The Drone-ining - FAA investigating swarms of rogue drones over Nebraska and Colorado

[rcmaehl]

Source:
NY Times

Phillips County Sherrif's Office
Morgan County Sherrif's Office
 

Summary:
The FAA is reportedly investigating swarms of drones over Colorado and Nebraska prairie. No one has claimed ownership over the nightly swarms.

 

Media (click to enlarge):

Summary:

Quote

In the night: Drones, lots of them, flying in precise formations over the Colorado and Nebraska prairie. “It’s creepy,” said Missy Blackman, who saw three drones hovering over her farm outside Palisade, Neb....including one that lingered right above her house. Since before Christmas, sheriff’s departments in the region have been bombarded with reports of large drones with blinking lights and wingspans of up to 6 feet. The drones have unnerved residents, prompted a federal investigation. “In terms of aircraft flying at night and not being identified, this is a first for me personally,” said Sheriff James Brueggeman. “People here don’t like their privacy to be invaded.” The flights have drawn attention just as the Federal Aviation Administration last week proposed sweeping new regulations that would require most drones to be identifiable. A spokesman for the F.A.A., said that the timing of the proposed rule was coincidental, but that the agency had opened an investigation of the sightings in Colorado and Nebraska. “Multiple F.A.A. divisions and government agencies are investigating these reports,” The drones have been the talk of rural Colorado and Nebraska...And as sightings increase....so too does the urgency of residents’ questions. “They’re high enough where you couldn’t shoot one anyway, but they’re low enough that they’re a nuisance,” “All the sudden, it’s just going to stop and we’re not going to have answers,” “And that’s very unsettling to a lot of people. It’s the fear of the unknown.” Operators of all but the smallest drones have been required to register with the federal government since 2015, but there is no straightforward, legal way for state and local officials to identify the owner of a particular drone or to track that drone’s location. “Like in many other areas of drone regulation, the statutory and regulatory framework is lagging the technology,” said Reggie Govan, a former chief counsel to the F.A.A. Limitations in drone detection have allowed rogue drone operators to approach the White House without raising alarms and, in another extreme case, to deploy homemade bombs in a Pennsylvania neighborhood. Though it was not clear that the drones flying over Colorado and Nebraska were violating the law, residents and local officials said they would welcome the proposed new F.A.A. rule that would make it easier to identify drones.The drone sightings started in northeast Colorado around mid-December and have only grown more widespread since then. Almost all the sightings have occurred between sunset and about 10 p.m., though Ms. Blackman said she had seen them out later one night in Nebraska and, for the first time on Wednesday, during daylight hours. She said she had looked at them through binoculars and did not see any markings, just plain silver and white coloring. In Colorado, Captain Yowell tried to photograph the drones on Tuesday night with the camera he uses to document crime scenes. He estimated that up to 30 drones were flying each night, though not all in the same place. He said local officials were studying the flight path of the drones and coordinating across county lines to figure out where they were coming from. Sheriff Todd Combs of Yuma County, Colo., said in a Facebook post Tuesday that the drones appeared to be staying at least 150 feet from buildings or people, based on the footage he has seen.

 

My Thoughts:
Someone or some company is about to get a lot of questioning by a lot of agencies, between not informing regions beforehand, to not monitoring the situation or even media reports. I expect this case to set some legal precidents or new ordinances in that region, if not nationally.

[tankyx]

Academi or Amazon ?

[DildorTheDecent]

>not catching them like butterflies with a big net.

 

Do people not think?

[ionbasa]

As someone who commutes regularly between southern California and Northern CO, I think people are blowing this out of proportion. I have a apartment in Fort Collins, CO where we have AMD, Intel, Broadcom, HP and a variety of both large and small tech companies. Intel for example has its own Drone and helicopter landing pads located off Harmony Rd a few miles from I-25.

These drones are estimated to be 6' in diameter and seem to fly in coordinated grid patterns. This is not you average geek or hobbyist. It's more than likely an oil/energy company, a topography mapping operation, a tech company testing things out, or a defense/military operation since CO is home to many of the industries I have listed. 

