UAVs along the US-Mexico border? How about your own back yard?

[Peter Duniho]

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/04/06/npr_xeni_tech_survei.html

Just this week, the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department began
using a drone called SkySeer for rescue operations and
tracking "persons of interest" during foot pursuits.


The BoingBoing crew are looking more at the privacy/civil-rights side of
things, but the issue is significant whatever your perspective.

[cjcampbell]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> http://www.boingboing.net/2006/04/06/npr_xeni_tech_survei.html
>
> Just this week, the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department began
> using a drone called SkySeer for rescue operations and
> tracking "persons of interest" during foot pursuits.
>
>
> The BoingBoing crew are looking more at the privacy/civil-rights side of
> things, but the issue is significant whatever your perspective.

Cool. Cheaper than the helicopters they are using for this now.

And, let's face it -- we all know what most people's back yards look
like by now, don't we?

[BTIZ]

AOPA just got an east coast sheriffs operation to shut down their uav after
the dangers of non piloted vehicles could have with piloted vehicles were
pointed out. Also any FAA restrictions.

BT

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.boingboing.net/2006/04/06/npr_xeni_tech_survei.html
>
> Just this week, the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department began
> using a drone called SkySeer for rescue operations and
> tracking "persons of interest" during foot pursuits.
>
>
> The BoingBoing crew are looking more at the privacy/civil-rights side of
> things, but the issue is significant whatever your perspective.
>

[Peter Duniho]

"cjcampbell" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Cool. Cheaper than the helicopters they are using for this now.

I agree that from an economics point of view, the UAVs make a lot of sense.
The article says as much.

> And, let's face it -- we all know what most people's back yards look
> like by now, don't we?

"We" meaning "pilots"? Sure, I suppose so. Technically speaking, a person
has no right to privacy for something out in the open, even if it's only
visible from the air.

Personally, I'm more concerned with the issue of unmanned aircraft running
around the skies at low altitudes. At 250 feet, they are lower than most of
us would fly, but who's going to ensure they stay away from approach and
departure flight paths of airports (especially uncontrolled airports)? And
ultralight and helicopter pilots certainly would have cause for concern.

IMHO, this is at least as significant as the question of UAVs flying along
the Mexico border.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:orkZf.2527$CL6.1398@fed1read11...
> AOPA just got an east coast sheriffs operation to shut down their uav
> after the dangers of non piloted vehicles could have with piloted vehicles
> were pointed out. Also any FAA restrictions.

Cool...good on them.

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060215uav.html

I wonder if they've heard of this Los Angeles proposal. I don't see
anything on the AOPA web site about it.

Pete

[.Blueskies.]

Those don't appear to be autonomous; they look like they are controlled by a standard RC transmitter. Makes me wonder
what frequencies, if it is jam proof, what fail safes are installed....
http://flickr.com/photos/xeni/124374537/in/set-72057594100567180/

Dan 'rainy in Kalamazoo' D.


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message ...
> http://www.boingboing.net/2006/04/06/npr_xeni_tech_survei.html
>
> Just this week, the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department began
> using a drone called SkySeer for rescue operations and
> tracking "persons of interest" during foot pursuits.
>
>
> The BoingBoing crew are looking more at the privacy/civil-rights side of things, but the issue is significant whatever
> your perspective.
>

[john smith]

Let me see if I understand this correctly....
I am flying along and collide with a governmental agency owned and
operated UAV.
Does the governmental agency then have me arrested for destruction of
governmental property and sue me for all associated costs?

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 17:43:28 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>http://www.boingboing.net/2006/04/06/npr_xeni_tech_survei.html
>
> Just this week, the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department began
> using a drone called SkySeer for rescue operations and
> tracking "persons of interest" during foot pursuits.
>
>
>The BoingBoing crew are looking more at the privacy/civil-rights side of
>things, but the issue is significant whatever your perspective.
>

My first response to this story is, "Hey, what do you know, the LA
Sheriff's Department is beginning to get as sophisticated as the
vigilanti group operating along the southern US border." :-)

On a more serious note:

Given:

While the drone's purpose may be serious, it looks a lot like a
radio-controlled hobby aircraft. Sam De La Torre and Victor
Torres, two of the drone's designers, told me they both grew up as
big RC buffs.

What does this mean?:

"We're not flying it anywhere we're not already allowed to fly a
helicopter," said Heal, ...

