back to article DJI Aeroscope won't stop drone-diddlers flying round airports

DJI, the Chinese drone manufacturer, has been trying to win the trust of regulators with its new Aeroscope product. Yet the product itself falls short of its stated aim. Aeroscope, as we reported from Brussels a few weeks ago, is DJI's product for tracking its drones in flight, along with displaying the controlling operator's …

  1. Redstone
    Happy

    This problem is what shotguns are for...

    it could become a new sport: drone-pigeon shooting.

    1. Haku

      Re: This problem is what shotguns are for...

      It's certainly not a new idea, I remember an episode of Tarrant on TV 20 years ago where he showed some footage of a bunch of Americans having fun with machine guns out in the desert, shooting countless rounds into the middle of nowhere. The last part of the video was of them at night, one person launched an RC plane with LEDs down the wings and explosives on board for everyone to aim at, it did look pretty spectacular with all the traser rounds, and they're still doing it - youtube.com/watch?v=RR5BtXP0s0o

      But with moden day RC tech, last year this was uploaded to YouTube, Guns vs racing drones at a shooting range - youtube.com/watch?v=xq0oCM37oZA

      The law enforcement guys don't know the size & speed of the racing quads they'd be shooting at so start bragging how easy it'll be to shoot them down, until they actually see their size & speed.

      Multirotor technology is still progressing very fast in comparison to the speed at which laws are passed, and the technology is getting smaller and more powerful; currently I'm having lots of fun flying a micro brushless quadcopter with wireless camera that measures 13*13*6cm, weighs 91 grams with the battery and I've clocked it at 44mph, such quads barely existed a year ago and now there's many to pick from.

      1. W4YBO

        Re: This problem is what shotguns are for...

        "...weighs 91 grams with the battery and I've clocked it at 44mph..."

        Shouldn't be a problem. Skeet out of the low house run about 48 mph. International Skeet are about 10 mph faster.

        1. Muscleguy

          Re: This problem is what shotguns are for...

          Except skeet fly on predictable parabolic paths. Drones do not until the operator loses control or they are knocked out.

        2. Haku

          Re: This problem is what shotguns are for...

          @W4YBO, 44mph top speed is relatively slow, the quadcopters in the guns vs drones video top out ut at 60mph. The fastest quadcopter is officially recorded at 163.5mph in July this year and I wouldn't be surprised if 200mph+ is recorded next year.

          On the subject of tech getting smaller & more powerful, I recently ordered a miniature video camera for a quadcopter that's 18*18*8mm, weighs 4.5 grams and records decent quality widescreen 720p footage onto a micro SD card, for less than £12 including postage...

          The miniaturisation of drone related tech is just going to make it harder and harder for companies/authorities to detect & stop them mid flight.

      2. Muscleguy

        Re: This problem is what shotguns are for...

        That was a fun 18min I'm not going to get back with the second one.

        I shudder to think of the danger of putting that much lead in the air in an urban environment though.

      3. SMabille

        UK gov impact studies (again)

        But is a 13cm*13cm and 91gr drone a real danger to airliner? (real question)

        The smaller the drones are the harder they are to catch but more limited the risk the pose too. If they are far smaller and lighter than a pigeon are they still a big risk (I know pigeon aren't carrying Lithium batteries)

    2. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: This problem is what shotguns are for...

      "it could become a new sport: drone-pigeon shooting."

      On the approach path to Heathrow? Are you mad?

      1. Kiwi
        Coat

        Re: This problem is what shotguns are for...

        "it could become a new sport: drone-pigeon shooting."

        On the approach path to Heathrow? Are you mad?

        Probably not for very long...

        "...In other news, a man was shot by police on the outskirts of Heathrow airport. Witnesses say the man was wildly shooting into the air. Some witnesses say he may have been firing at distant aircraft. Several dozen drone operators have anonymously provided video footage of the incident...

  2. Ol'Peculier

    or you can steal one and put someone else's plate on a car. People don't do that because it's illegal.

    Except, well, people do. Because if you are going to do something nefarious having a false set of plates is the least of your problems.

    The kind of person wanting to do stupid things with a drone near an airport will probably think the same way.

