
FAA documents give unprecedented look into Colorado drone swarm mystery - mdturnerphys
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34662/faa-documents-offer-unprecedented-look-into-colorado-drone-mystery
======
chrisdalke
The amount of hysteria over drones (Particularly incidents like this) is
really concerning to me, because it plays right into the hands of regulators
and lobbyists in the US trying to justify unnecessary Remote ID legislation
under the guise of "safety".

The recently released proposed rules for Remote ID raised a huge amount of
concern in the model aircraft world, because it proposed restrictions that
would effectively kill the hobby:

\- All drones/RC aircraft must have a GPS-based tracking ("Full remote ID") on
the aircraft, connected to a ground station and relayed to a subscription
third-party service. These "Full remote ID" aircraft can be flown past line of
site.

\- Aircraft not constructed by a single manufacturer (For example, handmade RC
planes) are not allowed to use full remote ID, and instead must use "limited"
remote ID in which GPS can be on the ground station, but the aircraft must
disable itself past 400ft from the ground station.

\- Aircraft with limited remote ID can only be flown in a dedicated "FRIA"
flying site.

\- FRIA sites are "legacy" and after a short period, no new sites will be
created. The stated intention of the FAA is to phase these sites out
completely, meaning after a certain period all planes must comply with full
remote ID, effectively killing hand-built model aircraft.

The end result of this regulation is _not_ safer airways: It's an airspace
<400ft owned by commercial entities such as Amazon who are able to comply with
the requirements of the Remote ID tracking and single-manufacturer
requirements. It's an example of regulatory capture that will genuinely make
the world worse for us by increasing noise pollution and drone traffic at low
heights. Meanwhile, the model aircraft and drone hobby will have a large
barrier to entry that pushes away the innovation of millions of engineers who
got their start as kids flying affordable DIY planes.

~~~
imglorp
Also contributing ammunition here is there are plenty of actual situations
created by random clowns. Anyone can make or buy something off the shelf and
be in the air minutes later, with no accountability or training, causing
trouble with privacy, aviation airspace, public gatherings, or emergency
scenes. The FAA attempted to license operators but it doesn't stop the
"anyone" part.

As usual, a few bad actors ruin it for everyone else trying to do the right
thing.

~~~
mindslight
> _As usual, a few bad actors ruin it for everyone else trying to do the right
> thing._

This framing is reminiscent of a lazy schoolteacher engaging in collective
punishment. The few bad actors are not the ones ruining it for everyone else -
let's keep the responsibility for the overbearing and inept response on the
FAA itself.

~~~
rtkwe
The issue is without some form of radio ID it's pretty tough to catch bad
actors that don't strike in one place multiple times. Right now to find
someone they either have to be stumbled upon while doing it or with the
device, be dumb and brag about it, crash and have it traced back to them via
video on the quad, or get caught with radio direction finding equipment.

To apply that to your classroom example instead of being easily identifiable
the kids are anonymous, very fast, and appear and disappear quickly. In that
case is it that weird to try to make a way to differentiate everyone?

Quads/drones/UASs are in a pretty tough to regulate sphere because they fly
and can do a lot of damage it's not that wild for governments to try to get a
handle on them.

~~~
chrisdalke
DJI, who makes the majority of consumer drones, has already implemented
broadcast-based radio ID, but that's not what the FAA proposal suggests and is
not the part of the regulation that is being criticized.

In fact, the FAA has explicitly stated that they don't want to use a radio-
broadcast system like ADS-B (the equivalent for general aviation). The
solution being proposed involves a proprietary internet-based system that has
privacy/security implications among other issues -- The system would send the
location of any user to a third-party company, would require a subscription,
etc.

The solution does very little to alleviate the concerns you are discussing and
many more reasonable proposals have been suggested which DO involve radio ID.
My favorite solutions involve a combination of a radio beacon broadcasting GPS
and registration # in the style of ADS-B for larger drones/aircraft, and for
smaller aircraft an app-based system where users "check in" with a flight
plan. But keep in mind that the outrage is not over _any_ regulation by the
FAA, it's that their proposal completely disregards existing industry
standards like those put out by DJI and creates an expensive, hard to enforce
system that favors large corporate interests.