Does it mean the a Sheriff's Department helo escorts the SkySeer
through the NAS?

Surely the FAA doesn't condone the flight of RC model aircraft
wherever it permits the flight of helos.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 22:48:43 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>I'm more concerned with the issue of unmanned aircraft running
>around the skies at low altitudes.

It would be interesting to know the FAA's position on RC model
aircraft operations.

>At 250 feet, they are lower than most of
>us would fly, but who's going to ensure they stay away from approach and
>departure flight paths of airports (especially uncontrolled airports)? And
>ultralight and helicopter pilots certainly would have cause for concern.

Don't forget low level Military Training Routes. The SkySeer could be
a problem for the military there too.

[.Blueskies.]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
>>
> Surely the FAA doesn't condone the flight of RC model aircraft
> wherever it permits the flight of helos.

The FAA does not regulate RC model aircraft as such. Basically they can fly anywhere...

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 15:49:32 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in >::

>On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 17:43:28 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::
>
>>http://www.boingboing.net/2006/04/06/npr_xeni_tech_survei.html
>>
>> Just this week, the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department began
>> using a drone called SkySeer for rescue operations and
>> tracking "persons of interest" during foot pursuits.
>>
>>
>>The BoingBoing crew are looking more at the privacy/civil-rights side of
>>things, but the issue is significant whatever your perspective.
>>
>
>My first response to this story is, "Hey, what do you know, the LA
>Sheriff's Department is beginning to get as sophisticated as the
>vigilanti group operating along the southern US border." :-)
>
>On a more serious note:
>
>Given:
>
> While the drone's purpose may be serious, it looks a lot like a
> radio-controlled hobby aircraft. Sam De La Torre and Victor
> Torres, two of the drone's designers, told me they both grew up as
> big RC buffs.
>
>What does this mean?:
>
> "We're not flying it anywhere we're not already allowed to fly a
> helicopter," said Heal, ...
>
>Does it mean the a Sheriff's Department helo escorts the SkySeer
>through the NAS?
>
>Surely the FAA doesn't condone the flight of RC model aircraft
>wherever it permits the flight of helos.


Here's a followup from SkySeer's designer:

As the designer of this system, i can ashure that we stay within
the guidliines set by the FAA And AMA. keeping a distance of no
less than 3 miles from an airport and not exceading 400 feet AGL.
we normally fly at 250 AGL becouse of the limitations of the
onboard camera optics. plus at 250 the engine is about 98% mute.
the aircraft is capable of much higher altitudes as proven to date
only in controlled airspace over federal military bases.
the end user of the system will be given a one week training
course. one of the items given will be to identify the NO-FLY
zones within there juristictions or field of operation.
Although i am not an FAA certified airman i do on accasion step
into a full scale aircraft and the last thing i want to worry
about is having a collision with any object big or small.

Sam de la Torre/Chang ind inc

You can join the discussion here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/xeni/124391984/#comment72057594101050129


Here's what the FAA has to say:


http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1acfc3f689769a56862569e70077c9cc/$FILE/ATTBJMAC/ac91-57.pdf
ADVISORY CIRCULAR AC 91-57
DATE June 9, 1981
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Washington, D.C.

Subject: MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATING STANDARDS

1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular outlines, and encourages
voluntary compliance with, safety standards for model aircraft
operators.

2. BACKGROUND. Modelers, generally, are concerned about safety and
do exercise good judgement when flying model aircraft. However,
model.aircraft can at times pose a hazard to full-scale aircraft
in flight and to persons and property on the surface. Compliance
with the following standards will help reduce the potential for
that hazard and create a good neighbor environment with affected
communities and airspace users.

3 0 OPERATING STANDARDS.
a. Select an operating site that is of sufficient distance from
populated areas. The selected site should be away from noise
sensitive areas such as parks, schools, hospitals, churches, etc.

b. Do not operate model aircraft in the presence of spectators
until the aircraft is successfully flight tested and proven
airworthy.

c. Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the
surface. When flying aircraft within 3 miles of an airport,
notify the airport operator, or when an air traffic facility is
located at the airport, notify the control tower, or flight
service station.

d. Give right of way to, and avoid flying in the proximity of,
full-scale aircraft. Use observers to help if possible.

e. Do not hesitate to ask for assistance from any airport traffic
control concerning compliance with these standards.

R. J. VAN VUREN
Director, Air Traffic Service

Initiated by: AAT

I wonder how Mr. de la Torre addresses the issue raised in paragraph
3d?

