FAA Moves Toward Creating 6 Drone Test Sites in US......

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a major step toward opening U.S. skies to thousands of unmanned drones, federal officials Thursday solicited proposals to create six drone test sites around the country.
The Federal Aviation Administration also posted online a draft plan for protecting people's privacy from the eyes in the sky. The plan would require each test site to follow federal and state laws and make a privacy policy publicly available.



The FAA is required by a law enacted a year ago to develop sites where civilian and military drones can be tested in preparation for integration into U.S. airspace that's currently limited to manned aircraft.
The law also requires that the FAA allow drones wide access to U.S. airspace by 2015, but the agency is behind schedule, and it's doubtful it will meet the deadline, the Transportation Department's inspector general said in a report last year.

The test sites are also expected to boost the local economy of the communities where they are located. About two dozen government-industry partnerships have been formed over the past year to compete for the sites.

The FAA plans to begin integrating drones starting with small aircraft weighing less than about 55 pounds. The agency forecasts an estimated 10,000 civilian drones will be in use in the U.S. within five years.....snip~

FAA moves toward creating 6 drone test sites in US - Yahoo! News
Associated Press – 3 hrs ago Feb 15 2013<<<<< More here, way more.

First there was a discussion on Drones being used to take out Americans overseas. Then due to all the coverage over the Issue, we had Diane Deinstein waste the Taxpayers money and time talking about creating a New Court System over the issue. While knowing that the idea was going absolutely nowhere with even the Senate alone.

Now they are going to open up all of our Sky.....over the entire Nation for drones. If none were not worried about the Military. What are your thoughts about Police and LE's all across the country having such access? Now think about private industry and people having drones for their own purposes even for recreational use. Will this help to strip Americans of more of their Privacy?

What about the technology? Meaning should any crash and others from Foreign countries being able to have access to the Technology?

Wouldn't all of your objections to drones apply equally to manned aircraft? The military, police and private citizens can already fly planes and helicopters over private land and I don't believe there are any regulations around small remote-control vehicles flying at heights below regulated airspace. Why are drone aircraft automatically of any greater concern?

Well there is this.....I thought this might catch some attention.

The Customs and Border Patrol uses drones along the U.S.-Mexico border. And the FAA has granted several hundred permits to universities, police departments and other government agencies to use small, low-flying drones. For example, the sheriff's department in Montgomery County, Texas, has a 50-pound ShadowHawk helicopter drone intended to supplement its SWAT team.

The sheriff's department hasn't armed its drone, although the ShadowHawk can be equipped with a 40 mm grenade launcher and a 12-guage shotgun. The prospect of armed drones patrolling U.S. skies has alarmed some lawmakers and their constituents. More than a dozen bills have been introduced in Congress and state legislatures to curb drone use and protect privacy.....snip~

HonestJoe said:

Wouldn't all of your objections to drones apply equally to manned aircraft? The military, police and private citizens can already fly planes and helicopters over private land and I don't believe there are any regulations around small remote-control vehicles flying at heights below regulated airspace. Why are drone aircraft automatically of any greater concern?

Click to expand...

Everything in your post makes perfect sense. It still is something I think is a bad idea just because of its potential for abuse.

I saw only one reference to the intended LE use, to supplement SWAT teams, which seems doubtful, at best. The real need, IMHO, is for LE provided credible witnesses to combat the "code of the hood" against "snitching". Fixed cameras in "the hood" would be quickly disabled yet these roving drone patrols could cover the gang turf and add that all important witness to these high crime (no witness) zones. While I see potential for abuse, I also see these tools as being effective for many crime fighting things that are now impossible without them.

Potential civilian users are as varied as the drones themselves. Power companies want them to monitor transmission lines. Farmers want to fly them over fields to detect which crops need water. Ranchers want them to count cows. Film companies want to use drones to help make movies. Journalists are exploring drones' newsgathering potential.

Click to expand...

As a law abiding citizen, I see little down side (beyond cost), for allowing the LE community to use this technology. As long as they remain unarmed, I see no reason to fear their use.

