Drone incursions into restricted airspace

[Jagerbomb52]

A interesting post on the Legal News & Discussion facebook page by Vic Moss this morning. I edited out what was not important.

"

Discussion about why drones need to be locked out or self authorized in certain areas.



There is a major airport with a drone detection system semi-permanently set up to record (record only) drone incursions into restricted airspace.

All flights were from 2-5 miles out from the end of the runway, and within the enhanced warning zone so they had to be intentionally flown. No accidental violations. All recorded flights were in 100' UASFM grids.

Here are the findings:
~Number of flights: 219
~Average AGL: 325'
~Number of flights exceeding 1000'AGL (in the 100' grid): 11.

That's only within a one week timeframe, and many were directly in the flight path.

I do not know how many of these flights were coordinated with ATC, but I can guaranty most were not. Especially the 1000' flights inside a 100' gird.

This information will be used an upcoming demonstration for FAA investigators.
Enforcement is coming folks. And this is why. Based on these findings, if public enforcement doesn't happen soon, it's an eventuality that more restrictions are coming.

This is not good. The report is sobering, and we all need to wakeup to the fact that if something doesn't happen soon, we will see more regulations, and possible pay to fly, in areas around airports."


Now the first post after that was:

"I am curious of how Accurate this recording system is though. As someone who works on an Airfield and deals with these kind of issues. I have many times seen manned aviation report UAS that turned out to be birds, how does this system work to determine the difference between a goose and a uas."

The response was:

"100% accurate. Does NOT detect anything non-electronic. With DeDrone which might be the system in use here. It detects drones based in part on RF emission and sonic signature. There's zero chance of it mis-identifying a bird as a drone. It uses an aggregate of various sensors to identify a drone in flight and locate it spatially. So it would detect the RF signal from the drone and the transmitter, and could even tell you where the pilot was standing if the location could be triangulated. For identifying the drone, it used camera image processing, directional microphones and sound signature of the motors in addition to the RF. Once the drone was detected, the system would record its video feed (if it was analog) for later payback, including identifying the pilot or evidence of activity."

Sounds like a wake up call for the UAV world.

 

[dmfnewjerseysurf]

Im tired of people not paying attention to the regulations or flying like there the only ones in the sky. Flying out of vfr on the new Jersey coast which is one of the busiest air spaces in North America. I see a lot of photos where the pilot's flying blind just to take a pic of a sailboat. Hobby flyers that fly with no regard to regulations need to start being fined or people will continue to put peoples lives at risk.

 

[PatR]

Sounds more like a marketing publicity campaign. "Close call" event reporting has already been identified by the FAA as extremely suspect and largely unverified.

"That's only within a one week timeframe, and many were directly in the flight path."
If the electronic reporting equipment is recording incursions on the 2.4 and 5.8 frequencies I'd sure like to know how it differentiates between a drone and cell phones carried by full scale pilots, along with aircraft having web connectivity.

 

[Jagerbomb52]

You would have to ask DeDrone on how their equipment works I guess.

 

[Steve Carr]

The next obvious question: If they detected a UAS at high altitude what did they do to identify and charge the pilot?

My observation of many DJI groups shows a total disdain for any regulation. A member who suggests a picture or video posted is a clear violation of airspace is immediately chastised as a wimpy do-gooder. It appears many of these groups are sponsored and moderated by DJI and they foster this kind of renegade mentality. At the same time they propose to sell systems to government agencies which track these violations. Kinda like creating a market for the equipment you want to sell.

 

[PatR]

At the same time they propose to sell systems to government agencies .

Not any more. See the document in my COTS thread.

 

[Steve Carr]

Not any more. See the document in my COTS thread.

The system I am referring to is the AeroScope.

"AeroScope will help personnel at locations such as government facilities, military facilities, stadiums, airports, ports, correctional facilities, energy facilities, power plants and other critical institutions to detect, locate, identify, and track all DJI UAV within the detection range."

 

[Eagle's Eye Video]

The next obvious question: If they detected a UAS at high altitude what did they do to identify and charge the pilot?

My observation of many DJI groups shows a total disdain for any regulation. A member who suggests a picture or video posted is a clear violation of airspace is immediately chastised as a wimpy do-gooder. It appears many of these groups are sponsored and moderated by DJI and they foster this kind of renegade mentality. At the same time they propose to sell systems to government agencies which track these violations. Kinda like creating a market for the equipment you want to sell.

Create the crime, so you can provide the solution? Surely you jest...

 

[Eagle's Eye Video]

Oh I'm so upset, but it was my fault... I should have rephrased that so the proper response would be obvious in a flight forum...

