What the hell

[fredfloggle]

They certainly would if one fell on a busy road, school playground, etc. from 500'.

Bottom line though is that fixed roadside video/still cameras plus ANPR in patrol cars will be far more cost-effective for motoring offences.

But it would be notionally possible to do what has been suggested?
That is to equip a model aircraft with high spec video equipment (as has been done in the US) and fly that aircraft in such a way that it could be used to collect images from areas without raising suspicion ?

I'm not worried about the "if's" - If the police weren't armed .....etc.

We know that there would be a risk attached to this, let's face it in the past a good few people were killed by models flown recklessly or without regard for safety, and let's face it, there was actually no need for these to even be in the air. If " for the benefit of the public good" it was decided that an electrically powered drone was to be used for collection of data, I've no doubt that they would be employed.

I must admit I was surprised and impressed by the 5 hours flying ability of this thing.

 

[RoseTattoo]

There is a lot of knee jerk tosh here although it seems the idea of making it a flying wheelie bin (green of course) powered by a Pifco hairdryer needs to be investigated.
Our roads cost a fortune to mainatin and run, not least because of t massive usage and congetsion. If these can be sued to just anticipate and help avoid just one jam a day, they will pay for themsleves in no time flat.
And if they apply it to find, let's just say, tailgaters, it gets my vote, not just because such morons really peese me off but because it is dangerous and a big cause of accidents and consequent hold ups. Anything that it can do in this area to aid the flow of traffic is well worth it and if that includes brain dead nincompoops, so be it.
Our roads are saturated, the growth in traffic will far outstrip any growth in physical capacity thus the only alternatives are better use of what we have i.e. getting the idiots to behave, control via direct charging or control via indirect charging i.e. increased taxes.
I get the impression that some people commenting here live in a fool's paradise where they truly believe that somebody can wave a magic wand to solve the traffic problems and that any attempt to try and manage one of the most difficult problems that we have in this country is a direct attack on their freedom. Okay rant over.

 

[verytalldave]

There is a lot of knee jerk tosh here although it seems the idea of making it a flying wheelie bin (green of course) powered by a Pifco hairdryer needs to be investigated.
Our roads cost a fortune to mainatin and run, not least because of t massive usage and congetsion. If these can be sued to just anticipate and help avoid just one jam a day, they will pay for themsleves in no time flat.
And if they apply it to find, let's just say, tailgaters, it gets my vote, not just because such morons really peese me off but because it is dangerous and a big cause of accidents and consequent hold ups. Anything that it can do in this area to aid the flow of traffic is well worth it and if that includes brain dead nincompoops, so be it.
Our roads are saturated, the growth in traffic will far outstrip any growth in physical capacity thus the only alternatives are better use of what we have i.e. getting the idiots to behave, control via direct charging or control via indirect charging i.e. increased taxes.
I get the impression that some people commenting here live in a fool's paradise where they truly believe that somebody can wave a magic wand to solve the traffic problems and that any attempt to try and manage one of the most difficult problems that we have in this country is a direct attack on their freedom. Okay rant over.

Let me get this quite right.............

Are you actually saying you are in favour of increasing taxation to use our roads?

The road system that is falling apart around our ears because of lack of investment?

I feel the motorist in the UK is already paying far, far over the odds, and if anything our taxation levels should be substantially reduced.

Other than fuel, what else do you know that attracts a taxation level of over 70%?

 

[BTB 500]

But it would be notionally possible to do what has been suggested?
That is to equip a model aircraft with high spec video equipment (as has been done in the US) and fly that aircraft in such a way that it could be used to collect images from areas without raising suspicion ?