Fisher said:

Everything in your post makes perfect sense. It still is something I think is a bad idea just because of its potential for abuse.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry to be blunt but that's just irrational. All tools used by the military or police have the potential for misuse, some of them much more easily and significantly than drones and some, as you've just agreed, exactly the same potential. Do you think they should be banned from using guns, cars, the power of arrest or, of course, piloted aircraft. Obviously there needs to be proper laws and regulations, monitoring and control but that's no different to the use of any of these other things.

This all boils down to the baggage attached to the word drone because of their (not unreasonably) controversial use in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan. There is an entirely emotive response that links the big scary drone plane with guns and bombs that kills people with the small, remote-controlled helicopter with a camera that stops people getting killed.

Of course, the general aggressive anti-police trend that seem to running through US society at the moment probably doesn't held. The could have a magic wand the ends all crime and someone would have something nasty to say about it.

HonestJoe said:

I'm sorry to be blunt but that's just irrational. All tools used by the military or police have the potential for misuse, some of them much more easily and significantly than drones and some, as you've just agreed, exactly the same potential. Do you think they should be banned from using guns, cars, the power of arrest or, of course, piloted aircraft. Obviously there needs to be proper laws and regulations, monitoring and control but that's no different to the use of any of these other things.

This all boils down to the baggage attached to the word drone because of their (not unreasonably) controversial use in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan. There is an entirely emotive response that links the big scary drone plane with guns and bombs that kills people with the small, remote-controlled helicopter with a camera that stops people getting killed.

Of course, the general aggressive anti-police trend that seem to running through US society at the moment probably doesn't held. The could have a magic wand the ends all crime and someone would have something nasty to say about it.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it is irrational, but I do not want the zoning drone hovering behind my house looking at all the things I have improperly stored like *gasp* a gas can left sitting outside.

Fisher said:

Perhaps it is irrational, but I do not want the zoning drone hovering behind my house looking at all the things I have improperly stored like *gasp* a gas can left sitting outside.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's irrational. You're really not important enough for them to waste an expensive piece of equipment checking petty stuff like that, especially since there are plenty of much easier way they could achieve the same thing if they really wanted.

Of course, if your irrational fear means you properly store your gas canisters in future, that's not an entirely bad thing.

HonestJoe said:

Yes, that's irrational. You're really not important enough for them to waste an expensive piece of equipment checking petty stuff like that, especially since there are plenty of much easier way they could achieve the same thing if they really wanted.

Of course, if your irrational fear means you properly store your gas canisters in future, that's not an entirely bad thing.

Click to expand...

no it is not irrational. my city has people whose job it is to drive around all day searching for any zoning violations that can be seen from the street. I see the zoning patrols far more often than I see the po po in my neighborhood.

Fisher said:

no it is not irrational. my city has people whose job it is to drive around all day searching for any zoning violations that can be seen from the street. I see the zoning patrols far more often than I see the po po in my neighborhood.

Click to expand...

So your objection isn't about drones, it's about the principal of zoning patrols. If they did use drones to do that work, it's wouldn't be an abuse of drones that means nobody should be allowed to use them any more than how they currently do it is an abuse of cars meaning nobody should be allowed to use them. Of course they could already do exactly what you're concerned about using helicopters, which presumably you'd like banned too?

My point stands - your objection to drones as an available tool in general is irrational. Your objection to specific actions or procedures may not be but that isn't exclusive to drone technology.

My main concern is the operators of these drones. Anyone flying a drone at an altitude that could endanger people in manned aircraft needs to meet strict training requirements. The drones should be required to have anticollision lights to ensure manned aircraft can see them and transponders so the FAA ATCs can track them. Other than that, I don't have a problem with drones in US airspace.

ttwtt78640 said:

I saw only one reference to the intended LE use, to supplement SWAT teams, which seems doubtful, at best. The real need, IMHO, is for LE provided credible witnesses to combat the "code of the hood" against "snitching". Fixed cameras in "the hood" would be quickly disabled yet these roving drone patrols could cover the gang turf and add that all important witness to these high crime (no witness) zones. While I see potential for abuse, I also see these tools as being effective for many crime fighting things that are now impossible without them.

