I'm so glad DJI is doing this. I've started flying drones in September of 2016. I use to be annoyed by them, but now as a pilot and a photographer, really love the unique perspectives drone footage gives me.
That said, I hear from many people who dislike drones (I can understand them since I was one, too) and all it takes is one or two people to ruin it for everyone else. So it's really good DJI is taking the lead on this.
Would you mind talking about your experience so far? I'm a photographer myself and I've always thought about getting a drone myself. What drone are you currently using? I was thinking about getting a Mavic Pro so I can carry it easily in my motorcycle, but it's a little bit expensive.
I have the Mavic and I am pretty happy with it myself. It's not perfect, but it's generally the best drone I have used (the range is the best you can get, camera is pretty good, portability is great, battery life great). The only drone better is the Phantom 4 Pro, which is $1500 if I am not mistaken.
Is it worth the price? Depends on what you are using it for. Also, if you do buy it, make another DJI account, generate an affiliate code, and use it to buy the Mavic via their website. That way you can use the $50 credit to buy yourself a second battery. Also keep in mind that if you want to use it professionally and are in the US, that you need to get the Part 107 licensing by law.
I live and often walk past a place with an amazing view of some world-renowned scenery. Almost every time I walk past now, I have to hear the annoying buzz of drones filming today's happy bride and groom.
I used to think drones were cool and wanted one, but now I just find them a bit irritating. I do like the footage they can take though.
People will always be annoyed at thing occupying space they're trying to enjoy. Some say the same about tourists in general (eg yourself), and houses, and cars, and wind turbines. I even know someone who doesn't like trees - they clutter up the beautiful hillsides.
While i agree with the sentiment, I'd argue that the power a single drone has to dominate the space for everyone else present makes it a slightly different case; wind turbines, tourists and roads provide benefit to many at the resentment of few.
Drone flying in public spaces is an intrisicly selfish act - more like playing music without headphones on the bus or letting your dog foul in public
I'd say that's a little harsh. When I'm in public spaces, I see / encounter / take notice of people doing all sorts of things that they consider enjoyment, from smoking, to skateboarding, to kicking a ball around. Drones catch attention because they are a new phenomenon. Like anything else, they can be used dangerously and disruptively, but they aren't inherently a selfish act.
I see drones as different than, say, smoking or skateboarding. Smoking irritates people, but outdoors, it is really easy to get away from. Skateboarding is potentially dangerous to bystanders, but it is very obvious when someone on a board is getting close enough to cause damage.
Drones can (and occasionally do) fall out of the sky. Knowing there's one somewhere over me leads me to pay a ton of attention to it, which is (obviously) extremely distracting. This is a case where it making less noise is actually more stressful, because you have to look.
It is a different degree of cognitive load and ambient stress compared to a skateboarder. As an example, I was trying to read in a park some time back, and found I couldn't pay sufficient attention to the book because of the drones. So I left.
> Smoking irritates people, but outdoors, it is really easy to get away from.
I find smoking 100x worse than any drone.
When I'm standing there minding my own business, and then some selfish person comes near and ruins my air, I find it incredibly rude and selfish. Why should I have to move just because someone else can't keep their addictions to themselves?
And the terrible-smelling smoke carries literally more than 50m, even outside. I guess humans have evolved to be super sensitive to smoke for obvious reasons, but cigarette smoke smells so much worse to me than wood smoke. It's just so (literally) noxious. That's a pretty big area for one person to make unbearable.
I can't eat anywhere near it, up to 100m downwind. Smokers have no idea how unpleasant their habit is to others, or at what distance, because they have completely ruined their own sense of smell and taste.
> Drones can (and occasionally do) fall out of the sky.
I never used to worry about high drones but now you've reminded me of that, maybe I will! I'd still rather they were far up and quiet though.
I can understand the sentiment. I'm a frequent drone flyer and I try my best to quickly get it to an altitude where it's not all that loud or noticeable when I'm around other people. When it's 200-300ft up, it's barely audible.
Some fool flew a drone just prior to embarkation at Schiphol airport a while ago right in front of the terminal building. Drone confiscated, fined on the spot.
It's becoming a major headache. The FAA lists incidents every six months as a spreadsheet.[1] 474
incidents in the last reporting period. One midair collision with a drone, not serious.
There are many reports of UAVs interfering with forest fire fighting operations. This is probably the biggest single problem with real impact.
KELSO, WA/UAS INCIDENT/1507P/ZSE ARTCC REPORTED EUROCOPTER AS350 (US FOREST SERVICE) OBSERVED A 4 ROTOR UAS, 32 MILES NE SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON RGNL ARPT, BETWEEN 3,400 AND 5,000 FEET, IN CLOSE AND UNSAFE PROXIMITY TO THE HELO. WHEN THE FOREST SERVICE ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT THE INDIVIDUAL, HE LOADED THE UAS INTO HIS VEHICLE AND FLED THE SCENE. SKAMINIA COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE NOTIFIED.
SANTA CLARITA, CA/UAS INCIDENT/1447P/ZLA ADVISED UAS OPERATIONS REPORTED IN THE VICINITY OF THE SAND FIRE, NEAR SANTA CLARITA. NO IMPACT TO FIRE FIGHTING ACTIVITIES OTHER THAN MOVING WHERE THE AIR ASSETS ARE ""DIPPING"" FOR WATER. FIRE AUTHORITIES ARE WORKING WITH LA CO SHERIFF AND ARE ACTIVELY SEARCHING FOR OPERATOR.