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 19:59:42 GMT, ".Blueskies."
> wrote in
>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
>>>
>> Surely the FAA doesn't condone the flight of RC model aircraft
>> wherever it permits the flight of helos.
>
>The FAA does not regulate RC model aircraft as such.

AC 91-57 not withstanding, it would seem you are correct.

>Basically they can fly anywhere...

While model aircraft may ostensibly be _indiscriminately_ operated
within the National Airspace System, I seriously doubt they can fly
_anywhere_; the DC FRZ comes to mind. :-)

[BTIZ]

no... your survivors sue the state gov't agency for violating federal law
BT

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> Let me see if I understand this correctly....
> I am flying along and collide with a governmental agency owned and
> operated UAV.
> Does the governmental agency then have me arrested for destruction of
> governmental property and sue me for all associated costs?

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 18:13:23 -0700, "BTIZ" >
wrote in <G6EZf.56$3s4.42@fed1read11>::

>no... your survivors sue the state gov't agency for violating federal law

To which particular federal law are you referring?

[Morgans]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> Let me see if I understand this correctly....
> I am flying along and collide with a governmental agency owned and
> operated UAV.
> Does the governmental agency then have me arrested for destruction of
> governmental property and sue me for all associated costs?

Sure. You were flying in a TFR, and you failed to see and avoid.

Senseless, isn't it?
--
Jim in NC

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 17:43:28 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>http://www.boingboing.net/2006/04/06/npr_xeni_tech_survei.html

Here's a recent article on this subject:


July 11, 2006 edition

It's a kite. It's a model airplane. It's ... the sheriff!
By Daniel B. Wood | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

LOS ANGELES – It looks like a model plane, and sounds nearly silent.
It costs $30,000, and could pay for itself in its first hour of use.
Law-enforcement officials in Los Angeles County, who police 10.5
million people - say it is the future of policing in America.

"It" is a drone. The three-feet-long, remote-controlled airplane with
tiny video cameras can fit in a four-inch-diameter tube - and thus in
a car trunk, or over the shoulder like a quiver of arrows.

The tiny drone will be able to provide law enforcement officers with a
bird's-eye view of just about anything. It's intended to find lost
hikers, skiers, surfers, children, elders, and more. It can also be
used in hostage situations and other violent standoffs in rural or
urban areas and to surveil fleeing crime suspects.

Privacy advocates worry that a drone could peer too far into private
lives because cameras could intrude on citizens through windows and
into backyards. Law officers say it is more cost-effective than a
helicopter.

"The potential savings of this are astronomical compared to the high
cost of owning, storing, and using the helicopters that we now use,"
says Commander Sid Heal of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
(LASD). Helicopters cost between $600 to $1,200 per hour to operate,
he says, not including the number of needed personnel: usually at
least three (one on the ground, two in a copter). Buying a helicopter
can cost up to $2 million.

"Not only that, helicopters are often unavailable altogether or too
slow to the scene to be helpful," says Mr. Heal.

Known as "SkySeers," the drones were designed by Octatron, a
subsidiary of Chang Industries, a defense contractor in southern
California. A prototype has been in development for seven years.

Users of a drone first unfold its wings from the 4-inch diameter tube,
then they grasp the drone's chassis from below like a child ready to
throw a paper airplane.

Once the drone is airborne (up to about 300 feet), users can direct it
to a chosen site via a small, accompanying computer, which has a small
monitor that can show what the drone's cameras are seeing. Using
precise coordinates, the drone can be directed to loop around a fixed
point, or survey point to point as directed by remote control of a
person on the ground.

Because of their portability and versatility, drones could become
indispensable tools for the sheriff's department activities after
testing resumes possibly within a couple weeks or September at the
latest, according to officials.

The LASD would be the first law-enforcement agency in the US to employ
drones, and depending how much value they end up providing relative to
the cost, one drone could be available at each of the 20 sheriff's
stations.

After the LASD demonstrated use of the drone in late June, the new
technology raised the ire of privacy-rights activists.

"What concerns us is that privacy is fundamentally a right to be let
alone and go about your business and daily life without having the
government looking over your shoulders," says Kurt Opsahl, staff
attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit
organization, which aims to protect people's digital rights. "It is as
disturbing if they are looking over your shoulder with a drone flying
overhead as much as over your shoulder literally," he says.

