# A-- Hat drone owner/pilot

### Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

#### Aerowerx

##### Well-Known Member
Thanks, interesting.

I think offensive electronic action by authorities against offending aircraft (jamming/circuit disruption by high power EM energy through high-gain antennas to bring them down) may be an important tool in cases of big problems (disruption at airports, rescue operations, etc). It would presumably bring a quick end to that specific episode and having the device in hand gives a useful starting point for more investigation.
And who would be to blame if the said drone crashed into a residential area after being zapped by the EMP???

Not to mention the effect it would have on legitimate electronics that just happened to be nearby.

#### RebeccaKerr

##### New Member
There should definitely be implemented some regulations for the drone users with no experience, in the living area, so similar cases do not happen in the future. If you made a mistake - you have to pay for it, otherwise everyone will do whatever he will want to. That guy was a beginner for without a doubt, and I am almost sure that he was using his drone for the first or second time. For beginners like him, he should study them more before starting to use, reading different articles like mydronehq.com and stuff like this, to know what is he doing with drone.

#### Rhino

##### Well-Known Member
If they were within 5 miles of Tamiami at that time, they were in Class D airspace. It is a controlled airfield.

It really isn't that difficult , to find the people who blatantly do this
sort of thing ; the frequencies used are easy to scan , and with some
rather cheap equipment , a triangulation can be made.
Have you ever tried it? The theory is simple. It's a lot more difficult in real use, especially in densely populated areas. Discrimination is also a nightmare scenario when you realize they operate in the same frequency band as wi-fi networks and other consumer technologies do. It isn't impossible by any means, but it's not simple and cheap either. The military is devoting big bucks to R&D on this very thing to mitigate or prevent hostile action with drones by enemy nations or terrorists. They've discovered how difficult it can be.

#### Bille Floyd

##### Well-Known Member
...

Have you ever tried it? The theory is simple. It's a lot more difficult in real use, especially in densely populated areas.
...
That is, "exactly" what i did , when i worked for NSA ; so to answer
your question , (that would be a definite Yes).
Google search : Army ASA .

We have a list of all the most common frequencies , used for FPV ; we
also know how the carrier wave is modulated. That is a two-way
communication , between the drone, and the pilot ; so once the pilot
base station is located , you would jam the signal, and the return to
home feature on the drone would activate. Now you have the pilot and
the drone , in one spot ; some rather compelling evidence , to convict
the pilot.

My friend , "Sparkey" , (fighter pilot) did much the same, with Sam
missiles, in Vietnam ; for him, the consequences for failure , were a
bit more extreme. He was a True , Bad-A$$; with 100% mission success !!!!! Bille Last edited: #### Pilot-34 ##### Well-Known Member OK I’m not completely familiar with all the drone and helicopter rules but I do recognize a liar when I see one. It’s pretty obvious that the new station went for spectacular at the cost of truth. First question for the helicopter pilots up there, is hitting a drone at 140 mile an hour any different than hitting a goose? And does a helicopter have a responsibility to see and avoid? Can A helicopter legally operate at 140 mile an hour 800 feet off the ground in congested areas? For the drone guys out there, are there any circumstances were a drone give me an operated above 400 feet? Is the rule a drone can’t be operated within 5 miles of an airport or is it it just can’t be in certain air spaces? personally it sounds to me like the drone was there first and the helicopter Crew wasn’t paying enough attention to avoid it #### Rhino ##### Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter That is, "exactly" what i did , when i worked for NSA ; so to answer your question , (that would be a definite Yes). Google search : Army ASA .... I flew on RC-135s for 15 years and we did it too. We also worked with NSA, along with a few other alphabetical agencies. The equipment we used was far, far beyond what a local police department could afford. I can't tell you how it worked, cause then I'd have to kill you, but you probably know what I'm talking about. Google: Rivet Joint, Combat Sent and Cobra Ball. I've also done some modern day 'fox hunts' for rogue transmitters. They don't use fancy modulation and they're very easy to discriminate, but it's still difficult and time consuming to find them. We have a list of all the most common frequencies , used for FPV... Yes, I know. They're the same frequencies used by home wi-fi networks. ...we also know how the carrier wave is modulated... Yes, we do. They use the same spread spectrum, frequency division multiplexing, and adaptive modulation that 802.11 wi-fi signals do in most houses and businesses in America, some that are amplitude modulated and others that are frequency modulated. They do in fact use wi-fi. Some of the simpler drones operate in other bands that are also populated by different consumer equipment, but those are usually the ones without a video feed, the so-called 'toy' drones. ...That is a two-way communication , between the drone, and the pilot... ; so once the pilot base station is located... Oops. Back up. You missed the part where you explain how you discriminated and isolated that one specific drone signal (because there could be other drones around too) from those hundreds or thousands of other wi-fi signals so you could geolocate just that single source. And then toss in how you did all that with inexpensive, off the shelf hardware that local police departments could afford to buy, and easily use. ...you would jam the signal... Yeah, I want to see the public official who's going to jam every wi-fi network in town, and see how long they remain in office. and the return to home feature on the drone would activate. Now you have the pilot and the drone , in one spot ; some rather compelling evidence , to convict the pilot. Would be great if that were true. The drone battery would die long before you could locate the pilot, much less do anything about it. My friend , "Sparkey" , (fighter pilot) did much the same, with Sam missiles, in Vietnam ; for him, the consequences for failure , were a bit more extreme. He was a True , Bad-A$$ ; with 100% mission
success !!!!!
Yes, it's called electronic warfare. I used to teach it at Keesler Air Force Base. The SA-2 Guideline SAM (surface to air missile) in Vietnam used a Fansong radar with a pretty distinctive tracking method and missile guidance signal. I used to teach how to identify and jam those, among other things. If Sparkey flew strikes against them, he was on Wild Weasel missions. Ask him how he liked his AN/APR-25 system. I taught that too, along with the follow on system.

