News

Researchers envisage swarms of tiny drones for dangerous rescue missions

Posted on by mecicon

zhangpie

By 

Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University are working on a new generation of disaster drones that can be deployed in swarms into buildings to give first responders a look inside, mapping out the interior as they go.

The drones could be valuable in situations such as those faced recently after massive explosions ripped through a port in Tianjin, China, or in the aftermath of something smaller like a house fire.

“These places are very dangerous for rescuers to go, so we don’t want to just blindly send people inside,” said Pei Zhang, an associate research professor at CMU’s campus inside the NASA Ames Research Park in Moffett Field, California, where the research is taking place.

“Instead, we want to get these things in before people go in and determine if there are people that need help,” he said, gesturing to several drones on the table in front of him.

Zhang envisages using a larger drone, which he likens to a mothership, to carry multiple smaller drones into whatever environment is being explored. The smaller drones would deploy from the large drone and begin their work.

The larger drone, he reasons, has a longer range and can better handle wind and other effects of the environment. But it may be too large to send inside somewhere like a building that’s been compromised by an earthquake.

So the smaller drones, some of which can easily fit in the palm of a hand, would fly inside to do their work.

http://www.cio.com/article/2975766/researchers-eye-sending-swarms-of-rescue-drones-into-dangerous-places.html

Man Indicted For Shotgun Blasts At Hovering Drone

Posted on by mecicon

droneview465

AUGUST 25–A grand jury today indicted a New Jersey man on two felony charges for allegedly firing a shotgun at a hobbyist’s drone as it hovered near his residence last year.

Russell Percenti, 33, is facing criminal mischief and possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose charges. The latter count carries a maximum of ten years in prison, while Percenti could face up to 18 months on the lesser felony rap.

Percenti, pictured at right, was arrested last September after Leonard Helbig reported that someone “shot his drone out of the air with a shotgun while he was taking pictures of a friend’s property that is under construction.”

A subsequent police investigation determined that Percenti, a restaurant employee, shot at the drone while it flew near his family’s residence in Cape May County at New Jersey’s southern tip.

As seen in the above photo  shot by Helbig’s drone, his friend’s property abuts the Percenti residence, which has an above-ground pool and a rear deck. It is unclear whether Percenti is the individual seen standing on the deck in the below drone photo

Helbig told TSG that the $1300 drone was about 100 feet above the ground when it was fired upon. Helbig, who operates Cape May Miniature Golf, estimated that five shots were fired at the drone, which he said was “destroyed” by the shotgun blasts.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/new-jersey-drone-shooting-case-213450

New Boss on Construction Sites Is a Drone

Posted on by mecicon

Construction_drone

By Will Knight

For some construction workers, any thoughts of slacking off could soon seem rather quaint. The drones will almost certainly notice.

The workers building a lavish new downtown stadium for the Sacramento Kings in California are being monitored by aerial drones and software that can automatically flag slow progress.

Once per day, several drones automatically patrol the Sacramento work site, collecting video footage. That footage is then converted into a three-dimensional picture of the site, which is fed into software that compares it to computerized architectural plans as well as a the construction work plan showing when each element should be finished. The software can show managers how the project is progressing, and can automatically highlight parts that may be falling behind schedule.

“We highlight at-risk locations on a site, where the probability of having an issue is really high,” says Mani Golparvar-Fard, an assistant professor in the department of civil engineering at the University of Illinois, who developed the software with several colleagues. It can show, for example, that a particular structural element is behind schedule, perhaps because materials have not yet arrived. “We can understand why deviations are happening, and we can see where efficiency improvements are made,” Golparvar-Fard says.

The project highlights the way new technologies allow manual work to be monitored and scrutinized, and it comes as productivity in other areas of work, including many white collar jobs, is being tracked more closely using desktop and smartphone software.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/540836/new-boss-on-construction-sites-is-a-drone/

 

Guarding Machu Picchu

Posted on by mecicon
 

How Peru is using drones to protect its archaeological treasures.

Machu Picchu, Peru, April 9, 2015.
Members of Peru’s Ministry of Culture drone team watch a DJI S1000 octocopter in flight at the ruins of Pisaq in the Sacred Valley in April 2015.

Photo by Faine Greenwood

150819_FT_droneBugpng

The eight-armed drone proceeds along the busy tourist road that leads up to the world-famous Machu Picchu archaeological site in Peru, floating just above the tropical forest that lines each side of the roadway. It’s piloted by Peruvian Ministry of Culture drone expert Aldo Watanave, who watches the device intently, his eyes occasionally darting to the little video screen that I’ve agreed to hold for him.

