Drone pilot could face charges in connection with deadly crash

[Skizered]

This take a look at this I found could solve this all, if Developed correctly.
skyjack/README.md at master · samyk/skyjack · GitHub

 

[Skizered]

U can use Linux and simple pearl code to manipulate and update on the fly program cracks/learns and develop new library's of data of admin handshakes Of drones and then stores to build new library.could be use to stop or be a mobile unit to deflect oncoming drones.

 

[anotherlab]

U can use Linux and simple pearl code to manipulate and update on the fly program cracks/learns and develop new library's of data of admin handshakes Of drones and then stores to build new library.could be use to stop or be a mobile unit to deflect oncoming drones.

Not exactly. The perl scripts in SkyJack specifically target Parrot AR.Drones. An MIT study used SkyJack to show how to take control of Parrot drones and they specifically noted that Phantom 3 Standard was not open to that form of attack. The Lightbridge equipped DJI drones are also not open to attack from SkyJack.

What would be effective is Department 13's MESMER technology. They claim to be able to take of control Lightbridge equipped drones.

 

[AlanTheBeast]

MESMER's technology could never overcome basic encryption if DJI implemented such.

Example:

• Each (drone and RC) generates a 2048 or 4096 bit asymmetric session key
• Sends its public portion to the other
• Each encrypts all control and data using the public keys. Private keys are kept secret and used to decrypt the incoming control or data.

Is it in DJI's best interest to do so? Perhaps. Not a good thing if their drones can be spoofed by any random person.

 

[Skizered]

Not exactly. The perl scripts in SkyJack specifically target Parrot AR.Drones. An MIT study used SkyJack to show how to take control of Parrot drones and they specifically noted that Phantom 3 Standard was not open to that form of attack. The Lightbridge equipped DJI drones are also not open to attack from SkyJack.

What would be effective is Department 13's MESMER technology. They claim to be able to take of control Lightbridge equipped drones.

Thanks for info will check it out.

 

[Thoth]

No, the beast will be the reaction from fed + state + local legislators as soon as the first helicopter or plane is brought down by a drone. This is not a game and you are not entitled to do as you please -- if you do we WILL lose are right to fly at all!


Brian

I agree, where I live drones are already looked at as a nuisance and a potential invasion of privacy. One accident caused by someone with zero common sense would be more than enough to put a ban on unlicensed pilots.

 

[Richard Walker]

Fishy story. Downwash of copter would have grounded drone. This does not excuse the drone flyer of being there but copter pilot needs to use better judgement

 

[Raptorman0909]

Fishy story. Downwash of copter would have grounded drone. This does not excuse the drone flyer of being there but copter pilot needs to use better judgement

Please stop with this nonsense -- we do not need know nothings proclaiming there ignorance as fact! As I've pointed out NUMEROUS time in the past neither the drone nor the helicopter are necessarily hovering and both are likely moving with some forward velocity. If the downwash has 1/10 second to effect the drone it is unlikely to change the drones path more than a foot or two. OTH, if the drone were above the plane to the rotor the drone could be pulled down by 4 or more feet and impact the rotor. In essence, the movement of air through the rotor actually INCREASES the chance a drone will hit a helicopter.

This constant drum of stupidity never ends and the other classic example we've seen here, repeatedly, is that a drone cant hit a plane because the pressure front in front of a plane would push the drone away. Let me remind folks that birds tend to be both lighter and less dense than drones yet they hit airplanes all the time.

For the love of god if you do not know what you're talking about do not proclaim as fact that which is fiction!


Brian

 

[N017RW]

When posting conjecture and assumption please include your qualifiers.
Education, experience, certifications, accreditations, professional affiliations, etc.

Full scale and model aircraft don't mix. Flight is risky but it's mitigated with operational protocols.
The professionals in the air, with skin-in-the-game, have no desire to test these land-bound, web-borne 'expert's' opinions.

 

[Richard Walker]

Some of your assumptions are also incorrect. Helicopter rotors can survive the impact of a drone. Your assumption of forward speed of the drone and/helicopter. The drone operator was clearly wrong but exaggerating the dangers to the helicopter also don't help the discussion.

 

[N017RW]

Let's say it is possible. Why should they risk it?
Then there's inspections, repairs, certifications, etc. probably beyond my budget. Not to mention the legal stew the dronie would be in.
Some peoples flippant hand-waving is concerning.


Inactive VFR SE-PPL holder.