What are we talking about here? As I said before, general pictures (still and video) are no problem. Reading number plates would be much, much, more difficult - I don't think the kit hung off full size police helos is high-res enough to do that, and as mentioned there's the fundamental issue that you're more or less overhead so the angles are very difficult (not to mention shooting a moving target from a moving platform). All of this is in the realms of full-blown UAVs (not simple models) because you've either got to have someone flying it remotely via realtime video downlink or it has to be autonomous (or most likely, both). Otherwise you have no idea what it's actually filming (which seemed to be the case with the Mersey police device linked to earlier). It's no good having a wideangle view of 5,000 people at a protest if you're trying to collect video evidence of what one individual is doing. Contrary to what you see on CSI you can't freeze frame and zoom in 1000 times to see what the time is on someone's wristwatch

let's face it in the past a good few people were killed by models flown recklessly or without regard for safety

If you're talking about the UK, that's rubbish. In all the years I've been flying r/c models I can think of only 4 fatal accidents of any description (one of whom was a model flier who walked across an active runway without checking first). Which is not good, but statistically it probably ranks some way behind flower arranging as a dangerous activity

But as I said before, flying large, heavy, and complex things over densely populated areas and roads would be a different ballgame. Possibly justified in the interests of national security etc., but not for speeding offences. Which I assume is the issue here since this thread is in the motoring General Discussion forum, and not off-topic.

 

[glojo]

But it would be notionally possible to do what has been suggested?
That is to equip a model aircraft with high spec video equipment (as has been done in the US) and fly that aircraft in such a way that it could be used to collect images from areas without raising suspicion ?.

Hi Fred,
I invited BTB500 to comment because I was aware of his expertise in this specific area. Is it right to dismiss what logic tells us and instead react to tabloid type headlines that are designed to get a response?

Instead of doing research, you challenged me to do this and here are a few of my results.

In favour
This 4Ib 6Ft wingspan toy

Look how frail it is, six foot wingspan and only weighs four pounds, then read the claimed capabilities. You are a balloonist and must surely appreciate the influence even a slight breeze will have on very light aircraft? I am not out to argue with you, I am in fact 100% in favour of the police having access to the very latest technology that might assist in the detection of crime. But these toys are totally impractical. The link I have posted is dated 2006 and I would guess if that toy aeroplane was a practical option, then it would have replaced the very expensive air wing of the Los Angeles Police Department? I would guess a model air enthusiast came up with that idea, they installed a very light, low quality video link and tried influencing their boss to use it. The other cheap options I saw all contained either a camera, or a video camera but not both and these camera's did NOT offer any real time linkage. They are ALL line of sight and ALL are potentially lethal and can only be flown over open spaces, green fields or parkland. NONE of them have any ANPR type capability and by that I mean someone will have to review all the footage, pictures etc and then try to make out any registration marks; they will then have to input this information into the Police database and await an answer. Bill has already asked the obvious question..... Is this better than a car fitted with ANPR, or a static camera mounted on an over-bridge?

The model aircraft takes an hour's video footage. It lands, the cassette gets inserted into a video player; the tape is reviewed and information may or may not be accessed. How far away will any suspect vehicle be?

Other option
This is a year further down the line of using unmanned surveillance. More sophisticated, but still not quite there. Look at the price. The very basic aircraft is $34,000 but as soon as you start putting equipment into it the price goes up to $1m plus!!! The thing is still not practical and still will not be able to fly over densely populated areas. I am not out to Pooh hoo everything, I am merely trying to be practical. Police Helicopters MUST by law comply with CAA regulations. They do have certain dispensations, but NONE whatsoever regarding air safety. The Night-sun that is used has to comply with very strict regulations, the radio's they use are strictly controlled and for years they could not use operational frequencies used by specialist units, all because of CAA regulations. It is easy to say how laws are flouted by these units, but the words are cheap. The reality is that the CAA is an extremely powerful authority that strictly enforces all its regulations.

A police car fitted with an ANPR camera gets overtaken by a wanted rapist. This information gets flashed onto the screen immediately and the offender caught. What is the better technology?

A number of years ago I suggested on this forum that in my opinion it would be a good idea to allow police officers to have a helmet type video camera that recorded both voice and video. That idea was Pooh hooed by the usual PC brigade and some serving police officers as being impractical and an invasion of privacy!! I am all in favour of using modern technology, but it has to be practical. Unmanned surveillance aircraft will have to be big, just to make them stable and capable of carrying a usable payload they are extremely expensive and for police purposes.... Very labour intensive. Full time crew, maintenance etc etc

ANPR is a far better, far cheaper option.

