L.A. drone grounded, disciplinary action possible

The folks who keep planes from crashing into one another over at the FAA were none too pleased to read about that little UAV demo conducted by the L.A. County Sheriff's Department this weekend, with the agency telling Sheriff Lee Baca and company to keep their drone grounded pending the result of an investigation. What's more, the department could actually face disciplinary action for the SkySeer's inaugural flight -- FAA spokesperson Laura Brown commented that although the agency wasn't "peeved," they were "definitely surprised" that authorization had not been requested for the trial. Commander Sid Heal, point man for this program tasked with spying on Angelinos locating criminal suspects, lost hikers, and missing children, countered by arguing that since private citizens can fly model planes without FAA clearance, it's puzzling that providers of a so-called public service would be required to do so. While this temporary delay will probably come as a relief to Big Brother-fearing privacy advocates, it still seems pretty inevitable that one day thousands of these drones will be patrolling every major city in America, along with millions of other walking, crawling, rolling, swimming, and hovering robots keeping an eye on every square inch of public space.

[Thanks, Joel J.]

[Jeff D @ Jun 22nd 2006 2:49PM]

Again, one more tool the robots will be able to use against us when they revolt.

[Big @ Jun 22nd 2006 2:52PM]

wow, a police dept. thinking they are above all else? no...wouldn't that drone fly higher then most of those model planes that don't need faa approval?

anyway, instead of a bunch these flying around one day how about the hovering drones from "mgs" or "they live"

[cullerClassic @ Jun 22nd 2006 2:59PM]

YAY for SkyNet.... *hums the terminator theme*

[Brian Baigorri @ Jun 22nd 2006 3:05PM]

Is that the guy from SuperTroopers?

[Dolomite @ Jun 22nd 2006 3:10PM]

p0wned!

[emaredubyou @ Jun 22nd 2006 3:13PM]

He needs a pair of aviators...

[Jeff @ Jun 22nd 2006 3:17PM]

I was going to fly off the handle about how this is ridiculous but the FAA sort of has a point. The AMA (Acadamy of Model Aeronautics) ought to be more upset since they sort of discourage flying over populated areas. Then again, the AMA isn't a federal body.

Good idea with remote controlled drones but I guess the FAA doesn't see the increased air traffic and potential for these planes to crash and hit people as being good.

[mjsmitho @ Jun 22nd 2006 3:21PM]

"it still seems pretty inevitable that one day thousands of these drones will be patrolling every major city in America, along with millions of other walking, crawling, rolling, swimming, and hovering robots keeping an eye on every square inch of public space."

Well, when you put all of this "robot" business that way . . .

:soils self:

[gene @ Jun 22nd 2006 3:22PM]

I for one welcome our robotic overlords...

[ccastro42 @ Jun 22nd 2006 3:25PM]

This shouldn't come as a suprise to LASD, as the military has to have FAA permission to fly their UAVs.

[MiatasSuck @ Jun 22nd 2006 3:30PM]

Why do all cops look the same?

[Nate @ Jun 22nd 2006 3:31PM]

The difference between that bugger and a model airplane, as far as I can figure, is that the drone has a much longer range than your average model plane, and as stated before, flies higher. That's where the FAA comes in.

If the silly thing was only rated as a model plane, the police would have to follow it everywhere in a patrol car, which probably defeats the purpose. Besides, a low-flying model plane that's owned by the police is just ASKING to be shot at.

[furtim @ Jun 22nd 2006 3:32PM]

Honestly, our robot overlords couldn't be that much worse than what we have now. At least they've be logical. And no more religious wars!

[dave @ Jun 22nd 2006 3:32PM]

It's not the robotic overlords that I fear, it's the idiotic meatsack who thought flying a r/c aircraft over a populated area was a good idea. Beyond the property that might be damaged, where went our reasonable expectation of privacy?

Besides, what are they going to do with all those nice shiny, black helicopters.

[ccastro42 @ Jun 22nd 2006 3:32PM]

Brings a new meaning to "When pigs fly"!

[Craig @ Jun 22nd 2006 3:36PM]

The police in trouble? What next???

[dave @ Jun 22nd 2006 3:44PM]

The ACLU is going to have field day with the first case that comes from one of these things flying over someone's house. At least with a helicopter you can here it coming, this will sneak up on your little garden party without you knowing it at all.

It's just not fair!

BTW, how close do you have to be to fly one of these things? It'll be pretty obvious to have a cop standing there on the corner, looking up at the "drone", with a r/c control.

[Chris @ Jun 22nd 2006 3:49PM]

Oh, please, following in patrol cars...command units will be setup in every donut shop. This should give plenty of coverage.

I've got all the black helecopters in my garage. Our robotic overlords told me to put them there.

All cops look the same because THEY are our robotic overlords! That's just the new model w/o the aviator glasses.

[Mike @ Jun 22nd 2006 3:53PM]

Frankly, I for one DO welcome the UAVs! Danger of falling uavs? Compare that to a falling helo sometime. This one is small, man portable, and would probably not even leave a dent in a car door if it hit.

Noise? This is where the UAV Shines! You can barely hear it whereas the LASD's helo's make a racket that generates complaints almost every day and for good reason. Those suckers are loud at 3am.

Constantly being watched? You people don't live in LA do you? You can pretty much garuntee that in the valley or city propper you can look up in any direction and find at least 2 video cameras and a law enforcement helicopter nearby. Adding a UAV or even a massive wave of them is a whole lot better and safer then a massive wave of helicopters.

