Drone Competitors Take to the Skies as Part of Unmanned Challenge Hosted by Embry-Riddle at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh

20150723_Oshkosh_Day2-4034

EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2015 attendees gained hands-on experience at the controls of unmanned flying machines as part of the Small Unmanned Aerospace System (sUAS) Challenge during this year’s fly-in at the 63rd annual Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) convention held July 20-26 in Oshkosh, Wis.

The sUAS Challenge, which featured an obstacle course for the unmanned flying vehicles commonly referred to as drones, was sponsored by EAA and Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University’s aviation mobile interactive exhibit, the Embry-Riddle Experience.

“Not only were the challenges educational for the participants, they served as informative demonstrations for the thousands of fans there at Oshkosh of unmanned capabilities and technology,” said Embry-Riddle Worldwide Assistant Professor David Thirtyacre, who oversees the unmanned demonstrations and challenges for the Embry-Riddle Experience. “Our students get this hands-on experience every day, so it’s really exciting to bring that and what we do best to those who share our passion about aviation and the future of unmanned.”

The competition pitted more than 80 competitors ages 12 to 62 against each other daily with qualifying and elimination rounds resulting in four final competitors racing head-to-head each day. In addition to the daily competitions, more than 200 spectators gathered at the drone cage for “The Manufacturers Cage Match,” featuring professional pilots from UAS manufacturers and hobby stores. Embry-Riddle Daytona Beach, Fla., campus student Kendall Clutts finished first.

“As with traditional manned flight training, Embry-Riddle is positioning itself to provide the highest quality of sUAS flight training available once the FAA certification criteria are established. Our sUAS challenges are another example of our commitment to excellence in flight,” said Embry-Riddle Worldwide Dean of Aeronautics Dr. Ken Witcher. “We are committed to supporting the growing UAS industry through educational programs related to the design, operation, and application of this remarkable technology.”

The Dromida Ominus and Blade 180QX HD systems used in the competitions were supplied by Hobbico and Horizon Hobby LCC. Etched Memories provided the trophies.

Winners:

Monday, July 20 – Nicholas Crofoot of St. Johns, Mich.

Tuesday, July 21 – Bjorn Vasenden of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Prescott, Ariz., campus

Wednesday, July 22 – Daniel Wilewski of Poplar Grove, Ill.

Thursday, July 23 – Kyle Rickert of Antioch, Ill.

Friday, July 24 – Robin Mox of St Johns, Mich.

Saturday, July 25 – Kendall Clutts of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, Fla., campus (NOTE: Clutts broke the course record with a 19.44-second qualifying run and swept the final round with three back-to-back victories).

About the Embry-Riddle Experience
The 53-foot trailer known as the Embry-Riddle Experience includes unmanned aircraft demonstrations, aviation and unmanned simulators, a virtual crash lab and degree information that demonstrates how Embry-Riddle students, staff and faculty are leading the way into the future of aerospace and aviation. Simulators in the Embry-Riddle Experience provide a variety of fixed-wing, rotary and multirotor aircraft models in realistic operational settings such as airfield and steep soaring slope locales in the bayou, desert and mountains. Another unique feature of the Embry-Riddle Experience is the Virtual Crash Lab (VLAB), which was developed in conjunction with the university’s Aircraft Accident Investigation curriculum and is designed to allow participants to interactively inspect a crashed commercial aircraft. Operators can move and survey the crash site, inspect the fuselage and debris and take photos with the use of Oculus Goggles. The Embry-Riddle Experience travels throughout the country to aviation and engineering shows as well as schools and special events. For more information on the Embry-Riddle Experience, go toerau.edu/follow.

About Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, the world’s largest, fully accredited university specializing in aviation and aerospace, is a nonprofit, independent institution offering more than 75 baccalaureate, master’s and Ph.D. degree programs in its colleges of Arts & Sciences, Aviation, Business, Engineering and Security & Intelligence. Embry-Riddle educates students at residential campuses in Daytona Beach, Fla., and Prescott, Ariz., through the Worldwide Campus with more than 125 locations in the United States, Europe, Asia and the Middle East, and through online programs. The university is a major research center, seeking solutions to real-world problems in partnership with the aerospace industry, other universities and government agencies. For more information, visit www.embryriddle.edu, follow us on Twitter (@EmbryRiddle) and facebook.com/EmbryRiddleUniversity, and find expert videos at YouTube.com/EmbryRiddleUniv.

