https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=J.g.j.bokx%40student.tue.nl&feedformat=atomControl Systems Technology Group - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T21:46:21ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.39.5https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Web_Application_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3&diff=71067Web Application - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 32019-04-01T13:00:51Z<p>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nl: /* What it looks like */</p>
<hr />
<div><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;"><br />
<br />
<div style="display: block; position: absolute; right: 6%;"><br />
; Page navigation<br />
# [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | Root]]<br />
# [[Notes - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Notes from meeting]]<br />
# [[Initial ideas - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Initial ideas]]<br />
# [[Project setup - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Project setup]]<br />
# [[General problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|General problem description]] <br />
# [[State of the Art - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|State of the Art]]<br />
# [[Specific problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Specific problem description]]<br />
# [[Present situation - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Present situation]]<br />
# [[Drones - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Drone analysis]]<br />
# [[Solutions - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Solution analysis]]<br />
# [[Airports under a microscope - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Airport analysis]]<br />
# [[Types of Decision Models - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3 | Decision Model investigation]]<br />
# [[Decision Model - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3 | Decision Model implementation]]<br />
# [[Decision Model validation - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Decision Model validation]]<br />
# [[Categorizing solutions - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Categorising solutions]]<br />
# [[Web_Application_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Web Application]]<br />
# [[Future - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Future]]<br />
# [[Conclusion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Conclusion]]<br />
# [[Discussion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Discussion]]<br />
</div><br />
<br />
= Web Application =<br />
Now that we have a decision model in place, it is useful to be able to display/represent it in some way. By doing so, we will be able to validate, test and actually make use of the decision model. This also gives a clear overview of how the decision model is supposed to work. The first step is to find a suitable method to represent the decision model.<br />
<br />
== How to implement? ==<br />
There are various methods of implementing a decision model. The decision model could be implemented using an existing survey/form website, i.e. using google forms<ref name="forms">Google [https://forms.google.com "Google Forms"] Retrieved on 19-03-2019</ref>, SurveyMonkey<ref name="surveymonkey"> [https://www.surveymonkey.com/ "SurveyMonkey"] Retrieved on 19-03-2019</ref> or another similar website. This method would probably be easiest and the least time consuming, however, those websites are mostly not very flexible and do not adhere to our needs. Such form website mostly offers users to fill in answers to questions, but do not follow up with a calculation of a score and be able to give advice for solutions. Furthermore, some of these websites even restrict 'free' users to a limited number of questions to be asked.<br />
<br />
Another option would be to create a Web application, that we can modify to our exact needs. We decided that a client-side application built using Vue.js and some bootstrap would allow for fast development, scalability, portability and can easily be tailored exactly to our needs. The development was done on GitHub, allowing us to host our result on GitHub pages. For the design of our app we took inspiration from the Dutch "Stemwijzer"<ref name="Stemwijzer">https://www.stemwijzer.nl</ref>, and an open source voting site called electioncalculator.org<ref name="electioncalculator">Jaroslav Semančík, Michal Škop,[https://electioncalculator.org/ "electioncalculator"], KohoVolit.eu, Retrieved on 19-03-2019</ref>. <br />
<br />
The site displays a series of questions, to which the user can agree, disagree or remain neutral. In addition, the user can also select some questions as being "mandatory". When a question is selected as mandatory, only solutions that follow the users preference for that question will be taken into account when computing the final solution. After having answered all questions, we ask the user to identify solutions that are extra important to him. To these solutions, the app adds an increased weight. After all questions have been answered, the scores and relative % match are computed. The results page shows a sorted list of solutions, together with a description of the solution.<br />
<br />
== What it looks like ==<br />
The voting app is hosted on https://drones.jortdebokx.nl/. Here are some screenshots:<br />
<br />
[[File:homepage.png| 700 px |thumb|upright=4|center|alt=Missing image|Figure 1: Homepage of the web app.]]<br />
[[File:question-example.png| 700 px |thumb|upright=4|center|alt=Missing image|Figure 2: Questions of the web app.]]<br />
[[File:selection.png| 700 px |thumb|upright=4|center|alt=Missing image|Figure 3: Extra-important subjects that the user can select of the web app.]]<br />
[[File:results.png| 700 px |thumb|upright=4|center|alt=Missing image|Figure 4: Results of the web app.]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
Back to the [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | root page]].<br />
<br />
= References =<br />
<references/></div>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nlhttps://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Web_Application_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3&diff=71066Web Application - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 32019-04-01T13:00:41Z<p>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nl: /* What it looks like */</p>
<hr />
<div><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;"><br />
<br />
<div style="display: block; position: absolute; right: 6%;"><br />
; Page navigation<br />
# [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | Root]]<br />
# [[Notes - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Notes from meeting]]<br />
# [[Initial ideas - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Initial ideas]]<br />
# [[Project setup - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Project setup]]<br />
# [[General problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|General problem description]] <br />
# [[State of the Art - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|State of the Art]]<br />
# [[Specific problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Specific problem description]]<br />
# [[Present situation - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Present situation]]<br />
# [[Drones - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Drone analysis]]<br />
# [[Solutions - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Solution analysis]]<br />
# [[Airports under a microscope - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Airport analysis]]<br />
# [[Types of Decision Models - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3 | Decision Model investigation]]<br />
# [[Decision Model - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3 | Decision Model implementation]]<br />
# [[Decision Model validation - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Decision Model validation]]<br />
# [[Categorizing solutions - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Categorising solutions]]<br />
# [[Web_Application_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Web Application]]<br />
# [[Future - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Future]]<br />
# [[Conclusion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Conclusion]]<br />
# [[Discussion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Discussion]]<br />
</div><br />
<br />
= Web Application =<br />
Now that we have a decision model in place, it is useful to be able to display/represent it in some way. By doing so, we will be able to validate, test and actually make use of the decision model. This also gives a clear overview of how the decision model is supposed to work. The first step is to find a suitable method to represent the decision model.<br />
<br />
== How to implement? ==<br />
There are various methods of implementing a decision model. The decision model could be implemented using an existing survey/form website, i.e. using google forms<ref name="forms">Google [https://forms.google.com "Google Forms"] Retrieved on 19-03-2019</ref>, SurveyMonkey<ref name="surveymonkey"> [https://www.surveymonkey.com/ "SurveyMonkey"] Retrieved on 19-03-2019</ref> or another similar website. This method would probably be easiest and the least time consuming, however, those websites are mostly not very flexible and do not adhere to our needs. Such form website mostly offers users to fill in answers to questions, but do not follow up with a calculation of a score and be able to give advice for solutions. Furthermore, some of these websites even restrict 'free' users to a limited number of questions to be asked.<br />
<br />
Another option would be to create a Web application, that we can modify to our exact needs. We decided that a client-side application built using Vue.js and some bootstrap would allow for fast development, scalability, portability and can easily be tailored exactly to our needs. The development was done on GitHub, allowing us to host our result on GitHub pages. For the design of our app we took inspiration from the Dutch "Stemwijzer"<ref name="Stemwijzer">https://www.stemwijzer.nl</ref>, and an open source voting site called electioncalculator.org<ref name="electioncalculator">Jaroslav Semančík, Michal Škop,[https://electioncalculator.org/ "electioncalculator"], KohoVolit.eu, Retrieved on 19-03-2019</ref>. <br />
<br />
The site displays a series of questions, to which the user can agree, disagree or remain neutral. In addition, the user can also select some questions as being "mandatory". When a question is selected as mandatory, only solutions that follow the users preference for that question will be taken into account when computing the final solution. After having answered all questions, we ask the user to identify solutions that are extra important to him. To these solutions, the app adds an increased weight. After all questions have been answered, the scores and relative % match are computed. The results page shows a sorted list of solutions, together with a description of the solution.<br />
<br />
== What it looks like ==<br />
The voting app is hosted on https://drones.jortdebokx.nl/. Here are some screenshots:<br />
