

How an RC airplane buzzed the Statue of Liberty, with no arrests - evo_9
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/12/how-a-rc-airplane-buzzed-the-statue-of-liberty-with-no-arrests.ars

======
blhack
A few months ago, the idea that my [hacker] roomate and I were spitballing
around was a drone that could fly from my house in Phoenix, to MIT's campus in
Massachusetts.

The joke was that we both daydreamed about being able to go to school there,
and building a drone that could go across the country would be cool enough to
get their attention. They'd _have_ to admit us!

This was the type of thing that we would probably never, ever do, but sitting
around drinking beer and talking about _how_ you could do it was still a fun
time.

Then the joke got smaller. My mom makes the _best_ chocolate chip cookies in
the world. Trouble is that she lives an hour away. How cool would it be to
have a cookie delivery robot? Build a plane that can fly across Phoenix to my
Mom's house, pick up some cookies, then fly back? Cookie robot sounds _almost_
feasible.

The most discouraging thing was to learn that if we even tried this, we would
probably end up in jail. Flying an unmanned model plane like that is very,
very, very, very illegal.

There are safety concerns, you see. It's _possible_ to get drones certified as
legal by the FAA, but it requires either sponsorship by a University (Roomate
graduated, I dropped out, so that is out of the question), or sponsorship by a
defense-contractor.

I understand the safety concerns. The reason that the FAA calls this illegal
is because they don't want unmanned model planes wandering into controlled
airspace, or crashing and starting a fire or something. I get that.

But I _understand_ the safety concerns. Over half of the beers were consumed
while having conversations about failsafe mechanisms to SCRAM the thing if it
lost radio contact. This is very immature of me, I know, but it's still
frustrating.

It's frustrating that this [TFA] is newsworthy _because_ the person who built
it wasn't arrested. _Arrested_? How did we get to this point where, if you
tell me a story about somebody flying a model plane around the statue of
liberty, my first reaction is that he is probably locked in an interrogation
room somewhere being "questioned"?

Does stuff like this put people at danger? Yes. Having a 10-20 pound chunk of
couregated plastic and balsa wood crash into the street is _dangerous_.

Should the person be thrown in jail? I don't know, should the people who drive
4000 guided hunks of steel around populated areas while texting and adjusting
their radio knobs be thrown in jail? Is my cookie robot really more dangerous
than my 4200 low-speed, guided battering-ram called "Jeep"?

~~~
trunnell
_Is my cookie robot really more dangerous than my [...] Jeep?_

I think so. This cookie robot would have to fly at least 500 ft AGL, and other
aircraft do fly at that altitude-- crop dusters, traffic helicopters, aircraft
landing or taking off, etc. If your cookie drone were sucked into an aircraft
engine or hit a helicopter rotor, it could be catastrophic for those aboard
that aircraft not to mention those on the ground near the crash, which could
include hundreds of people. So I'd say yes, the cookie drone is more dangerous
than your Jeep, especially if the cookie drone were as popular and numerous as
automobiles.

 _...conversations about failsafe mechanisms..._

Personally, I think we'll eventually be able to build your cookie drone. And I
think it has a chance of being very popular. But I think it will require a lot
of coordination with the existing (legacy?) flying community, including things
like new flight rules (maybe AFR for _automated_ flight rules, to go along
with the existing VFR and IFR?), standard and well-tested automated guidance
systems that are good enough for this use case but not able to be weaponized
(existing GPS + accelerometers w/ Kalman filters don't meet this criteria),
and new ground systems for takeoff and recovery.

Yup, I've had the same thought experiment. ;)

~~~
borism
there are other objects flying 500ft AGL and much much higher you know. Every
now and then they too hit aircraft and are sucked into engines. How many
people have died due to them during last century of flight? As many as car
crash deaths in 1-2 hours, few days at most?

And is it because they have some incredibly efficient TCAS module installed?

~~~
blhack
Griffon Vultures have been seen up north of to 36,000ft
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%BCppells_Vulture>)

Nature really, really is amazing. Part of the motivation for "The MIT drone"
as it was lovingly called among my friends was trying to beat nature :).

There is a bird called the Arctic Tern which performs a polar migration (44k
Miles/yr). The fact that there is an autonomous flying machine capable of
refueling itself using its surroundings, and flying _that far_ is really
daunting.

~~~
smackay
Bar-tailed godwits can do a crossing of the Pacific Ocean - Alaska to New
Zealand - 10000km in 8 days non-stop.

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2664343/> has all the details.

------
kragen
Art Vanden Berg launched an autonomous glider up to where the sky is black in
the daytime, six [edit: five] times, back in 2002:
<http://members.shaw.ca/sonde/>

He wrote all the software (avionics, telemetry, and ground support) himself.
It maintained a telemetry link during most of each flight, and landed
successfully five [edit: four] times, I think most of them on autopilot.

