3 ms·

Why don't they just shoot them down when they approach airports? Seems like a much more measured and appropriate response than "no drones anywhere without docum

Why don't they just shoot them down when they approach airports? Seems like a much more measured and appropriate response than "no drones anywhere without documents".

nmrm2 11y ago
Routinely shooting down aircraft near a busy commercial airport. What could possibly go wrong?!
- microcolonel 11y ago
  Well, not shooting them down seems like it could go much worse. I'd hate to get one of those in an engine. Think what a terrorist could do with this though. Legislating it will only really stop people who don't intend to fly small aircraft into a no-fly-zone anyway.
  - nmrm2 11y ago
    > not shooting them down seems like it could go much worse Sure. But a sensible policy would also minimize the amount of weapons that are deployed in heavily trafficked airspace. That is why the sensible approach is to heavily regulate or even by-default prohibit UAV traffic anywhere near airports or common commercial aircraft routes. In other words, parent post is a false dichotomy. It's possible to design and enforce regulations that 1) minimize danger and 2) enable aircraft controllers and the military to address rogue UAVs before they enter heavily trafficked civilian airspaces. Those regulations should go far beyond "shoot-to-kill near airports", but also don't have to be as encompassing as current bans. Simply deploying weapons in commercial airspace as a complete alternative to legislation and regulation is insane. > Legislating it will only really stop people who don't intend to fly small aircraft into a no-fly-zone anyway. I think you under-estimate the size of the group of people who do dangerous shit without malicious intent. Look at the list of incidents at the end of the article, for instance, and guess at how many of those were intentional. Furthermore, even in the case of malicious intent, crafting regulation that clearly and unambiguously sets expectations can allow regulators and the military to deploy counter-measures long before doing so creates an unacceptable risk to surrounding civilians and infrastructure.
    - microcolonel 11y ago
      This is already highly regulated; the reason that harsher general legislation is sought is that the uninformed will nonetheless operate UAVs next to airports and endanger lives. Hence, my tradeoff is between making it difficult to own or operate a UAV ANYWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES OR ADJACENT TERRITORIES; and making it incredibly improbable and difficult to simply ride one into an airport and cause a disaster, either by accident or on purpose. My tradeoff also bears on the doubtful effectiveness of the legislative approach to prevent intentional violation of controlled airspace. In this case you require the sentries anyhow.
      - nmrm2 11y ago
        The point of my previous post is that your supposed trade-off is a false choice. There's A LOT of middle ground between today's limitations on drone operators and a world where we expect to shoot down aircraft near crowded airports. If you try to sell that either/or to the public, you're going to lose. And rightly so. FORTUNATELY, there's a lot the FAA could do to make the USA more drone-friendly while also ensuring the safety of conventional aircraft and critical infrastructure. Good drone policy, if ever enacted, will follow from this observation. It will not follow from a false choice between militarized anarchy and industry-crippling regulation. (It'd also be neat if we could introduce technical solutions to the stupid/clueless person problem. For example, it'd be nice if the FAA funded the development of open-source, optional, and easy to disable software that warns the pilot (and only the pilot) before the drone enters a restricted area. It'd also be really nice if drone manufacturers voluntarily installed that software on capable drones. We're all better off if Johnny doesn't commit a felony and ground the next 30 minutes of take-offs while trying out his cool birthday present...)
k-mcgrady 11y ago
Shoot them down as a backup but if you legislate it a lot of amateur morons will think twice before flying near an airport. There's no way to know if this was malicious. It was probably just an idiot who wouldn't do it if he knew it was illegal.
codecamper 11y ago
How about just jamming them? Nobody needs to be flying drones near airports. Seriously. I'm certainly not interested in pulling this off.. but how hard would it be to just simultaneously launch a swarm into a busy airport while planes are landing?
- dingaling 11y ago
  > Nobody needs to be flying drones near airports. But who defines 'near'? At present, this is defined by the industry with a vested interest in passing the costs onto regulators and law enforcement. Not in investing in drone detection or mitigation technology. CTRs around airports already deprive residents of their airspace rights, often to a radius of 5nm from an airport. In many cities that means no drones in a large chunk of residential area.
- Analemma_ 11y ago
  > How about just jamming them? The time window in which that's a valid option is closing fast. Autonomous flyers that don't need an external signal are already pretty good and after a few more years of iterations, they'll be even better and available to everyone. Not to mention air traffic requires lots of radio communication of its own, along with radar and GPS, and jamming equipment would need to be guaranteed not to interfere with any of that. It's a non-solution.
- paulmd 11y ago
  "Return-to-home" functionality is quite common. The GPS knows where it took off, and where it is now, and in the event that it loses the control signal it'll (try to) navigate back home. Having a drone under control is almost always preferable to having a drone out of control, particularly in the pattern of a major airport. If you're going to take it down, it needs to happen in a way that gives you control of the drone, not just messes up their control.
tptacek 11y ago
People live near airports. You can't simply vaporize a drone; whatever you do to arrest it in the sky is going to cause drone pieces to hurtle towards the earth. Same goes for jamming them.
- thrownaway2424 11y ago
  >>> You can't simply vaporize a drone <<< Challenge accepted.
- JshWright 11y ago
  A lot of modern UAV platforms have a 'failsafe' mode if they lose the transmitter signal.
  - goodplay 11y ago
    which might include flying across the run way to the coordinates it took off from. As others have pointed out, the last thing you want is some object flying over the airport that is not under your control.
Pinckney 11y ago
Taking LAX for an example... It has a perimeter of 4ish miles. Assume one sentry with a shotgun, loaded with birdshot every 300ft to give decent coverage of the perimeter, that gives us about 60 sentries. At 15 $/hr, 24/7, that gives a minimum cost of about $7M/year, ignoring any overhead for management, training, firearms, secure storage, etc. All that achieves is to secure the airport, poorly, against a very unlikely threat, and one that is unlikely to down a plane even if an intrusion occurs.

