Another drone takes down another helicopter 12

[Sparweb]

Not the first time.
In its report, the NTSB noted that it has now completed three investigations where a collision with a drone has been confirmed, and gathered information on two other collisions where the evidence is consistent with a drone strike.

The drone was operating above 400 feet AGL in airspace that did not permit this, and at night when this is not normally permitted either. The type of drone that probably hit the helicopter (based on the damage) is not the kind that would be equipped with proper anti-collision lights that would make night flight possible.

Here is another example, probably not in the NTSB count - although a much more avoidable one that should not have happened.

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[3DDave]

CWB1 - funny and meaningless story. Did they run an interstate through all backyards? Also funny - you know I was referring to flying drones, because that's what the paragraph was about. Out of context is the best argument though, right?

Read the current FAA regulations regarding drones and what they are proposing for the near future.

 

[3DDave]

Alistair - I cannot understand what you are talking about: "none of us can accept the data" is in direct conflict with what ADS-B In is for. If you cannot use it then how are you flying? GPS doesn't tell ATC where you are, so it's not an offshoot.

Oh, so it's open to spoofing? Then why is the FAA depending on it for NextGen? It is defined for aircraft to use.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Our collision avoidance system works off secondary radar transponder. If both have a mode S transponder they both speak to each other on the secondary radar band. It's called TCAS. If you up against a mode c it will report Baro alt but won't speak to yours but you will get resolution not to hit it.. Mode a will just be putting out a 4 digit octal number without alt and you will only get traffic and no resolution.
All altitude transponder work with 1013 hpa Bari because they only care about relative seperation and time.

Mode s equipment all has a unique international hex decimal code in it. These are registered internationally.

ADS squirts a load of stuff to ATC including what we have set for targets. So if they tell us to do 240 knts and we set 260 knts then they know your taking the pee. Converse ly if they want you to do 170 to 4 and you set 145 at 6 miles they also know about it. High level where radar can't reach it gives GPS data for horizontal position but altitude is from Baro 1013.

If your told to descend to fl300 and you set fl200 they will also know.

The main difference is that altitude is always reported on Baro. You need to have the local pressure set to make any sense. Above transition alt we all go onto standard 1013 hpa or what ever that is in inches of mercury.

The egpws does have a terrain database in it but it also uses rad alt for height from ground which operates below 2500 ft.

 

[MacGyverS2000]

Oh, so it's open to spoofing? Then why is the FAA depending on it for NextGen? It is defined for aircraft to use.

Starting January 1, 2020, you must be equipped with ADS-B Out to fly in most controlled airspace.

Bolding is mine...

As for spoofing... my career can be generally defined as "cyber security" (typically from a hardware/firmware perspective). A number of years back I looked into what it would take to make some of the common protocols used in flight operations do what they aren't supposed to do. To say it was easy would be a major understatement. They just weren't designed with security in mind.

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[waross]

MacGyvers, do I understand correctly?
Does that mean that terrorists/activists can use a ground based transmitter near a flyway to spoof imaginary drones and create more havoc than real drones, short of an actual collision?

[link ]Bill[/url]
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

As for nextgen.

It will allow them to turn off loads of high level primary and secondary radar. It will save a fortune. Centralise man power alot less technicians etc.

 

[3DDave]

Yes, it can be spoofed. It hasn't stopped the FAA from requiring its use in certain air spaces. The cyberthreat is unrelated to this conversation, but a separate one could be started to discuss why the FAA has been going this way for 20 years or more without a second thought.

And yes, waross, they can do that now, using heavy jet identifications. It could look like 500 identical 747s were about to crash into the tower. It doesn't have to be near it - you could be anywhere within radio range; the system is incapable of determining from the signal where the source is, it depends on the content of the message carried by the signal. Or just call in a bomb threat to the terminal; no need for anything besides a phone. Or any number of actual attack vectors if killing people is the goal. Most people won't ever want to do that and there's no value for those who might consider it.

Sorry Alistair, I was referring to what the FAA says about ADS-B for traffic you are generally not part of and which does conflict more directly with drone use. I can see you don't have much insight into helicopter and general aviation. You might call them bug smashers.

I do enjoy seeing a memory item recall from a commercial pilot about how a small part of the system works for an unrelated application.

(typo)

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

You are completely correct about the bug smasher and puddle jumper part of aviation. Theses days I am more up to speed with gliders than them. But most single engine piston carry a transponder. If they go into controlled airspace they carry ADS-B. I think 2020 is the dead line to have it fitted in the USA. Gliders can squirt it and use and it is power by a motorbike battery and can last up to 5 or 10 hours depending on the battery. The flight aware ADS-B receiver is in the 1500$ price range and again is powered by battery. You can get fly leads to power form USB power banks and the 12V socket in the cockpit.

I can remember when ADS was started. And it was mainly a cost cutting exercise for ATC to find out what aircraft were doing without radar.

And in most places in the world and where R&D is focused that's what it is used for. IF they want to know what's going on in a blank spot they just need 6000$ worth of receiver and a connection to the main ATC database. Instead of a secondary radar head which first sends a interrogation signal to the aircraft and then it squirts it data back to the head. The ADS data can also be sent via sat link over water. I believe we also send it via VHF datalink.