I'm not in any way trying to pass myself off as the world's greatest expert on this stuff. I'm far from that, and I haven't worked with it in several years. But the principles don't change, and I do know enough about it to very comfortably tell you that what you're trying to describe is not simple, easy, quick, or cheap.

Last edited:

#### Pilot-34

##### Well-Known Member
Rhino I’m certainly not an expert either but if the last time you worked with the stuff was during Vietnam things may have changed a little.
The computers that filled entire floors of commercial buildings and cost millions in 69 are now available from Walmart for $69! even things from Just five years ago that were practically impossible are now one dollar apps on your phone. The technology and budgets of local police departments can be astounding. that said let me repeat I’m certainly not an expert on the subject just an old man that’s continually amazed at the price and capabilities of electronics and police departments. #### Rhino ##### Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter Rhino I’m certainly not an expert either but if the last time you worked with the stuff was during Vietnam things may have changed a little.... I'm continually amazed at what technology is doing too. Vietnam was my father's era, not mine. I was a cold warrior. I retired from the Air Force in 98, but I still had exposure to these programs off and on after retiring. Some was due to contracting jobs I had and some is 'trade association' materials I still receive to this day. Things have definitely changed, but I've been there for some of it. I continued working in computers and electronics after retiring from the military, so I personally witnessed many of these advancements, even participating in some of them. Keep in mind too that this is a wi-fi transmission, which is quite familiar to someone in my work. There are ways to discriminate discrete wi-fi signals, but explaining that would be a very long technical commentary, as would the detailed reasons local police departments aren't going to do it even if the technology exists, and it probably does. Precise geolocation isn't as simple or inexpensive as it sounds either. It's not unlike stuff you see about tracking cell phones. You can get the general location, but it's far from accurate. Historically geolocation of transmitters has been a matter of triangulation, but triangulation isn't all that accurate. It also means you need at least three intercept systems operating, or you move one system to take three different intercepts, all while praying your target never moves and keeps transmitting. Even then it's not all that precise, especially in an area where hundreds or thousands of similar, or even identical, systems are operating. Time domain calculations are a more modern method, though more expensive and complicated to operate. But even that is unlikely to give you a satisfactory location, even with multiple hits (remember it has to be precise and definitive enough to stand up in court). There's more that I can't go into, some based on more recent technological breakthroughs. But even breakthroughs often don't give the expected results. You may have heard about a recently developed technology that allowed the source of a gunshot to be located using the sound of the shot. It's a lot like locating transmitters, but based on sound rather than RF emissions. That system worked great in tests, but in real use it wasn't accurate enough to be effectively used. While advancements in technology often create wonderful new capabilities, they don't always give you the capability you think they will. I usually try to avoid talking very much about stuff like this, due to a fear that I'll accidentally mix my personal knowledge with what's available in the public domain and inadvertently violate security restrictions. It really isn't necessary though. You don't need to know the technology to realize that jamming wi-fi is not something police departments are going to be anxious to do, even if they could afford the equipment and the specialized people needed to effectively operate it. You also have personal experience with these difficulties, even though you probably don't realize it. You ever get much better reception on your car stereo just by creeping forward a foot or two? That's what happens to RF signals when they propagate, many times more in urban or suburban areas. Although wi-fi is a digital signal, it uses RF to propagate and it's subject to the same conditions and limitations. I could talk extensively about this stuff for pages and pages but