How hard would it have been to say this? Or something similar? "We are aware of the reports. We take this seriously and have our designers investigating. Pending their findings, we will update our customers and take action as appropriate."

No comment.

Quote from PCWorld article linked in above post.
"Hobbyist R/C airplanes, helicopters and other flying drones are increasingly causing problems for manned aircraft and even for home owners who feel that their privacy is being invaded when these devices are flown close to their private property. There are certain no-fly areas for drones, for example near airports, but some users ignore these restrictions."

There's some nice press attention! NOT!!! Pretty sure they weren't talking about traditional modelers, but that is certainly what it conjures up in the casual readers' mind. Sad.

Astro

Wow, first we get multitudes of reports regarding DSM-2 reliability, and now this.

IT firms and hackers often play a ongoing cat-and-mouse game. The firm develops a "secure" technology, a hacker finds a hole, and the firm fixes the problem. Granted, a fix to DSMX, if it does wind up being easy to hack, might require replacement receivers and/or transmitters, rather than inexpensive firmware upgrades.

My question is this: how easy is it to implement this exploit? Is it something that a kid could do in their basement after watching a YouTube video, or will it require more siphociated expertise? Based on what the article said, the components that are needed are fairly easy to come by, and not too expensive.

Another question is whether or not this exploit could be adapted to the other protocols, such as FASST, ACCST, etc.

Ya, I remember those stories from two years ago, and last year. They are still out there every now and then, but they sort of faded away with all the near miss and sightings of trashbags near aircraft.

I believe someone hacked an ATM years ago. Did it become common? No.

Why is this such a big concern? Why not a concern about those hack into the security system and steal your car? It's even easy to do with the right tools. And full scale GA airplanes (the smaller ones) are even easier. The door lock of many is a lock similar to your desk lock. And the ignition of many are no more complex than a 1950's automobile, you just pull the wires out the back and cross the right wires. So why are full scale manufactures not required to do something about that?

I would think you need a DSMX chipset, but you could borrow that from a transmitter. I don't see it a big issue. It's like so what?

Folk's they are toys, not as dangerous as a full scale vehicle at all!

Safety concern...it's all about the what if, and worst case scenario.

And this is almost word for word what I said in a boating forum yesterday. If one person can figure out how to hack into a 2.4 R/C set, using off the shelf stuff, how long will it be before someone else does the same for other than honorable reasons. If someone knows the frequency of each channel in all the R/C bands, not hard to do since they are posted literally everywhere, all it would take is a transmitter with a variable frequency module and a simple signal booster to override everything other than 2.4. As for 2.4, this guy has already shown(supposedly) that it can be done so who's to say, if a plane, car or boat crashes, that it wasn't shot down by someone using this kind of gear?

http://www.pcworld.com/article/31361...-hijacked.html
l
Simple solution to the sUAS (Drone/MR) interfering with Full Scale problem.
Just as two way radios and encoding Transponders and soon ADS-B are required equipment
so should these devices be installed on all aircraft over 200 lbs gross weight..
At the plane owners expense of course.

deleted didn't work sorry
Undulated this might be out of place here but don't read if U don't like it

[TABLE="width: 570"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]http://images.eaa.org/store/spacer.gif[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 311, align: left"]T O P S T O R Y
Bob Hoover, Legendary Pilot, Dies at Age 94
Bob Hoover, often called "the pilot's pilot" and an aviator whose career spanned 70-plus years and nearly every facet of aviation, died on Tuesday at age 94. Full story >>
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

With this latest development , what's worse than just a crash in a random uncontrolled spot now the RC can be literally hijacked and flown into something , beyond the RC owner's control , and leave the RCer to have to explain how he didn't deliberately fly straight into that (person , building , car , whatever) like it appeared to all the bystanders !

Like I said I have never trusted 100% in any radio link , and all things like this do is to reinforce the reasons why I fly like I do . Yes sir , I don't do full speed runs straight at the pilot's stations only to pull up at the last second because in order ; #1 , it's against the safety code , #2 , I would never jeopardize anyone's safety like that , and , #3 I wouldn't ever trust that that wouldn't be the very moment someone might be testing such a device as is being discussed here .

:cool: Thank You for the link HoundDog , the news was talking about this gent yesterday and it appears that everyone from astronauts to presidents praised the man's flying .

Yes, even the creamiest, best part of Europe, Scandinavia....nirvana.

So in Sweden, if the device I am flying has a camera, it is a surveillance drone requiring a government permit...no camera, it is not a drone, no registration required, it is just a hobby model....hmm where have I heard that idea before...so simple a Swedish social democrat can understand it :-)

Hopefully our advocacy group, the AMA can reopen the case and make this simple argument to the FAA and separate my model aircraft away from these flying tripods.

For the 1% of modelers that flew with cameras (like me) before all of these idiot drone youtube posters, well tough luck.

Hey Mike, I think you are a rocket guy, this was my last "flying tripod", 0-100 in about 2 seconds!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWevA2c9nFI

Very simply put and a HUGE +1 !!!

This is the simple "separation" I have been suggesting, not the complete exclusion and division of the AMA that one here keeps trying to portray!!

So simple a caveman could understand it!

Astro

So they hack into it, it doesn't mean it crash's. Even so its not like a full scale stolen aircraft.

That's awesome. I've been looking for one of those for awhile. Thanks for posting that.
Hoping to get my Level one next month.
Mike

Reopen the case? What? Time to accept reality and move along...multi rotors are part of the hobby, just deal with it. we're still able to scratch built 15,000 turbines and even fly our dreaded foamies too.

But interesting to see that folks here who have such distain and contempt for the AMA would then suggest they have the ability to make one of the nation's largest federal agencies do an About face on established policy.

It's a seemingly simple solution to a more complex problem. There's a reason that simple solutions don't always work, despite just wishing it were so.

Clinging to the hope that we can go back to the past is setting folks up for a lot of disappointment.

Time marches on, and forward.

Feel free to explain why this wouldn't work, instead of just saying so...............

LOL

Astro

Great theoretical question but completely irrelevant. It's nothing more than an exercise in futility wondering what if. I personally don't think it's possible, but I'll agree that it might have been possible in some contruct in the past. At best it would have made some "traditional" folks feel better, but wouldn't have mattered to the feds.
My point is, it's no longer an option. It's not open for discussion with the AMA or FAA from any indication I can see.

Oh, so kinda like playing chess with a pigeon again, huh?

Astro

I guess, although I've never tried that. :)

Separating the flying tripods from model aircraft is as simple as AMA conforming with FAA rules as to the definition of "model aircraft." FAA has made it clear that if there is anything (e.g., FPV goggles) in the LOS path between the pilot's eyes and the aircraft, it is not a model aircraft. Of course I am presuming you recognize the FAA is the higher authority in the disagreement, which is apparently not a universally accepted truth.

Now expect a few words from the AMA/MultiGP glee club............