NATIONAL FOREST SERVICE OFFICE NOTIFIED SALT LAKE ARTCC OF AN UNAUTHORIZED WHITE PHANQUADCOPTER WITH A CAMERA OPERATING WITHIN THE CONFINES OF A FIRE-FIGHTING TFR BELOW 500 FEET, 15 NE SALMON, ID. AIRBORNE FIRE-FIGHTING OPERATIONS WERE HALTED UNTIL CONTACT WAS MADE WITH THE UAS OPERATORS AND UAS OPERATIONS CEASED. UAS OPERATORS DEPARTED AREA PRIOR TO LEO ARRIVING. VEHICLE LICENSE PLATE WAS OBTAINED.
IDAHO CITY, ID/UAS INCIDENT/2015P/UNITED STATES FORESTRY SERVICE ADVISED THEY HAD SUSPENDED THE AIR ATTACK MISSION IN TFR 4961 DUE TO A UNAUTHORIZED UAS FLYING IN THE TFR. THE TFR WAS REPORTED BY SOMEONE ON THE GROUND WHO STATED IT WAS OPERATING 4,000 FEET ABOVE THE TREES. UNITED STATES FORESTRY SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE STATED HE WAS GOING TO GATHER MORE INFORMATION ON THE INCIDENT AND CALL IT IN TO SALT LAKE CITY ARTCC.
CALL FROM THE CUT FIRE SAN BERNADINO NATIONAL FOREST TO REPORT A UAS INTERFERING IN FIRE FIGHTING EFFORTS IN THE CUT FIRE. SHE STATED THAT AIR SUPPORT WAS FOLLOWING THE UAS AND THAT LAW ENFORCEMNT WAS ON THE WAY. THE LOCATION WAS REPORTED TO BE 15 ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE 15 FREEWAY OVER THE CAJON PASS AT 040. IT WAS ALSO MAKING CIRCLES OVER THE SUMMIT TRAIL.
LAX and JFK have multiple incidents of UAVs in the traffic pattern.
LOS ANGELES, CA/UAS INCIDENT/1005P/LAX ATCT ADVISED COMPASS, E170, LAX - SFO, ON DEPARTURE CLIMB OUT FROM LAX REPORTED PASSING UNDER A HOVERING UAS AT APPROXIMATELY 130 FEET. THE UAS THEN PROCEEDED SOUTHWEST BOUND. NO EVASIVE ACTION REPORTED.
JFK/UAS INCIDENT/1945E/JFK ATCT REPORTED OBSERVED A RED AND ORANGE UAS AT 1,100 FEET 4 MILE FINAL RUNWAY 13. NYPD AVIATION UNIT NOTIFIED ON FREQUENCY.
Two UAVs at 2500 feet in the traffic pattern:
"PRELIM INFO FROM FAA OPS: PITTSBURGH, PA/UAS INCIDENTS/0013E/EC135, REPORTED TWO UAS ONE RED AND THE OTHER WHITE AT 2,500 FEET APPX. 5.5 MILES SE OF PITTSBURGH ARPT. AN IMMEDIATE CLIMB WAS REQUIRED TO AVOID THE UAS.
This was probably harmless, but dumb:
WASHINGTON, DC/UAS INCIDENT/1430E/US PARK POLICE REPORTED UAS AT 100 FEET NEAR THE WASHINGTON MONUMENT FILMING A FITNESS VIDEO. USPP SEIZED THE UAS AND CITED OWNER; UAS NOT REGISTERED.
Minor midair collision. Possibly a UAS. 6500' sounds high, but Provo UT is already at 4500',
so this is only 2000' AGL:
PROVO, UT/AIR CARRIER/01-1857M/BEECH BE99 AFTER LANDING SLC REPORTED MINOR DAMAGE TO VERTICAL STABILIZER. NTSB AND FSDO INVESTIGATING AS POSSIBLE MIDAIR WITH UAS AT 6,500 FEET 10 E PROVO. INCIDENT NOT REPORTED WHILE AIRBORNE.
Incidents where evasive action was required:
FLORENCE, SC/UAS INCIDENT/1524E/EXPERIMENTAL APF3, REPORTED SEEING A QUAD COPTER UAS AT SAME ALTITUDE OF 3,500 FEET. ACFT CLIMBED 400 FEET TO AVOID. UNKN IF LEO WAS NOTIFIED.
RED BLUFF, CA/UAS INCIDENT/1118P/OAKLAND ARTCC ADVISED PIPER P28A, AT 2,800 FEET, OBSERVED A RED AND WHITE 6-8 FOOT TALL U...
You also have to read these reports with a grain of salt. Some of those reports are nearly impossible for a pilot to have actually spotted a drone in, and many are speculative in nature.
Quite a few (all?) supposed "drone strikes" have turned out to be simple bird strikes after investigation. You just never heard about the follow ups and media retractions.
> THE TFR WAS REPORTED BY SOMEONE ON THE GROUND WHO STATED IT WAS OPERATING 4,000 FEET ABOVE THE TREES.
Stuff like this though? I don't believe it. No one can see a drone 4,000 feet in the air. Most commercial drones are nearly impossible to spot (if you know exactly where to look) even at around 1000 feet.