If you have any other links please feel free to post them, but note how they toy aeroplanes are all being flown in perfect weather conditions, just like is experienced every day in Manchester

 

[fredfloggle]

Fly tipping there is nothing worse in my view

Yes, that's right, but our soldier didn't do that, he left the lid of his bin a bit open.

Point is he would have been better off fly tipping (assuming he didn't get caught).

 

[fredfloggle]

Hi Fred,
I invited BTB500 to comment because I was aware of his expertise in this specific area. Is it right to dismiss what logic tells us and instead react to tabloid type headlines that are designed to get a response?

Instead of doing research, you challenged me to do this and here are a few of my results.

In favour
This 4Ib 6Ft wingspan toy

Look how frail it is, six foot wingspan and only weighs four pounds, then read the claimed capabilities. You are a balloonist and must surely appreciate the influence even a slight breeze will have on very light aircraft? I am not out to argue with you, I am in fact 100% in favour of the police having access to the very latest technology that might assist in the detection of crime. But these toys are totally impractical. The link I have posted is dated 2006 and I would guess if that toy aeroplane was a practical option, then it would have replaced the very expensive air wing of the Los Angeles Police Department? I would guess a model air enthusiast came up with that idea, they installed a very light, low quality video link and tried influencing their boss to use it. The other cheap options I saw all contained either a camera, or a video camera but not both and these camera's did NOT offer any real time linkage. They are ALL line of sight and ALL are potentially lethal and can only be flown over open spaces, green fields or parkland. NONE of them have any ANPR type capability and by that I mean someone will have to review all the footage, pictures etc and then try to make out any registration marks; they will then have to input this information into the Police database and await an answer. Bill has already asked the obvious question..... Is this better than a car fitted with ANPR, or a static camera mounted on an over-bridge?

The model aircraft takes an hour's video footage. It lands, the cassette gets inserted into a video player; the tape is reviewed and information may or may not be accessed. How far away will any suspect vehicle be?

Other option
This is a year further down the line of using unmanned surveillance. More sophisticated, but still not quite there. Look at the price. The very basic aircraft is $34,000 but as soon as you start putting equipment into it the price goes up to $1m plus!!! The thing is still not practical and still will not be able to fly over densely populated areas. I am not out to Pooh hoo everything, I am merely trying to be practical. Police Helicopters MUST by law comply with CAA regulations. They do have certain dispensations, but NONE whatsoever regarding air safety. The Night-sun that is used has to comply with very strict regulations, the radio's they use are strictly controlled and for years they could not use operational frequencies used by specialist units, all because of CAA regulations. It is easy to say how laws are flouted by these units, but the words are cheap. The reality is that the CAA is an extremely powerful authority that strictly enforces all its regulations.

A police car fitted with an ANPR camera gets overtaken by a wanted rapist. This information gets flashed onto the screen immediately and the offender caught. What is the better technology?

A number of years ago I suggested on this forum that in my opinion it would be a good idea to allow police officers to have a helmet type video camera that recorded both voice and video. That idea was Pooh hooed by the usual PC brigade and some serving police officers as being impractical and an invasion of privacy!! I am all in favour of using modern technology, but it has to be practical. Unmanned surveillance aircraft will have to be big, just to make them stable and capable of carrying a usable payload they are extremely expensive and for police purposes.... Very labour intensive. Full time crew, maintenance etc etc

ANPR is a far better, far cheaper option.

If you have any other links please feel free to post them, but note how they toy aeroplanes are all being flown in perfect weather conditions, just like is experienced every day in Manchester

I don't have to do the research, I viewed the subject objectively and commented that it was completely feasable because I had seen the thing being used by an overseas police force. You doubted the plausability of the equipment and therefore you should satisfy yourself as to the accuracy of the information - this you may or may not have done.

A number of points- the "toy" transmits data real time, this can then be acted upon.

Of course without actually seeing the thing in the flesh, I can't comment on the possible uses of the thing, but having seen active footage , it seems as though it would have a use by law inforcement agencies.

I saw a video of the thing being used for surveillance of a remote area where any other vehicular movement would have been noted. This thing was kept in the sun at all times and wasn't spotted.

Remember this thing is not designed to fly in the same envelope that a helicopter or fixed wing is.

Someone obviously thinks the thing is viable.

