Present situation - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3: Difference between revisions

From Control Systems Technology Group
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
(30 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.tue.nl/favicon-64.ico" type="image/x-icon">
<div style="font-family: 'Georgia'; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.5; max-width: 800px; word-wrap: break-word; color: #333; font-weight: 400; box-shadow: 0px 25px 35px -5px rgba(0,0,0,0.75); margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 70px; background-color: white; padding-top: 30px;">
<link rel=http://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2018_3_Group4&action=edit"stylesheet" type="text/css" href="theme.css">
<div style="width:calc(100vw - 175px);background-color:#EFEFEF;padding-bottom:35px;position:absolute;top:0;left:0;">
<div style="font-family: 'q_serif', Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.5; max-width: 750px; word-wrap: break-word; color: #333; font-weight: 400; box-shadow: 0px 25px 35px -5px rgba(0,0,0,0.75); margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 70px; background-color: white; padding-top: 25px;">


<div class="floatright">
<div style="display: block; position: absolute; right: 6%;">
; Page navigation
; Page navigation
# [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | Root]]
# [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | Root]]
# [[Notes_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Notes]]
# [[Notes - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Notes from meeting]]
# [[Initial_ideas_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3| Initial ideas]]
# [[Initial ideas - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Initial ideas]]
# [[Project_setup_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3| Project setup]]
# [[Project setup - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Project setup]]
# [[State_of_the_Art_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | State of the Art]]
# [[General problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|General problem description]]
# [[Specific problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Specific problem]]
# [[State of the Art - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|State of the Art]]
# [[Present_situation_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Present situation]]
# [[Specific problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Specific problem description]]
# [[Solutions_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Solutions]]
# [[Present situation - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Present situation]]
# [[Drones - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Drone analysis]]
# [[Solutions - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Solution analysis]]
# [[Airports under a microscope - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Airport analysis]]
# [[Types of Decision Models - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3 | Decision Model investigation]]
# [[Decision Model - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3 | Decision Model implementation]]
# [[Decision Model validation - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Decision Model validation]]
# [[Categorizing solutions - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Categorising solutions]]
# [[Web_Application_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Web Application]]
# [[Future - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Future]]
# [[Conclusion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Conclusion]]
# [[Conclusion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Conclusion]]
# [[Discussion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Discussion]]
# [[Discussion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Discussion]]
Line 19: Line 25:


= Present situation =
= Present situation =
In this section, we consider the present situation regarding the specific problem description. We discuss the current rules and regulations, current solutions, and the limitations of the current rules, regulations, and limitations.
In this section, we consider the present situation regarding the specific problem description.  
We interview an airport and look at current solutions.


== Rules and regulations ==
== Airport Interview ==
When considering the rules and regulations, we do not merely restrict ourselves to the rules and regulations surrounding airports, but we increase the width of our view to a more general perspective as we think we might do interesting findings this way.
In order to get a more unobstructed view of the issues our users (airports) face today we decided to ask them a couple of questions. We want to obtain a clear picture of their current approach to airport security regarding drones, what the consequences would be if a drone were to fly in their airspace right now, and what the consequences were of the 19th of December Gatwick incident. We will then ask them what their requirements would be for a drone defence mechanism.
Different countries have different rules and regulations when it comes to UAVs.
Furthermore, distinctions are made between recreational use and commercial use.
The United States of America (U.S.A.), for example, considers different rules when it comes to recreational use and commercial use.
The requirements when flying a drone under commercial use are much stricter than flying a drone under recreational use.
If one wants to fly under commercial use, one has to pass an FAA test and receive Part 107<ref name="part107">U.S.A. Government https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=20516</ref> certification.
Furthermore, a drone needs to be registered so that the owner of the drone can be traced back in case this is needed.  


We asked the following questions:


A few guidelines to follow when flying a drone in the U.S.A are as follows<ref name="pcmag">Jim Fisher, Drone Regulations: What You Need to Know, Aug. 23 (2018) https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2491507,00.asp</ref>:
* What is the airport's current mechanism for detecting drones?
* Fly at or below 400 feet
* How will the airport respond when the drone is sighted in restricted aerospace?
* Keep your drone within sight
* Roughly how much damage will the airport take if a drone were to restrict air traffic for 1 hour?
* Never fly near other aircraft, especially near airports
* The 19th of December and 21st of December drone attack at Gatwick airport caused over 1000 flights to be affected, did your airport get affected by the knock-on effects?
* Never fly over groups of people
* What would be the maximum budget for an automated anti-drone mechanism?
* Never fly over stadiums or sports events
* What kind of system would you imagine when thinking of anti-drone mechanisms?
* Never fly near emergency response efforts such as fires
* Never fly under the influence
* Be aware of airspace requirements
 
 
There exist applications, available for smartphones and on the web, that display where a drone is allowed to fly. One example is AirMap that shows users that they should be at least five miles away from an airport to operate the drone without notifying the control tower of the airport. As you might have realised by now, the rules and regulations regarding drones are still a work in progress. As the rules and regulations per country differ significantly, we will solely focus on the rules and regulations considered in the Netherlands. This is only natural as the project is carried out in the Netherlands as well.
The Netherlands considers different rules and regulations based on the type of usage of the drone. The main categories specified by the Dutch Government consider recreational use and commercial use.


