal [COLOR=#366388 ! important]Aviation [/COLOR][COLOR=#366388 ! important]Administration[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] has been asked to issue flying rights for a range of pilotless planes to carry out civilian and law-enforcement functions but has been hesitant to act. Officials are worried that they might plow into airliners, cargo planes and corporate jets that zoom around at high altitudes, or helicopters and hot [COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]air [COLOR=#366388 ! important]balloons[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] that fly as low as a few hundred feet off the ground.
On top of that, these pilotless aircraft come in a variety of sizes. Some are as big as a small airliner, others the size of a backpack. The tiniest are small enough to fly through a house window.
The obvious risks have not deterred the civilian demand for pilotless planes. Tornado researchers want to send them into storms to gather data. Energy companies want to use them to monitor pipelines. State police hope to send them up to capture images of speeding cars' license plates. Local police envision using them to track fleeing suspects.
Like many robots, the planes have advantages over humans for jobs that are dirty, dangerous or dull. And the planes often cost less than piloted aircraft and can stay aloft far longer.
"There is a tremendous pressure and need to fly unmanned aircraft in (civilian) airspace," Hank Krakowski, FAA's head of air traffic operations, told [COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]European [COLOR=#366388 ! important]aviation[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] officials recently. "We are having constant conversations and discussions, particularly with the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, to figure out how we can do this safely with all these different sizes of vehicles."
There are two types of unmanned planes: Drones, which are automated planes programmed to fly a particular mission, and aircraft that are remotely controlled by someone on the ground, sometimes from thousands of miles away.
Full Story Here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100614/ap_on_bi_ge/us_drones_over_america

I'm sorry but I got a BIG problem with this idea. To allow Predators and other Surveillance craft to fly around our own home skies for WHATEVER reason is just going above and beyond our freedoms. Yes I know (some) Predators are the armed versions of these planes but don't think for a minute that they won't be allowed to eventually cruise over our houses or places of businesses... or where-ever we may be.

The Predator B, already in use for border patrol, can fly for 20 hours without refueling, compared with a helicopter's average flight time of just over two hours. Homeland Security wants to expand their use along the borders of Mexico and Canada, and along coastlines for spotting smugglers of drugs and illegal aliens. The Coast Guard wants to use them for search and rescue.

All those intended purposes are well and good okay... but excuse me for being parrynoid but I just don't like the idea at all. No, I don't have anything to hide but I don't need to be watched over either. Do they have a REASON to watch over me... prolly not I try to keep a low profile and my nose clean... still... the thought of it... just gets me shaking with deep concerned that within 5-10 years these things will have OTHER uses.
The kind they won't tell us about.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I'm sorry but I got a BIG problem with this idea. To allow Predators and other Surveillance craft to fly around our own home skies for WHATEVER reason is just going above and beyond our freedoms. Yes I know (some) Predators are the armed versions of these planes but don't think for a minute that they won't be allowed to eventually cruise over our houses or places of businesses... or where-ever we may be.


All those intended purposes are well and good okay... but excuse me for being parrynoid but I just don't like the idea at all. No, I don't have anything to hide but I don't need to be watched over either. Do they have a REASON to watch over me... prolly not I try to keep a low profile and my nose clean... still... the thought of it... just gets me shaking with deep concerned that within 5-10 years these things will have OTHER uses.
The kind they won't tell us about.

They can do the same thing with helicoptors already. I don't understand what the issue is, other then the fact that they can perhaps be utilized more efficiently, which means longer hours aloft.

If your worry is about aircraft that you can't see, just call your representative and demand a minimum size aircraft that you would be able to see from the ground.

 

[Stick Dummy]

Too late!!

Don't forget the traffic surveillance cameras, RFID chips in drivers licenses, credit cards, Identification cards, hidden in or on almost everything you buy, GPS tracking systems, Lo-jack systems, cell phone tracking, ad naseum.....

If air drones keep us from being invaded by illegal aliens and criminals smuggling by all means use them, they cost us billions in revenue every year that WE as legal US citizens must absorb with each paycheck deduction!

 

[jks9199]

They can do the same thing with helicoptors already. I don't understand what the issue is, other then the fact that they can perhaps be utilized more efficiently, which means longer hours aloft.

If your worry is about aircraft that you can't see, just call your representative and demand a minimum size aircraft that you would be able to see from the ground.

And be just plain cheaper making them more available. My agency is small; we rely on a much larger surrounding jurisdiction, the state, or other nearby jurisdictions if we need aerial support or surveillance or support. With something along the lines of the Predator, it's possible we could purchase one, train several people to run it, and have it available immediately.

Also, all the PD helicopters in my immediate area are "dual purpose" craft; they do medical transports as well as PD support missions. Medical missions almost always take priority over PD missions; the only reason I say "almost always" is that they might not pull the helicopter in some rare, really extreme situation where that overhead eye is absolutely essential... and even then, I'd say odds are beyond good that the medical mission would win.

 

[elder999]

I don't understand what the issue is, other then the fact that they can perhaps be utilized more efficiently, which means longer hours aloft. .

The real issue is insufficient airspace, and the control thereof-at least, as farr as the FAA is concerned. Otherwise, it's just a matter of time.

This movie had flying surveillance drones, too. Invisible ones at that.


You think you stiill live in America? We haven't lived in America since they shot JFK......

 

[Cryozombie]

I'm not worried, after all those surveillance drones would be illegal in Illinois. Cant photograph or tape ANYONE without consent, even in public.

LOL.

 

[Deaf Smith]

The drones are the LEAST we could do.

The reason for all the shootouts and murders in the Mexican border cities is the cartels want to take them over so as to have a safe smuggling route. Those cities are adjacent to Texas cities, big ones. And that is the reason for the war.

We need to make it very hard to cross ANYWHERE. That would stop smuggling, gun running, drugs, illegals, TERRORIST. What is not to like about that idea?

The wall must go up, but unlike the communist ‘Iron Curtain’, this is to keep them out, not in.

Deaf

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

The real issue is insufficient airspace, and the control thereof-at least, as farr as the FAA is concerned. Otherwise, it's just a matter of time.

This movie had flying surveillance drones, too. Invisible ones at that.


You think you stiill live in America? We haven't lived in America since they shot JFK......

I actually meant that I didn't understand what the issue was with his particular objection.

Sorry I didn't make that clear.

 

[punisher73]

I think it's more making an issue out of something that is not an issue. Everytime there is new technology or a new application of that technology there is a chance for abuse and an outcry that we are moving closer and closer to "Big Brother is watching you".

Face it, you aren't that important. MANY more fish to fry that have legitimate concerns to try and monitor because of criminal activity.