RC Drone Crashes onto White House backyard

Started by CadetSnuffy, January 29, 2015, 07:23:36 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

CadetSnuffy

The FAA seeks to put more regulations on private model drone owners while many in the aviation community have been seeking less. Thoughts on what is to be done about incidences like the one in this article?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/28/drone-white-house-faa-unmanned-aircraft-editorials-debates/22497763/
There are two types of countries, those that use the metric system, then that one that has been to the moon.

Eclipse

Quote from: CadetSnuffy on January 29, 2015, 07:23:36 PMThoughts on what is to be done about incidences like the one in this article?

Prosecute the person and leave the industry out of the conversation.

And certainly you should not have the manufacturer restricting where they can fly:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/28/politics/white-house-drone-crash/

That >does not< prevent a malicious person from doing something bad, but it does cut the quadcopter
biz right out of a lot of major markets.

"That Others May Zoom"

JeffDG

Typical 'crat response.

Take something that's already illegal (flying a UAV in the DC SFRA), and when someone does it, make up more laws to make it (still) illegal.

CadetSnuffy

 There should be some limitations on where you fly drones. Flying above or near people, buildings, highways, electric lines, and especially the White House can be hazardous. News articles such as this one create bad publicity and make our job of promoting the hobby much harder. One man's foolishness ruins the hard work of thousands of RC pilots.
There are two types of countries, those that use the metric system, then that one that has been to the moon.

JeffDG

QuoteThe company that manufactures the drone that crashed on White House grounds announced on Wednesday that it will move to disable its drones from flying in much of Washington.

OK, and what do you do with a quadcopter like this:
http://www.parallax.com/product/80200

Where the owner builds and programs the whole thing themselves?

CadetSnuffy

Precisely, quadcopters built from scratch are becoming more common.
There are two types of countries, those that use the metric system, then that one that has been to the moon.

Eclipse

Quote from: JeffDG on January 29, 2015, 07:51:40 PM
QuoteThe company that manufactures the drone that crashed on White House grounds announced on Wednesday that it will move to disable its drones from flying in much of Washington.

OK, and what do you do with a quadcopter like this:
http://www.parallax.com/product/80200

Where the owner builds and programs the whole thing themselves?

Agreed, and / or the current owners simply won't download the update, or hacked roms will be
all over the place.  That's a good way for DJI to lose a lot of business while nor advantage to them.

"That Others May Zoom"

Eclipse

Quote from: CadetSnuffy on January 29, 2015, 07:50:27 PM
There should be some limitations on where you fly drones. Flying above or near people, buildings, highways, electric lines,

So...no UAVs at all, then?

"That Others May Zoom"

CadetSnuffy

No, not at all. Fly them in safe areas. There are plenty of safe flying zones. Don't fly your drone in an area where, if it crashes, it can be a danger to public property or people. That is all I am saying.
There are two types of countries, those that use the metric system, then that one that has been to the moon.

lordmonar

Quote from: CadetSnuffy on January 29, 2015, 08:03:48 PM
No, not at all. Fly them in safe areas. There are plenty of safe flying zones. Don't fly your drone in an area where, if it crashes, it can be a danger to public property or people. That is all I am saying.
Snuffy....by definition that is everywhere.   So that is why Eclipse was saying no drones.

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

jeders

Quote from: CadetSnuffy on January 29, 2015, 08:03:48 PM
Don't fly your drone in an area where, if it crashes, it can be a danger to public property or people. That is all I am saying.

So basically, nowhere at all. That's a great way to advance aerospace knowledge and education.
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse

Майор Хаткевич

I got a $60, 5 minute flight time, with video beginner drone coming by (not so slow) China post. Swappable batteries and charger cost $20 for 3.

Going to be fun playing around with it. Has about a 100yard "range" before you loose sight of it.

sardak


Майор Хаткевич

Quote from: sardak on January 29, 2015, 09:07:21 PM
QuoteHas about a 100yard "range" before you loose lose sight of it.
Mike




Autocorrect drives me nuts...most times I catch it...others...not so much. I don't understand why it changes one right word for another.