=== Recreational use ===
We contacted most major Dutch airfields; Eindhoven, Schiphol, Maastricht Aaken, Groningen, Twente, Den Helder, Rotterdam the Hague and Bergen op Zoom.


When one flies a drone for personal purposes, one must abide by the Model Aeroplanes Regulations<ref name="modelvliegen">Regeling modelvliegen https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0019147/2015-11-07</ref>.
Eindhoven airport responded to the questions, firstly stating that Eindhoven airport uses the runway and infrastructure provided by the Military airbase Eindhoven. This means that the Dutch Royal Airforce is responsible for air traffic control and hence the safety in the airport's airspace. We had the following answers to the aforementioned questions:
This means that one is not permitted to fly over groups of people or connected buildings.  
Furthermore, the drone needs to be in sight at all times.
As soon as one sees an aeroplane or helicopter approaching, one must land as quickly as possible.




For reasons of safety, it is not allowed to fly a drone just anywhere. As mentioned earlier, it is not allowed to fly over groups of people.
'''What is the airport's current mechanism for detecting drones?'''
The Dutch Government has also set down requirements regarding the conditions under which it is allowed to fly<ref name="rulesdutchgovernment">Dutch Government, Rules for recreational use of drones https://www.government.nl/topics/drone/rules-pertaining-to-recreational-use-of-drones</ref>.
This includes but is not limited to:
* You must be able to see the drone at all times.
* You may not fly in the dark.
* You must always give priority to all other aircraft, such as aeroplanes, helicopters, gliders, et cetera. This means that you must land immediately once you see an aircraft approaching.


At the moment the airport has no automated system to detect drones. At the moment this done by sight from the air traffic control tower.


An overview map for the recreational use of drones has been depicted in Figure 1.
'''How will the airport respond when the drone is sighted in restricted aerospace?'''
This image accurately presents where one is allowed to fly their drone for recreational use and where it is forbidden to fly a drone.
An interesting observation that can be done from this image is that in many significantly sized cities, it is forbidden to fly a drone at all.
Furthermore, for uncontrolled airports, flights within a distance of 3 kilometres are permitted, provided that there is no objection from the airport operator.
Additionally, there may always be temporary bans and restricted areas for a limited time due to, for example, events.


This depends on the location of the drone. At the moment an incident affecting air traffic has not yet occurred. When a drone is spotted, we will suspend all traffic.


[[File:Overzichtskaart_vliegen_met_drones.png|thumb|upright=4|center|alt=Missing image|Figure 1: Overview map for recreational flying with drones.]]
'''Roughly how much damage will the airport take if a drone were to restrict air traffic for 1 hour?'''


I cannot answer this question [in detail], for the military activities, the impact will be limited. However, the impact on Eindhoven Airport will be much more significant.


There also exists a maximum weight for private drones of 25 kilograms. Making films and photographs with a drone may only be done for personal use.
'''The 19th of December and 21st of December drone attack at Gatwick airport caused over 1000 flights to be affected, did your airport get affected by the knock-on effects?'''
Here, the privacy right of others must be kept in mind. It is, for example, not allowed to secretly film someone.
If pictures are being taken of a specific person or that person is being recorded, the person concerned must be informed.
This leads us to the following point. The owner of a drone is responsible for any damage caused by their drone.
This means that the owner of a drone is liable for any damages or injuries caused by their drone.
Therefore, it is vital for the owner of a drone to verify whether their liability insurance covers any damage to drone incidents.
In some cases, it is possible for the damage to run up to a substantial sum up to thousands of euros. 
We can further extend this by considering fines that can be given to drone pilots.
Failing to abide by the rules mentioned above can result in either a warning or a fine.
It is also possible for the controlled drone to be confiscated.
The amount of the fine or the punishment given depends a lot on the type of violation caused by the drone usage.
It will be considered if the drone was used in a professional setting or for hobby purposes.
Furthermore, it will be considered if people were endangered or not.


We were not affected as there are no flights to Gatwick from Eindhoven.


