
DJI Puts $145K Bounty on the Drone Pilots Who Were Disrupting Flights - chidog12
http://www.improdrone.com/dji-puts-145000-bounty-drone-pilots-disrupting-flights/
======
nullnilvoid
> Let’s not forget that DJI has software which limits the abilities of the
> drones based on the pilot’s location. For example, DJI has established that
> airports are no-fly zones. However, there are some ways that drone pilots
> can bypass this measure and fly without restriction from DJI.

DJI is going really far on this. They already have pre-installed software
which restricts drones in no-fly zones. Even more, they are putting out a
bounty program to that. I heard that there are some special electrical guns
which can shoot down drones. It might be useful to deploy these in no-fly
zones.

~~~
cyberferret
I don't know - the idea of someone who has done a week's "security training"
running around all that expensive, critical ground and airborne communications
& navigation equipment with a weapon capable of blasting out EMP signals makes
me more than a little nervous...

No matter how expensive the "gun" is, you cannot really direct an EMP wave and
restrict it like a traditional borescope weapon. All it will take is for
someone firing it across an ILS transmitter array at a drone on the other
side, and the airport loses their Cat II landing capability _just_ as the
airport gets socked in.

~~~
benh14
from what I've heard, the 'guns' are just signal jammers

~~~
tomswartz07
The problem being that in order to effectively 'jam' a signal far away,
antenna theory requires that a fairly significant proportion of that radio
energy must be directed out the back of the 'antenna'/gun. Right into the
person firing it.

That's also ignoring the fact that if the signal to a drone is lost, it's more
than likely to fall out of the sky like a ton of bricks.

~~~
sp332
I don't see why the signal has to go out the back. Otherwise dish-type
antennas couldn't work. And those TV aerials would work as well pointed 180
degrees away from a signal as straight at it, which isn't true.

~~~
tomswartz07
It's based on the antenna design. These 'jammer' devices aren't dish based;
they're designed after Yagi-Uda style antennas, in the format of a 'rifle'
that the user points at the drone. The radiation pattern for them is exactly
as I described. [1]

[1] [https://www.electronics-notes.com/images/antenna-yagi-
radiat...](https://www.electronics-notes.com/images/antenna-yagi-radiation-
pattern-polar-diagram-02.svg)

------
salimmadjd
I'm so glad DJI is doing this. I've started flying drones in September of
2016. I use to be annoyed by them, but now as a pilot and a photographer,
really love the unique perspectives drone footage gives me.

That said, I hear from many people who dislike drones (I can understand them
since I was one, too) and all it takes is one or two people to ruin it for
everyone else. So it's really good DJI is taking the lead on this.

~~~
brokenmachine
I live and often walk past a place with an amazing view of some world-renowned
scenery. Almost every time I walk past now, I have to hear the annoying buzz
of drones filming today's happy bride and groom.

I used to think drones were cool and wanted one, but now I just find them a
bit irritating. I do like the footage they can take though.

~~~
averagewall
People will always be annoyed at thing occupying space they're trying to
enjoy. Some say the same about tourists in general (eg yourself), and houses,
and cars, and wind turbines. I even know someone who doesn't like trees - they
clutter up the beautiful hillsides.

~~~
zellyn
It's the noise drones make: they're incredibly loud.

~~~
rhinoceraptor
Once it's at hovering at 150-200 feet you would have to listen very carefully
to hear a small drone.

------
glangdale
Am I the only one getting heebie-jeebies over the prospect of drones being
used for purposes of terrorism? It sounds like these guys (in the article) are
just jack-asses but it doesn't seem hard to imagine bad actors doing quite a
bit worse. I'm also scared of the prospect that autonomous drones might be
considerably harder to stop and/or catch the perpetrators before or
afterwards.

It also seems likely that this will be something that is relatively cheap and
widely available - you might have to be a serious actor lay hands on a SAM,
but a lone nutter can probably afford a drone or ten.

~~~
baddox
It doesn't seem like much of a threat at the margin, given how easy it is to
get much more practical and effective weapons like firearms and automobiles.