I believe it's an important issue to take seriously, but there are a contingent of 'anti-drone' folks who don't care so much about the truth and care more about anything they can do to generate negative PR - up to and including outright lying.
> Let’s not forget that DJI has software which limits the abilities of the drones based on the pilot’s location. For example, DJI has established that airports are no-fly zones. However, there are some ways that drone pilots can bypass this measure and fly without restriction from DJI.
DJI is going really far on this. They already have pre-installed software which restricts drones in no-fly zones. Even more, they are putting out a bounty program to that. I heard that there are some special electrical guns which can shoot down drones. It might be useful to deploy these in no-fly zones.
> I heard that there are some special electrical guns which can shoot down drones. It might be useful to deploy these in no-fly zones.
The issue is scale. These guns can likely be deployed for big events etc but how do you effectively protect the airspace around airports, powerplants, or other critical infrastructure with such devices?
> how do you effectively protect the airspace around airports, powerplants, or other critical infrastructure with such devices?
Use cameras, acoustic sensors, and RF receivers to detect a drone's presence, and use a phased array antenna to shit some appropriate jamming signals in its general direction.
Your local electronic warfare military contractor should be able to set you up with all the equipment you need for such a system.
instead of sending jamming signals, they could deploy a bunch of "bouncer" drones along the perimeter to knock down the unwanted drones. don't know if its going to be very effective, but at least it will be fun to watch. XD
Joke aside, is not far from being a real tactic, deploying the so-called "defender" drones, which are guided by a autonomous system, fed by an array of sensors around the perimeter.
Signal-jacking and gps spoofing is the only cost-efficient and scalable way to bring these things down. The word gun really mangles the reality of counter-drone solutions
Unless the operator is going out of his way to use a critical frequency as carrier it should actually be relatively trivial to signal-jack the drones, assuming you do it in a narrow beam (thus that you know its position) rather than blanketing an area.
I don't know - the idea of someone who has done a week's "security training" running around all that expensive, critical ground and airborne communications & navigation equipment with a weapon capable of blasting out EMP signals makes me more than a little nervous...
No matter how expensive the "gun" is, you cannot really direct an EMP wave and restrict it like a traditional borescope weapon. All it will take is for someone firing it across an ILS transmitter array at a drone on the other side, and the airport loses their Cat II landing capability just as the airport gets socked in.
Using a phased array you can "lens" a signal fairly effectively. Aside from this, you could use multiple transmitters that are fairly low power on their own, but in a combined and targeted shot could deliver a knockout blow to a drone.
The problem being that in order to effectively 'jam' a signal far away, antenna theory requires that a fairly significant proportion of that radio energy must be directed out the back of the 'antenna'/gun. Right into the person firing it.
That's also ignoring the fact that if the signal to a drone is lost, it's more than likely to fall out of the sky like a ton of bricks.
> That's also ignoring the fact that if the signal to a drone is lost, it's more than likely to fall out of the sky like a ton of bricks.
Consumer drones typically have well-defined and behaved signal loss behavior, which (for DJI ones at least) is even fairly configurable. Though quite often that behavior involves gaining a substantial amount of altitude (at least by default), which at an airport is actually probably worse than dropping.
I don't see why the signal has to go out the back. Otherwise dish-type antennas couldn't work. And those TV aerials would work as well pointed 180 degrees away from a signal as straight at it, which isn't true.
It's based on the antenna design. These 'jammer' devices aren't dish based; they're designed after Yagi-Uda style antennas, in the format of a 'rifle' that the user points at the drone.
The radiation pattern for them is exactly as I described. [1]
Wouldn't a (easy?) solution for a bounty hunter be to exploit a security vulnerability in the drone to track the drone & user?
Or DJI could track these drones themselves from the mothership, uploading the day's GPS history every time they call home... not sure if/why they don't already do this. Would eliminate much of the need for a bounty.
Couldn't they send a drone to dock with the mothership, upload a virus that filters down to all the child drones, set off a nuclear bomb and then escape quickly enough to watch the pieces fall in a fiery wreck to the runway?
"Good morning. In less than an hour, aircraft from here will join others from around the world. And you will be launching the largest aerial battle in this history of mankind..."
Am I the only one getting heebie-jeebies over the prospect of drones being used for purposes of terrorism? It sounds like these guys (in the article) are just jack-asses but it doesn't seem hard to imagine bad actors doing quite a bit worse. I'm also scared of the prospect that autonomous drones might be considerably harder to stop and/or catch the perpetrators before or afterwards.
It also seems likely that this will be something that is relatively cheap and widely available - you might have to be a serious actor lay hands on a SAM, but a lone nutter can probably afford a drone or ten.
Whoa. I suppose I had the homegrown terrorist more in mind - all those self-radicalizing wackos who still might be able to follow an online blueprint. Anyhow, this looks like a thing, as a number of commenters have said.
It doesn't seem like much of a threat at the margin, given how easy it is to get much more practical and effective weapons like firearms and automobiles.
For a relatively sophisticated group that needs aerial reconnaissance, drones certainly slash costs, but for actual terrorist attacks on citizen targets I'm not particularly worried.
Sure, there are already all sorts of ways for some fruitcake to attack and kill a number of civilians. However, what disturbs me about the citizen target scenario that it expands the scope (locations and timing) of what can be targeted and reduces the requirement that the attacker has to be willing to accept a near-certainty of death or capture during the attack.