And as for the FAA and model airplane thing, the reason the LASD was suprised was all they did was fly it pretty low to the ground over an empty dirt field for the demonstration. They understand the requirements for operational usage, but on this one, I'm gonna bet the LASD wins the case.

[Whiplash @ Jun 22nd 2006 3:56PM]

I think this whole project is lame. You can call them cool names like "drones" all you want, it's still just some cops spending our money to play with model airplanes.

[B-Sabre @ Jun 22nd 2006 4:19PM]

Well, not wanting to curtail uniformed debate, but I found this here:

http://www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/03-29-06/03-29-06memo.html

"Some of the operational requirements for AMA (Acadamy of Model Aeronautics)sanctioned activities include:

-A maximum takeoff weight of a model aircraft, including fuel, is 55 pounds, except for those flown under the AMA Experimental Aircraft Rules;
-Operations shall not take place higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level, when within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator;
-Yielding the right-of-way and avoiding flying in the proximity of full-scale aircraft and utilizing a spotter when appropriate;
-Operators of radio control model aircraft shall control the aircraft from the ground and maintain un-enhanced visual contact with the aircraft throughout the entire flight; and
-No model aircraft shall be equipped with devices that would allow for autonomous flight."

Presumably, some of the characteristics of the UAV or the mission as proposed by the LAPD violate some of the guidelines that govern operation of RC aircraft. Probably the "maintain un-enhanced visual contact with the aircraft throughout the entire flight" bit.

[sxates @ Jun 22nd 2006 4:27PM]

Wouldn't be the first time an RC plane with a camera was flying over an urban area...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f86TlQ84NQ

Just need to keep it lower than the nearby buildings :P

[toro @ Jun 22nd 2006 4:34PM]

so that's where sheriff Lee Baca has been spending all his money... eh?

I can't believe he has been voted in again to hold the office...

You know... Baca (as in how you read his name) means "stupid" in Japanese...

[Eric James @ Jun 22nd 2006 5:03PM]

"Welcome to City 17" - Half-Life 2

This sounds like we are headed to a future where drones like those in the Half Life 2 game hover around the city looking at every persons face; take pictures; and sound alarms when it determines that you are a possible criminal.

Scary.....

[j.cranford @ Jun 22nd 2006 5:43PM]

any one know what elivation this will fly at and what frequncy will the controls work on?

the manufactuer http://www.octatron.com/Products/SKS.html

makes no mention of this, and there not answering there phone, I have been waiting from a call back from a faa official in LA for this info john goldflush 310-725-7249

[Sam @ Jun 22nd 2006 7:27PM]

If these become common, how are they going to distinguish a fake "bad" UAV heading to a building or other targets? Don't they know that criminals will take advantage of this?

[j.cranford @ Jun 22nd 2006 7:27PM]

Declaration of Independence "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide
new guards for their future security."
http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.txt

[mike @ Jun 22nd 2006 8:06PM]

Heard an interview with this officer in the last couple of days -- the UAV does require an operator within line of sight, so it would only be used in situations where a sheriff's unit was already there.

For some areas in LA County, including the smaller cities which contract with the Sheriff for law enforcement services, a UAV would be a big improvement over the constant helicopter flyovers.

However, the weight constraints for this aircraft makes the payload pretty limited; the camera is probably useful for some tactical purposes, but not for anything but the most basic differentiation of people (kids vs. adults, white jacket vs. black jacket), and most likely wouldn't be useful or admissible in court for ID.

No doubt the cameras will get better, though.

I have to say that the photo sure makes it look a lot more like a toy and less like an imposition on civil rights.

[Jonah Bliss @ Jun 22nd 2006 8:12PM]

angeleno

[Bill @ Jun 22nd 2006 8:28PM]

Sure but this is how freedom reduction works. If the government today said "we're launching 10,000 drones over the US to monitor our citizens" there would be bloody hell to pay. But start with a few pilot programs, find some missing kids and 10 years from now when these are pretty common, they slowly increase the "role" of these things to the point where they are everyone and have capabilities that seem unreasonable today.

Take gun control. Let's not start an argument here about whether guns are good or bad but those who want to outlaw guns would not be successful (in the U.S.) in outright outlawing of guns this year. But every year something is outlawed. No high capacity magazines. Those are used by bad guys. Okay. Next, it's no folding stocks. Okay. Next it's no high power ammo. Five years from now it's no 45 caliber guns, then 38 caliber, etc. Then 20 years later you can only own a single-round hunting rifle with a $500 annual license and a bi-annual credit report.

The point is simply this. To infringe on freedoms you need to do it a little at a time. Under the radar, if you will.

[Pun B @ Jun 22nd 2006 8:44PM]

FAA computers are combining/plotting with L.A.P.D. 'puters. Of course they make it look like "human disagreements" but we know what's coming http://www.RobotUprising.com/










prising.com/

[Frank @ Jun 23rd 2006 3:19AM]

in other news: a woman named Sarah Connor delivers herself to the nearest police station

[Steve M @ Jun 23rd 2006 9:47AM]

I would much rather have these flying over me than a couple of 2 ton helicopters with 28' rotors ;)

[Kieran Mullen @ Jun 23rd 2006 12:01PM]

Time for http://seizurerobots.com/