|
MrYenko posted:You've obviously never been exposed to the world of aviation regulation. This is not a technical challenge, it's a political and regulatory one: The FAA is one of the world's most glacial bureaucracies. This is the agency that suspended a pilot's license for busting a no fly zone that wasn't published on the FAA's own NOTAM data feed. Obviously the drones will just have to call up a FSS before launch and constantly during flight.
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 13:36 |
|
|
Midjack posted:lol if you think it isn't trivially easy to spoof GPS time and location.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
warcake posted:I just flicked through some vids related to that crosswind one and came across this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P9OAng32F0 The telescopic lens compresses distance, so it really exaggerates the topography there. It's actually pretty flat runway. Sewer Adventure fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
wolrah posted:That said the easiest way to make sure this happens is to mandate ADS-B or something comparable in all GA, so IMO the solution is to tell the "no electronics" crowd to gently caress off. Lots of regulatory issues, just off the top of my head: Traditionally the FAA has wanted redundancy anytime you're talking about safety of flight and ADS-B becomes about safety of flight even in visual flight conditions if you're replacing "see and avoid" with it. Electronic panel instruments need to have a battery backup sufficient to get back on the ground for example. I'm not sure if they'd be ok with dual batteries or not since batteries are no where near as reliable as an alternator. I know gliders do work with portable transponders today but I think that's mostly for when they may make it up past 18k feet and is a part of a class A airspace waiver. FAA wants ADS-B to be permanently mounted in aircraft, partially because unlike a transponder ADS-B sends a device unique identifier linked to specific aircraft registrations and types that get passed along to ATC. For Part 21 certificated aircraft that means you're looking at supplemental type certificates and work by A&P's at avionics shops. And there's already a fear that there aren't enough avionics shops to equip the aircraft that need ADS-B to keep flying in their existing airspace by the 2020 ADS-B adoption deadline, much less requiring ADS-B for all aircraft, even those well away from Mode C veils.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Isn't that only true for obsolete receivers that use the legacy signal? I thought the current civilian signal is much more robust and secure. Robust yes. Civilian side has never been secure. I suspect this is why M code design departs from the P code implementation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Isn't that only true for obsolete receivers that use the legacy signal? I thought the current civilian signal is much more robust and secure. https://www.ae.utexas.edu/news/features/todd-humphreys-research-team-demonstrates-first-successful-gps-spoofing-of-uav
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
So this popped up on an aviation subreddit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDGdxli71cg I have no idea where it came from, but it's pretty much the most amazing aviation video ever created.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
ctishman posted:So this popped up on an aviation subreddit: .....its Regular Car Reviews. They are an AI staple.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:.....its Regular Car Reviews. They are an AI staple. Ahh, got it. I've never actually seen one of their videos before!
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Midjack posted:lol if you think it isn't trivially easy to spoof GPS time and location. MrYenko posted:You've obviously never been exposed to the world of aviation regulation. This is not a technical challenge, it's a political and regulatory one: The FAA is one of the world's most glacial bureaucracies. What I'm saying is there is a solution which is technically viable today, avoids any legitimate complaints I can imagine from the old aircraft crowd, and if implemented well could significantly reduce the chances of drones causing problems for GA while also providing the possibility of significantly increased awareness of other aircraft for any GA users that choose to add a receiver instead of just a transmitter. Political problems are a lot easier than technical problems, especially when there's money in play. wolrah fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
ctishman posted:Ahh, got it. I've never actually seen one of their videos before! Watch them all. Now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Watch them all. Now. Not at work!