The Dutch Government provides a summary in a visual form of what guidelines to follow during recreational usage of drones<ref name="visualsummary">Veilig vliegen met drones https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/binaries/content/gallery/rijksoverheid/content-afbeeldingen/onderwerpen/drone/drone-2018.jpg</ref>. This visual can be observed in Figure 2. This figure accurately presents the most important rules to follow when using drones in a recreational setting. Note that the text on this figure is in Dutch.
'''What would be the maximum budget for an automated anti-drone mechanism?'''


[[File:Drone-2018.jpg|thumb|upright=4|center|alt=Missing image|Figure 2: A summary considering recreational usage of drones in Dutch.]]
None, for safety there will always be a budget available.


=== Commercial use ===
'''What kind of system would you imagine when thinking of anti-drone mechanisms?'''
On the other hand, we can also consider the commercial use of drones.
Examples include but are not limited to people that use the drone to earn money or people that use drones for business purposes.
For these commercial users, different rules and regulations apply than for recreational users.
A commercial user needs, for example, a license.
The additional rules and regulations for commercial users must minimise the risk of accidents, both in the air and on the ground.


The location, altitude and flight-profile are crucial. The weight of a drone is also very important.


Examples of commercial uses include:
* Video production companies that make aerial shots.
* Making promotional films for a company.
* Using a drone for a business, such as companies that want to view hard-to-reach places for certain reasons.


For using a drone in a commercial setting, the owner of this drone needs an RPAS Operator Certificate (ROC).
The correspondent also told us he was very interested in our research, offering the opportunity for further collaboration.
One can be requested from the `Inspectie Leefomgeving en Transport' (ILT).
If the drone is being piloted by someone, then this person also needs a pilot's license (vliegbrevet in Dutch).
Furthermore, a certificate of airworthiness and proof of enrollment in the aviation register is needed<ref name="commercialuser">Welke vergunning heb ik nodig voor mijn drone? https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/drone/vraag-en-antwoord/vergunning-drone</ref>.
There exist two sorts of ROC licenses, namely a regular ROC and a ROC Light.
If a drone is heavier than 4 kilograms, then a ROC is needed.
Otherwise, a ROC-light will be fine in most cases.
Additionally, it is not allowed to fly as high with a ROC Light compared to a regular ROC.
 
 
Other differences are displayed in Table 2 below. Here, one can more clearly observe the differences between a ROC and ROC Light.
We will not display all difference here as we save this for the next section where we also compare the commercial use to the recreational use.
 
{| class="wikitable" | style="vertical-align:middle;" | border="2" style="border-collapse:collapse" ;
|+ '''Table 2: Differences ROC and ROC-light'''
! align="center"; style="width: 20%" | '''Rules license'''
! align="center"; style="width: 5%" | '''Drone heavier than 4 kilograms'''
! align="center"; style="width: 5%" | '''Drone lighter than 4 kilograms'''
|-
| Type of license
| ROC
| ROC-light
|-
| Maximal weight of drone allowed
| 150 kg
| 40 kg
|-
| Maximal flight height
| 120 metres
| 50 metres
|-
| Maximal distance between drone and owner
| 500 metres
| 100 metres
|-
| Minimal distance towards crowds
| 150 metres
| 50 metres
|-
| Minimal distance to buildings
| 150 metres
| 50 metres
|-
| Minimal distance to highways
| 150 metres
| 150 metres
|-
|}
 
 
If one does not abide by the rules, it is possible to obtain a fine and for the drone to be confiscated.
People who do wrong more often can also get a prison sentence.
The National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and Security (NCTV) focuses on the abuse of drones.
The NCTV cooperates with national and international government organisations.
Given fines can be around +/- 400 euros for commercial usage with a ROC Light and +/- 10 000 euros for commercial usage with a ROC.
 
=== Summary ===
 
In this section, we provide a summary when considering recreational, commercial (ROC), and commercial (ROC Light) usage of drones.
These rules and guidelines are from the most up-to-date version provided by the Dutch Government<ref name="rules">Regels voor drones: verschillen tussen recreatief en beroepsmatig gebruik https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/drone/documenten/brochures/2016/07/06/regels-voor-drones-verschillen-tussen-recreatief-en-beroepsmatig-gebruik</ref> (20-09-2016).
 