For a relatively sophisticated group that needs aerial reconnaissance, drones
certainly slash costs, but for actual terrorist attacks on citizen targets I'm
not particularly worried.

~~~
glangdale
Sure, there are already all sorts of ways for some fruitcake to attack and
kill a number of civilians. However, what disturbs me about the citizen target
scenario that it expands the scope (locations and timing) of what can be
targeted and reduces the requirement that the attacker has to be willing to
accept a near-certainty of death or capture during the attack.

If someone wants to drive a truck through a farmers market or the like, it's
pretty hard to stop them. What worries me is that this sort of technology
allows that someone to instead to choose to attack something like a concert,
public rally or political event with a greater symbolic significance despite a
(2D) police perimeter, fences, bollards, etc. It may not increase the casualty
risk but it may certainly increase the "theater" potential (which has
traditionally been a big part of terrorism - witness the fixation of
airports/airlines).

------
zkms
The solution is simple: allow low-power ADS-B to be radiated from drones and
encourage/require its use: see [http://www.uavionix.com/blog/the-case-for-low-
power-ads-b/](http://www.uavionix.com/blog/the-case-for-low-power-ads-b/)

Add a penalty for flying anywhere that could interfere any sort of crewed
aircraft operations (including airports and flight paths, of course) without
an operational and registered ADS-B transceiver. You fly next to big iron, you
broadcast and listen to ADS-B like big iron, so nobody gets hurt.

~~~
est
The Chengdu case DJI was facing was something totally different. I try my best
to describe

1\. the so called "drone" was witnessed by pilots from 1km away with bare eye.
DJI products were very tiny and I doubt pilots could see that.

2\. Yesterday evening it was raining and pretty dark outside, there's still a
"drone" interrupting airport.

3\. Lots of online speculation say it's not as simple as "DJI drone accident".
It's rumoured there was a responder onboard the unknown drone.

~~~
brokenmachine
_> It's rumoured there was a responder onboard the unknown drone._

? not sure what this means?

------
nitin_flanker
I think the website is down. Here's the cached one:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:h9-Uy1z...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:h9-Uy1zmqywJ:www.improdrone.com/dji-
puts-145000-bounty-drone-pilots-disrupting-flights/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk)

------
refresh99
When people start getting jail time for flying in restricted airspace the
events will drop. Idiots pointing laser pointers at aircraft used to be pretty
common until people started landing in jail because of it. Trying to say
drones need transponders and such is non-starter because the same people who
will be so ignorant to warrant them wouldn't bother to spend the money on one
in the first place and follow those regs.

Once a few people get the book thrown at them word will spread and people will
start using their brains a bit more before they take off.

------
kbos87
I'm glad to see DJI getting involved on both sides of this. They should be
fostering responsible use of their products and coming out against the small
handful of reckless actors who are going to give everyone else a black eye. On
a related note, they recently started an advocacy group too -
[http://www.nodecampaign.org](http://www.nodecampaign.org)

------
HeyItsShuga
DJI actually has some systems in place to prevent illegal flights. By default
it only goes as high as the law permits and can't enter no-fly zones (as if
there were a force field). Even in smaller airports, the app will alert you to
fly with caution (for example, in class C airspace) You can override these
limits, but, as far as I know, the event is somehow logged.

------
astrodust
Drones are nothing of not noisy, and that noise is unlike almost any other
piece of machinery.

It shouldn't be too hard to set up towers around the airport with sensitive
speakers that can triangulate the location of a drone flying within a
restricted area. From that point it can sound an alarm and/or deploy counter-
measures.

~~~
rhinoceraptor
Small drones are pretty quiet, especially once they reach altitude. It would
be difficult or impossible to pick one up over the noise of wind, cars, lawn
mowers or leaf blowers.

~~~
astrodust
You say that like it's impossible, but drones have a very particular pitch. If
the Navy has sonar capable of finding submarines thousands of miles away in a
very noisy ocean, there's technology that can do this.

Maybe it's not _inexpensive_ , but it's at least proven to exist.

------
abpavel
There are legitimate uses of airports by drone enthusiasts who rent out whole
airfield for weekend gatherings and events. The clubs in my area fly almost
exclusively this way. I wonder how the restrictions will fare in this case.

------
raverbashing
Unfortunately there are thousands of assholes that don't know or even don't
care where they fly those things

Same with lasers, same with hot air balloons

Maybe after some of them are jailed or fined they'll start to behave

~~~
megablast
Same with cars, but they kill over a million people a year. Somehow that is
acceptable though.

~~~
pdelbarba
The issue is accountability. Cars are "2D" and generally limited in where they
can go. Drones are small, hard to detect, and hard to trace back to their
owner/controller. Similarly with the lasers, I've been hit at night while
flying and it's not something I want to repeat. The idiots playing with it can
just throw it their pocket and run off before the cops even get the
coordinates.

