Some notes from John Crowley on another list regarding policy and
practicalities of UAV use for disaster mapping.
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
On Thursday, December 5, 2013 10:35 AM, John Crowley <[email protected]>
wrote:
As someone who works in crisis response, I grok the need for fresh imagery. It
is one of my biggest pain points. Like many, I look forward to getting imagery
quickly from platforms that can collect wide areas quickly. I also want them to
carry communications gear that restore internet and voice comms. It's why we
run an experimentation program every quarter.
>
>That said, there are a couple assumptions here which I have to correct.
>
>1. Autopilots and preprogrammed routes have large error bars. I have observed
>a comparable (more expensive) version of SenseFly wander 100s of meters off
>the planned route. In a forest survey, that is a problem (vertical
>obstructions do matter, but altitude provides some safety). In a city, where
>tall buildings and radio towers mix with general and
commercial aviation, it is a major risk to veer that far off a planned route.
We need to stop believing the marketing hype and start working with the
platforms in places/sites where it is safe to fail. Cities are not on my list
of such sites.
>
>2. Small <> harmless. Just because a UAV has low mass does not mean it cannot
>cause harm. First, the weight class you describe <>3kg) is about the same as a
>bird. Take a peek at the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reports on
>the effects of bird strikes, most of which happen under 150m above ground
>level with animals from 100g to 3kg (see
>http://wildlife.faa.gov/downloads/StrikeReport1990-2012.pdf for a detailed
>summary of the negative effects). Second, fixed wing UAVs generally don't fall
>from the sky; they crash at velocities exceeding 30km/hr. An 1kg object moving
>at this velocity with a spinning prop can hurt someone up pretty badly if they
>are struck. I've seen it happen at model
airplane shows.
>
>3. Sophisticated software <> fail safe UAV. Yes, robots can react faster than
>a pilot on the ground to changing conditions (the OODA loop is much shorter).
>But, the aircraft you describe have to compromise cost and capability. That
>ratio is changing, but from what I have seen, deviations from ideal conditions
>lead to unexpected results. It makes sense. Sensors and software at this price
>point are a matter of finding good compromises. These compromises do not cover
>every potential disruption--not just weather, but an obstacle that is either
>not yet mapped or which moves in front of the UAV. Given our use case (mapping
>after disasters), the map is by definition different from before the event and
>lots of helicopter traffic moves in sometimes ad hoc flight paths. It's not a
>great fit. I would believe less marketing documents and work more with the
>UAVs themselves. You'll see what I mean. There are lots of engineering
compromises that marketing glosses over.
>
>For the foreseeable future, I envision manned aircraft with UAV sensors
>mounted on the undercarriage will be the hybrid that allows for our work to
>move forward. We should experiment with UAVs, while building better
>relationships with general aviation pilots who can fly our sensors where the
>UAVs cannot (and should not) yet go.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Thursday, December 5, 2013 7:42 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>2013/12/4 Simon Poole <[email protected]>
>
>Well reality is somewhere between your scenario and being hit by a one kilo
>blanket dropped from 100m altitude. It would surely hurt, so much is sure.
>>
>
>Yes, I agree ;-)
>
>
>Anyway, German regulations currently seem to allow drones with a mass of up to
>5kg to be flewn without approvation.
>
>
>Yes, there are also other risks like being hit by a falling tree or by a
>falling roof tile. For example a (classical German) roof tile has a mass of
>~4.3 kg and falling from 20 m would usually kill you if it hits you on the
>head.
>
>
>
>cheers,
>Martin
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>osmf-talk mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>osmf-talk mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