<br />
[[File:homepage.png| 700 px |thumb|upright=4|center|alt=Missing image|Figure 1: Homepage of the web app.]]<br />
[[File:question-example.png| 700 px |thumb|upright=4|center|alt=Missing image|Figure 2: Questions of the web app.]]<br />
[[File:selection.png.png| 700 px |thumb|upright=4|center|alt=Missing image|Figure 3: Extra-important subjects that the user can select of the web app.]]<br />
[[File:results.png| 700 px |thumb|upright=4|center|alt=Missing image|Figure 4: Results of the web app.]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
Back to the [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | root page]].<br />
<br />
= References =<br />
<references/></div>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nlhttps://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=File:Results.png&diff=71064File:Results.png2019-04-01T12:58:52Z<p>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nl: uploaded a new version of "File:Results.png"</p>
<hr />
<div></div>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nlhttps://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=File:Selection.png&diff=71063File:Selection.png2019-04-01T12:58:42Z<p>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nl: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nlhttps://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=File:Question-example.png&diff=71062File:Question-example.png2019-04-01T12:58:35Z<p>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nl: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nlhttps://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Web_Application_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3&diff=71060Web Application - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 32019-04-01T12:58:15Z<p>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nl: /* What it looks like */</p>
<hr />
<div><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;"><br />
<br />
<div style="display: block; position: absolute; right: 6%;"><br />
; Page navigation<br />
# [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | Root]]<br />
# [[Notes - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Notes from meeting]]<br />
# [[Initial ideas - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Initial ideas]]<br />
# [[Project setup - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Project setup]]<br />
# [[General problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|General problem description]] <br />
# [[State of the Art - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|State of the Art]]<br />
# [[Specific problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Specific problem description]]<br />
# [[Present situation - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Present situation]]<br />
# [[Drones - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Drone analysis]]<br />
# [[Solutions - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Solution analysis]]<br />
# [[Airports under a microscope - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Airport analysis]]<br />
# [[Types of Decision Models - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3 | Decision Model investigation]]<br />
# [[Decision Model - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3 | Decision Model implementation]]<br />
# [[Decision Model validation - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Decision Model validation]]<br />
# [[Categorizing solutions - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Categorising solutions]]<br />
# [[Web_Application_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Web Application]]<br />
# [[Future - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Future]]<br />
# [[Conclusion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Conclusion]]<br />
# [[Discussion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Discussion]]<br />
</div><br />
<br />
= Web Application =<br />
Now that we have a decision model in place, it is useful to be able to display/represent it in some way. By doing so, we will be able to validate, test and actually make use of the decision model. This also gives a clear overview of how the decision model is supposed to work. The first step is to find a suitable method to represent the decision model.<br />
<br />
== How to implement? ==<br />
There are various methods of implementing a decision model. The decision model could be implemented using an existing survey/form website, i.e. using google forms<ref name="forms">Google [https://forms.google.com "Google Forms"] Retrieved on 19-03-2019</ref>, SurveyMonkey<ref name="surveymonkey"> [https://www.surveymonkey.com/ "SurveyMonkey"] Retrieved on 19-03-2019</ref> or another similar website. This method would probably be easiest and the least time consuming, however, those websites are mostly not very flexible and do not adhere to our needs. Such form website mostly offers users to fill in answers to questions, but do not follow up with a calculation of a score and be able to give advice for solutions. Furthermore, some of these websites even restrict 'free' users to a limited number of questions to be asked.<br />
<br />
Another option would be to create a Web application, that we can modify to our exact needs. We decided that a client-side application built using Vue.js and some bootstrap would allow for fast development, scalability, portability and can easily be tailored exactly to our needs. The development was done on GitHub, allowing us to host our result on GitHub pages. For the design of our app we took inspiration from the Dutch "Stemwijzer"<ref name="Stemwijzer">https://www.stemwijzer.nl</ref>, and an open source voting site called electioncalculator.org<ref name="electioncalculator">Jaroslav Semančík, Michal Škop,[https://electioncalculator.org/ "electioncalculator"], KohoVolit.eu, Retrieved on 19-03-2019</ref>. <br />
<br />
The site displays a series of questions, to which the user can agree, disagree or remain neutral. In addition, the user can also select some questions as being "mandatory". When a question is selected as mandatory, only solutions that follow the users preference for that question will be taken into account when computing the final solution. After having answered all questions, we ask the user to identify solutions that are extra important to him. To these solutions, the app adds an increased weight. After all questions have been answered, the scores and relative % match are computed. The results page shows a sorted list of solutions, together with a description of the solution.<br />
<br />
== What it looks like ==<br />
The voting app is hosted on https://drones.jortdebokx.nl/. Here are some screenshots:<br />
<br />
[[File:homepage-web-app.png| 700 px |thumb|upright=4|center|alt=Missing image|Figure 1: Homepage of the web app.]]<br />
[[File:questions-web-app.png| 700 px |thumb|upright=4|center|alt=Missing image|Figure 2: Questions of the web app.]]<br />
[[File:extra_important-web-app.png| 700 px |thumb|upright=4|center|alt=Missing image|Figure 3: Extra-important subjects that the user can select of the web app.]]<br />
[[File:results-web-app.png| 700 px |thumb|upright=4|center|alt=Missing image|Figure 4: Results of the web app.]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
Back to the [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | root page]].<br />
<br />
= References =<br />
<references/></div>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nlhttps://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Web_Application_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3&diff=71059Web Application - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 32019-04-01T12:57:51Z<p>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nl: /* What it looks like */</p>
<hr />
<div><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;"><br />
<br />
<div style="display: block; position: absolute; right: 6%;"><br />
; Page navigation<br />
# [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | Root]]<br />
# [[Notes - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Notes from meeting]]<br />
# [[Initial ideas - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Initial ideas]]<br />
# [[Project setup - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Project setup]]<br />
# [[General problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|General problem description]] <br />
# [[State of the Art - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|State of the Art]]<br />
# [[Specific problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Specific problem description]]<br />
# [[Present situation - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Present situation]]<br />
# [[Drones - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Drone analysis]]<br />
# [[Solutions - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Solution analysis]]<br />
# [[Airports under a microscope - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Airport analysis]]<br />
# [[Types of Decision Models - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3 | Decision Model investigation]]<br />
# [[Decision Model - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3 | Decision Model implementation]]<br />
# [[Decision Model validation - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Decision Model validation]]<br />
# [[Categorizing solutions - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Categorising solutions]]<br />
# [[Web_Application_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Web Application]]<br />
# [[Future - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Future]]<br />
# [[Conclusion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Conclusion]]<br />
# [[Discussion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Discussion]]<br />
</div><br />
<br />
= Web Application =<br />
Now that we have a decision model in place, it is useful to be able to display/represent it in some way. By doing so, we will be able to validate, test and actually make use of the decision model. This also gives a clear overview of how the decision model is supposed to work. The first step is to find a suitable method to represent the decision model.<br />
<br />
== How to implement? ==<br />
There are various methods of implementing a decision model. The decision model could be implemented using an existing survey/form website, i.e. using google forms<ref name="forms">Google [https://forms.google.com "Google Forms"] Retrieved on 19-03-2019</ref>, SurveyMonkey<ref name="surveymonkey"> [https://www.surveymonkey.com/ "SurveyMonkey"] Retrieved on 19-03-2019</ref> or another similar website. This method would probably be easiest and the least time consuming, however, those websites are mostly not very flexible and do not adhere to our needs. Such form website mostly offers users to fill in answers to questions, but do not follow up with a calculation of a score and be able to give advice for solutions. Furthermore, some of these websites even restrict 'free' users to a limited number of questions to be asked.<br />
<br />