    1. DropBear

      Except people who would find that sort of thing advantageous don't swap out car registration plates mostly because they'd likely be IN the bloody car when their shenanigans transpire. Not so with a drone, where even IF (huge if) you succeed downing the offending drone all the pilot has to do is turn off his transmitter and leg it to stay unidentified - and before you mention it no, the transmitter doesn't _need_ to be readily identifiable as the one controlling that specific drone.

    2. SkippyBing

      That did seem a daft analogy to me as well, I think the point he's trying to make is that in the case of the generally law abiding citizen who's not intentionally infringing Heathrow's* airspace that's not something they'll be doing. Designing something to stop deliberate malfeasance is another matter entirely, and probably impossible, but that doesn't mean there isn't benefit to being able to stop someone who's just made an honest mistake.

      *Other airports are available. And in the case of Terminal 4 preferable.

    3. Mark 85
      Facepalm

      This ^^^^ points out the idiocy of those in charge. If it's illegal and no one does anything that's illegal, then why the hell are the jails all full?

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Joke

    7.5nm is 13.9km...

    Really ? I thought it was a LOT shorter...

    1. SkippyBing

      Re: 7.5nm is 13.9km...

      It was very cold okay.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 7.5nm is 13.9km...

      Maybe the planes are flying really fast...

    3. phuzz Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: 7.5nm is 13.9km...

      Having a quick gander at Wikipedia shows that abbreviation for nautical miles is supposed to be either NM or nmi. May I suggest the latter is used otherwise we'll assume that Mega Newtons is the wrong way around.

      1. vagabondo

        Re: 7.5nm is 13.9km...

        nanometres

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "May I suggest the latter is used..."

        NM is much more common the nmi for nautical miles, especially in aviation.

  4. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    "their entire system can be defeated by either covering the drone with aluminium foil"

    Um, it seems to me that if you are covering a drone in aluminum foil, you're gonna have just as much trouble piloting it then they will have detecting it.

    1. Parax

      Re: "their entire system can be defeated by either covering the drone with aluminium foil"

      and it won't get GPS signal either so no preset flights..

      1. Lee D Silver badge

        Re: "their entire system can be defeated by either covering the drone with aluminium foil"

        GPS is read-only (generally... maritime GPS has paid-for advantages on modern systems).

        Therefore, an aluminium box with an antenna on it will be receiving GPS while simultaneously NOT sending out any detectable signal.

        It wouldn't be difficult at all to circumvent any of these kinds of tracking anyway - which rely on the drone telling you where it is.

        What you need is a "object detected in the no-fly-zone" detectors, which is basically radar and/or optics.

        It won't be long before that's necessary because people are in fact total idiots as a general class and will always fly whatever the latest gadget from China is into the path of a 747.

        More worrying to me, is that it's actually feasible (whether as a security demonstration, artwork, or whatever) to buy a warehouse full of drones, program a location into them, stick a solar panel on the back of them and then leave them to work their way across a country, into a particular city - stopping somewhere high and inaccessible to "recharge" as necessary while also fleeing from anyone who tries to pick them up - to a particular building and deliver... whatever. A drone-flash-mob message? A bunch of confetti? Junk mail? Or a bomb?

        No radio required. Hell, even GPS blocking wouldn't stop them, they'd be able to triangulate well enough from publicly available Wifi / 3G maps with a £10 chip on board.

        I'm kinda waiting for it, but I'm kinda hoping that someone writes it into a movie first so that we see the threat publicly and therefore insist on some kind of defence against it (EMP?).

        1. Seajay#

          Re: "their entire system can be defeated by either covering the drone with aluminium foil"

          I look forward to watching your movie but it's a ridiculous plot.

          There is nowhere in a western country that you can't just walk to within a drone flight range of. Where's the advantage in your solar panel scheme (which reduces the payload)? Even the direct flight still isn't that sensible a delivery menthod. There are very few places that you can't just walk right up to and hand them the confetti / junk mail / bomb. If you don't fancy the walk, Royal Mail will do that for you.

          It's possibly useful as a way to insert a spying device in to North Korea. But a spying device really needs to get in to audio range to be more useful than satellite photos and drones are still noisy enough that there's no way you're going to be able to do that covertly.

          1. Lee D Silver badge

            Re: "their entire system can be defeated by either covering the drone with aluminium foil"

            Determine the origin, or perpetrator, of the attack of the drones.

            Basically impossible, unless they left DNA on them.

            Determine the origin, or perpetrator, of "bloke in the next street"? CCTV, eyewitness, transport surveillance, GPS / GSM positioning, etc. etc. etc.