The Coloradan posted a video from someone and while extremely out of focus, if it was a drone, it seemed to have a beacon/light on it which was bright enough to probably pass the FAAs requirement for commercial night time flying. As for mapping/topography operations, the USGS has several smaller drones that I am aware of but it could easily be a big oil/energy company trying to map out their next oil pipeline or electricity transmission lines etc.

The people freaking out about this really shouldn't for a few reasons:

• You don't own the airspace above your property and taking photos or platting data from the air is perfectly legal.
  • If people are upset about this, they need to focus on changing federal and applicable state laws. Then they can be mad if it is violated.
• A hovering craft at 300' would probably not create a nuisance in regards to noise. Living near a hospital or heavily trafficked landing/takeoff corridor route with small Cessna aircraft and Helicopters makes more noise than this likely would.
• Military operations with next-gen aircraft happen all the time and is never publicized. CO is home to a large amount of Air Force and US Army bases, as is Wyoming and a handful in NE. CO also has a large portion of ICBM silo sites which are manned and active. It's not outside the realm of probability that a air assessment is being made of those sites or other sites on interest (infrastructure supporting those sites).

 

So overall, there are a number of real possibilities as to why this is happening. People shouldn't be taking this a mystery, they should be asking who is operating the drones and why? As far as I can see, it seems to be perfectly legal.

[williamcll]

18 minutes ago, DildorTheDecent said:

>not catching them like butterflies with a big net.

 

Do people not think?

You need those signal scramblers to work. And those still cost a premium.

[rcmaehl]

59 minutes ago, DildorTheDecent said:

>not catching them like butterflies with a big net.

 

Do people not think?

Tokyo is way ahead of us

[Zodiark1593]

9 minutes ago, rcmaehl said:

Tokyo is way ahead of us

Wonder if some self-destruct mechanism could be made via shorting and/or igniting the battery? Combined with a hard case, shrapnel could take out the captor drone.

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, ionbasa said:

As someone who commutes regularly between southern California and Northern CO, I think people are blowing this out of proportion. I have a apartment in Fort Collins, CO where we have AMD, Intel, Broadcom, HP and a variety of both large and small tech companies. Intel for example has its own Drone and helicopter landing pads located off Harmony Rd a few miles from I-25.

These drones are estimated to be 6' in diameter and seem to fly in coordinated grid patterns. This is not you average geek or hobbyist. It's more than likely an oil/energy company, a topography mapping operation, a tech company testing things out, or a defense/military operation since CO is home to many of the industries I have listed. 

The Coloradan posted a video from someone and while extremely out of focus, if it was a drone, it seemed to have a beacon/light on it which was bright enough to probably pass the FAAs requirement for commercial night time flying. As for mapping/topography operations, the USGS has several smaller drones that I am aware of but it could easily be a big oil/energy company trying to map out their next oil pipeline or electricity transmission lines etc.

The people freaking out about this really shouldn't for a few reasons:

• You don't own the airspace above your property and taking photos or platting data from the air is perfectly legal.
  • If people are upset about this, they need to focus on changing federal and applicable state laws. Then they can be mad if it is violated.
• A hovering craft at 300' would probably not create a nuisance in regards to noise. Living near a hospital or heavily trafficked landing/takeoff corridor route with small Cessna aircraft and Helicopters makes more noise than this likely would.
• Military operations with next-gen aircraft happen all the time and is never publicized. CO is home to a large amount of Air Force and US Army bases, as is Wyoming and a handful in NE. CO also has a large portion of ICBM silo sites which are manned and active. It's not outside the realm of probability that a air assessment is being made of those sites or other sites on interest (infrastructure supporting those sites).

 

So overall, there are a number of real possibilities as to why this is happening. People shouldn't be taking this a mystery, they should be asking who is operating the drones and why? As far as I can see, it seems to be perfectly legal.

A good chance this is correct.

 

It's also true that there is a set of military aircraft testing facilities in the region and it's been a cause of UFO sightings going back 30+ years.

 

Though it should probably be noted that up to 400 feet would be under the control of the property owner, so, depending on the State, it would be trespassing. 

[Taf the Ghost]

54 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Wonder if some self-destruct mechanism could be made via shorting and/or igniting the battery? Combined with a hard case, shrapnel could take out the captor drone.

