porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

http://www.dronejournalism.org/news/...ead-for-drones

Might be yet another reason the FAA got involved with ensuring the safety of the NAS....

Sport_Pilot

This is a good thing. Even when someone is operating a sUAV in restricted airspace, I don't think jamming it is any safer than just watching it. If there is a near miss it is likely the pilot will take evasive action. Jamming the signal doesn't mean it will automatically drop to the ground. It may have a failsafe and hover in the last known location, or go balls to the wall and climb straight up. Any number of things could happen including flying straight to a full scale airplane.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Totally agree...

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

most of the Non DIY flight control units will do a return to home(spot of take off, generally) in any event that causes the RX to loose signal/fail. now the home build flight controllers are anybody's guess, however, they are in the great minority of what is sold these days.

and just for info,
in all the units i have ever seen, the RX is a stand alone unit and the flight controller is a stand alone unit that plugs into the RX rather like an independently powered servo does. frequency jamming should not have a detrimental effect on the flight control unit. it will just do whatever it is set up to do in the event of signal input loss. in most cases, the flight control is also the RX source of power, not the other way around.

Sport_Pilot

This was a GPS jammer not the transmitter frequency. Not sure about the jammers the FAA and other are experimenting with. But if it includes GPS jamming then the only failsafe would have to be based on last position and altitude not GPS. Most likey if all signals are jammed including GPS then it will either drop to the ground or go balls to the wall straight up.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

it will do exactly what the RX would do on any craft in that situation, it will hold the last good input while it waits for new info for a preset amount of time, then it will go to whatever failsafe setting is programmed in. generally to return home. if GPS is non functional, then it will use the inertial guidance, if it has it, or it will hover till it runs out of battery. at which time as it senses low battery power, most will lower power setting until it lands, or runs out of power on the way down. can't see it ever going balls out up.

Sport_Pilot

You cannot know what any of them will do. For one the capabilities vary from just a MR with no GPS or stabilization (other than counter rotating props), to fulf fledged BLOS with waypoint navigation, geofence, etc. I can very well expect a low cost one to go full throttle. In fact that is what some of them have done right out of the box. The user didn't bind it or it failed and it they just flew straight up OOS.

rgburrill

GPS jammers don't target one specific device, they jam all devices, including all aircraft, in the area. The FAAs interest is in protecting all aircraft, particularly those who are using a GPS based approach and landing system.
The FAA is interested in a device that can jam the receive frequency of a drone and take it over. There's a real nice one out there that works quite well, too.

Sport_Pilot

That was true with this device, but jammers can be of the broadcast type and affect everything in the area. Or directional and affect only those devices it is aimed at. Of course it is more like a shotgun area and not a rifle or laser beam. The devices they have been experimenting with to bring down drones are directional. You are jamming the receiver, not the transmitter. As far as taking it over, still risky if you ask me.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

the toy grade stuff is just that toy. it is not really a genuine threat to any one.
i am talking about the stuff that is BLOS capable and i do know what they will do as i operate 3 of them at the present time. i have tested their response to signal loss, and GPS loss.
the more capable toy stuff will do the fall out of the air thing if hit with no RF signal. the parlor toy units i have never had one to try, but it might do a fall as well. i do not know what unit did the full throttle thing with no bind you talked about, but i know of no flight control unit that will arm the motors in the absence of a control signal from the RX.
these RX are very similar to the ones we use for fixed wing, the work the same, and respond to signal or no signal the same.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Watch: 14-year-old uses drone to chase Camano Island boat thieves, police say

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-...es-police-say/

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Drone-Killing Gun Spotted at US Base in Iraq



http://www.defensetech.org/

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Nice, perhaps it would have come in handy for dealing with this kind of person:

http://nypost.com/2016/07/25/drone-p...t-jfk-airport/

Perhaps a chance for authorities to make an example of.....in a very public, expensive, and painful way. If he's an AMA member and convicted, yank the membership as well.

Sport_Pilot

I bet he was not registered and knew nothing of the FAA regulations. Fat good registration did.

