[time-nuts] Spoofing GPS

[J. Forster]

IMO, your failure rate estimate does not include the probability that some
people might not like being spied on by UAVs.

I can easily see a market for ground based GPS jammers, especially, in the
more rugged, fertile, and inaccessible areas of California.

YMMV,

-John

=================





> On 6/26/12 3:38 PM, J. Forster wrote:
>> Whether it's spoofing or jamming, domestic drones are becoming
>> ubiquitous,
>> because they are just so tempting, and sooner or later one is gonna
>> crash
>> onto a populated area, either by accident or deliberate mischief.
>>
>> A piloted aircraft may be able to avoid hitting a school; a drone may
>> not.
>>
>>
> That *is* the significant problem with non-government UAVs.  All fine to
> run them over the desert on the southern border or out over the Mojave.
>   By and large, UAV failures, as you note, don't have the option of
> doing a Great Santini.
>
> The  (catastrophic) failure rate of UAVs is something like 100 or 1000
> times higher than for military piloted craft, which in turn is something
> like 100 or 1000 times that for civilian craft.
>
> I did some calculations last year, and if Los Angeles decided to put up
> a UAV 24/7 to replace things like helicopters, we could expect a crash
> into the city about once a week.
>
> The MQ-9 Reaper and RQ-1 Predator have a reported Class A mishap rate of
> about 10 per 1000 flight hours...  Class A = >$1M in damage or death..
> bear in mind that if a $500k drone augers in out in the desert, that's
> not a Class A mishap.
>
> So, 1 year is about 8760 hours, so we could expect 87.6 Class A
> mishaps/year if the LAPD decided to fly the current flavor of UAV.  Yes,
> that would create some interesting news stories.  How long til we see a
> tailfin with LAPD sticking out of an elementary school a'la Cerritos.
>
> For comparison, in around 2000-2005, the commercial accident rate was
> about 0.01 per 100k hours.  The Air Force reported about 1 per 100k
> hours.  General aviation is 10/100k hours.  (these are non-specific
> "accidents", so they aren't directly comparable to Class A mishaps)
>
> There's a great report from MIT on this.. google for Weibel ICAT report
> UAV safety
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to
> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>
>