There has been dedicated anti-Drone weaponry since about 2012. China has an anti-drone laser that they use publicly (it's an actual laser rifle, no joke), but most approaches are a dual setup of a net-gun system and EM-based attacks. You won't see EMP weaponry used for it, even though it already exists. 

[AnonymousGuy]

5 hours ago, ionbasa said:

• You don't own the airspace above your property and taking photos or platting data from the air is perfectly legal.
  • If people are upset about this, they need to focus on changing federal and applicable state laws. Then they can be mad if it is violated.

While true at face value, you're not going to be able to fly a drone in front of someone's window and go "neener neener neener I'm not on your property".  It'd probably be prosecuted as a tangential law around privacy or harassment or whatever.  

 

[after some googling]:

Quote

 the Supreme Court ruled in a case known as United States v. Causby that a farmer in North Carolina could assert property rights up to 83 feet in the air.

So I guess you can assert trespassing within an 83 foot bubble.  Makes sense since "you don't own the airspace" is there so you can't shoot down overflying planes..drones being a different class.

[ionbasa]

9 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

While true at face value, you're not going to be able to fly a drone in front of someone's window and go "neener neener neener I'm not on your property".  It'd probably be prosecuted as a tangential law around privacy or harassment or whatever.  

 

[after some googling]:

So I guess you can assert trespassing within an 83 foot bubble.  Makes sense since "you don't own the airspace" is there so you can't shoot down overflying planes..drones being a different class.

Yes, I agree. But these are purportedly (accordinging to witnesses) 6' span drones flying at ~300 ft (~91m) elevation or higher. 

It's one thing if I'm flying my 'toy' drone with a GoPro in front of your windows and another if a 6' drone is flying at 300 ft. IIRC the FAA allows for fixed wing aircraft to fly as low as 500 ft. in 'non-congested' areas. There's a two page FAA guide available here: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/lgb/local_more/media/FAA_Guide_to_Low-Flying_Aircraft.pdf

The guide explicitly calls out "Helicopters" can fly lower than 500ft in certain circumstances, but the FAA fact sheet webpage for Small Unmanned Aircraft at: https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=22615 actually limit the height for small unmanned drones to a maximum of 400 ft.

I'm not sure if the drones in question here are considered "Small Unmanned Aircraft" since they have such a large span (6ft) or if they would fall in another category set by the FAA. Either way 300 ft elevation is roughly equivalent to a 30 story building with 10ft ceiling heights between stories.

[Mr.Meerkat]

31 minutes ago, ionbasa said:

IIRC the FAA allows for fixed wing aircraft to fly as low as 500 ft. in 'non-congested' areas.

Can't directly quote FAA as I'm based in the UK but UK CAA rules (which are ICAO so FAA should be similar) are:

Over built-up/congested areas - 1000ft above the highest fixed obstacle within 600 metres of the aircraft.

Over non-built-up/non-congested areas - no closer than 500ft to a person, vessel, vehicle or structure.
Rule that overrides both the 500ft and 1000ft rule if higher - Aircraft shall not be flown below such a height that it would enable it unable to make an emergency landing without causing danger to persons or property. 

[justpoet]

15 minutes ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

Can't directly quote FAA as I'm based in the UK but UK CAA rules (which are ICAO so FAA should be similar) are:

Over built-up/congested areas - 1000ft above the highest fixed obstacle within 600 metres of the aircraft.

Over non-built-up/non-congested areas - no closer than 500ft to a person, vessel, vehicle or structure.
Rule that overrides both the 500ft and 1000ft rule if higher - Aircraft shall not be flown below such a height that it would enable it unable to make an emergency landing without causing danger to persons or property. 

Quote

the drones appeared to be staying at least 150 feet from buildings or people, based on the footage

I believe the FAA legal limit is 150 ft from people, but I haven't bothered to look since I know of/about UAs, but don't fly one (well, technically mine is about 2 inches big and can't fly outside the room I'm in, so I just don't count it, as it is also not subject to FAA limitations).

 

Commercially licensed operators are limited to daylight only operations (up to 30 minutes following sunset with appropriate anti-collision lighting).