But others disagree. "While there may be a potential threat to privacy
with the ... new drone, if the device is used for the reasons the
sheriffs have stated, I don't think there is a need for any attempts
to ban its use," says Robert Pugsley, a law professor at Southwestern
Law School, Los Angeles.

For their part, officials at the LASD say the cameras are not
currently powerful enough to identify the gender of a person on the
ground - or see clearly into a bedroom.

"This is intended for search and rescue, quick deployment during a
fast-moving fire, or even a post-Katrina search operation," says Sam
de la Torre, the SkySeer's developer. He notes that anything the
SkySeer can see is permitted under current federal and state laws
regarding helicopter surveillance. "We are not going to be looking in
back windows and invading privacy. We are going to be trying to save
lives," he says.

The Federal Aviation Administration requires the LASD and Octatron* to
submit papers for approval so that SkySeer - now just a prototype -
can be further tested across Los Angeles County. LASD officials say
the approval is a small hurdle and should happen within weeks.

As close as 20 feet, the LASD drone prototype sounds about as loud as
a mosquito buzzing in the ear. Farther than 20 feet, the drone is
completely undetectable.

It moves at about 30 miles an hour, and its battery lasts 75 minutes.
But a battery can be changed in five minutes, and on-the-ground
recharging can keep the drones airborne indefinitely.

The size, weight, and cost of these new drones may make them more
ubiquitous than the larger drones, which the US border patrol in
Tucson, Ariz., began using in September to target illegal immigrants.
The large UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicle) called the Predator B reach
speeds of 253 miles per hour, can hover between 15,000 and 20,000
feet, and cost $14 million each.


* http://www.octatron.com/Products/SKS.html

Description:

The SkySeerTM is a low cost, autonomous reconnaissance UAV that can
be easily carried without supporting vehicles.

Features:
Combining a small footprint and autonomous flight, SkySeerTM is the
preferred UAV for short-range reconnaissance and monitoring
operations. (Patent pending on SkySeerTM).

Aircraft:
Very low platform cost
Light and small, easily carried by one person
Quiet yet powerful electric motor
GPS-guided autonomous flight, take-off, and landing
Remote-controlled pan/tilt camera head
Day and night operation, with optional thermal camera
Color or high resolution b/w camera
Lightweight groundstation

Ground station:
USB, FireWire and Card Reader
User-friendly ground station control software
10/100 Ethernet
Daylight readable LCD touchscreen
Integrated antennas
Analog video output
Dual UAV battery charger
UAV pan/tilt joystick

Specifications:

Aircraft:
Wingspan 6.5ft (1.98m)
Total weight 3.125 lbs (1.42kg)
Endurance 45-60 minutes at cruise speed
Cruise Speed 23 mph (37 kph)
Range 2 mi (3.2km) (extensible via Octatron, Inc.) NetWeaverTM
Pan/Tilt 160° pan / 90° tilt

Ground station:
Display Bright, daylight readable LCD touchscreen (750+nits)
Total weight 20 lbs
Typical power consumption 60W (excluding battery chargers)
Input voltage 12-30 VDC (Automotive power compatible)
Battery charging station Charges two UAV battery packs simultaneously
(Packs charge to 80% in 2 hours)
Analog video output Output realtime and recorded UAV video to a
standard monitor
Digital video Store up to 20 hours of high quality MPEG-2 video
Copy recorded video to DVD or Flash media
USB and FireWire (IEEE1394) interface
JPEG snapshots
Real-time flight video and telemetry See and record what the UAV sees
in real-time
Video head Real-time joystick control of UAV pan/tilt camera head
Autonomous flight Point and click mission planning via GPS waypoints.
Automatic take-off and landing

KCAL( Video Report:


------------------------------------

Does digital age spell privacy's doom?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0628/p15s01-ussc.html?s=widep


US plans massive data sweep
Little-known data-collection system could troll news, blogs, even
e-mails. Will it go too far?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0209/p01s02-uspo.html?s=widep

[cjcampbell]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> Does digital age spell privacy's doom?
> http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0628/p15s01-ussc.html?s=widep
>
>
> US plans massive data sweep
> Little-known data-collection system could troll news, blogs, even
> e-mails. Will it go too far?
> http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0209/p01s02-uspo.html?s=widep

No matter how little privacy you have, there will always be Stainless
Steel Rats. They rely on the fact that the more data that authorities
have, the more it all looks the same. They simply hide in the noise.

For the rest of us, I would have to say that privacy is highly
over-rated. What the heck do you need privacy for, except to hide some
wrongdoing? :-)

[gatt]

"cjcampbell" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> For the rest of us, I would have to say that privacy is highly
> over-rated. What the heck do you need privacy for, except to hide some
> wrongdoing? :-)

Ask anybody whose wife likes to sunbathe in the backyard, I guess.

Mine doesn't give a damn who sees her as long as they're of appropriate age,
although if I see some friggin' robot circling over the house, I reserve the
right to launch my own after it. (Built and fought machines in RobotWars,
Robotica, Battlebots, etc.)

-c
(("Rosie the Riveter", Team Juggerbot))

[Larry Dighera]

On 26 Jul 2006 16:42:50 -0700, "cjcampbell"
> wrote in
. com>::

>What the heck do you need privacy for, ...

Isn't it a Constitutionally guaranteed right?

[cjcampbell]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On 26 Jul 2006 16:42:50 -0700, "cjcampbell"
> > wrote in
> . com>::
>
> >What the heck do you need privacy for, ...
>
> Isn't it a Constitutionally guaranteed right?

You mean, like the right to bear arms, the right to worship as you
wish, the right to keep your own property: those rights?

I guess that is the problem, isn't it? Once you start to trample on
some rights, you have to accept that others will use the same excuses
to trample on the rest.

[Larry Dighera]

On 26 Jul 2006 20:47:47 -0700, "cjcampbell"
> wrote in
. com>::

>Once you start to trample on some rights, you have to accept
>that others will use the same excuses to trample on the rest.

I see that trend hasn't escaped your keen eye, even at a distance half
way around the world. :-)

But that's not what has me worried. It's sharing the skies with
another aircraft that is very small which frustrates my ability to
comply with the see-and-avoid regulation, and the UAV's inability to
comply also. This trend toward small UAVs could eventually grow to
the point where they become a serious threat to aerial navigation, and
who is your estate going to sue? How easy is it going to be to locate
the errant operator of the UAV? There is no readily available proof
of who specifically was operating it. Providing blind UAVs exemption
to the see-and-avoid regulation is a prescription for disaster IMO.

Once they get a foothold, it will be very difficult to exclude them
from navigable airspace.

[cjcampbell]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On 26 Jul 2006 20:47:47 -0700, "cjcampbell"
> > wrote in
> . com>::
>
> >Once you start to trample on some rights, you have to accept
> >that others will use the same excuses to trample on the rest.
>
> I see that trend hasn't escaped your keen eye, even at a distance half
> way around the world. :-)
>
> But that's not what has me worried. It's sharing the skies with
> another aircraft that is very small which frustrates my ability to
> comply with the see-and-avoid regulation, and the UAV's inability to
> comply also. This trend toward small UAVs could eventually grow to
> the point where they become a serious threat to aerial navigation, and
> who is your estate going to sue? How easy is it going to be to locate
> the errant operator of the UAV? There is no readily available proof
> of who specifically was operating it. Providing blind UAVs exemption
> to the see-and-avoid regulation is a prescription for disaster IMO.
>
> Once they get a foothold, it will be very difficult to exclude them
> from navigable airspace.

A much more relevant point than any concerns about 'rights' in this day
and age.

However, the serial number and ownership of a UAV should be
identifiable in the wreckage. :-(

Then, too, if you are flying low enough to run afoul of a Peeping-Tom
UAV maybe you have other problems than just see-and-avoid.

I wonder if I can get a stronger prop suitable for crushing UAVs?

[Morgans[_3_]]

"cjcampbell" > wrote
>
> I wonder if I can get a stronger prop suitable for crushing UAVs?

I suspect that this new line of eye in the sky UAV's, weighing only about 3
pounds, would be so brittle, they would do little more than leave a very
small dent in your wing, or scrape the paint on your prop.

The only danger is if one were to hit you squarely in the windshield, and
hit you in the eye!
--
Jim in NC

[Larry Dighera]

On 28 Jul 2006 02:58:26 -0700, "cjcampbell"
> wrote in
om>::

>Then, too, if you are flying low enough to run afoul of a Peeping-Tom
>UAV maybe you have other problems than just see-and-avoid.

Perhaps. But this UAV is certified to operate at 2,100' in Canada.

[soxinbox[_1_]]

Is this the same guy that was mentioned in this news group a few weeks ago?
I believe the FAA informed him it was illegal to fly his remote controlled
plane because it was not flown for recreational purposes, and therefore
violated the FARs.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 17:43:28 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>http://www.boingboing.net/2006/04/06/npr_xeni_tech_survei.html
>
> Here's a recent article on this subject:
>
>
> July 11, 2006 edition
>
> It's a kite. It's a model airplane. It's ... the sheriff!
> By Daniel B. Wood | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
>
> LOS ANGELES - It looks like a model plane, and sounds nearly silent.
> It costs $30,000, and could pay for itself in its first hour of use.
> Law-enforcement officials in Los Angeles County, who police 10.5
> million people - say it is the future of policing in America.
>
> "It" is a drone. The three-feet-long, remote-controlled airplane with
> tiny video cameras can fit in a four-inch-diameter tube - and thus in
> a car trunk, or over the shoulder like a quiver of arrows.
>
> The tiny drone will be able to provide law enforcement officers with a
> bird's-eye view of just about anything. It's intended to find lost
> hikers, skiers, surfers, children, elders, and more. It can also be
> used in hostage situations and other violent standoffs in rural or
> urban areas and to surveil fleeing crime suspects.
>
> Privacy advocates worry that a drone could peer too far into private
> lives because cameras could intrude on citizens through windows and
> into backyards. Law officers say it is more cost-effective than a
> helicopter.
>
> "The potential savings of this are astronomical compared to the high
> cost of owning, storing, and using the helicopters that we now use,"
> says Commander Sid Heal of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
> (LASD). Helicopters cost between $600 to $1,200 per hour to operate,
> he says, not including the number of needed personnel: usually at
> least three (one on the ground, two in a copter). Buying a helicopter
> can cost up to $2 million.
>
> "Not only that, helicopters are often unavailable altogether or too
> slow to the scene to be helpful," says Mr. Heal.
>
> Known as "SkySeers," the drones were designed by Octatron, a
> subsidiary of Chang Industries, a defense contractor in southern
> California. A prototype has been in development for seven years.
>
> Users of a drone first unfold its wings from the 4-inch diameter tube,
> then they grasp the drone's chassis from below like a child ready to
> throw a paper airplane.
>
> Once the drone is airborne (up to about 300 feet), users can direct it
> to a chosen site via a small, accompanying computer, which has a small
> monitor that can show what the drone's cameras are seeing. Using
> precise coordinates, the drone can be directed to loop around a fixed
> point, or survey point to point as directed by remote control of a
> person on the ground.
>
> Because of their portability and versatility, drones could become
> indispensable tools for the sheriff's department activities after
> testing resumes possibly within a couple weeks or September at the
> latest, according to officials.
>
> The LASD would be the first law-enforcement agency in the US to employ
> drones, and depending how much value they end up providing relative to
> the cost, one drone could be available at each of the 20 sheriff's
> stations.
>
> After the LASD demonstrated use of the drone in late June, the new
> technology raised the ire of privacy-rights activists.
>
> "What concerns us is that privacy is fundamentally a right to be let
> alone and go about your business and daily life without having the
> government looking over your shoulders," says Kurt Opsahl, staff
> attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit
> organization, which aims to protect people's digital rights. "It is as
> disturbing if they are looking over your shoulder with a drone flying
> overhead as much as over your shoulder literally," he says.
>
> But others disagree. "While there may be a potential threat to privacy
> with the ... new drone, if the device is used for the reasons the
> sheriffs have stated, I don't think there is a need for any attempts
> to ban its use," says Robert Pugsley, a law professor at Southwestern
> Law School, Los Angeles.
>
> For their part, officials at the LASD say the cameras are not
> currently powerful enough to identify the gender of a person on the
> ground - or see clearly into a bedroom.
>
> "This is intended for search and rescue, quick deployment during a
> fast-moving fire, or even a post-Katrina search operation," says Sam
> de la Torre, the SkySeer's developer. He notes that anything the
> SkySeer can see is permitted under current federal and state laws
> regarding helicopter surveillance. "We are not going to be looking in
> back windows and invading privacy. We are going to be trying to save
> lives," he says.
>
> The Federal Aviation Administration requires the LASD and Octatron* to
> submit papers for approval so that SkySeer - now just a prototype -
> can be further tested across Los Angeles County. LASD officials say
> the approval is a small hurdle and should happen within weeks.
>
> As close as 20 feet, the LASD drone prototype sounds about as loud as
> a mosquito buzzing in the ear. Farther than 20 feet, the drone is
> completely undetectable.
>
> It moves at about 30 miles an hour, and its battery lasts 75 minutes.
> But a battery can be changed in five minutes, and on-the-ground
> recharging can keep the drones airborne indefinitely.
>
> The size, weight, and cost of these new drones may make them more
> ubiquitous than the larger drones, which the US border patrol in
> Tucson, Ariz., began using in September to target illegal immigrants.
> The large UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicle) called the Predator B reach
> speeds of 253 miles per hour, can hover between 15,000 and 20,000
> feet, and cost $14 million each.
>
>
> * http://www.octatron.com/Products/SKS.html
>
> Description:
>
> The SkySeerTM is a low cost, autonomous reconnaissance UAV that can
> be easily carried without supporting vehicles.
>
> Features:
> Combining a small footprint and autonomous flight, SkySeerTM is the
> preferred UAV for short-range reconnaissance and monitoring
> operations. (Patent pending on SkySeerTM).
>
> Aircraft:
> Very low platform cost
> Light and small, easily carried by one person
> Quiet yet powerful electric motor
> GPS-guided autonomous flight, take-off, and landing
> Remote-controlled pan/tilt camera head
> Day and night operation, with optional thermal camera
> Color or high resolution b/w camera
> Lightweight groundstation
>
> Ground station:
> USB, FireWire and Card Reader
> User-friendly ground station control software
> 10/100 Ethernet
> Daylight readable LCD touchscreen
> Integrated antennas
> Analog video output
> Dual UAV battery charger
> UAV pan/tilt joystick
>
> Specifications:
>
> Aircraft:
> Wingspan 6.5ft (1.98m)
> Total weight 3.125 lbs (1.42kg)
> Endurance 45-60 minutes at cruise speed
> Cruise Speed 23 mph (37 kph)
> Range 2 mi (3.2km) (extensible via Octatron, Inc.) NetWeaverTM
> Pan/Tilt 160° pan / 90° tilt
>
> Ground station:
> Display Bright, daylight readable LCD touchscreen (750+nits)
> Total weight 20 lbs
> Typical power consumption 60W (excluding battery chargers)
> Input voltage 12-30 VDC (Automotive power compatible)
> Battery charging station Charges two UAV battery packs simultaneously
> (Packs charge to 80% in 2 hours)
> Analog video output Output realtime and recorded UAV video to a
> standard monitor
> Digital video Store up to 20 hours of high quality MPEG-2 video
> Copy recorded video to DVD or Flash media
> USB and FireWire (IEEE1394) interface
> JPEG snapshots
> Real-time flight video and telemetry See and record what the UAV sees
> in real-time
> Video head Real-time joystick control of UAV pan/tilt camera head
> Autonomous flight Point and click mission planning via GPS waypoints.
> Automatic take-off and landing
>
> KCAL( Video Report:
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Does digital age spell privacy's doom?
> http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0628/p15s01-ussc.html?s=widep
>
>
> US plans massive data sweep
> Little-known data-collection system could troll news, blogs, even
> e-mails. Will it go too far?
> http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0209/p01s02-uspo.html?s=widep

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:24:38 GMT, "soxinbox" > wrote
in >::

>I believe the FAA informed him it was illegal to fly his remote controlled
>plane because it was not flown for recreational purposes, and therefore
>violated the FARs.

Where did you hear that?

Which FARs?

[soxinbox[_1_]]

The ones written by the FAA ;>)

Honestly, I don't recall the whole discussion, but several people quoted
various FARs and discussed it at length. If you are interested, which I am
not, you can look up the discussion on Google groups. It was either in RAP
or RAO.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:24:38 GMT, "soxinbox" > wrote
> in >::
>
>>I believe the FAA informed him it was illegal to fly his remote controlled
>>plane because it was not flown for recreational purposes, and therefore
>>violated the FARs.
>
> Where did you hear that?
>
> Which FARs?
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:10:38 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote in >::

>The only danger is if one were to hit you squarely in the windshield, and
>hit you in the eye!

Really? You'll have to reveal the source of your prescience.

Personally, I seriously doubt that that is the only danger that a 3
pound UAV poses to aerial navigation. What if a UAV punched a hole in
your wing and covered your aircraft with fuel? What if a UAV hit a
control surface or somehow or other managed to jam your controls?