{| class="wikitable" | style="vertical-align:middle;" | border="2" style="border-collapse:collapse" ;
|+ '''Table 3: Comparison of recreational and commercial (ROC and ROC Light) drone usage'''
! align="center"; style="width: 25%" |
! align="center"; style="width: 25%" | '''Reacreational flying'''
! align="center"; style="width: 25%" | '''Commercial flying (ROC)'''
! align="center"; style="width: 25%" | '''Commercial flying (ROC Light)'''
|-
| Use of a drone || Hobbyism, recreational use || Commercial use || Commercial use
|-
| Weight drone (total starting mass) || Max. 25 kg || Max. 150 kg || Max. 4 kg
|-
| Priority for other air traffic || Gives priority to all other air traffic and lands immediately when other traffic is approaching. || Gives priority to all other air traffic and lands immediately when other traffic is approaching. || Gives priority to all other air traffic and lands immediately when other traffic is approaching.
|-
| Visual Flight Rules || Always in sight of the pilot || Always in sight of the pilot || Always in sight of the pilot
|-
| Distance to pilot or observer || N/A || Max. 500 metres || Max. 100 metres
|-
| Daylight || Only daylight || Only daylight || Only daylight
|-
| Height (from ground/water) || Max. 120 metres. Some exceptions (KNVvL or FLRVC members): max. 300 metres || Max. 120 meters (exemption possible in ROC) || Max. 50 metres
|-
| Distance criteria: ||  || Exemption possible || Exemption impossible
|-
| Distance to crowds || Not above || Min. 150 metres || Min. 50 metres
|-
| Distance to buildings || Not above || Min. 150 metres || Min. 50 metres
|-
| Distance to works of art, port and industrial areas || Not above || Min. 50 metres || Min. 50 metres
|-
| Distance to railway lines || Not above || Min. 50 metres || Min. 50 metres
|-
| Distance to public roads and motorways || Not above with the exception of roads in 30 km zones within the built-up area and roads in 60 km areas outside the built-up area || Min. 50 metres || Min. 50 metres
|-
| Distance to vessels and vehicles || N/A || Min. 150 metres || Min. 50 metres
|-
| Where are you allowed to fly? || Not in controlled airspace || Not in controlled airspace || Not in controlled airspace
|-
|  || Not within 3 km of uncontrolled airports, unless there is no objection from the operator || N/A || Not within 3 km of uncontrolled airports, unless there is no objection from the operator
|-
|  || Not in military and civilian low-flying areas, unless with an observer || N/A || Not in military and civilian low-flying areas, unless with an observer
|-
| Proof of Authority for the pilot / driver ('brevet') || N/A || Certificate of Competence (RPA-L)(medical examination compulsory, at least LAP-L) || Exemption Certificate of Competence Well: pilot can demonstrate sufficient competence, e.g. with a KEI diploma or a recognized pilot's license(this requirement does not apply if the drone weighs less than 1 kg) no medical examination
|-
| Certificate of Airworthiness for the drone || N/A || Certificate of Airworthiness (technical inspection required) || Exemption Certificate of Airworthiness (no technical inspection)
|-
| Registration in aircraft register || N/A || Proof of registration || Proof of registration
|-
| Minimum age || N/A || 18 years old || 18 years old
|-
| Operational manual || N/A || Handbook necessary || N/A
|-
| Insurance || Not required || WA insurance required || WA insurance required
|-
| Notification obligation || N/A || 24 hours before flight with Minister and mayor NOTAM || N/A
|-
| Fines || N/A || +/- 10 000 euro || +/- 400 euro
|}
 
 
=== New rules ===
 
There are new European rules for flying with drones (both for recreational and professional use) in the making.
The text below is based on concept texts and will only be certain after the publication of the new rules.
 
 
The European aviation authority EASA expected to publish the text of new rules in the first quarter of 2019<ref name="ilent">Nieuwe regels in de maak https://www.ilent.nl/onderwerpen/drones</ref>.
We now know that they have to be published on the first of March.
Only after publishing will it become what the exact rules are and when those rules come into effect.
That can be after three, six or nine months. At this moment, it is assumed to be around three months.
There will probably also be a transitional period in which the national documents are still accepted. That term is suspected to be around 2 years<ref name="ilent">Nieuwe regels in de maak https://www.ilent.nl/onderwerpen/drones</ref>.
 
 
We already know that these European rules are divided into three different categories, based on risks for third parties on the ground and in the air.
These are as follows:
 
* open category - low risk
* specific category - medium risk
* certified category - high risk
 
 
The open category probably includes recreational or professionally controlled drones with a mass larger than 250 grams and less than 4 kg.
The drone operators of these drones should probably have a `theory certificate'.
This certificate is probably comparable with the current Dutch theory certificate for mini-drones.
It is expected that the (unqualified) NL mini-drone theory certificate can be converted into a European document or considered as valid without conversion<ref name="ilent">Nieuwe regels in de maak https://www.ilent.nl/onderwerpen/drones</ref>.
 
This also applies to those who fly with a microdrone (max. 1 kg) and have an exemption for this (in a ROC Light permit).
Then, these owners still have more than two years to achieve that theory certificate.
This certificate is only necessary if one wants to fly outside a model airfield.
 