Why don't they just shoot them down when they approach airports? Seems like a much more measured and appropriate response than "no drones anywhere without documents".

nmrm2 11y ago

Routinely shooting down aircraft near a busy commercial airport. What could possibly go wrong?!

microcolonel 11y ago
Well, not shooting them down seems like it could go much worse. I'd hate to get one of those in an engine. Think what a terrorist could do with this though. Legislating it will only really stop people who don't intend to fly small aircraft into a no-fly-zone anyway.
- nmrm2 11y ago
  > not shooting them down seems like it could go much worse Sure. But a sensible policy would also minimize the amount of weapons that are deployed in heavily trafficked airspace. That is why the sensible approach is to heavily regulate or even by-default prohibit UAV traffic anywhere near airports or common commercial aircraft routes. In other words, parent post is a false dichotomy. It's possible to design and enforce regulations that 1) minimize danger and 2) enable aircraft controllers and the military to address rogue UAVs before they enter heavily trafficked civilian airspaces. Those regulations should go far beyond "shoot-to-kill near airports", but also don't have to be as encompassing as current bans. Simply deploying weapons in commercial airspace as a complete alternative to legislation and regulation is insane. > Legislating it will only really stop people who don't intend to fly small aircraft into a no-fly-zone anyway. I think you under-estimate the size of the group of people who do dangerous shit without malicious intent. Look at the list of incidents at the end of the article, for instance, and guess at how many of those were intentional. Furthermore, even in the case of malicious intent, crafting regulation that clearly and unambiguously sets expectations can allow regulators and the military to deploy counter-measures long before doing so creates an unacceptable risk to surrounding civilians and infrastructure.
  - microcolonel 11y ago
    This is already highly regulated; the reason that harsher general legislation is sought is that the uninformed will nonetheless operate UAVs next to airports and endanger lives. Hence, my tradeoff is between making it difficult to own or operate a UAV ANYWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES OR ADJACENT TERRITORIES; and making it incredibly improbable and difficult to simply ride one into an airport and cause a disaster, either by accident or on purpose. My tradeoff also bears on the doubtful effectiveness of the legislative approach to prevent intentional violation of controlled airspace. In this case you require the sentries anyhow.
    - nmrm2 11y ago
      The point of my previous post is that your supposed trade-off is a false choice. There's A LOT of middle ground between today's limitations on drone operators and a world where we expect to shoot down aircraft near crowded airports. If you try to sell that either/or to the public, you're going to lose. And rightly so. FORTUNATELY, there's a lot the FAA could do to make the USA more drone-friendly while also ensuring the safety of conventional aircraft and critical infrastructure. Good drone policy, if ever enacted, will follow from this observation. It will not follow from a false choice between militarized anarchy and industry-crippling regulation. (It'd also be neat if we could introduce technical solutions to the stupid/clueless person problem. For example, it'd be nice if the FAA funded the development of open-source, optional, and easy to disable software that warns the pilot (and only the pilot) before the drone enters a restricted area. It'd also be really nice if drone manufacturers voluntarily installed that software on capable drones. We're all better off if Johnny doesn't commit a felony and ground the next 30 minutes of take-offs while trying out his cool birthday present...)

