German drone almost downs a civilian liner in Afghanistan

Apparently, this was a very near miss.

Classified footage of an out-of-control drone narrowly missing an Afghan passenger plane carrying 100 people has caused outrage in Germany.

The video, filmed from onboard the unmanned German Luna drone as it flew over Afghanistan, shows it missing the plane by about two metres.

You are aware this is several years old?
I'm about as anti-drone as one could be so I don't really mind people seeing this again in case they missed it the first time.
If they put 30,000 drones over the US as they plan to you can bet this will be a common occurrence.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Asktheanimals


No, no it really won't, if websites would stop spreading the myth that they're all going to be military style UAVs people would realize this. I don't want to see 30,000 UAVs over the US anymore than the next person does, but lets at least get the right information about it. By far the biggest part of the fleet is going to be quadrotor, and hand launched, which means tiny. There will be some catapult launched, but those aren't that much bigger than the hand launched ones. You MAY see a few Predator types and larger types, but they will be extremely rare.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Asktheanimals

 

No, no it really won't, if websites would stop spreading the myth that they're all going to be military style UAVs people would realize this. I don't want to see 30,000 UAVs over the US anymore than the next person does, but lets at least get the right information about it. By far the biggest part of the fleet is going to be quadrotor, and hand launched, which means tiny. There will be some catapult launched, but those aren't that much bigger than the hand launched ones. You MAY see a few Predator types and larger types, but they will be extremely rare.

Well it will, it's metal, or a composite substance in the air and [a need to be heavier than air], and it is there where the rationale can only be to be supported beyond nosy hummingbirds.
There is no doubt in my mind that military style use of drones by police is something that is on the table, and that it will include some kind of remote delivery in a weapon of some sort, on a versatile platform which makes it just as vulnerable to failure as any other sky machine, and debatably more so than a manned aircraft.

Then there are those who would pursue the idea of neutralising these things by any means, and for whatever reason, or perhaps taking them over to even the playing field blah blah! It is the most stupid waste of technology I can think of for the present at least.

reply to post by smurfy


They won't cause near misses or even collisions, because the quadrotors, that will be operated by the police and other gov't agencies, won't be flying high enough, or near to where planes are landing or taking off. Those operated by other people on the other hand (a quadrotor can be bought online for a not unreasonable price for those that have the money), are going to be the problem. Not everyone is responsible enough to know where to fly and where not to fly, and they might think it's fun to try to get a picture of the pilots in a plane that's coming in to land.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Umm, so all that stuff has no chance of hitting a civilian plane even when scaled out to 30,000 launches?

Scratching my head...

reply to post by buddhasystem


Not a commercial flight. A small plane MAYBE but even that would be remote. We're talking UAVs that fit in your hand. They're going to be flying barely over rooftop height. Even if we were talking Predators, they would be equipped with see and avoid systems.

Originally posted by smurfy
It is the most stupid waste of technology I can think of for the present at least.

It is cheaper to operate a fleet of unmanned machines than it is to operate manned ones. As long as this is the case the armed forces will pursue the avenue regardless of what you judge it. Your point of view may also find opposition among pilots who have been fired upon in combat and know the risk that future airmen may no longer be in the way of.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Umm, so all that stuff has no chance of hitting a civilian plane even when scaled out to 30,000 launches?

Why would this issue be limited to drones? Anything flying in the air has a risk of a component or system failure. These are not limited to the aircraft systems itself; failures happen in logistics, design, handling, maintenance, and user interaction. Failures in any one of these can propagate into a dangerous situation. But why would that be any different from the manned aircraft launches that nobody complains about?

Originally posted by Darkpr0

Originally posted by smurfy
It is the most stupid waste of technology I can think of for the present at least.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Umm, so all that stuff has no chance of hitting a civilian plane even when scaled out to 30,000 launches?

Why would this issue be limited to drones? Anything flying in the air has a risk of a component or system failure. These are not limited to the aircraft systems itself; failures happen in logistics, design, handling, maintenance, and user interaction. Failures in any one of these can propagate into a dangerous situation. But why would that be any different from the manned aircraft launches that nobody complains about?

Peculiar logic I must say, the very reason there is a discussion about drone near misses, (there have been several incidents at least including airliners and choppers) is because there are incidents with manned aircraft, and because of all kinds of failures, human and technical. Even more so is the danger to helicopters, and light aircraft.
How long do you think it will be until police enforcement will have their own attack drones, if nobody complains about them? The attack drones themselves have had an appalling 'collateral damage' history. I don't know how cheap these things will end up in the long run, aircraft will likely need new technology to detect the smaller items.

