Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Feds to track low flying drones!

  1. #1
    Crazy Diamond
    Tiny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Tasmania
    Age
    62
    Posts
    6,303
    Thanks
    10,790
    Thanked 5,317 Times in 2,610 Posts
    Rep Power
    2082
    Reputation
    86677

    Default Feds to track low flying drones!

    This is scary stuff, hope it doesn't come here.


    Nasa and Verizon plan to monitor US drone network from phone towers


    Exclusive: Federal agency is developing technology to track commercial and civilian drones via cell coverage, with first tests of air traffic control system set for this summer.







    Verizon, the US’s largest wireless telecom company, is developing technology with to direct and monitor America’s growing fleet of civilian and commercial drones from its network of phone towers.

    According to documents obtained by the Guardian, Verizon signed an agreement last year with Nasa “to jointly explore whether cell towers … could support communications and surveillance of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) at low altitudes”.


    That $500,000 project is now underway at Nasa’s Ames Research Center in the heart of Silicon Valley. Nasa is planning the first tests of an air traffic control system for drones there this summer, with Verizon scheduled to introduce a concept for using cell coverage for data, navigation, surveillance and tracking of drones by 2017. The phone company hopes to finalise its technology by 2019.


    Nasa’s new UAS (unmanned aircraft system) traffic management operation is intended to enable safe low-altitude drone flights within the next four years. At the moment, there is little to stop operators flying wherever they want. The agency would like technology that will automatically “geo-fence” drones to keep them away from sensitive areas like , ground drones in bad weather, help them to avoid buildings and each other while flying and decide which drones .


    According to the documents, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, the purpose of the agreement is to “jointly explore if cell towers and communications could possibly support Unmannned Aerial Systems (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) for communications and surveillance of UAS at low altitudes”. The focus is “exploratory” since “the requiremements and technology paths [for commercial drones] have not been clearly defined by the FAA”.


    In February, the Federal Aviation Authority released its proposals for regulating commercial drones. The FAA proposal would allow drones weighing up to 55lb to fly within sight of their remote pilots during daylight hours at heights below 500ft and at speeds of less than 100mph.


    “The problem is that we really cannot add any more capacity to the regular air traffic control system,” says Missy Cummings, professor of aeronautics at Duke University. “Radar coverage at low altitude is very spotty, and we don’t have the technology or the people to put a tracking device on each drone.”


    Nasa is considering monitoring drones with a range of sensors including radar, orbiting satellites and cellphone signals. The UTM system is also likely to be cloud-based, meaning that drones will need an internet link to download information about weather, traffic and restricted zones. That combination makes using the existing phone networks very attractive. “Cellphone technology will help to communicate information about other aircraft and we can already track phones like crazy,” says Cummings. “It’s a nice alternative to saturating an already broken air traffic control system.”


    “I don’t see a privacy problem with leveraging cell towers,” says Ryan Calo, a law professor at the University of Washington, where he teaches a class on robotic law and policy. “If a centralised place is keeping track of these things, we would have some accountability. I don’t believe anybody thinks we should have anonymous drones the way we should have anonymous web surfing.”


    Drones would still need on-board sensors to navigate and avoid obstacles in the event that their data connection failed or they flew too far from a cell tower. One of Verizon’s advantages is that it is the largest provider of wireless communications in the US, with an estimated 12,000 to 15,000 towers across the country and the most extensive high-speed 4G LTE network.


    But building a robust air traffic control system that can follow and respond in real time to thousands, or even tens of thousands, of drones is a massive undertaking that would stretch Nasa’s shrinking budget. “The whole Nasa UTM effort is incredibly underfunded,” says Missy Cummings. “I don’t see any real advancements coming from that program until the government puts a lot more money behind it.”


    In the meantime, Nasa is turning to industry for help. In a presentation last September, John Cavolowsky, director of Nasa’s Airspace Operations and Safety program, wrote: “All demonstrations are to be planned with strong, cost-shared partner involvement.” Last February, Nasa invited interested businesses to a workshop on the future of UTM. In its agreement with Verizon, Nasa reveals: “The workshop was very well attended with cellphone companies such as AT&T and Verizon. To date, only Verizon has stepped forward to pursue collaboration with Nasa regarding the potential use of cell towers.”