If someone wants to drive a truck through a farmers market or the like, it's pretty hard to stop them. What worries me is that this sort of technology allows that someone to instead to choose to attack something like a concert, public rally or political event with a greater symbolic significance despite a (2D) police perimeter, fences, bollards, etc. It may not increase the casualty risk but it may certainly increase the "theater" potential (which has traditionally been a big part of terrorism - witness the fixation of airports/airlines).
This is exactly why a lot of police forces and militaries are developing anti-drone tactics, including anti-drone eagles (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiinhvBCXE8), RF based 'guns', and drones with big nets to catch other drones.
As far as drones flying into planes goes though, I'd say there's not too much to worry about there, jet airliners go too fast for drones to be an effective threat. No more effective than small arms would be, at least.
Pretty sure that a drone carrying a chunk of metal or stone, and crashing itself into one of the jet intakes of a plane that is taking off is a great way to instill terror into airline passengers.
Most drone pilots would have no problem placing them in the path of the jet intake at the last second.
Replace the slab of concrete with a grenade, for added fear.
There was a case in the early A380s, Qantas Flight 32, where an oil issue (IIRC) caused a hub failure in on of the four engines and nearly brought the plane down while it was in cruise. A grenade causing all the blades to separate instantly would not have much trouble causing damage outside the engine containment. You could cause hydraulic failures for flight controls on that wing and fuel tank fires pretty easily.
Takeoff is a very critical phase of flight. Instantaneous engine failure plus partial control surface loss and fuel fires could easily overwhelm a pilot
> Takeoff is a very critical phase of flight. Instantaneous engine failure plus partial control surface loss and fuel fires could easily overwhelm a pilot
Continued takeoff after failure of a single engine is certification requirement for the aircraft, and is trained frequently by pilots.
See the Thompson 757 A330 bird ingestion, engine failure, and successful landing in 2007:
Failure of more than one engine is always going to be, well, problematic (the Miracle on the Hudson notwithstanding). And, as you point out, uncontained engine failure (while rare) can screw all sorts of things up.
So, while I disagree somewhat with "could easily overwhelm a pilot" and "nearly bought down the plane" regarding Qantas 32, all in all I'm afraid you're right...
Out of Syria, there is video clip of a drone dropping a small grenade, which explodes near the open hatch of a tank. This killed or severely wounded the commander of the tank whose upper body was exposed as he was trying to scan the surrounding area. A small drone worth a few hundred bucks and some home made mechanism for dropping a grenade effectively took a main battle tank out of action.
The grenade drop was pretty lucky but these drones definitely are being explored actively by all sides for use in armed conflict.
It seems a lot of ground based measures are being explored but imho, we will see drones with small guns/nets/missiles that will be used to hunt other drones. It often comes to this. Tank is often the best countermeasure against another tank. And a jet fighter against another jet fighter.
Angry people with explosives will find ways to deliver them to their targets alas; think of it as the 21st century version of "the bomber will always get through".
In fact, drones are actually pretty shitty in terms of capacity compared to the alternatives (like lorries and improvised mortars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrack_buster).
>Am I the only one getting heebie-jeebies over the prospect of drones being used for purposes of terrorism?
Doubtful, given how terrorism is the current bogeyman being used to push irrational fear upon those that can't think critically and/or don't understand statistics and probability.
Where do you live that you're so scared of everything? Were you always so afraid or do you think media/propaganda/disinformation have conditioned you? Not trolling here, just genuinely curious as to why terrorism is part of your threat model...
Add a penalty for flying anywhere that could interfere any sort of crewed aircraft operations (including airports and flight paths, of course) without an operational and registered ADS-B transceiver. You fly next to big iron, you broadcast and listen to ADS-B like big iron, so nobody gets hurt.
ADS-B hardware would have to be certified ($$$$). It's an excellent addition to the current air-traffic situation but the actual protocol is not very robust. It's pretty easy to jam or overwhelm the system without trying if the software running the transmitter shits a brick. This system is going to become more heavily relied upon since not every airport has a radar (even controlled airports with a tower) and I imagine it will even be used to replace radar systems in some areas eventually.
You'll have to get the FCC involved inevitably, but one option might be to lower the TX power until its range is under 2-3 miles line of sight. Enough distance for a 747 to get an alarm and evade, but not enough for it to take down an entire bravo ring if it fails.
> but the actual protocol is not very robust. It's pretty easy to jam or overwhelm the system without trying if the software running the transmitter shits a brick.
Yeah that definitely is an issue -- there's no fancy multiple access provisions on 1090MHz.
Limited TX power needs to happen anyway for ADS-B to live on those battery-powered UAVs, along with along with implementing the protocol inside an ASIC that monitors/decodes its own RF output (and bricks itself if it's transmitting inappropriately) would likely be enough to avoid accidental disruption.
I wonder if there's going to be additional spectrum and RF standards for position reporting systems specifically meant for UAVs.
When people start getting jail time for flying in restricted airspace the events will drop. Idiots pointing laser pointers at aircraft used to be pretty common until people started landing in jail because of it. Trying to say drones need transponders and such is non-starter because the same people who will be so ignorant to warrant them wouldn't bother to spend the money on one in the first place and follow those regs.
Once a few people get the book thrown at them word will spread and people will start using their brains a bit more before they take off.
Drones are nothing of not noisy, and that noise is unlike almost any other piece of machinery.