            Literally, you wouldn't see it coming, you wouldn't know who did it, you wouldn't be able to know if another was imminent, you wouldn't be able to even know if the guy was still alive when the attack was ordered. It could literally be a dead-man's switch.

            P.S. you could, in theory, fly a drone into MANY more places than you'd ever get a human. E.g. back garden of Buckingham Palace, front door of No 10, etc. Sure, maybe they have something to stop it other than a fence, but chances are if you had enough drones, you could get one in there. Whether to put a political message in front of No 10 cameras while the PM was giving a speech, or something much more nefarious.

            And NOBODY would have a clue where they were launched from, who to arrest, whether there were any more, or possibly even who bought them (that's about your only "link" but if you bought them years ago on a stolen card, good luck getting anything at all to help track the rest of them down).

        2. Cynic_999

          Re: "their entire system can be defeated by either covering the drone with aluminium foil"

          Hmm - a drone in a weight category that would be capable of carrying a nasty payload consumes about 150 watts of power in level flight. You might just be able to fit a 5W solar panel on the drone (if you're lucky), which would thus supply around 40 watt-hours of charge per day if the weather is good. That multi-hop journey is going to take quite a while ...

        3. Cynic_999

          Re: "their entire system can be defeated by either covering the drone with aluminium foil"

          "

          What you need is a "object detected in the no-fly-zone" detectors, which is basically radar and/or optics.

          "

          Except that birds are drone-sized objects that are routinely found in the "no-fly" zones.

        4. Kiwi
          Black Helicopters

          Re: "their entire system can be defeated by either covering the drone with aluminium foil"

          More worrying to me, is that it's actually feasible (whether as a security demonstration, artwork, or whatever) to buy a warehouse full of drones, program a location into them, stick a solar panel on the back of them and then leave them to work their way across a country...

          Careful. You may wish to have a chat with Bruce Simpson about such ideas :)

          For the random-link-averse, Bruce Simpson is the guy who theorised that terrorists could build a "cruise missile" for under $5k with readily available components, and set out to prove it was feasible. He was also developing several jet engines and had an awesome site (not updated in many years :( ) where he freely made some of his plans available. Unfortunately, even though what he was doing was legal he got into some issues with the NZ government and has had to basically shut down. The page linked covers some of this.

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: covering the drone with aluminium foil

      Because it's not only me that has a tinfoil hat - my drone wears one too!

      ...

      ... but to be fair, it's the one that really /is/ in greatest danger of being controlled from afar.

    3. Adrian 4

      Re: "their entire system can be defeated by either covering the drone with aluminium foil"

      It can be defeated even more easily by not buying your drone from DJI

  5. Patched Out
    Headmaster

    Or what?

    "The real issue here is that their entire system can be defeated by ***either**** covering the drone with aluminium foil and using rubber bands to secure it so it won't be able to connect."

    Syntax error. Still waiting for the 'OR' condition. Or is covering the drone with aluminium foil one option and the other is "using rubber bands"? In which case, exactly how do you use the rubber bands in a way that make the drone so it can't connect?

    1. RockBurner

      Re: Or what?

      Came to post the same question, thanks. :)

      literary standards at the Reg have been slipping for some time tbh....

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Or what? - literary standards at the Reg have been slipping for some time tbh

        Careful, or they'll double the subscription. Again.

  6. Avatar of They
    FAIL

    Unbelievable

    Lets not worry about the nefarious few and target the law abiding masses. It won't be the masses you have to worry about, they will be an annoyance at best. It will be the nefarious few that fly one of these things into a jet engine causing the crash on international TV.

    They will change their mind if the regulator or a politician is on the plane at the time.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Unbelievable

      No, when the masses can get hod of devices that can have specific dangers,they can become dangerous by sheer stupidity.

      That's why for examples, cars, poisonous substances, and guns (the latter in modern countries, at least), are regulated. Flying is much more regulated.

      Sure, the nefarious one will ignore regulations and licenses, but at least you don't have many people around driving drunk and shooting. Because you can die, and it's a a real annoyance, just because you cross the road of a stupid.