 

[Raptorman0909]

Some of your assumptions are also incorrect. Helicopter rotors can survive the impact of a drone. Your assumption of forward speed of the drone and/helicopter. The drone operator was clearly wrong but exaggerating the dangers to the helicopter also don't help the discussion.

I would not count on the rotor surviving a hit from a drone -- it is by no means certain that it would. And, if the rotor is destroyed the copter will crash as there is absolutely no way to auto-rotate without complete rotors. In short, if the rotor is destroyed and the copter is more than about 50 feet high the chances are high there will be no survivors. Below 50 feet the crew will almost certainly be injured and could easily die. Many modern rotors are made of CF and although CF is very strong they are also brittle and even military grade ones that are designed to tolerate a little bullet damage would be suspect if it hit a 1.5 pound drone. Remember, although the copter itself maybe only moving at, say, 50mph the rotor blades will have a tip speed more like 500mph and will have enormous kinetic energy. Physics is a *****!


Brian

 

[Russ43Phantom]

We live on the shore of Lake Michigan and I often fly the shore line. The attached short video shows roughly the area I fly. I have had Coast Guard helicopters, A10's, gyro copters, seaplanes, experimentals, ultralights, Apache helicopters, corporate jets, and a 4 engine prop plane I couldn't identify fly in the same airspace! They all love to fly the shoreline. So who needs to be regulated??

As I see it, you definitely need to fly well below the tree top level. That way, the low flying aircraft that could come over the tree tops can't hit your drone. Flying above the tree top level would put you in a serious VLOS violation. You can't possibly see low flying aircraft coming from behind the trees. This is the same situation I face living on a NH lake. Like it or not, manned aircraft have the right of way ... even if they are below the manned aircraft limit of 500'.

BTW ... any level of fog seriously reduces VLOS so a part of the flying check list is "if FOG, no flying today".

 

[FLYBOYJ]

For those who keep asking about minimum safe altitudes and helicopters, here is FAR 91.119. Note the bold print.

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a)Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b)Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c)Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d)Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface -

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

 

[JoeG729]

If he passes less than 500 ft horizontally (sparsely settled area) or 2000 ft otherwise, while less than 500 ft vertically from your home on the hill, he's likely in contravention of FAR 91.119 . But I'm not really completely sure of the interpretation of that para. d.

Get binoculars and his N number. Look him up - shouldn't be hard to locate. Call him and ask him to fly neighbourly and avoid your hilltop due to the noise.

I believe 500ft. applies to airplanes but unfortunately not helicopters.

 

[anotherlab]

I believe 500ft. applies to airplanes but unfortunately not helicopters.

Helipcopters may fly below 500 ft, but they are expected to fly within proscribed routes.

From Title ·14, ·Code of Federal Regulations, Section 91.119 of the General Operating and Flight Rules which specifically prohibits low-flying aircraft:

91.119 Minimum safe altitudes; general
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes;
(a) ·Anywhere. ·An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) ·Over congested areas. ·Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2.000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) ·Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In that case, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) ·Helicopters. ·Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed In paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.

 

[Raptorman0909]

You do have to keep your eyes AND ears open at all times. You can see in this video from late last year that shortly after takeoff I hear a plane so I stop and scan and finally see him. I reduce altitude to about 25 feet or so and the guy flying the plane appears to my guestimation to descend to 300 feet or so and do two loops around the very formation I was heading towards. In addition, I'd say he was going pretty near 200mph. At that speed and altitude you as a drone pilot will have very little time to react.

So, as far as the pilot of the plane is concerned I'd say he was borderline breaking the rules as there were people around though the area is reasonably remote. I doubt the FAA would gig him formally but suspect they'd advise him not to do it again.

Note the incident occurs pretty near the beginning of the video in 4K.

Brian

 

[Russ43Phantom]

I believe 500ft. applies to airplanes but unfortunately not helicopters.

The helicopters that fly to the hospital near me say they fly over 500 feet until they are precisely over the landing pad. Then they they descend vertically. That is their safety protocol.

 

[Raptorman0909]

The helicopters that fly to the hospital near me say they fly over 500 feet until they are precisely over the landing pad. Then they they descend vertically. That is their safety protocol.

I find it hard to believe the helicopters fly 500 feet over the pad then descend vertically -- it's hard to see the landing pad when you're directly over it and most pilots descend with something like an and airplane approach to a runway. Of course, if there's tall building around the pad that would be one reason but if there is little in the way of obstructions the pilot will find it easier to land by coming in at an oblique angle.

Brian

 

[NRJ]

Well, here is something new from DJI. They think they can help.

DJI Proposes Systems For Managing And Monitoring Drone Traffic - UASweekly.com