Originally posted by smurfy
I don't know how cheap these things will end up in the long run, aircraft will likely need new technology to detect the smaller items.

Considering that in 2009 a Predator cost $5 million ($20M for four aircraft, ground station, and uplink), I don't see our police forces having any kind of large UAV any time soon. Even a Small Diameter Bomb would require a pretty good sized UAV to carry it. They are about 250 lbs per SDB. You're not going to get that on a quadcopter or other small UAV. The smallest weapons under development are by Raytheon, and the US Navy. Raytheon has one in testing that's 13.5 lbs for the RQ-7, but even that's too big for the sUAS class the police will be using.

As for detecting, if they're flying anywhere near controlled airspace they have to have an IFF system installed for the ATC to see them. The larger classes will have a see and avoid system installed, and the smaller ones will be flying low enough that most aircraft aren't going to be near them.

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by smurfy
I don't know how cheap these things will end up in the long run, aircraft will likely need new technology to detect the smaller items.

Considering that in 2009 a Predator cost $5 million ($20M for four aircraft, ground station, and uplink), I don't see our police forces having any kind of large UAV any time soon. Even a Small Diameter Bomb would require a pretty good sized UAV to carry it. They are about 250 lbs per SDB. You're not going to get that on a quadcopter or other small UAV. The smallest weapons under development are by Raytheon, and the US Navy. Raytheon has one in testing that's 13.5 lbs for the RQ-7, but even that's too big for the sUAS class the police will be using.

As for detecting, if they're flying anywhere near controlled airspace they have to have an IFF system installed for the ATC to see them. The larger classes will have a see and avoid system installed, and the smaller ones will be flying low enough that most aircraft aren't going to be near them.

edit on 6/5/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

Let's not minimize things, there are a lot of questions to be asked. You will know that it was a lobby group that opened the US skies to drones, and a big one at that in the style of Haliburton, and a military figurehead at the top, and yes, the cops are already asking about weaponizing ANYTHING they might have that can be weaponized. For some of the companies that is a big affirmative,

www.salon.com...

Extract,

"In November 2010, a police lieutenant from Parma, Ohio, asked Vanguard Defense Industries if the Texas-based drone manufacturer could mount a “grenade launcher and/or 12-gauge shotgun” on its ShadowHawk drone for U.S. law enforcement agencies. The answer was yes."

So Shadowhawk can be made more hawkish it seems, a fecking grenade launcher on board??
It would be funny if it was not serious.

reply to post by smurfy


Yes, but you have to look at both cost, and effectiveness. Just because they ask if it can be done, doesn't mean that it will be. That's like the Israeli Air Force getting permission to buy KC-135s and more advanced weapons. Just because they have permission doesn't mean the money will be available, or that they'll do it. The ShadowHawk is also used by the military, which is why it carries weapons. The weapons are not available to law enforcement however.

One of the reasons to open the airspace to UAVs is for military access. Right now, for a Global Hawk to get to the Middle East, or even to Europe, if they're flying anywhere in US airspace, they have to have a chase plane fly with them. That means that they have to have multiple aircraft available, because the chase planes can't fly nearly as far as the Global Hawk can, so they have to either hand off to other chase planes, or fly F-16s and refuel in flight, which means having tankers available.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
If they put 30,000 drones over the US as they plan to you can bet this will be a common occurrence.

Sorry to go slightly off-topic here, but this is the second time I've seen this number referenced as being oh-so scary in a few minutes of browsing ATS. Where did it come from?

Is that 30,000 drones in the air at all times? Because I find that number ludicrous and completely unreasonable. Having 30,000 drones registered with the FAA is understandable, and, I would imagine, shouldn't contribute to too much congestion in the skies.

Keep in mind that at any given time there are about 5,000 flights over the US at any given time. There are about 225,000 general aviation aircraft registered with the FAA. There are about 8,000 registered commercial aircraft registered with the FAA (so that doesn't include foreign registered aircraft that may be active over the US). I have no idea how many military aircraft are stationed in the US right now, but probably a few thousand.

So that 30,000 drones really isn't that big of a deal when you look at what is already registered and active over our skies.

reply to post by cmdrkeenkid


Star to your post, but then... We aren't even sure what sort of drones it's all about. Maybe there is a pigeon sized kind of a drone that's exempt from registration because it flies under 300 feet and outside of specially designated areas (runways etc).