DJI Unveils Technology To Identify and Track Airborne Drones (suasnews.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DJI Unveils Technology To Identify and Track Airborne Drones (suasnews.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Thursday October 12, 2017 @11:00AM from the target-acquired dept.

garymortimer shares a report from sUAS News: DJI, the world's leader in civilian drones and aerial imaging technology, has unveiled AeroScope, its new solution to identify and monitor airborne drones with existing technology that can address safety, security and privacy concerns. AeroScope uses the existing communications link between a drone and its remote controller to broadcast identification information such as a registration or serial number, as well as basic telemetry, including location, altitude, speed and direction. Police, security agencies, aviation authorities and other authorized parties can use an AeroScope receiver to monitor, analyze and act on that information. AeroScope has been installed at two international airports since April, and is continuing to test and evaluate its performance in other operational environments. AeroScope works with all current models of DJI drones, which analysts estimate comprise over two-thirds of the global civilian drone market. Since AeroScope transmits on a DJI drone's existing communications link, it does not require new on-board equipment or modifications, or require extra steps or costs to be incurred by drone operators. Other drone manufacturers can easily configure their existing and future drones to transmit identification information in the same way.

61 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

No thanks by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-12 11:03 · Score: 0

Stop trying to track everyone.
1. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-12 11:14 · Score: 0, Informative
  
  They weren't. Then drone operators started interfering with firefighting aircraft and running into helicopters.
  Now, they do, because you failed to use them responsibly. Nobody wants to wait for a 777 to be knocked out of the sky by a drone idiot before putting tracking measures in place so misuse can be easily identified and dealt with.
2. Re:No thanks by JohnFen · 2017-10-12 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  because you failed to use them responsibly.
  How do you know that the AC you're responding to failed to use drones responsibly?
3. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-12 12:00 · Score: 0
  
  It was a general you, much like we require that automobile drivers must be identifiable because cars are dangerous, even if not every single automobile driver acts irresponsibly.
  And we know because of a neverending march of stories like this:
  http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33593981
  and this:
  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/10/05/federal-officials-investigate-drone-collision-army-helicopter-collision-near-new-yoeast-staten-islan/736537001/
  If drone operators did not want this requirement, which is being legally mandated, they had their chance and blew it.
4. Re:No thanks by Max_W · 2017-10-12 20:23 · Score: 1
  
  ...and this:
  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/10/05/federal-officials-investigate-drone-collision-army-helicopter-collision-near-new-yoeast-staten-islan/736537001/
  As far as I know this is the first collision of a RPAS and a manned aircraft with a material evidence.
  
  However, it is a bit suspicious, since the DJI is a Chinese company, which is years ahead of its competitors (including the US ones). I mean there are millions of DJI quads all over the world, and still the collision happened with the US military helicopter. It looks kind of too convenient.
5. Re:No thanks by JohnFen · 2017-10-13 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  It was a general you
  I know. I was snarkily trying to make the point that the general "you" is not appropriate in that context.
  
  If drone operators did not want this requirement, which is being legally mandated, they had their chance and blew it.
  Again, you're talking as if drone operators made no efforts about this stuff -- which is not even remotely true. You can't blame "drone operators" in the general sense. You have to blame the specific drone operators that misbehave.
The market will do its job. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-12 11:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

Manufacturers of flight controllers and radio systems will invariably provide an opt-out option, because where there's market demand, there's a market player.
1. Re:The market will do its job. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-12 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  DJI owns the entire ecosystem. You cannot simply replace the DJI controller with some aftermarket one as they are tightly integrated. The only way to opt-out is to not use a DJI drone.
2. Re:The market will do its job. by 50000BTU_barbecue · 2017-10-12 11:32 · Score: 2
  
  HobbyKing to the rescue.
  
  --
  Mostly random stuff.
3. Re:The market will do its job. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-12 11:51 · Score: 0
  
  There is already "bird side mod" stuff going on with the DJI drones. It would be naive to think that the bad guys are not aware of this.
4. Re:The market will do its job. by tomhath · 2017-10-12 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  If drone owners don't go along voluntarily they will be forced into it by government regulation. Which do you prefer?
5. Re:The market will do its job. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-12 14:54 · Score: 0
  
  DJI owns the entire ecosystem.
  Guffaw.
6. Re:The market will do its job. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-12 15:15 · Score: 0
  
  GAUCHE.
7. Re:The market will do its job. by nnet · 2017-10-12 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  Which governement? They all have different guidelines/laws.
8. Re:The market will do its job. by DrXym · 2017-10-12 23:42 · Score: 1
  
  Yes you can I'm kind of surprised more of a market doesn't exist actually. Governments and military shouldn't be using closed source devices from Chinese companies. Seems like it would be in their interest to toss a few million into open source projects that let them develop drones which have the feature set and reliability they're interested in without worry of the devices "phoning home" or being bricked when they're most needed.
9. Re:The market will do its job. by Obfuscant · 2017-10-13 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Seems like it would be in their interest to toss a few million into open source projects
  
