Beijing From Above, aka How I was police detained for flying a Quadcopter
stuckincustoms.com
stuckincustoms.com
I'm a model RC pilot for 20 years and these kind of "stunts" are hurting the hobby. At least ask for permission next time.
A phantom only has 4 motors, and the quality is "meh" - there is hardly any 2nd control (fa I have tripple recievers in my jets, if one RC system fails I still regain control over another radio).
It has a "failsafe" - i=even if it works it's still not really good in an urban area. GPS signals might be weak (flyaway danger) and it's only flies to 25 meters when returning to home. It could fly into a tower or even not reach proper 25 meter when the 3D GPS lock is weak or disengaged.
My 2 cents. Sorry. Please people, don't fly above crowded areas. I've seen a Phantom hit a car it's almost 1KG of deadweight when it comes down. It's only a matter of time until someone gets hurt.
Flying over urban areas is asking for trouble, and will hurt the RC hobby gravely. It's people like these who will cause a legal ban on RC models.
Not something I want happening to me, or being responsible for.
With 4 sharp blades spinning at potentially over 10k RPM.
The quad I'm building now has a foam shield all around the rotors. And it's a mini. It's gonna be slow, but safe(r).
Mad fun to fly, it can do everything its bigger brothers can (well, apart from carrying your GoPro, of course!), and it's only $23.00. Worst thing that can happen is your cat attacking it, but with these tiny props and this weight, no damage will be done!
The GoPro is wildly over-rated. The Mobius is smaller, lighter and cheaper, and works about the same.
Quadcopters seem totally 'plug and play'.
I'm involved (somewhat) in high-altitude balloon flights and we have a similar problem. People want to be able to buy a kit of everything they need to launch a balloon into the stratosphere. There's been a lot of resistance in the UKHAS because we want people to learn about the entire process (and that includes safety).
With great buying power comes great responsibiliy.
I assume taking control of the machine with out permission would not be easy, but possible. Also a game show where the copters fight to the death would fill the void of "Robot Wars" being of TV.
The vast majority of RC planes, cars, multirotors, etc. work with a 2.4Ghz transmitter (TX) and receiver (RX). In the old days you'd claim a frequency, put the corresponding crystal in your TX, and hope that nobody else would use that frequency. Nowadays we have Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS) or Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS) to ensure that you're not interfering with someone else's TX/RC. These signals are a lot more difficult to hijack.
GPS Spoofing is probably a better way to hack into UAV's. The Iranians caotured a Sentinel UAV in 2011 with this method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incide...
2. Stretch a net between them.
3. Catch the passing freight quadcopter.
4. Get the package, get the parts.
5. Profit.
But now the other bandits are doing it too. Add automated defense mechanisms. Intercept competitors. Degenerates into fully unmanned airborne war.
Full unmanned civilian aviation warfare sounds pretty cool.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji3Hii_LZOc
Sure the propeller is not the original, but it shows that quadcopters can be dangerous in the wrong hands.
A stiff carbon blade rotating at 35,000 RPM causing injury? Who would've guessed!
Judging from YouTube videos, autorotation doesn't seem to cut it - it's still falling too fast, but maybe something like deploying an emergency parachute - if altitude allows for it, or maybe (not sure if that's a sane thought) some inflatable wings to glide and thus not gain much vertical speed. Anything so it won't fall down like a brick.
For motor failure ETH Zurich has some research out there about recovering to normal(ish) flight after a prop loss. The quad goes into a pretty rapid spin but it's still controllable, link below to an outside the lab test.
Has there been any experiments with airbags? I did find experiments with parachutes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdhrZbiK0T0), so safety seems to be a work-in-progress in order render that 1KG of deadweight into something more manageable.
Last, I must ask since this is a security issue, what is the statistics on this problem? Is a person flying a 1KG quadcopter in a crowded areas more dangerous than a person using bicycle in a city? The comparison is not perfect, but it would be nice to have some comparisons to other recreational activities performed in crowded areas.
I was also pleasantly surprised he got the copter and camera back at the end.
Northern/Beijing police are also famous for their sense of humour.
Actually I had my fair share of police encounters in France as well and it never went bad. The last I remember was asking cops to take me in their cars to a club (I was completely drunk), they told me they were not a taxi company. I then told them they had to take me because I was inebriated, they just laughed at me and left.
In 2 weeks in the US I got arrested twice. Once for eating a sandwich 5meters from people drinking alcohol in the street. Then the second time, while I was going to court for that stupid shit I got arrested for going through the subway gate twice in less than 15 minutes even though I had an unlimited pass.
/rant over. Cops are cool in a lot of places. Not in the US.
They told me I was cheating the system. When really I was confused about what subway to take so I went back and asked the girl in the booth for help.
> ...
because I knew the people walking 5 meters ahead of me so I stopped to watch them getting arrested, and stayed 5 minutes around, so eventually they came towards me and my friends and arrested us also. We were so shocked we didn't ask why. Kept us an hour in the cold looking through our stuff etc... Tossed my sandwich to the ground (and I told them that it was littering) and finally convoked us to the court for "drinking in the streets".
Additionally, the footage was amazing, sometimes I forget how beautiful that city is on days with little smog :)
I'm not sure that's true. On every UK police program I've seen (mostly traffic-related - Road Wars, Police Interceptors, etc), frequently they'll arrest someone at the roadside, then de-arrest them when they've finished their inquiries.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/mar/01/law.emmabrockes "According to section 30, subsection (7) and (7A) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, to "de-arrest" is to allow that "a person who has been arrested under any act of law at a place other than a police station, shall be released before reaching a police station if a constable is satisfied that there are no grounds for keeping him under arrest". Unlike being released with no further action, being de-arrested means that the record of the initial arrest is removed."
On the police shows you mention, when the officer stops a car and takes the person into theirs to check their driving license, search them etc. they are detaining them. Only when they tell them they are under arrest are they actually under arrest, and they need reasonable grounds to suspect them of an arrestable offence before they can do that.
Although that link says known as the samsung galaxy nexus 3.