I can assure you that ANPR is perfectly viable from a half reasonable video feed , though I suppose this device will be used not for random spotting but rather for trawling. I expect that normal usage would be covert surveillance of a known subject.


Bob, didn't otherwise suggest that it wasn't possible, and he was working on the video processing equipment being on board rather than remote.

 

[BTB 500]

Just as an aside, I've looked at the DF Tango "Surveillance Aircraft" mentioned earlier:

http://www.rctoys.com/rc-toys-and-parts/DF-TANGORC/INDUSTRIAL.html

This is a normal r/c model, using standard model components and technology. The "camera package" consists of a fixed Pentax A10 digital compact (8 megapixels), and the video feed is simply the viewfinder output from this transmitted via a 2.4 Ghz system to a ground receiver. The range of these 2.4 Ghz systems is not great ... around 500'. Beyond that you would have no idea what the camera was pointing at (and remember it's only a simple digital compact anyway).

Duration of up to 5 hours ... hmm ... technically just about possible. However this is not an autonomous drone, it requires someone holding the r/c transmitter. It does have a simple "leveller" (which uses IR sensors to work out where the horizon is and keep the aircraft level in roll and pitch), but this won't steer the aircraft (keep it in range of the transmitter and/or video downlink) - it has to be flown manually. I would defy anyone to do this for an hour, let alone 5. Oh and the standard r/c transmitter it uses has a battery life of half that

The "SkySeer" one:

http://www.octatron.com/brochures/brochure-SkySeer.pdf

Is much more sophisticated. However with an all up weight of 4 lbs the imaging equipment it carries will not be particularly high-res, and the 50 min duration and speed of 21 kts are quite restrictive IMO. This is the sort of equipment that's deployed for a specific situation rather than "patrolling".

I also found this

The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is currently experimenting with the SkySeer as a means of crime prevention. At present, the experiment has been suspended by the Federal Aviation Administration because of that agency's claim of a lack of the proper permits. Although the FAA does not regulate model aircraft, it does have jurisdiction over unmanned aerial vehicles.

 

[fredfloggle]

Is much more sophisticated. However with an all up weight of 4 lbs the imaging equipment it carries will not be particularly high-res, and the 50 min duration and speed of 21 kts are quite restrictive IMO. This is the sort of equipment that's deployed for a specific situation rather than "patrolling".

Weight and resolution are not bedfellows, resolution and cost are however.

Seems it does work then?

 

[glojo]

Bob, didn't otherwise suggest that it wasn't possible, and he was working on the video processing equipment being on board rather than remote.

Bob and I are singing from exactly the same hymn sheet. Anything is possible and I fully accept you have seen footage, but that footage is NOT from an official police source, it is headline grabbing words that attract a certain audience.

The Devon & Cornwall Constabulary were the first police force to use aerial technology outside of the London Metropolitan Police Force, it is also a Home Office Train ing location for air crew. They take advantage of any technology and will use anything and everything that is usable\practical. The helicopter this force uses has all the latest technology and running costs are £450 per flying hour. A practical unmanned observation platform will cost well in excess of £500,000 and then there will be the running costs.

You claim that the down linked video footage from that toy aeroplane that was tried in 2006 can be linked into the ANPR system. I will very respectfully suggest you are wrong. As Bob has pointed out the quality of video will be all but useless, the angle of the aircraft will make reading the plate extremely difficult and then entering these details into the PNC will be labour intensive.

I have flown hundreds of hours in helicopters, in all types of weather (not as pilot) and I have experienced first hand just how much the elements throw the thing around.

Unless you can show me an official Police link apart from the Mersey-side link then we will agree to disagree.

I have ruled out the Mersey-side link because that supports everything I am saying. It is small, it gets blown all over the sky, it is only capable of carrying either a camera or video camera, has no down link and can only fly over open spaces, parkland etc.

Can you please show me where you found the information about inputting video footage into the Police PNC.

