PHOTOS - Unmanned Systems. Will they change us?

[aeroscout]

Quote from avbug

 

 

 

In what sheltered world have you lived for the last decade? Do you have any idea how much UAV activity has been taking place? A lot more than you know, apparently.

 

 

 

Why do you insist on berating and insulting everyone with whom you disagree ?

I provided a personal example COMPLETELY up to date. I have seen this on a daily basis for as long as I have been in this industry.

But you had to assume the worst, and accuse the worst. Great work.

 

For myself I admire what I know about you and respect you for what you have done. This one aspect of your personality I don't respect at all. I don't see the need or call for it.

I am quite sure any forum members who have been on this forum long enough have similar sentiments.

 

 

 

[avbug]

 

Why do you insist on berating and insulting everyone with whom you disagree ?

I provided a personal example COMPLETELY up to date. I have seen this on a daily basis for as long as I have been in this industry.

But you had to assume the worst, and accuse the worst. Great work.

 

For myself I admire what I know about you and respect you for what you have done. This one aspect of your personality I don't respect at all. I don't see the need or call for it.

I am quite sure any forum members who have been on this forum long enough have similar sentiments.

 

 

Let me be clear, in the event you may have misunderstood: I don't care.

 

You have no idea what I've done, and largely it's irrelevant.

 

Your whining about orwellian this or that, and throwing wild statements about ammunition useage into a discussion about helicopters performing surveillance, and your refusal to answer the questions to support your oddball, paranoid statements are far more significant than my experience, in this discussion. Forget my experience.

 

Five UAV operations in the US? UAV (not "drone;" leave that ridiculous reference to the newspapers and fox news. It makes the user sound ignorant and foolish. They're unmanned systems, whether you want to call them UAV's, UCAV's, UAS, etc. "Drones" sounds uneducated and childish) operations are far from new even in the continental US; they've been going on for a long time now, and will only expand in scope and frequency, to say nothing of location. You may thing coming soon to airspace near you. I can tell you that they've been in airspace near you for some time now. It's just that little has been said about it. Welcome to reality.

 

Offensive? I don't care.

Edited May 16, 2014 by avbug

[aeroscout]

 

Let me be clear, in the event you may have misunderstood: I don't care.

 

You have no idea what I've done, and largely it's irrelevant.

 

Your whining about orwellian this or that, and throwing wild statements about ammunition useage into a discussion about helicopters performing surveillance, and your refusal to answer the questions to support your oddball, paranoid statements are far more significant than my experience, in this discussion. Forget my experience.

 

Five UAV operations in the US? UAV (not "drone;" leave that ridiculous reference to the newspapers and fox news. It makes the user sound ignorant and foolish. They're unmanned systems, whether you want to call them UAV's, UCAV's, UAS, etc. "Drones" sounds uneducated and childish) operations are far from new even in the continental US; they've been going on for a long time now, and will only expand in scope and frequency, to say nothing of location. You may thing coming soon to airspace near you. I can tell you that they've been in airspace near you for some time now. It's just that little has been said about it. Welcome to reality.

 

Offensive? I don't care.

Did you say wild statements about ammunition usage ? Can you pass a drug screen right now ?

That's about as far detached from reality than I have seen anyone on this forum. You are not quoting me, that's for sure.

 

5 UAV operations in the US ? You have totally corrupted that quote from me. I said 2 ARTCCs. I didn't count any of the others.

 

I guess you are incapable of taking any constructive criticism. You have to turn any criticism into a personal slight that you must attack with viciousness. Are you like this at work ?

 

I have seen others accuse you of the tactics you are now using, but now that I see it in person, I see your reputation is well earned.

Great work avbug.

[avbug]

Ah, the ammunition stupidity belonged to cburg.

 

Yours was of a different ilk:

 

There were a total of 5 unmanned aircraft just today listed in 2 ARTCC's in the notams. Our privacy and rights are quickly diminishing.