By the way, this will probably be an indoors/20 ft in the air thing in a field at most. No plans on taking it up like some of the awesome stuff people do with "real" flying toys.

sardak

QuoteNo plans on taking it up like some of the awesome stuff people do with "real" flying toys.
Like the "operator" who sent his quadcopter vertically up to 1000 m (3280 ft) AGL, to test its range, and to see above the stratus cloud deck, then lost control of it.

I also noticed the FAA poster doesn't mention the 400 ft AGL limit for model aircraft.

Mike

Майор Хаткевич

Quote from: sardak on January 29, 2015, 09:24:13 PM
QuoteNo plans on taking it up like some of the awesome stuff people do with "real" flying toys.
Like the "operator" who sent his quadcopter vertically up to 1000 m (3280 ft) AGL, to test its range, and to see above the stratus cloud deck, then lost control of it.

I also noticed the FAA poster doesn't mention the 400 ft AGL limit for model aircraft.

Mike


A good reason anyone with half a sense does the "distance" test on the ground. See where you can engage it by going away from it, and walking in until it does...

LTCinSWR

Several years ago, at one of those 'after meeting meetings' that occur in coffee shops / diners everywhere, several of us discussed the idea of using RC aircraft for improving search capability in missing person / aircraft searches. At the time, the video capability wasn't as sophisticated as it is today. Guess it was an idea that was ahead of the technology.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.
John Quincy Adams

L.A. Nelson Lt. Col. CAP
Homeland Security Officer
NM Wing Headquarters

Майор Хаткевич


LTC Don

Drones should be banned.

What does one really need with a drone anyway.

Drones should only be used by the military, they have no place in the general population.

/sarc
Donald A. Beckett, Lt Col, CAP
Commander
MER-NC-143
Gill Rob Wilson #1891

lordmonar

Quote from: LTC Don on January 30, 2015, 03:23:12 PM
Drones should be banned.

What does one really need with a drone anyway.

Drones should only be used by the military, they have no place in the general population.

/sarc
[darn] I was all ready to flame you to kingdom come.....then I saw /sarc.

Nicely played.  :)
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

CadetSnuffy

Quote from: lordmonar on January 30, 2015, 04:56:52 PM
Quote from: LTC Don on January 30, 2015, 03:23:12 PM
Drones should be banned.

What does one really need with a drone anyway.

Drones should only be used by the military, they have no place in the general population.

/sarc
[darn] I was all ready to flame you to kingdom come.....then I saw /sarc.

Nicely played.  :)

There are many people who still hold that sentiment. They don't see that many people enjoy drones just as much as people enjoy football. There is risk in almost every activity, does that mean that the activity should be banned?
There are two types of countries, those that use the metric system, then that one that has been to the moon.

lordmonar

Quote from: CadetSnuffy on January 30, 2015, 06:00:27 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 30, 2015, 04:56:52 PM
Quote from: LTC Don on January 30, 2015, 03:23:12 PM
Drones should be banned.

What does one really need with a drone anyway.

Drones should only be used by the military, they have no place in the general population.

/sarc
[darn] I was all ready to flame you to kingdom come.....then I saw /sarc.

Nicely played.  :)

There are many people who still hold that sentiment. They don't see that many people enjoy drones just as much as people enjoy football. There is risk in almost every activity, does that mean that the activity should be banned?
Also there is the problem of terminology.

I'm a RPA maintainer.  I work an MQ-1 and MQ-9 Ground Control Stations.  Sometimes people say "drones"  they mean the Predator, Reaper, and that class of aircraft.   Sometimes when they say "drone" they mean those $1000 RC, camera platforms that are out there, and sometimes they mean those $20 "drones" you buy at the mall kiosk that never last more the a week.

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

CadetSnuffy

In this case we are (hopefully) referring to the model quadcopters.
There are two types of countries, those that use the metric system, then that one that has been to the moon.

sardak


go4spaatz

I feel that I am qualified to weigh in on this conversation, as I built my own Quadcopter UAV (fully autonomous, 20 min flight time, wireless video system). It took me a few weeks, some broken props, and I became a qualified Amateur Radio operator to get wireless video.