it's not really a topic for this forum. Yes, it is possible a cheap and easy system was developed to geolocate and discriminate discrete wi-fi transmitters in an urban or suburban environment that local police departments have the money and technical capability to operate. However, it's extremely unlikely that has occurred. It's also very unlikely they would even use such a system if it didn't give them a reasonable assumption it would hold up in court. Even if they could pass those hurdles, how many local governments are going to get away with jamming wi-fi throughout their jurisdiction? Not just home networks but businesses and manufacturing as well, including government and military wi-fi systems (which is illegal by the way). How many would have the guts to try that? And should someone suggest, yes, there are discrete jamming systems as well. But the technology necessary to isolate and jam one single wi-fi system to the exclusion of all others is even less likely to exist or be employed by a local government that would need not only the HUGE amount of money to buy them, but would also require highly trained (expensive) personnel on the payroll to operate. This isn't something done in the civilian world, so advancements in civilian sector technology are much less likely to bleed over into these capabilities. I can't go further into that topic without violating my security restrictions. I think I've droned on enough about this (pun intended). We should get back on topic. My apologies to anyone who feels I've wasted their time on a non-aviation topic. Last edited: #### vhhjr ##### Well-Known Member HBA Supporter Speaking of drones. Here's the answer to the flight time limitation imposed by battery technology. 3.5 kw for 8 kg plus fuel burn of 1 kg/hr compared to batteries at 20 -25 kg for 3.5 kw hr. Batteries at$.5 -$1/wh and the generator at$1.1 wh one time cost plus < $.001 wh for fuel. Vince Homer #### Bille Floyd ##### Well-Known Member ... Yes, it's called electronic warfare. I used to teach it at Keesler Air Force Base. The SA-2 Guideline SAM (surface to air missile) in Vietnam used a Fansong radar with a pretty distinctive tracking method and missile guidance signal. I used to teach how to identify and jam those, among other things. If Sparkey flew strikes against them, he was on Wild Weasel missions. Ask him how he liked his AN/APR-25 system. I taught that too, along with the follow on system. ... Colonel Bill "Sparkey" Sparks, is now Dead ; and what a Great and awesome man, he was ! I have a book of short-stories that he wrote about his missions in Vietnam ; if you ever come to Las Vegas, i'll let you read it, (but no way will i let it out of my sight) as there are no other copies. I was trained at Ft Mead Md ; you know what that entails , and what organization runs that base!! I'm quite certain ; you know your stuff (.) Nothing more ,needs explaining . It would be some expensive equipment ; but you already know , how good, that origination , is at discriminating a foot-print , for RF waves. Right after 9/11 , they were given permission to do domestic spying, (something the CIA is not allowed); so wouldn't they be responsible for the mission, were talking about ? Bille Last edited: #### Bille Floyd ##### Well-Known Member ... For the drone guys out there, are there any circumstances were a drone give me an operated above 400 feet? Is the rule a drone can’t be operated within 5 miles of an airport or is it it just can’t be in certain air spaces? personally it sounds to me like the drone was there first and the helicopter Crew wasn’t paying enough attention to avoid it Bennett RC field, Las Vegas ; your allowed 1,000-ft AGL. You may be correct, about the paying enough attention part ; but drones are small, and difficult to see. Bille #### Rhino ##### Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter ...I was trained at Ft Mead Md ; you know what that entails , and what organization runs that base!!... Yep. Know it all too well. ...so wouldn't they be responsible for the mission, were talking about ?... If anyone has the technology, it would be them. Their domestic charter is pretty limited though, so I doubt their eagerness to chase rogue drones for television stations. EDIT: Ditto for their willingness to discuss it's capabilities in court against said drone operator. #### Bille Floyd ##### Well-Known Member Yep. Know it all too well. If anyone has the technology, it would be them. Their domestic charter is pretty limited though, so I doubt their eagerness to chase rogue drones for television stations. The level of respect i have for