Slashdot Mirror
UAV Operator Blames Hacking For Malfunction That Injured Triathlete
jaa101 (627731) writes "The owner of a drone which fell and reportedly hit an athlete competing in a triathlon in Western Australia's Mid West has said he believes the device was 'hacked' into."
From the article: "Mr Abrams said an initial investigation had indicted that someone nearby "channel hopped" the device, taking control away from the operator. ... Mr Abrams said it was a deliberate act and it would be difficult to determine who was responsible as something as common as a mobile phone could be used to perform a channel hop. The videographer added that there had been a similar incident when the drone was flown earlier in the day."
If it's subject to interference caused by someone broadcasting on the same channel and it can't compensate for it by switching channels or in some way authenticate it's control traffic, then it's a poorly designed toy and shouldn't be used commercially.
Reading the article:
"Operators of all unmanned drones used in a commercial capacity are required to be certified.
Neither Mr Abrams nor his business appear on the list of the 92 operators certified nationally."
So it sounds like he should be charged with some form of negligence if that is applicable to Australia. In the US the FAA would also probably be fining him.
http://hak5.org/episodes/hak5-...
Even if you can't issue commands, you can knock out the control chanel.
If you want to be seen, stand up. If you want to be heard, speak up. If you want to be respected, sit down and shut up.
In the US, properly designed 2.4 GHz RC radios, at least for model aircraft,
do in fact authenticate control signals. The best of the lot use a
channel hopping technique that is effectively all but totally imune to interference.
I assume that such equipment is available in Australia, and should have been
used.
secondly it is your drone, you are responsible for it, if you can't secure it then you should not be using it around people.
thirdly, it should not have been flown within 30 meters of another person.
fourth (ly?), as it was used in a commercial capacity it should have been certified but neither Mr Abrams nor his business appear on the list of the 92 operators certified nationally.
This article has a much better photo, including the "drone" right after it smacked into the guy's head.
Reads like bullshit anyway..
\ This is correct. According to the drone operator: "She looks over her shoulder and gets frightened, falling to the ground and bumping her head, but the drone didn't actually strike her"
But according to the triathlete: "I have lacerations on my head from the drone and the ambulance crew took a piece of propeller from my head"
I reckon the drone operator is full of shit and just making up whatever comes to mind. In the same breath he claims that the drone didn't hit her, that she fell on her own, and that anyway the drone was hacked so it isn't his fault. Typical blame everyone but himself personality disorder.
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
But what kind of person is going to research all the information needed to fly and operate a drone safely. Mostly, they'll buy the cheapest unit that the retailer sells them.
The fact that he crashed it, is likely to put him into trouble, especially since he was using it for commercial purposes. In Australia, a license is required to operate a UAV commercially, with adequate certification of the pilots.
From the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
1. It's Illegal to fly Remotely Piloted Aircraft for money or economic reasons...
2. You must not fly closer than 30 meters to vehicles, boats, buildings or people
3. FPV flying is illegal without an Advanced Amateur Radio License
....
I guess he's in a lot of trouble.
In Australia it's illegal to fly a UAV within 30 meters of a human. This donkey was using an iPad to fly it 10 meters above the track. Even if quality radios are available here (of course they are) it sounds like he's a 'creative' type with little regard for anything without a brand name he reckognizes, physical reality or the law.
I don't therefore I'm not.