Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
1989 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 171

Trusted

  # 1402245 8-Oct-2015 10:38
Send private message

Thanks for that .... red tape ensues tongue-out

541 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 126

Subscriber

  # 1402246 8-Oct-2015 10:38
Send private message

networkn:
frankv:
freitasm: I think it hilarious that one needs to file a flight plan with Airshare because Wellington is mostly controlled air space.


I'm not so amused. CAA has a bad reputation of overstepping its authority.




You might not feel so outraged if someone you know was in an aircraft who had one of these little devices sucked through an engine or interfering with passenger plane flights. If you don't think this is a real risk, not sure what to tell you.



Drones are no worse than bird strike and the engines on an aircraft are rated to survive bird strike. And your far more likely to have a flock of birds than you are a flock of quads hitting a aircraft.
This is a good read from an actual commercial aircraft pilot https://jethead.wordpress.com/2015/08/08/airliners-vs-drones-calm-down/




Geoff E

 
 
 
 


1370 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 284

Subscriber

  # 1402291 8-Oct-2015 12:03
Send private message

wellygary:
mattwnz: It does seem that councils at least aren't that aware of this law, or have been caught out.

Yip, and you wait until they go and "consult" with residents and interested parties,

recreation drones are about to get majorly grounded in NZ, until eventually, after being bugged by drone owners, the Councils will demand that the goverment goes away and sets a national standard,

Something it should have worked out in the announcement the comes into effect tomorrow, .....

But hey, It always easier as a goverment department to say, nope its someone elses problem.....

I assume this law is for two reasons: 

1 - Safety - not crashing something with whirling blades into kids and other people, or not crashing it into low flying aeroplanes etc.
2 - Privacy - The peeping toms in rolleston being a prime example. Peering through peoples windows etc.

It raises a question - Google earth, catching people sun bathing, satellites, photo recon planes, geo mapping from a plane  / aircraft / helicopter / scenic helicopters flights. retc etc.

Where does the demarcation of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable lay?

 

  • Should google be getting my permission to photograph my back yard for google earth or is it high enough not to show anything in too much detail. 
  • Photo recon / I believe the council uses some form of it for tracking both new erections (yes I am aware it is a funny word but it is what they call them)  for rates and permitting and also for checking who put out their recycling bins etc in time. 
  • All the new camera equipment on top of traffic lights / speed cameras 
  • Geo mapping photos for Dept Lands and Survey

Is an over head view okay as long as the angle isn't too oblique?   where does the boundary lay?







nunz

5385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2213


  # 1402391 8-Oct-2015 13:34
Send private message

True.

hashbrown: Key words "endanger property". Drone = someone's property.




Mike

5385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2213


  # 1402395 8-Oct-2015 13:39
Send private message

I think a key difference is that it's hard to use a bird maliciously against an aircraft, but would it would be relatively simple to weaponise a drone.

Maybe one day we will see airport security drone cordons that protect airports from potentially malicious drones.


Drones are no worse than bird strike and the engines on an aircraft are rated to survive bird strike. And your far more likely to have a flock of birds than you are a flock of quads hitting a aircraft.
This is a good read from an actual commercial aircraft pilot https://jethead.wordpress.com/2015/08/08/airliners-vs-drones-calm-down/




Mike

541 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 126

Subscriber

  # 1402401 8-Oct-2015 13:45
Send private message

MikeAqua: I think a key difference is that it's hard to use a bird maliciously against an aircraft, but would it would be relatively simple to weaponise a drone.

Maybe one day we will see airport security drone cordons that protect airports from potentially malicious drones.


Drones are no worse than bird strike and the engines on an aircraft are rated to survive bird strike. And your far more likely to have a flock of birds than you are a flock of quads hitting a aircraft.
This is a good read from an actual commercial aircraft pilot https://jethead.wordpress.com/2015/08/08/airliners-vs-drones-calm-down/


But you will never be able to set a law that can stop this. This sort of problem is nothing new you can weaponise almost anything if you put enough thought into it.