you sir ; it's way up over most humans !! I believe you Have the integrity to return , Sparkies book of short stories over Vietnam ; i'd be proud to send it to ya , if you want to read it ? Bille #### Rhino ##### Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter I'm not ashamed to admit such a responsibility scares me a little bit. It sounds very interesting though. Why don't you scan it into a document you can share? You won't have to worry about protecting the original again. Curiosity question. Do you ever wonder what happens to Sparkie's legacy when you're gone? I wonder that about my father's stuff. Nobody's really gonna care about it after my brother, sister and I after we're gone. It makes me feel like his life will be lost a second time. I'm trying to get the Air Force Flight Surgeon's museum to take some of it (he was a flight surgeon). Just pains me to think his memory will be lost forever except for his headstone and name on the memorial in DC. Oh yeah, and the building named after him at Keesler AFB, but that's getting old and won't be there forever. Sorry. Off topic. Just made me think. #### pwood66889 ##### Well-Known Member Thanks, Rhino, for your wisdom = Percy You where the Beech Museum is, right? Legasies should be shared, Billie. That's why they invented the old geezer anyway! I'd also be interested in Sparkies short stories. `Cause I'm still wondering what to do with my uncle's Form-5's. #### Pilot-34 ##### Well-Known Member Bennett RC field, Las Vegas ; your allowed 1,000-ft AGL. You may be correct, about the paying enough attention part ; but drones are small, and difficult to see. Bille So are birds ....... And I’ve encountered some of them at crazy altitudes. #### Pilot-34 ##### Well-Known Member Since I know they lied about some thing I’m inclined to think they may have lied about everything, I’m not a fan of drones , but that doesn’t make me believe in the honesty of news people either. #### Vigilant1 ##### Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter Since I know they lied about some thing I’m inclined to think they may have lied about everything, I’m not a fan of drones , but that doesn’t make me believe in the honesty of news people either. The helicopter crew reported a sighting of a drone at 800 AGL in Class D airspace. They reportedly have broadcast-quality video evidence of their encounter with this drone. They have filed a report with authorities who are conducting an investigation. If they filed a false report, they are subject to significant penalties. If they were breaking FAA regs in their flight ops, then by filing a report they will have opened themselves up for scrutiny and possible disciplinary action. So exactly why do you believe this is a fabrication? Last edited: #### Pilot-34 ##### Well-Known Member The report said that drones must stay 5 miles from airports. not to mention I’ve never seen a news crew be accurate about anything I was personally involved in. #### Vigilant1 ##### Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter The report said that drones must stay 5 miles from airports. The report says that. We don't know what the aircrew said. The FAA rules say this drone shouldn't have been at 800 AGL and shouldn't have been in controlled airspace. The humans in the helicopter who were actually there apparently say it broke both rules. I just don't see any grounds for doubting that firsthand report. As you note, news reports often get details wrong. Like you, when I've known what happened in a story from the inside, the news report is often inaccurate. That is different than saying they " may have lied about everything,." For one thing, lying about everything is usually too much work for the press. Irresponsible operation of drones is a big problem, and the folks with the most to lose are responsible drone fliers, RC modelers, and aircrew. Nobody should be making excuses for these idiots. This story is about a guy who hit an LAPD chopper with his drone. He could have been sentenced to a year in jail, instead he got a fine of$500. Insufficient to deter others, IMO.

It is nonsensical to write this off by equating it to the risk of a bird strike. We have laws to, among other things, regulate human behavior to reduce risk. Lions kill people and people kill people. We need laws against murder even if it doesn't deter lions. 'An errant drone is no worse than an errant bird" misses the point entirely. And, FWIW, in the LAPD chopper incident the falling drone broke out the back window of a car. I guess a falling robin could break out a car window--if the bird was frozen.

Last edited: