Civil UAV Capability Assessment

[sgmgrumpy]

LA County Sheriff's Office was one of the first to try and incorporate UAV ops into law enforcement, but after the FAA shut em dowm over the LOS/500ft rule or at least it is still running into problems with airspace control. I was wondering if any other departments were running or planning to add a UAV Fixed wing or rotary capable ops cell into their public safety sections either LE or FR.

Civil UAV Capability Assessment (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/111760main_UAV_Assessment_Report_Overview.pdf)


Potential Civil Applications

The suitability of UAVs in “dull, dirty and dangerous” missions, the increasing success of
UAVs in service and demonstration, the increases in payload capability of more recent
Many technology forecasting publications have cited a wide range of applications that
include UAVs taking on new missions, replacing the methods for existing missions and
adding a new dimension to existing missions. Examples of these missions include:
• Border & Costal Patrol and Monitoring
• Homeland Security
• Law Enforcement & Disaster Operations
• Digital Mapping & Planning/Land Management
• Search & Rescue
• Fire Detection and Firefighting Management
• Communications and Broadcast Services
• Precision Agriculture and Fisheries
• Ground Transportation Monitoring and Control
• Satellite Augmentation Systems
• Air Traffic Control Support
• Power Transmission line Monitoring
• Environmental Research & Air Quality Management/Control

Major civil and commercial market barriers include:
• Lack of airspace regulation that covers all types of UAV systems (encompassing
‘sense and avoid’, airspace integration and airworthiness issues)
• Affordability - price and customization issues (e.g. commercial off-the-shelf, open
modular architecture)
• Efforts to establish joint customer requirements
• Liability for civil operation
• Capacity for payload flexibility
• Sensor technology and miniaturization
• Lack of secure non-military frequency for civil operation
• Perceived reliability (e.g. vehicle attrition rate vs. manned aircraft)
• Operator training issues
• Recognition/customer perception
• Technology developments for multi-mission capability
• International barriers for use


Los Angeles Sheriff's UAV Runs Headfirst Into the FAA (http://lemonodor.com/archives/001405.html)


“A private citizen can go to the store and buy one of those model airplanes and fly them around. But because we're doing it as a public service, we have to deal with the FAA?” said Sheriff's Cmdr. Sid Heal. Once they “take a deep breath and realize there was no malice intended, it will get back on track.”




NEW! SR20 flying R34 code.
This flight demonstrates an autonomous take off, hovering maneuvers, fast forward flight (25 knots) and autonomous landing

DEMO VIDEO
http://www.rotomotion.com/downloads/SR20_R34_small.mov

Website
http://www.rotomotion.com

[120mm]

I can see the need for extremely small UAVs, but the entire non-military UAV concept runs into serious problems when you consider how cheaply you can purchase the services of a living, breathing, thinking pilot.

In short, most pilots will "fly for food" due to their emotional attachment to their profession. The also give you a level of flexibility that would be difficult to impossible to match in a UAV for any price.

There is also an "over-professionalization/militarization of police forces" issue here. While it would take more than a short post to an internet forum to explain fully, I believe that police forces in the US are becoming much too professional in nature and this professionalization damages the participatory nature of the democratic representative republic. UAVs are just one more step to excluding "civilians" from participation in law enforcement.

[slapout9]

I believe that police forces in the US are becoming much too professional in nature and this professionalization damages the participatory nature of the democratic representative republic. UAVs are just one more step to excluding "civilians" from participation in law enforcement.

120mm, can we here more about this?

[sgmgrumpy]

I can see the need for extremely small UAVs, but the entire non-military UAV concept runs into serious problems when you consider how cheaply you can purchase the services of a living, breathing, thinking pilot. In short, most pilots will "fly for food" due to their emotional attachment to their profession. The also give you a level of flexibility that would be difficult to impossible to match in a UAV for any price.

Perhaps if the US would adopt the European model of Air Support Units (ASUs) in LE roles in which civilians fly the birds with police observers (if available) that may be an answer. Except for a very small percentage of depts, the aircraft is an official police vehicle and manned by LE personnel.