~~~
brokenmachine
_> lasers, I've been hit at night while flying and it's not something I want
to repeat._

Really?! I find it hard to hold a laser pointer steady just on the wall, I
can't imagine accurately aiming it at a plane cockpit for any extended period
of time. Only maybe when it's taking off or landing, and you're close I can
imagine being able to do it. Of course, that is the absolute worst time to
lose vision though.

Can you describe your experience?

------
bitmapbrother
Good on DJI, but China should be instilling fear on anyone who even thinks
about doing this in the future. I can only imagine the penalty they would
impose for causing a crash that took lives.

------
QuercusMax
Link is broken - anyone have a mirror?

~~~
nitin_flanker
Google Cache:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:h9-Uy1z...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:h9-Uy1zmqywJ:www.improdrone.com/dji-
puts-145000-bounty-drone-pilots-disrupting-flights/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk)

------
ohashi
Is this a problem just in China or what about airports around the world?

~~~
Animats
It's becoming a major headache. The FAA lists incidents every six months as a
spreadsheet.[1] 474 incidents in the last reporting period. One midair
collision with a drone, not serious.

There are many reports of UAVs interfering with forest fire fighting
operations. This is probably the biggest single problem with real impact.

KELSO, WA/UAS INCIDENT/1507P/ZSE ARTCC REPORTED EUROCOPTER AS350 (US FOREST
SERVICE) OBSERVED A 4 ROTOR UAS, 32 MILES NE SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON RGNL ARPT,
BETWEEN 3,400 AND 5,000 FEET, IN CLOSE AND UNSAFE PROXIMITY TO THE HELO. WHEN
THE FOREST SERVICE ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT THE INDIVIDUAL, HE LOADED THE UAS INTO
HIS VEHICLE AND FLED THE SCENE. SKAMINIA COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE NOTIFIED.

SANTA CLARITA, CA/UAS INCIDENT/1447P/ZLA ADVISED UAS OPERATIONS REPORTED IN
THE VICINITY OF THE SAND FIRE, NEAR SANTA CLARITA. NO IMPACT TO FIRE FIGHTING
ACTIVITIES OTHER THAN MOVING WHERE THE AIR ASSETS ARE ""DIPPING"" FOR WATER.
FIRE AUTHORITIES ARE WORKING WITH LA CO SHERIFF AND ARE ACTIVELY SEARCHING FOR
OPERATOR.

NATIONAL FOREST SERVICE OFFICE NOTIFIED SALT LAKE ARTCC OF AN UNAUTHORIZED
WHITE PHANQUADCOPTER WITH A CAMERA OPERATING WITHIN THE CONFINES OF A FIRE-
FIGHTING TFR BELOW 500 FEET, 15 NE SALMON, ID. AIRBORNE FIRE-FIGHTING
OPERATIONS WERE HALTED UNTIL CONTACT WAS MADE WITH THE UAS OPERATORS AND UAS
OPERATIONS CEASED. UAS OPERATORS DEPARTED AREA PRIOR TO LEO ARRIVING. VEHICLE
LICENSE PLATE WAS OBTAINED.

IDAHO CITY, ID/UAS INCIDENT/2015P/UNITED STATES FORESTRY SERVICE ADVISED THEY
HAD SUSPENDED THE AIR ATTACK MISSION IN TFR 4961 DUE TO A UNAUTHORIZED UAS
FLYING IN THE TFR. THE TFR WAS REPORTED BY SOMEONE ON THE GROUND WHO STATED IT
WAS OPERATING 4,000 FEET ABOVE THE TREES. UNITED STATES FORESTRY SERVICE
REPRESENTATIVE STATED HE WAS GOING TO GATHER MORE INFORMATION ON THE INCIDENT
AND CALL IT IN TO SALT LAKE CITY ARTCC.