    Luckily, other large technology companies were more receptive. Google and Amazon, which are currently building rival delivery drones, have also signed agreements with Nasa to test their systems at Ames. The Guardian has obtained copies of both contracts. Google will spend $450,000 putting its self-driving cars through their paces at Ames, as well as sharing data with Nasa from drone simulations, experiments and operational tests.


    Amazon is even more ambitious, committing $1.8m to tests of its drones as well as producing algorithms, technical papers and concepts to help shape the UTM project. In return, Nasa will approve drone and crew certification, organise the field trials at Ames and conduct “mishap investigations” if anything goes wrong.


    The real benefit for Google and Amazon, however, is likely to be further down the line. In its agreement with Amazon, the space agency notes: “The UTM system could be developed and tested to accommodate both [Amazon’s] delivery operations and those of other operators.”

    That worries Ryan Calo. “You don’t want Nasa to maximise this for delivery,” he says. “Nasa should be thoughtful from the outset about creating a versatile infrastructure that doesn’t privilege one particular application. If you only listen to Google and Amazon, you maybe end up sweeping other stakeholders aside.”

    Source;
    Cheers, Tiny
    "You can lead a person to knowledge, but you can't make them think? If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
    The information is out there; you just have to let it in."



Look Here ->
  • #2
    Administrator
    admin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Victoria
    Age
    54
    Posts
    31,112
    Thanks
    2,235
    Thanked 13,657 Times in 5,802 Posts
    Rep Power
    4499
    Reputation
    164325

    Default

    Like most things, there are always those that abuse things and ruin them for others so I wouldn't be surprised.

  • #3
    LSemmens
    lsemmens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Rural South OZ
    Posts
    9,941
    Thanks
    11,430
    Thanked 6,669 Times in 3,104 Posts
    Rep Power
    2950
    Reputation
    124640

    Default

    I can see the need to monitor air traffic or we might have some idiot deciding the end of a runway is a good spot to fly his drone. He could justify it with some awesome shots with the onboard camera.....but.

  • #4
    Crazy Diamond
    Tiny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Tasmania
    Age
    62
    Posts
    6,303
    Thanks
    10,790
    Thanked 5,317 Times in 2,610 Posts
    Rep Power
    2082
    Reputation
    86677

    Default

    It's already illegal to fly anything within 3 nautical miles (4.5km) of an airport.



    Cheers, Tiny
    "You can lead a person to knowledge, but you can't make them think? If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
    The information is out there; you just have to let it in."

  • #5
    Senior Member
    Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Commonly found in a pantry or the bottom of a fridge, searching for grains, fermented or distilled
    Posts
    6,044
    Thanks
    2,156
    Thanked 4,144 Times in 2,360 Posts
    Rep Power
    1903
    Reputation
    76378

    Default

    Also some of these high powered drones could easily end up in approach or take off paths of real aircraft, especially if they are programmed to fly autonomously to a GPS destination were the operator is ignorant of the flight path.

    I am also not happy with ppl buzzing around me with their ultra HD cameras. It is bad enough the Government feels the need to take away all our privacy but now every creep has the technology to do that as well.
    I am an arrogant, irritating RSole.

  • #6
    Senior Member
    Uncle Fester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Commonly found in a pantry or the bottom of a fridge, searching for grains, fermented or distilled
    Posts
    6,044
    Thanks
    2,156
    Thanked 4,144 Times in 2,360 Posts
    Rep Power
    1903
    Reputation
    76378

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiny View Post
    It's already illegal to fly anything within 3 nautical miles (4.5km) of an airport.




    It is illegal to shine laser pointers at aircraft but there are still too many bogans that do that even though they are now banned.
    It could become eventually illegal to fly and own drones that have a range of over 50m if some bored kids get 'ideas'.
    I am an arrogant, irritating RSole.

  • #7
    Premium Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Central Tablelands of NSW
    Age
    79
    Posts
    13,824
    Thanks
    1,242
    Thanked 3,805 Times in 2,525 Posts
    Rep Power
    1775
    Reputation
    56966

    Default

    I must say I am surprised to see the possible requirement of an Amateur Radio license if the controls are on the authorised frequencies for control for such devises.
    I dont know what license requirements Amateurs need to operate a TV/video transmission so maybe that what their on about ?

    You notice in the early part of the first post, their looking at drones of 'Up to 55lbs', thats about 26 kilos which aint no toy in any bodys imagination.
    Last edited by gordon_s1942; 04-06-15 at 09:49 PM.
    I stand unequivicably behind everything I say , I just dont ever remember saying it !!

  • Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •