SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A Wisconsin robbery and auto theft suspect was captured by police thanks to a borrowed drone on May 31, according to court papers filed yesterday in Middleton, Wisconsin. The Wisconsin State Journal reports that Marquis Phiffer, 21, stole a car and robbed a convenience store in Middleton, Wisconsin on May 31.
After allegedly stealing a car that had been left running outside a coffee shop and robbing the store at a BP gas station (he declared he had a gun, but the clerk never saw one), Phiffer was pursued by police. A chase that reached speeds of up to 70mph ended when Phiffer crashed into a parked car. He abandoned the car and ran into a marsh near Tiedemann's Pond, just a few blocks from Middleton's National Mustard Museum.
The Middleton Fire Department lent the police a rubber raft and a camera-equipped DJI Phantom quadrocopter drone used in search and rescue operations to locate Phiffer. He was hiding in the water, and when the police reached him "his shoes were floating away from him," along with a "large wad of cash," Wisconsin State Journal's Ed Trevelen reported. More cash and a hypodermic needle were found in his pocket.
Seems like the same thing as calling in a chopper, but a lot less expensive. Anyone know what the cost differential is?
Original Submission
(Score: 1) by C R Johnson on Monday July 06 2015, @02:00PM
That quadcopter goes for about $1300 on Amazon.
A bell 205 is about $1M not even counting fuel, maintenance, and pilot.
(Score: 2) by subs on Monday July 06 2015, @04:57PM
It's a false comparison, because while the drone is cheaper for surveillance, ahem, "search", it's worthless for the "rescue" (or "capture", whichever you prefer) part. Drones are at best an extra set of eyes in the sky. They are a powerful addition to your SAR equipment, but they can't do the same thing a helicopter can.
I bet even in this case, once they located the suspect, they went in with a helicopter to actually deliver boots to the ground.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by davester666 on Monday July 06 2015, @07:01PM
This kind of article is just straightup PR, to try to make the idea of drones flying around your neighbourhood more palatable.
Because terrorists are everywhere.
(Score: 1) by lars_stefan_axelsson on Tuesday July 07 2015, @08:05AM
You have no idea how police actually use helicopters, do you? They don't land the helicopter to start chasing after the fleeing suspect. Ever. A helicopter is there as a surveillance platform to lead ground units to the suspect's location. A drone is of course a near perfect substitute for a helicopter in all these scenarios.
Youtube and TV is even chock full of footage of these chases so how that could have eluded anyone is a bit puzzling...
Stefan Axelsson
(Score: 2) by subs on Tuesday July 07 2015, @03:22PM
You have no idea how police actually use helicopters, do you?
Aww, sweet, sweet troll. I do. But you seem to have gotten all of your knowledge about helicopter usage from TV.
They don't land the helicopter to start chasing after the fleeing suspect. Ever.
You mean, they usually don't. However, if the area to be deployed into is difficult to access, a helicopter can and will be used. Moreover, police helicopters are not only used for pursuit. Often times, it's SAR [youtube.com]. Of course, that rarely makes the news, so it's understandable you wouldn't know about it.
Youtube and TV is even chock full of footage of these chases so how that could have eluded anyone is a bit puzzling...
And it's also chock full of the non-pursuit type footage where they rescue people, or deploy officers into hard to access locations, so "how that could have eluded anyone is a bit puzzling" right back at you.
(Score: 1) by lars_stefan_axelsson on Sunday July 12 2015, @08:52AM
USian at his best as always...
No, police helicopters don't land to perform SAR here. We have, wait for it, SAR helicopters for that. You know, helicopters with actual equipment and personel trained for and practised in the SAR mission. But even so, the overwhelming majority of SAR is "S", i.e. "search". Any helicopter based search would end with the finding of the subject. In many parts of the world, (such as here) there wouldn't typically be any possibility of landing the helicopter anyway, and as police helicopters don't have winches, and you wouldn't use a winch with a lost kid or senile senior citizen anyway, that's the end of that. (A winch is only useful with someone who can go down with it. You know, like they have on proper SAR helicopters.)