It shouldn't be too hard to set up towers around the airport with sensitive speakers that can triangulate the location of a drone flying within a restricted area. From that point it can sound an alarm and/or deploy counter-measures.
Small drones are pretty quiet, especially once they reach altitude. It would be difficult or impossible to pick one up over the noise of wind, cars, lawn mowers or leaf blowers.
You say that like it's impossible, but drones have a very particular pitch. If the Navy has sonar capable of finding submarines thousands of miles away in a very noisy ocean, there's technology that can do this.
Maybe it's not inexpensive, but it's at least proven to exist.
Good on DJI, but China should be instilling fear on anyone who even thinks about doing this in the future. I can only imagine the penalty they would impose for causing a crash that took lives.
There are legitimate uses of airports by drone enthusiasts who rent out whole airfield for weekend gatherings and events. The clubs in my area fly almost exclusively this way. I wonder how the restrictions will fare in this case.
I'm not really sure I understand the problem here. If anything, it seems like a little bit of corporate responsibility (in a broad sense) is a good thing, no?
No one complains about cars and wants to restrict them the same way drones are treated. DJI has an interest in making sure that their drones follow the law. The entire drone industry and their lawful users also have an interest in making sure that no one is giving drone pilots a bad reputation. DJI is part of this and wants to spend their money to make sure that people know that unlawful flights are not tolerated by any drone users. I don't think anyone would be complaining if Ford put out rewards for information on hit'n'run drivers.
Not quite - we restrict cars even more then we restrict drones.
They also happen to be necessary to the operation of our society. Drones are little more then toys. If all drones were grounded tomorrow, life would go on. If all cars stopped tomorrow, half the country would starve to death by June.
If they are concerned about 300 families from passengers from a stricken airliner coming after them for billions, then yes, yes it is.
If they are concerned about the FAA restricting drone use altogether, then yes. (they've already required drones be registered. If they're aircraft that cant be operated safely then FAA can ground them all, and much of the world follows our FAA's rulings)
A civilian UAS & manned aircraft collision resulting in loss of life is statistically inevitable. How DJI fares in court by showing it exhausted all means to prevent their products from doing harm when the unfortunate does occur, is something they can be proactive with.
Guessing that China's government regulation of drones is a lot more relaxed than the US, in which case it becomes a market-driven approach - it's bad PR to have drones disrupting flights, so the business is investing private capital to prevent further incidents harming public perception of drones until the law can catch up.
Ford doesn't need to put out bounties because there's adequate regulation to punish drunk drivers. However, in the early days of motoring there was definitely private investment into shaping the discussion around cars - jaywalking was invented by automakers and heavily promoted to shift the role of roads from being primarily for pedestrians to primarily for cars: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/04/invention-jay...
The issue is accountability. Cars are "2D" and generally limited in where they can go. Drones are small, hard to detect, and hard to trace back to their owner/controller. Similarly with the lasers, I've been hit at night while flying and it's not something I want to repeat. The idiots playing with it can just throw it their pocket and run off before the cops even get the coordinates.
> lasers, I've been hit at night while flying and it's not something I want to repeat.
Really?! I find it hard to hold a laser pointer steady just on the wall, I can't imagine accurately aiming it at a plane cockpit for any extended period of time. Only maybe when it's taking off or landing, and you're close I can imagine being able to do it. Of course, that is the absolute worst time to lose vision though.
DJI actually has some systems in place to prevent illegal flights. By default it only goes as high as the law permits and can't enter no-fly zones (as if there were a force field). Even in smaller airports, the app will alert you to fly with caution (for example, in class C airspace) You can override these limits, but, as far as I know, the event is somehow logged.
I'm glad to see DJI getting involved on both sides of this. They should be fostering responsible use of their products and coming out against the small handful of reckless actors who are going to give everyone else a black eye. On a related note, they recently started an advocacy group too -
http://www.nodecampaign.org
101 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 148 ms ] threadThat said, I hear from many people who dislike drones (I can understand them since I was one, too) and all it takes is one or two people to ruin it for everyone else. So it's really good DJI is taking the lead on this.
I used to think drones were cool and wanted one, but now I just find them a bit irritating. I do like the footage they can take though.
Drone flying in public spaces is an intrisicly selfish act - more like playing music without headphones on the bus or letting your dog foul in public
I see drones as different than, say, smoking or skateboarding. Smoking irritates people, but outdoors, it is really easy to get away from. Skateboarding is potentially dangerous to bystanders, but it is very obvious when someone on a board is getting close enough to cause damage.
Drones can (and occasionally do) fall out of the sky. Knowing there's one somewhere over me leads me to pay a ton of attention to it, which is (obviously) extremely distracting. This is a case where it making less noise is actually more stressful, because you have to look.
It is a different degree of cognitive load and ambient stress compared to a skateboarder. As an example, I was trying to read in a park some time back, and found I couldn't pay sufficient attention to the book because of the drones. So I left.
I find smoking 100x worse than any drone.
When I'm standing there minding my own business, and then some selfish person comes near and ruins my air, I find it incredibly rude and selfish. Why should I have to move just because someone else can't keep their addictions to themselves?
And the terrible-smelling smoke carries literally more than 50m, even outside. I guess humans have evolved to be super sensitive to smoke for obvious reasons, but cigarette smoke smells so much worse to me than wood smoke. It's just so (literally) noxious. That's a pretty big area for one person to make unbearable.