 

Amazon and Google aren’t the only ones with a delivery drone

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2953977/robotics/amazon-and-google-arent-the-only-ones-with-a-delivery-drone.html

 

horsefly

By 

In the race to develop a drone that delivers packages, don’t count out Workhorse, a truck maker based in Loveland, Ohio.

Workhorse isn’t as high profile as Amazon or Google, but on Tuesday it demonstrated an eight-rotor delivery drone designed to work with its electric trucks and use some of the same battery technology.

“Our concept is, you have a package-delivery drone that rides on top of a truck as the driver goes about his day, and helps to pick off outliers on his route to help cut down on the cost of delivery per package,” said Elliot Bokeno, a mechanical engineer with Workhorse, who demonstrated the drone at a conference at NASA’s Ames Research Center in Silicon Valley.

If a driver had four deliveries in one part of town but only one in another, the drone might be able to handle that single, less convenient delivery.

The technology combines autonomous and manual control.

GPS is used to determine the delivery location, and the drone flies there without any human input, Bokeno said. But when it gets to the address, a downward-pointing camera switches on and an operator at a remote center takes over.

The operator guides the drone down, making sure to avoid people and obstacles, and releases the package. The drone then resumes autonomous flight and makes its way back to the truck.

In tests, the drone has flown as fast at 55 mph and has a maximum flight time of 30 minutes. The company is working with Panasonic, which provides batteries for Workhorse’s electric vehicles, on more advanced battery technology that will increase flight times to 45 minutes.

Bokeno said his company has already talked to several package delivery companies about using its technology.

“It seems that Amazon, with their drones, has kick-started a revolution and some of the more traditional companies are scrambling to keep up,” he said.

There are other potential uses for the technology.

“With a 10 pound payload, you have a lot of scientific interest for carrying instruments to remote locations,” he said.

For now, tests of the technology over relatively short distances continue. Workhorse is collaborating with the University of Cincinnati and hopes to begin multi-mile delivery tests soon.

Texas Body Farm Researchers Use Corpses to Solve Crimes

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/25/texas-body-farm-research-uses-corpses-solve-crimes/

 

texasbody

SAN MARCOS — A drone flew over the sprawling hills of Freeman Ranch about two years ago, capturing a monochromatic photograph. The gray landscape was grass and dirt and the white spots denoted excessive vegetation. The black flecks were decomposing corpses.

It was exactly the picture that Daniel Wescott, a forensic anthropologist, and Gene Robinson, the owner of a search and rescue organization, were looking for to prove their suspicions that a plane equipped with the right technology could locate the dead.

“We just had one of those eureka moments,” said Robinson, who is based in Wimberley. “We can put these two things together and suddenly we have a forensic tool.”

The ranch is home to about 50 human corpses donated to the Forensic Anthropology Center at Texas State University, which uses them to conduct research that can help medical examiners identify bodies, rescuers find missing persons and law enforcement solve crimes.

Dead bodies are peppered across Texas State’s gated 26 acres on Freeman Ranch. Some are completely decayed down to bones loosely covered by tan, leathery skin, while more recent arrivals resemble the living except for the swollen flesh and colonies of flies laying eggs in facial orifices.

Wescott is the director of the center, known informally as a “body farm.” He helps design many of the research projects in the hopes that by controlling the conditions the body decomposes in — and knowing the biological facts of the person who died — the studies can offer insight on murders or unexplained deaths when much less information is available.

The drone flights are part of an ongoing study using near infrared imaging to detect corpses above and below the ground that are often not visible to the naked eye. The technology can also spot locations where a corpse was previously buried for up to two years after it has been removed.

“The search for clandestine bodies is a very time-consuming ordeal,” Wescott said. “Even then, a lot of times you can walk right by them and not realize that they’re there.”

Near infrared imaging picks up reflectance; as a corpse decays it releases carbon and nitrogen into the soil, decreasing the amount of light the soil reflects. At first, the influx of chemicals kills plants, but as it disperses into the area around the body it turns into a fertilizer causing extra vegetation, which reflects a lot of light.

The two extremes show up as black and white on the mostly gray near infrared imaging, giving anyone looking for a body, Robinson said, double the chances of finding of it.

The Texas State labs, which opened in 2008, are constantly churning out research. The placement and conditions of the bodies are purposeful; many are protected by metal-pole cages, but those that aren’t resemble a collection of scattered bones, pillaged by vultures and raccoons. Corpses are above and below ground as well as in both the sun and shade to compare the decay of each. Some bodies are wrapped tightly in tarp, part of a new study that will look at the rate of decay for a common modus operandi of disposal for murders.