  That's a few million tax dollars they don't need to spend. DJI drones are not military. The government uses them for non-critical activities, and putting a few million dollars into building special ones just for them would be a complete waste of money.
  Disclaimer: I work with (not at) a government agency that uses a lot of DJI drones, and none of them are "most needed" (critical) uses. They're cheap research tools.
10. Re:The market will do its job. by DrXym · 2017-10-14 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  DJI drones are used by the military and other government departments for surveying etc. A few million is a drop in the ocean given that a fully auditible software / hardware and aftermarket solution pops out of the end. They don't even have to drop the million in funding. They could offer prizes or some other form of incentive for drones that can do certain things, or improvements to the user experience, e.g. the control software. The main purpose is to make the community gravitate away from proprietary to open source. The benefits fall out at the end.
11. Re:The market will do its job. by Obfuscant · 2017-10-16 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  DJI drones are used by the military and other government departments for surveying etc. A few million is a drop in the ocean
  
  I know what they are used for. Non-military operations. They aren't strapping hand grenades on them and taking out gun emplacements, for example.
  That "few million" you claim is a "drop in the ocean" would be a large part of the USGS budget, or any other government agency, and it is unlikely any agency would try to get it past the funding sources given the existence of COTS solutions already available.
  
  The main purpose is to make the community gravitate away from proprietary to open source.
  
  The funding for USGS, USACE, etc, is not there to "make a community gravitate", it is to get a job done. "A few million dollars" is a very large expenditure, and it is just not going to happen.
12. Re:The market will do its job. by DrXym · 2017-10-16 20:48 · Score: 1
  
  That "few million" you claim is a "drop in the ocean" would be a large part of the USGS budget, or any other government agency, and it is unlikely any agency would try to get it past the funding sources given the existence of COTS solutions already available.
  
  It's still a tiny amount of money and the US has the likes of DARPA (budget 3 billion) for handing out grants for things like this. And defeatism is hardly the correct attitude when there is a clearly identifiable problem with an achievable, remedial solution.
  
  The funding for USGS, USACE, etc, is not there to "make a community gravitate", it is to get a job done. "A few million dollars" is a very large expenditure, and it is just not going to happen.
  Agencies provide funding for all kinds of projects. Don't be so defeatist. It is clearly in the USA's interest to not use software produced by an adversary and open source is the easiest, most cost effective way they can avoid doing that.
13. Re:The market will do its job. by Obfuscant · 2017-10-17 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  It's still a tiny amount of money
  
  Not to the agencies that are using the UAS. A few million dollars is a large part of their budget.
  
  And defeatism is hardly the correct attitude
  
  You've never worked with a government agency, I see.
  
  when there is a clearly identifiable problem with an achievable, remedial solution.
  Except there is no clearly identifiably problem. The agencies that use DJI, for example, aren't using them for military purposes. If DJI decides to ground their aircraft tomorrow, it's not a huge deal. Nobody dies because they couldn't perform a military support mission. A day's work in the field is delayed. It happens. They buy a different UAS and move on. They spend a hell of a lot less money buying a new UAS than "a few million dollars".
  But DJI is sending all their data back to China! Big deal. The Chinese are going to learn alot from a beach survey.
  Now, the UAS that HAVE military missions, those are already non-COTS in many cases, and they don't have the "clearly identifiable problem".
  
  Agencies provide funding for all kinds of projects.
  Yes, they do. Projects that fall within the scope of their charter. "Make a community gravitate" isn't it.
  
  It is clearly in the USA's interest to not use software produced by an adversary
  In the places where it is not in their interest they don't. Where it doesn't matter they aren't going to spend a "few million dollars" on the hope that someone will come up with a solution to a problem that isn't important to them.
  Budgets are getting cut regularly. Adding a few million dollars for an on-spec hope that a solution to a non-problem is produced isn't going to pass muster. That's not defeatist, that realist.
Fake position attack by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-12 11:46 · Score: 0

This creates a new attack: Send fake rf signals simulating a drone in a dangerous of threatening position. Wait until there is a reaction. Repeat daily or hourly until there is no reaction. Now put a real drone out instead of the fake signals and do whatever you were originally intending to do.
A monitoring system for registered drones requires directional antennas or other means of direction finding using the rf signals. Othervise it would be vulnerable to attacks using fake signals originating from anywhere near the receiver antenna.
Modulate the rf output signal from the drone rf module with a spread spectrum or frequency hopping signal. Simple DBM balanced diode mixer might work. Put the original transmission signal into LO port and a frequency hopping or spread spectrum carrier into the rf port. From the IF port you get the encrypted transmission on a shifted frequency. Reverse this on the receiver side.
1. Re: Fake position attack by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-12 23:43 · Score: 0
  
  What are you smoking?
Authorized ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-12 11:57 · Score: 0

How does one become authorized ? Oh yeah, by gaining control of a large coercive force and self-authorizing.
Captcha: disprove
I want a refund by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-12 12:21 · Score: 0

Strange that companies can force changes on you after you have already purchased a product, without your consent.
This is absolute bullshit by GoRK · 2017-10-12 12:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