 
In the specific category, the professionally controlled drones are considered that have a higher risk than professionally controlled drones in the open category.
That could, for example, consist of flights that now require a ROC. An example of this is when a drone is heavier than 4 kg.
 
 
The following drone flights can be classified in the certified category.
The category is certified if the risk analysis shows that the risk of the intended flight is such that this can only be mitigated by the certification of the driver, the drone with a ground station and the organisation (operator).
 
 
This is, for example, the case when:
* flights with drones:
** with which people are transported, or
** dangerous goods are transported where a high risk may arise for third parties when a crash occurs.
 
or
 
* flights with large or complex drones:
** almost constantly above crowds,
** outside view distance, or
** in a part of the airspace where much other air traffic is present.
 
== Airport Interview ==
In order to get a more unobstructed view of the issues our users (airports) face today we decided to ask them a couple of questions. We want to obtain a clear picture of their current approach to airport security regarding drones, what the consequences would be if a drone were to fly in their airspace right now, and what the consequences were of the 19th of December Gatwick incident. We will then ask them what their requirements would be for a drone defence mechanism.
 
 
We asked the following questions:
 
* What is the airport's current mechanism for detecting drones?
* How will the airport respond when the drone is sighted in restricted aerospace?
* Roughly how much damage will the airport take if a drone were to restrict air traffic for 1 hour?
* The 19th of December and 21st of December drone attack at Gatwick airport caused over 1000 flights to be affected, did your airport get affected by the knock-on effects?
* What would be the maximum budget for an automated anti-drone mechanism?
* What kind of system would you imagine when thinking of anti-drone mechanisms?
 
We contacted two major Dutch airports, Amsterdam Schiphol and Eindhoven airport via email.


== Solutions ==
== Solutions ==


In this section, we will take a look at solutions against unwanted UAVs at and around airports that are currently/in the near future being used by airports/authorities. These solutions might exclude many solutions that might be useful but are simply not in use due to for example the jurisdiction not being up to date with the current technology. However, a list of all possible solutions including solutions that might not even be feasible right now, but maybe within the next few years will be discussed in the section [[Solutions_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | solutions]].
In this section, we will take a look at solutions against unwanted UAVs at and around airports that are currently/in the near future being used by airports/authorities. These solutions might exclude many solutions that might be useful but are simply not in use due to for example the jurisdiction not being up to date with the current technology. However, a list of all possible solutions including solutions that might not even be feasible right now, but maybe within the next few years will be discussed in the section [[Solutions_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | solutions]]. It is important to note that there are different rules for different types of [[Drones_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | drones]].
* There will be European rules and regulations in the near future, expected around June 2019, obligating operators wanting to fly with a drone that is heavier than 250 gram to be registered. Drones will be obligated to send out identification signals such that authorities, for example, the police, are able to trace and identify the operator of the drone. <ref name="remco dijkstra drones"> drs. C. van Nieuwenhuizen Wijbenga. [https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/drone/documenten/kamerstukken/2019/01/15/beantwoording-vragen-van-het-lid-remco-dijkstra-vvd-over-drones-bij-londen-gatwick "Beantwoording vragen van het lid Remco Dijkstra (VVD)
over drones bij Londen-Gatwick"], Ministerie van
Infrastructuur en
Waterstaat, 15 January 2019, Retrieved on 14-02-2019 </ref>
* With these same rules and regulations drones will be obliged to be equipped with geofencing software. This will restrict the operator to be able to fly close to an airport. <ref name="remco dijkstra drones"></ref>
*


* There will be European rules and regulations in the near future, expected around June 2019, obligating operators wanting to fly with a drone that is heavier than 250 gram to be registered. Drones will be obligated to send out identification signals such that authorities, for example, the police, can trace and identify the operator of the drone<ref name="remco dijkstra drones"> Drs. C. van Nieuwenhuizen Wijbenga. [https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/drone/documenten/kamerstukken/2019/01/15/beantwoording-vragen-van-het-lid-remco-dijkstra-vvd-over-drones-bij-londen-gatwick "Beantwoording vragen van het lid Remco Dijkstra (VVD) over drones bij Londen-Gatwick"], Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat, 15 January 2019, Retrieved on 14-02-2019 </ref>.
* With these same rules and regulations drones will be obliged to be equipped with geofencing software. This will restrict the operator to be able to fly close to an airport<ref name="remco dijkstra drones"></ref>.
* Anti-drone systems deployed at two London airports are capable of tracking the devices from as far as six miles away. As well as being able to sever communications with the operator, some models can also destroy the drones using a laser beam. However, it is not exactly been released to the public as to what equipment is used and how it works<ref name = "invest"></ref>.
* The police trains eagles to make them consider unwanted UAVs as preys, such that they would catch the UAVs and place them in a safe area. However, the Dutch police have already stopped using this solution because training the eagles is more expensive and complicated than they anticipated<ref name="eagles drones"> Thuy Ong. [https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/12/16767000/police-netherlands-eagles-rogue-drones "Dutch police will stop using drone-hunting eagles since they weren't doing what they're told"], 12 December 2017, Retrieved on 14-02-2019 </ref>.
* In May of 2018, London Southend Airport successfully tested an anti-drone system that combines optical sensor and radio frequency to detect drones<ref name="gatwick unprepared"> Adam Bannister. [https://www.ifsecglobal.com/drones/anti-drone-tech-exists-gatwick-airport-utterly-unprepared/ "With anti-drone tech on the market, why was Gatwick Airport so unprepared?"], December 21 2018, Retrieved on 14-02-2019 </ref>.
* The US Federal Aviation Authority trialled the Anti-UAV Defense System (Auds) system in 2016. It uses high powered radio waves to disable drones, it blocks their communication with the controller and switches them off mid-air<ref name="gatwick unprepared"></ref>.