The center grabbed national attention recently when it collected the remains of 80 undocumented immigrants who died after crossing the border. Found in a mass grave in Brooks County, the bodies were buried haphazardly, some covered only by trash bags and shopping bags.

Kate Spradley, a researcher and associate professor of anthropology at Texas State, leads a team working to identify the immigrants and send their remains home. The work is slow, and so far the team has confirmed three identities.

NZ:- New drone rules ‘criminalise a hobby’

http://www.suasnews.com/2015/07/37456/nz-new-drone-rules-criminalise-a-hobby/

bruceinthewoods

BRUCE SIMPSON

As a young boy in the 1960s I spent many hours down at the local park or schoolyard, flying my carefully hand-built model aircraft.

It was such a buzz to see them take to the air – even if they usually did crash just moments later.

Over the 50 years or so since those halcyon days of my childhood, I have continued to enjoy a hobby that exercises the body and the mind. Far better to be outdoors enjoying the sunshine and summer breezes than spending hours in front of the dim glow of a computer screen – as so many of today’s kids are given to doing.

In my entire 55 years of flying model aircraft, I have never once injured anyone nor damaged anyone else’s property – and that’s despite being a very active participant of the hobby. Most of the time I was flying the only rule was ‘use common sense’ – and obviously this has worked pretty well for me and the thousands of other Kiwis that have enjoyed this innocent pastime. I have searched high and low but can not find any records of anyone dying or harming another in New Zealand as a result of this hobby and it seems that the only injuries sustained seem to be related to the operator’s own body and small propellers – sometimes painful but not fatal.

So it was with great sadness, that I read through the CAA’s new regulations for the operation of radio controlled flying models and drones – now collectively called “remotely-piloted aircraft”. How tragic it is that in one fell swoop of the regulator’s pen, those who fly these craft for pleasure and relaxation are now treated like criminals and have effectively been stripped of the rights they’ve enjoyed for so long – despite the fact that this hobby has an outstanding safety record?

No longer can a father and his young boy just walk down to the local schoolyard or park to fly the cheap toy model purchased online from China or carefully hand-crafted over a long series of winter evenings. Although these craft may weigh just a few tens of grams, the new regulations consider them to be every bit as menacing, risky and dangerous as the much larger professional drones used by commercial operators.

If you or your children fly their tiny toys anywhere, without first obtaining the permission of the property owner over which they will briefly soar, then a $5000 fine is in the offing.

What’s more, even if the local council sets aside a small park or reserve in which you have permission to fly, you must also seek the permission of anyone else who is using that area or who enters that area – lest you face another possible $5000 fine.

This leaves me asking – what has gone wrong with this country?

Why are we treating children and responsible adults like enemies of the state, threatening them with huge fines for doing nothing more than that which they’ve been doing for decades, in complete safety and in harmony with the world around them.

The ironies are abundant and quite worrying.

I can walk across any piece of land in New Zealand without fear of being fined or imprisoned – at worst I’ll be asked to leave and possibly trespassed. If I have a full-sized aircraft, I can fly it across almost any piece of land in New Zealand with impunity. However, if my child flies his 20-gram toy over the same land without gaining the expressed prior permission of the landowner, he has committed an offence under CAA’s new regulations; an offence of such magnitude that it warrants a $5,000 fine. How does that work exactly?

CAA tell us that these new regulations are risk-based and that the more risky the operation, the tougher the regulations and penalties. So please explain to me how it is somehow less risky for a commercial operator to fly his very large, very heavy, potentially lethal drone over my head without my permission – than it is for my child to do the same with his feather-weight 20 gramme toy? (pictured)

It would appear that CAA’s definition of risk is significantly different from my own, or that of anyone else I have spoken with.

Clearly CAA failed to consult with credible independent experts before conjuring up these new regulations. For example – they stand to have a decidedly negative impact on our tourism industry.

In most countries around the world, it is legal to fly recreational drones in public places – so long as you adhere to a few commonsense rules. Sadly for us, it is now illegal for anyone to fly a drone in a public place without prior consent. In the case of most of NZ’s landscape, obtaining that consent will likely be nigh on impossible for someone who’s only in the country for a few weeks. Already I have heard from a number of regular tourists to New Zealand who have said they will be striking this country from their list of preferred destinations.

