U.K. Airports are Testing Drone Detection Technology NOW - Here's How Many Drones They've Found

[Cmeflydrone]

Very interesting!

U.K. Airports are Testing Drone Detection Technology NOW – Here’s How Many Drones They’ve Found

 

[FoxhallGH]

Interesting links to other data and websites in there as well ... There's no indication of the 'range' of the 'Dedrone' equipment (and the manufacturer does not seem to mention it anywhere), but from the demo-vid's it doesn't look like it's more than several 100 metres. Therefore, an Airport is going to have an array of these all round it ... Based on the detection of 285 drones in 148 days testing - and considering the relative short range - it's fairly safe to assume that the detected drones in the test were all at or inside a 1Km airport boundary!!! ... It would be nice to see confirmation of where the detected drones actually were in respect to the 1Km NFZ boundry line - but as things stand - it's no wonder we drone operators are getting a tough time from the likes of the Airline Pilot's Association!
That's just at four airports too! (Gatwick was not included!!! - someone is kicking themselves now ...)
It sounds like 'detection' systems have been deployed for the UK tests, but no 'counter-measures' ... Again the types of CM available in the 'Dedrone' product range are vague - but - implied and effective.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[sar104]

Not exactly a usefull release of partial information, statements like 'come out to fly at an airport" blatantly designed to give the impression the detections were very close or inside the boundary, yet it gives no mention of actual distances they were detected at.
No doubt the real data is there, but they obviously have an agenda to make things sound as scary as possible, helps the sales pitch for their kit.

You honestly can't take anything published at face value these days

That's certainly a problem if you can't be bothered to follow the links to get those details. I guess it's just easier to complain on forums than do even a little research.

If you are actually interested, which I doubt but no matter, they deployed an RF-100 sensor at each airport, with a maximum detection range of one mile. That would put the detected drones within one mile of the center of those airports, which would mean that they were well within the restricted distance of 1 km from the boundaries.

 

[LAZRTX]

Curious of how much of the "Data" are false positives induced by DroneTracker to enhance their data set.

 

[Treeofliberty]

Curious of how much of the "Data" are false positives induced by DroneTracker to enhance their data set.

Exactly. Every sensor has some degree of false positives, especially ISR sensors. How many of those "drones" were large birds or mylar balloons? How much calibration is being done? This could be completely on the level, but all parties have a vested interest in skewing the detection rate higher. Just sayin...

 

[JSKCKNIT]

Exactly. Every sensor has some degree of false positives, especially ISR sensors. How many of those "drones" were large birds or mylar balloons? How much calibration is being done? This could be completely on the level, but all parties have a vested interest in skewing the detection rate higher. Just sayin...

The article states: "Dedrone monitored drone activity at the four airports for a total of 148 days – during which 285 drones were seen."

I was curious to know if it was 285 individual drones (seemed excessive to me) flying into restricted airspace and contacted Dedrone. It was 285 incursions, not 285 drones. While one incursion is one too many, the article shouldn't have been written to imply 285 different individuals are violating airspace restrictions to sell a product.

 

[sar104]

The article states: "Dedrone monitored drone activity at the four airports for a total of 148 days – during which 285 drones were seen."

I was curious to know if it was 285 individual drones (seemed excessive to me) flying into restricted airspace and contacted Dedrone. It was 285 incursions, not 285 drones. While one incursion is one too many, the article shouldn't have been written to imply 285 different individuals are violating airspace restrictions to sell a product.

That technology can only identify drones by manufacturer and, sometimes, model. So the report referred to the number of discrete incursions, and did not imply that they were all different aircraft.

 

[JSKCKNIT]

That technology can only identify drones by manufacturer and, sometimes, model. So the report referred to the number of discrete incursions, and did not imply that they were all different aircraft.

It was their words, not mine, that said it was 285 drones. That takes on a different meaning than saying 285 incursions, possibly by the same pilots. That's why what you said is not included in the press release.

 

[sar104]

It was their words, not mine, that said it was 285 drones. That takes on a different meaning than saying 285 incursions, possibly by the same pilots. That's why what you said is not included in the press release.

The Dedrone report simply said "Total drones detected: 285". In the context of the reported methodology it was clear that meant 285 detection incidents. The Dronelife article linked above doesn't include the description of the methodology but, even so, that seems like nitpicking to me.

 

[FoxhallGH]

The Dedrone report simply said "Total drones detected: 285". In the context of the reported methodology it was clear that meant 285 detection incidents. The Dronelife article linked above doesn't include the description of the methodology but, even so, that seems like nitpicking to me.

Based on the YouTube vid's of the DeDrone system, it appears that you set out a VERY defined boundary line around an object. It would be quite possible for the system to count multiple incursions even if it was a single drone just 'flipping' back and forth across that boundary line ...
I hope the Airport Authorities who are going to be buying this stuff are asking the same questions as we are in this thread!

 

[sar104]

Based on the YouTube vid's of the DeDrone system, it appears that you set out a VERY defined boundary line around an object. It would be quite possible for the system to count multiple incursions even if it was a single drone just 'flipping' back and forth across that boundary line ...
I hope the Airport Authorities who are going to be buying this stuff are asking the same questions as we are in this thread!

Maybe, but I'm not clear how that works. The system is not decoding the telemetry and without phased arrays or other kinds of directional antenna to triangulate (other systems do have that) I can't see how it knows exactly where the drone is, and they only mentioned one sensor. In any case, even with just forensic identification, it's going to be able to distinguish that scenario.

 

[FoxhallGH]

Maybe, but I'm not clear how that works. The system is not decoding the telemetry and without phased arrays or other kinds of directional antenna to triangulate (other systems do have that) I can't see how it knows exactly where the drone is, and they only mentioned one sensor. In any case, even with just forensic identification, it's going to be able to distinguish that scenario.

True - If all that was being used is the RF-100 component of the system - then that's just 'passive' - but it appears to have two sets of antenna on the box (2.4 and 5 GHz I'd assume), that may be able to get a 'directional' component - but how does that turn into a triangulated position? Logic says there has to be two ...
Dedrone's website and video's don't give the whole story - which is only sensible from a commercial viewpoint - but the RF-100 appears to need to hand-off to an 'X' shaped 'Drone Tracker' unit, which includes the sensor array which is designed to identify a drone using video, sound and IR profiles. The Drone Tracker appears to be fixed-mount, so you'd need at least 3 to protect a zone.
You mentioned the RF-100 unit in your post #3 ... I never saw any detail of what was deployed in the UK airport trials ... Was there any mention of the 'Drone Tracker' on those sites?

[EDIT: Sorry - just re-read the original report reference - and yes - the deployed config' included the RF-100 device and DroneTracker.]

 

[LAZRTX]

Maybe DroneTracker flew their own drones into the detection area of interest to create more hits and not all the targets were independent.

 

[Rick W]

Let them continue to collect what might be exagerated data. In time, it might help our drone community. If the data continues to grow at what seems to be a very rapid pace, will they someday report 15,000 “detected drones” without there being a single “real” drone-related incident? At some point it might show that the drone-problem was both contrived and irrelevant.

We must do all we can to fly responsibly, encourage others to do the same and to remind those who fly “stupid” that we do care.