Airbus Rolls Out Anti-Drone System (networkworld.com) 168
coondoggie writes: The Airbus anti-drone system employs infrared cameras, radar technology and sensors to spot and track drones over six miles away, the company says. If the incoming drone is considered suspicious, the system can use electronic signals to jam the drone's communications and more: “Based on an extensive threat library and real-time analysis of control signals, a jammer interrupts the link between drone and pilot and/or its navigation. Furthermore, the direction finder tracks the position of the pilot who subsequently can be dealt with by law enforcement. Due to the Smart Responsive Jamming Technology developed by Airbus Defence and Space, the jamming signals are blocking only the relevant frequencies used to operate the drone while other frequencies in the vicinity remain operational. Since the jamming technology contains versatile receiving and transmitting capabilities, more sophisticated measures like remote control classification and GPS spoofing can be utilized as well. This allows effective and specific jamming and, therefore, a takeover of the UAV,” the company stated.
What could go wrong? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What could go wrong? (Score:4, Interesting)
Against someone who is expecting to be jammed, I'd assume that the drone's default behavior would be 'fly toward the strongest RF source if you lose connection with manual control' and the jammer would be a nice handy beacon.to head right into as fast as possible.
Re:What could go wrong? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or, you know, set up an internal navigation system that is either based on image recognition using preloaded images compared to a downwards-facing camera, or onboard inertial / laser ring gyros.
Lose contact with the encrypted command and control source? Switch to internal nav or mission profile and continue with Plan B.
The jamming paradigm is built on the assumption that drones have to be phoning home to something. A drone that isn't interested in talking to the outside world can only be jammed with projectiles or a really big butterfly net.
Re:What could go wrong? (Score:5, Interesting)
You guys are overthinking the problem. If you want to shoot down an airliner, build an air cannon, set it up under the approach path to an airport, and lob explosives or ball bearings into the plane's path. The pumpkin throwing contests reached almost a mile with an 8 lb projectile, which is plenty of range. Smart ECM is of no use if you are throwing a dumb projectile.
Re: (Score:3)
The Evil in this is that it makes pumpkin throwing contests so much more interesting.
Kinda like Skeet shooting.
" PULL !! "
Re: (Score:2)
Harder than you think - the IRA did essentially what you are suggesting, only with home made mortars fired from a vehicle parked in a hotel carpark at London Heathrow. They didn't bring down an aircraft, and hardly impacted the operation of the airport.
Re: (Score:2)
It's worse than that.
Some drones will land themselves, but drones currently don't have a requirement for backup plans if they lose links, so if you jam a harmless drone it may go out of control and kill someone.
Additionally, there are other legitimate uses for the bands that drones use. The FCC wouldn't be happy about airplanes disrupting those services.
Drones also can be controller by pretty much any radio signal including a cell phone signal. The FCC REALLY wouldn't be happy about jamming cell phones.
Most
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I understand what you're saying, but then I wonder: is a drone really going to accomplish this any better than a "traditional" method? Whenever a new technology comes out that can be used nefariously, I have to remind myself that our entire civil society is based on an honor system. People don't commit crimes simply because most people are not inclined to do so, and because crimes are punished.
This is really about people the fear someone could commit an old-fashioned crimes with fancy new technology. I don'
Re: (Score:2)
The people sending the drones into the wrong airspace aren't trying to commit crimes; they're having fun, and just don't care for some reason that it's illegal, and that there are good reasons for it to be illegal. It's something like firing lasers at aircraft, but it probably feels less hostile.
This isn't about trying to stop an actual attack, because it won't. It's trying to keep the idiots from interfering with the airplane.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That a better answer than stopping sales (Score:4, Interesting)
Protecting an area that should be drone free is a better answer than any rules, regulations or bans they can come up with. Whether this truly is as effective as they claim is a whole other matter.
Re: (Score:3)
Protecting an area that should be drone free...
You do realize that an Airbus flying at 30,000' over your property is less than six miles away from you, don't you? Your property is suddenly in what you consider a drone-free zone -- even if you are the one flying it.
