
Engineers teach a drone to herd birds away from airports autonomously - dnetesn
https://techxplore.com/news/2018-08-drone-herd-birds-airports-autonomously.html
======
inamberclad
I don't think pilots would be entirely opposed to this kind of tech. While I
don't think many pilots trust drone operators to be responsible in any way (I
don't, since I don't think many of them know the airspace system or where
their nearby airports are), they might be okay with unmanned aerial systems
operated by the local airport authority, since they could likely geofence them
in such a manner that they'd never cross paths with an aircraft. That said,
low level wake turbulence from one of these aircraft could probably still
wreck the drone if it carried off the side of the runway.

However, I doubt this would stop another near-disaster like Cactus 1549. They
hit geese on climbout at nearly 3000 feet [0]. Thats pretty far outside of
what a drone can enforce, or where I'd be comfortable having a drone flying.
Current regulations prohibit them flying over 400 ft AGL, except within tight
proximity to structures like radio towers.

For background, I'm a private pilot, not an airline guy.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549#Takeoff...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549#Takeoff_and_bird_strike)

~~~
mhneu
Problem is downside risk: drones get hacked, or someone figures out how to
make the drones fly into planes, or herd birds TOWARD planes.

As a society we've been pretty cavalier about algorithmic control. Which can
work well for a lot of things. But probably shouldn't be trusted (without a
TON of validation and regulation, as we've done over decades with airliners)
with controlling stuff that can injure people or damage societies.

~~~
oh_sigh
You can already do that with your own manually controlled drones(surprisingly,
no one has done this yet). There is no need to hack the airports drones.

~~~
RealityVoid
I think it's not surprising at all. After all, most people are sane
individuals who are unwilling to pour time, money, effort and risk their life
in order to simply cause suffering on other people.

There simply isn't money in downing planes, so most people have no incentive
to want to do it.

~~~
oh_sigh
The surprising was sarcasm ;)

------
sandworm101
>> The passengers on Flight 1549 were only saved because the pilots were so
skilled.

Of course the engineering and planning that went into the aircraft's
construction had nothing to do with it, nor did the countless government
regulations dictating safety equipment and training.

These sorts of "miracles" happen rather regularly. A plane crashes near a
runway totaling the aircraft, but everyone walks away. Piloting is part of the
equation, but pilots stand atop an enormous pyramid of other people each
contributing to flight safety. See that flight in Canada that crashed but did
not catch fire. A couple decades ago that would have ended very differently.

~~~
brailsafe
With some regularity, I encounter people who work either around pilots or on
planes and consistently attempt to disqualify pilots from praise, no matter
how insignificant that is to the context of the conversation. As if I would
need to comment on any of Elon Musk's success to mention that his success
would not have been had without the countless engineers and layers of
automative tech that he's building upon. These being implicit details, and the
people in those positions more than likely choosing them with no expectation
that they'd be a figurehead.

Now, I only get a little of that from your comment, just enough to remind me
of this impression. Where does the tacit resentment come from? Anyone else
experience this?

~~~
darkerside
Checklist Manifesto (by Atul Gawande) makes a strong case that the systems and
processes in flight planning are an unsung "hero" in the consistent safety
record of the complex affair that is flying. I don't think it's resentment so
much as it is acknowledgement of normal human bias (to find and credit
heroes), and an attempt to provide context that frames that bias in a proper
and realistic way.

Sully was a hero! Is a hero! And he gets, and deserves, a lot of credit. But
he was the first to say that he was just doing his job, and he means it
literally. He and his copilot worked together (very effectively) to apply the
proper checklists and procedures in order to effect a safe water landing and
evacuation.

~~~
severine
Hey, if those checklists and procedures were in version control we could git
blame those heroes, as we should!

------
pluto9
I suspect the birds would eventually ignore the drones unless the drones are
made to pose an actual physical threat to them. City pigeons are so accustomed
to cars and humans that they barely move out of the way in time to avoid being
crushed.

~~~
onemoresoop
The drones would chase the birds away. And in cases when the birds are to be
sucked by a jet's engine the autonomous drone would follow suit

~~~
pluto9
> The drones would chase the birds away.

Chasing requires fleeing. If the bird knows from experience that the drone
won't hurt him, then why would he flee from it?

~~~
LeifCarrotson
Because he's a bird?

~~~
pluto9
It is not obvious to me that a bird will flee from anything that approaches
it, regardless of past experience, simply "because he's a bird". See above
about city pigeons. Or aggressive geese at the park. Or birds that get sucked
into jet engines because they apparently don't consider a jumbo jet to be an
obstacle worth avoiding, hence this conversation.

~~~
oh_sigh
Even city-dwelling pigeons have a personal space bubble that they will try to
protect if possible. It may be just a foot or two but it is still there.

~~~
pluto9
The smaller that bubble gets, the greater the chance of a drone actually
striking a bird, which could become a major legal liability [1].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migratory_Bird_Treaty_Act_of_1...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migratory_Bird_Treaty_Act_of_1918)

~~~
oh_sigh
I'd imagine airports could get a waiver to pursue the birds for human safety.
Airports are generally well acquainted with working with the government.