I think there is much confusion in the media, especially about the actual name "drone". Personally, I believe it should only refer to aircraft (or water or ground vehicles) that have an autonomous, or computer-assisted navigation and control system. I see way too many articles where the media refers to a cheap RC quad as a "drone", where really it is fundamentally the same as an RC plane, which no one seems to have a huge problem with. (Incidentally, the DIY drone community was built on fixed-wing aircraft, not helicopters!)

Which is why I prefer to use the UAV/UAS designation rather than "Drone" as it clearly labels it 'autonomous'. There is in my mind a HUGE distinction between the incredible autonomous vehicles people build and buy, and a RC quadcopter with a GoPro slapped on. I am a huge supporter of a formal defining line between the two.
C/Capt Anand, CAP
OHWG CAC Vice-Chair

"There are an estimated ∞² threads about ABUs on CAPTalk"

CadetSnuffy

#25
Quote from: go4spaatz on February 01, 2015, 09:16:50 PM
I think there is much confusion in the media, especially about the actual name "drone". Personally, I believe it should only refer to aircraft (or water or ground vehicles) that have an autonomous, or computer-assisted navigation and control system.
Must every drone possess these qualities? The word drone originates both from the autonomous nature of bee drones, but also from the similar buzzing sound that both bee's wings and the drone's propellers produce while in flight. The public has a more general definition of "drone" than you do, but keep in mind that even the cheapest RC "drone" has similarities with even the most advanced drones.

Quote from: go4spaatz on February 01, 2015, 09:16:50 PM
I see way too many articles where the media refers to a cheap RC quad as a "drone", where really it is fundamentally the same as an RC plane, which no one seems to have a huge problem with. (Incidentally, the DIY drone community was built on fixed-wing aircraft, not helicopters!)
It is true that the word "drone" is often overused and misused, but how much tech must a quadcopter possess to qualify for your definition of "drone"? Many larger commercial quadcopters have GPS guidance that can return the aircraft back to its launch position if it were to lose connection with the transmitter.



There are two types of countries, those that use the metric system, then that one that has been to the moon.

Eclipse

Quote from: go4spaatz on February 01, 2015, 09:16:50 PMThere is in my mind a HUGE distinction between the incredible autonomous vehicles people build and buy, and a RC quadcopter with a GoPro slapped on. I am a huge supporter of a formal defining line between the two.

Because...that changes the conversation when it's on the WH's lawn?

That is a distinction irrelevant to the general public, and important only to the hobbyists involved.

This is no more important to the average person then the difference between a CRJ-700 and a 767.
It's just a "plane" unless they are deciding on their seat.

"That Others May Zoom"

go4spaatz

Quote from: CadetSnuffy on February 02, 2015, 05:01:05 PM
Must every drone possess these qualities? The word drone originates both from the autonomous nature of bee drones, but also from the similar buzzing sound that both bee's wings and the drone's propellers produce while in flight. The public has a more general definition of "drone" than you do, but keep in mind that even the cheapest RC "drone" has similarities with even the most advanced drones.

It is true that the word "drone" is often overused and misused, but how much tech must a quadcopter possess to qualify for your definition of "drone"? Many larger commercial quadcopters have GPS guidance that can return the aircraft back to its launch position if it were to lose connection with the transmitter.

I do see the reasoning behind your statements, and I agree that "drone" may not be the word to use. But we need to come to a consensus in the model/aviation realm about what to call them, and educate the public on that decision (wishful thinking, I know  ::))

Quote from: Eclipse on February 02, 2015, 05:09:19 PM
Because...that changes the conversation when it's on the WH's lawn?

