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 -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe, go to > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. > > _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