I really don't have a clue what the FAA have said on the subject. I suspect though that most of it has been produced by none technical ATC types. And the techs who were brought in relatively late on in the process have pulled their hair out in frustration because the system just won't work low level using real aircraft. The whole concept of ADS-B was never intended for that use. And the current system just isn't set up to handle 10'000'd plus of additional contacts supplying real time data and technical stuff for deconfliction. They more than likely set it up with a 20 year projection on commercial air traffic density's. Over night if you added every drone into the equation you will have double if not tripled that. The system just won't cope and the amount of cash required to expand things to allow it means they just can't afford to include all drones in the mix.

I still can't se how you can integrate a load of drones using a completely different altitude reporting method to everyone else.

 

[LionelHutz]

Too busy arguing to actually post anything technical. Once again, how does ADS-B in on a drone stop the operator from having the drone hit by a plane?

 

[MacGyverS2000]

Oh, so it's open to spoofing? Then why is the FAA depending on it for NextGen?

Yes, it can be spoofed. It hasn't stopped the FAA from requiring its use in certain air spaces. The cyberthreat is unrelated to this conversation...

I'm confused... what point are you arguing? Your first response was to question why the FAA would require it if it can be spoofed, then in your next reply you agree that it can be spoofed.

Personally, I don't think spoofing CAN be ignored in this thread, particularly if the argument in the spotlight is the use of ADS-B IN when I've already pointed out that FAA requirements will only be for ADS-B OUT.

I've either missed the entire point, or we're running in circles...

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[MacGyverS2000]

Does that mean that terrorists/activists can use a ground based transmitter near a flyway to spoof imaginary drones and create more havoc than real drones, short of an actual collision?

Can you not think of an easier way to confuse all principles involved than to flood the airspace with so many virtual objects that no one knows a safe glide path? Imagine it's night and your system just showed 1,000 new objects surrounding you in an instant... what if some of those objects were real and on intersecting vectors? Which is real, which is fake? I imagine there would be a lot of brown pants at that point...

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

This should demonstrate of the potential for total airspace mayhem. In fact it would make an effective war weapon.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[3DDave]

Well, Mac, the point you have missed is that if ADS-B Out is good enough for the FAA to require on manned aircraft then it is good enough for the FAA to allow on drones. If the FAA is willing to use it, in spite of the ability for spoofing, to keep airplanes and helicopters from colliding with each other, then any exploitable systemic flaws that already exist are not an excuse for refusing expanded use. I did not "question why the FAA would require it if it can be spoofed" I questioned why they would be discriminatory to certain classes of aircraft if they were pushing it for their master plan.

ironic - we already know what damage can be done to at least 3 countries at the price of a dozen or so airplane tickets. Much cheaper than that bunch of drones from Intel. The military already has more destructive elements available.

 

[3DDave]

Alistair,

Now you will know what the FAA has to say on the subject. And you make my point - The FAA doesn't want to spend their money on safety, and neither do the pilots and owners of manned aircraft. They don't want to be safe. They want to be exclusive.

Helicopter ADS-B

ADS-B isn’t just for fixed wing aircraft — it’s also an important tool for helicopters. For the Prince George’s County Maryland police department, having ADS-B is a critical component of every flight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa3Hx1G8IC8

Avoiding a Close Call in the Air

Have you ever had a mid-air “close call” in what seemed like wide-open skies? Even the most seasoned pilots have occasionally been surprised by unseen aircraft. Thanks to ADS-B In, pilots can see traffic on their devices in the cockpit, affording them an extra level of safety and security. For the pilots in this video, having a “near miss” turned them into ADS-B believers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcsBQMU0a6w

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Yes I have enough thanks usually with mil aircraft in class G but also a few with helicopters usually air sea rescue . When I say aircraft, helicopters are included. I spent my youth flying out of Aberdeen which due to to the oil rigs have some of the highest rotary operations in the world.

To my knowledge all aircraft above 5700kg are now fitted with ADS-out and Modes S.

And they all have a registration fee and hex code allocated and a 2 yearly inspection and calibration of said installation.

The helicopter in the above report is here

https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=N71HD

Its hex code is A97A67 on the mode-s transponder.

I say again it is the mode S transponder and secondary radar which TCAS uses which is the anti collision system on commercial aircraft. It is done on time and the altitude is taken from baro and 1013 pressure setting. GPS alt is not used. We receive the ADS info via it on 1090 freq. We do not do anything until a resolution advisory is issued by the TCAS and it only gives vertical separation. I had 2 traffic warnings yesterday, I was doing 1000ft/min and so were they and we both levelled off with 1000ft sep and everyone was happy. But a TCAS anti collision processor is 35K $ I think.

I really don't know why he is going on about ADS in relation to terrain avoidance its run through the EGPWS system which has its own GPS and links to a world wide terrain database. From what I could see there it was a pretty standard TCAS and EGPWS integrated avionics setup. Maybe its all mixed in with his synthetic visual system. His display used standard TCAS symbology.

