back to article Drone 'hacked' to take out triathlete

A competitor in an Australian triathlon apparently failed to complete an event over the weekend after being felled by an unmanned aerial vehicle. Everything Geraldton reports that Raija Ogden was approaching the finish line of the Endure Batavia Triathlon when a “ … remote-controlled copter struck her head and she fell to the …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. John Savard

    Next step

    Well, clearly the next thing to do is to make it illegal to operate a drone unless the control signals to it are encrypted, meeting a standard of security set by the government, so that there can no longer be a question of anyone but the nominal operator of the drone being responsible for its movements.

    1. frank ly

      Re: Next step

      " ... anyone but the nominal operator of the drone being responsible for its movements."

      Or the government, secretly taking it over to carry out some covert activity. Oh, you meant legally responsible?

    2. LarsG

      Hacked?

      Rubbish, just poor airmanship and an excuse to mitigate the insurance payout.

      1. Wzrd1 Silver badge

        Re: Hacked?

        "Rubbish, just poor airmanship and an excuse to mitigate the insurance payout."

        Or the equally common and increasingly common radio frequency interference.

        But, no. It's the *hackers*! Murder-death-kill all "hackers".

        I mean, really. Chances of a hacker controlling a frequency hopper is variable, they have to figure out the hopping scheme, control protocol (not that many, but still) and then take control and ram the drone into someone for what benefit?

        Credit, that none have taken?

        Profit, which none have manage to find?

        Sorry, either bad airmanship or RFI.

        Per my old drinking buddy, Occam. ;)

    3. Alan_Peery

      Re: Next step

      No, making the current drone fleet illegal is a step too far. Encourage all reviews of this sort of tech to severely mark down any device that is lacking encryption, and then start working on a law that would make it illegal to sell a pre-packaged drone without control signals encryption to take effect in one year.

      1. pacman7de

        Encrypted control signals ..

        @Alan_Peery: "Encourage all reviews of this sort of tech to severely mark down any device that is lacking encryption"

        Any radio controlled device can be jammed regardless of the 'encryption'. It just a matter of pumping out enough RF ..

    4. bigtimehustler

      Re: Next step

      Your statements sounded like general good security advice, whether mandated in law or not. Then you went and blew it by suggesting it should be a standard specified by the government...the biggest hackers of them all.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Black Helicopters

    Occam's Razor

    Okay, I'm going to be the skeptical one here. This photo outfit's drone knocks out the runner and they suggest it was some kind of outside hacking that caused it. But let's look at the facts. They are videoing the event live. Presumably they get pretty close to the runners to get dramatic shots. It's all too likely that given the above, an unfortunate accident will eventually happen. And the New Era owner has a clear motive to suggest "circumstances looked to be suspicious," rather than admit his company's incompetence or recklessness is to blame.

    Maybe there was a nefarious hacker, maybe not. Untill New Era provides some evidence, I think not.

    1. as2003

      Re: Occam's Razor

      This seems far more likely. "New Error Photography" more like.

      Either way, I'm curious to see the footage.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Occam's Razor

        Poor piloting skills....

        Simple as that.

        Most of these drones/quadcopters use 2.4ghz and have defences against such interference.

        IF they were using FPV goggles that makes an accident even more likely..

        1. Andy Gates

          Re: Occam's Razor

          Aye. "Just dropping out of the sky" is a thing that quadcopters *do* - they're crashing machines that sometimes fly. Having it close over the racers might have made for some thrilling shots, but you have to leave enough clearance to be safe.

          The "magic jib"-ness of a camera drone is sometimes too magical for the safety considerations to be remembered.

          "OMG hax" ... sounds weak to me.

    2. Neil Barnes Silver badge

      Re: Occam's Razor

      If such a thing were to happen here, presumably the drone would count as and be constrained by the same rules as any other aircraft (i.e. the Air Navigation Order) - particularly with regard to height-above-ground and proximity to people, as well as maintaining the security of control - and the operator subject to the same fines, confiscations, and other punishments.

      1. bigtimehustler

        Re: Occam's Razor

        Probably not actually, in much the same way your radio controlled helicopter toy isn't. The rules just do not cover drones yet...which in effect are just toys that grown up out of the playground by using the much better tech available these days.

        1. Neil Barnes Silver badge

          Re: Occam's Razor

          Checking on, your small radio controlled helicopter *is*...

