AIR SCARE Notorious ‘drone-modding’ gangsters giving away hacked apps that let drones fly over ANY airport.

[zocalo]

Have never saw the LA times and only what links that have been posted here from the Sun so please no one take offense but I would like to know if the Sun is like what we have or did like The Nation Inquirer or one of the grocery store tabloids .

It's a tabloid. Maybe not the worst of the bunch, but definitely down there. The kind where if a war breaks out they'll still make room for a half-naked "celeb" on the front page, but that does at least try to cover actual current events rather than just making sh..tuff up. Rather infamously used to have a topless model on page 3 of every issue, if that helps establish the typical readership.

 

[MaviCam]

"giving away apps" ?????

Nice try to alter the facts. NLD SELLS their product.

I believe in obeying the law, but, I'm pretty sure there is no "law" that says I have to share my flight information with some company in China.

 

[TheRoach]

No proof of any drone activity during the Gatwick incident. Not a single shred. The local police claimed responsibility stating it was probably their own surveillance drones.

More paranoia than facts when it comes to drone sightings and incidents. IMHO.

I can tell you what I do see, Military copters flying over my house at 250 foot. They have about run into me twice now. Heck - my granddaughter was flying a kite and when they went over the rotor wash blew it away.

 

[sar104]

No proof of any drone activity during the Gatwick incident. Not a single shred. The local police claimed responsibility stating it was probably their own surveillance drones.

No - they said that some of the sightings were probably their drones. They weren't flying drones at the airport before it was shut down, or after it reopened the first time.

 

[rwest]

The link is to an article in then UK paper called The Sun ( a very left wing paper) and talks about the nolimitsdrone program.

Actually, I think you'll find The Sun is rather right wing, and calling it a newspaper would be rather a stretch of the imagination

 

[AgentMIB]

Added the text from the article, save people clicking.

You realize you're in violation of copyright law by copying more than 50% of a published article. You are a hypocrite for calling out people who want to fly their drones without requiring to log into DJI servers are insane.

I condone their actions of disabling software that require users to log into DJI servers and have the Chinese PLA collect their personal data on your personal drone activities. That's why the US DoD stopped use of DJI (and Huawei) products for their personnel.

What I do with my drone is my own business, not the Chinese government. For example, DJI could lock you out of flying your own drone for insulting their Emperor Xi Jinping or the communist party, even though you aren't a Chinese citizen. DJI has also been busted violating GPL licensing by including open source code with their products. In other words, stealing other people's work. But that's what the Chinese do best steal from others.

As a FAA Part 91 licensed pilot, flying a drone in a NFZ is similar to a pilot flying an aircraft into restricted airspace without clearance. One doesn't require a pilots license to fly an ultralight aircraft. One could also fly a drone in a NFZ (controlled airspace) provided they contact ATC and obtain clearance and remain in communication with ATC.

 

[Victorian Aerial Vision]

It doesn't matter what restrictions are in place, someone will always want & find a way to get around them. Doesn't matter if it's an NFZ or any other rules & regulations, someone will always want to push the boundaries.

Victorian Aerial Vision Videos

 

[badgenes]

I would like to point out that discovering the application removing limitations from DJI drones elicited a visceral reaction in me. I was immediately concerned with the safety of aircrew, passengers and those on the ground that could be hurt / killed as a result of irresponsible flying. However as someone else pointed out DJI are the only ones enforcing NFZs among the manufacturers of high end consumer drones. Further there has not been a reported accident at altitude of any consumer drone / aircraft impact. All accidents have been low altitude away from airfields (as far as I know. please correct this statement if it is wrong). It stands to reason that the lack of incidents in the 18 months since that software debuted (well after github projects allowed users to do the same) is a good indicator of the likelihood of one of their customers endangering others with the product. For that matter if I wanted to fly a drone into an NFZ its cheaper and easier to just buy another manufacturers product.

