PLEASE sign the petition to use Drones for SAR, it may save your life!

[onefastdaddy]

Ok,
This is take 2 (edited).
I read post number 1 and caught up.
My mistake. I do see both sides now.
Taking a position is dangerous because now you have to defend it.
Drones are absolutely not perfect for SAR if that's a position held by someone here they should prepare for a no win battle.
I'm sorry, I jumped into something I shouldn't have here.
That said I do support this petition though. It's cheaper, safer, and more practical in many cases for land based SAR to use a small sUAS (drone).
If I am lost at sea I would prefer a few C130s try first

[Jammer Six]

Originally Posted by Cavalier

..Surely, the coke would get all shaken up from the impact with the water and when you go to open them you'd fizz coke all over the inside of the raft!

Yeah, but at that size, it wouldn't be much of a mess.

[onefastdaddy]

This could be better used over the Indian Ocean vs Washington but I don't call the shots: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgon_Stare

This is of course completely not what is being petitioned for. Only a look back (it is several years old already) at what our tax dollars are at work doing.

It's pretty cool tech. Essentially hundreds of cell phone cameras at once with the images combined. Probably 100x better res now vs then.

[MarkSF]

[QUOTE=Cavalier;1547497]MQ9 Reaper cruises at ~160kts

C130 cruises at ~230kts"

Wikipedia gives the Hercules' cruising speed as being 336mph, or 292 kts. (my error, I said 336 kts). Lockheed Martin's site gives the Super Hercules top speed as being 356 kts, no mention of cruising speed but 10% lower sounds reasonable.

The original petition says :

"We have the technology with these drones to get there faster"

How does something travelling at less than half the speed get there more quickly?

[Jammer Six]

Originally Posted by socaldmax

I don't really care what you think of my thought processes, as long as you sign it.

Politicians will say anything to get your vote.

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by MarkSF

Could someone please explain to me how a UAV is FASTER than a C130? (Predator drone, cruising speed = 100 kts. C130, cruising speed = 336 kts)

This must be a new definition of the word faster, one I wasn't previously familiar with.

You can launch a drone much faster than a C-130. If the CG is using drones for coastal recon, they might already be in the area. Since a drone uses a lot less fuel, they can afford to fly more of them for the same cost in fuel.

Top speed of a MQ-9 is 300 mph, which may be slightly slower than the cruising speed of a C-130, but the superior optics allows the drone to scan more territory at a higher altitude, with greater resolution than a human with binoculars at a lower altitude and slower speed.

Let's say they normally deploy 2 C-130s, if they added 2 or 3 drones to the search at minimal added expense, they've more than doubled their search assets. Net result, more area covered in a shorter period of time. The very definition of faster.

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

I think drones are a good idea in conjunction with other tools, but I also think that our military branches including the Coast Guard are already considering these, so I'm not understanding the goal of this petition.

The petition runs for only 1 month. If it has 100,000 signatures, the WH HAS to make a decision one way or the other on the request. The fact that it is an issue that many people were interested in could prompt the WH to take immediate action, speeding the process to deployment from several years or decades to several months.

It's better than doing nothing.

Back about 9 yrs ago, a large fire swept through San Diego and burned a lot of suburban homes, which surprised a lot of people since the fire started far out in a rural area. The problem was that CALFIRE had rigid rules and wouldn't request help from the military assets nor would they allow helicopter flights at night, their pilots had not been trained for it.

I made a big stink about it on an internet forum and quite a number of CALFIRE people got really upset, thinking I was criticizing the firefighter's efforts. If they had read and comprehended, they would have realized that I was praising their efforts, but suggesting that POLICY was entirely outdated and that cooperative MOAs be in place with local military air assets BEFORE fire season starts so that pilots TRAINED in night time combat operations could be used to fight the fires both day and night. That particular fire started very small, and if it had been attacked on into the evening, it would have been put out with minimal expense, rather than destroying the billions of dollars in homes it eventually did, simply because it was allowed to grow overnight.

However, a number of the CALFIRE people DID hear and understand what I was saying, and a few years later, a similar fire broke out under similar wind conditions. Far more tankers and helicopters were used, many from local Navy and Marine Corps bases, the end result is they put out a much more dangerous fire, more effectively than ever before, with no loss of life or buildings.

The assets had been in place for decades, yet the bureaucrats entrenched in the system never thought to ask for assistance, which the military was eager to provide and write it off as training. All it took was an easy fire to get out of control and kick their asses and someone to point out a better way to prevent it from happening again.

If they can use dormant military assets for border protection and drug interdiction, they can use them for firefighting and offshore searches.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by socaldmax

I made a big stink about it on an internet forum and quite a number of CALFIRE people got really upset, thinking I was criticizing the firefighter's efforts. If they had read and comprehended, they would have realized that I was praising their efforts, but...