Why is this?

Well these are the early-adopters who love NZ’s adventure-tourism attractions. These are the people who have already replaced their 35mm camera and camcorders with a flying camera in the form of a drone. They aren’t satisfied with 8×5 glossy snapshots of their holiday, they want high definition video of all the places they visit – taken from an aerial vantage point. They want to use their drone to get incredible external footage of them whizzing down our ski slopes.

Whilst such things are totally legal in most other countries – try it in New Zealand after August 1st and you could cop one of those $5,000 fines for your troubles.

CAA’s new regulations have clearly made NZ a much less desirable destination for the young, affluent tourist who has money to burn and a yearning for the latest gadgets. What’s more, as drone-based cameras become more commonplace, a greater percentage of our tourist market will opt for more “drone-friendly” countries than NZ.

Does our tourism industry even realise what they’re about to lose? Were they even consulted? I strongly suspect the answer to both questions is a resounding “no”.

So congratulations CAA – you have criminalised a hobby and are twisting a knife in the belly of our adventure tourism industry through your poorly conceived regulations.

Of course if you want to sidestep many of these restrictions, you can simply pay CAA a large fistful of dollars and then have the right to fly pretty much anywhere you want – regardless of the concerns of those below your craft. Yes, somehow, the payment of money is a sure-fire way to reduce risk – or so it would seem.

All I can deduce from this is that we have yet another case where the rights of New Zealanders are being erased and replaced by “privileges” that must be purchased from the appropriate government agency.

August 1st, 2015. A sad day for children and a sad day for the freedoms and rights of Kiwis.

Drones: a force for good when flying in the face of disaster

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/jul/28/drones-flying-in-the-face-of-disaster-humanitarian-response

 

Unmanned aircraft can be put to effective use in humanitarian situations, but a code of conduct is needed to make sure they are used safely and efficiently
A drone delivers supplies and medicine to thousands of people seeking dental and medical care at a clinic in the Wise county fairgrounds in Wise, Virginia. The flight was undertaken in part to study how the technology could be used in humanitarian crises around the world.
A drone delivers supplies and medicine to thousands of people seeking dental and medical care at a clinic in the Wise county fairgrounds in Wise, Virginia. The flight was undertaken in part to study how the technology could be used in humanitarian crises around the world. Photograph: Pete Marovich/Getty Images
Guardian Global development is supported by:
About this content

Jennifer Hlad in Washington

Tuesday 28 July 2015 08.42 EDT

 

After typhoon Haiyan wreaked havoc on the Philippines in 2013, killing more than 6,300 people and destroying farms and villages, several relief groups flew drones over the affected areas to survey the damage, identify blocked roads and find displaced people.

But the drone operators didn’t share the information they gathered with local authorities or other relief organisations, says Patrick Meier, who was in Manila doing humanitarian work with the UN at the time. Many of the drone teams didn’t even know about one another, making their work inefficient and even dangerous.

These problems highlight the need for a code of conduct and best practice for drone use in humanitarian situations, says Meier, who founded the Humanitarian UAV Network to move toward that goal. Meier was one of the speakers at a recent symposium on drones in Washington, which discussed many uses of unmanned aircraft in humanitarian situations but highlighted the need for regulation. Meier says the Humanitarian UAV Network plans to launch a set of guidelines next month that will make sure drone use in humanitarian settings is safe, coordinated and effective.
Nepal’s farmers struggle to overcome terrible legacy of earthquakes
Read more

Though unmanned aircraft are best known for their military uses, smaller drones are becoming popular with photographers and others with a few hundred pounds to spend and a desire for aerial images. In June, police in London seized a drone flying over Wimbledon, two days before the tennis tournament was set to begin. In July, efforts to drop water and retardant on rapidly spreading fires in southern California were stymied by drones hovering over the flames, because of the risk to firefighting aircraft. Also in July, a teenager in Connecticut posted a video of a homemade drone firing a gun in the woods.

But there are many ways drones can be used for good, says Peter Rabley, property rights director for the Omidyar Network, a philanthropic investment firm. Drones can democratise data collection and “help make the world a better, safer place”, he says.

Unmanned aircraft have been used to track Indonesia’s progress rebuilding after the 2004 tsunami, to monitor sporting events in the Netherlands so that injured athletes can get medical attention more quickly, to track weather in Peru, and to rebuild communication networks in Ireland after floods, according to Abi Weaver, director of international services for the American Red Cross. In South America, drones are helping to preserve archaeological sites, simplify the land titling process, and document environmental violations.
Advertisement

Drones also can be used in disaster preparedness: identifying risk areas before a disaster strikes, Weaver says. However, it is critical that residents in any area where drones are being flown are informed and consulted about how and where they will be used.