          From part 22, ANO, CAP393, sections 166 and 167

          Small unmanned aircraft

          166 (1) A person must not cause or permit any article or animal (whether or not attached to a parachute) to be dropped from a small unmanned aircraft so as to endanger persons or property.

          (2) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft may only fly the aircraft if reasonably satisfied that the flight can safely be made.

          (3) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must maintain direct, unaided visual contact with the aircraft sufficient to monitor its flight path in relation to other aircraft, persons, vehicles, vessels and structures for the purpose of avoiding collisions.

          (4) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft which has a mass of more than 7kg excluding its fuel but including any articles or equipment installed in or attached to the aircraft at the commencement of its flight, must not fly the aircraft:

          (a) in Class A, C, D or E airspace unless the permission of the appropriate air traffic control unit has been obtained;

          (b) within an aerodrome traffic zone during the notified hours of watch of the air traffic control unit (if any) at that aerodrome unless the permission of any such air traffic control unit has been obtained; or

          (c) at a height of more than 400 feet above the surface unless it is flying in airspace described in sub-paragraph (a) or (b) and in accordance with the requirements for that airspace.

          (5) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must not fly the aircraft for the purposes of aerial work except in accordance with a permission granted by the CAA.

          Small unmanned surveillance aircraft

          167 (1) The person in charge of a small unmanned surveillance aircraft must not fly the aircraft in any of the circumstances described in paragraph (2) except in accordance with a permission issued by the CAA.

          (2) The circumstances referred to in paragraph (1) are:

          (a) over or within 150 metres of any congested area;

          (b) over or within 150 metres of an organised open-air assembly of more than 1,000 persons;

          (c) within 50 metres of any vessel, vehicle or structure which is not under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft; or

          (d) subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), within 50 metres of any person.

          (3) Subject to paragraph (4), during take-off or landing, a small unmanned surveillance aircraft must not be flown within 30 metres of any person.

          (4) Paragraphs (2)(d) and (3) do not apply to the person in charge of the small unmanned surveillance aircraft or a person under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft.

          (5) In this article ‘a small unmanned surveillance aircraft’ means a small unmanned aircraft which is equipped to undertake any form of surveillance or data acquisition.

          The use of quadcopters and other drones is clearly covered by the ANO and in many cases the flights made are in contravention of these rules - presenting a clear danger both to people on the ground and other pilots.

          1. bigtimehustler

            Re: Occam's Razor

            I suspect a lot of them only fall into the second section, as 7KG is quite heavy for the type of work we are talking about here. I am not sure from reading that extract if the second survailance section only applies to aircraft that come under the first section or not? Also, what country are these regulations from? Presumably also, flying your toy radio controlled toy actually isn't, as not many of them have surveillance equipment or weigh more than 7kg (not relevant to the story, but its the reference I used before)

            1. Neil Barnes Silver badge

              Re: Occam's Razor

              I don't see why anything to which 167 applies is not also affected by 166, in particular:

              166(2) - must be reasonably satisfied the flight can be safely made

              166(3) - visual contact with the aircraft at all times

              166(5) - not use for aerial work with CAA permit

              As you say, most small quads aren't going to be 7kg but I can see that some might get that big. If they are shooting images in the expectation of sale or in the course of the controller's business then they're being used for 'aerial work' and the permit is required, plus the distance from people regulations apply.

              There are also other rules that apply to minimum height and clearance.

              These are the UK rules; they won't apply outside the UK except on UK registered planes, which these aren't, but most countries have very similar harmonised regulations.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Occam's Razor

        > If such a thing were to happen here, presumably the drone would count as and be constrained by the same rules as any other aircraft

        You presume wrong, Sir.

        There are some specific restrictions, but drones which do not fall under the legal definition of aircraft are not regulated neither by EC nor by national law. Not the same rules at all.

        1. Neil Barnes Silver badge

          Re: Occam's Razor

          A citation, Mr AC, please?

          *Everything* in the air - powered planes, commercial, gliders, paragliders, kites, balloons, model aircraft - in UK airspace is covered by the ANO. There are specific exemptions, but whether the pilot is on the ground or on the plane is immaterial.

      3. This post has been deleted by its author

  3. southpacificpom
    Megaphone

    GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL!

