22 ms·

DJI Puts $145K Bounty on the Drone Pilots Who Were Disrupting Flights

131 points by chidog12 9y ago

nitin_flanker 9y ago
I think the website is down. Here's the cached one: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:h9-Uy1zmqywJ:www.improdrone.com/dji-puts-145000-bounty-drone-pilots-disrupting-flights/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:h9-Uy1z...
kbos87 9y ago
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 http://www.nodecampaign.org
salimmadjd 9y ago
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.
- omegote 9y ago
  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.
  - HeyItsShuga 9y ago
    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.
- brokenmachine 9y ago
  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.
  - averagewall 9y ago
    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.
    - 4ndr3vv 9y ago
      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
      - kbos87 9y ago
        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.
        _jal 9y ago
        I land somewhere in-between. 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.
ohashi 9y ago
Is this a problem just in China or what about airports around the world?
- jacquesm 9y ago
  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. https://www.politie.nl/nieuws/2017/maart/20/11-dronevlieger-op-schiphol-staande-gehouden.html https://www.politie.nl/nieuws/2017/maart/20/11-dronevlieger-... He still made his plane.
  - astrodust 9y ago
    Doesn't help that they often sell drones in airport stores.
- Animats 9y ago
  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 UAS 300 FEET BELOW ACFT 8 NNW RED BLUFF. PIC STATED EVERYTIME HE MANEUVERED, UAS MANEUVERED TOWARD THE ACFT. TEHAMA COUNTY SHERIFF NOTIFIED. HOUSTON, TX/UAS INCIDENT/2150C/HELO, EC45, INBOUND TO HOUSTON MEDICAL CENTER AT 800 FEET ENCOUNTERED A RED QUADCOPTER UAS WITH AMBER LIGHTS AT 600 FEET FLYING OVER THE BUILDINGS. HELO MADE EVASIVE MANEUVER TO AVOID UAS. UAS CAME WITH IN .1 MILE OF HELO. CHESTER, MA/UAS INCIDENT/1857E/BRADLEY TRACON REPORTED CESSNA C172, WHILE SSE BOUND AT 5,500 FEET, ENCOUNTERED A BLACK UAS WITH 1 ROTOR, 200 -300 FEET ABOVE AND TO HIS LEFT 5 NW CHESTER. ACFT TURNED RIGHT TO AVOID UAS. MA STATE PD NOTIFIED. VFR AIRCRAFT, AT LEVEL FLIGHT REPORTED HAVING TO TAKE EVASIVE ACTION TO AVOID A VERY SMALL UAS.CONTROLLER REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO TRAFFIC OBSERVED IN THE AREA. AIRCRAFT DID NOT RECEIVE ANY DAMAGE, LANDED SAFELY AT BAF. Doing the right thing: FARGO, ND/UAS INCIDENT/1755C/FAR ATCT ADVISED OWNER OF UAS WAS OPERATING UAS IN CLASS D AIRSPACE 1.5 MILES S FAR WHEN BATTERY IN REMOTE CONTROLLER DIED. THE UAS IS PROGRAMMED TO CLIMB TO 1,500 FEET AND HOVER. FAR ATCT REPORTED 3 GA BUSINESS ACFT WERE HOLDING FOR DEP AND 1 AIR CARRIER WAS INBOUND. OWNER CALLED BACK AND REPORTED 22 MIN LATER THE UAS SAFELY ON GROUND. AN INDIVIDUAL CALLED FARGO TOWER NOTIFYING US THAT HE WAS FLYING AN UNAUTHORIZED DRONE IN THE CLASS DELTA AIRSPACE AND THE CONTROLLER FOR THE DRONE HAD DIED. WHEN THE CONTROLLER FOR THE DRONE DIES, THE UAS HOVERS AT 1500 FEET. THE INDIVIDUAL SAID IT WOULD TAKE 15 TO 20 MINUTES TO CHARGE THE CONTROLLER AND GET THE DRONE WORKING AGAIN. AT 2317Z THE INDIVIDUAL CALLED BACK AND SAID THE UAS IS ON THE GROUND. THE DRONE WAS OPERATED NEAR CENTENNIAL BLVD, APPROX 1.5MI SOUTH OF THE AIRPORT. [1] https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/uas_sightings_report/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/uas_sightings_report/
QuercusMax 9y ago
Link is broken - anyone have a mirror?
- nitin_flanker 9y ago
  Google Cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:h9-Uy1zmqywJ:www.improdrone.com/dji-puts-145000-bounty-drone-pilots-disrupting-flights/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:h9-Uy1z...