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Wait, I thought it crashed and then the Iranians said look America we have your crashed drone and then they changed their story to that they hacked it and made it land. Then proceeded to have a press conference with a crappy plywood mock up. Or am I just confusing that with their "stealth fighter?" I mean in regards to the earlier post about the US drone in Iran.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
The Pope posted:Wait, I thought it crashed and then the Iranians said look America we have your crashed drone and then they changed their story to that they hacked it and made it land. Then proceeded to have a press conference with a crappy plywood mock up. Or am I just confusing that with their "stealth fighter?" I think it's both. It's pretty much their go-to story. Also see: The Iranian Navy
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Midjack posted:You can pop current receivers just fine. Before this ends up like the NFC poo poo in the phone thread a while back, my specifics are NDAd but I note that some college kids took a flying UAV down a few years ago and anything that can be done remotely by a hostile party is much easier done by a friendly party with physical access.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Here's the relevant paper, they did indeed do their testing against the legacy GPS code, not the modernized code. As the paper makes clear it's still possible to interfere with modern receivers, but it should be much more difficult to do so without detection. By no means am I saying a new GPS receiver is hack-proof, just that by comparison to existing navigation technologies that provide no resistance whatsoever to even accidental interference, it's a pretty good option. I mean poo poo, you could ruin people's day at a major airport just by jamming a few common radio frequencies, yet I can't recall hearing about people doing that on purpose. Its pretty easy to just overpower GPS signals anyways, why bother? If you can put a signal out on the same frequencies, its gonna knock GPS out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its pretty easy to just overpower GPS signals anyways, why bother? If you can put a signal out on the same frequencies, its gonna knock GPS out. Also, do other GNSS systems have decent coverage over North America yet? That's another form of redundancy, I'm sure the other systems are similarly vulnerable but requiring a malicious actor to carry 4 sets of equipment makes things a bit tougher. Alereon fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Also, do other GNSS systems have decent coverage over North America yet? That's another form of redundancy, I'm sure the other systems are similarly vulnerable but requiring a malicious actor to carry 4 sets of equipment makes things a bit tougher. Yes. My phone has GLONASS and Baidou
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its pretty easy to just overpower GPS signals anyways, why bother? If you can put a signal out on the same frequencies, its gonna knock GPS out. To start a war between the UK and China in order to sell newspapers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Oh sure, I mean it will always be trivial to just jam the signals and reduce accuracy or prevent use of GPS, but that's immediately detectable so a lot harder to do nefarious things with. The real concern is someone stealing every Amazon Prime package being delivered in a given area. GLONASS does. BeiDou is still focused on China and the region around it but they are adding more satellites and intend to have global coverage in the next few years. Galileo is supposed to begin service next year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:To start a war between the UK and China in order to sell newspapers. gently caress yeah! Wei Ling will stop them though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Also, do other GNSS systems have decent coverage over North America yet? That's another form of redundancy, I'm sure the other systems are similarly vulnerable but requiring a malicious actor to carry 4 sets of equipment makes things a bit tougher. Going by the 2008 paper about jamming hardware referenced by the paper linked above, I'd guess that the four sets of equipment have been miniaturized substantially in the last seven years, even if you're on a budget. quote:The core Cornell GRID receiver software is the product of hundreds of developer-hours of work. Developing the spoofer module and extending the core GRID receiver soft- ware to include it required a team of three experienced developers working approximately 40 hours apiece, or ap- proximately three developer-weeks. The hardware components of the receiver-spoofer platform shown in Fig. 9 are all off-the-shelf components whose total cost is approxi- mately $1500.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Still going through my photos from last month. Have some warbirds P-51 Mustang by Connor West, on Flickr P-51 Mustang by Connor West, on Flickr P-40 Warhawk by Connor West, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Would you like to see a airplane related "in lighter news" from the late 1940? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzbjEaX891s
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
ctishman posted:So this popped up on an aviation subreddit: "THIS IS THE FLYING FINGERBANG!" got a full-on gut laugh out of me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
I think I like RCR's car show videos (which are all like that one) better than the actual car reviews at this point. "Prius" got a laugh out of me
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
Enourmo posted:I think I like RCR's car show videos (which are all like that one) better than the actual car reviews at this point. Cars and coffee! Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HmxPntzYQM
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Midjack posted:lol if you think it isn't trivially easy to spoof GPS time and location.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:To start a war between the UK and China in order to sell newspapers. My favourite part of that film was the whole, 'You have 48 hours before the British Fleet arrives in which to crack the case Bond". Even at the time I remember thinking "Funny, I didn't realise our ships could sail at about 300 knots".