So DJI is selling a backdoor device to "authorized parties" which can intercept the private telemetry of any of their aircraft. That is some bullshit right there.
So right now it's limited to telemetry downlink packets. How long until they allow these parties to see the video downlink? How long until they let them take over the command and control uplink?
Requiring hobby aircraft to beacon their telemetry in the clear (similar to ADS-B in commercial aviation or APRS in amateur radio) would be a whole other matter.
1. Re:This is absolute bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-12 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. This is my problem with the whole appliance philosophy. You purchase an "appliance" (smart watch, personal NAS, hobby drone, etc.) based on the advertised capabilities and features at the time-of-purchase. Now the company you bought it from decides to alter the deal (cue the Darth Vader breathing noises). Now, through all but mandatory firmware updates, those features and capabilities are changed and you have extremely limited control on them. Better yet, they abandon the platform to a third party who lights off some roman candles and drops support (Timex Marathon GPS watch... anyone?)
  We have lost control of our data, and companies like this (oh.. and Apple, Google, Oneplus and the rest of the cell phone crowd don't get a free pass) basically took our money then proceeded to have their way with our purchased items (and us... /sigh).
  Peace out
2. Re:This is absolute bullshit by AHuxley · 2017-10-12 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  A stingray or Dirtbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... for a drone?
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
3. Re:This is absolute bullshit by AaronW · 2017-10-12 12:58 · Score: 0
  
  I expect it to happen if drone operators continue to do stupid stuff that interferes with aircraft. I'm sorry, but there are too many stupid people playing with drones to have forced this because they clearly can't regulate themselves. Imagine the outcry when people die because of some stupid drone operator hitting an aircraft at some critical point. They have already caused mid-air collisions and have interfered with emergency responders.
  Here's a case that resulted in damage to the helicopter:
  https://www.bloomberg.com/news...
  Here's a possible hit with an A320:
  https://www.theverge.com/2016/...
  There have also been hundreds of close calls:
  https://www.washingtonpost.com...
  Interfering with firefighters:
  http://wildfiretoday.com/2017/...
  http://www.mercurynews.com/201...
  http://www.npr.org/2015/07/23/...
  They can't even control hitting other drones.
  https://www.faa.gov/uas/faqs/
  
  --
  This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
4. Re:This is absolute bullshit by AaronW · 2017-10-12 13:09 · Score: 2
  
  Here's another good article on a study of what sort of damage could be caused to commercial aircraft from hitting drones:
  https://news.aviation-safety.n...
  Notably:
  
  Non-birdstrike certified helicopter windscreens have very limited resilience to the impact of a drone, well below normal cruise speeds.
  The non-birdstrike certified helicopter windscreen results can also be applied to general aviation aeroplanes which also do not have a birdstrike certification requirement.
  Although the birdstrike certified windscreens tested had greater resistance than non-birdstrike certified, they could still be critically damaged at normal cruise speeds.
  Helicopter tail rotors are also very vulnerable to the impact of a drone, with modelling showing blade failures from impacts with the smaller drone components tested.
  Airliner windscreens are much more resistant, however, the study showed that there is a risk of critical windscreen damage under certain impact conditions:
  It was found that critical damage did not occur at high, but realistic impact speeds, with the 1.2 kg class drone components.
  
  However, critical damage did occur to the airliner windscreens at high, but realistic, impact speeds, with the 4 kg class drone components used in this study.
  The construction of the drone plays a significant role in the impact of a collision. Notably, the 400 g class drone components, which included exposed metal motors, caused critical failure of the helicopter windscreens at lower speeds than the 1.2 kg class drone components, which had plastic covering over their motors. This is believed to have absorbed some of the shock of the collision, reducing the impact.
  The testing and modelling showed that the drone components used can cause significantly more damage than birds of equivalent masses at speeds lower than required to meet birdstrike certification standards.
  
  --
  This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
5. Re:This is absolute bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-12 14:58 · Score: 0
  
  Build your own. Quadcopters are not hard to build with off-the-shelf components. It's the lazy people like yourself keep DJI afloat.
6. Re: This is absolute bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-12 23:46 · Score: 0
  
  Does it make me lazy that I buy an off the shelf car instead of building one? To build a drone equivalent to a new dji and do what they do youâ(TM)ll spend twice as much
7. Re: This is absolute bullshit by RPI+Geek · 2017-10-13 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  Just like with open source software, if you want to know what's going on under the hood, don't buy proprietary. Set up encryption on each end of the communication stream and the authorities can only jam, they can't intercept.
  
  --
  
  - "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
8. Re:This is absolute bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-13 03:16 · Score: 0
  
  When presented with an actual report on the matter, people then revert to "I just know its bad". I gave up trying to win, now I just go play with my flying toys and just ignore the stupid rules.
9. Re:This is absolute bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-13 03:44 · Score: 0
  
  We need to demand a complete set of source code be released under free software licenses from companies and purchase what might even be less desirable drones and products in general sometimes if we want there to be competition in the market and for our communities and the end-user to truly own the devices we purchase and be in control thereof . Picking what seems like the best product in terms of performance or function isn't always in our best interests if we neglect to choose ones from companies and amongst those products which are respectful of the user. Control of and ownership of the products for which we're buying needs to be made clear and critical or companies won't cooperate and we will not be in control. We'll end up as the product (like is the case with free web sites and advertising today).
10. Re:This is absolute bullshit by Gravis+Zero · 2017-10-13 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  So right now it's limited to telemetry downlink packets. How long until they allow these parties to see the video downlink? How long until they let them take over the command and control uplink?
  That's entirely dependant on how much parties are willing to pay for access. It's money, it's always money.
  