== Limitations ==


* Actual solutions being used
* Solutions that are going to be used within the next few years
* https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/drone/documenten/kamerstukken/2019/01/15/beantwoording-vragen-van-het-lid-remco-dijkstra-vvd-over-drones-bij-londen-gatwick
* https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/drone/documenten/kamerstukken/2018/11/01/beantwoording-vragen-schriftelijk-overleg-drones
* https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/drone/documenten/rapporten/2018/05/28/bijlage-1-handhavingsanalyse-drones
== Limitations ==
=== The jurisdiction regarding drones is not up to date with current technology ===
=== The jurisdiction regarding drones is not up to date with current technology ===
As is often the case, the laws we have are not able to keep up with the tremendous advancements of technology <ref name = "A">[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/526401/laws-and-ethics-cant-keep-pace-with-technology/ "MIT Technology Review: Laws and Ethics Can’t Keep Pace with Technology"], Written by V. Wadhwa, April 2014, Retrieved on 12-02-2019</ref>. This has happened many times already in history, for example with the rise of copyright laws at the end of the 19th century. Due to the huge advancements in copying and spreading literature, originals authors lost lots of money to people selling the author's work without proper permission. This was facilitated due to the rise in printing technologies. Under the pressure of this growing technology, the copyright laws had been created, albeit years and years later after the problem had occurred <ref name = "B">[https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1022&context=facpubs "Does Technology Require New Law?"], Written by D. Friedman, January 2001, Retrieved on 12-02-2019</ref>. This example is just one of the many examples where the laws come much too late after the technology has been fully developed.  
As is often the case, the laws we have are not able to keep up with the tremendous advancements of technology <ref name = "A">[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/526401/laws-and-ethics-cant-keep-pace-with-technology/ "MIT Technology Review: Laws and Ethics Can’t Keep Pace with Technology"], Written by V. Wadhwa, April 2014, Retrieved on 12-02-2019</ref>. This has happened many times already in history, for example with the rise of copyright laws at the end of the 19th century. Due to the huge advancements in copying and spreading literature, originals authors lost lots of money to people selling the author's work without proper permission. This was facilitated due to the rise in printing technologies. Under the pressure of this growing technology, the copyright laws had been created, albeit years and years later after the problem had occurred <ref name = "B">[https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1022&context=facpubs "Does Technology Require New Law?"], Written by D. Friedman, January 2001, Retrieved on 12-02-2019</ref>. This example is just one of the many examples where the laws come much too late after the technology has been fully developed.  
Line 315: Line 91:


=== Limitation of current solutions ===
=== Limitation of current solutions ===
As we have described before, current solutions are simply not good enough to efficiently provide a solution to the problem. For this exact reason, airports and governments all over the world are investing vast amounts of money in the development of technologies to counter drones. Heathrow and Gatwick airport are two examples of airports that are investing millions of dollars in this technology <ref name = "invest">[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/03/heathrow-and-gatwick-millions-anti-drone-technology "The Guardian: Heathrow and Gatwick invest millions in anti-drone technology", January 2019, Retrieved on 13-02-2019 </ref>.  
As we have described before, current solutions such as the eagle experiment, are simply not good enough to efficiently provide a solution to the problem. For this exact reason, airports and governments all over the world are investing vast amounts of money in the development of technologies to counter drones. Heathrow and Gatwick airport are two examples of airports that are investing millions of dollars in this technology <ref name = "invest">[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/03/heathrow-and-gatwick-millions-anti-drone-technology "The Guardian: Heathrow and Gatwick invest millions in anti-drone technology", January 2019, Retrieved on 13-02-2019 </ref>.
 