Sad but true: In the last year or so the busy bodies have found the *pilots.com forums. The solution here is an age old one that I do my best to live by: apply your attention and efforts to yourself and your own behavior first don't infringe the rights of others OR THEIR RIGHT TO DO SAME. Those that live / behave in a manner that does not infringe upon the safety of others, or limit their ability to follow these simple maxims deserve their freedom to exercise their own judgment; those that cannot live without infringing upon others safety or freedom are wrong by default regardless of justification. It is that group that punishment and perhaps limits should be placed on be it restricting their ability to drive, use alcohol or other drugs, pilot aircraft or UAVs, etc. The rest of us who operate within the (obvious) guidelines of mutual respect kindly ask the busy bodies to GTFO. We don't require your nanny state, your NFZ restrictions, etc.

I don't have a solution to the problem of irresponsible people but I know limiting the rights of everyone is not the answer. it is the territory of the fool. [Personally I believe that those who splutter and spout the need for this restriction or that control do so because THEY WOULD NOT RESPECT OTHERS WITHOUT LIMITATIONS. They exist between the respectful and disrespectful of humanity, a rather disingenuous lot IMHO. ] Why? Because those of us who live in a state of mutual respect would not be the ones flying irresponsibly and endangering our fellow man. Anyone who would behave in such an inconsiderate reckless manner does not give a **** about existing rules / laws and will not care much about any further constraints placed on this or any other potentially dangerous activity.

Yes it only takes one to kill many people, but if you apply that logic to constraining hobbyist UAVs you need to apply it to every aspect of our lives. It only takes one truck carrying gasoline to kill / maim scores of people on our crowded highways (and it has happened time and time again) yet I see them daily. It only takes one small mistake flying military aircraft in urban areas to kill hundreds yet this is deemed 'necessary for readiness' and it occurs frequently. You notice these two examples revolve around mistakes, accidents, etc. rather than intentional behavior. Trade accidental for intentional for either and you have a recipe for mass casualties that could occur any moment. If you simply cannot focus your energy on ensuring your behavior is based on mutual respect and doesn't infringe on others please kindly direct your energy that direction rather than in mine.

badgenes

 

[badgenes]

I would like to point out that discovering the application removing limitations from DJI drones elicited a visceral reaction in me. I was immediately concerned with the safety of aircrew, passengers and those on the ground that could be hurt / killed as a result of irresponsible flying. However as someone else pointed out DJI are the only ones enforcing NFZs among the manufacturers of high end consumer drones. Further there has not been a reported accident at altitude of any consumer drone / aircraft impact. All accidents have been low altitude away from airfields (as far as I know. please correct this statement if it is wrong). It stands to reason that the lack of incidents in the 18 months since that software debuted (well after github projects allowed users to do the same) is a good indicator of the likelihood of one of their customers endangering others with the product. For that matter if I wanted to fly a drone into an NFZ its cheaper and easier to just buy another manufacturers product.

Sad but true: In the last year or so the busy bodies have found the *pilots.com forums. The solution here is an age old one that I do my best to live by: apply your attention and efforts to yourself and your own behavior first don't infringe the rights of others OR THEIR RIGHT TO DO SAME. Those that live / behave in a manner that does not infringe upon the safety of others, or limit their ability to follow these simple maxims deserve their freedom to exercise their own judgment; those that cannot live without infringing upon others safety or freedom are wrong by default regardless of justification. It is that group that punishment and perhaps limits should be placed on be it restricting their ability to drive, use alcohol or other drugs, pilot aircraft or UAVs, etc. The rest of us who operate within the (obvious) guidelines of mutual respect kindly ask the busy bodies to GTFO. We don't require your nanny state, your NFZ restrictions, etc.