Around that time, Jef Raskin wrote a thought-provoking piece on the security
implications of UAVs such as Laima. I can't find it on Raskin's site anymore,
but here's a mirror: [http://allnurses-central.com/world-news-current/next-
time-ca...](http://allnurses-central.com/world-news-current/next-time-
can-37112.html)

There's a site about building amateur autonomous UAVs run by a Wired editor,
which nevertheless seems to have relatively reliable information.
Disturbingly, it has a diagram of a Predator on the front page:
<http://diydrones.com/>

These guys are doing a bunch of stuff with kites and balloons as well,
specifically to make maps available. Although some jurisdictions (like China)
place restrictions on such activities, they seem to be doing a lot of good,
and so far nobody's ended up in jail: <http://grassrootsmapping.org/>

In 2008, someone used a small flying dildo helicopter to make a political
statement against Garry Kasparov (warning, includes photos of a flying dildo):
[http://hackaday.com/2008/05/19/flying-rc-penis-violates-
ches...](http://hackaday.com/2008/05/19/flying-rc-penis-violates-chessmasters-
airspace/)

The first writing I recall reading about this issue was "Danny Dunn, Invisible
Boy", published in 1974; it mostly discussed the use of teleoperated UAVs for
spying, not violence: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Dunn,_Invisible_Boy>

I think the concerns about terrorism are overblown. The world will never be
perfectly safe, and people will keep on using violence against each other for
quite a while yet, but fragile UAVs don't seem like they'll be a particularly
big force multiplier as weapons. The concerns about privacy are probably much
more significant.

------
rebooter
These people need to get into a LOT of trouble. This is not legal, and for
good reason. I say this from the perspective of having designed, built and
flown RC fixed-wing and helicopters for well over twenty years. As neat and
sophisticated as they might look, these things are still toys.

They are not built to the same standards as real aircraft. Single failure
modes abound and they are, in most cases, catastrophic.

I have seen model airplanes loose a horizontal stabilizer in flight for no
apparent good reason. Or simply fall out of the sky like a brick when one of
the cheap electronic parts inside fails. Figure out the kinetic energy of a 8
to 10 pound object travelling at 100+ miles per hour to understand the
lethality potential.

The airspace he covered is flown by full-scale aircraft. Imagine being a
tourist taking one of those NYC helicopter flights (done that) only to plummet
to your death because some a-hole decided it was OK to take his $300 toy on a
joy flight.

Beyond, that, imagine if this was, in fact, legal. Would you like to see 100
of these things flying without control around an airspace such as NYC? Bad
idea.

They need to get into a LOT of trouble. This is definitely not something
anyone should emulate or replicate. It will ruin the model aircraft hobby in
the US forever.

~~~
scottbessler
I've not seen anything that said RC flight is illegal in controlled airspace,
do you have a link showing this?

~~~
rebooter
Operation of UAV's is most definitely regulated by the FAA, and for good
reason. Per FAA rules, the fellow in question needed to follow full-scale
airframe and operator certification (UAV operator), carry appropriate
insurance and observe airspace restrictions per the FAA. If you are interested
search the FAA site and regs.

As far as him having checked for flights before launching: What a lame joke! I
have flown in a full scale helicopter in that airspace, around the Statute of
Liberty, etc.. The pilots are in constant communication and visually scan the
airspace for potential danger. They can't and don't do whatever the heck they
want.

I am one of those people who doesn't need a law to understand that something
should not be done just 'cause you can. It is dumb, stupid, moronic and
dangerous to fly an RC plane over, around, close to people, buildings, bridges
and small farm animals. You could kill people. No law needed in order to
understand the reasons this is so. But they are there for those who lack
common sense.

This guy is a moron. Certifiable. Sorry, no other way to put it.

------
hedgehog
This guy's Vimeo account has a bunch of these videos. Most of them look like
they're shot up mountains in western Europe (Austria?).

<http://vimeo.com/trappy/videos>

If you're going to watch one:

<http://vimeo.com/16604842>

In the downhill sections he is turning off the motor and gliding at about 150
km/h.

~~~
dotBen
So having watched the video you suggested, and remembered the music on the
original video I immediately recalled this:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4U6T_BB1N8>

These guys do the same close-proximity flying in Alps, but in wingsuits. If
you only watch a bit of it, skip to 3:05 and compare to the vimeo video!

~~~
hedgehog
That is quite beautiful.