CALL FROM THE CUT FIRE SAN BERNADINO NATIONAL FOREST TO REPORT A UAS
INTERFERING IN FIRE FIGHTING EFFORTS IN THE CUT FIRE. SHE STATED THAT AIR
SUPPORT WAS FOLLOWING THE UAS AND THAT LAW ENFORCEMNT WAS ON THE WAY. THE
LOCATION WAS REPORTED TO BE 15 ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE 15 FREEWAY OVER THE
CAJON PASS AT 040. IT WAS ALSO MAKING CIRCLES OVER THE SUMMIT TRAIL.

LAX and JFK have multiple incidents of UAVs in the traffic pattern.

LOS ANGELES, CA/UAS INCIDENT/1005P/LAX ATCT ADVISED COMPASS, E170, LAX - SFO,
ON DEPARTURE CLIMB OUT FROM LAX REPORTED PASSING UNDER A HOVERING UAS AT
APPROXIMATELY 130 FEET. THE UAS THEN PROCEEDED SOUTHWEST BOUND. NO EVASIVE
ACTION REPORTED.

JFK/UAS INCIDENT/1945E/JFK ATCT REPORTED OBSERVED A RED AND ORANGE UAS AT
1,100 FEET 4 MILE FINAL RUNWAY 13. NYPD AVIATION UNIT NOTIFIED ON FREQUENCY.

Two UAVs at 2500 feet in the traffic pattern:

"PRELIM INFO FROM FAA OPS: PITTSBURGH, PA/UAS INCIDENTS/0013E/EC135, REPORTED
TWO UAS ONE RED AND THE OTHER WHITE AT 2,500 FEET APPX. 5.5 MILES SE OF
PITTSBURGH ARPT. AN IMMEDIATE CLIMB WAS REQUIRED TO AVOID THE UAS.

This was probably harmless, but dumb:

WASHINGTON, DC/UAS INCIDENT/1430E/US PARK POLICE REPORTED UAS AT 100 FEET NEAR
THE WASHINGTON MONUMENT FILMING A FITNESS VIDEO. USPP SEIZED THE UAS AND CITED
OWNER; UAS NOT REGISTERED.

Minor midair collision. Possibly a UAS. 6500' sounds high, but Provo UT is
already at 4500', so this is only 2000' AGL:

PROVO, UT/AIR CARRIER/01-1857M/BEECH BE99 AFTER LANDING SLC REPORTED MINOR
DAMAGE TO VERTICAL STABILIZER. NTSB AND FSDO INVESTIGATING AS POSSIBLE MIDAIR
WITH UAS AT 6,500 FEET 10 E PROVO. INCIDENT NOT REPORTED WHILE AIRBORNE.

Incidents where evasive action was required:

FLORENCE, SC/UAS INCIDENT/1524E/EXPERIMENTAL APF3, REPORTED SEEING A QUAD
COPTER UAS AT SAME ALTITUDE OF 3,500 FEET. ACFT CLIMBED 400 FEET TO AVOID.
UNKN IF LEO WAS NOTIFIED.

RED BLUFF, CA/UAS INCIDENT/1118P/OAKLAND ARTCC ADVISED PIPER P28A, AT 2,800
FEET, OBSERVED A RED AND WHITE 6-8 FOOT TALL UAS 300 FEET BELOW ACFT 8 NNW RED
BLUFF. PIC STATED EVERYTIME HE MANEUVERED, UAS MANEUVERED TOWARD THE ACFT.
TEHAMA COUNTY SHERIFF NOTIFIED.

HOUSTON, TX/UAS INCIDENT/2150C/HELO, EC45, INBOUND TO HOUSTON MEDICAL CENTER
AT 800 FEET ENCOUNTERED A RED QUADCOPTER UAS WITH AMBER LIGHTS AT 600 FEET
FLYING OVER THE BUILDINGS. HELO MADE EVASIVE MANEUVER TO AVOID UAS. UAS CAME
WITH IN .1 MILE OF HELO.