Either way it's a big problem, but I think it does make a difference whether it was autonomous when it crashed, or if it was under pilot control. An autonomous crash would be a way bigger setback to the hobby UAV community than a RC crash would be to their circles (JMHO). So it might not change the WH conversation, but it would definitely affect the overall 'drone debate'.
C/Capt Anand, CAP
OHWG CAC Vice-Chair

"There are an estimated ∞² threads about ABUs on CAPTalk"

CadetSnuffy

Quote from: go4spaatz on February 02, 2015, 08:13:09 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on February 02, 2015, 05:09:19 PM
Because...that changes the conversation when it's on the WH's lawn?
Either way it's a big problem, but I think it does make a difference whether it was autonomous when it crashed, or if it was under pilot control. An autonomous crash would be a way bigger setback to the hobby UAV community than a RC crash would be to their circles (JMHO). So it might not change the WH conversation, but it would definitely affect the overall 'drone debate'.
The issue is more the public's view on all UAV systems. Most knowledgeable people would readily agree that the fault does not lie in the system, but in the guy who gets himself intoxicated and decides to fly his new RC quadcopter around. Realistically, anything could become potentially dangerous if misused. The most notable cases being: guns, large vehicles, and poisonous chemicals. The solution, therefore, is not limiting who gets them, but making sure the people who get them are educated in safety. The general public's opinion is based solely on the articles that appear on the newspaper, not on any actual thought.
There are two types of countries, those that use the metric system, then that one that has been to the moon.

CadetSnuffy

Just saw this article on the AMA website.

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/mediaroom/2015/01/29/usa-today-educate-dont-regulate-drone-fliers-opposing-view/

"The fact is for the past six years, existing regulation has specifically prohibited the flying of unmanned aircraft anywhere near 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. This recent incident clearly demonstrates that a regulatory approach to the recreational use of small unmanned aircraft does not and will not work." (quote from article)

It is important to note that regulations are already tight enough. (doesn't stop the average uninformed "Joe" from flying in a restricted area)

"Many well-meaning individuals acquiring this new technology simply don't know what airspace is restricted or prohibited, whether it's near the White House, around other federal buildings or even the upcoming Super Bowl. The best way to prevent drone incidents isn't to regulate recreational users; it's to educate them." (quote from article)

Which is why education NOT regulation is the right path. This website provides FAA regulations for those wondering what they are.

http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/
There are two types of countries, those that use the metric system, then that one that has been to the moon.

CadetSnuffy

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4031683402001/a-look-at-what-drones-can-actually-do/?playlist_id=930909787001#sp=show-clips

An editor for Popular Science stressing the importance of regulations and the dangers of drones, while being completely irresponsible with the drone he is using and crashing it in the news studio.

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/files/2015/02/AMA-Letter-to-Popular-Science.pdf
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/files/2015/02/AMA-Letter-to-Fox-News.pdf

Letters from the AMA to Popular Science and to Fox News concerning their irresponsible actions.
There are two types of countries, those that use the metric system, then that one that has been to the moon.

Spam

Some folks you just can't educate though, and some may not care.

I favor a dense and robust EW environment to harden national assets against threats. If they were serious about stopping the perceived threat they could defeat the C2 link within the city radius. We already have fielded systems to defeat cell phones (counter IED systems), so why not 2.4 - 5.8 GHz spectrum coverage.

V/R,
Spam

CadetSnuffy

So, basically a counter signal that would make it impossible to fly drones within a certain radius? Wouldn't that interfere with other radio systems?
There are two types of countries, those that use the metric system, then that one that has been to the moon.

SarDragon

Quote from: Spam on February 10, 2015, 03:08:00 PM
Some folks you just can't educate though, and some may not care.

I favor a dense and robust EW environment to harden national assets against threats. If they were serious about stopping the perceived threat they could defeat the C2 link within the city radius. We already have fielded systems to defeat cell phones (counter IED systems), so why not 2.4 - 5.8 GHz spectrum coverage.

V/R,
Spam
There are dozens of allocations within that freq range, and many of the bands are shared. How do you propose to implement such a system?
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

JeffDG

Quote from: SarDragon on February 10, 2015, 08:51:48 PM
Quote from: Spam on February 10, 2015, 03:08:00 PM
Some folks you just can't educate though, and some may not care.

I favor a dense and robust EW environment to harden national assets against threats. If they were serious about stopping the perceived threat they could defeat the C2 link within the city radius. We already have fielded systems to defeat cell phones (counter IED systems), so why not 2.4 - 5.8 GHz spectrum coverage.