I don't have a solution to the problem of irresponsible people but I know limiting the rights of everyone is not the answer. it is the territory of the fool. [Personally I believe that those who splutter and spout the need for this restriction or that control do so because they would not respect others in the absence of boundaries. They exist between the respectful and disrespectful of humanity, a rather disingenuous lot IMHO. ] Why? Because as a general rule those of us who live in a state of mutual respect would not be the ones flying irresponsibly and endangering our fellow man. Anyone who would behave in such an inconsiderate reckless manner does not give a **** about existing rules / laws and will not care much about any further constraints placed on this or any other potentially dangerous activity. To be fair it is important to note that as to the rest, those situations where you decide to place your self interest over anyone else's (deciding to drive drunk on that one occasion despite being adamantly opposed to doing so) are no doubt far less attractive when we know serious punishment can / will result. I believe in this way ordinarily good folks are helped keep from slipping by knowing there is a hard limit that they are expected to observe. The vast majority of people only occasionally make bad decisions that could negatively impact others and I will also grant that the knowledge of serious repercussions no doubt prevents many of those people from following through with their lapse in judgement. In this way, some boundaries serve a very useful role in curbing the occasional self-centered foolishness humans are capable of.

Yes it only takes one to kill many people, but if you apply that logic to constraining hobbyist UAVs you need to apply it to every aspect of our lives. It only takes one truck carrying gasoline to kill / maim scores of people on our crowded highways (and it has happened time and time again) yet I see them daily. It only takes one small mistake flying military aircraft in urban areas to kill hundreds yet this is deemed 'necessary for readiness' and it occurs frequently. You notice these two examples revolve around mistakes, accidents, etc. rather than intentional behavior. Trade accidental for intentional for either and you have a recipe for mass casualties that could occur any moment. If you simply cannot focus your energy on ensuring your behavior is based on mutual respect and doesn't infringe on others please kindly direct your energy that direction rather than in mine.

badgenes

 

[snoopx]

The link is to an article in then UK paper called The Sun ( a very left wing paper) and talks about the nolimitsdrone program.

This program is quite good but yes it’s main purpose is to put back control of your quad to you the owner, I use it.

Hi,
Is the nolimitsdrone program free? I couldn't work out from their website if payment was necessary.
Also, the program was detected as 'decompression bomb' malware in Avast, although I think this is a false positive since in other online scanners it came up clean..

 

[Kenneth Coe]

I would like to point out that discovering the application removing limitations from DJI drones elicited a visceral reaction in me. I was immediately concerned with the safety of aircrew, passengers and those on the ground that could be hurt / killed as a result of irresponsible flying. However as someone else pointed out DJI are the only ones enforcing NFZs among the manufacturers of high end consumer drones. Further there has not been a reported accident at altitude of any consumer drone / aircraft impact. All accidents have been low altitude away from airfields (as far as I know. please correct this statement if it is wrong). It stands to reason that the lack of incidents in the 18 months since that software debuted (well after github projects allowed users to do the same) is a good indicator of the likelihood of one of their customers endangering others with the product. For that matter if I wanted to fly a drone into an NFZ its cheaper and easier to just buy another manufacturers product.

Sad but true: In the last year or so the busy bodies have found the *pilots.com forums. The solution here is an age old one that I do my best to live by: apply your attention and efforts to yourself and your own behavior first don't infringe the rights of others OR THEIR RIGHT TO DO SAME. Those that live / behave in a manner that does not infringe upon the safety of others, or limit their ability to follow these simple maxims deserve their freedom to exercise their own judgment; those that cannot live without infringing upon others safety or freedom are wrong by default regardless of justification. It is that group that punishment and perhaps limits should be placed on be it restricting their ability to drive, use alcohol or other drugs, pilot aircraft or UAVs, etc. The rest of us who operate within the (obvious) guidelines of mutual respect kindly ask the busy bodies to GTFO. We don't require your nanny state, your NFZ restrictions, etc.