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Triangulating the location of the SAM warhead that shot down MH17 using delay in the time it took the sound to hit the four recorders in the cockpit is a neat trick. Apparently it was within a meter of the cockpit when the proximity fuze detonated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
The Russian manufacturer of the missile staged a live fire test to show how different an actual strike would be. Except it turned out almost exactly the same if you consider the fact that the IL86 section was not pressurized and not travelling at M0.84 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DmraSOdTYk Tsuru fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Triangulating the location of the SAM warhead that shot down MH17 using delay in the time it took the sound to hit the four recorders in the cockpit is a neat trick. gently caress, can only imagine what could've been going through the pilot's minds when (if) they saw that flying telephone pole heading their way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:The Russian manufacturer of the missile staged a live fire test to show how different an actual strike would be. Except it turned out almost exactly the same if you consider the fact that the IL86 section was not pressurized and not travelling at M0.84 All these efforts to test a missile impact, and they ruin it by having their makeshift plane attacked by an Ukrainian Su-25 instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Triangulating the location of the SAM warhead that shot down MH17 using delay in the time it took the sound to hit the four recorders in the cockpit is a neat trick. So what you're saying is the pilots were the lucky ones in that they are pretty much guarunteed to have died instantly as opposed to the sheer terror of plummeting 30,000ft?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:So what you're saying is the pilots were the lucky ones in that they are pretty much guarunteed to have died instantly as opposed to the sheer terror of plummeting 30,000ft? Yeah. Between over pressure and the numerous pieces of warhead shrapnel found in their corpses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:gently caress, can only imagine what could've been going through the pilot's minds when (if) they saw that flying telephone pole heading their way. I would bet they didn't see it at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
monkeytennis posted:I would bet they didn't see it at all. There was a story posted in GiP by a guy who used to fly bush cargo planes in southern Africa with his father. One day over Angola someone fired a SAM at them. They could see it coming and since their plane had only marginally better handling characteristics than the hangar it was stored in, they pretty much just had to watch it get nearer and nearer until it malfunctioned and went *pffft* before it could hit them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
As far as I can remember it was an overcast day, so the launch would have been obscured. After a BUK missile accelerates to its max speed and altitude its motor shuts off so there is no exhaust plume as it approaches its target at M5.0 neither. The official story that all aboard were knocked out in seconds is there to assuage the fears of people who lost friends and relatives in the accident and the general public, and at most only true for the people who were seated in the forward sections of the aircraft. A young, fit person has at least a full minute of useful consciousness at FL330 and the effects of the acceleration forces, the impact of ballistic parts of the missile and loose items flying around in the cabin would have been less at the rear of the cabin. The "900km/h airflow" mentioned in the report would actually have been effectively closer to 550km/h as the indicated airspeed at this altitude and mach is around 300KIAS, further slowed down by obstructions in the cabin assuming the rear fuselage was still intact enough at that point in the breakup sequence. In the Lockerbie jet which came down from FL310 there was at least one person who was alive and conscious after he/she hit the ground after having been thrown clear of the aircraft as it broke up, and there was also a Realistically, the firing of the missile was probably an honest mistake by the operator, as from his vantage point the elevation rise of a fast airliner at FL300+ would be similar to a slower aircraft (AN26) at lower altitude, but there is still such a thing as 298 counts of manslaughter. But whoever he was, he has probably (been) disappeared long ago. Tsuru fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
But think of the fuel savings!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 13:36 |
|
|
Do they not think to redirect flights around active war zones?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:44
|
|