Another colleague is in control of the camera mounted to the drone’s underside, and he uses a remote control to snap a photo whenever Watanave tells him to. Just up the trail, a middle-aged French tourist with a walking stick comes into view, and he’s not happy to see the drone: He begins swearing profusely, as if we have personally violated him. “From the Ministry of Culture!” I shout back, attempting to gauge how crazy he is.

Drone archaeology is not without its occupational hazards, but for Watanave and his colleagues, the risks are more than worth it. With their drone mapping work, they’re demonstrating to archeologists and museums around the world how they can use aerial imagery to create inexpensive maps and 3-D models of humanity’s collective cultural heritage—virtual representations that may define the museums of the not-so-distant future.

Founded in 2013 by Luis Jaime Castillo Butters, the former deputy minister of cultural heritage and cultural industries, Peru’s drone archaeology team has quickly become one of the most active in the world, working to accurately survey and preserve the South American nation’s thousands of valuable archaeological sites. At the beginning, team members had no special engineering expertise or any prior experience with unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs. But in just two years, they have become an authority on this specific area of drone mapping, with archaeologists and drone pilots from around the world now reaching out to them for advice. “Anybody can do the work we do. Anybody can work with the drones, anybody can work with the software, anybody can produce the stuff we are producing,” Castillo explains. “We are simply doing it on a scale that is actually having a real impact on cultural patrimony.”

Since the program began, the Ministry of Culture’s drone team has mapped more than 600 sites, allowing it to create standardized records of archaeological data at a much faster pace than was possible in the days of ground-based surveying. The group has developed a relatively standardized process for its archaeological missions, primarily using Chinese drone maker DJI’s Spreading Wing S1000 “octocopters” for their mapping projects. The hefty drones are equipped with Sony NEX-7 mirrorless cameras and can stay in the air for roughly 15 minutes, but their battery life decreases when flying at a high altitude, as is often the case in Peru.

The drone team’s process begins with marking out at least three ground-control points in the area to be mapped, which can be identified from the sky with the assistance of a highly visible marker. Next, the archaeologists use a differential GPS unit to accurately survey (asses the location of) each point. The drone team assesses the weather—and also makes sure that any people on the ground are aware of what’s happening. When the all-clear is given, it’s time for liftoff.

Flying a drone in Machu Picchu, Peru, April 8, 2015.
Members of Peru’s Ministry of Culture drone team prepare a DJI S1000 octocopter for flight at the ruins of Pisaq in Peru’s Sacred Valley in April 2015.

Photo by Faine Greenwood

In simplest terms, aerial maps are made by combining hundreds of different photos—I wrote about this process in detail in New America’s new Drones and Aerial Observation primer. (New America is a partner with Slate and Arizona State in Future Tense.) To make sure the photos overlap enough, the drone has to fly in a specific pattern—it’s easy to think of this as the pattern a lawnmower makes as it traverses the lawn, with straight lines overlapping to ensure no spots are missed. Although many drone mappers program their devices to fly themselves in a predetermined pattern, Watanave is wary of automatic drone flight, thanks to the painful memory of a recent drone crash caused by a failed autopilot. Instead, the Peruvian pilots eyeball the pattern and fly it themselves at an altitude between 196 and 262 feet, shooting a photograph every 2 to 3 seconds.

Once shooting is over, it’s time for the archaeologists to use Agisoft Photoscan photogrammetry software to stitch the photographs together into a single image. The aerial maps and 3-D models that archaeologists use have to be geographically accurate—applicable to the real world and capable of being layered on top of pre-existing maps—so the software geometrically corrects (orthorectifies) the images so that they have a uniform scale.

The process may be relatively straightforward, but fieldwork has its own perils, from angry French tourists to technical error to simple poor luck. The $3,300 octocopters are relatively sturdy, but they’re definitely breakable. Not that this vulnerability stops the archaeologists: During my visit to Peru, I watched, impressed, as the team floated the drone (packed in a waterproof case) from the shore of an inflatable raft onto the rocky coast of an island somewhere off the coast near Lima. Two archaeologists walked the hefty box and its robotic cargo up the steep path to the top of the island they’d been sent to survey in punishing heat, as vultures watched their progress.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/08/how_peru_is_using_drones_to_protect_machu_picchu_and_other_archaeological.html

It’s the end of privacy as we know it!

Posted on by mecicon

by  • 

 

wecanspy

I have become a bit hesitant to tell people that I work with drones, despite the fact that I love working with this wonderful new technology. Almost every time I tell someone they say, “Oh, those are used for spying, right?” and I have to resist the urge to say something snarky about how unfounded that notion of unmanned technology is.