k-mcgrady 11y ago

Shoot them down as a backup but if you legislate it a lot of amateur morons will think twice before flying near an airport. There's no way to know if this was malicious. It was probably just an idiot who wouldn't do it if he knew it was illegal.

codecamper 11y ago

How about just jamming them? Nobody needs to be flying drones near airports. Seriously. I'm certainly not interested in pulling this off.. but how hard would it be to just simultaneously launch a swarm into a busy airport while planes are landing?

dingaling 11y ago
> Nobody needs to be flying drones near airports. But who defines 'near'? At present, this is defined by the industry with a vested interest in passing the costs onto regulators and law enforcement. Not in investing in drone detection or mitigation technology. CTRs around airports already deprive residents of their airspace rights, often to a radius of 5nm from an airport. In many cities that means no drones in a large chunk of residential area.
Analemma_ 11y ago
> How about just jamming them? The time window in which that's a valid option is closing fast. Autonomous flyers that don't need an external signal are already pretty good and after a few more years of iterations, they'll be even better and available to everyone. Not to mention air traffic requires lots of radio communication of its own, along with radar and GPS, and jamming equipment would need to be guaranteed not to interfere with any of that. It's a non-solution.
paulmd 11y ago
"Return-to-home" functionality is quite common. The GPS knows where it took off, and where it is now, and in the event that it loses the control signal it'll (try to) navigate back home. Having a drone under control is almost always preferable to having a drone out of control, particularly in the pattern of a major airport. If you're going to take it down, it needs to happen in a way that gives you control of the drone, not just messes up their control.

tptacek 11y ago

People live near airports. You can't simply vaporize a drone; whatever you do to arrest it in the sky is going to cause drone pieces to hurtle towards the earth. Same goes for jamming them.

thrownaway2424 11y ago
>>> You can't simply vaporize a drone <<< Challenge accepted.
JshWright 11y ago
A lot of modern UAV platforms have a 'failsafe' mode if they lose the transmitter signal.
- goodplay 11y ago
  which might include flying across the run way to the coordinates it took off from. As others have pointed out, the last thing you want is some object flying over the airport that is not under your control.

Pinckney 11y ago

Taking LAX for an example... It has a perimeter of 4ish miles. Assume one sentry with a shotgun, loaded with birdshot every 300ft to give decent coverage of the perimeter, that gives us about 60 sentries. At 15 $/hr, 24/7, that gives a minimum cost of about $7M/year, ignoring any overhead for management, training, firearms, secure storage, etc. All that achieves is to secure the airport, poorly, against a very unlikely threat, and one that is unlikely to down a plane even if an intrusion occurs.