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

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/04/06...ch_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 wrote:
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/04/06...ch_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?

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...ch_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" 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

"BTIZ" wrote in message
newsrkZf.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/newsite...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

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/124374...7594100567180/

Dan 'rainy in Kalamazoo' D.


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/04/06...ch_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.

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?

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

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/04/06...ch_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.

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.

"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...