Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

improdrone.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 102 posts

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

#61

Post by kbos87 »

4ndr3vv wrote: post #52
averagewall wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

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.

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

#62

Post by kbos87 »

megablast wrote: post #50
brokenmachine wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you drive there? Because if you drive there, you are way worse than a drone.

+1. People are more used to cars, but cars have the ability to be a million times more disruptive and dangerous.

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

#63

Post by devoply »

angbarus wrote: post #53
_coldfire wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Signal-jacking and gps spoofing is the only cost-efficient and scalable way to bring these things down. The word gun really mangles the reality of counter-drone solutions

This machine disables drones. http://images.sscentral.org/reviews/cps2000_00.jpg

Advanced research technology from the 90s, no doubt. Abandoned due to legal issues. Perhaps it's time to bring it back.

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

#64

Post by kbos87 »

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

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

#65

Post by mnarayan01 »

tomswartz07 wrote: post #58
benh14 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

from what I've heard, the 'guns' are just signal jammers

The problem being that in order to effectively 'jam' a signal far away, antenna theory requires that a fairly significant proportion of that radio energy must be directed out the back of the 'antenna'/gun. Right into the person firing it. That's also ignoring the fact that if the signal to a drone is lost, it's more than likely to fall out of the sky like a ton of bricks.

> That's also ignoring the fact that if the signal to a drone is lost, it's more than likely to fall out of the sky like a ton of bricks.

Consumer drones typically have well-defined and behaved signal loss behavior, which (for DJI ones at least) is even fairly configurable. Though quite often that behavior involves gaining a substantial amount of altitude (at least by default), which at an airport is actually probably worse than dropping.

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

#66

Post by moftz »

breeze_em_out wrote: post #46

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?

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.

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

#67

Post by sp332 »

tomswartz07 wrote: post #58
benh14 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

from what I've heard, the 'guns' are just signal jammers

The problem being that in order to effectively 'jam' a signal far away, antenna theory requires that a fairly significant proportion of that radio energy must be directed out the back of the 'antenna'/gun. Right into the person firing it. That's also ignoring the fact that if the signal to a drone is lost, it's more than likely to fall out of the sky like a ton of bricks.

I don't see why the signal has to go out the back. Otherwise dish-type antennas couldn't work. And those TV aerials would work as well pointed 180 degrees away from a signal as straight at it, which isn't true.

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

#68

Post by phil21 »

Animats wrote: post #31
ohashi wrote: post #3

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

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) OBSERV…

You also have to read these reports with a grain of salt. Some of those reports are nearly impossible for a pilot to have actually spotted a drone in, and many are speculative in nature.

Quite a few (all?) supposed "drone strikes" have turned out to be simple bird strikes after investigation. You just never heard about the follow ups and media retractions.

> THE TFR WAS REPORTED BY SOMEONE ON THE GROUND WHO STATED IT WAS OPERATING 4,000 FEET ABOVE THE TREES.

Stuff like this though? I don't believe it. No one can see a drone 4,000 feet in the air. Most commercial drones are nearly impossible to spot (if you know exactly where to look) even at around 1000 feet.

I believe it's an important issue to take seriously, but there are a contingent of 'anti-drone' folks who don't care so much about the truth and care more about anything they can do to generate negative PR - up to and including outright lying.

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

#69

Post by bobbyi_settv »

brokenmachine wrote: post #34
salimmadjd wrote: post #2

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…

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.

Is the problem just the noise they make? If so, is it possible that newer models will someday be quieter and maybe we can ban the old noisy ones?
Post reply on HN