I don't have a solution to the problem of irresponsible people but I know limiting the rights of everyone is not the answer. it is the territory of the fool. [Personally I believe that those who splutter and spout the need for this restriction or that control do so because THEY WOULD NOT RESPECT OTHERS WITHOUT LIMITATIONS. They exist between the respectful and disrespectful of humanity, a rather disingenuous lot IMHO. ] Why? Because those of us who live in a state of mutual respect would not be the ones flying irresponsibly and endangering our fellow man. Anyone who would behave in such an inconsiderate reckless manner does not give a **** about existing rules / laws and will not care much about any further constraints placed on this or any other potentially dangerous activity.

Yes it only takes one to kill many people, but if you apply that logic to constraining hobbyist UAVs you need to apply it to every aspect of our lives. It only takes one truck carrying gasoline to kill / maim scores of people on our crowded highways (and it has happened time and time again) yet I see them daily. It only takes one small mistake flying military aircraft in urban areas to kill hundreds yet this is deemed 'necessary for readiness' and it occurs frequently. You notice these two examples revolve around mistakes, accidents, etc. rather than intentional behavior. Trade accidental for intentional for either and you have a recipe for mass casualties that could occur any moment. If you simply cannot focus your energy on ensuring your behavior is based on mutual respect and doesn't infringe on others please kindly direct your energy that direction rather than in mine.

badgenes

YES! Thank you, BadGenes, for your thoughtful comments. Like many other Americans, I am getting very tired of the new policy of punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty. There will always be trouble-makers; punish them if they cause problems. Guess what, they won't obey new laws and restrictions any more than they obey current ones. See Chicago "Gun laws" for a prime example of this. I fly safely, as I'm sure you do, from your comments. I don't need more restrictions to help me do that.

 

[psb87]

Those that live / behave in a manner that does not infringe upon the safety of others, or limit their ability to follow these simple maxims deserve their freedom to exercise their own judgment...

How do you determine who falls into that population with respect to consumer drones?

 

[badgenes]

Been away and was reading backwards. Had I read the previous first I would just referred you to that post.

Easy: these individuals do not fly in a manner that violates the CURRENT laws / regulations and / or more importantly do not fly in a manner that endangers others whether or not there is a law telling then not to do so.

In short: if you regularly fly in a manner that endangers others you do not fall into the aforementioned category. If you inadvertently do so rarely it is perhaps understandable but still you are responsible for the outcome. Just like every other aspect of life. I don't see what is difficult to understand about respecting the rights and property of others first, then doing as you wish.

 

[AgentMIB]

You know what elicits a visceral reaction in me? DJI embeds spyware in their firmware and apps. Why must I be required to login to their system to fly a drone I bought? I'm not leasing it and I don't want the Chinese PLA spying on me. Why do you think the US DoD and other agencies prohibited use of DJI (and Huawei) products? Because they are using their products as Chinese state spy tools. I stand by my statement as an expert in information security.

I completely support modding the firmware and software app to remove aforementioned restrictions and spyware. Let's compare the situation motor vehicles vs drones (UAV's). People get licensed to drive a car, which is capable of far more destruction. Drivers have to obey laws, just as pilots (FAA Private Pilot here) have their own laws. BTW - Did you know under US FAA regulations, any person can fly an ultralight aircraft with no training or license?

So ask yourself these questions:
- How many people have died from motor vehicle accidents or vehicle terrorist attacks in 2018?

- How many died from hobbyist UAV's?

Answer those questions and you have your answer as to the risk factor.

 

[AMann]

Ugh, I clicked on it. I feel...?..... Better.

Drone paranoia is fueled by sensationalized articles like that. Its why official drone users like police and fire departments, researchers, etc. prefer to call them sUAS or UAV’s whenever they publish or speak them. Remember one meeting where the public relations officer corrected everyone who said the word “drone” when they were describing a fire incident.

 

[sar104]

You know what elicits a visceral reaction in me? DJI embeds spyware in their firmware and apps. Why must I be required to login to their system to fly a drone I bought? I'm not leasing it and I don't want the Chinese PLA spying on me. Why do you think the US DoD and other agencies prohibited use of DJI (and Huawei) products? Because they are using their products as Chinese state spy tools. I stand by my statement as an expert in information security.

