Drone Zapper

[Spookfish]

Hmmm interesting.

What if the system that brought down the quad was fully automated??

[BlueFlyer]

Hmmm interesting.

What if the system that brought down the quad was fully automated??

It isn't. I've been doing some reading up about it there will be a human element (aka the "operator")

another thing I actually found out is that although that press release states;

"Using AUDS, the operator can effectively take control of a drone and force a safe landing inside or outside the airport perimeter."

They're relying upon the "drone" to have failsafe capabilities such as autoland or RTH upon loss of control link. There is absolutely no way they can take control of the drone, the system is purely DISRUPT and NEUTRALISE using RF inhibitor technology on the following bands: GNSS, 433MHz ISM, 915MHz ISM, 2.4GHz ISM and 5.8GHz ISM/WiFi

This is pretty much the airborne version of a stinger strip.

It's 3 systems rolled into one... system 1 detects the drone (up to 6 miles away), system 2 tracks the drone (using different types of cameras and software tracking), and system 3 blasts high power RF signals at it in order to disrupt the C2 (Command and Control) signals.

At no point do they actually take control of the drone.

So if you're flying a simple self build quad with no safe-land or RTH capability, this will just make it drop to the ground in a very UNSAFE manner.

There will always be a human in the chain to make the decision for exactly the reasons we've been debating in this thread. No action is without consequence and the human element will be responsible for making the judgement call as to whether knocking the drone out of the sky is the safest course of action for any particular scenario.

The operator will have to answer for his decision and be prepared to justify it in a court of law.

[Spookfish]

Rules of engagement eh? I wonder if they'll have a little white card.

Funny thing is... no one posting on this thread is likely (I hope) to be flying where they are going to be brought down by one of these devices anyway so it's a pointless debate really.

[BlueFlyer]

Rules of engagement eh? I wonder if they'll have a little white card.

stapled inside their little green card ;)

[Spookfish]

stapled inside their little green card ;)

;) ;)

[Coyote]

Try looking at it another way.

Let's say you are off on your hols and as you're driving up to the airport a Phantom type quad comes smashing through your windscreen, injuring you or a member of your family.

Who would you hold more responsible?? The authorities for trying to protect the busy airspace or the Phantom pilot who shouldn't have been there in the first place?

The Phantom pilot with no shadow of a doubt.  After all if the authorities were not bringing it down then it could hit another vehicle, a vehicle carrying hundreds of people instead.

It is a mute point on here though, none of us will be the ones that fly like this. It's those idiots that are going to force the hand of the authorities to do this. The authorities would be more than happy to not need or use these tactics to ensure a safe airspace.

[BlueFlyer]

I've already established that this particular system doesn't actually take control of the drone... but if it did, then technically the "drone pilot" would no longer be the phantom owner, it would be the AUDS operator. If the operator does indeed have actual full control of the drone and decides to land it on a road rather than in a safe location then surely the AUDS operator is fully responsible.


however, this isn't the case... in the event of a phantom coming close to an airport and the AUDS system kicking into action, the phantom would do whatever the owner has told it to do in the event of a RC link loss. Therefore I would 100% agree that the responsibility would lie squarely with the phantom owner. He should have programmed failsafe to RTH, hopefully back to where the owner is standing which you would like to think is not in the middle of a road.

If he has messed with the default settings or built a drone without RTH on RC link loss, then yes he is responsible for what happens once the AUDS has disrupted his RC link.

[BlueFlyer]

To add...

I think it would be safe to assume that if the AUDS operator decides to "down" the drone, it would be part of his/her procedures to do so only when said drone is over a safe area. After all, this is about public safety

[electrotor]

The whole thrust of my argument all along is based on who is in control at any one time. I had accepted the press release which states :

"Using AUDS, the operator can effectively take control of a drone and force a safe landing inside or outside the airport perimeter."

If however that is not the case then there's a whole different slant. If I understand you correctly Blue Flyer it is utterly misleading to state the above and much more correct to state that the AUD blocks control of the UAV. I wonder why they can't just say that clearly and simply? Wooly language is OK if you're talking about cuddly toys but not if you're talking technical. There's a world of difference between takes control and blocks control.

[BlueFlyer]

The whole thrust of my argument all along is based on who is in control at any one time. I have accepted the press release which states :

"Using AUDS, the operator can effectively take control of a drone and force a safe landing inside or outside the airport perimeter."

I too was arguing my side based upon that line in the press release. But looking deeper, that's not the case.

the use of the word "effectively" means they're not explicitly taking control, merely generating a cause that has an effect on the drone. It's perceived as a form of control... I do this, it makes something do that, therefore I am controlling what happens to that thing.

Otherwise they would be able to say in the release "The operator takes control of a drone and lands it safely"

They're assuming that the effect of their RC link inhibition would be that the drone returns home or autolands.

Therefore I have altered my stance.

[BlueFlyer]

I wonder why they can't just say that clearly and simply? Wooly language is OK if you're talking about cuddly toys but not if you're talking technical. There's a world of difference between takes control and blocks control.

because at the end of the day, it's all marketing. They want to sell their product, the best way to do that is with woolly language and vague claims.

Could you imagine if they just said "we jam the control frequency and the drone drops out of the sky" lol

[BlueFlyer]

Bad analogy #13290:

You're riding your bike on the pavement illegally, but safely. Policeman decides to grab you, you lose control and speed wobble into a pushchair, sending bits of small child everywhere.

Who's fault is it?

just for lolz...

If the policeman pushed me off the bike, then got on the bike and rode it into a pushchair sending bits of small child everywhere, then the policeman is responsible for the baby death.

if the AUDS actually takes control (which it doesn't, this is just a f'rinstance) of the drone, that's the same thing.

If during a high speed pursuit, the police manage to get the driver out of his car, and a policeman then jumps in and continues to drive the car into a school playground surely the policeman is at fault.

if the AUDS actually takes control (which it doesn't, this is just a f'rinstance) of the drone, that's the same thing.

[FPVSteve]

Thing is they say they block GPS - so the drone couldn't RTH as it wouldn't know where home was any more... what if it RTH'd into where it thought home was when the jammer was on ... say, directly into the flight of the Airbus that was previously close to :D

They couldn't modify the GPS to make it land directly below, without knowing the original RTH coordinates.

[Ratty]

Fail safe has to be throttle idle anyway doesn't it? RTH still is not a legal feature yet?

[FPVSteve]

Fail safe has to be throttle idle anyway doesn't it? RTH still is not a legal feature yet?

Yea I think so - RTH would be pointless anyway if we were flying VLOS only :P