  --
  Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
11. Re:This is absolute bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-13 08:24 · Score: 0
  
  How long until they allow these parties to see the video downlink?
  Why does that bother you so much? Are you a pedophile and you don't want the cops to see you spying on your neighbors kids? Or are you a criminal, and likewise don't want your illegal activities to be surveilled? Tough shit for you any way you look at it. If drone owners had all been responsible to a 'T' from the beginning instead of doing stupid and actionable shit with their drones, NONE of this would be happening now. You have only other drone owners to blame, go beat on them for this, not the cops, not DJI, and not non-drone owners who are sick and fucking tired of drones being a nuisance. Suck it up.
AeroScope sounds like a trademark. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-12 17:50 · Score: 0

Is this technology open to all vendors of drones? Well it be a low cost module that homebrew builders can buy and attach? Or is this DJI wanting to be the exclusive 'good' drone company?
Helicopter Wire Strikes by Max_W · 2017-10-12 19:36 · Score: 1

happen often and are in many cases fatal: http://aviationweek.com/busine...

There is the technology to conduct the cables underground, but it is more expensive than hanging wires in the airspace. It is a really serious problem, which concerns medical, military, police, etc. aircraft.

Dealing with this problem requires investing in the research and development, rebuilding infrastructure. It is much easier to make noise about RC model aircraft hobby.
ADS-B? Why reinvent the wheel? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-12 20:56 · Score: 0

Why not just require all drones to have an ADS-B transmitter on them? The protocol is stupid simple could probably be done in software on the drone's microcontroller and then tack a 1,090 MHz transmitter onto some GPIO pins.
Multiple benefits
No need for airports to buy new hardware, they have been receiving ADS-B beacons from all commercial aircraft since the late 90's
Commercial aircraft with ADS-B receiving hazard avoidance would be able to see these drones on their displays just like any other aircraft, and know precisely where and at what elevation the drone is at.
It sounds like this new system from DJI would just be able to alert ATC that there is a drone in the area but pilots would have to learn of this over voice radio from ATC rather than have real time data just pop up on their displays like any other aircraft. unless DJI is planning to sell receivers for aircraft to use as well? Sounds like someone just wants to get this made into law and reap the patent royalties
1. Re:ADS-B? Why reinvent the wheel? by Cederic · 2017-10-12 22:27 · Score: 1
  
  I'm bemused by the "Don't track me!" posts, as other powered aircraft are indeed tracked to a very comprehensive level.
  I'd guess though that ADS-B requires higher power transmissions than you'd want from a small device with minimal onboard power. Not to mention that ADS-B transponders cost more than many DJI drones.
  Something that automagically translates from the DJI protocol into ADS-B updates that can be sent to aircraft is however a great idea.
  At least DJI recognise the challenge and are seeking to do something constructive about it, rather than bury their heads in the sand and wait for their market to be regulated out of existence.
2. Re:ADS-B? Why reinvent the wheel? by BlueStrat · 2017-10-12 23:00 · Score: 2
  
  Why not just require all drones to have an ADS-B transmitter on them? The protocol is stupid simple could probably be done in software on the drone's microcontroller and then tack a 1,090 MHz transmitter onto some GPIO pins.
  Old avionics guy here. One reason that would make it difficult is that an FAA-standards-compliant ADS-B transmitter would use quite a bit of power (7 watts is minimum ADS-B pulse transmitter output power, so greater than 7 watts) relative to most small drones and add a not-insignificant amount of weight/mass to the drone as well as additional power requirements. I'm not even sure it would be possible to equip the smaller drones with ADS-B Out capability to meet current FAA standards and still have the drones anywhere near the same relatively-small size/mass they currently are. Maybe it's possible with new battery/chip tech, but I don't have time to research it properly.
  (Warning-PDF) http://www.ads-b.com/PDF/UAT%2...
  It might also be done with new FAA rules specifying special lower-power ADS-B specs specifically for drones below a certain size/weight but that would take time, political will, and a lot of money, not including the costs to either retrofit older drones or replace them outright if a retrofit is not possible. Also, a lower power ADS-B signal means the range is drastically reduced and thus the system's usefulness/effectiveness.
  Problems will come with trying to enforce this, as it will still be extremely hard to track down owners of non-compliant drones. Typically, this sort of enforcement problem is dealt with by legislating severe punishments like lengthy minimum prison sentences for anyone they do catch, as a deterrent to others. Instead of 20-year prison sentences for possession of a joint, it will be 20 years for operating a non-compliant drone. Say bye-bye to Daddy, Junior. He flew a drone the government couldn't easily track. You'll get to see him again about the time you start experiencing male-pattern baldness, but at least you won't be killed by a DJI drone in the meantime!
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
3. Re:ADS-B? Why reinvent the wheel? by UberVegeta · 2017-10-13 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  +1 parent.
  
  Hot air balloonist + antenna guy here.
  
  In the UK, the discussion about requiring tracking of all aircraft has made it as far as the Civil Aviation Authority conducting a public consultation on whether we should all carry transponders. I think this is eventually going to include small UAVs (I reserve "drone" for full-scale aircraft that can bomb people from altitude).
  
