Enforcing an NFZ with the DJI jammer

[Thomas B]

Check out what DJI is marketing to law enforcement to control. Accesses your info and jams control. Interesting:

Aeroscope - DJI

DJI AeroScope is able to identify the vast majority of popular drones on the market today by monitoring and analyzing their electronic signals to gain critical information, allowing users to protect the integrity of their flight-sensitive environment.

www.dji.com

 

[brett8883]

Check out what DJI is marketing to law enforcement to control. Accesses your info and jams control. Interesting:

Aeroscope - DJI

DJI AeroScope is able to identify the vast majority of popular drones on the market today by monitoring and analyzing their electronic signals to gain critical information, allowing users to protect the integrity of their flight-sensitive environment.

www.dji.com

I’m not surprised this exists but I am surprised DJI is advertising it out in the open. I wonder if you have to be qualified to buy one. At any rate it shows us yet again DJI doesn’t care about your data protection.

It’s worth noting this doesn’t allow them to control your drone only to gain data from the drone.

 

[Wailuku]

I don't see an issue with this really. And I think it is needed around high-volume airports (e.g., Gatwick 'drone sighting' diverts flights). It should be targeting illegal UAV operators which is a good thing for legal operators. Is there the ability (likelihood?) some PDs will abuse this? Sure, but in the US at least we have laws that protect us from such unlawful 'searches.' Lose the Chalk, Officer: Court Finds Marking Tires of Parked Cars Unconstitutional

 

[Thomas B]

Respect your views, but must point out that the referenced articles don’t support it. (Gatwick article from an antidrone author quoting unconfirmed drone sighting as truth and FAA already has us mark our drones.

Wonder if a LAANC approved flight would be suspect, just don’t know.

Just posted this to make people aware of this device.

 

[BossBob]

The Gatwick story cites drones seen outside their exclusion zone, so what was the problem?

 

[Thomas B]

The Gatwick story cites drones seen outside their exclusion zone, so what was the problem?

Unconfirmed if I read it correctly. They are many like this.

 

[BossBob]

Unconfirmed if I read it correctly. They are many like this.

No, that was the original Gatwick debacle. The latest was only a couple of days ago and a few flights were diverted to Stansted.

 

[Thomas B]

No, that was the original Gatwick debacle. The latest was only a couple of days ago and a few flights were diverted to Stansted.

Incorrect. Read the report. I refer here to the newest and not the previous, also unsubstantiated, report.
No drone ever seen/found and it was reported to be outside the airports no fly zone.
initial report True? Dunno. Irresponsible and incomplete reporting by the tabloid; absolutely. Anti drone group false reports and/or media bias; must consider.

 

[Simmo]

Aeroscope has been around for years??? 2017 from memory?

 

[sar104]

Check out what DJI is marketing to law enforcement to control. Accesses your info and jams control. Interesting:

Aeroscope - DJI

DJI AeroScope is able to identify the vast majority of popular drones on the market today by monitoring and analyzing their electronic signals to gain critical information, allowing users to protect the integrity of their flight-sensitive environment.

www.dji.com

Aeroscope is a detection and identification system, not a jammer.

I’m not surprised this exists but I am surprised DJI is advertising it out in the open. I wonder if you have to be qualified to buy one. At any rate it shows us yet again DJI doesn’t care about your data protection.

No need to wonder - it's only available to law enforcement.

 

[kadras]

This week's issue (April 22- May 5) of Aviation Week and Space Technology (aka Aviation Leak and Space Mythology) has an article on Counter UAS (CUAS). The second paragraph sums up the problems pretty well:
"In the U.S. and many other countries, shooting down, disabling or taking control of drones is illegal. There is no liability framework for such operations, no broadly reliable way to detect and identify drones and drone users and the U.S. has yet to figure out exactly who will have authority to execute CUAS operations."

Later in the article it notes that in July, 2018 the FAA sent airports a CUAS guidance letter. The letter repeated part of a 2016 letter:
"It is important that federally obligated airports understand that the FAA has not authorized any UAS detection or countermeasure assessments other than those participating in the
FAA's UAS detection program...and airports allowing such evaluations could be in violation of their grant assurances."

The article also notes that in the US, radio transmitters, including jammers have to be licensed by the FCC, and that no licenses have been issued for CUAS jamming systems. The article doesn't point out that US government radio systems aren't licensed or regulated by the FCC, but are coordinated by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).

It does mention that the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, the same one that made changes to Part 101 (336) and Part 107, allows the Departments of Justice and Transportation to basically do whatever they need to do to mitigate threats from an unmanned aircraft. That's contained in "Division H - Preventing Emerging Threats" of the Act, and can be read here (search for "Division H": https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th...02/text#toc-H11CC147789714B1FA95400F38BA66A4A

The rest of the article has interviews with executives from companies that provide CUAS products and services. They admit that no one system is ideal, and that probably the only surefire defense is a kinetic system - the fancy way of saying shooting them down. One of the execs points out that if a CUAS system takes control of a vehicle, liability potentially passes to the operator of that system.

Interesting read without a lot of details.

 

[brett8883]

This week's issue (April 22- May 5) of Aviation Week and Space Technology (aka Aviation Leak and Space Mythology) has an article on Counter UAS (CUAS). The second paragraph sums up the problems pretty well:
"In the U.S. and many other countries, shooting down, disabling or taking control of drones is illegal. There is no liability framework for such operations, no broadly reliable way to detect and identify drones and drone users and the U.S. has yet to figure out exactly who will have authority to execute CUAS operations."

Later in the article it notes that in July, 2018 the FAA sent airports a CUAS guidance letter. The letter repeated part of a 2016 letter:
"It is important that federally obligated airports understand that the FAA has not authorized any UAS detection or countermeasure assessments other than those participating in the
FAA's UAS detection program...and airports allowing such evaluations could be in violation of their grant assurances."

The article also notes that in the US, radio transmitters, including jammers have to be licensed by the FCC, and that no licenses have been issued for CUAS jamming systems. The article doesn't point out that US government radio systems aren't licensed or regulated by the FCC, but are coordinated by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).

It does mention that the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, the same one that made changes to Part 101 (336) and Part 107, allows the Departments of Justice and Transportation to basically do whatever they need to do to mitigate threats from an unmanned aircraft. That's contained in "Division H - Preventing Emerging Threats" of the Act, and can be read here (search for "Division H": https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th...02/text#toc-H11CC147789714B1FA95400F38BA66A4A

The rest of the article has interviews with executives from companies that provide CUAS products and services. They admit that no one system is ideal, and that probably the only surefire defense is a kinetic system - the fancy way of saying shooting them down. One of the execs points out that if a CUAS system takes control of a vehicle, liability potentially passes to the operator of that system.

Interesting read without a lot of details.

Very interesting thanks! Makes me feel a lot better!