    "What chance, for example, the potentially World-Cup-winning, goal-bound shot, struck by an England player is mysteriously diverted off-course by a drone appearing where it ought not to?"

    Surely the drone will have to score all the goals for England too leading to the final...

    1. Lusty

      Re: GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL!

      England quite often get to the final or the semi final on their own, but in true British style we then lose at the last minute.

      1. MrT

        Either that, or...

        ... the Germans just need to bring in a drone that's better at taking penalties. Or just flash images of a Khan Bentley or Khan Range Rover Sport being crushed on the advertising boards: should put anyone on the field off their game.

      2. Shrimpling

        Re: England quite often get to the final or the semi final on their own

        No they don't...

        In the World Cup and European Championships they have got to the final once and to the Semi Finals 4 times in total (including the time they reached the final).

        We generally cock it up well before the semi finals.

  4. Paul Webb
    Terminator

    What you need is drones with tazers!

    Stupid C.U.P.I.D

    http://www.chaoticmoon.com/case-studies/chaotic-unmanned-personal-intercept-drone/

  5. MrT

    Why bother with...

    ...hacking drones to help win the next World Cup final that England get to? ... ... (pauses to let everyone finish laughing). Just hack the goal-line tech on the opposing team's goal so it triggers at the 6yd box.

    Nope, still not much chance of that - better make it the half-way line, but don't forget to switch it over at half-time.

    1. Wzrd1 Silver badge

      Re: Why bother with...

      Well, the US would simply use landmines.

      For fellow US citizens, blow me. I'm a recently retired veteran. I *know* what we'd do in war.

      And turning it into an ugly joke.

      My preference was always what our teams did. Remove our claymore and bring it forward when we shared our misery with the miserable SOB who demanded our presence.

      I'm just glad to be retired from such unpleasantness. :)

      1. Paul_Murphy

        Re: Why bother with...

        Since I don't like football in the slightest I have long held the idea of an audience participation model where each person gets their moneys-worth by being able to select an area of the pitch with goes 'live', if a majority of the audience chose the same area the land-mines would activate and the players would then be earning their money.

        Nothing necessarily deadly - just crippling would be interesting enough.

        1. VinceH

          Re: Why bother with...

          "Since I don't like football in the slightest I have long held the idea of an audience participation model where each person gets their moneys-worth by being able to select an area of the pitch with goes 'live', if a majority of the audience chose the same area the land-mines would activate and the players would then be earning their money."

          I also don't like football, so I've also had an idea to improve the game.

          1. Paul_Murphy

            Re: Why bother with...

            Ooh - that is an expansion on a previous thought of mine, and it sounds much fairer than my version.

            Other rules might include 'accidental' injuries or death of referees (sniper is red-carded), linesmen (yellow) and people on your team (round(s) replaced and given a stern talking to), and the handling of ricochets (maybe ballistic helmets for people in the first three rows?)

            Much kinder than mortar fire, siege engines or longbows (ah those were the days - those 'football' mathes with the French eh?).

            Sadly I suspect that none of these improvements will be taken up.

            1. dan1980

              Re: Why bother with...

              Actually, the best way to make soccer more interesting would be to swap the goals for four posts and exchange both the grounds and balls for elliptical versions. That'd do it.

              1. ElReg!comments!Pierre
                Trollface

                Re: Why bother with... @dan1980

                > swap the goals for four posts and exchange both the grounds and balls for elliptical versions. That'd do it.

                I really, really hope you're referring to the version whith grown men dressed in cloth, not the one with overweight armoured dancing queens. The latter is almost as boring as baseball, and that's saying a lot. Why they insist on calling "sport" an activity that consists mostly in standing absolutely still is beyond me. And aren't these -perfumed?- handkerchieves lovely...

                1. dan1980

                  Re: Why bother with... @dan1980

                  @ElReg!comments!Pierre

                  I mean the great and glorious game of Australian Rules Football.

                  If you're talking about Cricket (the only other sport I can think of that's played on an oval) then you want three posts (per end) and these are called "stumps".

                  The reference to 'overweight armoured dancing queens' threw me a bit, pointing me towards NFL but, as that has neither multiple posts (just the a single, elaborate one) at each end, nor is it played on an oval, I figured that was out.

