Drones threatening commercial a/c?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote=bbrown1664;9819435]Yeah, but I think the genie is well out of the bottle for the current generation of drones. So we change the rules for all drones sold after say 1 Jan 2018 and we just have to hope like most consumer electronics the current ones are all broken in 2-3 years.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Doncaster
Age: 50
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very few drones have this capability. DJI have however launched the Matrice 200 which includes an ADS-B receiver...
While a transponder seems like a sensible requirement, what would ATC do with all of these extra blips appearing at low height etc.?
While a transponder seems like a sensible requirement, what would ATC do with all of these extra blips appearing at low height etc.?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I Could Kill You with a Consumer Drone
As a former soldier in the U.S. Army with previous access to some of the most sophisticated and sensitive drone technology in our government’s arsenal, and as the current owner of a consumer drone business that sells tens of thousands of drones every year, I can tell you that the U.S. government should be concerned. I know how consumers are modifying them to meet their needs, and I can tell you that the problem is going to get bigger than anyone thinks, and fast.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: EGSS
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A/C diverting. Pax being hugely inconvenienced. Airline incurs a not inconsiderable cost. Surely this event highlights it was not an insignificant moment.
The radio reported that LGW closed the runway, (I assume airspace) for 9mins on 2 occasions. Would this really require diversions? Just how much fuel did those guys have? Surely enough to hold for a couple of circles?
I wonder what the real effort was in finding the laser culprits. Will the effort into finding these drone infringers be any greater? Where to start? Surely this will increase the call to have some registration & ID on the units. If you can 'find my phone' via GPS or whatever system it uses, then surely a drone can carry a phone sized battery/transmitter to enable it to be tracked and identified when necessary? I can not see a technological problem. It depends if there will be legislation to do so. It might even be the interest of the owner if they lose sight of it and it crashes or drifts off on the wind.
The radio reported that LGW closed the runway, (I assume airspace) for 9mins on 2 occasions. Would this really require diversions? Just how much fuel did those guys have? Surely enough to hold for a couple of circles?
I wonder what the real effort was in finding the laser culprits. Will the effort into finding these drone infringers be any greater? Where to start? Surely this will increase the call to have some registration & ID on the units. If you can 'find my phone' via GPS or whatever system it uses, then surely a drone can carry a phone sized battery/transmitter to enable it to be tracked and identified when necessary? I can not see a technological problem. It depends if there will be legislation to do so. It might even be the interest of the owner if they lose sight of it and it crashes or drifts off on the wind.
Most (all) consumer drones would have been working hard at max power to get to that altitude (for those that can). And they will have no endurance left at all. Basically turning into an expensive falling stone.
The enterprise drones that have longer endurance cost into five figures. Lot of money to risk, not to mention CAA approvals.
That's why I'm sceptical.
The enterprise drones that have longer endurance cost into five figures. Lot of money to risk, not to mention CAA approvals.
That's why I'm sceptical.
Whilst not all drone bomber footage is credible, LiveLeak is of the opinion this footage is...
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5db_1498777854
Note re cuts to vid: "...edited it down so it wasn't so slow and boring..."
.
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5db_1498777854
Note re cuts to vid: "...edited it down so it wasn't so slow and boring..."
.
A chap I know who lives in Germany, bought a decent consumer drone online to fly with his son. Each time they took it to an open space it flew only minimally and kept shutting down (fail-safe mode) which left them both confused and frustrated. After communicating with the manufacturer, it transpired that inbuilt in it's software was an ability to know when it was being used in the vicinity of an airport to ameliorate such problems as at LGW. Unfortunately for this owner the only unpopulated areas were in the vicinity ( but not close to) an airport, so they ended up selling it and have taken up another hobby. I wonder why such a system can't be included in consumer drones as standard ?
Speaking as one personally involved with the delays at LGW yesterday, might it be legally permissible to destroy a drone without warning and without risk of legal compensatory action by its owners if it were flying in an area that compromised the safety of those around it in the air and on the ground?
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Wrexham
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking as one personally involved with the delays at LGW yesterday, might it be legally permissible to destroy a drone without warning and without risk of legal compensatory action by its owners if it were flying in an area that compromised the safety of those around it in the air and on the ground?
It all falls within the "Lawful Excuse" defence and would likely still need to be put before the courts/CPS.
From the Criminal Damage Act (1971):
"Section 5(2) provides that a person is to be treated as having a lawful excuse, whether or not he would be so treated apart from its provisions:
"(a) if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction or damage to the property in question had so consented or would have so consented to it if he or they had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances; or
(b) if he destroyed or damaged or threatened to destroy or damage the property in question ...in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be vested in himself or another, and at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed- (i) that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and (ii) that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances."
On the basis of s5(1), the s5(2) defence applies to ss 1(1), 2(a) and 3(a) only. Under s5(3) it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held. Section 5(5) makes it clear that these provisions operate without prejudice to any other defence available to a criminal charge."
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a major issue. ADS-B is already very congested with new 'bright ideas' for its use being added almost daily. There is a probability that it will become unusable in the not too distant future. Remember air traffic agencies are likely to be mandating ADS-B IN for aircraft CDTI so it is not just ATC that will suffer.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Brasil
Age: 42
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking as one personally involved with the delays at LGW yesterday, might it be legally permissible to destroy a drone without warning and without risk of legal compensatory action by its owners if it were flying in an area that compromised the safety of those around it in the air and on the ground?