  For powered aircraft, aside from the initial cost, this isn't too much of an issue - power and weight aren't massive deal-breakers.
  
  For balloons, the issues turn out to be similar to small UAVs, despite their much-enhanced load carrying capability. An ADS-B transponder is a chunky, heavy (and expensive) unit. It strikes me that advances in chip technology won't help much - I'm sure the modulation stuff can all be done on a tiny PCB smaller than a smartphone. Rather, the issue is the massive amounts of power loss while the signal propagates over the air, requiring not only big batteries but decent-sized heatsinks to draw heat away from the power amplifiers. I don't think I'd want a 7W-minimum radio tucked in my pocket.
  
  If ADS-B becomes mandatory for manned aircraft, my best hope of getting a sensible transponder for use in a balloon (where we typically attach instruments using strings and velcro, and have bumpy landings) is actually to hope the same regulations come in for small UAVs thus creating a much larger market for portable ADS-B transponders. But I don't see it happening. Much easier to go the way model aircraft has gone in the UK already: it's illegal to fly them outside dedicated areas (most park land is not permissible flying territory for model aircraft).
  
  --
  I knew I needed to stop reading Slashdot and finish my PhD when I started to miss articles by Bennett Haselton.
4. Re:ADS-B? Why reinvent the wheel? by Milharis · 2017-10-13 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  They're far from the only ones to try to do something, a lot of startups are in that space, vying to be the one the solution that becomes the standard. DJI are pretty much the only one visible because of their size.
  GUTMA (https://gutma.org/), of which DJI is a member, is the association trying to coordinate those efforts.
  From what I understand, Aeroscope is not part of this GUTMA effort, and just a proprietary solution. They want to be the ones to set the standard that will be mandated (it will happen sooner or latter) and that'd be another obstacle for the competition.
  "Other drone manufacturers can easily configure their existing and future drones to transmit identification information in the same way."
  I couldn't find any doc or protocol definition or public API or anything, so that's statement is dubious. Plus I do not see anything that makes it easier/better than a competing implementation. I mean, if it's just sending a GPS position and a serial number over the net, yeah, nothing earth shattering, but then any competing standard can claim the same.
  It also means that the drone or the base station has an internet connection, which is not a given. Very few, if any, current drones have a 3G connection (though it's slowly coming), and a lot of pro ground control stations run on laptops/tablets or custom hardware which often do not have a 3G connection when in the field.
5. Re:ADS-B? Why reinvent the wheel? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-13 05:38 · Score: 0
  
  Seems like an exception for low power use would be easy, something pumping out half a watt to a watt would likely be visible for several miles to make nearby aircraft aware, and low enough power that if below a certain elevation obstacles like trees and buildings might block out a lot of the the signal to not over clutter ADS-B displays with drones that are of no threat.
  Current drones are likely capable of implementing this standard on their current processors, just need the addition of a transmitter for the frequency band, with the way transmitters are miniaturizing these days the addition of such a transmitter would probably be negligible to size and weight on a drone, probably a module not much larger than a matchbox, probably even smaller if it were to be integrated on to the drone's mainboard.
  ADS-B is stupid simple, with a $20 SDR dongle and the free ADSB+ software I can decode and map most airplanes within a 50mi radius with the little dinky 1ft long antenna that the SDR came with.
  I'm pretty sure pilots don't need to be aware of every drone in a 100 mile radius, something like 5 miles is probably more realistic.
6. Re:ADS-B? Why reinvent the wheel? by BlueStrat · 2017-10-13 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Seems like an exception for low power use would be easy, something pumping out half a watt to a watt would likely be visible for several miles to make nearby aircraft aware,
  According to the document I linked to, intended minimum a/c-to-a/c range is 20 miles. That may sound like a lot, but at jet-aircraft speeds, 20 miles goes by in a few seconds. The other limitation is with other aircraft's antennas & ADS-B receivers being designed around receiving signals from 7-watt and above transmitters.
  Suffice it to say there's a significant amount of engineering and research, not to mention FAA rule-making/standards-defining, to be done before it's ready for hobby-drone prime-time.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
7. Re:ADS-B? Why reinvent the wheel? by Obfuscant · 2017-10-13 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  "Other drone manufacturers can easily configure their existing and future drones to transmit identification information in the same way." I couldn't find any doc or protocol definition or public API or anything, so that's statement is dubious.
  If/when it becomes a requirement, there will be documentation. If DJI patents it, then there will probably be a price to get the documentation, but since DJI is part of a consortium I doubt they will do that without granting free licenses.
  