Many years ago DOD used to dither the timing signals on GPS (called "selective availability") to downgrade the position quality. They finally realized that too many users of GPS were being negatively impacted by such nonsense and stopped doing it. Imagine the negative impact on other users wh
Re: (Score:3)
The GPS signals, GLONASS signals, Galileo signals or BeiDou signals?
Re:That a better answer than stopping sales (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Even The Fine Summary said they'd selectively jam the drone's communication, not the GPS signals. That means if they detect a 2.4GHz signal in the direction of the radar signature of the drone, they'll jam 2.4GHz. To avoid interfering with legitimate radio traffic I suspect their system discriminates, and only identifies transmissions in bands assigned to RC control or transmissions on the unlicensed bands. It probably wouldn't jam cell frequencies or other licensed bands.
And that will be good enough to
Re: (Score:2)
Even The Fine Summary said they'd selectively jam the drone's communication, not the GPS signals.
You should read at least the summary. It says, pretty clear:
"GPS spoofing" means they have to broadcast signals that cover the legitimate signals from the GPS satellites. That means "jam", just with something that looks real. Now, GPS signals have gotten a lot easier to recieve as satellite technology improves, but t
Re: (Score:2)
You mean they realized if they didn't stop everyone would switch over to Galileo or Glonass.
Re: (Score:2)
And the people who really needed accurate positioning information did "differential GPS".
Which basically consisted of a GPS receiver at a known surveyed point and a transmitter that sent corrections out in realtime based on the difference between where GPS said they were and where the survey said they were. Worked quite well close to the survey point (within a few dozen miles), n
Re: (Score:2)
The resolution would be poor compared to ground based mapping(like the Google cars that got caught being a little too inquisitive about wifi traffic); but if you have to have the system running to detect suspicious a
Re: (Score:2)
Bill Clinton invaded Iraq? o_O
Re: (Score:2)
Protecting an area that should be drone free is a better answer than any rules, regulations or bans they can come up with. Whether this truly is as effective as they claim is a whole other matter.
You may be able to protect one end of the flight but not the other in which case you take whatever protection you can with you.
So at first... (Score:2)
Not so long ago, playing a video game or using a cell phone could interfere with a commercial airliner's sensitive communication systems, endangering life and property, and therefore was banned for decades before slowly beginning to acknowledge that the threat wasn't very credible.
But now, a suspicious object over 5 miles away is reason to start sending deliberate jamming signals, likely on the GPS frequencies as well as all common command and control bands? Yeah, nothing could go wrong there.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a case of the airlines/FCC not knowing whether the cell phones or video games would interfere, and so they erred on the side of caution and banned them until they were shown to not interfere. That's how is usually goes with such things - you not understanding that is not cause to launch into a rant on this subject, as you clearly need to do some more homework.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a case of the airlines/FCC not knowing whether the cell phones or video games would interfere
Bullshit. Pilots were using tablets with their navigation software for years before the passengers were allowed to.
Either they knew it would be fine and didn't want to mess with it, or they were negligent in allowing pilots to use those tablets. Has to be one or the other.
Re: (Score:2)
Or that pilots are in the best (only?) position to see that the instruments start screwing up when electronic devices are used and do something about it? Or that there might be a slight difference between two tablets in the cockpit and 300 tablets & phones distributed through the entire length of the plane?
Nooo.... it must be some sort of weird, unexplainable conspiracy between Sony and the FAA or some shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Nooo.... it must be some sort of weird, unexplainable conspiracy between Sony and the FAA or some shit.
Never said that. They just didn't give a shit about doing it, and then it became a whole sidebar debate about people on their cell phones during a flight which had nothing to do with the issue.
Or that there might be a slight difference between two tablets in the cockpit and 300 tablets & phones distributed through the entire length of the plane?
If EMI wasn't an issue 1 meter away from all of the avionics, it certainly wouldn't be an issue farther away. Learn about EM radiation and the inverse square law.
Re: (Score:2)
Commercial airliners can travel at speeds up to 9 miles per minute, though while at those speeds they aren't likely to be meeting any consumer class drones due to the thin air. Even on approach, they are still doing around 4 miles per minute - if they're not starting their signal jamming at 60 seconds out, they won't likely be able to get any control of the situation before intercept.
