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

81–90 of 102 posts

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

#81

Post by pdelbarba »

megablast wrote: post #51
raverbashing wrote: post #48

Unfortunately there are thousands of assholes that don't know or even don't care where they fly those things Same with lasers, same with hot air balloons Maybe after some of them are jailed or fined they'll start to behave

Same with cars, but they kill over a million people a year. Somehow that is acceptable though.

The issue is accountability. Cars are "2D" and generally limited in where they can go. Drones are small, hard to detect, and hard to trace back to their owner/controller. Similarly with the lasers, I've been hit at night while flying and it's not something I want to repeat. The idiots playing with it can just throw it their pocket and run off before the cops even get the coordinates.

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

#82

Post by [deleted] »

phil21 wrote: post #68
Animats wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

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

#83

Post by kawsper »

bobbyi_settv wrote: post #69
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.

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?

It is the size of the blades, 4-inch or 5-inch propellers can be incredibly loud and annoying.

If you move to larger propellers like a 6-inch you can be a lot less noticeable.

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

#84

Post by cardiffspaceman »

baddox wrote: post #17
glangdale wrote: post #7

Am I the only one getting heebie-jeebies over the prospect of drones being used for purposes of terrorism? It sounds like these guys (in the article) are just jack-asses but it doesn't seem hard to imagine bad actors doing quite a bit worse. I'm also scared of the prospect that autonomous drones might be considerably harder to stop and/or catch the perpetrators before or afterwards. It also seems likely that this wil…

It doesn't seem like much of a threat at the margin, given how easy it is to get much more practical and effective weapons like firearms and automobiles. For a relatively sophisticated group that needs aerial reconnaissance, drones certainly slash costs, but for actual terrorist attacks on citizen targets I'm not particularly worried.

Speaking of effective weapons, Tamil Tigers did aerial bombardment in the latter stages of their rebellion:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6494121.stm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Tigers

It is stated in the above that the LTTE forces smuggled small Czech planes in pieces.

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

#85

Post by FabHK »

zdkl wrote: post #38
dzhiurgis wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's very viable around aiports.

Unless the operator is going out of his way to use a critical frequency as carrier it should actually be relatively trivial to signal-jack the drones, assuming you do it in a narrow beam (thus that you know its position) rather than blanketing an area.

> gps spoofing

That's the part that seems unadvisable near an airport.

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

#86

Post by FabHK »

pdelbarba wrote: post #78
dingaling wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. T…

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

Continued takeoff after failure of a single engine is certification requirement for the aircraft, and is trained frequently by pilots.

See the Thompson 757 A330 bird ingestion, engine failure, and successful landing in 2007:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE

However, sometimes the outcome is less benign, as in the TransAsia 235 crash where apparently pilots shut down the wrong (working) engine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_NT43aJ_Jw

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransAsia_Airways_Flight_235

Failure of more than one engine is always going to be, well, problematic (the Miracle on the Hudson notwithstanding). And, as you point out, uncontained engine failure (while rare) can screw all sorts of things up.

So, while I disagree somewhat with "could easily overwhelm a pilot" and "nearly bought down the plane" regarding Qantas 32, all in all I'm afraid you're right...

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

#87

Post by brokenmachine »

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.

I do drive there, and then I turn my car off and walk. I don't see how that 10 seconds of minor car noise is worse than a continuously buzzing drone.

I don't sit there for 30 minutes loudly revving my car engine at the lookout right next to people.

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

#88

Post by brokenmachine »

bobbyi_settv wrote: post #69
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.

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?

For me it's the noise. High pitched whirring sound. I don't mind them when they're high enough to be barely audible.

Of course all the best wedding shots start low down and loud, nice and close to the stars of the show.

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

#89

Post by brokenmachine »

_jal wrote: post #77
kbos87 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Smoking irritates people, but outdoors, it is really easy to get away from.

I find smoking 100x worse than any drone.

When I'm standing there minding my own business, and then some selfish person comes near and ruins my air, I find it incredibly rude and selfish. Why should I have to move just because someone else can't keep their addictions to themselves?

And the terrible-smelling smoke carries literally more than 50m, even outside. I guess humans have evolved to be super sensitive to smoke for obvious reasons, but cigarette smoke smells so much worse to me than wood smoke. It's just so (literally) noxious. That's a pretty big area for one person to make unbearable.

I can't eat anywhere near it, up to 100m downwind. Smokers have no idea how unpleasant their habit is to others, or at what distance, because they have completely ruined their own sense of smell and taste.

> Drones can (and occasionally do) fall out of the sky.

I never used to worry about high drones but now you've reminded me of that, maybe I will! I'd still rather they were far up and quiet though.

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

#90

Post by brokenmachine »

kbos87 wrote: post #62
megablast wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"have the ability to be" != "are"
Post reply on HN