nullnilvoid 9y ago
> 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.
- nitin_flanker 9y ago
  Yes, there are plenty of approaches being made to develop such systems that can take down rogue drones. 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-threat-privacy/ http://www.whatafuture.com/drone-hijacking-device-takeover-t...
- knz 9y ago
  > 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?
  - zkms 9y ago
    > 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.
    - 9y ago
glangdale 9y ago
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.
- brian-armstrong 9y ago
  You've just summarized why intel dragnets exist, I think
- hengheng 9y ago
  Look at the "ISIS drones" made from hobbyking parts. Pardon the pun, but it's no rocket science.
- ithinkinstereo 9y ago
  ISIS has been using drones in the battlefields of Syria and Iraq for some time now. 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.
  - glangdale 9y ago
    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. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/use-of-weaponized-drones-by-isis-spurs-terrorism-fears/2017/02/21/9d83d51e-f382-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/use-o...
- sfifs 9y ago
  Already very much a thing and has caused casualties in the middle east including Western soldiers. Google around.
zkms 9y ago
The solution is simple: allow low-power ADS-B to be radiated from drones and encourage/require its use: see http://www.uavionix.com/blog/the-case-for-low-power-ads-b/ http://www.uavionix.com/blog/the-case-for-low-power-ads-b/ 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.
- est 9y ago
  The Chengdu case DJI was facing was something totally different. I try my best to describe 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.
  - brokenmachine 9y ago
    > It's rumoured there was a responder onboard the unknown drone. ? not sure what this means?
- pdelbarba 9y ago
  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.
  - 9y ago
refresh99 9y ago
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.
astrodust 9y ago
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.
- rhinoceraptor 9y ago
  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.
  - astrodust 9y ago
    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.
bitmapbrother 9y ago
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.
abpavel 9y ago
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.
breeze_em_out 9y ago
Is this appropriate for businesses to be doing? 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?
- matthewmacleod 9y ago
  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?
- moftz 9y ago
  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.
  - vkou 9y ago
    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.
- jenamety 9y ago
  > Is this appropriate for businesses to be doing? 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.
raverbashing 9y ago
Unfortunately there are thousands of assholes that don't know or even don't care where they fly those things Same with lasers, same with hot air balloons Maybe after some of them are jailed or fined they'll start to behave
- megablast 9y ago
  Same with cars, but they kill over a million people a year. Somehow that is acceptable though.
  - 4ndr3vv 9y ago
    Your example is only valid when considering driving a car down an airport runway. Deaths from motor vehicles != unauthroised drone flights outside airports
  - pdelbarba 9y ago
    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.
    - brokenmachine 9y ago
      > 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. Can you describe your experience?
HeyItsShuga 9y ago
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.
sheeshkebab 9y ago
Why not $150k?
- garethsprice 9y ago
  It's 1 million yuan, which converts to $145k

