Drones - Threat or Menace

[Optimistic Paranoid]

News report today about a Delta Airlines flight landing at JFK reporting sighting a drone within a hundred feet while on final approach.  This is close enough that it could have been sucked into an engine, causing catastrophic engine failure.

It is, of course, illegal to be flying a drone near an airport.  If they catch this bozo, he could be looking at jail time.

But now I have to wonder:  how long until the jihadis realize that drones can be a cheap and effective way to bring down airliners?

And nothing the government can do to supress the technology, it's already too widespread.  The Djinn is out of the bottle.

Regards
John

 

[ramblingvanman]

I say they are both a threat and a menace. Outlaw drone use in the USA except to assist border patrol if they ever decide to actually start protecting our borders.

 

[LeeRevell]

ANYTHING can be "weaponized".  This is like the rabid antigun thing - they will try to outlaw the inanimate object being misused, instead of going after those misusing it.  Make the penalties for that misuse severe, but don't outlaw something that 99% of it's users are using safely.
Remember, lots of vans have been used as rolling bombs to kill people - should we therefore ban vans?  

 

[ramblingvanman]

ANYTHING can be "weaponized".  This is like the rabid antigun thing - they will try to outlaw the inanimate object being misused, instead of going after those misusing it.  Make the penalties for that misuse severe, but don't outlaw something that 99% of it's users are using safely.
Remember, lots of vans have been used as rolling bombs to kill people - should we therefore ban vans?  

Valid point. I stand corrected.

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

ANYTHING can be "weaponized".  This is like the rabid antigun thing - they will try to outlaw the inanimate object being misused, instead of going after those misusing it.  Make the penalties for that misuse severe, but don't outlaw something that 99% of it's users are using safely.
Remember, lots of vans have been used as rolling bombs to kill people - should we therefore ban vans?  

Lee, I happen to be a rabid Pro-2nd type myself.

The van thing is a strawman argument - all kinds of vehicles - cars, pickup trucks, vans, ambulances, hearses, U-Haul trucks, etc. - can be used to make car bombs.  There is no way they can outlaw motor vehicles.

Lets note that they HAVE tried to severely restrict access to explosives.  I have on one of my bookshelves a reprint of a USDA manual for farmers on the safe and effective use of dynamite for blowing stumps, dealing with ice jams, making post holes, etc.  Apparently, it USED to be possible for a citizen to simply go into a hardware store and buy dynamite and blasting caps when he had a need for them. I'm not sure when the restrictions went into place.  Maybe when the depression caused a rash of bank robberies?  The bank robbers were using it to blow bank vaults?

Nobody is suggesting that explosives should be freely available and that we should simply have laws to punish people who misuses them.

And remember, with the jihadis, they WELCOME martyrdom.  No law would keep them from misusing drones to bring down airliners.

I'm also not suggesting that we outlaw drones - although I think the politicians will do just that after one or two airliners go down.  It won't do any good, but they will have an overwhelming need to be seen as DOING SOMETHING!

Many of the jihadi bomb makers are trained engineers, and I don't think they will have any trouble constructing their own drones from off the shelf components.

I would also expect them to operate near European airports, targeting incoming American and Israeli aircraft.

At this point, I'm mostly just pissed at the idiots who are misusing them near the airports and getting all this publicity.  This will definitely attract the jihadis attention and give them ideas.

I recall that there were no skyjackings until after some TV show used it in a plot.  (Was it Rod Serling in a Twighlight Zone episode?)  After that, we had a rash of skyjackings.

Welcome to interesting times.

Regards
John

 

[LeeRevell]

Yep, which is why those idiots need to be punished.  It's like any other 'toy'.  Use it as it is designed, no problem.  Use it stupidly, big problem!
And my van comparison is totally valid, as for any vehicle.  A two ton vehicle makes a dandy weapon, even if not loaded with explosives (which are amazingly simple to concoct) - but no reason to take away our vehicles.  Society suffers when the 99% of good folks are penalized for the antics of the 1%. 
I have been somewhat interested in the RC aircraft and quadcopters myself - just haven't spent the money yet.  But I danged sure won't be buzzing my neighbors.......   
My hunting buddies have been considering their use to survey and plot locations on our hunting lease.  Easy to find suitable blind locations from the air, without having to waste gas driving all over.

 

[Canine]

I can see a big potential for problems here.But then again,about anything can be mis-used.My hobbies are archery,rifle target shooting and hunting.All of which have been abused by the people.Should personal drones be regulated as to size,HP,armed,invasion of privacy protections?If they are to be regulated,it should be done soon.Hard to put the Genie back in the bottle.

 

[Canine]

Beg Pardon.The sentence should have read"All of which have been abused by SOME people".

 

[LeeRevell]

There are a lot of youtube videos of huge RC airplanes.  They could carry enough load to be very danderous indeed.  Far more so than these little quadcopters.  Some could carry a child aloft!  And the jet models would make good missiles.
The legal wrangling could get messy indeed.

 

[highdesertranger]

as far as explosives go. before 9-11 they where fairly easy to get. since 9-11 very hard. same with most of the chemicals to make them. highdesertranger

 

[WriterMs]

Because of the discussions on the thread about the KY man arrested for shooting down a menacing drone (and NO, no one on that thread was in favor of shooting one except with a water hose!), I have been thinking about the problems/benefits, too.

One thought was that we license ham radio operators, so couldn't drone operators be licensed, too? If they were licensed and there was a serial number visible, it might cut down on pranksters or peeping toms since the drone itself could be traced. I don't have a clue if that would help.

For harassment of people, I think simple laws like the one in FL that have hefty fines for violating someone's right to privacy is a GOOD way to go.

My thought on the terrorist threat is this: yes, we are very concerned about drones around airplanes but how easy would it be to guide one accurately into a jet's engine if a terrorist was TRYING to do that? I think the FAA is worried because of the sheer number of drones in the airports' air spaces. But for a person or group to have one drone that they attempt to use to kill an engine? Not easy I would guess. If they had a group of three or four? Yikes.

 

[Spirituallifetime]

These people flying rc planes in a reckless maner will destroy a hobby that has been enjoyed by many people!

I've thought about trying flying hobby airplanes but am concerned that they are wrongly being classified as drones! Drones use GPS and software and controlled from locations anywhere in the world. Hobby rc aircraft are controlled from a location within site of it.

 

[LeeRevell]

It's going to cause major headaches trying to define a legal distinction between "licensed drones" and hobby RC aircraft.  Where does one begin and end and the other take over?