Small UAVs seem to have a costs effective potential in LE roles. I don't think anyone anticipates they replace the current air fleets of the departments. What about the rural or small town LE community that has no air assets at all? Counter-Drug officers use of these would enable them to detect/monitor drug houses, meth labs, growing fields, etc. In most cases High Risk Take downs may require updated intel on suspects location to include aerial photos sent back to ops cell before executing mission.

Some interesting figures put out by LASD Commander.:eek:


"The potential savings of this are astronomical compared to the high cost of owning, storing, and using the helicopters that we now use," says Commander Sid Heal of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD). Helicopters cost between $600 to $1,200 per hour to operate, he says, not including the number of needed personnel: usually at least three (one on the ground, two in a copter). Buying a helicopter can cost up to $2 million.

Source (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0711/p01s01-usju.html)

[120mm]

120mm, can we here more about this?

I believe that citizens have the responsibility to assist in maintaining law and order. This used to be a traditional responsibility, but citizens have slowly surrendered all responsibility for law enforcement by hiring "professionals." And now, with the forming of para-military forces within police departments, regardless of size, even the police are giving up some responsibilities with "special units". The existence of these "special units" almost forces police departments to use them, appropriate or not, which leads to sieges like Waco or Ruby Ridge; either of which could've been solved with a couple guys in the right place to nab the individuals in question.

I think ordinary citizens should share the burden and risks of law enforcement. Instead, the occasional citizen who tries to help is warned against "getting involved" and is basically told to piss up a rope by police, "because it is dangerous, and requires special training". Bull####.

[120mm]

Perhaps if the US would adopt the European model of Air Support Units (ASUs) in LE roles in which civilians fly the birds with police observers (if available) that may be an answer. Except for a very small percentage of depts, the aircraft is an official police vehicle and manned by LE personnel.

Small UAVs seem to have a costs effective potential in LE roles. I don't think anyone anticipates they replace the current air fleets of the departments. What about the rural or small town LE community that has no air assets at all? Counter-Drug officers use of these would enable them to detect/monitor drug houses, meth labs, growing fields, etc. In most cases High Risk Take downs may require updated intel on suspects location to include aerial photos sent back to ops cell before executing mission.

Some interesting figures put out by LASD Commander.:eek:



Source (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0711/p01s01-usju.html)


The LASD Commander is a victim of institutional "thinking". The only things that his extremely expensive helicopters can do that a fixed wing cannot do, at 1/10th of the cost, is to low hover and land in a tight area, which, if I am correct, are both foolhardy acts, as well as prohibited by his own department's policies. A SuperCub or Helio-Courier could do the same job as their beloved helicopters much cheaper. But that fine individual is way too locked into his calcified paradigm, or is way too greedy for tax dollars to think of something like that.

My wife and I once volunteered our services to a local police department in our Piper Cub. Barney-F*cking-Fife said not just no, but hell no. According to him, law enforcement is just too important and risky to trust a civilian pilot (my wife) and a civilian observer (myself) to execute pylon turns or a search pattern. They prefer to wait hours to days to get a helo from the State Patrol for criminal observation/aerial search duties. No matter that I'm a pretty damned good Scout/Observer.

On a related note, I've also volunteered information about pretty obvious criminal activity to police officers based upon stuff I find out hunting/flying around at low altitudes and delivering pizzas (a hobby/job of mine I used to do) and every single time, I could see the officers' eyes do that "who gives a flying f*ck and why are you bothering me" thing. Which is kind of sad, because I really, really want to support law enforcement. It's just that the police officers I encounter tend to do as much as they can to discourage said support, unless it is in the form of a cash donation.

[slapout9]

120mm, if Barney is giving you a hard time I would see Sheriff Andy. Seriously I would go above his head and complain. Police departments have a duty to investigate all reports reguardless of how tivial they may seem at the time.
As for cash donations I would be calling everybody I could think of until that was resolved. No place for it.