                  1. ElReg!comments!Pierre

                    Re: Why bother with... @dan1980

                    > played on an oval

                    Yeah, I had kinda missed that part of your post.

                    1. dan1980

                      Re: Why bother with... @dan1980

                      Ah, so it was NFL/gridiron. Carry on then.

                      I'm rather partial to cricket and couldn't help feeling you were being a little unfair with the 'armoured' comment; if you've ever been on the receiving end of a cricket ball delivered with a surplus of pace and blocked with deficit of ability then you'd realise that you should have listened when told to strap on your thigh/forearm guard.

                      Not for nothing are they referred to as 'rocks' when new.

        2. Day

          Re: Why bother with...

          You don't like an activity so you think that land-mines should be used to injure people who take part in that activity? That's a bit odd isn't it?

          1. bigtimehustler

            Re: Why bother with...

            Well, it is people with such crazy views of the world and what should happen if they dont like something...that once given power you end up with the awful things that have happened in the world. After all, it is not only those that have been in a position to commit monstrous crimes that would commit them, given the chance.

          2. Paul_Murphy

            Re: Why bother with...

            Hmm, you're taking my thought experiment seriously? that's just as odd don't you think?

            Maybe I should have put a joke icon in there somewhere :-)

            1. Day

              Re: Why bother with...

              You have to see that it's an odd joke, surely? There are all sorts of sports that I'm not interested in but I'd never think that people who enjoy taking part in them should be hurt in order to increase the entertainment value. It takes all kinds, I suppose.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Why bother with...

              > Maybe I should have put a joke icon in there somewhere

              What makes your "joke" distinctly unfunny is that you say you do not like football, from which it can reasonably be deduced that you do not practise the sport.

              Had you said something along the lines of "I'm an avid footballer but I find it a bit boring sometimes, so here's what I'd do to improve the game...", then it would have been funny, perhaps.

              1. VinceH

                Re: Why bother with...

                "Had you said something along the lines of "I'm an avid footballer but I find it a bit boring sometimes, so here's what I'd do to improve the game...", then it would have been funny, perhaps.

                What you mean is that it then might have been funny to you. Different people find amusement in different things. Humour can be funny like that.

          3. Scott 1

            Re: Why bother with...

            You're new here, aren't you?

  6. imanidiot Silver badge
    Alert

    I've said it before and I'll say it again

    No aerial vehicle (be it a multicopter or fixed wing) should be used over or near a crowd/people. Flying so close to someone that a collision is possible (even if "a hacker" WERE involved) should be seen simply as reckless endangerment at best. (Personally I'd be more inclined to go with attempted manslaughter tbh)

    These multicopter operators seem to be completely oblivious to even the most basic rules in aviation (including those established in the remotely piloted aircraft community) Most of them seem to be completely unwilling to even think about the most basic risk mitigation, airspace awareness and emergency preparedness.

    IMHO any operator of a multicopter larger in weight than say 500 grams or with a span larger than 500 mm should need a permit and a license. Pull a stunt like this and you lose that permit and license, never to be returned. To acquire the license the operator will have to show he's in full control of his drone, knows how to read an airspace chart and avoid closed airspace, is capable or regaining control after an upset (heavy gust of wind, loss of control signal, etc) and is capable of judging and maintain the safety of himself and any spectators at all times (Because screw the airframe if it comes to the safety of people or animals). Basically anything a "real, ass in the air" pilot has to show before he is allowed to do commercial piloting work. The permit would require proving that the footage cannot be obtained by a safer method, that the aircraft is safe to use beyond a reasonable doubt in the operating area, that any spectators are not endangered by the operation of the craft.

    There are simply too many cowboys operating these craft. There are some who do know what they are doing, but they are a much rarer breed.

    1. Neil Barnes Silver badge

      Re: I've said it before and I'll say it again

      See my quote of the ANO above to see how many rules the operators are in general breaking. We need to point out to the authorities when such rules are broken.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I've said it before and I'll say it again

        > We need to point out to the authorities when such rules are broken.

        Otherwise known as being a NIMBY.

        Whatever happened to talking to people first, if they're really doing something stupid or particularly annoying? Too many miserable spineless bastards out there, and not just in government.

        1. Neil Barnes Silver badge

          Re: I've said it before and I'll say it again

          You are correct - talking is always the first approach. There have been cases where talking has resulted in abuse.