My understanding is that the majority of people have unrealistic expectations about privacy to begin with. Did you know that it’s legal for a person to photograph another person in their own home without their consent, and then sell those photos in a public gallery? Most people don’t know that, as evidenced by the man who is now facing felony destruction of property charges for shooting his neighbor’s drone down.

 

It is important to know the boundaries of privacy these days, and it isn’t necessarily what feels right anymore. What the gentleman who shot down that drone didn’t know; you don’t own all the sky over your property, (otherwise how would commercial airlines operate?), the drone cost over $1000, and by going out in his backyard he had significantly reduced expectations of privacy. Unfortunately, that combination will probably not end up in his favor.If people were to make a concentrated, deliberate effort to change these problematic privacy laws, would targeting drone technology really be the best way to go about it? Wouldn’t it be better to establish a baseline for privacy, regardless of the technology? Drones are hardly the primary perpetrators of privacy violation, in the era of data breaches. From the FBI to Target to Ashley Madison, anywhere you can put personal information someone can take it and distribute it elsewhere. While I can sympathize with the momentary surprise of seeing a drone overhead, I still think I would prefer that to having my identity stolen.

As if it’s not bad enough that hackers will steal your information, when companies like Facebook “help” a social movement by facilitating thousands of people putting a rainbow filter over their profile picture the are really studying you as social trend data. You are nothing but a data commodity to these people, and they own your activity to whatever extent it benefits them.Did you even consent to being such a hot commodity?

While there is still something to be said for respecting physical privacy, the more serious privacy concern should be about data aggregation that is tethered to our identity. Practically, there isn’t really a lot you can do with a photo except look at it, which isn’t that damaging; it wont ruin your credit or reveal your web history. In the age of computer technology infiltrating every aspect of life, people need to reshape the way they think about privacy.

Between the amount of information that is constantly being gathered and the power of computing programs these days, I would think people would be more worried that their personal information, habits and preferences are being tracked, analyzed, and monetized, because it seems like there is a new data breach in the news every day. People with drones hardly seem like much of a privacy concern in comparison, right?

http://www.suasnews.com/2015/08/38028/its-the-end-of-privacy-as-we-know-it/

The scary history and future of Brazil’s booming drone market

Posted on by mecicon

dronesalesladies

by Lorien Olive and Orlando de Guzman

Felipe Castro da Silva, an engineer and UAV coordinator with AEL Sistemas, slipped on a black sports jacket as we began our interview. He was talking about the Hermes 900 unmanned aerial vehicle—a UAV or, in more common terminology, drone. A young man with salt and pepper hair, Castro was in Rio de Janeiro’s sprawling RioCentro Mall to dazzle the 40,000 of attendees of the Latin American Aero and Defense Exhibition with details of of Brazil’s newest medium-altitude, long-endurance (MALE) drone. We were next.

“This UAV,” he said, “patrolled the Maracanã Stadium during the 2014 World Cup and will be used again during the 2016 Olympics.” Able to fly for 30 hours uninterrupted, the Hermes 900 can reach altitudes of up to 30,000 feet and is used mainly for surveillance, reconnaissance, and communications relay. From the ground, it is nearly undetectable, he said.

During the World Cup, Castro added, the drone was fitted with a Sky Eye sensor, whose 17 cameras allow security personnel on the ground to track activity in an area of 100 square kilometers. It also has high resolution sensors, able to identify license plates and even faces at 30,000 feet. In terms of its capabilities, the Hermes 900 is comparable to its more notorious American counterpart, the MQ-1 Predator drone.

AEL Sistemas, based in Porto Alegre, became a subsidiary of the Israeli company Elbit in 2001, at which time it began developing a new generation of Brazilian surveillance drones using Israeli technology. But the Hermes 900 was just one example of Brazil’s growing role in the booming global market for unmanned aerial systems. The LAAD expo’s interior was filled with them.

Read more… http://fusion.net/story/187490/brazil-drone-laad-conference/

Participating individuals, non-participating individuals, and the 500 ft bubble.

Posted on by mecicon

500ft-bubble-interesting-man-240x300

This area is causing all sorts of confusion for individuals. How close can you get to people? When can I get within 500ft of a person? Can I fly at a concert or football game? Can I fly over people?

Here is a quote from the exemption from one of my closed-set 333 clients.

“26. All Flight operations must be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures unless:
a. Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons from the UA and/or debris in the event of an accident. The operator must ensure that nonparticipating persons remain under such protection. If a situation arises where nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations must cease immediately in a manner ensuring the safety of nonparticipating persons; and
b. The owner/controller of any vessels, vehicles or structures has granted permission for operating closer to those objects and the PIC has made a safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those objects and determined that it does not present an undue hazard.
The PIC, VO, operator trainees or essential persons are not considered nonparticipating persons under this exemption.”