Another option would be to create a Web application, that we can modify to our exact needs. We decided that a client-side application built using Vue.js and some bootstrap would allow for fast development, scalability, portability and can easily be tailored exactly to our needs. The development was done on GitHub, allowing us to host our result on GitHub pages. For the design of our app we took inspiration from the Dutch "Stemwijzer"<ref name="Stemwijzer">https://www.stemwijzer.nl</ref>, and an open source voting site called electioncalculator.org<ref name="electioncalculator">Jaroslav Semančík, Michal Škop,[https://electioncalculator.org/ "electioncalculator"], KohoVolit.eu, Retrieved on 19-03-2019</ref>. <br />
<br />
The site displays a series of questions, to which the user can agree, disagree or remain neutral. In addition, the user can also select some questions as being "mandatory". When a question is selected as mandatory, only solutions that follow the users preference for that question will be taken into account when computing the final solution. After having answered all questions, we ask the user to identify solutions that are extra important to him. To these solutions, the app adds an increased weight. After all questions have been answered, the scores and relative % match are computed. The results page shows a sorted list of solutions, together with a description of the solution.<br />
<br />
== What it looks like ==<br />
The voting app is hosted on [https://drones.jortdebokx.nl/]. Here are some screenshots:<br />
<br />
[[File:homepage-web-app.png| 700 px |thumb|upright=4|center|alt=Missing image|Figure 1: Homepage of the web app.]]<br />
[[File:questions-web-app.png| 700 px |thumb|upright=4|center|alt=Missing image|Figure 2: Questions of the web app.]]<br />
[[File:extra_important-web-app.png| 700 px |thumb|upright=4|center|alt=Missing image|Figure 3: Extra-important subjects that the user can select of the web app.]]<br />
[[File:results-web-app.png| 700 px |thumb|upright=4|center|alt=Missing image|Figure 4: Results of the web app.]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
Back to the [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | root page]].<br />
<br />
= References =<br />
<references/></div>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nlhttps://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=File:Homepage.png&diff=71058File:Homepage.png2019-04-01T12:57:42Z<p>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nl: uploaded a new version of "File:Homepage.png"</p>
<hr />
<div></div>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nlhttps://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Web_Application_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3&diff=71055Web Application - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 32019-04-01T12:52:07Z<p>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nl: /* How to implement? */</p>
<hr />
<div><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;"><br />
<br />
<div style="display: block; position: absolute; right: 6%;"><br />
; Page navigation<br />
# [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | Root]]<br />
# [[Notes - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Notes from meeting]]<br />
# [[Initial ideas - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Initial ideas]]<br />
# [[Project setup - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Project setup]]<br />
# [[General problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|General problem description]] <br />
# [[State of the Art - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|State of the Art]]<br />
# [[Specific problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Specific problem description]]<br />
# [[Present situation - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Present situation]]<br />
# [[Drones - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Drone analysis]]<br />
# [[Solutions - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Solution analysis]]<br />
# [[Airports under a microscope - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Airport analysis]]<br />
# [[Types of Decision Models - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3 | Decision Model investigation]]<br />
# [[Decision Model - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3 | Decision Model implementation]]<br />
# [[Decision Model validation - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Decision Model validation]]<br />
# [[Categorizing solutions - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Categorising solutions]]<br />
# [[Web_Application_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Web Application]]<br />
# [[Future - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Future]]<br />
# [[Conclusion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Conclusion]]<br />
# [[Discussion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Discussion]]<br />
</div><br />
<br />
= Web Application =<br />
Now that we have a decision model in place, it is useful to be able to display/represent it in some way. By doing so, we will be able to validate, test and actually make use of the decision model. This also gives a clear overview of how the decision model is supposed to work. The first step is to find a suitable method to represent the decision model.<br />
<br />
== How to implement? ==<br />
There are various methods of implementing a decision model. The decision model could be implemented using an existing survey/form website, i.e. using google forms<ref name="forms">Google [https://forms.google.com "Google Forms"] Retrieved on 19-03-2019</ref>, SurveyMonkey<ref name="surveymonkey"> [https://www.surveymonkey.com/ "SurveyMonkey"] Retrieved on 19-03-2019</ref> or another similar website. This method would probably be easiest and the least time consuming, however, those websites are mostly not very flexible and do not adhere to our needs. Such form website mostly offers users to fill in answers to questions, but do not follow up with a calculation of a score and be able to give advice for solutions. Furthermore, some of these websites even restrict 'free' users to a limited number of questions to be asked.<br />
<br />
Another option would be to create a Web application, that we can modify to our exact needs. We decided that a client-side application built using Vue.js and some bootstrap would allow for fast development, scalability, portability and can easily be tailored exactly to our needs. The development was done on GitHub, allowing us to host our result on GitHub pages. For the design of our app we took inspiration from the Dutch "Stemwijzer"<ref name="Stemwijzer">https://www.stemwijzer.nl</ref>, and an open source voting site called electioncalculator.org<ref name="electioncalculator">Jaroslav Semančík, Michal Škop,[https://electioncalculator.org/ "electioncalculator"], KohoVolit.eu, Retrieved on 19-03-2019</ref>. <br />
<br />
The site displays a series of questions, to which the user can agree, disagree or remain neutral. In addition, the user can also select some questions as being "mandatory". When a question is selected as mandatory, only solutions that follow the users preference for that question will be taken into account when computing the final solution. After having answered all questions, we ask the user to identify solutions that are extra important to him. To these solutions, the app adds an increased weight. After all questions have been answered, the scores and relative % match are computed. The results page shows a sorted list of solutions, together with a description of the solution.<br />
<br />
== What it looks like ==<br />
[[File:homepage-web-app.png| 700 px |thumb|upright=4|center|alt=Missing image|Figure 1: Homepage of the web app.]]<br />
[[File:questions-web-app.png| 700 px |thumb|upright=4|center|alt=Missing image|Figure 2: Questions of the web app.]]<br />
[[File:extra_important-web-app.png| 700 px |thumb|upright=4|center|alt=Missing image|Figure 3: Extra-important subjects that the user can select of the web app.]]<br />
[[File:results-web-app.png| 700 px |thumb|upright=4|center|alt=Missing image|Figure 4: Results of the web app.]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
Back to the [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | root page]].<br />
<br />
= References =<br />
<references/></div>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nlhttps://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Solutions_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3&diff=68952Solutions - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 32019-03-17T13:12:18Z<p>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nl: /* Solutions */</p>
<hr />
<div><link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.tue.nl/favicon-64.ico" type="image/x-icon"><br />
<link rel=http://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2018_3_Group4&action=edit"stylesheet" type="text/css" href="theme.css"><br />
<div style="width:calc(100vw - 175px);background-color:#EFEFEF;padding-bottom:35px;position:absolute;top:0;left:0;"><br />
<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;"><br />
<br />
<div style="display: block; position: absolute; right: 0%;"><br />
; Page navigation<br />
# [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | Root]]<br />
# [[Notes - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Notes]]<br />
# [[Initial ideas - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Initial ideas]]<br />
# [[Project setup - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Project setup]]<br />
# [[General problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|General problem]] <br />
# [[State of the Art - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|State of the Art]]<br />
# [[Specific problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Specific problem]]<br />
# [[Present situation - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Present situation]]<br />
# [[Solutions - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Solutions]]<br />
# [[Airports under a microscope - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Airports under a microscope]]<br />
# [[Decision tree - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Decision tree]]<br />
# [[Future - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Future]]<br />
# [[Conclusion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Conclusion]]<br />
# [[Discussion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Discussion]]<br />
</div><br />
<br />
= Solutions =<br />
In this section, we consider the requirements of solutions for the problem proposed in the specific problem description, all possible solutions, and both the advantages and disadvantages of each solution.<br />
<br />
== Categories ==<br />
<br />
When considering the state of the art research presented in the relevant Section, we can distinguish multiple categories in which the presented solutions might fall. In this Section, we further elaborate on these different categories, and as such provide a better overview and allow for more a more specific formulation of requirements. Firstly, different anti-UAV systems serve different purposes. For our study, we differentiate between the following purposes:<br />
<br />
=== Purposes ===<br />
; UAV Detection: These systems serve to detect the presence of UAVs in unwanted airspaces. They often also locate the UAV in question and sometimes include the possibility of continuous location tracking to assist systems categorised under the other purposes.<br />