 

 

Non sequitur garbage, with five unmanned reported in two traffic center's airspace, you segued into "our rights and privacy are quickly diminishing." You had absolutely no way to connect reports from an ARTCC about unmanned aircraft and rights, or privacy, to your assertion in putting those two statements in the same sentence was straw man foolishness at best, a dirt-poor argument, and a statement of complete ignorance.

 

I'll ask again, as you've been entirely unable to answer (along with cburg, et al): how exactly does an unmanned aircraft diminish your rights? How does it diminish your privacy?

 

You really can't answer that, can you?

[MLH]

Yes, that's a Helicycle UAV.

 

www.scionuas.com

[aeroscout]

Ah, the ammunition stupidity belonged to cburg.

 

Yours was of a different ilk:

 

 

Non sequitur garbage, with five unmanned reported in two traffic center's airspace, you segued into "our rights and privacy are quickly diminishing." You had absolutely no way to connect reports from an ARTCC about unmanned aircraft and rights, or privacy, to your assertion in putting those two statements in the same sentence was straw man foolishness at best, a dirt-poor argument, and a statement of complete ignorance.

 

I'll ask again, as you've been entirely unable to answer (along with cburg, et al): how exactly does an unmanned aircraft diminish your rights? How does it diminish your privacy?

 

You really can't answer that, can you?

What's this ? avbug is admitting he was wrong ? Twice in one post ?

This can't be.

I'm not seeing an apology or retraction though.

I'm not sure how long I should wait.

Update, today in 2 ARTCCs 8 drones.

[avbug]

Aeroscout cannot answer the question, why unmanned systems, or "drones" as the uninformed and willfully ignorant choose to call them, allegedly "diminish rights," or "diminish privacy."

 

This is no surprise.

 

Cburg won't explain the attempt to associate ammunition use with unmanned vehicles. Nothing more to see here.

[Nearly Retired]

You know... a lot of us see the proliferation of "drones" by local P.D.s as just more government intervention in our private lives. Yeah, yeah, aerial surveillance by the police has been going on for a long time, but it's one thing for a P.D. to put up a helicopter that patrols like a squad car. Nowadays any agency that previously could not afford a real helicopter can afford a quadcopter with a GoPro. And they're finding new and creative ways of using them that go far beyond what would be done with a couple of guys in a 407 or Astar. The "real" helicopter is noticeable most of the time.

 

The problem with the small/RC copters is that you might not know you're being watched.

 

Now, I get it. When you're out in public you must assume that "somebody" is watching, right? Guys like Avbug are not bothered by this. Either they see this elevated level of government snooping as acceptable, or they feel that it's absolutely warranted. Perhaps both. It's the old, "If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?" It's the kind of misguided thinking that got us the "Patriot Act."

 

Some of us feel otherwise. Some of us free Americans don't want to feel like our every move is under scrutiny. We think back to Nazi Germany and other oppressive regimes where the government closely monitored the movements and activity of the citizenry. It's why we (especially we pilots) must fight vigorously to keep "drones" out of the national airspace system, and why we must resist the push to equip more and more local P.D.'s with such equipment.

 

Dinosaurs like Avbug will never "get" it. So it's useless to even discuss it with him.

[aeroscout]

NR, you're like a Hallmark greeting card. Saying it better than I can say it myself ! I really really liked your post.

[jjsemperfi]

Can't wait for AvBug's retort...

[Spike]

Not to add to the drama but, you won’t have to wait for AvBug…….

 

Wow….. To compare what I do for a living with what occurred in Nazi Germany…. Nothing but disgraceful….

 

Shame on you…..

Edited May 18, 2014 by Spike

[avbug]

 

The problem with the small/RC copters is that you might not know you're being watched.

 

 

The subject isn't supposed to be aware he or she is being watched. That's the concept of surveillance. Watching an illegal transaction or a drug sale are examples.

 

There are other times when officer or agency presence is desirable and the subject is supposed to understand he or she is being observed. A squad car parked alongside a road or an officer walking a beat are examples.

 

Somehow it's perfectly acceptable if a live person is in the aircraft, but the moment the live person is not, rights are taken, privacy restricted? What ignorance.