    2. Cynic_999

      Re: Unbelievable

      All commercial aircraft are designed to withstand a single engine failure at any stage of flight.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "All commercial aircraft are designed to withstand [...] at any stage of flight"

        You will find many incidents that demonstrate that's not true. There are a few situations when the loss of an engine will make the plane uncontrollable (hot temperatures and airports at high altitudes increase the risk) - and pilots mistakes after the loss of an engine may lead to a catastrophe. Also, one thing is an engine going off, another a damaged engine that could damage other systems as well.

        You don't want to increase the risks of damaging an engine at take-off or landing, especially.

      2. Kiwi

        Re: Unbelievable

        All commercial aircraft are designed to withstand a single engine failure at any stage of flight.

        That may be true (and there is evidence to suggest "not always"), but there's more than just an engine that can be targeted. How about putting a drone through the cockpit at a critical stage of landing? Perhaps carrying a small mix of something toxic?

        It's not likely maybe, but it's not impossible.

    3. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: Unbelievable

      Chances are very slim that a jet engine ingesting a hobby sized drone will crash the plane. It's certainly not something that a pilot wants to happen while on final approach when they have their hands full with other tasks.

      The big issue is damage occurring that isn't detected right away and, when it is, having to take the plane out of service until the engine can be fully inspected.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Devil

    Nice chart to position your drone properly...

    ... to get the best pictures of incoming aircrafts...

    Don't know if drone users should be taught how to read those charts or not..

    1. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: Nice chart to position your drone properly...

      "Don't know if drone users should be taught how to read those charts or not.."

      If you want to fly a drone for commercial purposes (whether you are paid or not has no bearing) in the US or Canada, you have to pass a test that includes knowing how to read those charts. It's not all that hard once you know what the symbols mean.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    > It won't be the masses you have to worry about, they will be an annoyance at best. It will be the nefarious few that fly one of these things into a jet engine causing the crash on international TV.

    The various reported near-misses are almost certainly due to stupidity, not malicious intention to down a plane. Hence there does seem to be value in trying to detect or prevent stupid use of drones.

  9. StatsBoy

    You can't stop the bad actor

    It's not like a quadcopter is a nuclear reactor. They aren't hard to build. So if u put too much restriction on the off-the-shelf models, baddies will just build their own. Or heck, build a few rc planes and throw them up at the same time in a fence formation.

    This seems like a decent compromise to stop the guy that got a new drone for his birthday and never even stops to think what problems his new toy could cause for a pilot. But for someone intent on doing evil, there's not a lot you can do before the event.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Triangulation

    How does it triangulate from a single location and how does it take into account buildings etc...?

    1. Seajay#

      Re: Triangulation

      It doesn't triangulate the signal, the drone broadcasts its location and the Aeroscope trusts it.

      Obvious evil plan:

      Attach radio to laptop, wait for neighbour to take out his drone, make a note of his serial number, take laptop and radio to cafe near Heathrow on a foggy day and conduct a virtual buzz of the tower using his serial number, return home and make popcorn to eat while watching swat team.

      Obvious evil counter plan:

      DJI encrypt the Aeroscope signal and convince government to ban any drones without the system.

      License the aeroscope system and await small profits from patent fees and massive profits from being able to charge higher prices now that your Chinese competitors are banned.

  11. JaitcH
    FAIL

    Just Another Way For Government To Waste Money

    As an employee of a company manufacturing military equipment for non-aligned governments (but sold through government>government deals) all these things are simply defeated.

    Switch the operating frequencies to those frequency bands assigned to military uses - no one ever monitors these frequencies and ERPs are unregulated and Aeroscope, and all the others which employ WiFi band jammers, will be out of business.

    Undoubtedly Aeroscope will follow all of it's predecessors in to the scrapyard of failed projects.

  12. Jon 88

    I am a developer with the FAA. I worked for a number of years on software that is used to draft approach procedures to runways. The 3 degree glideslope is absolutely normal (in fact, you have to sign a waiver to deviate from that). A 7.5NM final approach would be irregular though. A standard final approach would be only 5NM (9.26km). The most important aspect of the final approach is not the constant descent angle, but the straight path (no turns are allowed on Final). I've landed at an airport in the Philippines that had us turn around over the water so our final 5NM approach would be straight.

    I would concur with your assessment that 5km range is not enough room for good planning. However, keep in mind that every approach to an airport has a plan in place for being unable to land. An airplane can simply keep going past the runway, and circle around for a second attempt at landing. A 5km detection would allow allow the plane to retain perhaps 1000ft of elevation of the runway. Not great, but better than nothing.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      > A standard final approach would be only 5NM (9.26km).