; UAV Identification: Systems from this category serve to identify UAVs, obtaining more information about the UAV than simply its location. This information might include simple statistics, such as the average size of the drone which can often be observed by a human, given that the UAV is present in their field of view. More complicated statistics might also be obtained, such as a serial tracking number to identify commercial UAVs. <br />
; UAV Neutralisation: Drone neutralisation systems serve to neutralise a drone. This is the main topic of our study since UAV presence in the airspace above an airport introduces various risks, discussed in other Sections, that have to be neutralised in order to maintain public and societal security.<br />
<br />
Now that the scope of the purpose of the anti UAV systems for airport security that we consider has become clear, we might further distinguish the main purpose considered in this study. As such, we differentiate between 3 different subcategories, all part of the drone neutralisation purpose. These categories are as follows:<br />
<br />
=== Categories ===<br />
; Preventative solutions: This category encompasses all solutions that serve to prevent the problem from occurring. More specifically, entries of this category focus on keeping UAVs away from airspace belonging to airports. An example might include the geofencing system that was described previously and will be elaborated on further in the following sections.<br />
<br />
; Corrective solutions: Solutions from this category focus on solving the problem of UAV presence in the airspace over airports, specifically when said UAV is already present in that airspace. These solutions attempt to do so with minimal damage to the parties involved, an example might consist of a procedure where the control of the drone is overridden, either automatically or by a human, before the drone is removed from the airspace by landing or flight and after which control could be passed back to the pilot.<br />
<br />
; Destructive solutions: These solutions have the same area of focus as the previous category of corrective solutions, namely the minimising of further risk to air traffic above airports after a UAV has entered the airspace. The main difference is that, while corrective solutions attempt to do so in a non-destructive way, this limitation does not apply to destructive solutions. Sub-systems of a UAV or the UAV as a whole may be destroyed or permanently disabled. A coarse example consists of taking down unwanted UAVs with firearms, causing damage to the UAV and rendering it unable to continue operations.<br />
<br />
This division into categories is not entirely black on white, however. Consider an abstract example system that temporarily incapacitates a UAV in flight, causing it to cease operation and enter a free fall towards the ground. This might result in the destruction of the drone, given the collision with the ground. We have found a grey area in our division into subcategories, and as such, we further define destructive solutions as those solutions, where the incapacitation of the drone follows from the destruction, and not the other way around. We also require the destruction to be an integral part of the solution, if we want it to count as a destructive solution. In this example, the destruction is not guaranteed nor does the incapacitation follow from the destruction. Instead, the destruction might follow from the incapacitation, dependent on other circumstances. Therefore, this specific example counts as a preventative or corrective solution, based on where the UAV in question is located. Note, however, that this is based on the keywords `temporarily incapacitates'. If the incapacitation of the UAV or one of its subsystems were permanent, the destruction would be guaranteed since it does not depend on how hard the UAV hits the ground anymore. In this case, it would count as a destructive solution.<br />
<br />
== Requirements ==<br />
<br />
A solution to the specific problem described will have to adhere to requirements.<br />
These requirements are not simply capabilities the solution has to provide in the form of functional requirements, but they should also cover constraints posed on the solution.<br />
The constraints can be on the design of the solution in order to meet specified levels of quality, on the environment and technology of the system, and on the project plan and development methods.<br />
Note that there can exist multiple different types of solutions and that we, therefore, have to keep the requirements of a solution as abstract as possible. <br />
We should not limit the solution space with these requirements.<br />
Instead, we should provide a general outline of what capabilities (functional requirements) the solution should provide and under what constraints (non-functional requirements).<br />
<br />
Furthermore, these requirements might serve as a basic framework for further development of solutions to similar problems, thereby widening the scope to other problem spaces involving UAVs as well.<br />
<br />
The capabilities (functional requirements) of the solution are as follows:<br />
* The solution should be able to take down any type of drone effectively.<br />
* The solution should not endanger any humans with any of its actions.<br />
<br />
The constraints (non-functional requirements) on the solutions are as follows:<br />
* The solution should adhere to the new rules proposed in the `New Rules' subsection in the `Present situation' section.<br />
* The solution should adhere to the new rules proposed in the `Limitations' subsection in the `Present situation' section.<br />
<br />
== Possible solutions ==<br />
<br />
As we have already elaborated on, a possible solution can be categorised into the purpose it fulfils with respect to anti-UAV systems at and around airports.<br />
Since a full anti-UAV system should be able to do three things: detect flying objects, identify that this object is an (unwanted) UAV, and lastly neutralisation of the UAV. However, the identification of the object might be something that is up for discussion, since it might be safer to neutralise every flying object, we will discuss this later on. As most possible (partial) solutions only cover one or two of the three things it should be able to do, before it can be considered at a full anti-UAV system, for each of the (partial) solutions listed below, they are divided up into categories of its purposes it fulfils. Such that, later on, we can compare and afterwards combine multiple of these partial solutions into one system that meets the needs of the users.<br />
<br />
==== UAV Detection ====<br />
<br />
* Radar system for detecting the location and height of an object in the air. The radar makes use of a transmitter which produces an electromagnetic signal which is radiated into airspace with an antenna. If this signal hits an areal object, it will get reflected in many directions. This reflected signal is received by the radar antenna then it is processed to determine the geographical data of the object.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* A Wi-Fi receiver can be used to detect a UAV based on the signature of the signal reflected from the propellers of a UAV. Similar to a radar, a transmitter broadcasts signals and a receiver captures reflected signals that bounce of a UAV. <ref name="RF-based detection of drones">Nguyen, P., Ravindranatha, M., Nguyen, A., Han, R., & Vu, T. [https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2935632 "Investigating Cost-effective RF-based Detection of Drones"], ACM, June 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Detect a UAV by listening to the communication channel between the UAV and its controller using a wireless receiver. Usually, UAVs communicate with their controllers a few times per second to update their status and to receive commands from the controller. A system could collect wireless samples and observes the signal, analyse them and can then detect a UAV's presence. <ref name="RF-based detection of drones">Nguyen, P., Ravindranatha, M., Nguyen, A., Han, R., & Vu, T. [https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2935632 "Investigating Cost-effective RF-based Detection of Drones"], ACM, June 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Detection of UAVs with the use of other UAVs that fly around the airports, carrying lightweight radar systems or cameras to scan their environment.<br />
* Echodyne's 3D Security radar that offers superior sensor performance in a compact, solid-state, all-weather product. A recent winner in the SOFWERX Game of Drones competition.<br />
* Human detection, for example by using watchtowers or pilots in the aeroplanes to spot UAVs. (Currently what Eindhoven Airport uses to detect UAVs)<br />
* 3D Radio frequency antenna (https://drone-detection-system.com/the-system/)<br />
<br />
==== UAV Identification ====<br />
<br />
* Identification of any specific aircraft can be done by broadcasting a coded signal, which is decoded by air traffic control towers. Such that allies and enemies can be identified and to avoid targeting a friendly aircraft. As a result, all aircraft where radar service is provided should require systems that are able to broadcast coded signals for identification, for this solution to work. <ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* For identification of UAVs, employing a 2D antenna and appropriate signal processing to create a multibeam, 3D, wide area overcomes the weakness of scanning radars and achieves high detection sensitivity. A decision tree based classifier can be used to identify the difference between UAVs and other moving objects. Where it rejects non-UAV targets, decreasing the number of false positives and increases true positives. Such that when neutralising such a moving object in the air, with high probability, it will be a drone instead of for example a flying bird. <ref name="difficult to detect microdrones">Jahangir, M., & Baker, C. [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7590610/ "Persistence Surveillance of Difficult to Detect microdrones with L-band 3-D Holographic RadarTM"], Sensor Signal Processing for Defence (SSPD), September 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* A lightweight, X-Band (10.5GHz) radar system for use on a small-scale (less than 25 kg) rotorcraft. The prototype implementation of the radar is small enough to be carried by a drone and is able to differentiate other 'miniature rotorcrafts' (drones) by their doppler signature. The prototype uses a radar system which utilises electromagnetic energy to gain information on objects by analysing the reflected energy. <ref name="Radar-Based detection mini air vehicles">Moses, A., Rutherford, M. J., & Valavanis, K. P [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6044363 "Radar-Based Detection and Identification for Miniature Air Vehicles"], Control Applications (CCA), September 2011. Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
<br />
==== UAV Neutralization ====<br />
<br />