Geoff E



14958 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2046


  # 1402404 8-Oct-2015 13:49
Send private message

I have noticed a lot of real estate photos now use overhead photos of properties. These are likely to have been taken with drones, and taken above  someone elses property or from above the road, as they often show the entire property. I wonder if all the agents are getting permission to take them.

 
 
 
 


454 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 95

Trusted

  # 1402409 8-Oct-2015 13:52
Send private message

MikeAqua: I think a key difference is that it's hard to use a bird maliciously against an aircraft, but would it would be relatively simple to weaponise a drone.

Maybe one day we will see airport security drone cordons that protect airports from potentially malicious drones.


It's damn easy site easier to weaponise a radio controlled car than a flying drone, and we've hardly seen a rash of carbombings via RC Cars since RC got cheap.

I think that getting most drone to deliberately intercept a flying aircraft would be tricky at best.  A lot harder than the RC car example anyway.  Possibly less so for helicopters, as you just have to get above them while they are on the ground.




Warning: reality may differ from above post

1370 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 284

Subscriber

  # 1402452 8-Oct-2015 14:37
Send private message

qyiet:
MikeAqua: I think a key difference is that it's hard to use a bird maliciously against an aircraft, but would it would be relatively simple to weaponise a drone.

Maybe one day we will see airport security drone cordons that protect airports from potentially malicious drones.


It's damn easy site easier to weaponise a radio controlled car than a flying drone, and we've hardly seen a rash of carbombings via RC Cars since RC got cheap.

I think that getting most drone to deliberately intercept a flying aircraft would be tricky at best.  A lot harder than the RC car example anyway.  Possibly less so for helicopters, as you just have to get above them while they are on the ground.


REALLY BIG DISCLAIMER HERE: I am not a terrorist, I don't not write this to encourage terrorism and I in no way endorse this behaviour. if this gets seen by law enforcement, please use it to add another way to protect our people.

An RC car is hard to get on target.as you have no line of sight and have to work around obsticles like people to get it near a target - it has been tried overseas.  A drone is a different matter. 

In NZ it is easy to get within 200-300 meters of a plane about to take off.   Put a magnetic clamp on a drone. Pack it with a small amount of explosive (500g),. When the plane is lined up to taxi - at end of run way, less than 200 meters from you, fly drone to the inlet of the planes motor, or its wheel stays or wheel bay or ... you get the idea.

Set up drone that when it loses signal (at around end of runway distance for example) , or in 1 minutes from loss of signal the clamp lets go (if near engine input) and explosive goes off. Particularly devastating if it happen within the first 400- 600 vertical feet of take off. THere is very little chance of recovery at that point - its every poilots nightmare to loose power then as you cant turn back and you need power to continue to climb.

In NZ this would be a disturbingly easy thing to do - and all that someone needs to do is adapt the concepts used by magnetic mines and / or dead mans switch which has been used ad-nauseum by terrorists.

A drone is an excellent delivery vehicle to get to planes - between the plane being inspected and leaving the terminal and before it takes off.  With a lift capacity of two- 3KGs it can carry the requisite materials to do a lot of harm.

After that time frame, it would be very difficult to make it happen in mid flight.

Again - not in anyway endorsing this action but if I guy like me can think this through - then so can other people who spend way too much time planning crud like this.




nunz

1515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 354


  # 1402468 8-Oct-2015 15:11
Send private message

A composite/aluminium bodied plane may not have quite the same magnetic attraction as a steel-hulled vessel or vehicle for your magnetic mine. Cool story tho.

1370 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 284

Subscriber

  # 1402511 8-Oct-2015 15:53
Send private message

1eStar: A composite/aluminium bodied plane may not have quite the same magnetic attraction as a steel-hulled vessel or vehicle for your magnetic mine. Cool story tho.


Agreed  - they had similar problems with aluminium or other hulled boats. Quick acting epoxy / superglue type attachment with detachable payload or mini drill down clamps have been used. Clamps /vacuum systems for use with aluminium costs under $10.00.

The magents may also attach to the inner bracing of the engine. Its not all aluminium.

