back to article UK.gov: You can't have our drone test results because... er, security

The Department for Transport has rejected calls from drone makers DJI, Parrot and GoPro to release details of its drone testing methodology on the grounds of "security". The drone builders had challenged the government to show its working for a test it commissioned and cited as evidence for the mandatory drone registration …

Silver badge
Headmaster

Federal Aviation Authority?

Federal Aviation ADMINISTRATION (Obviously this article was not peer-reviewed!)

It sounds like the British Government is trying to present a fait accompli on drone usage, while not letting pesky facts get in the way.

21
0
Silver badge
Unhappy

Re: Federal Aviation Authority?

You mean like most of the others?

That is, as opposed to the ones where they get expert advice and then ignore it. This way they don't need to bother with the experts.

10
0
Silver badge

Re: Federal Aviation Authority?

Yes, I suppose HM Government's approach does have the advantage of reducing public spending on expert advice.

9
0

Re: Federal Aviation Authority?

Why is it that so many drone users are apparently complete dickheads?

2
4
Silver badge

Re: Federal Aviation Authority?

"Why is it that so many drone users are apparently complete dickheads?"

Sadly, as with all generic groupings of people, the ones who stand out from the crowd are the dickheads, giving the often false impression that the whole group are dickheads.

3
0

Re: Federal Aviation Authority?

Which is why "so many" rather than most or all. I did not claim the whole group were. OK?

0
0
Silver badge

Not just drones

In another test QuinetiQ attached a camera and 2 car batteries to a badger and fired it an airliner. The result calls for badgers to be culled to protect the aviating public

47
0
Silver badge

Re: Not just drones

"The result calls for badgers to be culled to protect the aviating public"

Silly boy.

The test called for the reintroduction of fox hunting, as they felt that the foxes were goading the badgers in to doing something stupid.

30
0

Re: Not just drones

"Some of the most alarming findings in DfT's summary are based on an object that resembles a javelin more than a drone,"

So ... it does not resemble a stick, a pole, or a spear - but a javelin, eh?

Could this finally be the long awaited the London 2012 Olympics Legacy we were promised?

13
0
Silver badge
Happy

Re: Not just drones

So the foxes were goading the badgers into volunteering to get two car batteries strapped to them and then fired at an airliner?

9
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Not just drones

European or American? I hear the American one's are more aerodynamic. It certainly wasn't a honey badger.

13
0
Silver badge
Headmaster

Re: "American one's"

What about the American two's?

Enquiring minds ....

7
0

Re: Not just drones

Also frozen chickens.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Not just drones

"So the foxes were goading the badgers into volunteering to get two car batteries strapped to them and then fired at an airliner?"

Yes. That's exactly what's happened.

A Tory voting Countryside Alliance chap told me that. Why would he lie?

7
0
Silver badge
Joke

Re: Not just drones

"It certainly wasn't a honey badger."

A honey badger wouldn't have needed the batteries.

2
0
Silver badge
Devil

Re: Not just drones

I hear they shoot whole chickens (after being plucked and butchered, no live chickens were harmed in this kind of testing, dammit, because I wanted to watch the fun) at airplane windshields in order to test them. And of course, an urban legend says someone tried this with FROZEN chickens and blew a hole through an aircraft doing it. (and maybe the mythbusters tested it, because they did have a chicken gun handy for some reason...)

Anyway, keep the drones below 1000 feet, and the planes above that, and we'll be fine. That's what the fAA regs already say. And keep drones out of the controlled airspace around airports. Then we'll all "get along".

1
1
Silver badge

Re: Not just drones

So the foxes were goading the badgers into volunteering to get two car batteries strapped to them and then fired at an airliner?

Yeah - they told them that the airliner contained squirrels. And, as everyone knows, badgers *hate* squirrels[2]. Damn small grey furry things, coming over here, scampering up our trees and eating our nuts[1]. Shoulda be law against it!

[1] Ooh-er missus!

[2] Except the ginger ones. They are OK. As are out-of-order subnotes.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Not just drones

A honey badger wouldn't have needed the batteries.

Or the propulsion. Powered by rage apparently.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Not just drones

Anyway, keep the drones below 1000 feet, and the planes above that, and we'll be fine

Might make it hard to land the planes though. And I suspect the passengers would object to being pushed out the door, with or without a parachute[1].

I used to live in Wootten Bassett during the time that the Hercs were flying out of Lyneham. I had a go in a microlight aircraft and the pilot was most insistent that we observed the rules on flight heights in the area. Small 100kg aircraft vs 34 tonne Herc isn't really a fair contest..

[1] Parachute status depends on profession.. Just don't say that you are a lawyer or politician.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Not just drones

"Might make it hard to land the planes though."

Did you miss the additional qualifier of keeping out of controlled airspace?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Dear Drone Manufacturers Alliance Europe,

I'm not sure if you know how this works but it's time to get the grease and brown envelopes out.

Kind Regards,

The Government.

21
0
Silver badge
Pint

Yes, sponsoring the buffet table or open bar at the next Conservative and Labour party conferences is always a good move. Make sure you have very visible signage identifying you as the sponsor.

9
0
Silver badge

You could publicise the event after the fact by releasing the drone footage of it too.

6
0
Silver badge
WTF?

could not find a way to launch...

"The study's authors could not find a way to launch a 4-kilogram drone against an aircraft windscreen..."

Had they thought of standing in a field and flying it using its controller?

7
0
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: could not find a way to launch...

Had they thought of standing in a field and flying it using its controller?

Don't be ridiculous! Why, that would be almost ... Empirical!

Government advisors don't do that sort of thing!

7
0
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: could not find a way to launch...

Actually, it is ridiculous, because the test also has to take into account an aircraft moving at speed. Something which occurred to me too late...

3
0
Silver badge

Re: could not find a way to launch...

It's true that safely simulating the impact is a problem. This is why the test requires a chicken gun, which I expect was why they had to remove some of the rotors.

3
0
Silver badge

Re: could not find a way to launch...

What about using gravity?

You know, drop the small object onto the big object from a great height.

If they couldn't find a tall enough building they could carry it up high using a bigger drone...

4
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: could not find a way to launch...

'..You know, drop the small object onto the big object from a great height.'

Ah, don't forget, the rules of Government sponsored research.

First you waste 60% of the allocated budget on a pointless feasibility study, oh, like dropping the big object from a great height...

Then, of course, you need to waste a further 25% of the budget visiting foreign climes to see at first hand why they don't do it the way you're investigating in your feasibility study (Of course, the added justification here would be that there's the off chance that the UK could become the pioneering world leader in the exciting field of doing things arse about face..and who knows where this could lead?, one day we could be building aircraft carriers designed for jets we don't actually have yet...oh, wait )

That leaves you with 15% of your budget to play with, oh, silly me, almost forgot, 10% for admin costs sounds just about right....

4
0

Re: What about using gravity?

The terminal velocity of a drone is probably a lot less than the speed of an aeroplane.

3
0
Silver badge
Stop

Re: could not find a way to launch...

> Had they thought of standing in a field and flying it using its controller?

And flying an aircraft in the opposite direction at a couple of hundred miles per hour? Drones aren't capable of flying at the kinds of speeds that they test impacts at.

1
0
Silver badge
Trollface

Re: could not find a way to launch...

get the mythbusters to help them. Or shoot the plane at the drone.

0
1
Silver badge

Re: could not find a way to launch...

Don't be ridiculous! Why, that would be almost ... Empirical!

Government advisors don't do that sort of thing!

Quite right too. Too much chance of not coming up with the "correct" data.

Where "correct" == "conclusion that we've already paid for".

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: could not find a way to launch...

Ah, don't forget, the rules of Government sponsored research

<SNIP>

That leaves you with 15% of your budget to play with, oh, silly me, almost forgot, 10% for admin costs sounds just about right....

Sounds like you work for the Research Councils. Except there's no mention of pointless reorganisation anywhere in your mission statement.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: could not find a way to launch...