Secure property rights are the bedrock of property development, but many communities lack the information and documentation required for those rights, according to Janina Mera, a researcher with Land Alliance. Involving local authorities and community members in these efforts is critical to their success, she says.

The information and highly accurate photos provided by drones helped to reduce the normally cumbersome titling process in Peru to 10 days or less – allowing property owners to protect and develop their land more quickly.

Gregor MacLennan, programme director for Digital Democracy, says he found people were more engaged when they helped build the drone and flew it themselves. In Peru and Guyana, MacLennan’s organisation has used drones to document how oil pipelines and mines are causing environmental damage, and to take photos of villages to evaluate land use.

Work that took days or weeks in the past can now be done in just 30 minutes with a drone, according to Nina Tushev, a drone enthusiast who has flown drones over oil pipelines in Peru to help indigenous people monitor damage to the rainforest.

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN is operating five drones as part of their overall peacekeeping efforts.
Advertisement

The drones fly for about five hours each time they go up, but can only be flown within line of sight of the operator, says Konstantin Kakaes, a fellow at New America, a thinktank in Washington. But some problems with the drones have impeded their peacekeeping mission. They aren’t all-weather capable, and while they can detect people below the forest canopy, they can’t determine who those people are or what they’re doing. Even when the drones do get good reports, there aren’t enough people to interpret all the photos, Kakaes says.

No matter the intended use, unmanned aircraft raise many questions about ethics, safety and privacy rights – and regulation lags behind technology, Rabley says. “This is where smart, informed public policy is especially critical. We look forward to engaging with the global community in a measured, even-handed conversation about how we parse the legitimate ethical and legal considerations that drones have uncovered.”

Why GoPro Decided To Build a Drone

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2015/06/12/why-gopro-decided-to-build-a-drone/

 

By Ryan Mac and Frank Bi

GoPro CEO Nicholas Woodman, a 39-year-old billionaire with a flair for the dramatic, usually has a way of pumping up crowds. Last month though, as he was set to make one of the most significant announcements in his company’s 13-year history, he fell a little flat.

“Do you guys all want GoPro to make a quadcopter?” Woodman asked onlookers at the Code Conference in Ranchos Palos Verdes, Calif. He was met with tepid cheers and two claps.

“Oh come on, do you guys all want GoPro to make a quadcopter?” he repeated, raising his voice and eliciting a slightly louder response. “Okay, GoPro is making a quadcopter. It’s official.”

Perhaps one of the worst kept secrets in Silicon Valley, Woodman’s announcement in front of investors and technology executives finally confirmed a new direction for GoPro, which, in the year since its initial public offering, has attempted to portray itself as more than just a camera company. While there’s been talks of GoPro’s forays into media and content, a quadcopter–or more generally, an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)–emphasizes that the company can embrace new ideas and products.

“They invented the action camera category and there’s not many more features that they can offer [on the cameras],” said Michael Pachter, an analyst with Wedbush Securities. “GoPro wants to show that it’s innovating.”

With consumer drones, however, GoPro may be innovating as well as playing catch up. The company is behind drone manufacturers like 3D Robotics and Shenzhen, China-based DJI, which sold its first mass market drone in 2013 and is on course to do $1 billion in sales this year. By far the market leader, DJI raised $75 million last month at an $8 billion valuation, larger than GoPro’s current $7.5 billion market capitalization.

While GoPro’s shares are trading at nearly double its IPO price of $24, its stock is down from the dizzying heights of last fall when holiday sales expectations buoyed investor confidence. With its drone, GoPro is hoping to reignite interest in its stock, a move which has worked to some extent with shares jumping 6.5% on the day of Woodman’s announcement.

GoPro’s CEO declined to comment for this article through a spokesperson, but those close to the company said that Woodman has been considering the development of his own drone since mid-2013. For most in the industry, it’s a logical move.

“Consumer and commercial drones are regularly used at sporting events like skiing, snowboarding and surfing–the same places where GoPro rules,” said Bilal Zuberi a partner at Lux Capital. “So it makes sense that GoPro does not want to leave that field open for DJI and others, and hurt its standing as the dominant brand among sports enthusiasts.”