  It also means that the drone or the base station has an internet connection, which is not a given.
  Uhh, no. Transmitting location/identification data in the control stream does not require either end to have internet. It will require having multiple-band receive capability in the monitor, but that's not hard.
8. Re:ADS-B? Why reinvent the wheel? by Obfuscant · 2017-10-13 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  I did a power budget a few months ago during a discussion of ADSB-OUT on UAVs, but I can't find it quickly. It's not hard to redo. Because it is a PULSE signal, you cannot just say "7W is 500mA at 12V, assume 50% efficiency so that's 1A current draw". You have to take into account the duty cycle of the pulse, which is at most 450 microseconds out of 1 second, or 0.045%. Call it 0.05% for round numbers. The average current draw will then be 50mA.
  The battery in my DJI is 4.5AH and lasts about 20 minutes in flight. That means the aircraft itself is drawing, on average, more than 12A from that battery. A 50mA draw will be undetectable, consuming only about 17mAH out of 4500mAH.
  As for the fellow who doesn't want a "7W transmitter in his pocket", well, strap it to the side of your balloon and power it from some D cells. Or a small SLA, 7AH will be plenty for a day of use.
9. Re:ADS-B? Why reinvent the wheel? by Obfuscant · 2017-10-13 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  That may sound like a lot, but at jet-aircraft speeds, 20 miles goes by in a few seconds.
  
  Jet aircraft are limited to 200 knots in the altitudes that a UAV will be flying, at least the DJI model UAV.
  
  The other limitation is with other aircraft's antennas & ADS-B receivers being designed around receiving signals from 7-watt and above transmitters.
  Ummm, what? What difference does it make to the antenna if the 7 watt ADSB signal comes from a UAV or a manned aircraft?
  
  Suffice it to say there's a significant amount of engineering and research, not to mention FAA rule-making/standards-defining, to be done before it's ready for hobby-drone prime-time.
  The engineering has already been done, and the only rule-making the FAA needs to do is to mandate it for UAV above a certain minimum weight.
10. Re:ADS-B? Why reinvent the wheel? by Obfuscant · 2017-10-13 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  An ADS-B transponder is a chunky, heavy (and expensive) unit.
  
  It's not a transponder, it is a transmitter. The information is broadcast at a regular interval, not polled for by the ground station. The 1090ES system does use the existing radar transponder hardware to transmit the signals ("extended squitter"), but the 978UAT uses separate hardware. Yeah, people call it the wrong thing. Big surprise.
  The size of the hardware is dropping rapidly, just like the size of GPS receivers has dropped significantly since the creation of that system.
  
  Rather, the issue is the massive amounts of power loss while the signal propagates over the air,
  The ADS-B signals lose power at no different rate than any other signals at those frequencies, and that path loss is factored into the design service volume and power levels.
  
  requiring not only big batteries but decent-sized heatsinks to draw heat away from the power amplifiers.
  The average current draw is miniscule (50mA), and thus the heat sinks need be no larger than what you have in a cellphone. A 7AH SLA would power it for, umm, 140 hours continuous use.
  
  thus creating a much larger market for portable ADS-B transponders. But I don't see it happening.
  
  The market already exists, and solutions exist. While it appears that the FAA has prohibited the use of portable ADS-B OUT devices for a number of logistical reasons (different altitude source than radar transponder, incorrect registration info, etc.) this shows that the technology is there when the legislation is ready to cover it. This specific device looks like it has a lot of internal empty space to create a sleek box on the outside -- it can probably be reduced by half in size. If you can't find a place in your basket to strap the current solution, then I'd say your basket isn't airworthy enough to be flying. "Sardines" is not a safe way to carry passengers.
  By 2020, there will have to be movement on the laws or there will be a huge number of aircraft that won't be flyable.
11. Re:ADS-B? Why reinvent the wheel? by BlueStrat · 2017-10-13 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  That may sound like a lot, but at jet-aircraft speeds, 20 miles goes by in a few seconds.
  
  Jet aircraft are limited to 200 knots in the altitudes that a UAV will be flying, at least the DJI model UAV.
  There are more than DJI drones involved if ADS-B is required, and there's little to prevent a UAV operator from sending the UAV as high as it can go, possibly placing it in general airspace. Even at 200 knots with a reduced-power ADS-B drone transmitter and reduced range, that could still present a short time window for an aircraft to react. There is also signal blockage from ground clutter that brings the effective 'signal horizon' much closer. A weaker ADS-B-out transmitter would only exacerbate the effect.
  
  The other limitation is with other aircraft's antennas & ADS-B receivers being designed around receiving signals from 7-watt and above transmitters.
  
  Ummm, what? What difference does it make to the antenna if the 7 watt ADSB signal comes from a UAV or a manned aircraft?
  That statement is in relation to a low-powered ADS-B transmitter for small UAVs unable to reasonably accommodate a standard ADS-B-out package.
  
  Suffice it to say there's a significant amount of engineering and research, not to mention FAA rule-making/standards-defining, to be done before it's ready for hobby-drone prime-time.
  
  The engineering has already been done, and the only rule-making the FAA needs to do is to mandate it for UAV above a certain minimum weight.
  I'm sorry, but as someone with decades of experience in the avionics field, I don't believe that is true.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
12. Re:ADS-B? Why reinvent the wheel? by Milharis · 2017-10-13 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  How do you transmit the location to the server without an internet connection?
13. Re:ADS-B? Why reinvent the wheel? by Obfuscant · 2017-10-13 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  The location is transmitted using the same control link that is already used to control the UAS.
  If you are talking about some ADS-B beacon to retransmit the data, well, then, the system that picks up the location (AeroStat or whatever it is called) would relay it to the ADS-B transmitter.
14. Re:ADS-B? Why reinvent the wheel? by Obfuscant · 2017-10-13 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  There are more than DJI drones involved if ADS-B is required,
  
  The models of drones that are being discussed here ALL fly at much lower altitudes than the flight levels, and at the altitudes they DO fly at, jets are limited to 200 knots.
  
  and there's little to prevent a UAV operator from sending the UAV as high as it can go, possibly placing it in general airspace.
  