------
sytelus
This very much smells like fluff piece. Tech for obstacle avoidance is not yet
mature to the level where it would be safe to have autonomous drones near bird
path and potential busy air traffic. Add battery restrictions, wind, weather
etc and you get nice vaporware demo.

~~~
prawn
My off-the-shelf $1k drone can fly fine in heavy wind and light rain. With
minor mods, it could probably handle heavier rain too. Any wind it can't
handle is going to discourage birds too.

------
guelo
Considering 15 minute flight time, 2 hour battery recharging time, and several
miles runway circumference, I guestimate you would need around a 100-200 drone
system to maintain constant surveillance around a medium size airport.

~~~
bArray
The technology is still young clearly, but:

1\. Drones don't need to always be flying. Flocks of birds turn up on radar
quite a lot and I don't see some early detection system for birds as
impossible.

2\. The flight paths for migrating birds can be predicted, reducing the need
for a high presence in some directions.

3\. 15 minutes of flight time is low, with some super big LiPo batteries for
high performance drones you're easily getting an hour. The benefit of these
large batteries is that they can be charged quickly too (charge rate based on
power offered).

4\. They are relatively fail safe, if the drones stop functioning you just go
back to not having any real support.

5\. It's likely that with some additional work, they could work on calculating
the conditions that cause flocks of birds to fly towards scary sounding
planes. I imagine it to be quite likely that they will only fly from certain
directions given wind conditions, etc.

------
bigtech
YouTube video that includes a trial run:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwCPeIwumgc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwCPeIwumgc)

------
ap3
Wonder if this can be used to move bird flocks away from wind-turbines ?

~~~
DenisM
It's a non-existing problem tho: [https://phys.org/news/2017-06-farms-bird-
slayers-theyre-behe...](https://phys.org/news/2017-06-farms-bird-slayers-
theyre-behere.html)

------
geuis
Interesting. But I’m getting tired of hearing the misuse of “teaching” in
regards to software engineering. Unless the software is using machine
learning, i.e neural networks, it’s not teaching. Genetic algorithm? Evolving.
Anything else, programming.

------
Kagerjay
On an unrelated topic, I wonder if they could use drones to change bird
migration patterns?

For instance, in Rome during Fall Season there are thousands of birds that fly
by the city, taking nearby shelter in trees. It was awful walking down
roadways, floor was slippery and poop was everywhere

------
maltalex
What’s worse - sucking in a bird into a jet engine or a bird-scaring drone?

~~~
LeifCarrotson
Sucking a bird into a jet engine, obviously. Was this a rhetorical question?

The jet engine is mounted to a plane. It's designed to withstand bird strikes
without exploding - they literally blast frozen turkeys into it with an air
cannon - but they can still cause engine out situations that result in crashes
or emergency landings and risk the lives of the hundreds of people on board.
Not to mention the huge repair costs all that incurs.

I value the safety of the people aboard that plane far above the comfort of
the birds that would like to live at the airport, to the extent that scaring
millions of birds is worth doing if it's likely to save the lives of a couple
hundred people. Though that's getting pretty close to the threshold at which
it ceases to be worthwhile.

Also, if I was in the bird's shoes, I would much prefer to be scared by a
drone than ingested into the jet engine...

~~~
deelowe
I think the parent meant: What's worse to suck into a jet engine -- a bird or
a bird scaring drone?

~~~
maltalex
can confirm.

------
pinebox
Guess this dog needs to start retraining:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QxZv_wJ1aA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QxZv_wJ1aA)

~~~
tolien
Got some bad news on that front: [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/piper-
dead-dog-airport-mi...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/piper-dead-dog-
airport-michigan-brian-edwards-top-gun-shades-runways-traverse-city-prostate-
cancer-a8146171.html)

------
trhway
looks like it can be an effective crowd [of humans] control tool.

------
artur_makly
its starts with the innocuous birds..and then ends up herding people between
flights...and protests.

------
jeffreybezos
This could also be used at landfills to scare away seagulls.

~~~
Razengan
Unless eating from landfills harms the seagulls, why? What precious things are
the seagulls taking from landfills, and why do we need landfills to remain
perfectly preserved?

~~~
jeffreybezos
The seagulls eat the refuse then comtaminate the water supply with their
feces.

~~~
Razengan
I still don't understand your reasoning.

Do you want seagulls to not eat, never eat? Do you want seagulls to be killed?

Is the water supply adjacent to the landfills? Will the seagulls not poop in
the water supply if they didn't eat from landfills, or is pooping in the water
supply not a problem as long as the seagulls haven't eaten from a landfill?

~~~
jeffreybezos
[https://www.ocregister.com/2013/02/25/falcons-hawk-keep-
gull...](https://www.ocregister.com/2013/02/25/falcons-hawk-keep-gulls-away-
from-dump/)

------
pmdulaney
The word is "shoo".

~~~
onemoresoop
shoo over a megaphone

------
sonofblah
Bird scientists are already devising countermeasures.

------
hirundo
drone learning curve

    
    
      ...
      14 shoo birds
      ...
      47 deliver tacos
      ...
      7,323 fold fitted sheet
      7,324 herd cats
      7,325 self replicate
      7,326 conquer humans

~~~
shawn
[http://tacocopter.com](http://tacocopter.com)

~~~
stephengillie
Are taco copters a greater innovation than the burrito hyperloop?

[http://idlewords.com/2007/04/the_alameda-
weehawken_burrito_t...](http://idlewords.com/2007/04/the_alameda-
weehawken_burrito_tunnel.htm)

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
Is it September already?