Apart from the fact that some solutions simply do not work, other proposed solutions have negative side results. For example, shutting the unwanted UAVs down with radiowaves means that they will crash straight down to the ground. If such a drone falls on someone's head, he or she could get seriously injured. Furthermore, the crashing drone can also break specific equipment when falling. Lastly, if the drone, e.g. falls and breaks on the runway, this could also be dangerous. These consequences also apply to the current solution where the drones are shot down with a laser for example.


Other solutions such as geofencing and identification signals also have the flaw that they can be bypassed easily. If someone intentionally wants to fly a drone to the airport, it is not that difficult to make sure that the drone does not broadcast identification signals anymore. The drone operator could also make sure that the drone does not send signals that the geofencing uses, such that the geofence is, in fact, useless for deterring this drone. Furthermore, someone could also build a drone themselves, and choose not to send these required signals. This would indeed be against the law shortly, but since the drone operator is already engaged in criminal activities, these regulations would most likely not stop him. Thus, the technologies can easily be bypassed, rendering them as useless.
----
----
Back to the [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | root page]].
Back to the [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | root page]].

Latest revision as of 14:47, 1 April 2019

Present situation

In this section, we consider the present situation regarding the specific problem description. We interview an airport and look at current solutions.

Airport Interview

In order to get a more unobstructed view of the issues our users (airports) face today we decided to ask them a couple of questions. We want to obtain a clear picture of their current approach to airport security regarding drones, what the consequences would be if a drone were to fly in their airspace right now, and what the consequences were of the 19th of December Gatwick incident. We will then ask them what their requirements would be for a drone defence mechanism.

We asked the following questions:

  • What is the airport's current mechanism for detecting drones?
  • How will the airport respond when the drone is sighted in restricted aerospace?
  • Roughly how much damage will the airport take if a drone were to restrict air traffic for 1 hour?
  • The 19th of December and 21st of December drone attack at Gatwick airport caused over 1000 flights to be affected, did your airport get affected by the knock-on effects?
  • What would be the maximum budget for an automated anti-drone mechanism?
  • What kind of system would you imagine when thinking of anti-drone mechanisms?

We contacted most major Dutch airfields; Eindhoven, Schiphol, Maastricht Aaken, Groningen, Twente, Den Helder, Rotterdam the Hague and Bergen op Zoom.

Eindhoven airport responded to the questions, firstly stating that Eindhoven airport uses the runway and infrastructure provided by the Military airbase Eindhoven. This means that the Dutch Royal Airforce is responsible for air traffic control and hence the safety in the airport's airspace. We had the following answers to the aforementioned questions:


What is the airport's current mechanism for detecting drones?

At the moment the airport has no automated system to detect drones. At the moment this done by sight from the air traffic control tower.

How will the airport respond when the drone is sighted in restricted aerospace?

This depends on the location of the drone. At the moment an incident affecting air traffic has not yet occurred. When a drone is spotted, we will suspend all traffic.

Roughly how much damage will the airport take if a drone were to restrict air traffic for 1 hour?

I cannot answer this question [in detail], for the military activities, the impact will be limited. However, the impact on Eindhoven Airport will be much more significant.

The 19th of December and 21st of December drone attack at Gatwick airport caused over 1000 flights to be affected, did your airport get affected by the knock-on effects?

We were not affected as there are no flights to Gatwick from Eindhoven.

What would be the maximum budget for an automated anti-drone mechanism?

None, for safety there will always be a budget available.

What kind of system would you imagine when thinking of anti-drone mechanisms?

The location, altitude and flight-profile are crucial. The weight of a drone is also very important.


The correspondent also told us he was very interested in our research, offering the opportunity for further collaboration.

Solutions

In this section, we will take a look at solutions against unwanted UAVs at and around airports that are currently/in the near future being used by airports/authorities. These solutions might exclude many solutions that might be useful but are simply not in use due to for example the jurisdiction not being up to date with the current technology. However, a list of all possible solutions including solutions that might not even be feasible right now, but maybe within the next few years will be discussed in the section solutions. It is important to note that there are different rules for different types of drones.

  • There will be European rules and regulations in the near future, expected around June 2019, obligating operators wanting to fly with a drone that is heavier than 250 gram to be registered. Drones will be obligated to send out identification signals such that authorities, for example, the police, can trace and identify the operator of the drone[1].
  • With these same rules and regulations drones will be obliged to be equipped with geofencing software. This will restrict the operator to be able to fly close to an airport[1].
  • Anti-drone systems deployed at two London airports are capable of tracking the devices from as far as six miles away. As well as being able to sever communications with the operator, some models can also destroy the drones using a laser beam. However, it is not exactly been released to the public as to what equipment is used and how it works[2].
  • The police trains eagles to make them consider unwanted UAVs as preys, such that they would catch the UAVs and place them in a safe area. However, the Dutch police have already stopped using this solution because training the eagles is more expensive and complicated than they anticipated[3].
  • In May of 2018, London Southend Airport successfully tested an anti-drone system that combines optical sensor and radio frequency to detect drones[4].
  • The US Federal Aviation Authority trialled the Anti-UAV Defense System (Auds) system in 2016. It uses high powered radio waves to disable drones, it blocks their communication with the controller and switches them off mid-air[4].