John

 

[fredfloggle]

Always worthwhile delving a bit deeper.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/xeni/124391984/in/set-72057594100567180/

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5327839

Bob forgot this bit from wiki (though of course it may be complete tosh)

The Octatron SkySeer is an autonomous, computer controlled unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) designed for easy transport and launch. It is designed and manufactured by Octatron, Incorporated of St. Petersburg, Florida, USA.
Intended for short-range operations, the electric-powered SkySeer resembles a normal radio controlled airplane or two-meter glider. Once unfolded from its storage tube and its electronics initialized, the SkySeer is then hand-launched by its operator. All of the drone's basic flight functions are handled by GPS including landings. Range is approximately two miles/3.2km and is extendable via Octatron's NetWeaver interface.
The basic platform is very low cost; a fully loaded SkySeer retails for approximately US$25,000 to $30,000 which includes all electronics, video surveillance equipment, ground station and computer interfaces. Video interface is in real time and allows the operator to literally see what the drone sees and to record it as such. The ground station's recorder can store up to twenty hours of high-quality MPEG-2 format video which can then be transferred to DVD or Macromedia Flash.

I didn't say that the info was input into PNC and ANPR, only that it was 100% feasible.

 

[glojo]

As an aside the Los Angeles Air Support Unit Lists the following aircraft:

• 12 Aerospatiale B-2 Astars
• 4 Bell 206 Jet Rangers
• 1 UH1H "Huey" helicopter
• 1 King Air 200 – Airplane

 

[glojo]

I didn't say that the info was input into PNC and ANPR, only that it was 100% feasible.

Hi Fred,
Okay then how is it feasible without a human being interpreting the numbers and typing them in? Is this quicker and more important..... more efficient than the current ANPR system.?

Thanks for the links but as you can see they are totally unsuited for what we are discussing.

I have wrote directly to the Officer in Command of the LAPD Air Department as I find this topic interesting.

Questions for Bill
What is the lowest a model aircraft could fly over a motorway?
How far away should you be from a model aircraft when operating it?
Would a 6ft wingspan, 4Ib in weight model be effected by turbulance from large HGV's travelling at high speeds?
How frequent do you loose control of your model, and is it still possible for someone to accidentally jam, block, or transmit on your frequency?
Would you fly a light model aircraft in strong winds or rain?

Regards
John

 

[fredfloggle]

Hi Fred,
Okay then how is it feasible without a human being interpreting the numbers and typing them in? Is this quicker and more important..... more efficient than the current ANPR system.?

Thanks for the links but as you can see they are totally unsuited for what we are discussing.

I have wrote directly to the Officer in Command of the LAPD Air Department as I find this topic interesting.

Questions for Bill
What is the lowest a model aircraft could fly over a motorway?
How far away should you be from a model aircraft when operating it?
Would a 6ft wingspan, 4Ib in weight model be effected by turbulance from large HGV's travelling at high speeds?
How frequent do you loose control of your model, and is it still possible for someone to accidentally jam, block, or transmit on your frequency?
Would you fly a light model aircraft in strong winds or rain?

Regards
John

I'm sorry, I am at a complete loss and i'm not sure what point you are attempting to make.

Why would you take a video feed and get a human to manually enter the data (though of course it would work)

There is software that does it (of course the police have their own solution already)

http://www.pipstechnology.co.uk/products.php?section_id=1&article_id=4
http://www.htsol.com/Products/SeeWay.html

Why would you want to fly the thing over a m'way when there are fixed cameras?

Surely you want to use it for covert operations etc

You can bring down a Cessna given the will, and more than a few hot air balloons have been shot at.
I'd kind of figure that a police application would be a bit more advanced than line control.

As for "how far away" - the question has been answered - with a normal model , you won't get far flying it where you can't see it , this thing operates slightly differently and is supposed to be good up to 3km away , and this range can be extended or so they say.

Whilst you may get a reply from across the pond, I would doubt for obvious reason that they will be able to give you much info.

 

[glojo]

I'm sorry, I am at a complete loss and i'm not sure what point you are attempting to make.

Why would you take a video feed and get a human to manually enter the data (though of course it would work)

There is software that does it (of course the police have their own solution already)

http://www.pipstechnology.co.uk/products.php?section_id=1&article_id=4
http://www.htsol.com/Products/SeeWay.html

Those links you have kindly posted answer your own question.

The reason why I asked was because ANPR requires specialist equipment that requires a perfect view of a number plate and it then transfers this information directly into the Police National Computer.