On second thought just move to Alabama we have several of what we call civillian police academies for people who want to volunteer to help. It has worked out very well. Not sure about the Air Observation part that is a new angle.:wry:

[selil]

There is also an "over-professionalization/militarization of police forces" issue here. While it would take more than a short post to an internet forum to explain fully, I believe that police forces in the US are becoming much too professional in nature and this professionalization damages the participatory nature of the democratic representative republic. UAVs are just one more step to excluding "civilians" from participation in law enforcement.


It's not professionalism that's a problem it's militarization. Civilian law enforcement was never expected to be proactive (most of the Constitution is specifically against that type of government), and the military is all about being proactive rather than defensive.

You can that difference in the uniforms of officers as the pendulum has swung back and forth to show the mission change. Look at the Sports coat wearing street officers of the 70's to today's full on battle field web kit. When you consider that violent crime is substantially lower today then 30 years ago it makes you go hmmmm.

[120mm]

120mm, if Barney is giving you a hard time I would see Sheriff Andy. Seriously I would go above his head and complain. Police departments have a duty to investigate all reports reguardless of how tivial they may seem at the time.
As for cash donations I would be calling everybody I could think of until that was resolved. No place for it.

On second thought just move to Alabama we have several of what we call civillian police academies for people who want to volunteer to help. It has worked out very well. Not sure about the Air Observation part that is a new angle.:wry:

Pilots tend to be a singularly pro-police bunch. They are, by definition professional, responsible people, who are also generally law-abiding and except for the small carriers, tend to be well-off individuals.

Private pilots assisting police officers seems a natural fit to me. In Iowa, they found out the easiest way to transport high-risk inmates was by flying them in a Navajo. Not much chance of them having their buddies hijack the bus or having them attempt to jump out, should they get free. Of course, now the State of Iowa owns a Navajo they use for little else. IFR, too, and that's expensive to maintain.

More importantly, I think that even a minimal amount of "mandatory" participation in the good of the community would increase the sense of citizenship. While I'm expanding, how about mandatory military training of say, 8 weeks, where citizens are taught the basics of the military and then released to their choice of inactive or active reserves, or even active duty.

I'm not a big fan of the draft: If the Union is worth defending, citizens will defend it. If they choose not to, they deserve to live in bondage. But I think we're missing the boat as a nation by not having a service requirement of some sort.

[bismark17]

[QUOTE=selil;19177]It's not professionalism that's a problem it's militarization. Civilian law enforcement was never expected to be proactive (most of the Constitution is specifically against that type of government), and the military is all about being proactive rather than defensive.

I totally agree with the militarization issue to some extent. However, Calls for Service, are skyrocketing due to the combination of the promotion of a 911 mentality and the ease for people to call 911 in a myriad of ways that previously didn't exist. Our department is roughly at the same size as it was in 1967 with about 5 times the call load.

[120mm]

The 911 mentality is a direct outgrowth of the professionalization of law enforcement. On a separate forum, I was discussing how to clear your own house when the wife wakes me up because of strange noises. There was unanymous agreement that the correct answer was to "sit tight and call 911." And this was on a gun/self defense forum.

The idea being, we hire and pay the police for a reason, and putting the trash can lid that was just knocked off by a stray cat is one of those reasons. I don't buy it. There is an alleged "extra risk" to myself, my family and the community of my "amateur" efforts to clear my own house when the screen door comes loose in a stiff wind, the burden on society I create by not being able to police myself is a much greater problem.

The way I see it, if the founding fathers had the sand to put their name to a document that was quite literally their death warrant, and the ARW veterans could serve without pay for 8 years of privation and peril, I can have the sand to spare the police the hassle of putting the trash can lid back on. I can also develop the skills to prudently, legally and safely secure my environment in the process. What the police agencies I have dealt with in the past are unable to process, is that I am equipped with training, judgement and level-headedness that would allow me to do so.

The problem isn't that less than a third of our eligible voters can be bothered to vote; the problem is that ordinary citizens are not asked to participate, except to send their money to Washington, the State and local municipalities.