Re:So at first... (Score:5, Informative)
The request came from the Department of Justice. These are to be installed in fixed locations, such as the roof of a prison. Just because Airbus created them does not mean they intend to install them on their aircraft.
And very few prisons are traveling at 4 miles per minute, even those on final approach. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Meh, would have to have read the article to know that - blame the summary...
Anyway, interesting, even still - blasting out long range EM interference for channels like 2.4GHz and whatever GPS operates on is normally grounds for arrest and fine. I suppose if you're running a licensed prison you are exempt from such peasant concerns.
April fool's day? (Score:5, Informative)
Jamming the WiFi control signals to remove the UAS from the pilot's control? GPS spoofing to disrupt the GPS for every other GPS user within range?
Deliberate and willful interference with regulated radio services should be, and is, a federal crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is exactly why this system is unlikely to be approved for use within the USA.
Just the interdepartmental squabbling between the FAA and the FCC would kill the idea, but there are other reasons for this.
Jamming the GPS signal, even in a targeted area, is going to be a show stopper anyplace where GPS is used as an approved IFR approach, which is going to include most major airports in the USA. There is ZERO chance the FAA is going to knowingly allow some aircraft to operate a GPS jammer/spoofer anywher
Re: (Score:2)
Which is exactly why this system is unlikely to be approved for use within the USA.
The US government wants to buy things like this, so "approvde for use within the USA" is NOT going to be an issue:
The Airbus system follows a recent Layer 8 post that detailed the US Federal Bureau of Prisons looking for such as system to protect federal prison guards and prisoners from incoming threatening drones.
The group, which is an agency of the Department of Justice issued a Request for Information in November specifically targeting what it called a fully integrated system that will allow for the detection, tracking, interdiction, engagement and neutralization of small -- less the 55lb -- unmanned aerial system.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, but flying it on a commercial aircraft such as the ones Airbus manufactures is absolutely NOT going to be allowed.
The government can do all sorts of things that private individuals and commercial enterprises are not allowed to do. Jamming Cell phones, spoofing GPS signals, jamming other radio services are things that the government can do, but won't let you do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that the Federal Dept. of Corrections runs too many jails at 30,000 feet.
LOL, well they run on at over 6,000 feet outside of Pueblo Colorado...
Still, commercial and privet use of such a system is going to be verboten in the USA. They will not be legal for sale to anybody but the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The prevailing attitude demonstrated by you is that UAS operators are inherently and collectively reckless. I see that promoted around like the terrorist muslim trope, and that attitude is stupid, unjustified, and ignorant. UAS pilots have been flying longer than manned aircraft pilots. Modelling clubs go back to the turn of the previous century. Like aircraft, there have been some close calls, but UAS operators are far more conscientious than drivers, even commercial drivers, at obeying common sense accept
Re: (Score:2)
It really immaterial what the estimates of gifts were. In 2012, the FAA was ordered to have regulations in place by september 2015, to handle commercial UAS. They were explicitly prohibited from regulating hobby drones. UAS tech was blossoming, and the FAA knew this long ago.
In Sept 2015, they updated their AC-91 57, which had to do with hobby UAS. They had been running some tests for commercial flights, handing out occasional section 333 exceptions to movie industries and others.
In Nov 2015, they got feedb
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Deliberate and willful interference with regulated radio services should be, and is, a federal crime.
Laws only apply to little people.
Re:April fool's day? (Score:4, Interesting)
Jamming any RF signal is a federal crime, but no they aren't controlled over wifi. But that doesn't matter because intentionally jamming any RF signal is a federal crime.
TFA discussed uses around prisons. That makes sense, and if remote enough, can probably get an exception to jam a signal.
GPS spoofing (also illegal), can interfere with many other issues, most of them life-threatening.
Re:April fool's day? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
But that doesn't matter because intentionally jamming any RF signal is a federal crime.
Unless the government grants permission! Airbus can't just build this and sell it to random people, but institutions that already work closely with government (or are part of the government) are a different story. It's not like "intense regulatory burden" is anything new to Airbus!
Re: (Score:2)
They generally use the same ISM spectrum as WiFi - 2.4GHz
They also generally use frequency-hopping, so they'll need to jam the entire spectrum.
Re: (Score:2)
There are levels to that statement which make it acceptable and unacceptable depending on the circumstances.