Police helicopters do two things. Watch traffic, and watch traffic. In their spare time they do provide "eye in the sky" services to ground based units, and spot the odd forest fire (that's all they can do when it comes to forest fires as well, watch it). It's rare, as in "hens teeth" rare, occurrence when they land to actually perform a mission. (They only land for lunch, basically).
Watching traffic and providing overwatch could be equally well served by drones. The only mission you'd lose would be landing for lunch at the country inn, but that's hardly critical to the powers that be.
Stefan Axelsson
(Score: 2) by pogostix on Thursday July 09 2015, @04:55AM
Yup, you're wrong. I had a police helicopter land in a clearing near me and 2 officers and a german shepard hopped out and charged into the woods. Came out with a guy in handcuffs a minute later. Think the dog gets most of the credit for the quick collar.
(Score: 1) by lars_stefan_axelsson on Sunday July 12 2015, @09:05AM
Not really. That's so rare that it made the local police quarterly. You don't think there are helicopter based K9 units, do you?
Look of course a helicopter can land and perform a mission. However its not done since it wouldn't be cost effective. For all the missions that the police helicopter are actually designed for (and by that I mean staffed etc.) a drone would do just as well.
Now, SAR, medevac, (and to a lesser extent) fire fighting, a helicopter still makes sense as you need people there anyway you might as well bring the pilot. Note that the pilot/pilots are there to do just that, and only that. If you need additional mission capability you need more people. A pilot is trained for one thing and one thing alone. To do otherwise would be too expensive, and hence a waste of resources as you could have better mission capability cheaper. (Yes, a police helicopter pilot is a "policeman" in the same way that an army cook is an "infantryman", i.e. in name only.) This is incidentally why army helicopter pilots in an air mobile unit don't park the helicopter, pick up their rifle and join the assault. That would be a complete waste of expensive resources.
And it would of course make more sense to put the K9 units back in their vehicles and provide the search capability with a drone. You would have a lot more drones covering a wider area on a much shorter notice. When the fugitive has gone to ground, the K9 unit, taken to the place by car, would already be well poised to take over and make the final arrest. There would be much less chance of escape as you could cover more angles from a much lower altitude with drones. You could for example fly below tree cover or other man made structure providing cover as well as covering all the exits as you'd have more units available. A helicopter K9 unit only makes sense of you can only afford one K9 unit and one helicopter...
Stefan Axelsson
(Score: 2) by pogostix on Sunday July 12 2015, @03:59PM
Ah well if you're talking about what would make the most sense and be cost-effective then you've nailed it. Also I'm in a pretty remote location, so I'd expect the helicopter to land and deploy resources brought in from the city. In LA throw the dogs in a minivan.
(Score: 1) by lars_stefan_axelsson on Monday July 13 2015, @07:43AM
Yes, in a very remote setting of course police via helicopter makes more sense, approaching as much sense as ambulance via helicopter. (That is; a lot of sense).
However, the powers that be don't see it that way, especially in the US where law enforcement is extremely decentralised and deregulated, so the money isn't there to pool for such resources. That said, you'll still see more helicopter ambulances than police helicopter "quick reaction forces" since ambulance work is "always" (for some version of "always") time critical. If you were injured five minutes ago, you're still going to be injured an hour from now. Most police work however (like 98% of it, excluding traffic monitoring), is showing up (long) after the fact and filling in the report. A guy in a cruiser can do that just as well and much more cheaply than several more guys in a helicopter (who all make more money to boot). Hell, even a guy on a horse could do that just as well. Especially in a rural setting, active chases are even fewer and farther between. Less crime per capita, much less population, and different types of crimes to boot.
For the once in a blue moon scenarios (Breivik in Norway comes to mind) quick access to a helicopter makes sense though. But having one on standby just for that is going to be money not well spent.)
Stefan Axelsson