You posted links of toy aeroplanes that can only carry one or two pounds in weight, and now you post links to extremely heavy ANPR items.

Where on your toy aeroplane would all this equipment be mounted?

That picture is from the link you posted and is just a small part of the equipment needed to input realtime information into the PNC

Here is a break-down of the equipment needed to input the registration details

Are you seriously suggesting that you coiuld accurately fly a small model aeroplane accurately and safely from 3km? I doubt I could see it, let alone fly it.

Getting close to our motorways on foot is never easy and I would suggest flying a small model aeroplane over these arterial routes would be extremely dangerous and totally impractical.

I have contacte dthe LAPD because all the links being provided are 'big brother' is coming type ramblings and would much prefer a more measured response.


I don't agree with the

 

[fredfloggle]

All of the drone's basic flight functions are handled by GPS including landings. Range is approximately two miles/3.2km and is extendable via Octatron's NetWeaver interface.

I think they mean that the operator clicks in the flightpath and off it goes, this would be confirmed by the photos on flikr.

I don't think you understand the basic theory behind ANPR , it is software engine based, download the demo software and try for yourself , all you need to give the software an image and it spits out a reg, simple as that. We have ODBC and OLE that allows us to transfer data between platforms. The camera does not need to be mounted close to the recognition and image engine , it just needs to be able to provide a compatible image .

ANPR does not require a perfect view of the plate, and this thing doesn't need top process 100 plates a minute, that isn't what it is for, that is what fixed cameras are for.

The links do not contain anything apart from technical references.

 

[BTB 500]

Questions for Bill
1. What is the lowest a model aircraft could fly over a motorway?
2. How far away should you be from a model aircraft when operating it?
3. Would a 6ft wingspan, 4Ib in weight model be effected by turbulance from large HGV's travelling at high speeds?
4. How frequent do you loose control of your model, and is it still possible for someone to accidentally jam, block, or transmit on your frequency?
5. Would you fly a light model aircraft in strong winds or rain?

1. IMO you should never fly over a motorway. With the speed and volume of traffic an accident is almost guaranteed if the model were to come down or shed part of the structure or payload (unexpected turbulence causing structural failure etc.).

2. It depends on how it's being flown. Normal r/c equipment has a range of around 2 miles, but you wouldn't be able to see the model at that distance. You need to be able to determine attitude and direction in order to control it ... so the practical range depends on your eyesight, how big the model is, and the conditions (haze, light levels, low cloud, etc.).

3. Only if flying dangerously low.

4. Personally, the last time was about 10 years ago when a servo gearbox failed (stripped) in flight. I couldn't turn the plane but was able to throttle back and make a soft landing into the top of a tree without any further damage. We had to cut the tree down to get the plane back, but that's another story Yes accidental interference/jamming happens. Club sites have strict controls in place to prevent two transmitters operating on the same spot frequency at the same time as this is the most likely scenario. The latest r/c equipment uses the 2.4 Ghz band (instead of 35 Mhz) and is virtually immune from this problem as each transmitter scans for an unused 'spot' when switching on. Modern receivers contain software that can spot interference and filter it out, eventually (if necessary) switching to a pre-programmed 'failsafe' mode to minimise damage and/or stop a stable design from flying away - typically throttle cut and all controls to neutral. However failure of a component (servo, battery pack, switch, wiring, etc.) through damage or wear & tear can result in total loss of control.

5. The ability to fly in wind (it's turbulence that is the issue rather than the wind itself) is more a function of wing loading (the ratio between wing area and weight). A low wing loading allows the plane to fly slowly for landing and takeoff, but is not good in strong winds. A high wing loading means faster (more difficult) launch & landing, but is affected less by the wind. There are other factors too including how responsive the controls are and (obviously) the model's maximum speed - if it's less than the windspeed you have a problem Rain isn't necessarily a show-stopper if everything is reasonably watertight, but obviously it affects visibility (your ability to see the model) and water on a camera lens would adversely affect image quality.

 

[BTB 500]

ANPR does not require a perfect view of the plate

But in most aerial footage you can't see the plate at all. ANPR works reasonably well at ground level because you've got a more or less horizontal view.