Wrt consumer drones such as that manufactured by DJI, the facility at an application level certainly has the ability to record the telemetry data from flights flown, admittedly this data would only be "logged" by said manufacturer at say, a firmware update....that said, if manufacturers mandated an update of some form each month and this involved a mandatory receipt of data for flights flown, then in theory there would be a method by which proof of a flight in a certain area could then be proven. This would afford a low cost solution other than transponders etc., and although it wouldn't necessarily preclude an incident, it would perhaps make the general population think a little more on where it's safe to operate the quads/drones etc. Of course, some proof of ownership and registration would also be required at time of purchase but if levelled at the manufacturer and owner level, it would minimise regulator and enforcement agencies efforts whilst satisfying the need for some control perhaps.....
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Esher, Surrey
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low altitude systems to disable drones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X27-2WDIZR0
French Army Trains Eagles to Fight Drone Terrorism | Fortune.com
https://www.change.org/p/metropolita...o-catch-drones
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X27-2WDIZR0
French Army Trains Eagles to Fight Drone Terrorism | Fortune.com
https://www.change.org/p/metropolita...o-catch-drones
Wrt consumer drones such as that manufactured by DJI, the facility at an application level certainly has the ability to record the telemetry data from flights flown, admittedly this data would only be "logged" by said manufacturer at say, a firmware update....that said, if manufacturers mandated an update of some form each month and this involved a mandatory receipt of data for flights flown, then in theory there would be a method by which proof of a flight in a certain area could then be proven. This would afford a low cost solution other than transponders etc., and although it wouldn't necessarily preclude an incident, it would perhaps make the general population think a little more on where it's safe to operate the quads/drones etc. Of course, some proof of ownership and registration would also be required at time of purchase but if levelled at the manufacturer and owner level, it would minimise regulator and enforcement agencies efforts whilst satisfying the need for some control perhaps.....
Well, okay - which part doesn't sound low cost - when compared to adding Tx, ADS-B etc. that others suggest? if its the telemetry data feedback that you think might be the costly part, well certainly with DJI, that already exists and is logged for every flight made - I know this only because I have two drones from aforementioned manufacturer (Mavic and Inspire 2), and both log Lat/Long, Altitude, Distance etc., etc. already (heck, even plots route flown on to Google Maps also as a plan view track breadcrumb!).
The updating requirement monthly would not be onerous upon a manufacturer, as firmware requires updating almost monthly anyway - make the drone a 'no fly' model if firmware isn't updated (can be easily done via the drone firmware) by adding a server timestamp limit/restriction or such like, and this then mandates people need to communicate with the manufacturer of said drone to enable flight.
If I'm missing the cost element here by comparison, standing by to be enlightened
The updating requirement monthly would not be onerous upon a manufacturer, as firmware requires updating almost monthly anyway - make the drone a 'no fly' model if firmware isn't updated (can be easily done via the drone firmware) by adding a server timestamp limit/restriction or such like, and this then mandates people need to communicate with the manufacturer of said drone to enable flight.
If I'm missing the cost element here by comparison, standing by to be enlightened
OK, I take your point that giving the good guys the ability to prove they have only been flying where they should be probably wouldn't need much more in the way of infrastructure than currently exists.
But it's not the good guys we should be worrying about. Monitoring where the bad guys fly (bearing in mind that they may have hacked the firmware and/or geofencing, and not be reliant at all on manufacturer updates) is likely to require a whole new approach to system architecture and infrastructure.
I stand by my view that there would be a significant cost attached to that.
But it's not the good guys we should be worrying about. Monitoring where the bad guys fly (bearing in mind that they may have hacked the firmware and/or geofencing, and not be reliant at all on manufacturer updates) is likely to require a whole new approach to system architecture and infrastructure.
I stand by my view that there would be a significant cost attached to that.
Equally, I take your point Dave that your not really ever perhaps going to stop the bad guys with the solution I suggest....if those types are determined to hack firmware and/or geo-fencing solutions built into drone firmware and software, then I would suggest that given a level of expertise needed to do as such, then they are really hell-bent on creating chaos akin to terrorists - fair comment?.
What I'm suggesting would merely be a solution to your average 'Joe Public' that would buy a consumer drone and then think it would be fun to throw it up to get close-ups of airliners at airports. That at the moment is where I see the problem being - and its a lack of accountability I suspect that makes these types feel they can get away with what currently happens by way of reported incidents.
The day that an individual with some form of desire to cause harm with a device and their ability to remove monitoring/flight restrictions appears, then sadly another method does need to be utilised - and this already exists in the form of opposing forces using shuttlecock bombs (Iraqi soldiers v ISIS). There is significant cost here agreed, but that could be true of anything involving the mitigation against acts of - well, bluntly its terrorism.
What I'm suggesting would merely be a solution to your average 'Joe Public' that would buy a consumer drone and then think it would be fun to throw it up to get close-ups of airliners at airports. That at the moment is where I see the problem being - and its a lack of accountability I suspect that makes these types feel they can get away with what currently happens by way of reported incidents.
The day that an individual with some form of desire to cause harm with a device and their ability to remove monitoring/flight restrictions appears, then sadly another method does need to be utilised - and this already exists in the form of opposing forces using shuttlecock bombs (Iraqi soldiers v ISIS). There is significant cost here agreed, but that could be true of anything involving the mitigation against acts of - well, bluntly its terrorism.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would discount any reliance on the software in 'drones' as almost all of it is being hacked and I wouldn't be surprised to see totally jailbroken drones on the market.
So soft walls, altitude limits, range limits are all only in software and are actively being removed.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/0...rones_app_sec/
So soft walls, altitude limits, range limits are all only in software and are actively being removed.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/0...rones_app_sec/
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Only occasionally above FL50
Age: 71
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
6 Posts
UK to bring in drone registration
All drones over 250g (8oz) apparently with safety tests for owners.
Sounds like a knee jerk reaction to me.
UK to bring in drone registration - BBC News
Sounds like a knee jerk reaction to me.
UK to bring in drone registration - BBC News