Remix.run Logo
ripberge 16 hours ago

As someone who lives in central LA and has them circle my neighborhood frequently, actually shaking my house, I think this is awesome.

These needs should be filled by drones. Way less noisy, dangerous and expensive.

kylehotchkiss 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Down in SD at least, the sheriff's office helicopters serve many purposes. They'll use them for firefighting, hike rescues (often! according to their IG), first responder to an aviation accident, loudly shouting garbled messages through their loudspeaker, etc.

There's just enough high-speed/timely crime here that I prefer they use these over drones. There's some extra legal protections built into helicopters that drones don't get, like prison time if some idiot points a laser pointer.

stickfigure 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I work with CHP helicopters as part of our fire district's rescue team. We pull a half dozen people a year off of one of the local trails (sometimes as "recovery"). Most of these are via helicopter. There are two helos for a huge area - Yolo county down to Santa Cruz county. By acreage it's a lot bigger than LA.

My point is, two small helicopters are more than enough to do that job as a side-gig from all the other CHP work they do.

Also, Cal Fire has its own air wing. LAPD helicopters are not equipped for firefighting.

VerifiedReports 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I seriously doubt that physically rescuing hikers or delivering first-responders to plane crashes represent a large percentage of LAPD helicopter missions. I live in a nice suburb and there's one of them circling over it probably weekly.

I don't see why large drones can't do most of what these helicopters are doing. They're using needlessly expensive helicopters, too.

bluescrn 8 hours ago | parent [-]

People generally really don't like drones, but have come to accept helicopters

asdff 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

LAPD doesn't conduct rescue operations or anything like that. Different helicopters are used from different agencies.

monkaiju 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Idk, having a bunch of government surveillance drones doesn't really sound great... Maybe we just don't need this level of surveillance at all?

autoexec 16 hours ago | parent [-]

It's absolutely worth looking at the ROI on these flights and weighing that against the intrusion on our privacy/freedom. No doubt they'll always need drones and helicopters but I'd be surprised if there was any real need for them to be in the air that often. I think that's a question that should be asked everywhere but the LAPD in particular are terrible enough that it makes this a great place to start.

DiscourseFan 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Couldn’t someone take out the drones pretty easily?

Zigurd 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Helicopters aren't exactly robust under fire and are four orders of magnitude more valuable as a target.

autoexec 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That depends on the drone. There are drones/UAVs that fly so high in the air you can't even see them seeing you from the ground. Even low flying drones would be very hard to hit from a car involved in a high speed chase, and it's not as if people can't shoot at helicopters which are both larger/easier targets and much more dangerous if brought down.

whalesalad 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I was in Santa Monica - the dense part with all the alleyways - during a foot pursuit involving a heli. Felt like I was in vietnam. It was at night, they were pretty low, and that light felt like the sun coming into the building.

polalavik 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

why LA is spending thousands/hour when drones exist is crazy.

tcdent 16 hours ago | parent [-]

You're talking about technology that's only become realistic in the last couple years. Even then, there's probably nothing off-the-shelf that would serve the current need.

LAPD has been patrolling with helicopters for decades. I have yet to see a drone follow a car in high speed pursuit down the 5 at 100+ MPH.

digdugdirk 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

On the other hand, I have seen drones chase down F1 cars at 100+ MPH...

Realistically though, I agree with your sentiment. Solving this would drones would require a constant flock of something more akin to Predator drones.

The better question is - why do we allow high speed pursuit chases in the first place?

hatthew 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

As far as I'm aware, high speed drones tend to have quite short flight durations due to battery limitations. Drones that have the range to follow a fleeing suspect for a long time would probably have to be big enough that they could cause a fatal accident if they crash, and in that case I'd rather have a pilot on board. Better reaction time, no risk from jamming, much better field of view/awareness, decades of testing, etc.

typewithrhythm 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Most of the small high speed drones are that size to fit under professional licencing requirements, often so that one racing spec can be viable across a wider area. Leading to significant competition in that size pushing down prices.

Rather than some inherent sized for safety idea.

Jamming might be interesting, I suspect that it's easy enough (and a much bigger crime) to follow a very loud jamming signal though.

Every practical metric a drone surpasses a helicopter; they are so much simpler to operate that you can easily offset any perceived downside with more drones. And you don't get a tested solution without trying it out.

tcdent 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> why do we allow high speed pursuit chases in the first place?

AFAIK they've changed their tactics in recent years, but growing up around LA these we're like sporting events on TV. It's a guilty pleasure, but almost everyone I know tuned-in and watched the chase.

phantasmish 15 hours ago | parent [-]

Their popularity for viewers (even more so now with YouTube, but they’re long been a staple of live news and late night tv) and the fact that police like any excuse to do “badass” things are big parts of why they still happen. They’re a pretty bad idea. Endangering lives (including bystanders) over mostly relatively-minor crimes.

But people love ‘em, and if you point out what a bad idea they are people label you “soft on crime” (as happens with a lot of plainly good policy)

asdff 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why do we need to follow a car in a high speed pursuit and force it to go 100mph on uncontrolled streets is the better question

8 hours ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
sokoloff 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The person “forc[ing] it to go 100mph” is in the car being chased.

asdff 15 hours ago | parent [-]

Chased by what? It isn't a lion they are running from. It is a police interceptor egging them on to go 100mph.

sokoloff 15 hours ago | parent [-]

I think they’re overwhelmingly being chased by a police vehicle after a lawful request to pull over and stop.

The fleeing driver is choosing to turn that lawful stop into felony fleeing/eluding if they choose to attempt to flee at triple digits.

phantasmish 15 hours ago | parent [-]

This is very much an “it takes two to tango” situation.

Without both of:

- A driver willing to flee the cops.

- A cop willing to chase at dangerous speeds

The high-speed chase doesn’t happen. Both make it happen.

kevin_thibedeau 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The MQ-8 would be cheaper to operate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_MQ-8_Fire_Sco...

15 hours ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
scottyah 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In what way would that be cheaper to operate? You'd just replace a pilot with a few pilots and a few teams of software engineers. Maybe fuel savings?

robotnikman 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Pretty sure these can't be bought by municipalities. Would make more sense to operate them though.