Let's keep in mind that there are millions of drones in the US (1.1 million
registered with the FAA, and many more that have not been registered because
they are <250g or custom-built.) and have not had a _single_ incident
involving injury or death. Every single incident involving a drone has
involved the concern of violation of someone's privacy or violation of an
airspace, and even in those incidents there has been a lot of hysteria
involved in the media response. In my opinion this absolutely does not justify
preemptively building an expansive surveillance infrastructure around
technology that has, so far, proven to be very safe.

~~~
jjwiseman
I agree with you that we don't need an expansive surveillance infrastructure
around drones (yet), but

> have not had a single incident involving injury or death

That is... very wrong. Don't do an image search on "drone injury" unless you
have a strong stomach.

Drone cuts off tip of photographer's nose:
[https://www.brooklynpaper.com/drone-strike-our-
photographer-...](https://www.brooklynpaper.com/drone-strike-our-photographer-
injured-by-tgi-fridays-mistletoe-copter/)

Drone injures Australian triathlete:
[http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26921504](http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26921504)

Drone injures bystanders in Virginia crowd:
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/drone-crashes-into-
virgi...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/drone-crashes-into-virginia-
bull-run-crowd/2013/08/26/424e0b9e-0e00-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html)

RC plane kills spectator at football game:
[https://www.nytimes.com/1979/12/15/archives/fan-hurt-by-
mode...](https://www.nytimes.com/1979/12/15/archives/fan-hurt-by-model-plane-
at-halftime-at-shea-dies-disregard-charged.html)

RC helicopter kills 19-year-old:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/nyregion/remote-
controlle...](https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/nyregion/remote-controlled-
copter-fatally-strikes-pilot-at-park.html)

~~~
chrisdalke
Thank you for collecting that list, I stand corrected. I've heard that
original statement echoed several times in the RC community -- But I think
sometimes people are separating out incidents from gas RC aircraft, RC
helicopters, commercial operation etc. in a way that might be a little
disingenuous.

------
one2know
These drones had Denver area defense contractor written all over them. I would
guess Lockheed or Raytheon or Boulder based lab or company. They would not
coordinate because 1. every project they do is classified 2. probably is some
sort of mass surveillance tech that they would rather not advertise 3.
Probably not sponsored directly by the military or deemed a weapons system, so
no need to go through the hassle of testing on a military range (lets just
drive a few hours outside town). 4. Didn't want to go through the hassle of
dealing with the FAA and know that if the FAA seriously got involved they
could just pull strings. 5. Don't care if they bother a few farmers and
consider most of the area to be "empty"

Clearly the drones stopped because it was a limited term contract.

~~~
starpilot
A list of Lockheed Martin Space projects, headquartered in Denver. None of
these are "classified":

NASA's Orion spacecraft

NOAA's Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES-R) weather
satellite series

NASA's MAVEN

NASA's JUNO

NASA's OSIRIS-REx

NASA's InSight

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Space#Civil_Sp...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Space#Civil_Space)

There are a lot of space/satellite companies in the Denver area, but not many
drone companies. As you may know, design of a satellite is different from
design of a quadcopter drone. Satellites are launched by rockets, powered by
solar panels, and orbit earth. Drones fly in the atmosphere using rotors to
move air, controlled by humans on the ground. So it would seem odd to
associate satellite-building engineering operations, often completely civil,
with clandestine drones.

~~~
one2know
Correct me, but Lockheed has four divisions. I just saw an ad for Overhead
Persistent Infrared (OPIR). Just because a sensor goes on a spacecraft,
doesn't mean it can't be tested on a drone.

The projects you listed may not be top secret but I'm sure they still fall
under ITAR. Either way if a defense contractor was out testing stuff on
drones, then I doubt they would coordinate with anyone.

------
fabbari
Just to balance out things a bit: most of the sightings were dismissed as
either aircrafts, stars or other lights [1]. It may be worth reading the
actual released documents rather than take the cherry picked quotes from them.
My 2c.

Edit - Just to be clear: this is not about drones being spotted, there may
have been small drones flying at night. This is about reports of drones with a
large wingspan flying in formation around a 'mothership'. These sightings have
been investigated and dismissed [2].