CHESTER, MA/UAS INCIDENT/1857E/BRADLEY TRACON REPORTED CESSNA C172, WHILE SSE
BOUND AT 5,500 FEET, ENCOUNTERED A BLACK UAS WITH 1 ROTOR, 200 -300 FEET ABOVE
AND TO HIS LEFT 5 NW CHESTER. ACFT TURNED RIGHT TO AVOID UAS. MA STATE PD
NOTIFIED.

VFR AIRCRAFT, AT LEVEL FLIGHT REPORTED HAVING TO TAKE EVASIVE ACTION TO AVOID
A VERY SMALL UAS.CONTROLLER REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO TRAFFIC OBSERVED IN THE
AREA. AIRCRAFT DID NOT RECEIVE ANY DAMAGE, LANDED SAFELY AT BAF.

Doing the right thing:

FARGO, ND/UAS INCIDENT/1755C/FAR ATCT ADVISED OWNER OF UAS WAS OPERATING UAS
IN CLASS D AIRSPACE 1.5 MILES S FAR WHEN BATTERY IN REMOTE CONTROLLER DIED.
THE UAS IS PROGRAMMED TO CLIMB TO 1,500 FEET AND HOVER. FAR ATCT REPORTED 3 GA
BUSINESS ACFT WERE HOLDING FOR DEP AND 1 AIR CARRIER WAS INBOUND. OWNER CALLED
BACK AND REPORTED 22 MIN LATER THE UAS SAFELY ON GROUND. AN INDIVIDUAL CALLED
FARGO TOWER NOTIFYING US THAT HE WAS FLYING AN UNAUTHORIZED DRONE IN THE CLASS
DELTA AIRSPACE AND THE CONTROLLER FOR THE DRONE HAD DIED. WHEN THE CONTROLLER
FOR THE DRONE DIES, THE UAS HOVERS AT 1500 FEET. THE INDIVIDUAL SAID IT WOULD
TAKE 15 TO 20 MINUTES TO CHARGE THE CONTROLLER AND GET THE DRONE WORKING
AGAIN. AT 2317Z THE INDIVIDUAL CALLED BACK AND SAID THE UAS IS ON THE GROUND.
THE DRONE WAS OPERATED NEAR CENTENNIAL BLVD, APPROX 1.5MI SOUTH OF THE
AIRPORT.

[1]
[https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/uas_sightings_report/](https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/uas_sightings_report/)

~~~
phil21
You also have to read these reports with a grain of salt. Some of those
reports are nearly impossible for a pilot to have actually spotted a drone in,
and many are speculative in nature.

Quite a few (all?) supposed "drone strikes" have turned out to be simple bird
strikes after investigation. You just never heard about the follow ups and
media retractions.

> THE TFR WAS REPORTED BY SOMEONE ON THE GROUND WHO STATED IT WAS OPERATING
> 4,000 FEET ABOVE THE TREES.

Stuff like this though? I don't believe it. No one can see a drone 4,000 feet
in the air. Most commercial drones are nearly impossible to spot (if you know
exactly where to look) even at around 1000 feet.

I believe it's an important issue to take seriously, but there are a
contingent of 'anti-drone' folks who don't care so much about the truth and
care more about anything they can do to generate negative PR - up to and
including outright lying.

------
sheeshkebab
Why not $150k?

~~~
garethsprice
It's 1 million yuan, which converts to $145k

------
breeze_em_out
Is this appropriate for businesses to be doing?

I mean, you don't see Ford putting out bounties on drunk hit'n'run drivers,
and that's something that's cost thousands of lives.

How is this type of McCarthy PR acceptable?

DJI customers, what are your thoughts on this?

~~~
moftz
No one complains about cars and wants to restrict them the same way drones are
treated. DJI has an interest in making sure that their drones follow the law.
The entire drone industry and their lawful users also have an interest in
making sure that no one is giving drone pilots a bad reputation. DJI is part
of this and wants to spend their money to make sure that people know that
unlawful flights are not tolerated by any drone users. I don't think anyone
would be complaining if Ford put out rewards for information on hit'n'run
drivers.

~~~
vkou
Not quite - we restrict cars even more then we restrict drones.

They also happen to be necessary to the operation of our society. Drones are
little more then toys. If all drones were grounded tomorrow, life would go on.
If all cars stopped tomorrow, half the country would starve to death by June.