V/R,
Spam
There are dozens of allocations within that freq range, and many of the bands are shared. How do you propose to implement such a system?
And what of a pre-programmed drone.  Give it a set of commands like "Climb to 200', go 200 yards North, hover for 60 seconds, go 200 yards south, descend to 10', shut down"

Spam

I'm speaking about limited area defense solutions, of course, not a large footprint, lest you think I'm proposing shutting down all RC use.

Jeff, there are dozens and dozens, yep. There are smart algorithms that can filter and sort but even if not, broadband EW would break the C2 link. The west wingers may have to accept loss of some personal RF connectivity outside of shielded areas. In my opinion, that would be worth it, as to leave your cell and all personal electronics outside your work area every day is no big deal.

As far as preprogrammed threats, sensors and directional CMs are an answer.  Consider that the RC may not have crashed; it may have been taken down crossing the perimeter in accordance with SOP.
V/R,
Spam

CadetSnuffy

Quote from: go4spaatz on February 02, 2015, 08:13:09 PM
I do see the reasoning behind your statements, and I agree that "drone" may not be the word to use. But we need to come to a consensus in the model/aviation realm about what to call them, and educate the public on that decision (wishful thinking, I know  ::))
http://flitetest.com/articles/what-is-a-drone

Here is a link to a video that discusses the issue of what should be and what should not be classified as a drone. It is obvious that everyone has differing opinions on this matter.

btw, that website has many other useful videos concerning model aircraft.
There are two types of countries, those that use the metric system, then that one that has been to the moon.

CadetSnuffy

"What is a Drone?

The dictionary defines the word drone when used as a noun as the following;

-The male of the honeybee and other bees, stingless and making no honey.
-An unmanned aircraft or ship that can navigate autonomously, without human control or beyond line of sight: the GPS of a U.S. spy drone.

b. (loosely) any unmanned aircraft or ship that is guided remotely: a radio-controlled drone.
-A person who lives on the labor of others; parasitic loafer.
-A drudge.                                           

I asked a few folks this question, "what is a drone" to get an idea of what the public's view or understanding of a drone is. I think the results speak for themselves.

Baby Boomers:

Don – "They are used by the military for spying and such, but they can also be a toy helicopters with a camera on it. I wouldn't call a remote ground vehicle a drone, it has to fly"

Robin – "Drones came from the old days when they would convert old aircraft to remote control and turn them into targets. Target drones they were called"

Craig – "I think of grammar school biology"

Generation Xers & Millennials:

Alexis – "I think of Sky Net" (from the Terminator movies)

Doug – "Something to bring me a beer" (from recent media commercials)

Matt – "When I hear the word drone I think of UAV's, like they use in the military"

Mikkel – "Unmanned semi-autonomous Flying Objects"

Shawn – "It's an unmanned aerial platform that is assigned a mission"

FPV pilots:

Pilot 1 – "DJI F450, Blade 350QX, DJI Phantom" (all available to civilians at a low cost)

Pilot 2 – "Predator MQ-1" (a deadly military strike drone)

Pilot 3 - "A drone is a remotely autonomous robot that's capable of taking a series of instructions without real time/controlled human intervention."

Using the word "Drone" to identify a model airplane is like using the word vehicle to identify a bicycle. The term drone is much too broad to use in any constructive way when talking about the nuances of pilotless aircraft and their use in the civilian airspace. As you can see from my results, each and every person I asked has a different definition and perspective concerning the word drone."

Excerpt from article at: http://flitetest.com/articles/the-drone-revolution#sthash.E4D5AOmf.dpuf

More opinions about the usage of the word "drone"
There are two types of countries, those that use the metric system, then that one that has been to the moon.

Al Sayre

Quote... -A person who lives on the labor of others; parasitic loafer 

I think of politicians
Lt Col Al Sayre
MS Wing Staff Dude
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
GRW #2787

LSThiker

In some states, a bicycle is legally a vehicle and is subject to the same laws

PHall

Quote from: LSThiker on February 17, 2015, 04:55:24 PM
In some states, a bicycle is legally a vehicle and is subject to the same laws

California is one and IIRC about 20 or so other states define them as vehicles too.