Also one reason that I suggested wheel housing. Lots of steel inside there. 






nunz

3085 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 500

Trusted
Subscriber

  # 1402543 8-Oct-2015 16:37
One person supports this post
Send private message

geocom: 
Drones are no worse than bird strike and the engines on an aircraft are rated to survive bird strike. And your far more likely to have a flock of birds than you are a flock of quads hitting a aircraft.
This is a good read from an actual commercial aircraft pilot https://jethead.wordpress.com/2015/08/08/airliners-vs-drones-calm-down/


Maybe so, but birds don't have a lithium polymer battery with a non-zero chance of going boom when sucked into a jet turbine. Even if the chance is negligible, unless it's zero I wouldn't be happy letting them near jet engines.

541 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 126

Subscriber

  # 1402545 8-Oct-2015 16:40
Send private message

Kyanar:
geocom: 
Drones are no worse than bird strike and the engines on an aircraft are rated to survive bird strike. And your far more likely to have a flock of birds than you are a flock of quads hitting a aircraft.
This is a good read from an actual commercial aircraft pilot https://jethead.wordpress.com/2015/08/08/airliners-vs-drones-calm-down/


Maybe so, but birds don't have a lithium polymer battery with a non-zero chance of going boom when sucked into a jet turbine. Even if the chance is negligible, unless it's zero I wouldn't be happy letting them near jet engines.


Jet engines already suck in a liquid that burns what difference is a lipo going to make. Lipos burn when punctured they don't just explode.




Geoff E

3085 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 500

Trusted
Subscriber

  # 1402554 8-Oct-2015 16:50
Send private message

geocom: 

Jet engines already suck in a liquid that burns what difference is a lipo going to make. Lipos burn when punctured they don't just explode.


The difference is the stuff that burns in an engine burns in places designed for it to burn. They are probably not designed to have metal objects sucked into the turbine with various electrical stuff including batteries (which can explode - despite what you'd like to believe).

541 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 126

Subscriber

  # 1402570 8-Oct-2015 17:19
Send private message

Kyanar:
geocom: 

Jet engines already suck in a liquid that burns what difference is a lipo going to make. Lipos burn when punctured they don't just explode.


The difference is the stuff that burns in an engine burns in places designed for it to burn. They are probably not designed to have metal objects sucked into the turbine with various electrical stuff including batteries (which can explode - despite what you'd like to believe).


Its an explosion in the same way that lighting a match is. 

Birds also cause there to be metal fragments in the engine as they break the compressor fans on there way in.

Aircraft today are designed to operate with one engine down. One of the better know bird strike incidents is the hudson landing. In this case he hit a flock of birds which went into both engines. 

http://gizmodo.com/could-a-jet-engine-withstand-a-drone-1690833795




Geoff E

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter and LinkedIn »



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Dunedin selects Telensa to deliver smart street lighting for 15,000 LEDs
Posted 18-Jul-2019 10:21


Sprint announces a connected wallet card with built-in IoT support
Posted 18-Jul-2019 08:36


Educational tool developed at Otago makes international launch
Posted 17-Jul-2019 21:57


Symantec introduces cloud access security solution
Posted 17-Jul-2019 21:48


New Zealand government unveils new digital service to make business easier
Posted 16-Jul-2019 17:35


Scientists unveil image of quantum entanglement
Posted 13-Jul-2019 06:00


Hackers to be challenged at University of Waikato
Posted 12-Jul-2019 21:34


OPPO Reno Z now available in New Zealand
Posted 12-Jul-2019 21:28


Sony introduces WF-1000XM3 wireless headphones with noise cancellation
Posted 8-Jul-2019 16:56


Xero announces new smarter tools, push into the North American market
Posted 19-Jun-2019 17:20


New report by Unisys shows New Zealanders want action by social platform companies and police to monitor social media sites
Posted 19-Jun-2019 17:09


ASB adds Google Pay option to contactless payments
Posted 19-Jun-2019 17:05


New Zealand PC Market declines on the back of high channel inventory, IDC reports
Posted 18-Jun-2019 17:35


Air New Zealand uses drones to inspect aircraft
Posted 17-Jun-2019 15:39


TCL Electronics launches its first-ever 8K TV
Posted 17-Jun-2019 15:18



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.