* Taking out UAVs by using air to air missiles, where these air missiles could be launched from other UAVs used by the airport or possibly any other aerial vehicle.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Taking out UAVs or disabling specific subsystems might be achievable by using lasers. Different kinds of lasers can be used for different purposes, either permanently or temporarily disabling a UAV. <ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Electromagnetic attacks to interfere with the GPS signals of the UAV, that the UAV uses to position itself. Jamming the GPS signals causes the UAV not to be able to follow the pilot's navigation commands accurately.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Taking control of a UAV by spoofing the GPS signals of the UAV, such that the UAV thinks that it is still talking to the original pilot when it is actually being taken over. This way the drone can easily and safely be landed somewhere out of danger.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Capturing a UAV using another UAV carrying a net, which drops the net over the unwanted UAV. Thereby taking control of the UAV as the net makes sure the UAVs rotors get tangled in the net making sure it is unusable for the pilot. Then with a parachute on the net, it can be made sure that the UAV lands safely on the ground<ref name="How do you catch a drone? With an even BIGGER drone and a giant net: Tokyo police reveal bizarre 'UAV catcher'">Liberatore, S., [https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1627_Jan2018.pdf "How do you catch a drone? With an even BIGGER drone and a giant net: Tokyo police reveal bizarre 'UAV catcher'"], DailyMail, December 2015, Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* A bazooka with an intelligent locking system to aid the controller to hit the UAV successfully, that shoots a net to capture a UAV. The rotors of the UAV will then get tangled in the net, making sure it cannot cause any harm anymore. Then a parachute that is attached to the net will make sure that the UAV will land safely on the ground. <ref name="The SkyWall 100 bazooka captures drones with a giant net">Burns, M., https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/04/the-skywall-100-bazooka-captures-drones-with-a-giant-net/?guccounter=1 "The SkyWall 100 bazooka captures drones with a giant net"], TechCrunch, 2016, Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* Transmitting geo-fence coordinates, avoidance commands or disruption of radio communication in order to avoid UAV's entering no-fly zone. <ref name="US10157546B2 - Anti-drone flight protection systems and methods"> Etak Systems LLC.[https://patents.google.com/patent/US10157546B2/ "Anti-drone flight protection systems and methods"], Google patents, 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* Using trained eagles to neutralise UAVs. These eagles would be trained into considering UAVs as preys so that they could catch these drones and place them in a safe area. <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><br />
* Geo-fencing software built into the UAVs restricts consumer UAVs to even be able to fly within a certain range of unwanted areas such as airports. <ref name="Drone sightings and close encounters"> Gettinger, D., & Michel, A. H. [https://dronecenter.bard.edu/files/2015/12/12-11-Drone-Sightings-and-Close-Encounters.pdf" "Drone sightings and close encounters: An analysis"], Center for the Study of the Drone, Bard College, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-14.</ref><br />
* Using high powered radio waves to disable drones, it blocks their communication with the controller and switches them off mid-air. <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><br />
<br />
== Advantages and disadvantages ==<br />
<br />
=== UAV Detection ===<br />
<br />
; Radar system:<br />
When it comes to UAV detection, radar systems provide a sufficient solution. <br />
There already exists much research on these type of systems. <br />
This partly helps with financing the solution as it is already existing technology, which should be cheaper than technology that is not fully developed yet. <br />
The disadvantage is that many airports already make use of radar systems, but that they do not seem to suffice. <br />
What one should ask themselves is whether or not these radar systems can be made in such a way that they would be reliable right now.<br />
Furthermore, how reliable would these radar systems be in the future if they are `apparently' already not reliable enough right now? It seems to be the case that UAVs can be designed with certain materials such that they will not reflect the reflections of a radar system such that a radar system will not notice/detect any aerial object whilst there might be a hostile UAV flying over an airport.<br />
All in all, radar systems offer an inexpensive way to detect UAVs, but not each type of UAV is detected.<br />
<br />
; Echodyne's radar<br />
Echodyne designs and manufactures radars with unparalleled price-performance. <br />
MESA technology is used, which is a fundamental breakthrough in high-performance radar with game-changing benefits in many markets. <br />
Acuity is an intelligent radar control software suite to enable user configurability. <br />
At an order of magnitude lower cost, Echodyne radar radically outperforms all other radar sensors in its class<ref name="govsomething">Snapshot: DHS Silicon Valley Innovation Program Successfully Transitions Three Technologies to CBP https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/2019/02/05/snapshot-svip-successfully-transitions-three-technologies-cbp</ref>.<br />
Their 3D Security radar offers superior sensor performance in a compact, solid-state, all-weather product. <br />
A recent winner in the SOFWERX Game of Drones competition, EchoGuard is the `perfect' radar for a multilayered perimeter defense solution.<br />
Furthermore, Acuity API integrates seamlessly with existing security ecosystems to provide situational awareness.<br />
<br />
Their radar can be seen in usage in the following [https://youtu.be/_tPcxEfU5d8 video]. <br />
Echodyne provides another [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VarxP_rOTKI video] that depicts a visualisation of the working of their radar.<br />
<br />
The specifications of the 3D Security radar are as follows:<br />
<br />
* Size: 8.0in x 6.4in x 1.57in (20.3cm x 16.3cm x 4cm)<br />
* Weight: 1.25kg<br />
* Power: DC +15V to +28V<br />
* Operating: <50W<br />
* Hot standby: <15W<br />
* Hibernate TBR: <100mW<br />
* Field of View: 120° Azimuth x 80° Elevation<br />
<br />
This radar reliably detects and tracks aircraft and cars at 3km, people walking at 2km, and sUAS at 1km.<br />
<br />
The guardian reported that one such system could cast around 150 000 dollars<ref name="guardianencho">Super Bowl: experimental radar aims to stop drone drama at game https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/28/super-bowl-drones-radar-start-up-experiment</ref>.<br />
<br />
; WiFi receiver:<br />
WiFi receivers can accurately determine the position of drones.<br />
They are, however, very susceptible to interference.<br />
For example, WiFi signals can be blocked by obstacles. <br />
While it might be sufficient for right now, it is very possible for malicious attackers to attach WiFi interfering tools to their UAVs.<br />
Then, WiFi receivers might not be as reliable in the future. <br />
When it comes to solutions, reliability is one of the main concerns as the solutions has to work in all cases.<br />
<br />
; Listening on communication between drone and ground:<br />
Listening to communication between a drone and its operator can be an easy way to detect the presence of both the drone and the operator. <br />
Often, this type of communication is not encrypted.<br />
The U.S. government displayed how easy it is to hack drones made by Parrot, DBPower, and Cheerson<ref>The U.S. government showed just how easy it is to hack drones made by Parrot, DBPower and Cheerson. (2017). Recode. Retrieved 15 February 2019, from [https://www.recode.net/2017/1/4/14062654/drones-hacking-security-ftc-parrot-dbpower-cheerson]</ref>.<br />
One significant disadvantage, however, is that custom built drones might use significantly different communication standards which do make use of encryption.<br />
So this solution is only good when the communication is not encrypted, which still happens quite often as of now.<br />
The number of communications that do make use of encryption is suspected to increase with the years as the technology gets more established.<br />
Then, this solution does not provide a way of detecting drones.<br />
<br />
; Detecting drones with other drones:<br />
When we use drones to detect other drones, we do not depend on insecure channels. <br />
With this solution, we are not just limited to drones in the line of sight as the drone-detecting drone can fly around.<br />
A disadvantage, however, is that flying around with a drone at a busy airport can be quite dangerous. <br />
Furthermore, these drones can only stay in the air for a limited time due to battery or accu related constraints.<br />
This can be mitigated by simply using larger batteries, but this increases the weight of the drone, which leads to some negatives again. <br />
This might, however, still provide to be a sound solution as it makes dealing with the illegal drone activity easier as the drone itself can, for example, be weaponised.<br />
<br />
=== UAV Identification ===<br />
; Identification by coded signal:<br />
UAV identification through coded signals can quickly identify activity.<br />
A disadvantage, however, is that other areal entities, such as bird, might also be targeted. <br />
This is due to birds being able to be roughly similarly sized as drones.<br />
Thus, this method can identify aerial activity, but there is no guarantee that only illegal drone activity is identified. <br />
Then, this could lead to negative results when we consider, for example, birds.<br />
It is possible they are targeted by the drone interception system.<br />
<br />
; 3D radar system with machine learning:<br />
UAV identification through a 3D radar system that uses machine learning can eventually lead to a precise system.<br />
The issue with it is that it first needs data to learn from.<br />
The gathering of this data can provide to be difficult.<br />
Furthermore, even if it learns from this data, it does not always have to lead to correct results as there are, often, biases in data.<br />
<br />
; X-band radar system<br />
UAV identification through an X-band radar system can perform accurate shape analysis of flying objects using doppler and high-frequency radar signals.<br />
Attaching a radar system to a drone, however, can be an issue around airports as this might result in interference with already existing systems.<br />
<br />
=== UAV Neutralisation ===<br />
; Missiles<br />