3D Robotics CEO Chris Anderson, whose company has made GoPro its official camera for its new consumer drone, Solo, noted that there is a “natural synergy” between drone enthusiasts and GoPro users.

“What GoPro allows is for people to shoot their lives in cinematic styles, and that’s exactly what drones can offer,” he said.

GoPro’s eventual move into the drone market may put it at odds with current partners like 3D Robotics, who is the first outside company ever to use GoPro’s branding on the packaging on their products. Up until now, drone manufacturers and GoPro have been largely symbiotic, with Anderson roughly estimating that as many as 10% of GoPros purchased today are being attached to UAVs.

Though GoPro could go from a collaborator to a competitor, the 3D Robotics chief said it’s not a move that was entirely unexpected as GoPro had poached his former product management director Pablo Lema last June to head up its drone program. Anderson also said that the drone industry “is not a zero-sum game” and that the entry of quality manufacturers to the market will only grow awareness and interest in the space.
Former DJI North America head Colin Guinn tried to broker deals between DJI and GoPro that never materialized. (Photo: Matthew Mahon for Forbes)

Former DJI North America head Colin Guinn tried to broker deals between DJI and GoPro that never materialized. (Photo: Matthew Mahon for Forbes)

That sentiment is likely not shared by DJI, whose signature consumer UAV line, the Phantom, proved to be an early inspiration for Woodman’s desire to build a drone, said sources. By the middle of 2013, DJI and GoPro were said to be negotiating a variety of deals brokered by then DJI North America head Colin Guinn. Originally, the plan was to develop a drone together, with GoPro providing the branding and sales channels, while DJI offered engineering expertise and manufacturing capabilities.

“Initially [GoPro and DJI] wanted to make a product together for GoPro to sell, but the negotiation never came to fruition,” DJI CEO Frank Wang told FORBES in a recent interview. They treated us like the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). The deal came out to roughly this: GoPro would make two points of profit, and I’d make one point.”

“They dealt with us like how they dealt with Taiwanese OEMs, so we never had a successful official partnership,” he added.

Sources said that conversations between the two companies would attempt to develop different relationships, with discussions of DJI using GoPro’s established retail channels to distribute its drones. Due to disagreements, however, nothing was ever signed, and DJI lost most of its connection to the American camera maker following the departure of Guinn, who ended up suing his former employer over an ownership dispute in 2014, before moving to 3D Robotics.

These days, even though GoPros are still heavily used on DJI products, CEO Wang has attempted to wean his customers off the American brand. DJI is developing its own cameras, which Wang claims are better than GoPro’s offerings.

“From the beginning to now, we never wanted to be in the shadow of someone else,” he said.

GoPro risks being overshadowed by the likes of DJI and 3D Robotics if it doesn’t move quickly with its drone. Growth in GoPro’s sales, which increased 42% to $1.39 billion in 2014, has slowed after doubling or tripling annually up until 2013. Contrast that with the fast-paced consumer drone market where DJI is expected to double sales this year after closing 2014 with about $500 million in revenue.

Yet before it sells a single drone, GoPro has plenty to do beyond making an announcement. UAVs are far more complex than any camera and require not only hardware, but also proprietary software. Both DJI and 3D Robotics began by developing software autopilots before attempting to build full consumer products.

Sources close to GoPro said there have been at least three different designs for a four-propeller drone and it’s unclear if a decision has been made as to the exact specifications for the device. GoPro declined to give a timeline of when its drone would be ready to ship to consumers. It took seven years from DJI’s founding for Wang to develop and ship the company’s first Phantom. Six years on from its founding, 3D Robotics is just releasing Solo to the market.

“Drones are hard,” said Anderson. “They’re unlike a camera where you can buy sensors on the streets of Shenzhen and put something together. It’s really, really hard to do well and you can’t just buy the parts.”

With reporting Heng Shao in Hong Kong.

 

Military Exercise “Black Dart” to tackle drones

http://nypost.com/2015/07/25/military-operation-black-dart-to-tackle-nightmare-drone-scenario/

 

Sweat the small stuff.

That’s the unofficial motto for this year’s edition of the military exercise Black Dart, a two-week test of tactics and technologies to combat hostile drones that begins Monday on the Point Mugu range at Naval Base Ventura County in California.

The military categorizes Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) by size and capability, from Group 5 drones that weigh more than 1,320 pounds and can fly above 18,000 feet like the Reaper, down to Group 1, mini- and micro-drones less than 20 pounds that fly lower than 1,200 feet. Previous Black Darts have covered threats to troops overseas and targets at home posed by drones of all sizes.