      At 150 knots that'd be around 2 mins, so what do they call the lengthy bit before the final approach where they're going straight and down?

      Always seems to be more like 10 minutes, which would be more like 25nm.

      1. werdsmith Silver badge

        Most outer markers are further than 5 nautical out, and I live just off the centreline 11 nautical from an international airport. Almost all aircraft make their final turn descending a minute or so before they pass over me at around 2000 feet. Sometimes they've already dropped their wheels, sometimes they do it just after they pass, depending on their speed.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        In an instrumental approach, you have initial fixes (IAF), maybe intermediate ones, and a final one (FAF). The final approach starts at the final fix, but the whole descent/approach procedure may start well before. There are also STARs (STandard Arrival Route) which are published procedures from cruise routes to the IAF - anyway ATC may "vector" airplanes to the IAF as well.

        Where they are placed depends on the airports and everything around. At my nearest airport, the FAF is at 4000' and about D10 (DME distance of 10NM), The IAFs are 12NM before. But some airports may have approaches that require late turns to align with the runaway - remember the old Hong-Kong one, but there are others as well.

        Anyway the danger depends on how high drones can fly.

  13. Alan Edwards

    Low hanging fruit?

    As the system requires a transponder, I'm guessing this will only detect DJI quadcopters? Even then you can nobble it by removing the transponder module or it's antenna.

    At best it will only catch people who accidentally fly too close to an airport or lose control of their drone, it will do nothing against the people who are determined to do it (who are the ones you want to worry about).

    If you want to fly across an airport's controlled airspace it's not exactly rocket science to build a drone that does it autonomously with no radio emissions, no controller signal, and nigh-on undetectable on radar.

    1. Stuart Castle Silver badge

      Re: Low hanging fruit?

      Any system requiring any form of cooperation from the user's device (be it a transponder or even software based) is open to abuse. That much is a given, and the authorities know that.

      However, systems like this, while not a total solution, should actually help. How?

      A lot of people, once they realize they are doing something against the rules, and are likely to get caught, will simply stop. After all, they are often just mucking around and wouldn't want to risk being punished for that. That will reduce the problem, potentially a lot. It also means that those who do stray into controlled airspace are more likely to have done so deliberately, which in the event of legal action, may make it easier to prove.

      However, I suspect this system is a defence in another way. It seems inevitable now that at some point, the various governments are going to tighten up the controls. By introducing this, not can DJI argue that they are trying to control their own drones, but they can probably argue that other drone manufacturers can probably implement support for this for less money that it would cost them to develop their own system. Thus, not only can they avoid any government action (which can be a lot more severe than they would take themselves), they can also potentially profit from it.

  14. Eddy Ito

    The problem is that if a bird can do this WTF is a drone going to do?

    1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

      Great photo, but reading the comments below led to this and this. The quote from the FAA incident was (apparently):

      "WHILE PASSING THROUGH FL180, DURING THE DESCENT FOR A LANDING AT TAMPA, FLORIDA, THE AIRCREW HEARD A LOUD BANG AND THE RADAR SYSTEM FAILED. IT WAS AN OTHERWISE NORMAL APPROACH TO LANDING, IN CLEAR SKY, WITH NO TURBULENCE. THE AIRCRAFT CONTINUED TO HANDLE NORMALLY AND THE SUBSEQUENT LANDING WAS WITHOUT INCIDENT. A POST FLIGHT INSPECTION OF THE AIRCRAFT NOTED THE NOSE RADOME WAS DENTED IN AND CRACKED. IT APPEARS THE INNER PLY OF THE RADOME HAD SEPARATED FROM THE OUTER SHELL AND THIS RESULTED IN A TWO FOOT DIAMETER DELAMINATION, AND THE FRONT TIP OF THE RADOME TO CAVE IN. NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND OF ANY BIRD OR OTHER FOREIGN OBJECT IMPACT. A REVIEW OF THE AIRCRAFT’S MAINTENANCE RECORD INDICATES THE SUBJECT RADOME WAS INSTALLED ON OCTOBER 21, 2003. FURTHERMORE, THE RECORDS DO NOT INDICATE ANY HISTORY OF RELATED PROBLEMS."

      The only thing I'm not clear on is why they had to shout.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like