"It's true that safely simulating the impact is a problem. "

Don't we any of those rocket sled on rails things any more? ISTR that sort of contraption being used to test ejector seats in the past. That would give a more realistic result including the correct airflow patterns. Not cheap, of course, but a lot cheaper than having aircraft dropping out of the sky like what is not happening anywhere in the world right now.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: could not find a way to launch...

Except there's no mention of pointless reorganisation anywhere in your mission statement.

Eh?, sorry, must have been distracted there for a moment...let's see, what have we got left?, ah yes, I think we can safely allocate 4% of the budget for the dance of the eternally pointless reorganisation..

'Sounds like you work for the Research Councils.'

FSM no! (I like to think that I've some standards left),

I have, however, had dealings with the buggers over the years...

0
0
Silver badge

Like every government policy,

it is not based on the level of threat as determined by an expert group, it is about control.

Expert groups are commissioned to produce a report that the government will ignore if it is detrimental to what they want. Yet still lends credence to a decision because an expert group was commissioned to advise government.

There is only cake when we get rid of the last bad guy/gal... Unfortunately that would leave us without enough MP's to form a government.

10
0
Silver badge

Re: Like every government policy,

Regardless of the Party that may be allegedly running the country, ministries have a time honoured method for picking experts in a particular field.

Whether it's ag, aviation or the ministry of silly walks they find a siily old sod who may have been quite bright in his day but now has a knighthood and a nurse to remind him to unzip before peeing.

The ministry tell him the results they require and he tells the people who compile the report, accurate research or testing is not required because the attitude is " But we're the bloody government, they can't question us."

So, the drone report is a resounding success because it says the things they wanted it to.

6
0
Anonymous Coward

If QinetiQ di- d the test...

... I fully expect there to be a gantt chart provided, which provides nothing useful bar a crowbar to get some metrics later for massive dollars.

QQ are shit at this - their Malvern place is full of Cyber words on the wall, but they wouldn't know a pentest if it shat on their hat.

Posted anonymously - not that it matters, as they're basically the dim brother of the doughnut-shaped place down the road in Cheltenham.

4
1
Silver badge
Coat

I fully expect there to be a gantt chart provided ...

Or a gnat chart, Min.

Thanks, it's the one with the Goon Show scripts in the pockets.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: If QinetiQ di- d the test...

They are the country bumpkin wing of the gubmint techno-intelligence gathering massive.

0
0
Silver badge
Boffin

UK.gov: You can't have our drone test results because...

Er ... there aren't any results.

Move along there - nothing to see here.

8
0
Silver badge

Re: UK.gov: You can't have our drone test results because...

Er ... there aren't any results.

Move along there - nothing to see here.

Hang on, are you daring to suggest that ministers make up policies on the hoof, without any empirical data to back it up?

Say it ain't so!

0
0
Silver badge

Design the test for the results you want

So I have this idea for a great drone. Let's take several dozen long metal rods arranged in a tube, and alternatively weld the ends together like any consumer hobbyist would. Then let's fill it with an explosive charge that fires the rods outward in a circular pattern, because that's what social media is into, annular blast patterns. Obviously this would be highly hazardous to nearby airframes so lets put a rocket motor on it so it can go very fast somewhere else (NIMBY!) and some guidance systems so that it's a drone and not just a, projectile or something.

Holy hell this thing is a menace to aircraft! Time for regulation!

5
1

Re: Design the test for the results you want

Much more like the kind of thing Qinetic is used to testing, presumably.

If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like an AAM... sorry, nail.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Doesn't help when you get stupid fucking Guardian articles like this one...

https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2017/jul/24/flying-drones-in-the-uk-wild-places

Andrew Gilchrist drives all the way up to Skye (likely from London) or flew to Edinburgh, then drove 250 miles up the A9 to Skye, (the A9 has 100 miles of continuous ANPR Average Speed/Surveillance Cameras on route). Not an Error for American readers, this is modern Surveillance Britain - 100 miles continuous Automatic Number Plate Recognition Surveillance Cameras (We're just waiting to erect the sign at Heathrow that says "Welcome to Britains' Open Prison, have a nice stay")

He then goes to the far end of Skye (it's not a tourist location on Skye by any means), to climb a munro (a munro is a mountain - 1000m/3000ft) called Sgurr Alasdair.