But small drones are this year’s focus, said the director of this 14th edition of Black Dart, Air Force Maj. Scott Gregg, because of worrisome incidents since the last exercise.

Gregg cited the quadcopter that a drunk crashed onto the White House lawn in the wee hours of Jan. 26 and sightings of unidentified small drones flying over nuclear reactors in France. In the wake of those events, he said, “Even though we’ve been looking at [the small drone threat], it’s taken on a new sense of urgency.”

Gregg also could have mentioned how, to protest government surveillance, the Pirate Party of Germany flew a small drone right up to the podium as Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke in Dresden two years ago. Or how in Japan last April, a nuclear-energy foe landed a drone carrying radioactive sand on the roof of the prime minister’s residence. And there was a report last week that British officials are worried ISIS may try to bomb festival crowds using small drones.

Target practice

The United States enjoyed a near-monopoly on armed drones for much of the past 15 years, but with more than 80 countries now buying or building drones of their own, and with terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and ISIS known to have used unarmed drones in the Middle East, that advantage has evaporated.

Few countries and no terrorist groups are likely to emulate the complex and costly US system of undersea fiber-optic cables and satellite earth terminals in Europe that allows crews in the United States to fly drones carrying missiles and bombs over Africa, the Middle East and South Asia.

But anyone can buy a Group 1 drone for a couple of hundred dollars and put it to nefarious use. Arm it with plastic explosives, radioactive material, biological or chemical agents, and it can be crashed, kamikaze-style, into a target.

“I’d say for the Department of Homeland Security, it’s one of the biggest concerns,” Gregg said.

The threat isn’t imaginary. Former Northeastern University student Rezwan Ferdaus is now serving 17 years in prison for plotting to pack C-4 plastic explosives into 1/10 scale radio controlled models of F-4 and F-86 fighter jets and fly them into the Capitol and Pentagon. Ferdaus also supplied cellphone detonators for IEDs to people he thought were agents of al Qaeda but turned out to be working for the FBI.

The military has largely kept its work on the problem quiet to prevent hostile actors from learning what defenses and countermeasures the US possesses.

The Defense Intelligence Agency conducted the first Black Dart exercise in 2002 under a veil of secrecy, and the annual event stayed veiled through 2013.

Now run by the Joint Integrated Air and Missile Defense Organization (abbreviated JIAMDO and pronounced “jye-AM-doe), Black Dart’s existence was revealed in 2014, and select media were invited for a day last year “just to let everybody know that the Department of Defense is aware of this problem, we’re concerned about it and that we’re working on it,” Gregg said.

Black Dart 2015 will feature tests of 55 systems brought to Point Mugu at their own expense by an assortment of military units, government agencies, private contractors and academic institutions.

JIAMDO’s $4.2 million budget for the event covers the cost of running the Point Mugu range and providing a small fleet of “surrogate threat” drones. For five hours each day, Gregg’s Black Dart team will fly up to six drones at a time over the range while participants test radars, lasers, missiles, guns and other technologies they think the military might use to detect and kill or neutralize drones of all sizes.

What’s worked

This year the surrogate threats will include three Group 1 drones — a Hawkeye 400 hexacopter, a Flanker and a Scout II — and one Twin Hawk drone from the Group 2 category (21 to 55 lbs., slower than 250 knots, lower than 3,500 feet). Six Group 3 drones, all of them 13.5-foot wingspan Outlaw G2s made by Griffon Aerospace, also will be targets.

One nice feature for contractors: Failure is an option. Black Dart isn’t an official procurement milestone, so companies can test their technologies there knowing that if they don’t work as hoped, there’s no obligation to file a report that might lead the Pentagon or Congress to cut their funding or cancel their program. They can just use the test results the way test results were meant to be used — to find out what works and fix what doesn’t.

“We should have about 1,000 people at Black Dart this year between participants, observers and support,” Gregg said, noting that the departments of Energy and Homeland Security both will send observers. But while Black Dart is no longer secret, the public isn’t invited. “It’s absolutely not an air show,” Gregg said.

Even the media won’t be allowed to see or hear about everything that goes on at Black Dart 2015. Much of what previous exercises came up with in the way of countermeasures also remains classified, said Marine Lt. Col. Kristen Lasica, spokeswoman for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “We can’t let the enemy know what we’re going to do,” she explained.