The use of missiles might, on the one hand, be a rapid method and affordable method to take out hostile drones. However, there are a few downsides to this method. First of all, missiles are very dangerous, especially in an area where, apart from hostile UAVs, many aeroplanes with innocent passengers fly. The chance exists that a missile might miss an unwanted UAV and, instead, hit an aeroplane. Which would be disastrous and would only make the situation worse, especially if the unwanted drone was just a hindrance to the airport. UAVs are often quite small and can move/switch directions pretty quickly it is actually quite hard for a missile to correctly take out a UAV. Furthermore, might the unwanted UAV actually be taken out by a missile, then it will most definitely be destroyed meaning that police investigation will be more difficult. All in all, the use of missiles at and around airports is most likely a bad idea.<br />
<br />
; Lasers<br />
Lasers are very precise and can be used in multiple ways to deal with drones. On the one hand, a very narrow laser beam can be pointed at an unwanted UAV to melt the body of the UAV causing structural failure and crashing of the UAV. On the other hand, a wide laser beam can be used to target multiple unwanted UAVs at the same time, taking out their control systems causing them to crash. Both methods require pretty close range to a target, the exact range depends on the type of laser that is used, and clear sight to the targetted UAV(s). However such systems could be attached to moving vehicles making such systems very mobile. Another advantage is, compared to the use of missiles, is that there is no need to reload as it uses the energy of a generator or the vehicle it is attached to. However, this means that the energy could deplete might there be too many targets, or might a target take too long to take out. Also, one might not always have clear sight to a target, or the range might be too long, making this method ineffective. <br />
<br />
; Interfering with GPS<br />
Interfering with the GPS of a UAV, will not cause any harm to the drone. Then the drone can be inspected, once landed, to find out who is responsible for the UAV. However, when interfering with the GPS of a UAV, the pilot will be unable to send commands to the UAV making the UAV uncontrollable. This might cause the UAV to crash into aeroplanes, buildings or crowds of people. Hence this method can only be used when a UAV is in a so-called 'safe space' where it cannot harm anyone/anything. Furthermore, GPS interference might also affect the GPS systems of the aeroplanes at the airport. It might be the case that this method of neutralisation will not work against every UAV, as some UAVs might not use GPS to communicate with its pilot. Also, if a UAV is autonomous, it does not even need communication with a pilot necessarily. Lastly, it might also be difficult to get regulatory approval for the use of jamming devices due to jurisdictions.<br />
<br />
; GPS spoofing<br />
This method is similar to the method discussed above (Interfering with GPS) and thus also shares the most advantages and disadvantages. However, an advantage of this method compared to GPS interference is that the targetted UAV will not be uncontrollable, but instead, the UAV can just be safely landed on the desired location. Apart from that, it shares the same disadvantages as GPS interference.<br />
<br />
; Capturing UAVs using nets underneath other UAVs<br />
This method is a method that is not harmful to UAVs/the surroundings and does use interference which might cause problems for aeroplanes at the airport; those are two significant advantages. Another advantage is that it is a very affordable method to deploy to counter unwanted UAVs and allows for safe retrieval of UAVs. However, UAVs carrying a net to capture hostile UAVs, mostly just have room for carrying a single net to capture a hostile UAV. Meaning that if the UAV misses the net, it needs to return and completely be reset. Another thing is that these UAVs need to be able to follow small and very fast hostile UAVs to be able to place a net over them. This might be quite an issue, since carrying a net might be pretty heavy for a UAV causing it to move more slowly. Lastly, using this method, there will be even more UAVs in the air space, meaning even more interference for the airport.<br />
<br />
; Bazooka net system<br />
This method is quite similar to previously mentioned method (Capturing UAVs using nets underneath other UAVs), however, in this case instead of using a UAV carrying a net, it uses a bazooka to capture a hostile UAV. It will also be quite affordable and straightforward to implement. Another advantage of this method is that there will not be any extra UAVs in the air space which might cause more interference. However, this method might be more inaccurate since a net needs to travel in the air for a longer period before reaching an unwanted UAV, giving the UAV more time to evade the net. Furthermore, a bazooka firing a net will have more limitations in its range compared to UAVs carrying a net as it might not be able to reach unwanted UAVs which are high up in the air space.<br />
<br />
; Geo-fence coordinates<br />
This method is the easiest solutions for the airports, as they will not need to implement a system to neutralise UAVs since UAVs simply will not be able to enter the air space of airports. However, this method is dependent on drones being programmed not to enter certain areas and will therefore not always avoid unwanted UAVs at airports. This might help against unwanted consumer UAVs that accidentally enter the air space above airports due to ignorant pilots. However, if someone really has terrible intentions with an airport, it will be straightforward to either turn off the geo-fencing software on a UAV or simply design their drone which will not have any geo-fencing software either. Furthermore, the software of the UAVs must continuously be updated according to new areas that might not be entered by UAVs, which might not be possible. Lastly, this solution also does not help against a large number of UAVs that already exist and can still be used for interference at airports. So in summary, this method might be useful for taking on a large part of newly bought UAVs, but can easily be avoided and should not be relied on by airports as the only method against UAVs.<br />
<br />
; Eagles<br />
Using eagles to intercept drones is an economically friendly solution. <br />
Furthermore, the chances of a technical malfunction are non-existing.<br />
It is, however, still possible for the birds to deviate from the standard procedure when intercepting a drone even after extensive training.<br />
Moreover, flying birds near and around airports can be dangerous as they can get damaged by aeroplanes and other obstacles. <br />
<br />
The Dutch police started using eagles to intercept drones back in 2016 already<ref name="eagles_dutch">Haye Kesteloo, Dutch police halts use of eagles to intercept drones (2017) [https://dronedj.com/2017/12/07/dutch-police-eagles-drones/]</ref>. <br />
This, initially, seemed like a successful approach to seize drones mid-air. <br />
Not long after their initial usage, the Dutch political part `Partij voor de dieren' expressed their concerns regarding the safety and the wellbeing of the eagles.<br />
<br />
After a year of training the birds, the police have concluded that the eagles were barely used.<br />
Furthermore, the NOS reports, the training of the eagles is more complex and more expensive than the police expected. <br />
Additionally, there was little to no return in training these birds. <br />
Moreover, the birds did not always follow the procedures they were instructed to follow and therefore, the police was not convinced the birds would follow these procedures in real use<ref name="eagles_dutch">Haye Kesteloo, Dutch police halts use of eagles to intercept drones (2017) [https://dronedj.com/2017/12/07/dutch-police-eagles-drones/]</ref>.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Anti_drone_eagles.png|thumb|550px|Anti-Drone Eagles - title text: It's cool, it's totally ethical--they're all programmed to hunt whichever bird of prey is most numerous at the moment, so they leave the endangered ones alone until near the end.|center]]<br />
<br />
<br />
Let us consider the following comic created by Randall Munroe on May 26, 2017. This comic raises an important ethical argument against the use of eagles in anti-drone mechanisms. <br />
While eagles, the predators they are, have natural inclinations to attack central parts of drones while evading sharp bits, their lives are still put at risk.<br />
<br />
Cueball (person in the middle) argues that using eagles as anti-drone mechanisms is unethical as it forces a rare animal to put their lives at risk. <br />
Cueball compares it to using police dogs for traffic control, which is something that most people would frown upon after giving it some thought. <br />
<br />
The effectiveness of eagles depends a lot on the conditions of how they are used. Naturally, eagles cannot be used everywhere, but they are often effectively used where some form of ground security is present that can be used to identify and arrest those illegally flying their drones. This is partly due to these people not being able to replenish their hardware indefinitely. <br />
<br />
Not only would the use of eagles be unethical, but also ineffective. <br />
That is partly due to the supply of eagles being rather limited. Furthermore, there are natural boundaries to how fast they can be replenished, whereas more drones can easily be created to replace those that have been destroyed. Of course, this will involve more money, but we should be prepared for the worst. As brought up in the third part of the comic, traffic control dogs would be similarly ineffective, as dogs would struggle to run equally fast as racing motorcycles. Moreover, they would, in most cases, be too powerless to stop the motorcycle even if they could keep up them.<br />
<br />
Megan (the girl on the right) states that both ideas, the usage of eagles and dogs, sound `cool'. She does, however, understand the ethical argument that Cueball raises against their use for traffic control. On the other hand, Black hat (the man on the left) goes a step further and states that he has created a drone that hunts eagles. This flips the premise from `anti-drone eagles' to `anti-eagle drones'. In the title text, which represents a statement from Black hat, he continues that it is ethical because they - the `anti-eagle drones' - only target the most populous species first, although they will eventually eradicate the endangered ones once they bring down the number of all birds of prey. Here, Black hat seems to miss the point that it is not merely the relative number of birds that creates an ethical problem, but the fact that animals' lives are being put at direct risk by humans. This is especially negative when other mechanisms can be used that are similarly effective for a bit more money, if not equal or less. <br />
The construction of his anti-eagle drone may simply be for the point of making the eagles' goals not only dangerous but also entirely ineffective. <br />
<br />
All things considered, the comic above raises a critical ethical argument against the use of eagles in anti-drone mechanisms. <br />
<br />
; Radio interference<br />
This method is actually really similar to the previously discussed GPS interference method and shares the same advantages and disadvantages as that method.<br />
<br />
== Comparison chart == <br />
In order to summarise the differences between the above solutions, we made a comparison chart. In this chart, we quantify the various attributes of each solution to allow us to see what solution is better for which type of airport.<br />
