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

71–80 of 102 posts

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

#71

Post by jenamety »

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?

> 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.

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

#72

Post by athenot »

zellyn wrote: post #60
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.

It's the noise drones make: they're incredibly loud.

And the higher-pitch sound that sounds similar to mosquitoes probably has an instant negative connotation to many.

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

#74

Post by hammock »

nullnilvoid wrote: post #6

> 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…

Wouldn't a (easy?) solution for a bounty hunter be to exploit a security vulnerability in the drone to track the drone & user?

Or DJI could track these drones themselves from the mothership, uploading the day's GPS history every time they call home... not sure if/why they don't already do this. Would eliminate much of the need for a bounty.

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

#75

Post by howard941 »

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…

Are there any good reasons to take a drone above a few hundred feet AGL? And the BE99 midair is terrifying.

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

#76

Post by garethsprice »

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?

Guessing that China's government regulation of drones is a lot more relaxed than the US, in which case it becomes a market-driven approach - it's bad PR to have drones disrupting flights, so the business is investing private capital to prevent further incidents harming public perception of drones until the law can catch up.

Ford doesn't need to put out bounties because there's adequate regulation to punish drunk drivers. However, in the early days of motoring there was definitely private investment into shaping the discussion around cars - jaywalking was invented by automakers and heavily promoted to shift the role of roads from being primarily for pedestrians to primarily for cars: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/04/invention-jay...

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

#77

Post by _jal »

kbos87 wrote: post #61
4ndr3vv wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#78

Post by pdelbarba »

dingaling wrote: post #57
slau wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure that a drone carrying a chunk of metal or stone, and crashing itself into one of the jet intakes of a plane that is taking off is a great way to instill terror into airline passengers. Most drone pilots would have no problem placing them in the path of the jet intake at the last second. Replace the slab of concrete with a grenade, for added fear.

All modern ( post-1950) commercial airliners are certificated to continue take-off with one engine failing completely. Many passengers wouldn't even realise other than a reduction of noise. Furthermore the engine casings are designed to retain thrown blades. A grenade is fairly low-energy in comparison.

There was a case in the early A380s, Qantas Flight 32, where an oil issue (IIRC) caused a hub failure in on of the four engines and nearly brought the plane down while it was in cruise. A grenade causing all the blades to separate instantly would not have much trouble causing damage outside the engine containment. You could cause hydraulic failures for flight controls on that wing and fuel tank fires pretty easily.

Takeoff is a very critical phase of flight. Instantaneous engine failure plus partial control surface loss and fuel fires could easily overwhelm a pilot

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

#79

Post by pdelbarba »

zkms wrote: post #19

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/ 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 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.

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

#80

Post by balabaster »

hammock wrote: post #74
nullnilvoid wrote: post #6

> 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…

Wouldn't a (easy?) solution for a bounty hunter be to exploit a security vulnerability in the drone to track the drone & user? Or DJI could track these drones themselves from the mothership, uploading the day's GPS history every time they call home... not sure if/why they don't already do this. Would eliminate much of the need for a bounty.

Couldn't they send a drone to dock with the mothership, upload a virus that filters down to all the child drones, set off a nuclear bomb and then escape quickly enough to watch the pieces fall in a fiery wreck to the runway?

"Good morning. In less than an hour, aircraft from here will join others from around the world. And you will be launching the largest aerial battle in this history of mankind..."

Post reply on HN