As a law abiding citizen, I see little down side (beyond cost), for allowing the LE community to use this technology. As long as they remain unarmed, I see no reason to fear their use.

Click to expand...

Heya T, One of my concerns would be for those Gang organizations to get a hole of the Technology. Not so much just the bangers. Also although being private, we know about how Corporate Espionage works. So this would open up more into that aspect of their game. (Game for whatever they are into)

MMC said:

Heya T, One of my concerns would be for those Gang organizations to get a hole of the Technology. Not so much just the bangers. Also although being private, we know about how Corporate Espionage works. So this would open up more into that aspect of their game. (Game for whatever they are into)

Click to expand...

Yep. Gangs/cartels often "employ" LEOs to keep their business ventures "safe" and to protect their established territories. Why buy and man that which you can rent (contract?) for a resonable rate?

ttwtt78640 said:

Yep. Gangs/cartels often "employ" LEOs to keep their business ventures "safe" and to protect their established territories. Why buy and man that which you can rent (contract?) for a resonable rate?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I see ya saw where I was going with this. Like Guzmans Cartel who provides drugs for Chicago and other cities. Which using the Like of the Latin Kings. I wouldn't expect that it would be long where they would be offered tech to counter L.E.

MMC said:

Yeah, I see ya saw where I was going with this. Like Guzmans Cartel who provides drugs for Chicago and other cities. Which using the Like of the Latin Kings. I wouldn't expect that it would be long where they would be offered tech to counter L.E.

Click to expand...

Not only the tech but personnel to man it. Money makes the world go around. I would bet that 10% to 25% of police get some "not so legal" perks for "on the job favors".

HonestJoe said:

I'm sorry to be blunt but that's just irrational. All tools used by the military or police have the potential for misuse, some of them much more easily and significantly than drones and some, as you've just agreed, exactly the same potential. Do you think they should be banned from using guns, cars, the power of arrest or, of course, piloted aircraft. Obviously there needs to be proper laws and regulations, monitoring and control but that's no different to the use of any of these other things.

This all boils down to the baggage attached to the word drone because of their (not unreasonably) controversial use in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan. There is an entirely emotive response that links the big scary drone plane with guns and bombs that kills people with the small, remote-controlled helicopter with a camera that stops people getting killed.

Of course, the general aggressive anti-police trend that seem to running through US society at the moment probably doesn't held. The could have a magic wand the ends all crime and someone would have something nasty to say about it.

Click to expand...

Maybe the "general aggressive anti-police trend that seem to running through US society at the moment" is not without some justification. Too much trust in government, as in man himself, is not a good thing.
And Your Little Dog, Too - Deroy Murdock - National Review Online

HonestJoe said:

Wouldn't all of your objections to drones apply equally to manned aircraft? The military, police and private citizens can already fly planes and helicopters over private land and I don't believe there are any regulations around small remote-control vehicles flying at heights below regulated airspace. Why are drone aircraft automatically of any greater concern?

Click to expand...

Yeah, the fact that they do suspect things already doesn't really excuse exacerbating the problem.

ttwtt78640 said:

Not only the tech but personnel to man it. Money makes the world go around. I would bet that 10% to 25% of police get some "not so legal" perks for "on the job favors".

Click to expand...

:2razz: Well when it is Chicago.....U know that saying about when in Rome! Moreover we know one of the cartels had hackers and they took on Anonymous and killed like 3 of their people.

Grant said:

Maybe the "general aggressive anti-police trend that seem to running through US society at the moment" is not without some justification. Too much trust in government, as in man himself, is not a good thing.

Click to expand...

The failures and corruption of some police isn't justification to be anti all police. That's like treating all Americans as ignorant red-necks.

If you consider the police in general so fundamentally corrupt that it's impossible to even consider permitting them to use any kind of drone vehicle what-so-ever though, why wouldn't you call them to be prevented from using much more dangerous tools or resources, such as guns, cars and the power to arrest and hold people? The objections inferred in this thread (because they've not been explained) really don't sound like a serious consideration of the matter in question with public safety and effective policing in mind. They sound like a knee-jerk reaction.