Limitations

The jurisdiction regarding drones is not up to date with current technology

As is often the case, the laws we have are not able to keep up with the tremendous advancements of technology [5]. This has happened many times already in history, for example with the rise of copyright laws at the end of the 19th century. Due to the huge advancements in copying and spreading literature, originals authors lost lots of money to people selling the author's work without proper permission. This was facilitated due to the rise in printing technologies. Under the pressure of this growing technology, the copyright laws had been created, albeit years and years later after the problem had occurred [6]. This example is just one of the many examples where the laws come much too late after the technology has been fully developed.

The same problem is currently happening to drone regulations. Over the last decade, the technological advancements in drones have been enormous, and as a consequence, the accessibility of drones for normal people has increased as well. Nowadays, anyone can buy a drone without any license and fly the drone with a camera to any house in his or her neighbourhood for under 100€ [7]. This seems like an obvious illegal intrusion of privacy by laws such as personality rights ("portretrecht"). However, these rules are not properly enforced concerning drones. In Europe, new drone regulations will be enforced, starting halfway through the year [8]. However, there have been huge debates about how the regulations should be changed, with no concrete answers. Just recently, on January 21 2019, the Dutch House of Representatives ("Tweede Kamer") organised a "rondetafelgesprek", where experts discussed what should be done in terms of regulations[9]. These examples show that the regulations of drones are not up to date with the current technological advances of drones.

Limitation of current solutions

As we have described before, current solutions such as the eagle experiment, are simply not good enough to efficiently provide a solution to the problem. For this exact reason, airports and governments all over the world are investing vast amounts of money in the development of technologies to counter drones. Heathrow and Gatwick airport are two examples of airports that are investing millions of dollars in this technology [2].

Apart from the fact that some solutions simply do not work, other proposed solutions have negative side results. For example, shutting the unwanted UAVs down with radiowaves means that they will crash straight down to the ground. If such a drone falls on someone's head, he or she could get seriously injured. Furthermore, the crashing drone can also break specific equipment when falling. Lastly, if the drone, e.g. falls and breaks on the runway, this could also be dangerous. These consequences also apply to the current solution where the drones are shot down with a laser for example.

Other solutions such as geofencing and identification signals also have the flaw that they can be bypassed easily. If someone intentionally wants to fly a drone to the airport, it is not that difficult to make sure that the drone does not broadcast identification signals anymore. The drone operator could also make sure that the drone does not send signals that the geofencing uses, such that the geofence is, in fact, useless for deterring this drone. Furthermore, someone could also build a drone themselves, and choose not to send these required signals. This would indeed be against the law shortly, but since the drone operator is already engaged in criminal activities, these regulations would most likely not stop him. Thus, the technologies can easily be bypassed, rendering them as useless.


Back to the root page.

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Drs. C. van Nieuwenhuizen Wijbenga. "Beantwoording vragen van het lid Remco Dijkstra (VVD) over drones bij Londen-Gatwick", Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat, 15 January 2019, Retrieved on 14-02-2019
  2. 2.0 2.1 [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/03/heathrow-and-gatwick-millions-anti-drone-technology "The Guardian: Heathrow and Gatwick invest millions in anti-drone technology", January 2019, Retrieved on 13-02-2019
  3. Thuy Ong. "Dutch police will stop using drone-hunting eagles since they weren't doing what they're told", 12 December 2017, Retrieved on 14-02-2019
  4. 4.0 4.1 Adam Bannister. "With anti-drone tech on the market, why was Gatwick Airport so unprepared?", December 21 2018, Retrieved on 14-02-2019
  5. "MIT Technology Review: Laws and Ethics Can’t Keep Pace with Technology", Written by V. Wadhwa, April 2014, Retrieved on 12-02-2019
  6. "Does Technology Require New Law?", Written by D. Friedman, January 2001, Retrieved on 12-02-2019
  7. [https://www.mediamarkt.nl/nl/product/_dji-ryze-tello-powered-by-dji-1556528.html "MediaMarkt Drone: DJI Ryze Tello Powered by DJI", Retrieved on 12-02-2019.
  8. "Bright: Nieuwe regels voor drones gaan medio 2019 in" November 2018, Retrieved on 12-02-2019.
  9. "Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal: Rondetafelgesprek over Drones en killer robots", January 2019, Retrieved on 13-02-2019