[1] [https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/884xv3/the-colorado-
myste...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/884xv3/the-colorado-mystery-
drones-werent-real)

[2]
[https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/publicsafety/news/updates-i...](https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/publicsafety/news/updates-
investigations-suspicious-drone-activity-ne-colorado)

~~~
matthewdgreen
The articles you point to note that the sightings were investigated on Jan
11-13, and the investigators found nothing. It doesn't prove that the previous
sightings were an invention. The War Zone (OP) article also says that reports
of sightings ended around mid-January.

I don't know what people saw out there. But I don't think one three-night
investigation is enough to completely discredit all of those very detailed
reports, especially given (1) how close together they are in time, (2) that
reporting dropped off in multiple states at a similar point, (3) that there
are matching descriptions from people who were quite far apart, and (4) that
some were from pilots and others using night vision.

It could still be imagination, I just don't think your links provide enough to
conclude that.

~~~
fabbari

      If you would read the second link I posted carefully you would find out that the investigations started in November, field investigations went from the 6th of January to the 13th.
    
      If there was an activity of large groups of drones flying in grid patterns - let alone ones with a 6 feet wing span - these would have been easy to confirm.
    
      Add to this that there is no video or photographic evidence of any of these activities. Of 90 reports in a couple of months none of the witnesses had a phone on them to shoot anything that's not a single light in the sky? 
    

I think that this is a text book example of social media fueled collective
hysteria at its best. Specifically your points 1, 2 and 3 are signs of the
phenomenon - about your 4th point: even more reason to expect any form of firm
evidence.

~~~
matthewdgreen
I’ve tried to photograph large planes and Navy dirigibles in the sky. Every
picture, even the ones that were of vehicles just a few hundred feet above me
(where I can hear the engines) turned out to look like specks unless I
digitally blew it up. And this is daytime. At night even close up objects just
produce a bright speck, or a collection of specks.

Eg:
[https://twitter.com/justin_fenton/status/385040854920204288?...](https://twitter.com/justin_fenton/status/385040854920204288?s=21)

Reality: [https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/09/27/eye-in-the-sky-
nav...](https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/09/27/eye-in-the-sky-navy-
research-blimp-hovering-over-charm-city/)

------
Shivetya
Was thinking what a fabulous method to generate publicity in lead up to a
motion picture. Perform this event multiple times across the country before a
reveal when a trailer is dropped; would be good for any dystopian future or
alien invasion movie

~~~
Trias11
Angel has Fallen, scroll to 0:30

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isVtXH7n9lI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isVtXH7n9lI)

------
the-dude
There are many eye witnesses, but no pictures or videos?

~~~
bronco21016
I’d have to go digging but a local news crew was able to capture video at one
point.

Here’s an amateur video... [https://www.denverpost.com/2019/12/31/drone-video-
yuma-count...](https://www.denverpost.com/2019/12/31/drone-video-yuma-county-
colorado/)

~~~
the-dude
Thank you!

Funny the video quality is very UFO-alike : it could be anything.

~~~
GordonS
Yep, all I see is a small white dot moving on a completely black background -
not particularly convincing.

~~~
dylan604
What would you expect though? More than likely someone's mobile device. These
things are not good at taking pictures without plenty of light.

~~~
GordonS
Maybe it would be more convincing if you could see something, _anything_ other
than pure black - buildings, a tree line, whatever. As it is, it's literally a
white dot on a black background - I couldn't even see any image noise in the
black (although I am on mobile).

~~~
dylan604
Why? It's western Colorado. There's nothing out there except land. The sky at
night is black. Something flying in the night sky will be flying above tree
lines requiring the observer to be looking up. I honestly don't know why you'd
be expecting a full on feature film production level of equipment to be
available to someone that happens to notice a drone flying and trying to
capture it. There's a reason certain activities take place in the dead of
night. Avoiding being seen is one of them. What's the confusion? I get it's
"disappointing" to not see everything, but if everything could be seen in the
footage there'd not be mystery/intrigue.

~~~
GordonS
> honestly don't know why you'd be expecting a full on feature film production
> level of equipment to be available

You're exaggerating now. My point was simply that the imagery is entirely
unconvincing, and could be trivially faked.

~~~
matthewdgreen
The objection several posts up was "there are all these reports, but nobody
captured video?" And then somebody pointed out that in fact witnesses _did_
capture video, but it's as predictably terrible as one would expect given that
smartphones are terrible for filming remote airplanes at night.