The solution is easy - the same as with any other product that you don't like. Don't buy it. And you obviously never read the DoD memo that led to the temporary ban on using DJI aircraft.

I completely support modding the firmware and software app to remove aforementioned restrictions and spyware. Let's compare the situation motor vehicles vs drones (UAV's). People get licensed to drive a car, which is capable of far more destruction. Drivers have to obey laws, just as pilots (FAA Private Pilot here) have their own laws. BTW - Did you know under US FAA regulations, any person can fly an ultralight aircraft with no training or license?

So ask yourself these questions:
- How many people have died from motor vehicle accidents or vehicle terrorist attacks in 2018?

- How many died from hobbyist UAV's?

Answer those questions and you have your answer as to the risk factor.

Very few people died in aviation accidents in the US in 2018. Does that mean that the risk of aviation accidents is also very low?

 

[MavicFT1P]

Clickbait BS... won't give them the pleasure of a click.

2 pages in it looks like you were the exception.

TheRoacH: seriously, your talking about Gatwick again?

 

[AgentMIB]

The solution is easy - the same as with any other product that you don't like. Don't buy it. And you obviously never read the DoD memo that led to the temporary ban on using DJI aircraft.



Very few people died in aviation accidents in the US in 2018. Does that mean that the risk of aviation accidents is also very low?

My solution was easy, I modified the firmware and application to remove DJI's requirement to login to their server.

I'm not sure to which memo you refer in regards to the US DoD ban on DJI products. It is still in effect due to the cybersecurity reasons I mentioned. Perhaps you could cite the memo. I'll provide you with a link to recent article:

DJI, Huawei Spying

Comparing aviation safety to motor vehicle safety is comparing apples to oranges. However, for your information, the Aviation Safety Network (ASN) recorded a total of 15 fatal airliner accidents in 2018, leading to 556 deaths, compared with 10 accidents and 44 lives lost in 2017, the safest year in aviation history. Of those accidents, 12 involved passenger flights and three were cargo flights.

 

[sar104]

My solution was easy, I modified the firmware and application to remove DJI's requirement to login to their server.

Or you could just use local data mode in DJI Pilot

I'm not sure to which memo you refer in regards to the US DoD ban on DJI products. It is still in effect due to the cybersecurity reasons I mentioned. Perhaps you could cite the memo.

DJI UAS Technology Threat and User Vulnerabilities, Army Research Laboratory, May 25, 2017.

I'll provide you with a link to recent article:

DJI, Huawei Spying

It's difficult to have the discussion if you are going to rely on articles like that - it does nothing more than take the current Huawei issue and spin a web of pure speculation that DJI will face some kind of equivalent blanket ban, which makes no sense since DJI is not an infrastructure provider.

Comparing aviation safety to motor vehicle safety is comparing apples to oranges. However, for your information, the Aviation Safety Network (ASN) recorded a total of 15 fatal airliner accidents in 2018, leading to 556 deaths, compared with 10 accidents and 44 lives lost in 2017, the safest year in aviation history. Of those accidents, 12 involved passenger flights and three were cargo flights.

Who compared aviation safety to motor vehicle safety, and what does that have to do with my question - the one that you completely ignored?

 

[MavicFT1P]

I wiki'ed UAV Airstrke Incidents the other day. Theres been literally 3 since Drones became a thing.
one bounced off an An air balloon, the black hawk thingy, and the jogger hit by the phantom 3

It's great news filler, and gets peoples blood up, but it really is a joke statistics wise
Restless Legs Syndrome is more deadly on a Mathematical bassis apparently

Scientists calculate odd ways to die

Death may be the only certainty in life - but how it comes about is anything but certain. Check out the odds on odd ways of passing on.

www.mirror.co.uk

Falling Coconuts '150 people every year. Not funny but, yeh.
Anyway carry on