131 points by chidog12 9y ago

I think the website is down. Here's the cached one: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:h9-Uy1zmqywJ:www.improdrone.com/dji-puts-145000-bounty-drone-pilots-disrupting-flights/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:h9-Uy1z...

kbos87 9y ago

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 http://www.nodecampaign.org

salimmadjd 9y ago

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.

omegote 9y ago
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.
- HeyItsShuga 9y ago
  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.
brokenmachine 9y ago
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.
- averagewall 9y ago
  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.
  - 4ndr3vv 9y ago
    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
    - kbos87 9y ago
      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.
      - _jal 9y ago
        I land somewhere in-between. 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.

ohashi 9y ago

Is this a problem just in China or what about airports around the world?

jacquesm 9y ago
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. https://www.politie.nl/nieuws/2017/maart/20/11-dronevlieger-op-schiphol-staande-gehouden.html https://www.politie.nl/nieuws/2017/maart/20/11-dronevlieger-... He still made his plane.
- astrodust 9y ago
  Doesn't help that they often sell drones in airport stores.
Animats 9y ago
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 UAS 300 FEET BELOW ACFT 8 NNW RED BLUFF. PIC STATED EVERYTIME HE MANEUVERED, UAS MANEUVERED TOWARD THE ACFT. TEHAMA COUNTY SHERIFF NOTIFIED. HOUSTON, TX/UAS INCIDENT/2150C/HELO, EC45, INBOUND TO HOUSTON MEDICAL CENTER AT 800 FEET ENCOUNTERED A RED QUADCOPTER UAS WITH AMBER LIGHTS AT 600 FEET FLYING OVER THE BUILDINGS. HELO MADE EVASIVE MANEUVER TO AVOID UAS. UAS CAME WITH IN .1 MILE OF HELO. CHESTER, MA/UAS INCIDENT/1857E/BRADLEY TRACON REPORTED CESSNA C172, WHILE SSE BOUND AT 5,500 FEET, ENCOUNTERED A BLACK UAS WITH 1 ROTOR, 200 -300 FEET ABOVE AND TO HIS LEFT 5 NW CHESTER. ACFT TURNED RIGHT TO AVOID UAS. MA STATE PD NOTIFIED. VFR AIRCRAFT, AT LEVEL FLIGHT REPORTED HAVING TO TAKE EVASIVE ACTION TO AVOID A VERY SMALL UAS.CONTROLLER REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO TRAFFIC OBSERVED IN THE AREA. AIRCRAFT DID NOT RECEIVE ANY DAMAGE, LANDED SAFELY AT BAF. Doing the right thing: FARGO, ND/UAS INCIDENT/1755C/FAR ATCT ADVISED OWNER OF UAS WAS OPERATING UAS IN CLASS D AIRSPACE 1.5 MILES S FAR WHEN BATTERY IN REMOTE CONTROLLER DIED. THE UAS IS PROGRAMMED TO CLIMB TO 1,500 FEET AND HOVER. FAR ATCT REPORTED 3 GA BUSINESS ACFT WERE HOLDING FOR DEP AND 1 AIR CARRIER WAS INBOUND. OWNER CALLED BACK AND REPORTED 22 MIN LATER THE UAS SAFELY ON GROUND. AN INDIVIDUAL CALLED FARGO TOWER NOTIFYING US THAT HE WAS FLYING AN UNAUTHORIZED DRONE IN THE CLASS DELTA AIRSPACE AND THE CONTROLLER FOR THE DRONE HAD DIED. WHEN THE CONTROLLER FOR THE DRONE DIES, THE UAS HOVERS AT 1500 FEET. THE INDIVIDUAL SAID IT WOULD TAKE 15 TO 20 MINUTES TO CHARGE THE CONTROLLER AND GET THE DRONE WORKING AGAIN. AT 2317Z THE INDIVIDUAL CALLED BACK AND SAID THE UAS IS ON THE GROUND. THE DRONE WAS OPERATED NEAR CENTENNIAL BLVD, APPROX 1.5MI SOUTH OF THE AIRPORT. [1] https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/uas_sightings_report/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/uas_sightings_report/

QuercusMax 9y ago

Link is broken - anyone have a mirror?

nitin_flanker 9y ago
Google Cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:h9-Uy1zmqywJ:www.improdrone.com/dji-puts-145000-bounty-drone-pilots-disrupting-flights/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:h9-Uy1z...

nullnilvoid 9y ago

> 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.

nitin_flanker 9y ago
Yes, there are plenty of approaches being made to develop such systems that can take down rogue drones. 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-threat-privacy/ http://www.whatafuture.com/drone-hijacking-device-takeover-t...
knz 9y ago
> 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?
- zkms 9y ago
  > 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.
  - 9y ago

glangdale 9y ago

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.

brian-armstrong 9y ago
You've just summarized why intel dragnets exist, I think
hengheng 9y ago
Look at the "ISIS drones" made from hobbyking parts. Pardon the pun, but it's no rocket science.
ithinkinstereo 9y ago
ISIS has been using drones in the battlefields of Syria and Iraq for some time now. 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.
- glangdale 9y ago
  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. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/use-of-weaponized-drones-by-isis-spurs-terrorism-fears/2017/02/21/9d83d51e-f382-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/use-o...
sfifs 9y ago
Already very much a thing and has caused casualties in the middle east including Western soldiers. Google around.

zkms 9y ago

The solution is simple: allow low-power ADS-B to be radiated from drones and encourage/require its use: see http://www.uavionix.com/blog/the-case-for-low-power-ads-b/ http://www.uavionix.com/blog/the-case-for-low-power-ads-b/ 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.

est 9y ago
The Chengdu case DJI was facing was something totally different. I try my best to describe 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.
- brokenmachine 9y ago
  > It's rumoured there was a responder onboard the unknown drone. ? not sure what this means?
pdelbarba 9y ago
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.
- 9y ago

refresh99 9y ago

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.

astrodust 9y ago

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.

rhinoceraptor 9y ago
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.
- astrodust 9y ago
  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.

bitmapbrother 9y ago

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.

abpavel 9y ago

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.

breeze_em_out 9y ago

Is this appropriate for businesses to be doing? 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?

matthewmacleod 9y ago
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?
moftz 9y ago
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.
- vkou 9y ago
  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.
jenamety 9y ago
> Is this appropriate for businesses to be doing? 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.

raverbashing 9y ago

Unfortunately there are thousands of assholes that don't know or even don't care where they fly those things Same with lasers, same with hot air balloons Maybe after some of them are jailed or fined they'll start to behave

megablast 9y ago
Same with cars, but they kill over a million people a year. Somehow that is acceptable though.
- 4ndr3vv 9y ago
  Your example is only valid when considering driving a car down an airport runway. Deaths from motor vehicles != unauthroised drone flights outside airports
- pdelbarba 9y ago
  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.
  - brokenmachine 9y ago
    > 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. Can you describe your experience?

HeyItsShuga 9y ago

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.

sheeshkebab 9y ago

Why not $150k?

garethsprice 9y ago
It's 1 million yuan, which converts to $145k