A sUAS illegally in the flight path of a manned aircraft should be removed with prejudice. It is extremely dangerous. Let it fall out of the sky. (Unfortunately, it probably won't just drop ... most are programmed to return to sender upon loss of signal. That's where the GPS spoofing would commandeer it.)
A sUAS spotted 6 mi away by this device that is not endangering a manned aircraft (or high securit
Will it really work on non-RC drones? (Score:2)
a jammer interrupts the link between drone and pilot and/or its navigation
For an autonomous drone that relies on GPS... what happens if Airbus jams the GPS naviation? Wouldn't the drone just hover in the same spot while trying to re-establish signal? Or maybe go into an emergency landing mode where it just lands wherever it is.
Ok so the 2nd outcome would be what the jammer wants, but the 1st outcome isn't entirely desirable.
Re: (Score:3)
The FAA has approved GPS IFR approaches at most major airports, there is zero chance they will knowingly allow a GPS jammer/spoofer to operate anyplace near where an approved GPS based IFR approach has been approved. You might cause the drone to land, crash, or await the GPS signal to return, but you might cause the same to happen to an aircraft full of people flying an IFR approach. They may also loose their GPS signal and depending on the exact situation, they may land safely, have to do a missed approa
Re: (Score:2)
From my understanding GPS jamming is typically a matter of broadcasting a different set of signals at higher power. So the drone doesn't actually know that it lost its GPS signal. The Jammer then manipulates their signals to position the drone where they want it. I believe that is the method that Iran is suspected of having used to capture that CIA drone.
Jamming? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the FCC would likely have a problem
Airbus sells in a lot of markets not under FCC jurisdiction. And with more permissive laws covering jamming.
Re: (Score:2)
Great, it won't be approved in North America for airline transport, or private use. Like it or not, that happens to be a significant part of Airbus' market.
Not to mention, that such a system will fail to be approved by both the FAA and the FCC, which is a significant issue as many of the certification boards in other countries have mutual agreements, which lets manufacturers seek certifications from their country's authority and don't then have to repeat the expensive certification process for every count
Re: (Score:2)
This is NOT being incorporated into airplanes.
It's a ground-based system with a maximum range of 6 miles, highly directional antennas, and the Department of Justice wants them on behalf of the US Federal Bureau of Prisons. In other words, not more drones delivering contraband. And because it can track where the controller is, one more stupid crook before the courts.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what the article says. The article was talking about airport security.
The government can (and does) do things that us individual citizens would be hauled off to jail for. If they want to protect their open prison yards with such a system, fine, it's just stupid to advertise that they are doing it. Such a system is super easy to work around if you know about it in advance so it's best for the government to keep it hush hush.
Seems like a lot of range. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The current restriction for drones is greater than 5000 ft. radius from an airport.
Five nautical miles is a bit more than 30,000'. I don't know where you got 5000'.
Does this mean that these planes will jam at distances greater than these?
The summary mentions six miles, with is greater than all of "5000'", "30,000'", and "400'".
Re: (Score:3)
Does this mean that these planes will jam at distances greater than these?
There are no planes involved in the system. It's ground-based, highly directional, and the US Dept. of Justice wants them for the US Federal Bureau of Prisons. So now if someone wants to smuggle a phone into jail, they'll have to hide it by pulling a goat-guy. The range is 6 miles.
the article sez it's for securing prisons (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That should be interesting. We could see a tech war between the smugglers and the prisons. They could fly in below the radar, popping up only long enough to clear a fence. They could use an inertial navigation system (try jamming that!). They could use odd frequencies not anticipated by the jamming system. Maybe we'll even see some mini-stealth.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we'll even see some mini-stealth.
I bet it wouldn't be too hard to make one with all the plastics technology available nowadays. If only I had an easily accessible radar to test against.
This just in... (Score:5, Funny)
A Boeing 787 bound for Paris from New York mysteriously landed instead at Reykjavik, Iceland today. Boeing pilots say that there was no indication of failure of onboard navigation systems. "It's a mystery" commented one Boeing engineer.