          The rules are there to maintain air safety and I (as a paraglider pilot) have to follow them just as much as a 787 pilot or a model aircraft pilot.

          There seems to be an assumption that quads are not aircraft and not subject to the rules - this is not the case.

    2. Silverburn

      Re: I've said it before and I'll say it again

      Your views are equally echoed in the field as well btw, with a universal "This'll ruin it for the rest of us" theme. None of us want this.

      The real operators know that flying over crowds is the number one no-no. Many will turn down work as a consequence. Unfortunately, not all operators turn the work down...

      Pre-flight checks etc are all common sense when you're rig costs nearly $15,000 (even before you add the RED epic). Venue checks as well.

      Your suggestion about weight and size limits is plausible, but there is much to argue here. What weight is safe? <1kg? 2kg? 4k? These are all being discussed by the various aviation authorities. But the big question is:

      When does a "hobby toy" become a "commercial drone"? A DJI Phantom can be both. And this is the problem.

      1. imanidiot Silver badge

        Re: I've said it before and I'll say it again

        I'd say the definition of what is a "commercial drone" has nothing to do with the actual aircraft! Much like a Private Pilot License holder is perfectly fine flying around a few friends for free but is not allowed to fly people around for payment (even a fuel compensation payment from friends would have to be done "under the table" as stricktly speaking it counts as payment) as one needs a Commercial Pilot License to do that.

        Anyone doing anything in the name of a company, is doing work under a contract or is paid for it is operating commercially. (Ofcourse, putting this unambiguesly into law is going to be very hard indeed)

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Spies, drones, hackers, pirates, crashes!

    But the real question is "why was she running away?"

    Hmmmm?

    Oh I see, a triathlon..

  8. Peter Christy

    But what about the control frequency?

    I've been flying RC aircraft for nearly 50 years now (started in 1965!), and nearly ALL "loss of control" incidents can be ascribed to pilot error. Having said that, nearly all these drones use 2.4 GHz as the control channel. However, this is an unlicensed band open to anyone. Although a modern 2.4 GHz system is pretty immune to interference, it can easily be jammed by a strong enough broadband signal - say as used for a short distance video link? Since this was a very public event, apparently being covered by a number of media organisations, I would think a more likely scenario is that the drone passed close to someone using a video link on the same band, completely swamping the control channel. Using an open, unlicensed band to control an aerial platform close to people is the height of stupidity, as this operator has now discovered.

    Interestingly, the Australian ABC network reports that in Australia, commercial drones need to be approved, and that the operators of this drone don't appear on the list of approved operators. In other words it was probably some chancer using cheap gear to undercut properly approved operators.

    Luckily, it appears the injuries sustained by the athlete were minor - this time. But as far as I'm aware, the drone industry has yet to apply to the World Radiocommunication Conference (the governing body for international frequency allocations) for any exclusive frequencies for commercial drone operation. It can take as long as 12 years from the initial application to final approval.

    Its all very well the CAA, FAA, et al, introducing regulations for the operations of commercial drones, but these will be worthless without a secure and exclusive frequency for their control channels.

    1. Silverburn

      Re: But what about the control frequency?

      Actually, my Spektrum DX8 mortally wounded a TBS Discovery last month, by decided than all channels should be 1000pwm until I rebooted it.

      However, I did follow all the common sense precautions, which meant the only thing even remotely troubled or injured by this was my wallet.

      Re: fixed frequencies...I doubt this will happen. Even though it should.

      1. Bronek Kozicki
        Trollface

        Re: But what about the control frequency?

        Spektrum, you say? Switch to JR DMSS or Futaba FASST already ...

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    welcome our new drone overlords

    So if the taser misses at least you can take them out with a headshot :P

  10. All names Taken
    Paris Hilton

    There you go:

    1 - insurance a la motor vehicles (TPO to fully comp)

    2 - licence to use drone (requires drone is registered and has its MOT)

    3 - responsibility rests with pilot, instructor, mechanics, the tea-trolley, owner, lender, trustee, …

    4 - (left for you dear reader?)

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Stop using the bloody things then, they're dangerous.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Too late, prototypes being tested:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5YkQ9w3PJ4

  12. i like crisps
    Terminator

    They're not DRONES but R.C.T's

    Thats: Radio Controlled Twats!

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like