This munro to anyone that has done it, is often shrouded in mist, is a narrow steep scree gully up. It can also be howling a gale, so you can hardly hear yourself think, let alone hear the noise of a drone. Which from my own experience is closer to the sound of Hummingbird near your head, than anything close to a dentist's drill (as he described it), FFS.

The London Centric Guardian Journo then moans that a high-pitched whine drone is on "his" route/path, hovering above him, to scream "I was effectively on CCTV." (shock/horror in Britains' Open Prison).

What it shows is how accepted the modern car is in society. How many people did he disturb on his 250 mile trip on his way up to Skye by car? How many people did he film with his Dashcam? Speeding past cyclists/walkers - those people having to take to verges, as he past. Maybe none, maybe 50.

It's the sheer lack of tolerance here, with complete ignorance to how his own actions affect others which is so fcuking annoying. The guy can't see his own actions have consequence too.

Also, its the acceptance that State Surveillance is somehow fine "justifiable in all instances", that we shouldn't worry our little head regarding how this data is being used to track indivduals, yet immediately a drone is seen nearby, it must be seen in a negative light as having a non-legitimate nature/purpose. So much stereotyping, so much unjustified pre-judgment.

Yes, a drone can be a bit irritating, but no worse than someone using a mobile (shouting I'm at the top of X) at the top of Munro, while you're trying to quietly eat your lunch. It's called tolerance, other people have every right to be there too, you're in a public place. Yes, its Isolated, remote, you feel almost yourself alone there, but its still public space.

The problem I have is there is a real sub-text at work here in this Guardian Article and it's total utter nymbyish shite.

It's the pitchfork approach that says, wherever you are in the UK (you can be as far off the beaten track such as climbing Sgurr Alasdair - so remote, it's pretty much the last place legally (pubicly) you still can fly a drone) the subtext that drones are unwelcome and need to be banned. Even though 364/365 days a year, this guy would be lucky to see another person climbing that route, let alone a drone, or even a view from the top.

The Anti-Drone agenda by mainstream media is palpable and when you have Governments refusing to release drone test data on the grounds of "security", it's when you realise, that is an full blown anti-drone agenda at work by the Powers that be, here in the UK.

It might be drones today, but one day we're going to wake up and realise we're all in virtual digital shackles, controlling everything we do, as said I'm waiting for the sign "Welcome to Britains' Open Prison".

12
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Doesn't help when you get stupid fucking Guardian articles like this one...

I'm starting to wonder if they are scared that they will become weaponized (can't have the citizenry with the power to destroy can we).

0
0
Silver badge

The study's authors could not find a way to launch a 4-kilogram drone against an aircraft windscreen

Conclusion - if a test cannot mange to launch an actual drone at the windscreen of a non-flying aircraft, the chances are that real drones messing with real aircraft are pretty slim (speed, size, air turbulence...).

Instead, we must surely outlaw hastily cobbled together fake "drones".

3
3
Silver badge

Re: The study's authors could not find a way to launch a 4-kilogram drone against an aircraft...

The problem is in getting a drone up to the speeds which it is expected to impact an aircraft screen at. Don't forget that, in real life, the aircraft is travelling at 200+mph, to which you have to add the airspeed of the drone (somewhere around 50-60mph), so the combined impact velocity is going to be somewhere north of 250mph.

1
0
WTF?

How fast?!

4 kilo multi rotor doing 60 mph with a gimbal capable of swinging a DSLR hanging off it. pull the other one its got bells on. any thing that size is not built for speed, totally the opposite its a camera platform, slow , steady and stable. Any thing capable of pulling that sort of speed is going to be a small racing "drone" probably in the sub 500 gram territory with around 4 minutes of run time per charge. Gonna be tricky to get one those from the ground into the line of flight of an airliner traveling at 200+mph.

....and what is the official definition of a drone anyway? Best official description seems to cover any remotely operated vehicle. so why are they only firing mashed up multi rotors. Where are all the planes, heli's, balloons etc?

0
0

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018