------
devalgo
This reads like a UFO hysteria report. "10 ft drones that make no sound and
hover in the air for hours at a time"

Do drones like this even exist that are available to civilians? Even $30,000
commercial grade drones are only a few feet wide and have sub hour flight
times.

------
kelvin0
Maybe this is the equivalent of the flash mobs in malls some years back?

Instead of people being physically present, they all have drones and fly them
in a formation? Bored, smart, rich kids will definitely be able to pull this
off.

------
adamsea
It seems pretty obvious that if this is real and not mass hysteria the first
most plausible explanation is a secret military project, no? The Government
doesn’t tell folks when they are testing new spy planes and stuff, etc.

~~~
wyattpeak
I can't remember where I read it and can't think how to look it up, but as I
recall the military do generally submit flight plans to the FAA even for
classified experiments. They used not to, but after a few crashes changed
their processes.

Would appreciate confirmation or contradiction from someone who knows better.

------
trhway
>the pattern of multiple “drones” flying a grid type pattern and remaining
airborne for several hours at a time in less than optimum flying conditions
(high winds and storm-like conditions). The number of drones reported
operating at one time range from between 2 and 16 and appear to be
approximately 6 feet width and length. Flight time has been 2 to 3 hours
continuous.

that isn't amateurs, nor does it look like any small business/start-up. That
smells like defense contractor.

------
chasd00
the fact there were multiple sightings in rural areas and not one was
destroyed by buckshot should mean something.

I grew up in the country, I don't see any teen/young adult spotting one of
these over their farm/ranch and resisting the urge to grab a 12 gauge and take
a shot.

------
BrandonMarc
For all these witnesses, i haven't seen any pictures

------
JoeAltmaier
tl;dr: somebody flew some drones in formation frequently for a few weeks.
Nobody knows why. Nobody came forward to say why.

~~~
14
“The FAA is also currently withholding some key documents, citing FOIA
exemptions.” You missed the part about the secret documents that the FAA won’t
release. So now there is more to it then they let on.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Yeah no. The whole website is a 'conspiracy theory' saga, with endless
pointless citing of 'official documents' and quotes from clueless people.

A legitimate article could simply say "There were some curious drones flying
around, which the military doesn't claim. The FAA knows something they aren't
telling." Then we'd all know the score without scrolling through 100 pages of
obfuscated rambling.

------
flareback
It's aliens. They've realized if they use drones that people will blame
governments or large corporations. /sarcasm

------
jagged-chisel
> ... the “mystery drone” wave also elicited serious expressions of concern
> from at least two U.S. senators and attention from Colorado’s governor and
> state public safety agency.

What concern?

> ... absence of evidence of criminal intent, or of a proximate threat to
> military assets or other critical infrastructure. Once the aerial activity
> stopped, it appears that both federal and state agencies quickly dropped the
> matter

And rightly so. Interesting oddity, but pointless use of federal investigatory
resources.

~~~
oxymoran
It’s not concerning, or even worth trying to solve the mystery, to you that we
can’t identify a fleet of flying drones that are not from our military and
that seem to be slightly more advanced than current consumer drones.(hovering
silently for hours in high winds/storms). That’s just not worth your time? The
drones could have been doing any number of nefarious things, but let’s not
worry about it right? It could have been a foreign adversary for crying out
loud.

~~~
na85
First, who's "we"? Do you work in national defense?

Second, how do you know they can't identify it, when there are several emails
being withheld from the FOIA request?

To me, that's a dead giveaway it's a CIA project or something.

Third, if a foreign adversary has the capability to maliciously land and take
off from rural airports in Nebraska then US national defense has bigger
problems than some quadcopters doing formation flying.

------
aaron695
I understand the hacker community has always been into UFO's and 40 years ago
this forum would be talking about aliens.

But what they were still stands at what we knew they were when first reported,
hysteria. (aka stars, planes and maybe, perhaps an occasional domestic DJI
drone)

Go have a look at the drones being used by independent militant groups (with
some state help) around they Middle East, they are much more interesting and
real.

Link to get you started -
[https://twitter.com/N_Waters89/status/1255821485979176962](https://twitter.com/N_Waters89/status/1255821485979176962)