Take 2:

Create the crime, so you can provide the solution? Surely you can't be serious...

 

[PatR]

I understood exactly what you meant. On par with having a solution looking for a problem. In the case of DJI it might have been more along the line of creating software to enable selling the concept to governments to legislate incorporation of the software by all manufactures, thereby providing a legislated monopoly for a single company, which in turn would create a tremendous profit center through the sale of software licensing agreements. Just another under handed attempt to control the market and inject foreign influence in our national legislative processes.

With this other stuff referencing incursions, there’s been no independent verification of their findings. Our FAA is still stating there’s lack of verification with drone sighting and near miss reports, as does the AOPA which reviews the same data as provided the FAA. We can discount anything reported by news media as their focus is in generating revenue.

 

[Eagle's Eye Video]

Sorry PatR, was trying to inject some levity into the convo... apparently no fans of Airplane! here... I'll go back to my gladiator movie now... and stop calling me Shirley

 

[PatR]

Very much a fan. IMO one of the best comedies ever made. The Shirley skit has always reminded me of Abbot and Costello’s “Who’s on first” routine.

 

[DrNewcenstein]

I just want you to know, we're all counting on you.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but when those nature groups put electronic tags on migratory birds, they emit an RF signal. If there's a drone just outside the authorized zone, and a bird just inside the zone, how accurate can the system be? What if there's a garage band renting a shack just at the end of the airstrip and they're using wireless gear that also operates in the same range?

 

[NorWiscPilot]

Stop calling me Shirley or Surly, let alone Surely!

 

[Nesher]

I love flying my UAV's.
I live 4.8 miles from a major airport.
I would be OK with built-in Geofencing, transponders, etc. to keep us all away from manned aircraft.
So if done properly (which I admit is a BIG "if"), more regulations might not be bad.

 

[mmg_walter]

As with so many things in life, we can't be the first ones to be faced with this kind of problem. We should look to the experience of others.

At risk of admitting membership in yet another incredibly nerdy community... we amateur radio operators, also highly trained and with difficult-to-get Federal licenses, have faced similar "wild west" conditions, where bad operators threaten draconian government enforcement that makes life miserable for everyone.

With government guidance, a group of certified, volunteer watchdogs was created... "Official Observers"... who identify illegal operation and prompt an official warning, along with guidance and education for remediation. Once warned, bigger penalties follow. Granted, this old-school approach pre-dated electronic detection and surveillance, and modification for sUAS surveillance would certainly be necessary; but the core concept is that the community steps forward and polices itself and eliminates the non-member bandits.

Just sayin...

 

[DrNewcenstein]

The reason we have so much Government Intervention and blanket laws that are more restrictive is exactly because those who were in those communities "didn't want to get involved" and clung to some childish notion of "snitches get stitches".

I've been watching dozens of YT drone compilation videos that illustrate primary examples of both irresponsible drone operation and poor spending choices. Most of the videos are of DJI products, and very few are of Yuneec products. The rest are these little homemade-looking flying bricks that flip and tumble at high speed, and break apart sending shrapnel flying. Most of these are videos originally uploaded by the pilot, and some are either secondary cameras (buddy with an iPhone) or security cameras, like the one where a DJI drone fell out of the sky into a crowd of people.

Of course it's not mentioned if these drones were modified, and they don't have any sort of follow-up to say if it was hardware/software failure or pilot error or poor maintenance (props not tight), but 99% of all problems are Human Error, whether it's the choice of product, or the inexperienced operator trying to do too much too soon.

I understand what it's like when one of your friends is the first to show up with "a new toy" and no one thinks about the safe operation of it - we assume that if this guy could easily get one, it can't possibly have any special considerations, like a gun or a car or a barrel of anhydrous ammonia, right? And no one wants to be a wet blanket by saying "Hey, Steve, are there any Federal Regulations you need to understand before you turn that thing on?", mostly because we really don't know ourselves, and partly because we're afraid the answer will be "Yeah, but....."

In the long list of Famous Last Words, you find:
"Watch this"
"I know what I'm doing"
"Hey, look what I got/found"

 

[CSI]

There is absolutely No Way that a person cannot know they live within 5 miles or less of an airport. One of those small private grass strips, maybe.....but how can a person not know there is a towered airport in the area??

I live 2.75 miles from Forbes Field. I don't call them anymore, but when I first got my H, I spoke with Flight Ops to find out if/when/where I could fly without having trouble with them or the FAA. I stay below 300 feet, and am not near any of the approaches to either runway, so they told me not to worry about contacting them when I fly.