I can't eat anywhere near it, up to 100m downwind. Smokers have no idea how unpleasant their habit is to others, or at what distance, because they have completely ruined their own sense of smell and taste.
> Drones can (and occasionally do) fall out of the sky.
I never used to worry about high drones but now you've reminded me of that, maybe I will! I'd still rather they were far up and quiet though.
I laughed.
I'm happy to share my air with non-smokers though. Everyone else needs to get their own.
I don't sit there for 30 minutes loudly revving my car engine at the lookout right next to people.
I have no problem with that, it's the professional wedding videographers that are getting shots close to the ground that is irritating.
If you move to larger propellers like a 6-inch you can be a lot less noticeable.
Of course all the best wedding shots start low down and loud, nice and close to the stars of the show.
https://www.politie.nl/nieuws/2017/maart/20/11-dronevlieger-...
He still made his plane.
There are many reports of UAVs interfering with forest fire fighting operations. This is probably the biggest single problem with real impact.
KELSO, WA/UAS INCIDENT/1507P/ZSE ARTCC REPORTED EUROCOPTER AS350 (US FOREST SERVICE) OBSERVED A 4 ROTOR UAS, 32 MILES NE SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON RGNL ARPT, BETWEEN 3,400 AND 5,000 FEET, IN CLOSE AND UNSAFE PROXIMITY TO THE HELO. WHEN THE FOREST SERVICE ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT THE INDIVIDUAL, HE LOADED THE UAS INTO HIS VEHICLE AND FLED THE SCENE. SKAMINIA COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE NOTIFIED.
SANTA CLARITA, CA/UAS INCIDENT/1447P/ZLA ADVISED UAS OPERATIONS REPORTED IN THE VICINITY OF THE SAND FIRE, NEAR SANTA CLARITA. NO IMPACT TO FIRE FIGHTING ACTIVITIES OTHER THAN MOVING WHERE THE AIR ASSETS ARE ""DIPPING"" FOR WATER. FIRE AUTHORITIES ARE WORKING WITH LA CO SHERIFF AND ARE ACTIVELY SEARCHING FOR OPERATOR.
NATIONAL FOREST SERVICE OFFICE NOTIFIED SALT LAKE ARTCC OF AN UNAUTHORIZED WHITE PHANQUADCOPTER WITH A CAMERA OPERATING WITHIN THE CONFINES OF A FIRE-FIGHTING TFR BELOW 500 FEET, 15 NE SALMON, ID. AIRBORNE FIRE-FIGHTING OPERATIONS WERE HALTED UNTIL CONTACT WAS MADE WITH THE UAS OPERATORS AND UAS OPERATIONS CEASED. UAS OPERATORS DEPARTED AREA PRIOR TO LEO ARRIVING. VEHICLE LICENSE PLATE WAS OBTAINED.
IDAHO CITY, ID/UAS INCIDENT/2015P/UNITED STATES FORESTRY SERVICE ADVISED THEY HAD SUSPENDED THE AIR ATTACK MISSION IN TFR 4961 DUE TO A UNAUTHORIZED UAS FLYING IN THE TFR. THE TFR WAS REPORTED BY SOMEONE ON THE GROUND WHO STATED IT WAS OPERATING 4,000 FEET ABOVE THE TREES. UNITED STATES FORESTRY SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE STATED HE WAS GOING TO GATHER MORE INFORMATION ON THE INCIDENT AND CALL IT IN TO SALT LAKE CITY ARTCC.
CALL FROM THE CUT FIRE SAN BERNADINO NATIONAL FOREST TO REPORT A UAS INTERFERING IN FIRE FIGHTING EFFORTS IN THE CUT FIRE. SHE STATED THAT AIR SUPPORT WAS FOLLOWING THE UAS AND THAT LAW ENFORCEMNT WAS ON THE WAY. THE LOCATION WAS REPORTED TO BE 15 ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE 15 FREEWAY OVER THE CAJON PASS AT 040. IT WAS ALSO MAKING CIRCLES OVER THE SUMMIT TRAIL.
LAX and JFK have multiple incidents of UAVs in the traffic pattern.
LOS ANGELES, CA/UAS INCIDENT/1005P/LAX ATCT ADVISED COMPASS, E170, LAX - SFO, ON DEPARTURE CLIMB OUT FROM LAX REPORTED PASSING UNDER A HOVERING UAS AT APPROXIMATELY 130 FEET. THE UAS THEN PROCEEDED SOUTHWEST BOUND. NO EVASIVE ACTION REPORTED.
JFK/UAS INCIDENT/1945E/JFK ATCT REPORTED OBSERVED A RED AND ORANGE UAS AT 1,100 FEET 4 MILE FINAL RUNWAY 13. NYPD AVIATION UNIT NOTIFIED ON FREQUENCY.
Two UAVs at 2500 feet in the traffic pattern:
"PRELIM INFO FROM FAA OPS: PITTSBURGH, PA/UAS INCIDENTS/0013E/EC135, REPORTED TWO UAS ONE RED AND THE OTHER WHITE AT 2,500 FEET APPX. 5.5 MILES SE OF PITTSBURGH ARPT. AN IMMEDIATE CLIMB WAS REQUIRED TO AVOID THE UAS.