That said, some of Black Dart’s declassified successes over the years include:

    • A Navy MH-60R Seahawk helicopter shot down an Outlaw surrogate threat drone with a .50-caliber gun, proving old-fashioned solutions can work fine against new-fangled threats.
    • The USS Ponce, an Afloat Forward Staging Base deployed to the Middle East, today is armed with a 30-kilowatt Laser Weapon System (LaWS) that shot down an Outlaw in a test at Black Dart 2011. The futuristic weapon is also good against slow-moving helicopters and fast-moving patrol boats.

  • At Black Dart 2012, an AH-64 Apache attack helicopter killed an Outlaw with an AGM-114 Hellfire anti-tank missile. MQ-1 Predators and MQ-9 Reapers the Air Force flies for itself, and the CIA uses the same basic missile for drone strikes, but the Hellfire at Black Dart was modified with a proximity fuse to detonate in the air next to the target, demonstrating another way to defend against drones.
  • Test results at another Black Dart helped Syracuse research and development lab SRC Inc. write software tying together three devices to create a drone counter-measure “system of systems.” SRC connected their AN/TPQ-50 counter-fire radar, designed to detect and track the source of incoming artillery, mortar and rocket fire, to their AN/ULQ-35 CREW Duke electronic warfare system, which jams and locates remote-control devices. Then SRC tied those sensors to a Switchblade, a small, tube-launched drone with sensors that can carry an explosive charge the size of a hand grenade, made by AeroVironment Inc. The result is a weapon that can either jam, take control of, or shoot down a hostile drone.

The latter stands as “one of our greatest success stories from Black Dart,” Gregg said.

It also illustrates one of the major findings of Black Dart over the years: there is no “black dart” — no single weapon — to counter drones. The best defense clearly lies in cobbling together “systems of systems” as SRC did, to detect, identify, track and neutralize hostile drones.

Low, slow and small

Doing all that is a bear of a problem, especially when the challenge is to spot and stop a small drone. “We’ve gotten better at detecting some of the Group 3 size, the larger UAS that are flying today,” Gregg said, but the limitations of radar and other detection methods make it harder to even see what the Defense Department calls LSS — Low, Slow, Small.

“They’re the same size as birds and other obstacles that are out there,” Gregg said.

Florida mailman Doug Hughes starkly demonstrated the problem on April 15, when he flew a gyrocopter down the National Mall undetected — through perhaps the most restricted public airspace in the nation — and landed on the west lawn of the Capitol with letters to Congress demanding campaign-finance reform.

Hughes evaded “a vast network of radars, cameras and other detection and warning devices,” the commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, Adm. William Gortney, told a congressional hearing, because his man-sized gyrocopter “fell below the threshold necessary to differentiate aircraft from weather, terrain, birds and other slow flying objects.”

Group 1 drones are a lot smaller than a gyrocopter, and the difficulty doesn’t stop there. Because small drones “have a very limited range,” they would be launched close to their targets, Gregg said. “So because they’re launched at a very close-in range, even if we can detect and track them right away, there may not be a whole lot of time to make a decision on what to do.”

“We’re keeping at it, but I don’t think that we’re going to ever probably be able to just stop and say, ‘All right, we’ve got this licked.’ ”

 – Air Force Maj. Scott Gregg

Especially if an enemy were to launch a swarm of drones — a tactic the US Navy has been developing.

In addition to all that, even if defenders spot a small drone and can track it with enough time to try to knock it out of the sky — a shotgun might suffice in many cases — doing so in a city could risk harming innocent bystanders or damaging property. And what if that LSS UAS flying near the Capitol isn’t controlled by a terrorist but by a kid who just doesn’t know any better than to play with a drone on the Mall?

“It’s a challenge because technology’s not static, it keeps evolving,” Gregg said. “We’re keeping at it, but I don’t think that we’re going to ever probably be able to just stop and say, ‘All right, we’ve got this licked.’ ”

Lasica agreed the threat is a challenge but said progress has been made. Past Black Darts, she said, “have resulted in countless improvements, technologies, tactics, and systems which have refined our ability to operate, detect, track, negate, and neutralize UAS.” The drone threat may be increasing, she added, “But I can say with confidence that our countermeasures are also increasing at a rapid rate, and we’re going to remain vigilant.”

Richard Whittle is the author of “Predator: The Secret Origins of the Drone Revolution” (Henry Holt and Co.) out now.