  You mean nothing but the 400 foot limit, which I believe DJI, for one, tries to enforce.
  
  Even at 200 knots with a reduced-power ADS-B drone transmitter
  
  Who says it will be "reduced power"? It's well within technical capability to meet the 7 watt minimum.
  
  There is also signal blockage from ground clutter
  Not if you are up high enough that the 200 knot speed limit no longer applies.
  
  Ummm, what? What difference does it make to the antenna if the 7 watt ADSB signal comes from a UAV or a manned aircraft?
  That statement is in relation to a low-powered ADS-B transmitter for small UAVs unable to reasonably accommodate a standard ADS-B-out package.
  A 7 watt package is easily accommodated.
  
  The engineering has already been done, and the only rule-making the FAA needs to do is to mandate it for UAV above a certain minimum weight.
  I'm sorry, but as someone with decades of experience in the avionics field, I don't believe that is true.
  Decades of avionics experience hasn't taught you that electronics systems shrink in size over time. And experience in avionics apparently means no experience in Google. I posted a link to one portable ADS-B out system already, pretty small, pretty light, but only prevented from being used by FAA regulations. Mandating ADS-B OUT for UAV would include, you realize I hope, a rescinding of the prohibition on their use. That's the rule making that needs to be done.
15. Re:ADS-B? Why reinvent the wheel? by Milharis · 2017-10-13 20:32 · Score: 1
  
  It's mostly Wifi that is used for communication between the GCS and the drones. Again, if you're in a quarry or in the fields, you won't have an open network to connect to.
16. Re:ADS-B? Why reinvent the wheel? by BlueStrat · 2017-10-14 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  There are more than DJI drones involved if ADS-B is required,
  
  The models of drones that are being discussed here ALL fly at much lower altitudes than the flight levels, and at the altitudes they DO fly at, jets are limited to 200 knots.
  That's the point...there are more drones involved than what are being discussed here that would be affected by such a blanket requirement.
  
  and there's little to prevent a UAV operator from sending the UAV as high as it can go, possibly placing it in general airspace.
  
  You mean nothing but the 400 foot limit, which I believe DJI, for one, tries to enforce.
  Again, there are more than DJI drones involved here, including home-builts without any restrictions whatsoever except the builder's ability & budget.
  
  Even at 200 knots with a reduced-power ADS-B drone transmitter
  
  Who says it will be "reduced power"? It's well within technical capability to meet the 7 watt minimum.
  That 7 watts is transmitter output power, not consumed power. Even with a very efficient final power amplifier, it's going to need at least 10-11 watts or more, and that's for *just* the final transmitter output stage, not including signal generation and driver stages for the final amplifier stage. That's a serious amount of power drain for a small drone and will seriously reduce flight endurance and performance.
  
  There is also signal blockage from ground clutter
  
  Not if you are up high enough that the 200 knot speed limit no longer applies.
  At lower altitudes ground clutter has even more of an effect as the signal 'horizon' is that much nearer for the aircraft as well as the UAV. How much effect it will have on effective detection distances versus aicraft speed and effective warning time for avoidance will need to be tested.
  
  Decades of avionics experience hasn't taught you that electronics systems shrink in size over time. And experience in avionics apparently means no experience in Google. I posted a link to one portable ADS-B out system already, pretty small, pretty light, but only prevented from being used by FAA regulations. Mandating ADS-B OUT for UAV would include, you realize I hope, a rescinding of the prohibition on their use. That's the rule making that needs to be done.
  Size does not change basic electrical rules. A 7 watt transmitter will draw effectively the same amount of power regardless of physical size. The reason for the rules specifying minimum ADS-B-out transmitter power is to ensure there is sufficient range. Reducing the power reduces the range. Placing a ~900-1000mHz signal source at a very low altitude also greatly reduces effective range. Add ground clutter for even more range reduction.
  As to your link, I thought you said that a full 7-watt ADS-B-out transmitter was "easily accommodated"? Which is it?
  The ADS-B system was never designed with extreme low-altitude vehicles in mind and is a poor tool for the job in practical terms.
  Or we could, you know, *not* go apeshit-authoritarian trying to track & trace toy quadrotors that have caused zero fatalities from collisions with aircraft, and those being more rare than a Nessy-sighting, and most reports being equally unverifiable.
  There are far more dangerous things to worry about out there, ladders and bathtubs being two big ones.
  Go get 'em, Tiger!
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
17. Re:ADS-B? Why reinvent the wheel? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-14 19:49 · Score: 0
  