HonestJoe said:

The failures and corruption of some police isn't justification to be anti all police. That's like treating all Americans as ignorant red-necks.

Click to expand...

That was not my claim. The thing is that every government organization has to be held responsible and in check.

We can't just 'trust' the police, or politicians, they have to continue to earn our trust all year long. Do you have an alternative?

If you consider the police in general so fundamentally corrupt that it's impossible to even consider permitting them to use any kind of drone vehicle what-so-ever though, why wouldn't you call them to be prevented from using much more dangerous tools or resources, such as guns, cars and the power to arrest and hold people?

Click to expand...

I never said that the police are fundamentally corrupt. You are either ignoring the post or willfully changing it to suit whatever agenda you may have.

Grant said:

That was not my claim.

Click to expand...

You suggested the anti-police (in general terms and thus against all police) could be justified on the basis of some individual incidents. Such a response is inevitable human nature but that doesn't make it in any way justified. It works both ways of course. If lots of citizens treat police officers like trash, it isn't going to encourage police officers to treat citizens they deal with respectfully.

Grant said:

The thing is that every government organization has to be held responsible and in check.

We can't just 'trust' the police, or politicians, they have to continue to earn our trust all year long. Do you have an alternative?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure need one - I pretty much agree with everything you say there.

Grant said:

I never said that the police are fundamentally corrupt. You are either ignoring the post or willfully changing it to suit whatever agenda you may have.

Click to expand...

Sorry, that wasn't a personal "you", it was in reference to the people in this thread who are objecting to police using drones on the basis of their general dis-trust (often hatred IMO) of the police.

HonestJoe said:

...it was in reference to the people in this thread who are objecting to police using drones on the basis of their general dis-trust (often hatred IMO) of the police.

Click to expand...

Exactly. The kind of drones the police might use are little more than RC airplanes. Not nearly as dangerous as the AR-15s we already entrust the police with. If we can't trust the police with drones, then we oughta be looking at the people, not the equipment they use. As much as some people hate the police, we still need them. And they need to have the gear necessary to do the job as well as they can.

HonestJoe said:

You suggested the anti-police (in general terms and thus against all police) could be justified on the basis of some individual incidents. Such a response is inevitable human nature but that doesn't make it in any way justified. It works both ways of course. If lots of citizens treat police officers like trash, it isn't going to encourage police officers to treat citizens they deal with respectfully.

Click to expand...

If you're going to debate what i 'suggest" rather than what I say it will make debate very difficult. You can then interpret whatever I say, or what anyone says, in any number of ways.
I'm not sure need one - I pretty much agree with everything you say there.

Sorry, that wasn't a personal "you", it was in reference to the people in this thread who are objecting to police using drones on the basis of their general dis-trust (often hatred IMO) of the police.

Click to expand...

"Hatred" appears more frequently in these debates and am wondering how that started. Do you sincerely believe there are a great number of honest people who 'hate' the police? I've heard the same thing applied to people who only laugh at Barrack Obama. It's a word which could be used less seldom or it might go the way of 'fascist' or 'racist' where the word eventually comes to mean nothing.

Grant said:

If you're going to debate what i 'suggest" rather than what I say it will make debate very difficult.

Click to expand...

It's what I got from your posts. You're free to clarify your position if you like.

Grant said:

"Hatred" appears more frequently in these debates and am wondering how that started. Do you sincerely believe there are a great number of honest people who 'hate' the police?

Click to expand...

I not sure there are all that many honest people out there anyway but I do think an not insignificant number of people have a literal hatred of "the police" as an abstract concept. "The police" stop them for speeding or drink driving, "the police" don't turn up immediately when they make a none-emergency call, "the police" don't stop those kids hanging out on the street corner. Put on top of that the generally negative news reports (because a police officer doing something wrong makes "better" news than hundreds doing something right) and it's easy to see how the easily influence could develop a hatred.

Such hatred is much less likely to be reflected on to individuals and it's obviously much easier and safer to rant on an anonymous forum than do anything in real life but I don't think that makes it any less hatred.