 

You've never performed or been involved in intelligence, surveillance, or reconnaissance, have you? You really have no concept of the current application?

 

Why the narrow minded assumption that surveillance is for improper reasons? Presently the USFS has an aircraft airborne over San Diego doing IR fire mapping and searches. Is this invading your privacy, or is it okay with you if some lives get saved?

[avbug]

NR, you're like a Hallmark greeting card. Saying it better than I can say it myself ! I really really liked your post.

 

And you still can't answer the questions. You can spout off at the mouth, you can ramble on ignorantly about "drones" taking away your freedoms, but you can't explain how.

 

Do you know anything about them? Ever worked with them? Do you know what takes place, how it takes place, what information is gathered, their uses, their applications, or any other facets about them other than what you've gained from fox news?

 

Didn't think so. Still unable to contribute by explaining your own ignorant comments, then?

[Pohi]

 

And you still can't answer the questions. You can spout off at the mouth, you can ramble on ignorantly about "drones" taking away your freedoms, but you can't explain how.

 

Do you know anything about them? Ever worked with them? Do you know what takes place, how it takes place, what information is gathered, their uses, their applications, or any other facets about them other than what you've gained from fox news?

 

Didn't think so. Still unable to contribute by explaining your own ignorant comments, then?

If that isnt't the pot calling the kettle black...

 

I refrained for as long as I could, and along with being shut down most of the day today, I'll throw my two cents in.

 

UAV's in no way diminish a person's privacy. It's simply a machine, that does what it's told. They are a way to look and watch people or things in a whole new, covert, and inexpensive way than ever before.

 

The people that control the UAV's (if it's government personnel or civilian people) are the ones who might use these machines for less than honorable uses. Just because a person or organization has access to a method to easily gather information doesn't mean they are going to abuse that capability, it just makes it a lot easier.

 

I don't think I should have to block all my windows because some peeping tom feels like they want to get their jollies off by flying their little camera right up to my 2nd floor window and watch me poop.

 

The range of possibilities that having a mobile real time eyes and ears on somebody, even inside, their house is enormous. Is it technically illegal yet, nope. If I was an investigator, or wanted to snoop on somebody, it would be like the Wild West if I had a good quality machine because there are no laws against it, and I have a really good imagination.

 

I realize that there are small (and some not-so-small) remote devices available already, and it's only a matter of time before the lawsuits start popping up because of their misuse. Shortly after will come laws to define what level of privacy someone is expected to have on their property with respect to UAV's. There could be one hovering 2 inches from somebody's window all day and it's not illegal.... Yet.

 

So... In conclusion,

 

UAV's don't diminish anybody's rights, they just make it much easier to watch something than before. I have confidence that in the case of the government's involvement, they will never abuse this technology, ever. Just like they never abuse any of their other tools available to them.

[Velocity173]

Fear mongering from people who have no clue about the UAV industry and the limitations that they have (TOS,FOV range). As if everyday citizens have important enough lives to warrant spying by the feds (Lol!). People have a far better chance at getting spied on with some neighbor flying his Quad Copter than the feds wasting time on us. Completely legal and always has been.

 

Of course the media fuels it to make it look like different agencies are out invading our airspace and privacy when most of these so called "drone" reports are just guys out flying an RC aircraft. Just this latest near miss was some dude flying his RC F-4 around at 2,300 ft. I have a few electric ducted fans that could do that as well.

 

I can understand the argument that maybe restrictions should be put in place as to personal RC aircraft but right now it's all FAA guidance and probably will be for some time. To worry about LE watching us is ridiculous. People that fall under surveillance are people who deserved to be watched. As Avbug said it's no different than having an undercover cop filming someone outside their homes. Most of LE won't even be used for that purpose anyway. They were just demonstrating on the news the other day how they can assist in SAR operations. CBP uses them to find illegal aliens along the border. They can be used for spotting wildfires. People always bring up possible negative consequences when in reality the use of UAVs make operations more efficient...that is unless your a pilot and you lose your job to one.