  At very low altitudes, the drone poses a much lower threat. Once its at an altitude where ground clutter would hamper the signal it's likely to not be a threat to aircraft, so who cares if the signal can be received. Once you're at the 400+ foot level where the drone would become a threat probably 99% of obstacles that would block the signal are gone, unless you're flying it in Manhattan which the aircraft aren't going to by anywhere near anyways.
  As for power ADSB is very bursty, couple milliseconds of transmit every second. The radio isn't blasting out a 7watt carrier the entire time, and it could even be built in where drones could transmit on less frequent intervals, say every 5 or 10 seconds. it would still provide meaningful data to atc and pilots, while staying within a standard they are already using. you could use something like a capacitor or super cap to slowly charge up between transmit bursts to keep the huge bursty power draws from becoming an issue with the drone's power system.
18. Re:ADS-B? Why reinvent the wheel? by Obfuscant · 2017-10-16 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Again, if you're in a quarry or in the fields, you won't have an open network to connect to.
  You seem to be stuck thinking that broadcasting the UAS location using the control channel requires an "open network" to connect to. Sorry, that's just not a requirement. I've flown these things, and they fly just fine without an "open", or closed even, network. If they're flying, they have a location to transmit back to the controller, and that's what the Aero-thingy is picking up. No network is needed.
19. Re:ADS-B? Why reinvent the wheel? by Obfuscant · 2017-10-16 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  That's the point...there are more drones involved than what are being discussed here that would be affected by such a blanket requirement.
  There are, but they aren't the topic of this discussion. And those "other drones" are very much larger, and capable of much larger payloads. They are not going to have an issue with a few ounces for an ADS-B OUT transmitter or the power drain from it.
  
  Again, there are more than DJI drones involved here, including home-builts without any restrictions whatsoever except the builder's ability & budget.
  I'm sorry, but there is still the 400 foot flight limit imposed by class of UAS and operator privileges. You claim no restrictions, which is patently absurd.
  
  That 7 watts is transmitter output power, not consumed power. Even with a very efficient final power amplifier, it's going to need at least 10-11 watts or more, and that's for *just* the final transmitter output stage, not including signal generation and driver stages for the final amplifier stage. That's a serious amount of power drain for a small drone and will seriously reduce flight endurance and performance.
  I guess you are ignoring all of the electrical budget discussion already posted. In my budget, I assumed just 50% efficiency, and that means 14 watts, not just 10-11W, and still managed to show that it would be an unmeasurable effect on a typical (DJI Phantom 3 Pro) UAS. I ignored the control electronics because those would be a trivial amount of the power requirement. Your cellphone has more processing power than what it necessary for an ADS-B OUT, and it will run for a very long time on a very small battery.
  Please stop waving your hands and stomping your feet about a "7 watt radio" and actually look at the system.
  
  At lower altitudes ground clutter has even more of an effect as the signal 'horizon' is that much nearer for the aircraft as well as the UAV.
  You are worried about ground clutter when the UAS will be us where the 200 knot speed limit doesn't apply. That's not "at lower altitudes". Please look up 14CFR91.117 and learn. I am off by 50 knots -- the limit is 250 knots below 10,000 AGL. Ten thousand feet. But still, there is a 200 knot limit below 2500 feet (two thousand five hundred) within 4 nm of an airport and under any Class B airspace.
  To find a jet going at "jet speeds" you need to be up 10,000 AGL -- which a DJI isn't going to be. Ever.
  And they won't be below 500' unless they are departing or landing at an airport nearby, so they MUST be going less than 200 knots there. If your UAS is up where you can find a jet, it won't be in ground clutter anymore, it will be free and clear of the ground.
  
  A 7 watt transmitter will draw effectively the same amount of power regardless of physical size.
  That's right. It will draw an average of less than 50mA if it is the size of an elephant or the more realistic size of a pack of cigarettes. I have 5W radios that contain GPS and will transmit their position via APRS that fit in my pocket. Very small. Very light. I have an 8 W radio sitting on my desk here, and it's not very much bigger than a 5W radio. Most of the size of those radios is user interface -- speaker, dials, etc. Remove the speaker, make the "dial" on/off, and you can reduce the size of the radio even smaller.
  Why do you think that a radio that weighs just a few ounces and consumes, over the course of a 20 minute flight, about 20mAH, will be an issue for any UAS that would be regulated by any proposed rule?
  
  As to your link, I thought you said that a full 7-watt ADS-B-out transmitter was "easily accommodated"? Which is it?
  You didn't look at the link, did you? You just want to blow smoke. The ADS-B OUT radio I linked to would be trivial to reduce in size and install almost anywhere.
  
  Or we could, you know, *not* go apesh
Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-13 00:17 · Score: 0

DJI stands for department of Journalistic Intercourse.
When will people stop using transiently trendy acronyms?
Good! by Rick+Schumann · 2017-10-13 08:21 · Score: 1

It's about damned time someone did something to rein in drone owners who refuse to be responsible with their toys. I hope there are many arrests and confiscations of drones from people who think they're above the law; they'll serve as examples to the rest of you who are not responsible that playtime is over and you'll either have to obey the law and be responsible or face the consequences.

Needless to say I'm going to draw all sorts of fire from entitled drone owners who think they can do whatever the hell they want with their toys; your angry comments are music to my ears, you're just outing yourselves as the irresponsible ones who have brought all this regulation down on everyones heads.

To the rest of you who have been responsible drone owners up to this point: Don't attack ME, attack the irresponsible ones who have brought all this heavy-handed regulation and unwanted attention down on you and your hobby. Don't kill the messenger (me) go beat on THEM instead, THEY deserve it.