Drones of death

[Haraka]

Drone.
Was taught to U.K. Services in the 70's (when the Army had the " Midge" ) to refer to an autonomous "clockwork mouse" device -hence incorporated into Royal Artillery Drone Troops.
Conversely an RPV /UMA/ UAV/RPA system implied that the mission was monitored and controlled from a ground station.
Thus ,politically and for very good reasons, it can then be claimed to be under human direction and discretion and thus avoid popular association with being seen as a "Robot Killer" or whatever.
This distinction has now been removed.

[Davef68]

Originally Posted by Mechta

Why anyone saw the need to hang 'system' or 'vehicle' on the end of their acronym, beats me. When I started flying them in 1988 they were UMAs (UnManned Aircraft). One doesn't feel the need to refer to a Eurofighter Typhoon or a Boeing 747 as a system or vehicle, despite the fact that ground equipment and ground based services are all part of what allow them to do their jobs.

Have you ever known the military to use a simple description when a bit of 'management speak' can be used?

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Why anyone saw the need to hang 'system' or 'vehicle' on the end of their acronym, beats me.

The idea is that you need more than the airframe to fly it. The "system" refers to the aircraft itself, the GCS, the communications equipment, etc. To fly a Reaper, you need a Reaper itself, a Reaper GCS, and at the very least a set of line-of-sight aerials. That's a Reaper "system." The aircraft's just an aircraft, but unlike a Tornado or Typhoon, you can't fly it on its own without the rest of the system.

[Avtur]

Why anyone saw the need to hang 'system' or 'vehicle' on the end of their acronym, beats me.

Although 5F6B is correct, let's just call the Unmanned System by its name; eg "Reaper". Its a given that these things need a GCS, aircraft, comms etc to operate. A certain military unmanned aircraft testing organisation once spent an inordinate amount of time, effort, and (presumably) expense by continually reinventing its name from UAV, UAS, RPAS, then boring the pants of various audiences as to why the latest name was important.

[Courtney Mil]

Originally Posted by BEages

"Ah, Mr. al-Yazid. Welcome to the after life. Bad news - no 72 virgins, in fact not even one. As that bloke over there with the pointy tail, horns and toasting fork will be explaining to you for the next thousand years or so....!"

http://youtu.be/91DSNL1BEeY

[Lonewolf_50]

For all that we are charging gently into the future, some pilots like to remind the rest of the world that mid air collisions are still a risk, and that drones won't make that risk any less dangerous.

A recent bit by Sully on drones.

Drones of death ... filling the skies ... and nothing to do with warfare.

[WhiteOvies]

There is already history of mid-air collisions involving manned and unmanned aircraft in busy bits of military airspace and several Airprox style reports from drones flying near civilian airports.

It's only a matter of time as the small civi multi-rotor systems get cheaper and proliferate. People with absolutely no 'air sense', as Flight Safety like to call it, are flying these things all over the place and the CAA is powerless to stop them.

[Courtney Mil]

WO, the French are doing a pretty good job of tackling the small drone issue, including prosecutions. No reason the CAA can't do the same in the UK.

[glad rag]

Hmm, CM, think the reconnaissance of some highly sensitive sites may have kicked this off[and quite bloody right too]

[WhiteOvies]

Courtney, I hope they do take a lead from the French. The regulation and it's enforcement in the UK seems to be a bit slow in catching up with a growing problem. There are responsible drone flyers who post NOTAMs and I would hope that any regulation does not impact their hobby, however I feel that it would only take one fatal accident and subsequent knee jerk reaction policy to ruin things for everyone.

[Courtney Mil]

Indeed, WO. From both legislative and enforcement points of view it would be much easier to ban them altogether, so let's hope the idiots stop ruining it for everyone else.

Of course, the new larger ones, expensive as they are, could have all sorts of "other" uses (including that which GR refers to), which must also be causing some angst in the halls of the mighty. We may have got Al whatever his name is with one, his mates might consider using the same technology.

[Nige321]

From both legislative and enforcement points of view it would be much easier to ban them altogether

And the bad boys will, of course, take note of the ban...

[Courtney Mil]

No, but the civil powers would have the legal option to "take out" any they see flying by kinetic or electronic means. And their sale and ownership could be banned. I'm condoning neither of these options. Whilst your point is valid,not may be slightly too dismissive.

P.S. Banging your head like that will hurt you. One of the less friendly "smilies".

[Nige321]

The problem is now there's millions of them out there already. You can ban them here, or perhaps across Europe, but I doubt China will stop posting them out to anyone with the money...

And what about DIY builds?
Do we ban the sale of brushless motors? Speed controllers? Microprocessors? Nuts and bolts??

The CAA have already prosecuted offenders - the big problem is catching 'em...

Sorry about the smiley - I keep having this conversation...
I work in the 'industry' (mil spec) as well as flying as a hobby, so I have an interest in both camps.
The CAA's reasoning is that a big prosecution with a big prison term might wake some of the loons up...

[Haraka]

Whilst we are on the subject.....
The overflights by "commercial " drones of such as , reported in France ,Nuclear sensitive sites is of concern.
We in the "West" no longer have the total monopoly on advanced technology.
Most of us are aware of "stealth" in the radar context , but there is a lot out there concerning optical stealth.
Indeed the first imagery of such a device could well be accidental and/or captured by a civilian who sees something "a bit odd" overhead. ( "Oh look, a UFO !" )
As far as I am aware no formalized effort has been put in to addressing this aspect of the problem.....

[Lonewolf_50]

Here's a better problem, Drones of Drugs.
I find the story mildly hilarious.

Drone drops drugs in Ohio prison yard, sparking inmate fight - CBS News

Someone was dropping drugs into a prison to help provide for the poor, under drugged inmates.

[Courtney Mil]

I think that should be considered a blessing, LoneWolf. Better than using a drone to airlift the inmates over the razor wire to freedom.

[ShotOne]

for sure these are a potential aviation hazard but let's put that into perspective; We've had tens of thousands of RC aircraft flying around, some of them quite large, for the last three or four decades with very few safety incidents.

In the military context the legal rules of engagement are becoming more of an issue. None of us will weep for the latest victim but what when these become more widespread? How would we feel about, say, Turkey using one toeliminate a Suspected PKK member in UK?

[melmothtw]

Personally, I think it is a good thing. Language evolves, and like it or not 'drone' is the term by which UAVs are known to the wider (non-PPRuNe) world.

To continue to rail against it smacks to me of being a tad King Cnut-ish (I had to very careful spelling that!)

[Mechta]

for sure these are a potential aviation hazard but let's put that into perspective; We've had tens of thousands of RC aircraft flying around, some of them quite large, for the last three or four decades with very few safety incidents.

ShotOne, Good point, and that's just radio controlled models. In the late '40s and early '50s when aeromodelling was at its peak, there were estimated to be two million model fliers.* It wasn't unusual for models to be found 20 or 30 miles from their point of launch if the dethermaliser failed. Allegedly, at some RAF stations, just about everyone from the Station Commander down went out on the airfield at lunchtime with a model and a can of diesel fuel.

Bearing in mind that these models had no external guidance at all, and you wouldn't want your jet engine to ingest a wayward Mills 75 or an ED Comp Special, how much of an outcry was there then?

* http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1947/1947%20-%200477.html