Edited May 18, 2014 by Velocity173

[Pohi]

I doubt that anybody is going to debate the benefits of the UAV. Cheap to operate, can be sent out in horrible weather with no risk to a pilots life, rescue, etc. Those are all wonderful things.

 

To ignore the possible down sides to them (or up side, depending on what side of the camera you are on) is silly.

 

I don't ever expect to see one hovering around my hose with the Feds at the controls, or some LE guy looking for a reason to arrest me.

 

However, to say that they won't occasionally be used for those purposes on people is simply retarded. They can be used very efficiently for surveillance, and will be. Flying right up to a window sure beats watching somebody from the street or from a building across the street.

 

And yes, all of those surveillance techniques are legal.

 

So yeah, a million good uses for UAV's and a few bad. The good uses are why there is no stopping (nor should there be) the train from coming to town. Just try not to stick your head in the mud and think that they can't, and won't ever be used to watch people and things in places that was not possible before.

[avbug]

UAV's don't diminish anybody's rights, they just make it much easier to watch something than before. I have confidence that in the case of the government's involvement, they will never abuse this technology, ever. Just like they never abuse any of their other tools available to them.

 

 

Make it easier? They do not. You have no idea just how easy surveillance is now, with no need of unmanned aerial vehicles. Those who think that somehow surveillance with unmanned equipment is a game changer for privacy are laughably in the dark when it comes to current technology that can put an observer inside your house and in every personal conversation you have at home or at work, without any need to build, fly, develop, test or use sophisticated airborne gear. Some of you apparently have absolutely no concept just how far off the mark you are, and you can rest assured that unmanned equipment can't possibly in any way, shape or form, improve on that.

 

There could be one hovering 2 inches from somebody's window all day and it's not illegal.... Yet.

 

 

Even if such were the case, it wouldn't come close to stepping up surveillance over what's already capable and possible without such equipment. In fact, without need to airborne equipment at all, manned or otherwise.

 

Other than a petty thief, do you think anyone else really cares what's inside your bedroom? If there's something going on that should cause the government (et al) concern, then rest assured there are other means to find and observe or record it. Discussion beyond that point is impossible here for reasons you probably won't understand or know.

 

Unmanned equipment's biggest advantage, once beyond initial acquisition cost, is lower operating costs and increased utility, and a potential to save lives. Hostage and barrier situations, hazmat scenes, large fires, rescues, and numerous other situations have application. Last nights fire mapping mission is one example that has was manned, but that has been carried out by unmanned assets. Just this last year the USFS utilized assistance from a Predator on a large complex fire in California. Expect to see a lot more.

 

I don't think I should have to block all my windows because some peeping tom feels like they want to get their jollies off by flying their little camera right up to my 2nd floor window and watch me poop.

 

 

You do or don't do whatever seems good to you, but presently any Tom, Dick, or Harry can do the same thing with a remote control helicopter and a small over the counter camera with telemetry equipment. What's to stop them?

 

Do you think the government cares about your defecation? You don't think that perhaps there are bigger fish to fry and greater needs and issues than you? Do you suppose the world revolves around you? It's possible now for anyone to look; you think that public use aircraft will go on a rampage of watching men and women defecate in their personal lavatories? Even if such paranoid self-aggrandizing fantasy were the case, and it's not, you really can't use it to suggest that public-use acquisition of aerial unmanned equipment will lead to that. Such equipment is available to anyone at their local toy store. Do you see it happening now? Yet somehow it's going to happen a month or a year from now because the government wants to "get their jollies off?"

 

The people that control the UAV's (if it's government personnel or civilian people) are the ones who might use these machines for less than honorable uses.

 

 

Ah, we've gone from "will" diminish rights" to "might use." The same personnel might hide under your marital bed for kicks, too. Has this happened to you, much? The technology for that has been available for a few thousand years.