This was probably harmless, but dumb:
WASHINGTON, DC/UAS INCIDENT/1430E/US PARK POLICE REPORTED UAS AT 100 FEET NEAR THE WASHINGTON MONUMENT FILMING A FITNESS VIDEO. USPP SEIZED THE UAS AND CITED OWNER; UAS NOT REGISTERED.
Minor midair collision. Possibly a UAS. 6500' sounds high, but Provo UT is already at 4500', so this is only 2000' AGL:
PROVO, UT/AIR CARRIER/01-1857M/BEECH BE99 AFTER LANDING SLC REPORTED MINOR DAMAGE TO VERTICAL STABILIZER. NTSB AND FSDO INVESTIGATING AS POSSIBLE MIDAIR WITH UAS AT 6,500 FEET 10 E PROVO. INCIDENT NOT REPORTED WHILE AIRBORNE.
Incidents where evasive action was required:
FLORENCE, SC/UAS INCIDENT/1524E/EXPERIMENTAL APF3, REPORTED SEEING A QUAD COPTER UAS AT SAME ALTITUDE OF 3,500 FEET. ACFT CLIMBED 400 FEET TO AVOID. UNKN IF LEO WAS NOTIFIED.
RED BLUFF, CA/UAS INCIDENT/1118P/OAKLAND ARTCC ADVISED PIPER P28A, AT 2,800 FEET, OBSERVED A RED AND WHITE 6-8 FOOT TALL U...
Quite a few (all?) supposed "drone strikes" have turned out to be simple bird strikes after investigation. You just never heard about the follow ups and media retractions.
> THE TFR WAS REPORTED BY SOMEONE ON THE GROUND WHO STATED IT WAS OPERATING 4,000 FEET ABOVE THE TREES.
Stuff like this though? I don't believe it. No one can see a drone 4,000 feet in the air. Most commercial drones are nearly impossible to spot (if you know exactly where to look) even at around 1000 feet.
I believe it's an important issue to take seriously, but there are a contingent of 'anti-drone' folks who don't care so much about the truth and care more about anything they can do to generate negative PR - up to and including outright lying.
DJI is going really far on this. They already have pre-installed software which restricts drones in no-fly zones. Even more, they are putting out a bounty program to that. I heard that there are some special electrical guns which can shoot down drones. It might be useful to deploy these in no-fly zones.
Privacy violations using drones are another issue that will promote the development of such guns/systems.
Here's a great article that mentions one such system that can hijack drones mid-air: http://www.whatafuture.com/drone-hijacking-device-takeover-t...
The issue is scale. These guns can likely be deployed for big events etc but how do you effectively protect the airspace around airports, powerplants, or other critical infrastructure with such devices?
Use cameras, acoustic sensors, and RF receivers to detect a drone's presence, and use a phased array antenna to shit some appropriate jamming signals in its general direction.
Your local electronic warfare military contractor should be able to set you up with all the equipment you need for such a system.
I've read about training birds of prey to kill drones, seems dangerous for the bird to me though.
Joke aside, is not far from being a real tactic, deploying the so-called "defender" drones, which are guided by a autonomous system, fed by an array of sensors around the perimeter.
I can see myself developing such a system.
That's the part that seems unadvisable near an airport.
http://images.sscentral.org/reviews/cps2000_00.jpg
No matter how expensive the "gun" is, you cannot really direct an EMP wave and restrict it like a traditional borescope weapon. All it will take is for someone firing it across an ILS transmitter array at a drone on the other side, and the airport loses their Cat II landing capability just as the airport gets socked in.
That's also ignoring the fact that if the signal to a drone is lost, it's more than likely to fall out of the sky like a ton of bricks.
Consumer drones typically have well-defined and behaved signal loss behavior, which (for DJI ones at least) is even fairly configurable. Though quite often that behavior involves gaining a substantial amount of altitude (at least by default), which at an airport is actually probably worse than dropping.
[1] https://www.electronics-notes.com/images/antenna-yagi-radiat...
Or DJI could track these drones themselves from the mothership, uploading the day's GPS history every time they call home... not sure if/why they don't already do this. Would eliminate much of the need for a bounty.
"Good morning. In less than an hour, aircraft from here will join others from around the world. And you will be launching the largest aerial battle in this history of mankind..."
It also seems likely that this will be something that is relatively cheap and widely available - you might have to be a serious actor lay hands on a SAM, but a lone nutter can probably afford a drone or ten.
Originally they served as in a recon role, now they're used to guide VBIEDs as well as drop small bombs/grenades onto enemy troops.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/use-o...
For a relatively sophisticated group that needs aerial reconnaissance, drones certainly slash costs, but for actual terrorist attacks on citizen targets I'm not particularly worried.
If someone wants to drive a truck through a farmers market or the like, it's pretty hard to stop them. What worries me is that this sort of technology allows that someone to instead to choose to attack something like a concert, public rally or political event with a greater symbolic significance despite a (2D) police perimeter, fences, bollards, etc. It may not increase the casualty risk but it may certainly increase the "theater" potential (which has traditionally been a big part of terrorism - witness the fixation of airports/airlines).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6494121.stm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Tigers
It is stated in the above that the LTTE forces smuggled small Czech planes in pieces.
Here's one such example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_mFARET5aU
This is exactly why a lot of police forces and militaries are developing anti-drone tactics, including anti-drone eagles (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiinhvBCXE8), RF based 'guns', and drones with big nets to catch other drones.