LSThiker

Quote from: PHall on February 17, 2015, 05:23:55 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on February 17, 2015, 04:55:24 PM
In some states, a bicycle is legally a vehicle and is subject to the same laws

California is one and IIRC about 20 or so other states define them as vehicles too.

Correct.  All of the states that I have lived in legally define bicycles as vehicles.  Unfortunately, I wish that those states would actually enforce those laws as I have nearly hit enough cyclists at night that blow stop signs without any lights or reflectors. 

Luis R. Ramos

New York City is another place where bicycles are listed as vehicles. They are subject to stopping at red lights, but they seldom do. They are supposed to ride with the traffic, most of the time they do but not all.

Those riding against traffic say "I may hit a careless driver opening their door." They do not see that if they go against traffic they may hit the door as it opens and be flung against the incoming traffic.

And most of the time they zoom like guided missiles regardless of pedestrians!
Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer

Майор Хаткевич

Lots of silly rules...bicycle aren't those. IIRC, anything that you don't throw by hand, is considered a "firearm" in my town, whether that's a BB gun, Airsoft toy, pipe with a rubber finger, or a slingshot...

Spam

One of the key features now being implemented in many current UAS designs are flexible on-air vehicle algorithms to determine vehicle actions on degraded control, which can encompass recognition that the uplink/downlink signal is degraded or weakening with distance, intentional jamming or unintentional interference, or is being spoofed.  A smart vehicle will recognize a degraded link and will perform preprogrammed actions such as climb/boost signal/fly a signal reacquisition pattern (think of our ELT SAR work), etc.

Additional on-aircraft algorithms could recognize inattentive or absent human pilots, and would take required actions (i.e., auto GCAS compares ownship location/speed/alt to DTED terrain data and first advises, then warns, then assumes control and recovers aircraft, just like in a Viper). For one effort, I've proposed a family of algorithms to encompass AV assumption of control in response to similar threats ranging from weather cell avoidance (off board reported or on board) up to IADS SAM, fighter and DE threat avoidance, all based on UAS system level recognition of an unavailable executive decision maker (live pilot) based on inattention, high workload, loss of link, etc.  I anticipate that the FAA and industry are headed in this direction as the war-related impetus of urgently fielding half-tested UASs dies and we start addressing the root causes of the high UAV loss rate.

So, where is this going for the hobby UAV operator.  Who can say what the FAA will do in regards to imposing classification rules and operator restrictions on small UAVs that, while small and lightweight, could still cause safety issues within a congested airspace. I do know that even with todays cheaper quadcopters, simple options exist to return the GPS equipped UAV to a predefined position on loss of signal (cheap is a relative term to one who forks over 1K on a hobby).  "Rulings" regardless, the real answer from a security standpoint is the same as with gun control laws and border control... point defense trumps unenforceable laws that law breakers will cheerfully ignore and break regularly.

V/R,
Spam


Spam

"Secret Service testing drones, how to disrupt their flying"

http://wtop.com/business/2015/03/secret-service-testing-drones-how-to-disrupt-their-flying/

"... Among the tests is the use of signal-jamming technology to thwart control of a remotely piloted aircraft, the official said.

Researchers at the Homeland Security Department, which oversees the Secret Service, have been testing methods to combat drones at remote sites. But testing in a real-world environment around the White House will help understanding of how radio waves are affected by buildings, monuments and even tall trees.

The challenge for the Secret Service is how to quickly detect a rogue drone flying near the White House or another location where the president is, then within moments either hacking its guidance mechanism to seize control, or jamming its signal to send it off course or make it crash."


V/R,
Spam



Al Sayre

Quote from: Spam on March 10, 2015, 11:24:07 PM
SNIP ... "or jamming its signal to send it off course or make it crash."
into a crowd of civilian onlookers.  Yeah, that'll be good for the headlines...
Lt Col Al Sayre
MS Wing Staff Dude
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
GRW #2787