 

This is probably of interest:

https://www.faa.gov/uas/research_development/traffic_management/

 

 

For additional reference, some interesting ACTUAL drone pattern flying, not just a couple drones in one area:

 

 

[Bombastinator]

6 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

There has been dedicated anti-Drone weaponry since about 2012. China has an anti-drone laser that they use publicly (it's an actual laser rifle, no joke), but most approaches are a dual setup of a net-gun system and EM-based attacks. You won't see EMP weaponry used for it, even though it already exists. 

I also remember reading about a radio based one using a directional antenna.  Might not have worked well.  It relied on a drone having to use standard WiFi.  

[justpoet]

26 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

I also remember reading about a radio based one using a directional antenna.  Might not have worked well.  It relied on a drone having to use standard WiFi.  

Well, almost, but not quite.  Standard radio control systems for the hobbyist market use the 2.4Ghz band, just like normal old wifi does.  That's everything on the market at this point.  You might be able to find a few using old radio style with crystals, but ANYTHING can interfere with those, so that'd be silly.  RC gear is pretty good at avoiding interference issues though, as they're all designed to handle it, so you basically have to super saturate ALL the available frequency spectrum to ensure it can't pick out the encrypted portion it is looking for within the noise.

[Bombastinator]

9 minutes ago, justpoet said:

Well, almost, but not quite.  Standard radio control systems for the hobbyist market use the 2.4Ghz band, just like normal old wifi does.  That's everything on the market at this point.  You might be able to find a few using old radio style with crystals, but ANYTHING can interfere with those, so that'd be silly.  RC gear is pretty good at avoiding interference issues though, as they're all designed to handle it, so you basically have to super saturate ALL the available frequency spectrum to ensure it can't pick out the encrypted portion it is looking for within the noise.

Some do or at least did actually use specifically WiFi.  The ones you control with your phone for example.  Might be why it didn’t work well.  That may be the “hobbyist” qualification as well.  It only worked on drones that used WiFi.  The device was basically a WiFi router with a directional antenna and a WiFi password cracker.  It would produce a stronger WiFi signal than the pilot and the directional antenna user could literally take it over and fly it back to them.

[justpoet]

15 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Some do or at least did actually use specifically WiFi.  The ones you control with your phone for example.  Might be why it didn’t work well.  That may be the “hobbyist” qualification as well.  It only worked on drones that used WiFi.  The device was basically a WiFi router with a directional antenna and a WiFi password cracker.  It would produce a stronger WiFi signal than the pilot and the directional antenna user could literally take it over and fly it back to them.

I know they demo'd it on a DJI (I think a Phantom of some version), and those use their own hobbyist based controller, even though you can use the phone to see through it over wifi as well.

[Zodiark1593]

35 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Some do or at least did actually use specifically WiFi.  The ones you control with your phone for example.  Might be why it didn’t work well.  That may be the “hobbyist” qualification as well.  It only worked on drones that used WiFi.  The device was basically a WiFi router with a directional antenna and a WiFi password cracker.  It would produce a stronger WiFi signal than the pilot and the directional antenna user could literally take it over and fly it back to them.

Depending on the security implemented, I don't imagine this to be a reliable means of commandeering a drone. With the AES implementation of WPA, an attacker would have to rely upon brute force to guess the password. Not exactly super practical unless RC equipment is legally mandated to use weak encryption standards.

[Bombastinator]

10 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Depending on the security implemented, I don't imagine this to be a reliable means of commandeering a drone. With the AES implementation of WPA, an attacker would have to rely upon brute force to guess the password. Not exactly super practical unless RC equipment is legally mandated to use weak encryption standards.

I don’t either.  I just read that it was done.

[justpoet]

What I'd read (from memory, sorry) ages ago when that was demod was that it blasted the 2.4Ghz frequency band and GPS as a jammer, so the drone just goes "no signal, no knowledge of location, land now".

[mr moose]

On 1/3/2020 at 5:34 AM, ionbasa said:

The people freaking out about this really shouldn't for a few reasons:

• You don't own the airspace above your property and taking photos or platting data from the air is perfectly legal.
  • If people are upset about this, they need to focus on changing federal and applicable state laws. Then they can be mad if it is violated.

 

 

It's ok everyone, apparently because it is legal you don't have to freak out that some unknown entity is taking photos of your property and  you in your own house.