Slashdot Mirror
DJI Unveils Technology To Identify and Track Airborne Drones (suasnews.com)
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.
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.
because you failed to use them responsibly.
How do you know that the AC you're responding to failed to use drones responsibly?
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.
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.
...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.
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.
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.
+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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How do you transmit the location to the server without an internet connection?
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.
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.
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.
That's the point...there are more drones involved than what are being discussed here that would be affected by such a blanket requirement.
Again, there are more than DJI drones involved here, including home-builts without any restrictions whatsoever except the builder's ability & budget.
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.
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.
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.
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