You must recognize that I have selectively edited your post.

But, do you see a pattern of presentation here?

You DO have good ideas. Banging people over the head with them may not be the best method of assuring support.

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

You must recognize that I have selectively edited your post.

But, do you see a pattern of presentation here?

You DO have good ideas. Banging people over the head with them may not be the best method of assuring support.

In that case, I presented the idea as clearly as humanly possible. That particular forum has a lot of semi-literate members, to put it politely. They did get upset, but eventually realized they flew off the handle because they misunderstood what was very clearly a proposal to increase their assets, nothing even close to the indictment of their efforts they twisted it into.

This idea has merit, and the USCG is several years away from deploying drones, probably more for coastal reconnaissance than for search operations. I'd like that timetable sped up, and using a WH petition is the cheapest/best way to expedite the process.

If it were up to me, the C-130 would be the SAR command post, with a couple of spotters and 3 remote video viewers onboard to view video feeds from the 3 drones flying patterns in the same search area. They could cover a much larger area faster, a key element in actually rescuing people.

If you like it, please help spread the word. I don't even own a boat, don't plan on buying one for at least another 5 or 6 yrs. This isn't for me, it's for those who are currently crossing oceans or cruising offshore. I read the thread about the CG calling off a search in the Atlantic after only 53 hours and was pretty ticked off about it, this is my way of trying to fix the system.

[fryewe]

USCG Acquisitions Directorate has an Unmanned Aircraft Systems project that will mature as rapidly without a petition to the White House website as with one.

USCG: Unmanned Aircraft System

[darylat8750]

I think using the drones makes sense but I think we should leave tactics to the professionals. They don't need a flying command post. The drones can be flown from anywhere. The video feeds can be analyzed anywhere. They should use the most effective process as inexpensively as possible while keeping the drones out of the airspace used by maned aircraft (easily done over the ocean).

[Adventurebound]

I would be inclined to sign the petition. The safety of drones would have to be worked out eg. compatible collision warning if flying in airspace used by airline traffic. Below 5000 aircraft fly without radio, without flight plan, in mixed directions. Keep a lookout is collision avoidance. The drones would be flying in this area, I guess, and part of the traffic in your lookout.

How you approach people will have an effect on your petition. It's a frustrating job convincing people of a good idea-you have to keep your cool.

[Fog Bank]

Originally Posted by socaldmax

Top speed of a MQ-9 is 300 mph, which may be slightly slower than the cruising speed of a C-130, but the superior optics allows the drone to scan more territory at a higher altitude, with greater resolution than a human with binoculars at a lower altitude and slower speed.

Use of the MQ-9 as your platform of choice is a mistake IMO. A cruise speed of 200 knots combined with a range of just over 1100 miles is far from optimum. One must only look at the ongoing search in the Atlantic to see the range issue at hand.

'Superior optics' is something I feel must be expanded upon. Yes, the imaging systems found on the MQ-9 are impressive to a degree, but is nothing more than a limited soda straw field of view. Use of Gorgon Stare would greatly expand coverage area, but that leads to the problem of reviewing the tens of terabytes of data generated per sortie upon UAV recovery. That takes time and trained personnel.

The UAV optimized, somewhat, for the mission you have in mind is the MQ-4C Triton. This system is prohibitively expense, and not yet through its development test cycle. Perhaps this system might find its way into USCG use after years of USN service, but that is a large if.

One thing I feel should be pointed out about the text of your petition is that the S-3 has been retired. A handful are in test use, or in use by NASA.


These are just a few thoughts...

[Jammer Six]

Originally Posted by socaldmax

In that case, I presented the idea as clearly as humanly possible. That particular forum has a lot of semi-literate members, to put it politely.
...
this is my way of trying to fix the system.

Your way doesn't work.

Very few people here are talking about drones, the rest are talking about you, and the way you present your ideas.

The people who are talking about drones have mixed ideas, based primarily on knowledge and experience. Some agree with you, some don't.

The people talking about you, however, are not mixed in their views.

If you want to do politics, (and that's exactly what you're doing, you're trying to have an effect on public policy using the political system) do it well.

This thread does not meet the lowest, basest, easiest definition of "well".

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by Jammer Six

Your way doesn't work.

Very few people here are talking about drones, the rest are talking about you, and the way you present your ideas.

The people who are talking about drones have mixed ideas, based primarily on knowledge and experience. Some agree with you, some don't.

The people talking about you, however, are not mixed in their views.

If you want to do politics, (and that's exactly what you're doing, you're trying to have an effect on public policy using the political system) do it well.

This thread does not meet the lowest, basest, easiest definition of "well".

How about if I promise to buy you ice cream?