When asked to comment, an Airbus representative opined "Tough luck for Boeing".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A Boeing 787 bound for Paris from New York mysteriously landed instead at Reykjavik, Iceland today. Boeing pilots say that there was no indication of failure of onboard navigation systems. "It's a mystery" commented one Boeing engineer.
When asked to comment, an Airbus representative opined "Tough luck for Boeing".
Link, or it didn't happen.
Here! [slashdot.org]
Does it also work against Cessna's? (Score:2)
Does it also work against Cessna's?
Re: (Score:2)
Does it also work against Cessna's?
Against Cessna's what?
lasers (Score:2)
Makes you wonder why all planes don't have laser detection systems. You know where the plane is, you can see where the laser is coming from; won't take many flights to build up a pattern of where the fuckwits who shine them at planes live and send the police round to shoot them.
Re:lasers (Score:4)
Because the lasers are really not much of a threat, despite the hype.
GPS Spoofing? (Score:2)
So the airplane is going to spoof GPS signals to a drone 6 miles away without causing any other problems?
Rockets beat Drones (Score:2)
Some day a 0.5Kg is going to fly within 10km of a heavy aircraft (that it would not even scratch) and it will be announced that the world will end.
But buy a few kg of perchlorate, make a 10kg rocket, add a couple of kg of ammonium nittrate and you have a different story.
The trick used to be how to control it so that it can find a target. But a Raspberry Pi with a small camera and some relatively simple software could easily identify an aeroplane against a blue sky. And shield it with a bit of aluminum foi
My Disabled Drone Landed on Neighbor (Score:2)
This story is 3 months old. (Score:2)
oblig (Score:2)
Jammed UAV may fly unpredictably (Score:2)
If Airbus jams the drone’s communications, the drone may fly unpredictably. It may accelerate and damage property on the ground or even hurt people.
Basically Airbus takes control of the drone on itself, and with it comes the responsibility.
There was not a s
Airbus vs drones vs Airbus vs.. (Score:2)
Just wait til the said drones implement the same technology, or another airbus jams another airbus.. and boom no more GPS, radio with the tower, radio guidance, etc.
Seems like fair game!
That part about using RF (Score:2)
Great Idea. Any Iranians? (Score:2)
Gosh, jamming and spoofing GPS for a drone.
Why, you could almost use that to bring down a highly secured military drone using well outdated DES technology it were (say) flying over Iran taking pictures.
Great Job!
Nets (Score:2)
This may be useful for remotely-controlled drones, but it's useless against autonomous drones, such as those being developed by Amazon for delivery. It's only a matter of time before someone hooks up an Arduino (or whatever the kids are using these days) and sets a GPS target with a payload attached. It's difficult to think of a defense against that that isn't easily overcome by numbers and/or altitude. Maybe nets encapsulating high value targets...
Nets: They're like fences, only entanglier.
Anti-anti-drone systems! (Score:2)
The logical next step! :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
2.4GHz allows very directional antennas. It is possible to hit a drone with a spot beam without wrecking all 2.4GHz comms on the ground. They must have tought of this - otherwise, the device won't be legal.
Jamming radio communications is illegal regardless of how selectively you do it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."
Re: (Score:2)
2.4GHz allows very directional antennas. It is possible to hit a drone with a spot beam without wrecking all 2.4GHz comms on the ground. They must have tought of this - otherwise, the device won't be legal.
Jamming radio communications is illegal regardless of how selectively you do it.
So is warrant-less wiretapping. Right? :)
Re: (Score:2)
2.4GHz allows very directional antennas. It is possible to hit a drone with a spot beam without wrecking all 2.4GHz comms on the ground. They must have tought of this - otherwise, the device won't be legal.
Jamming radio communications is illegal regardless of how selectively you do it.
It's illegal to jam 'authorized' signals - presumably it would not be illegal to jam the 'unauthorized' signals of a drone flying where it's not supposed to.
https://www.fcc.gov/general/ja... [fcc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
2.4GHz allows very directional antennas. It is possible to hit a drone with a spot beam without wrecking all 2.4GHz comms on the ground. They must have tought of this - otherwise, the device won't be legal.
Jamming radio communications is illegal regardless of how selectively you do it.