<br />
We have chosen to look at the following attributes:<br />
* Cost, costs are important for any airport, especially commercial ones<br />
** Purchase cost<br />
** Maintenance/upkeep cost<br />
* Range, differently sized airports need different ranges of effect<br />
* Speed, For some airports a threat needs to be detected and neutralised in seconds, other airports don't have that much time pressure<br />
* Danger to Humans, at some airports a lot of civilians may be present, for other airports this is not that much of a concern<br />
* Emission, Sustainability is important for some airports. Other airports find this to be less of a concern<br />
* Disturbance to surroundings, Often airports closed to urban areas have noise restrictions, whilst others may not<br />
* Effective on which drone categories, some solutions may only work on a targeted subgroup of drones, which can difffer per airport<br />
* Scalability, Some airports may expand in the future and don't want to be limited by the investment in this technology<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! <br />
! style="font-weight:bold;" | Purchase price<br />
! style="font-weight:bold;" | Maintenance cost<br />
! style="font-weight:bold;" | Range<br />
! style="font-weight:bold;" | Speed of operation<br />
! style="font-weight:bold;" | Danger to humans<br />
! style="font-weight:bold;" | Emission<br />
! style="font-weight:bold;" | Disturbance to the environment<br />
! style="font-weight:bold;" | Effect on different types of drones<br />
! style="font-weight:bold;" | Scalability<br />
|-<br />
| style="font-weight:bold;" | DETECTION<br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| Radar system<br />
| 22,000 EUR per 5km radius<br />
| Estimated at 200 per year<br />
| 5km up to 25 km radius<br />
| <1 second<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| All<br />
| Only limited by cost of extra devices<br />
|-<br />
| WiFi system<br />
| 100 euro per device<br />
| Estimated to be 0<br />
| 5 meters per device<br />
| <1 second<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| Only those with controls on 2.4 or 5 GHz<br />
| Limited by cost and space usage of devices<br />
|-<br />
| Using drones<br />
| Cost of a good drone at <br />
1849 euro per drone<br />
| Estimated at 300 euro per year for repairs<br />
| 5km per drone<br />
| Estimated average of 2 minutes<br />
| Collision with aircraft<br />
| None<br />
| Noise from drones<br />
| Only on drones that are slow and large<br />
| Cost limited, eventually cctv system would be cheaper<br />
|-<br />
| style="font-weight:bold;" | IDENTIFICATION<br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| Coded signal<br />
| Estimated around 400 EUR<br />
| Estimated to be 0<br />
| Roughly 322 km radius around receiving antenna<br />
| Expected to be around 5 seconds<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| All<br />
| Cost limited for adding more receivers<br />
|-<br />
| Radar technology<br />
| Estimated at around <br />
22,000 EUR<br />
| Estimated at 200 per year<br />
| 5km up to 25 km radius<br />
| < 1 second<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| All<br />
| Cost limited for adding more radar devices<br />
|-<br />
| style="font-weight:bold;" | NEUTRALISATION<br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| Missiles<br />
| More than 100000 Euro<br />
| Estimate at around 5000 euro per year<br />
| Roughly 150 km<br />
| Roughly 4 minutes<br />
| Great risks of hitting unwanted targets<br />
| A lot<br />
| Noise and smoke from missiles<br />
| Only slow moving large drones<br />
| Cost limited only<br />
|-<br />
| Lasers<br />
| Figures estimate around 150,000,000 for development<br />
| Unsure, firing costs roughly 1 dollar<br />
| 1.6km<br />
| <1 second<br />
| Risks of hitting unwanted objects<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| Only slow moving drones<br />
| Cost limited only<br />
|-<br />
| GPS interference<br />
| Roughly 300 USD<br />
| Estimated to be 0<br />
| 500m radius<br />
| <1 second<br />
| Planes will also be affected as they use GPS<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| All drones using GPS to navigate<br />
| Cost limited only<br />
|-<br />
| Nets<br />
| Estimate around 1200 Euro per net gun<br />
| Estimated to be around 100 euro per net<br />
| 30 meters<br />
| Estimated around 30 minutes<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| Most drones that are not too fast<br />
| Cost limited only<br />
|-<br />
| Eagles<br />
| No cost estimation found<br />
| No clue<br />
| Roughly 7 square Km<br />
| Estimated around 5 minutes<br />
| Collisions between bird and planes could be deadly<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| Only drones of similar sizes to an eagle's prey<br />
| Very cost intensive<br />
|-<br />
| Geofences<br />
| free<br />
| free<br />
| No limit<br />
| instant<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| Only drones sold in stores<br />
| No need<br />
|-<br />
| Radio interference<br />
| Estimated around <br />
22000 Euro<br />
| Estimated at 200 per year<br />
| Roughly 3km<br />
| Roughly 2 seconds<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| All<br />
| Only cost limited<br />
|}<br />
<br />
----<br />
Back to the [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | root page]].<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /></div>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nlhttps://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Solutions_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3&diff=68922Solutions - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 32019-03-17T10:02:48Z<p>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nl: /* Solutions */</p>
<hr />
<div><link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.tue.nl/favicon-64.ico" type="image/x-icon"><br />
<link rel=http://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2018_3_Group4&action=edit"stylesheet" type="text/css" href="theme.css"><br />
<div style="width:calc(100vw - 175px);background-color:#EFEFEF;padding-bottom:35px;position:absolute;top:0;left:0;"><br />
<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;"><br />
<br />
<div style="display: block; position: absolute; right: 0%;"><br />
; Page navigation<br />
# [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | Root]]<br />
# [[Notes - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Notes]]<br />
# [[Initial ideas - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Initial ideas]]<br />
# [[Project setup - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Project setup]]<br />
# [[General problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|General problem]] <br />
# [[State of the Art - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|State of the Art]]<br />
# [[Specific problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Specific problem]]<br />
# [[Present situation - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Present situation]]<br />
# [[Solutions - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Solutions]]<br />
# [[Airports under a microscope - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Airports under a microscope]]<br />
# [[Decision tree - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Decision tree]]<br />
# [[Future - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Future]]<br />
# [[Conclusion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Conclusion]]<br />
# [[Discussion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Discussion]]<br />
</div><br />
<br />
= Solutions =<br />
In this section, we consider the requirements of solutions for the problem proposed in the specific problem description, all possible solutions, and both the advantages and disadvantages of each solution.<br />
<br />
== Categories ==<br />
<br />
When considering the state of the art research presented in the relevant Section, we can distinguish multiple categories in which the presented solutions might fall. In this Section, we further elaborate on these different categories, and as such provide a better overview and allow for more a more specific formulation of requirements. Firstly, different anti-UAV systems serve different purposes. For our study, we differentiate between the following purposes:<br />
<br />
=== Purposes ===<br />
; UAV Detection: These systems serve to detect the presence of UAVs in unwanted airspaces. They often also locate the UAV in question and sometimes include the possibility of continuous location tracking to assist systems categorised under the other purposes.<br />
; UAV Identification: Systems from this category serve to identify UAVs, obtaining more information about the UAV than simply its location. This information might include simple statistics, such as the average size of the drone which can often be observed by a human, given that the UAV is present in their field of view. More complicated statistics might also be obtained, such as a serial tracking number to identify commercial UAVs. <br />
; UAV Neutralisation: Drone neutralisation systems serve to neutralise a drone. This is the main topic of our study since UAV presence in the airspace above an airport introduces various risks, discussed in other Sections, that have to be neutralised in order to maintain public and societal security.<br />
<br />
Now that the scope of the purpose of the anti UAV systems for airport security that we consider has become clear, we might further distinguish the main purpose considered in this study. As such, we differentiate between 3 different subcategories, all part of the drone neutralisation purpose. These categories are as follows:<br />
<br />
=== Categories ===<br />
; Preventative solutions: This category encompasses all solutions that serve to prevent the problem from occurring. More specifically, entries of this category focus on keeping UAVs away from airspace belonging to airports. An example might include the geofencing system that was described previously and will be elaborated on further in the following sections.<br />
<br />
; Corrective solutions: Solutions from this category focus on solving the problem of UAV presence in the airspace over airports, specifically when said UAV is already present in that airspace. These solutions attempt to do so with minimal damage to the parties involved, an example might consist of a procedure where the control of the drone is overridden, either automatically or by a human, before the drone is removed from the airspace by landing or flight and after which control could be passed back to the pilot.<br />
<br />
; Destructive solutions: These solutions have the same area of focus as the previous category of corrective solutions, namely the minimising of further risk to air traffic above airports after a UAV has entered the airspace. The main difference is that, while corrective solutions attempt to do so in a non-destructive way, this limitation does not apply to destructive solutions. Sub-systems of a UAV or the UAV as a whole may be destroyed or permanently disabled. A coarse example consists of taking down unwanted UAVs with firearms, causing damage to the UAV and rendering it unable to continue operations.<br />