 

Presently your cell phone can easily be monitored. Your personal computer camera can be activated and used remotely, as can your cell camera, and your cell can be used to monitor your conversations, even when turned off. If your'e not aware, that was classified a number of years ago, and has since become available to anyone commercially for a small fee. Right in your own home. Your ex-wife or the guy at the water cooler can be watching you on the toilet now, or later, or listening to that conversation you're having with your attorney, and there's no need to unmanned assets. Somehow unmanned model helicopters are going to improve on that and take away more privacy? Not.

 

If you think unmanned aerial assets are somehow cutting into your constitutional rights, you're very much in the dark about what's already capable and happening, and a great deal of what might surprise you is available commercially not just to official sources, but to anyone, including people with no mandate to follow the law, and people who may not like you. That should be a much bigger concern to you, but it sounds like most of you aren't even aware. More's the pity.

 

Ignorance, apparently, is bliss, and moral outrage so much more comforting, isn't it? You're barking at the moon.

[Pohi]

TL:DR

 

I don't bother reading your posts anymore.

 

A quick skim was enough to realize you still lack reading comprehension. I don't mean like you can't just pick up a few things, you really, really can't read and process anything. It's sad.

 

You are entitled to your opinion, and you have lots of really strange ones. But like they say, opinions are like a-holes, and this forum is full of both.

[Velocity173]

What makes me laugh is how some demonize these operators as if they're the enemy. I have several friends who left the military to go onto flying for the CBP, FBI and CIA. They're some of the biggest gun toting, freedom loving people I know. They're not robots who have been brainwashed into being "Nazis." They have better things to do than watch ordinary citizens going about their day to day activities. Even with the rash of CBP stops on GA, my friend told me they've caught an enormous amount of drug trafficking and illegal weapons trafficking across the border in recent years. So a few innocent pilots get stopped, you don't have to consent to a search anyway. No method of surveillance or intel is 100 % either. You win some, you lose some.

 

Everyone wants their govt to go looking for the "bad guys" but when these see the measures they use to do it, it becomes "an invasion of privacy." So tell me, how does one try and catch a suspected terrorist if you're not using clandestine techniques anyway?

[Pohi]

Sounds like you are paraphrasing the speech from "A Few Good Men". :-)

 

I don't agree with a lot of stuff out government does that's supposed to be for out benefit, but that's a whole different can of worms.

 

So, you are saying that it's not part of training to be a UAV pilot to shave your head, tattoo swastikas on your face, and burn a copy of the constitution? That's strange. That's what avbug said.

[avbug]

So, you are saying that it's not part of training to be a UAV pilot to shave your head, tattoo swastikas on your face, and burn a copy of the constitution? That's strange. That's what avbug said.

 

When you can do no more than tell lies and only stupidity spews from you, credibility is gone, and there's no further need of discussion with you.

 

You're done.

[Pohi]

 

When you can do no more than tell lies and only stupidity spews from you, credibility is gone, and there's no further need of discussion with you.

 

You're done.

I'm done, as in I'm fired?

 

Try taking some of your own advice. I was thinking something along the same train of thought to say to you, but couldn't phrase it right. So...read what you wrote, and pretend I said it to you.

 

Except, the "You're done." part. I'd never say something like that. Way too arrogant for my style.

[Pohi]

I don't know how this topic got steered to a government/LE thing. The government already has UAV's, and on an completely unrelated note, they have been trampling on people's rights since government has been established. It's what they do. With or without UAV's. Plus, it keeps the Supreme Court busy, figuring out where the line in the sand is.

 

I'm not going to type everything again, but I don't think the privacy issue is all about to government/LE.

 

I hope this goes through, because I heard I was done.

 

Unless somebody told a fib......

[Astro]

I still think it might be a cool job if the boom does happen? As long as it pays better than doing photo flights in an r22.

[aeroscout]

 

When you can do no more than tell lies and only stupidity spews from you, credibility is gone, and there's no further need of discussion with you.

 

You're done.

I seem to remember not too long ago you told 2 lies about me. You sort of admitted you were wrong, but I didn't see an apology, or a retraction.

I'm not sure how long I should wait.