Seems USA aircraft can take a software load and accept ADS in but I have zero clue if Part 121 can. We certainly can't.

Anyway this seems to run through the issues.

https://uavionix.com/the-case-for-low-power-ads-b/

6 x 16 bit is about 16.75 million different codes I think and that the world wide total. But I do think FAA's reluctance is down to how much it would cost if every drone had one the airwaves would be swamped. They would want a registration fee which coast more than the drone to buy. The power consumption would make most not want them anyway. But the main issue is the receiving network and back end infrastructure to process all the data even if its to kill all the sub 500ft traffic.

The registration fee's and every two year test of registered avionics are way more than most drones cost in the first place.

 

[CWB1]

Read the current FAA regulations regarding drones and what they are proposing for the near future.

Current regulations dont appear to have changed much in the past few years. Any links to proposals you dont like? I'm not seeing much via google.

 

[3DDave]

https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=24534

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...e-identification-of-unmanned-aircraft-systems

They say it's for "safety." What they mean is "exclusion".

 

[Sparweb]

According to the FAA, as of December 2019: "nearly 1.5 million drones and 160,000 remote pilots are registered with the FAA"

Sounds like there's some good uptake on the registration process. Maybe not 100% but the difference between the # of drones and # of registered operators is more likely that most of them are below the 1kg size limit. Are the hold-outs to operator registration taking a stance of some kind, that you know of? What would their reason be to not register their drone?
My cars are registered. If I had a rifle or an airplane, I'd register them. Not a big deal. If I had a drone, I would register it too. What reason would I have to object to that?

Reading the Fed Register (thanks for the link), this explains some of it:

the potential saturation of available radio frequency spectrum. The FAA proposes to address the identification issues associated with UAS by requiring the use of new services and technology to enable the remote identification of UAS.

That makes sense. Once you loft a million drones, each one has to be able to communicate clearly without obstructing the rest. Since drone operators do not (yet) show competence to tune radio frequencies in flight, each drone may have to be be assigned a permanent unique frequency for its ID beacon. That means tens of millions of unique ID's being broadcast. Well most drones don't travel very far or very fast, so something similar to the mobile cellular network could be appropriate. The FAA isn't very specific, yet.

This information could be used to distinguish compliant airspace users from those potentially posing a safety or security risk.

Like the concerns I expressed above. It's good to see the FAA taking a solid stance on this before it becomes a greater threat to civil aviation.

http://www.sparweb.ca

 

[3DDave]

It's bad to see regulations without reason. What does registration do? For a car it's to grab cash. Guns are made to kill people, so maybe registration might make sense. Would you register your laptop and lawn mower? You might commit some cyber crime with that laptop or injure a person with the mower. Own a camera? Better register it as you might be gathering information a terror plot could use. In fact, having personal property of any kind is something of a risk.

The uptake is that the FAA threatened hobby sellers if they didn't register the drones they sold. That's not uptake, that's coercion. And what difference has it made? The limit is .55 POUNDS; 250 grams.

Best reason not to register - cops with a warrant to search the house because someone spotted a drone in the area and they know you registered one. Much like the couple arrested at Heathrow because someone thought they owned one. Not sure where you live, but our cops, once given this permission, have a habit of taking knives to all upholstered furniture and bedding to make sure nothing is inside, smashing solid furniture to make sure there's no hiding places, and often enough, just shooting as they come through the door. They don't think there's a drone in the sofa - they want to let you know your freedom is in danger if you file any complaint at all.

Unique frequency? This isn't 1940. And how will this work where there aren't comms back to the Internet? It's also a lie that there will be saturation. How do I know - read the FAA report. Oh, wait, they did not do one. They had a catered lunch meeting where they agreed that 1,000,000 drones at the same location might pose a problem, pass the mustard please.

What, exactly will the registration do to prevent a collision?
Nothing, because it's not about safety, It's about exclusion and revenge.

No worries though. The drones are coming for aviation jobs, and the laws Amazon will see passed will force hobby pilots from urban areas.

 

[CWB1]

They say it's for "safety." What they mean is "exclusion".

So when the transponder is on manned aircraft its a great idea, but when its on a drone its an invasion of privacy? Good for thee, not for me comes to mind.

What does registration do? For a car it's to grab cash. Guns are made to kill people, so maybe registration might make sense.

Most every vehicle manufactured is used to commit a crime during its life, hence why their registration is mandatory stateside - to allow their and thereby their owner's identification. They're also typically the second-most valuable item we own and frequently stolen, so again, identification is important. Firearms OTOH are rarely used to commit crime, are relatively low-cost, and rarely stolen, hence why we have very limited registration laws for them.

Regardless, I don't see mass drone use ever becoming viable in urban areas, prob why so many have given up on attempts to commercialize their use. Most cities have already banned their use outside of special areas to protect privacy and safety. There are several schemes that I'm aware of for getting around "lack" of operating frequencies, but the bigger issue is simply the infrastructure concentration in cities which already makes GPS and even cell coverage rather challenging in many areas.