I just got a call from a Teabagger friend who is appalled at this. He’s shocked at the loss of privacy and talks about Big Brother. I reminded him that it’s the ‘Law & Order’ types like him that tend to vote for this kind of thing. He said things are pretty bad when he agrees with the ACLU.
Personally, I don’t see any difference between an officer in the air and one on the ground. Yeah, they can see you running around your back yard naked; but so can a private pilot. Also, Lancaster is pretty spread out. The main streets are one mile apart, and when I lived there the city ran from roughly Avenue D to Avenue M and from 30th or 60th Street West to 60th Street East. When I lived there, there was a lot of open desert. Now it’s built up and sprawling. Aerial patrols seem to make sense. Beaming video to an observer is safer than having the pilot dividing his time.
I do like my privacy, and I’d rather not be under surveillance. OTOH, I don’t really care. Do you?
Isn’t this pretty much why police departments started buying helicopters several decades ago? I must be missing something, because this isn’t even making a blip on my concern-o-meter.
That’s pretty much how I felt. The only difference I can see (other than that a Skyhawk is significantly cheaper to operate and can stay airborne longer than a Jet Ranger) is that the video is continuously streamed (and, I presume, recorded and saved) to a ground station.
Speaking of drones, TBF complained not only about the Big Brother aspect, but also the cost. See, he has a friend who owns (?) a company that makes drones…
‘I’m shocked! Shocked that Big Brother is watching! Oh, I have a friend who makes drones, and they should have given the contract to him.’
Depends on what the officers make and how many shifts you want to run. Around the clock, 24 Hour patrolling needs about 4 or 5 officers to work, given 8 hour shifts and allowance for time off, training, etc. That can easily run $500K a year or more depending upon salary and benefits. The city might do just as well hiring observers at half the cost of a uniformed deputy and using the rest to fund the drone services.
Not really. Though the Lanc has been my favourite bomber since I was a child (possibly because my dad lived in Lancaster), I wasn’t thinking that way. :smack:
There’s a thread floating around where I estimated the cost of owning a Skyhawk. Might be in The Great Ongoing General Aviation Thread, but I don’t have time to look for it right now. The cost per hour varies with many factors. Per-hour insurance costs go down if you fly more hours, the cost of a hangar or tie-down varies with location, and so on. For me, in my area, and based on 300 hours of flying per year (which is a lot – especially up here) I think I estimated a cost of $110/hour. Maybe more, but I don’t remember.
If the city operates the aircraft 10 hours per day, five days per week, that comes out to about 1,000 to 1,300 hours per year. Last time I was af Fox Field, it was pretty sparsely populated; so I’m guessing tie-down is reasonable. (No real need to keep a plane in a hangar, since it’s a dry environment.) Given that the pilot must have a commercial rating, and given the number of hours to be flown per year, I’m guessing insurance rates are reasonable (for aircraft). Then you need to pay the Sheriff’s ground observer, Aero View’s pilot, and associated other people. It still sounds like the city could do it cheaper itself, instead of contracting it out. Since the observing is being done by the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department, and assets would have to go through the LASD and its budget process, it may be that the responsibility had to be undertaken by the City of Lancaster.
Interesting analysis. I get 2600 hours though (10 hours x 5 days x 52 weeks.) If it is $110 per hour (which seems low to me), that is $286,000 per year, enough for 5 officers at $50,000 per year.
I’ve lurked here long enough to associate your username with aviation, hence the reference. But it would have been cool. And I, too, love the look of the Lancaster.
Lancaster is in the extreme western tip of the Mojave Desert. To the north are the Tehachapi Mountains, and to the south there is the San Gabriel range. They make for a nice venturi, and 20-30 kt winds are common. Back before it was so built-up, balloons used to fly over my house. (Wonderful to be awoken on a Saturday morning by the whoosh of the burners!) They flew in the morning when the winds were calm. To use them for surveillance they could only be used before about 0900 or so, make a pass, be recovered, trucked back to a displaced starting point, let go again, and then repeated.
It strikes me that a small drone would have trouble with the winds. Piston helicopters cost at least twice as much to operate as the Skyhawk, and jet helis are a couple times more expensive than that. The Civil Air Patrol likes the Cessna 182 Skylane, but they often fly in mountainous areas where they can use the extra power. The California Highway Patrol has used the Cessna 180 Skywagon, which is basically a 182 with a tailwheel. These aircraft cost more to operate than the Skyhawk. ISTM that the 172 is the right plane for the mission. (Incidentally, the one they are using is a 172N built in 1978.) It’s relatively cheap to operate, and has all of the capabilities they need in an aircraft.
Even if you could get the balloon to stay stationary, a camera on a balloon will have blind spots, for example if someone walks around a corner and becomes obscured by a building or house. One can maneuver an aircraft to avoid (but not completely eliminate) that problem. If the balloon gets high enough, sure, a camera could more or less look straight down on a city… but then you need a much bigger camera to get the necessary resolution.
I’m not talking about hot-air balloons; I’m talking about tethered, helium-filled, high-altitude balloons like this one. The military uses them on a regular basis. They’re probably more expensive to buy than drones or aircraft, but also cheaper to operate.
