I can imagine...
"Dude, I think I crashed your drone on the President!"
A drone crashed into the US White House because the government staffer flying the thing had hit the bottle, according to the New York Times. The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency employee had already 'fessed up to careering the drone into the grounds of Prez Obama's gaff, sparking a security scare. The NYT has now …
Because the White House radar is designed to spot larger threats, such as aircraft or missiles, the drone passed right on by.
Thanks for sharing this information with the Moody Drone Pilots of D.C.
Maybe instead of an investigation, the White House might want to upgrade their radar?
Indeed.
Even if they did regulate something like this, how would they enforce it? At what point do you draw the line between toy and 'unmanned aerial vehicle'?
It'd be impossible to ban the materials to make something like this and prevent people from building them. The only solution I see would be to build a giant mosquito net around the White House to prevent something like this from happening again. Or maybe a ridiculously expensive radar system and a giant laser.
"I have been thinking about this for the better part of a day and I can't come up with something that's under a lb that could reliably do enough damage to be freaking out about."
How about 'international incident'? Wait till there's a scheduled presidential press conference in front of the White House, preferably on a thursday. Send the drone off trailing a small banner with a selection of Very Blasphemous cartoons and parade it behind El Jefe as close as possible to the line of sight for the press corps long focal length lenses. Footage is played globally over and over showing the 'leader of the western world' with a backdrop provided by the cartoonists of Jyllands Posten or Charlie Hebdo as opposed to the usual presidential seal.
By the time the footage and the odd still have been spun and distorted beyond reason via local broadcasters the images will take on a life of their own, a lot of angry people will go ballistic at friday prayers and the US reputation will have taken a good deal of damage - more than enough to get White House PRs freaking out and raise share prices for Pakistani bus manufacturers.
IT
IS
NOT
A
DRONE...
It is a quadcopter....
It is a flying radio controlled aircraft.
It is a flying model
It is a toy.
IT IS NOT A DRONE....
Fucking hell guys, get it right.....
If i crashed my model helicopter into the ground, the story would be "Numb Nuts Crashes RC Model Heli(copter) into the ground. This is no different. So why the "Drone" shit......
What's the difference? When the US drops a bomb from a remote-controlled aircraft, people call it a drone strike. It's remote-controlled over thousands of kilometers, and it contains way more technology; but it's remote-controlled just like a quadcopter… What is a done, then? Does it need an AI?
Assuming the wreck in the picture is of the 'flying machine' in question, I'd argue that it does (at times) classify as a drone.
Wiki for what its worth defines a Drone as : An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), commonly known as a drone and also referred to as an unpiloted aerial vehicle and a remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), is an aircraft without a human pilot aboard.
Oxford Dictionary: A remote-controlled pilotless aircraft or missile.
It's certainly not big enough to have a pilot on board, and when the model in the picture looses signal it attempts to fly home autonomously to its point of departure and land by itself.
Sounds like a drone to me.
To my mind a drone is any flying aircraft with no pilot on board that is capable of making changes to its own flight direction or speed without input from a human operator.
as an example when flying my radio controlled plane if I turn off my transmitter the plane will continue flying in the same direction until the ground or another object gets in its way, this is not a drone.
if I turned off my transmitter and after a short period of no input my plane turned, flew to a designated safe area, circled above the area until it's battery reached a safety limit before gradually descending to hopefully land safely then this meets my definition of a drone
@cornz 1: Obama (allegdely) talked about investigating "unmanned aerial vehicle", which covers... unmanned aerial vehicle as in
- it's flying (that's for "aerial")
- there is no human on/it it ("unmanned" = man/woman to to be sexist)
It may be remote controlled (by radio, laser etc), even by donkeys, it would still be "unmanned aerial vehicle"
Being a children toy, a war toy, is irrelevent.
Drone as a military connotation, but there is a lack of formal definition in the context of "unmanned aerial vehicle".
Ok, and some fair points raised there.
But, the word drone has negative connotations as the total arsehole at the centre of this story has proven.
IF the media story had been "flying toy lands on the whitehouse lawn" then we wouldn't even be discussing this. But no, DRONE, like some *armed/surreptitious spying vehicle flown by someone from afar with an ulterior motive. Whether it be blowing up Taliban (*and or civilians, see point above) or spying on a foreign nation, THAT is the perception of a drone in a lot of peoples minds....
Not the flying toys that take pretty scenic videos for 10 mins whilst their batteries expire.....
I understand your sentiment, but when you get right down to it the biggest difference between expensive quadcopter toys and cheap drones is how they're used. They have drones marketed to police that are, for all intents and purposes, the same thing you might let a 10 year old play with but with a camera strapped to it.
Now imagine that instead of a drunken staffer with a toy this had been a terrorist with one of the police models, only they strip out the camera and replace it with a vial of vx gas (or something else along those lines) and instead of crashing into the ground it crashed through a window. It's not hard to see the concern here.
"only they strip out the camera and replace it with a vial of vx gas (or something else along those lines)"
Except that the Parrot AR can lift less than a pound. What is your vial made out of that you can get enough gas in there to do real harm when released outside in the open air? How did you get the gas in there and then transport it without killing yourselves in the process if your container is that light?
I have been thinking about this for the better part of a day and I can't come up with something that's under a lb that could reliably do enough damage to be freaking out about.
Why must it be a Parrot AR?
The cheaper ones like the Parrot, DJI,and 30QX are designed to lift a Go-Pro with a gimballing mount and not much more.
But for a few hundred more they start to get more capable and there are numerous self build designs, hexacopters which use more powerful motors.
If you only need 1 minute of flight time then these could easily carry a significant quantity of plastic explosive.
I would probably have got more from the article had not half the text been hidden by a popover ad (Galaxy Tab 2). Hitting the close button got me a 'What was wrong with this ad?' Questionnaire, but unfortunately 'It's in the fucking way!' wasn't one of the options. Still, at least the ad closed and left only an empty box floating over the same sodding area of the page.
Chaps, I'm all for monetisation, but could we get to see the ads AND the article?