------
TGJ
Why is the guy thanking the TSA? What could they do and why would he even
think they could be involved with something like that?

~~~
simonk
So many acronyms, should be thanking the FAA I guess.

------
wmf
I see a lot of comments here about (autonomous) drones, but this video was
made with old-fashioned remote control. The laws are different. I think the
only novel aspects of attaching a camera to an RC vehicle are (1) the fact
that cameras are now cheap enough that you don't care if it gets destroyed in
a crash, and (2) OMG terrorism.

------
Estragon
When the cost of these kinds of robot drops by another factor of ten, they're
going to have the biggest impact on military security since the invention of
nuclear weapons.

~~~
trunnell
I don't think it's the _cost of the plane_ that is the limiting factor here.

You might be underestimating the difference between this type of R/C plane and
a military-class drone like a Predator. One of the more difficult challenges
to overcome is the range of the communication link between the pilot and the
plane. This guy demonstrated a range of mile or so. For many of the kinds of
military uses that would have the "big impact" you're talking about, the plane
would need over-the-horizon range-- which as a practical matter would mean
satellite-based comm. So basically you need satellite launch capability to
support this kind of project. The cost of _that_ would be a limiting factor.

~~~
danparsonson
I wonder how technically difficult it would be to utilise 3G mobile phone
networks for cheaper remote control?

~~~
rthomas6
Probably not TOO hard, but the main issue there is the communication would not
be reliable enough for something real time that had a low failure tolerance,
like controlling a plane. If some packets got dropped and had to be re-sent,
it could mean that the plane crashes if the communication was some sort of
emergency time-critical maneuver.

~~~
rdtsc
The plane would have to be programmable and would have to support a semi-
automated flying mode. Then there won't be a need for a high-capacity realtime
data stream.

But then the plane would have to have obstable avoidance, auto-pilot, and it
must return back to within radio range if it flies too far.

------
zavulon
The video is missing how the plane itself looks like. Otherwise, amazing!!

------
iwr
RC planes (drones): soon the staple of any serious paparazzi.

~~~
hugh3
Thus, no doubt, spoiling it for everybody as it suddenly becomes illegal to
fly a remote-controlled plane without a licence.

~~~
iwr
If those things have enough range, you can just stay indoors, safe from police
interference. It would be very difficult to trace unless the cops ran around
in triangulation squads.

Other ways to do it could be by wireless internet.

~~~
hugh3
Or they just wait until it lands. Either they catch you picking it up or they
confiscate it from you; either way the flight becomes unworthwhile.

~~~
iwr
If the contraptions are cheap enough, or the footage valuable enough, there'd
be no need to recover it.

------
dotBen
Does anyone know how the police found him? (The Ars post mentions the police
visited him while he was doing it, and you can see the police at the end of
the video)

Someone phones in to 911 an RC Plane buzzing buildings, etc... but with the
tools at the police's disposal, how would they have found where he was?

~~~
fleitz
They probably took the address from the caller and looked for the plane near
there. Once finding it, they likely looked around the area for a guy with an
RC remote.

Of course they could have also used a radio direction finder.

~~~
dotBen
Hmm but he was flying over a huge area - from Brooklyn Bridge, Statue of
Liberty, apartment buildings on the waters-edge, etc.

I'm wondering if they used radio direction finder - but a) would they have
that equipment to hand and b) how would they know what frequency to be looking
on?

------
seliopou
About two years ago I lived in Long Island City, around Vernon Boulevard and
44th Drive. At least a couple times a week I'd see an RC plane doing circles
around the neighborhood and I always wondered who was controlling it and for
what purpose.

Now I know.

------
stcredzero
My immediate thought: filming POV shots for superhero movies just got a whole
lot cheaper.

Thought #2: it's only a matter of time before someone tries to use such a
setup to kill someone using a small anti-personnel explosive delivered by such
a device.

------
tzm
Great. One more way to strike fear and add to the regulatory glut.

~~~
frisco
No. This is the wrong response. Just as the general public shouldn't be afraid
of things like this, we shouldn't be afraid of the regulatory response. It is
our responsibility to fight that response and preserve fun. If _hacker news's_
response to this video is "great, here comes more regulation", then we have
truly lost.

~~~
tzm
Referring to the suggestive title of the article, which seems to cultivate a
negative knee jerk reaction to those outside of Hacker News.

------
yawniek
it was also featured on msnbc:
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/40492187#40492187>

------
duffbeer703
These sorts of unauthorized flights, combined with model rockets from hobby
stores and household cleaners could have created a terrorist nightmare. Where
are the feds?

~~~
jcl
Even worse, the New York City authorities missed the opportunity to tax the
filming:

[http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/html/news/070108_moftb_adopts_r...](http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/html/news/070108_moftb_adopts_rules.shtml)

~~~
KleinmanB
Ha!