The exemption does not indicate if this is a slant angle 500ft bubble or a  500ft ground circle. Functionally, there isn’t much of a difference here. If you look at the graph I created, at 200 ft (the max height for a blanket COA), the closest ground distance would be 458.3 ft. There is a 41.7 foot difference in interpretation. The two different interpretations only start mattering once you can start operating above the blanket COA.

The 500ft bubble is a pretty big bubble. Here is a graph of a 500ft slant angle bubble.

graph of 500 foot bubble in 333 exemption

 

This bubble is going to prevent many urban and “in town” operations; however, later in the exemption’s conditions and limitations only applicable to operations for the purpose of closed-set motion picture and television filming and production, it says:

“31. Flight operations may be conducted closer than 500 feet from participating persons consenting to be involved and necessary for the filming production, as specified in the exemption holder’s MPTOM.”

Mere aerial data collection operations do NOT have these conditions. Closed-set acts like an “upgraded” version of aerial data collection.

So then who is a participating individual?

The FAA defines Participating Person/Authorized Person as,  “All persons associated with the filming production must be briefed on the potential risk of the proposed flight operation(s) and they must acknowledge and accept those risks.Nonparticipating persons are the public, spectators, media, etc., not associated with the filming production.”

The only way you are going to get within 500ft is if the people are participating people, you are cleared for closed-set operations, and you are abiding by your motion picture manual.

http://jrupprechtlaw.com/

FAA: Local drone near Obama had Coast Guard, Secret Service on alert

Posted on by mecicon

nicequadclose

Mike Stucka

A branch of the U.S. military had to send a warning about a local drone — because it was flying near President Barack Obama as he played golf.

Newly released reports from the Federal Aviation Administration show that local drone incidents are happening at a rate of about once a month now. The March 29 incident with Obama doesn’t say how close the drone was or whether foul play was suspected.

The U.S. Secret Service called the FAA to report that the U.S. Coast Guard had spotted a drone flying “in the vicinity of POTUS,” the President of the United States. A Coast Guard spokesman in Miami said he had no information on the incident. The Palm Beach Post has filed a Freedom Of Information Act request for records on the incident.

According to The Washington Post, Obama spent that weekend playing at the members-only Floridian National Golf Club in Palm City, across the St. Lucie River from Stuart.

Perhaps the most serious threat came on the evening of July 4, when the risk was a drone rather than errant fireworks. A JetBlue regional jet from Boston saw a black and white drone with four rotors flying at 1,500 feet about three-quarters of a mile south of Palm Beach International. He did not have to take evasive action. That kind of jet can carry about 100 passengers.

And less than two weeks ago, on Aug. 15, the pilot of a Cessna 172 said he passed 100 feet from a quad copter as he was preparing to land. Aircraft traffic controllers redirected traffic to steer them away from the area. The incident happened about 2,000 feet up, or nearly half a mile, with both aircraft at the same height.

The FAA report suggests the incident wasn’t an accident.

“Pilot contacted tower after landing,” the FAA notes, “and stated the drone appeared to have a camera suspended under it and maneuvered to follow the Cessna.”

More drones were suspected of being a threat, both at high altitudes and lower, but close to airport flight paths.

In November, the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office launched helicopters several times in unsuccessful efforts to find drone pilots close to runways. In one Nov. 28 call, deputies spent a half hour looking for a drone flying over the approach end of a Palm Beach International Airport runway. In the November incident, drones were spotted by at least four aircraft, who said the drone was about 700 or 800 feet up. Neither the deputies in the helicopter, nor Palm Beach police officers, found the drone or its pilot.

A month later, deputies spent about 25 minutes looking around U.S. 441 for a drone in the final approach path into Palm Beach International Airport. A caller told the FAA that the drone had been orbiting the area, and the FAA said Palm Beach County deputies were also searching the ground.

Another drone was spotted in April by the pilot of a business jet, who was on his final approach into Palm Beach International when he spotted a drone hovering at 200 feet. He did not have to swerve.

One drone was spotted on the morning of June 15, when a pilot in a single-engine propeller airplane spotted a silvery drone just half a mile north of Palm Beach International, flying at about 1,500 feet. Deputies again flew out to search around Okeechobee Boulevard for the drone and its pilot, but didn’t find either.

Another pilot reported seeing a five-foot long black drone at 13,000 feet over Martin County.

Another pilot in a Gulfstream jet flying to New Jersey said he “came within 20 feet of a good-sized, fast-moving opposite direction white (drone) with wings” at 25,500 feet about 50 miles east of Palm Beach International.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/local/faa-local-drone-near-obama-had-coast-guard-secret-/nnQKN/