Hydro Junkie

I like the guy saying he was flying it as a hobby, not for profit. He's going to jail and/or paying a huge fine and there's nothing anyone can do to save him. With all the news reports about "drones" and close calls with aircraft, he can't say he didn't know any better. My bigger concern with this situation is the pilot said "within 50 feet and 20 feet down" and flying at roughly 200MPH while on final. With the amount of suction those engines have, the jetliner is lucky it didn't eat that quad and force the pilot to have to land on one engine

hairy46

My Feedback: (1)

Good, this idiot needs to be set as an example for all the others who are doing the same crap, no mercy!

Sport_Pilot

Actually they have little or no suction in flight, the pressure is positive in cruise and only negative in a steep climb. And when on the ground of course, very negative pressure at the inlet on the ground.

Hydro Junkie

I beg to differ. I've PERSONALLY WATCHED one person get sucked into the engine on an S-3A Viking running on the ground FROM FIVE FEET AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The engine in question was a GE TF-34 high bypass turbine with 9000lbs of thrust. If that turbine can pull an approximately 175lb man into it from 5ft away, while the aircraft is tied down to the deck, how much suction is there going to be from a CFM-56-7 61" fan rated 19,000lbs of thrust on a 737 or the the GE90 and Pratt & Whitney PW4090 used on the 777? The GE90 is rated at 74,000 to 115,000lbs of thrust, the PW4090 about the same while having a mouth of approximately 100" There is established "safe zones" at the airport terminals for the ground crews for a reason, to prevent the death of ground personnel and the destruction of turbine engines

Sport_Pilot

Look at my post, I said there is a lot of negative pressure on the ground. A well designed intake will have only slight negative air pressure sometime positive pressure in straight and level flight when in flight. Large negative pressure is large suction, no negative air is no suction. Air flow should be positive to slight negative for highest efficiency when in flight.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

LoL, that's a good one!

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

As with any story, there are two sides, and then the truth. The reality of what happened is something a bit of all three of those things. At the end of the day, this guy is in for a rough year. Ignorance of the law is not going to work as an affirmative defense for him here. The statement he made is also pretty indicative of the fact that he knew there was a different standard for hobby and commercial flight. I don't know that jail time is warranted based on what I've read so far. You new media stories can only give so much info. This isn't some kid who might have done a silly thing. This is a grown man who should have known what he was doing was just breathtakingly stupid. Jail seems harsh, and wouldn't solve anything, and is rarely the first option for punishment. No, hit 'em where it hurts. Huge fines, confiscation of his equipment, and some probation. If his actions had lead to damage or injury, then that's another story.

As for the pilots specific report, eh...I have my doubts, put at the end of the day the particulars don't really matter. They saw a drone, and traced it back to the perp. Busted! Wonder if he had second thoughts and felt it was worth it as he sat handcuffed on the way to be processed.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Or perhaps 1,000 prop strikes on his gentlebits! I suspect he will regret doing what he did. I really hope they follow up on this and share the outcome.

Hydro Junkie

I beg to differ again. For a turbine engine to work AT ALL, it is constantly pulling air into the front fan. There is no way for it to pull air into said fan and not have negative pressure AT ALL TIMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Roughly 80% of the air pulled through the fan goes around the engine, creating an equal percentage of thrust. The other 20% goes through the various stage compressors, through the burner cans, through the hot section turbine blades and out the exhaust at the rear. The hot section turbine blades, in turn, power the compressor stages and the front fan. I don't know about anyone else, but, as I see it and knowing turbine engines as well as I do, without having negative pressure in front of and inside of the engine inlet when that engine is running, THAT ENGINE WON'T BE RUNNING AT ALL, REGARDLESS OF ALTITUDE OR SPEED

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Hey guys U may be Hanging an Innocent man. If U google maps JFK and measure a line 4 miles in length from the approach end of RW 13L then back to the geographical center of JFK I come up with a total of 9.19 Statute Miles and Air craft report in NM so it would be even farther out. So using 9.19 total SM minus 4.0 SM that puts this guy .19 SM out side of the 5 mile radius around JFK. This might makes him legal, Not smart but Legal just the same.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Jo....7781391?hl=en

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

That's borderline math right there...I'm out !

But...paper said 4 miles, didn't get more specific. Then again it also said he was 1100 feet above the runway...how could he have done that if he was 4 miles away.

Keep in mind...this is the NY POST...one step above National Inquirer.