It's illegal to jam 'authorized' signals - presumably it would not be illegal to jam the 'unauthorized' signals of a drone flying where it's not supposed to.
https://www.fcc.gov/general/ja... [fcc.gov]
There is nothing "unauthorized" about the signals sent to a drone. Even if it was, civilians don't get to enforce the laws. And your link, which refers specifically to cell jamming, doesn't counter that in any way.
"Operation of a jammer in the United States may subject you to substantial monetary penalties, seizure of the unlawful equipment, and criminal sanctions including imprisonment. "
Re: (Score:2)
The article is not specific to cell jamming. It's quite obviously regarding any jamming. I reference it with regard to the use of the word 'authorized'.
If the drone itself is unauthorized to be where it is, the signals going to it could thus be considered to be unauthorized.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you're correct on the cell jamming part...my bad for honing in on the cell jammer part, not reading the whole thing. That said, nobody but government is allowed to enforce those rules, so any private company would be in violation.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you're correct on the cell jamming part...my bad for honing in on the cell jammer part, not reading the whole thing. That said, nobody but government is allowed to enforce those rules, so any private company would be in violation.
Except that jamming an unauthorized signal isn't 'enforcement' of anything.
If the signal is unauthorized, then jamming that signal is not illegal and anyone can do it.
Re: (Score:2)
What part of...
"Federal law prohibits the operation, marketing, or sale of any type of jamming equipment, including devices that interfere with cellular and Personal Communication Services (PCS), police radar, Global Positioning Systems (GPS), and wireless networking services (Wi-Fi)."
...don't you get? You're not allowed to jam period.
See if you can dig up ANY legal opinion to back up your comment. No?...didn't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget jamming/spoofing GPS signals might actually present a danger to other aircraft in the area. There are IFR approach procedures that use GPS at most major airports in the USA. The FAA won't stand for anybody operating a GPS jammer/spoffer anywhere near any airport.
By the way... Where it is possible to get pretty directional with antennas, 2.4 Ghz is still going to require significant volume to house that antenna. 12cm is still a pretty long wavelength. I have a 29dB gain yagi that's a couple o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I'm aware of these other antennas. Phased arrays are not well suited to this frequency range due to the physical size required and where they are easy to point, it is difficult to reduce the side lobes and keep the primary lobe having sufficient gain at oblique angles. Dish antennas can have good beam widths with reasonable side lobes, but are very difficult to accurately point because it is a mechanical system.
I seriously doubt a ground based solution is a good idea though using any of these anten
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Disrupting the control signal to a simple drone may cause it to fly erroneously and crash (not necessarily straight down). Who to blame for damage then?
The pilot, 100%. If this is a "no fly zone" for models, it's nobody's fault but the person who chose to fly their model into the zone. And they aren't going to mess with GPS -- too much risk, too many legal issues.
As I posted above, they're not looking to solve every problem, and jam every possible frequency, and stop every possible type of navigational system. They're looking to stop the gang members from buying a quadcopter at the mall, duct-taping a gun or cell phone to it, then flying it into their b
Re: (Score:2)
And they aren't going to mess with GPS -- too much risk, too many legal issues.
So that's why they talk about GPS spoofing in both the summary and TFS? They aren't going to spoof GPS but might as well mention how easy it would be to do.
As I posted above, they're not looking to solve every problem, and jam every possible frequency, and stop every possible type of navigational system.
Only GPS, which is used by the vast majority of anything that has a need for positional information.
not a perfect fix that eliminates every possible type of R/C aircraft.
So, your definition of "a perfect fix" is one that eliminates every possible type of R/C aircraft, then.
Re: (Score:2)
"The pilot, 100%. If this is a "no fly zone" for models"
And, when I'm legally flying my drone in my backyard (ten miles from the local airport, but in the glidepath), and it drops from the sky on someone's head? Sorry, but it's not legal for private individuals, or private companies to enforce laws. That's the governments job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you can see them, they're hardly stealthy.
Re: (Score:2)
, but I bet 8 ounces of 3/16" tungsten drill rod in 3" pieces would mess up a jet engine something awful.
A criminal may just throw the damaging items into the air with a low-tech catapult. No need for a drone to commit a crime.
Nobody does it, however, because it is clear to anyone that it is a heineous crime to interfere with a taking off aircraft, and that it will not be just couple of months in prison at all.