61–70 of 109 posts
drone learning curve ... 14 shoo birds ... 47 deliver tacos ... 7,323 fold fitted sheet 7,324 herd cats 7,325 self replicate 7,326 conquer humans
http://tacocopter.com
http://idlewords.com/2007/04/the_alameda-weehawken_burrito_t...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Problem is downside risk: drones get hacked, or someone figures out how to make the drones fly into planes, or herd birds TOWARD planes. As a society we've been pretty cavalier about algorithmic control. Which can work well for a lot of things. But probably shouldn't be trusted (without a TON of validation and regulation, as we've done over decades with airliners) with controlling stuff that can injure people or dama…
You can already do that with your own manually controlled drones(surprisingly, no one has done this yet). There is no need to hack the airports drones.
There simply isn't money in downing planes, so most people have no incentive to want to do it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bird scaring drone can be programed to stay clear of planes. The birds can't
Birds are already programmed for that. It's called self preservation. Airplanes are huge chunks of metal that make a deafening roar. Grown men are rightly afraid of coming near one.
I suspect the birds would eventually ignore the drones unless the drones are made to pose an actual physical threat to them. City pigeons are so accustomed to cars and humans that they barely move out of the way in time to avoid being crushed.
I don't think pilots would be entirely opposed to this kind of tech. While I don't think many pilots trust drone operators to be responsible in any way (I don't, since I don't think many of them know the airspace system or where their nearby airports are), they might be okay with unmanned aerial systems operated by the local airport authority, since they could likely geofence them in such a manner that they'd never c…
I'm not a pilot, but at 3000 feet AGL, you have a lot more room for emergency maneuvering / diverting back to origin or alternate right? I remember hearing something about how many small aircraft incidents occur at low altitude on takeoff or landing, partly because it's harder to recover from a stall condition (perhaps engine-out as well?) at low altitude...
For a single-engine plane, 500' AGL depending on the plane and wind is enough to make a 180° turn and land on the takeoff runway if its clear. 1000' AGL will let you do it on just about any suitable surface at the airport - other runways, taxiways, grass clearings adjacent to them, etc - and give you a few seconds to be confused before deciding that you need to make an emergency landing.
Most birds fly quite low, and drone-based bird abatement at airports would be a safety win if done right (DO-178-B style software quality), but I've heard of bird strikes above 20,000', and been taught to expect that you're never flying above _all_ the birds.
Edited to reply directly to your 3000' comment like I meant to: At 3000' AGL, you can almost always glide to a safe landing point, unless you're over mountains or a dense urban area. But unless you happen to already be near an airport, you probably won't be able to glide to one. Glide ratios much higher than 10:1 are uncommon, so thats 5.7 statute miles. Lots of places are more than 5.7 miles from an airport.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sucking a bird into a jet engine, obviously. Was this a rhetorical question? The jet engine is mounted to a plane. It's designed to withstand bird strikes without exploding - they literally blast frozen turkeys into it with an air cannon - but they can still cause engine out situations that result in crashes or emergency landings and risk the lives of the hundreds of people on board. Not to mention the huge repair co…
I think the parent meant: What's worse to suck into a jet engine -- a bird or a bird scaring drone?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> don't think many of them know the airspace system or where their nearby airports are) Don’t you think they can’t learn that just like you did?
It's not a matter of whether drone operators _can_ learn. It's more a matter of many of them _not_ learning. Why do firefighters still have trouble with drone operators running drones in areas where they are actively fighting fires? Not that all pilots are good about following the regulations all the time even though they should, but the consequences to the individual for not following FAA regulations as a private pi…
Considering 15 minute flight time, 2 hour battery recharging time, and several miles runway circumference, I guestimate you would need around a 100-200 drone system to maintain constant surveillance around a medium size airport.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With some regularity, I encounter people who work either around pilots or on planes and consistently attempt to disqualify pilots from praise, no matter how insignificant that is to the context of the conversation. As if I would need to comment on any of Elon Musk's success to mention that his success would not have been had without the countless engineers and layers of automative tech that he's building upon. These…
Checklist Manifesto (by Atul Gawande) makes a strong case that the systems and processes in flight planning are an unsung "hero" in the consistent safety record of the complex affair that is flying. I don't think it's resentment so much as it is acknowledgement of normal human bias (to find and credit heroes), and an attempt to provide context that frames that bias in a proper and realistic way. Sully was a hero! Is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well sheep have been herded by dogs for millennia and I think it's pretty rare that they actually hurt any sheep.
There are several types of sheepdog, and some do nip at livestock to keep them motivated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herding_dog#Herding_behavior
Oh boy, there goes a future evening...