As far as drones flying into planes goes though, I'd say there's not too much to worry about there, jet airliners go too fast for drones to be an effective threat. No more effective than small arms would be, at least.
Most drone pilots would have no problem placing them in the path of the jet intake at the last second.
Replace the slab of concrete with a grenade, for added fear.
Many passengers wouldn't even realise other than a reduction of noise.
Furthermore the engine casings are designed to retain thrown blades. A grenade is fairly low-energy in comparison.
Takeoff is a very critical phase of flight. Instantaneous engine failure plus partial control surface loss and fuel fires could easily overwhelm a pilot
Continued takeoff after failure of a single engine is certification requirement for the aircraft, and is trained frequently by pilots.
See the Thompson 757 A330 bird ingestion, engine failure, and successful landing in 2007:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE
However, sometimes the outcome is less benign, as in the TransAsia 235 crash where apparently pilots shut down the wrong (working) engine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_NT43aJ_Jw
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransAsia_Airways_Flight_235
Failure of more than one engine is always going to be, well, problematic (the Miracle on the Hudson notwithstanding). And, as you point out, uncontained engine failure (while rare) can screw all sorts of things up.
So, while I disagree somewhat with "could easily overwhelm a pilot" and "nearly bought down the plane" regarding Qantas 32, all in all I'm afraid you're right...
The grenade drop was pretty lucky but these drones definitely are being explored actively by all sides for use in armed conflict.
It seems a lot of ground based measures are being explored but imho, we will see drones with small guns/nets/missiles that will be used to hunt other drones. It often comes to this. Tank is often the best countermeasure against another tank. And a jet fighter against another jet fighter.
In fact, drones are actually pretty shitty in terms of capacity compared to the alternatives (like lorries and improvised mortars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrack_buster).
Doubtful, given how terrorism is the current bogeyman being used to push irrational fear upon those that can't think critically and/or don't understand statistics and probability.
Where do you live that you're so scared of everything? Were you always so afraid or do you think media/propaganda/disinformation have conditioned you? Not trolling here, just genuinely curious as to why terrorism is part of your threat model...
Add a penalty for flying anywhere that could interfere any sort of crewed aircraft operations (including airports and flight paths, of course) without an operational and registered ADS-B transceiver. You fly next to big iron, you broadcast and listen to ADS-B like big iron, so nobody gets hurt.
1. the so called "drone" was witnessed by pilots from 1km away with bare eye. DJI products were very tiny and I doubt pilots could see that.
2. Yesterday evening it was raining and pretty dark outside, there's still a "drone" interrupting airport.
3. Lots of online speculation say it's not as simple as "DJI drone accident". It's rumoured there was a responder onboard the unknown drone.
? not sure what this means?
You'll have to get the FCC involved inevitably, but one option might be to lower the TX power until its range is under 2-3 miles line of sight. Enough distance for a 747 to get an alarm and evade, but not enough for it to take down an entire bravo ring if it fails.
Yeah that definitely is an issue -- there's no fancy multiple access provisions on 1090MHz.
Limited TX power needs to happen anyway for ADS-B to live on those battery-powered UAVs, along with along with implementing the protocol inside an ASIC that monitors/decodes its own RF output (and bricks itself if it's transmitting inappropriately) would likely be enough to avoid accidental disruption.
I wonder if there's going to be additional spectrum and RF standards for position reporting systems specifically meant for UAVs.
Once a few people get the book thrown at them word will spread and people will start using their brains a bit more before they take off.
It shouldn't be too hard to set up towers around the airport with sensitive speakers that can triangulate the location of a drone flying within a restricted area. From that point it can sound an alarm and/or deploy counter-measures.
Maybe it's not inexpensive, but it's at least proven to exist.
I mean, you don't see Ford putting out bounties on drunk hit'n'run drivers, and that's something that's cost thousands of lives.
How is this type of McCarthy PR acceptable?
DJI customers, what are your thoughts on this?
They also happen to be necessary to the operation of our society. Drones are little more then toys. If all drones were grounded tomorrow, life would go on. If all cars stopped tomorrow, half the country would starve to death by June.
Ethically yes
From a business standpoint yes:
If they are concerned about 300 families from passengers from a stricken airliner coming after them for billions, then yes, yes it is.
If they are concerned about the FAA restricting drone use altogether, then yes. (they've already required drones be registered. If they're aircraft that cant be operated safely then FAA can ground them all, and much of the world follows our FAA's rulings)
A civilian UAS & manned aircraft collision resulting in loss of life is statistically inevitable. How DJI fares in court by showing it exhausted all means to prevent their products from doing harm when the unfortunate does occur, is something they can be proactive with.
Ford doesn't need to put out bounties because there's adequate regulation to punish drunk drivers. However, in the early days of motoring there was definitely private investment into shaping the discussion around cars - jaywalking was invented by automakers and heavily promoted to shift the role of roads from being primarily for pedestrians to primarily for cars: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/04/invention-jay...
Same with lasers, same with hot air balloons
Maybe after some of them are jailed or fined they'll start to behave
Deaths from motor vehicles != unauthroised drone flights outside airports
Really?! I find it hard to hold a laser pointer steady just on the wall, I can't imagine accurately aiming it at a plane cockpit for any extended period of time. Only maybe when it's taking off or landing, and you're close I can imagine being able to do it. Of course, that is the absolute worst time to lose vision though.
Can you describe your experience?