<br />
This division into categories is not entirely black on white, however. Consider an abstract example system that temporarily incapacitates a UAV in flight, causing it to cease operation and enter a free fall towards the ground. This might result in the destruction of the drone, given the collision with the ground. We have found a grey area in our division into subcategories, and as such, we further define destructive solutions as those solutions, where the incapacitation of the drone follows from the destruction, and not the other way around. We also require the destruction to be an integral part of the solution, if we want it to count as a destructive solution. In this example, the destruction is not guaranteed nor does the incapacitation follow from the destruction. Instead, the destruction might follow from the incapacitation, dependent on other circumstances. Therefore, this specific example counts as a preventative or corrective solution, based on where the UAV in question is located. Note, however, that this is based on the keywords `temporarily incapacitates'. If the incapacitation of the UAV or one of its subsystems were permanent, the destruction would be guaranteed since it does not depend on how hard the UAV hits the ground anymore. In this case, it would count as a destructive solution.<br />
<br />
== Requirements ==<br />
<br />
A solution to the specific problem described will have to adhere to requirements.<br />
These requirements are not simply capabilities the solution has to provide in the form of functional requirements, but they should also cover constraints posed on the solution.<br />
The constraints can be on the design of the solution in order to meet specified levels of quality, on the environment and technology of the system, and on the project plan and development methods.<br />
Note that there can exist multiple different types of solutions and that we, therefore, have to keep the requirements of a solution as abstract as possible. <br />
We should not limit the solution space with these requirements.<br />
Instead, we should provide a general outline of what capabilities (functional requirements) the solution should provide and under what constraints (non-functional requirements).<br />
<br />
Furthermore, these requirements might serve as a basic framework for further development of solutions to similar problems, thereby widening the scope to other problem spaces involving UAVs as well.<br />
<br />
The capabilities (functional requirements) of the solution are as follows:<br />
* The solution should be able to take down any type of drone effectively.<br />
* The solution should not endanger any humans with any of its actions.<br />
<br />
The constraints (non-functional requirements) on the solutions are as follows:<br />
* The solution should adhere to the new rules proposed in the `New Rules' subsection in the `Present situation' section.<br />
* The solution should adhere to the new rules proposed in the `Limitations' subsection in the `Present situation' section.<br />
<br />
== Possible solutions ==<br />
<br />
As we have already elaborated on, a possible solution can be categorised into the purpose it fulfils with respect to anti-UAV systems at and around airports.<br />
Since a full anti-UAV system should be able to do three things: detect flying objects, identify that this object is an (unwanted) UAV, and lastly neutralisation of the UAV. However, the identification of the object might be something that is up for discussion, since it might be safer to neutralise every flying object, we will discuss this later on. As most possible (partial) solutions only cover one or two of the three things it should be able to do, before it can be considered at a full anti-UAV system, for each of the (partial) solutions listed below, they are divided up into categories of its purposes it fulfils. Such that, later on, we can compare and afterwards combine multiple of these partial solutions into one system that meets the needs of the users.<br />
<br />
==== UAV Detection ====<br />
<br />
* Radar system for detecting the location and height of an object in the air. The radar makes use of a transmitter which produces an electromagnetic signal which is radiated into airspace with an antenna. If this signal hits an areal object, it will get reflected in many directions. This reflected signal is received by the radar antenna then it is processed to determine the geographical data of the object.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* A Wi-Fi receiver can be used to detect a UAV based on the signature of the signal reflected from the propellers of a UAV. Similar to a radar, a transmitter broadcasts signals and a receiver captures reflected signals that bounce of a UAV. <ref name="RF-based detection of drones">Nguyen, P., Ravindranatha, M., Nguyen, A., Han, R., & Vu, T. [https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2935632 "Investigating Cost-effective RF-based Detection of Drones"], ACM, June 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Detect a UAV by listening to the communication channel between the UAV and its controller using a wireless receiver. Usually, UAVs communicate with their controllers a few times per second to update their status and to receive commands from the controller. A system could collect wireless samples and observes the signal, analyse them and can then detect a UAV's presence. <ref name="RF-based detection of drones">Nguyen, P., Ravindranatha, M., Nguyen, A., Han, R., & Vu, T. [https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2935632 "Investigating Cost-effective RF-based Detection of Drones"], ACM, June 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Detection of UAVs with the use of other UAVs that fly around the airports, carrying lightweight radar systems or cameras to scan their environment.<br />
* Echodyne's 3D Security radar that offers superior sensor performance in a compact, solid-state, all-weather product. A recent winner in the SOFWERX Game of Drones competition.<br />
* Human detection, for example by using watchtowers or pilots in the aeroplanes to spot UAVs. (Currently what Eindhoven Airport uses to detect UAVs)<br />
* 3D Radio frequency antenna (https://drone-detection-system.com/the-system/)<br />
<br />
==== UAV Identification ====<br />
<br />
* Identification of any specific aircraft can be done by broadcasting a coded signal, which is decoded by air traffic control towers. Such that allies and enemies can be identified and to avoid targeting a friendly aircraft. As a result, all aircraft where radar service is provided should require systems that are able to broadcast coded signals for identification, for this solution to work. <ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* For identification of UAVs, employing a 2D antenna and appropriate signal processing to create a multibeam, 3D, wide area overcomes the weakness of scanning radars and achieves high detection sensitivity. A decision tree based classifier can be used to identify the difference between UAVs and other moving objects. Where it rejects non-UAV targets, decreasing the number of false positives and increases true positives. Such that when neutralising such a moving object in the air, with high probability, it will be a drone instead of for example a flying bird. <ref name="difficult to detect microdrones">Jahangir, M., & Baker, C. [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7590610/ "Persistence Surveillance of Difficult to Detect microdrones with L-band 3-D Holographic RadarTM"], Sensor Signal Processing for Defence (SSPD), September 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* A lightweight, X-Band (10.5GHz) radar system for use on a small-scale (less than 25 kg) rotorcraft. The prototype implementation of the radar is small enough to be carried by a drone and is able to differentiate other 'miniature rotorcrafts' (drones) by their doppler signature. The prototype uses a radar system which utilises electromagnetic energy to gain information on objects by analysing the reflected energy. <ref name="Radar-Based detection mini air vehicles">Moses, A., Rutherford, M. J., & Valavanis, K. P [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6044363 "Radar-Based Detection and Identification for Miniature Air Vehicles"], Control Applications (CCA), September 2011. Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
<br />
==== UAV Neutralization ====<br />
<br />
* Taking out UAVs by using air to air missiles, where these air missiles could be launched from other UAVs used by the airport or possibly any other aerial vehicle.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Taking out UAVs or disabling specific subsystems might be achievable by using lasers. Different kinds of lasers can be used for different purposes, either permanently or temporarily disabling a UAV. <ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Electromagnetic attacks to interfere with the GPS signals of the UAV, that the UAV uses to position itself. Jamming the GPS signals causes the UAV not to be able to follow the pilot's navigation commands accurately.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Taking control of a UAV by spoofing the GPS signals of the UAV, such that the UAV thinks that it is still talking to the original pilot when it is actually being taken over. This way the drone can easily and safely be landed somewhere out of danger.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Capturing a UAV using another UAV carrying a net, which drops the net over the unwanted UAV. Thereby taking control of the UAV as the net makes sure the UAVs rotors get tangled in the net making sure it is unusable for the pilot. Then with a parachute on the net, it can be made sure that the UAV lands safely on the ground<ref name="How do you catch a drone? With an even BIGGER drone and a giant net: Tokyo police reveal bizarre 'UAV catcher'">Liberatore, S., [https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1627_Jan2018.pdf "How do you catch a drone? With an even BIGGER drone and a giant net: Tokyo police reveal bizarre 'UAV catcher'"], DailyMail, December 2015, Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* A bazooka with an intelligent locking system to aid the controller to hit the UAV successfully, that shoots a net to capture a UAV. The rotors of the UAV will then get tangled in the net, making sure it cannot cause any harm anymore. Then a parachute that is attached to the net will make sure that the UAV will land safely on the ground. <ref name="The SkyWall 100 bazooka captures drones with a giant net">Burns, M., https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/04/the-skywall-100-bazooka-captures-drones-with-a-giant-net/?guccounter=1 "The SkyWall 100 bazooka captures drones with a giant net"], TechCrunch, 2016, Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* Transmitting geo-fence coordinates, avoidance commands or disruption of radio communication in order to avoid UAV's entering no-fly zone. <ref name="US10157546B2 - Anti-drone flight protection systems and methods"> Etak Systems LLC.[https://patents.google.com/patent/US10157546B2/ "Anti-drone flight protection systems and methods"], Google patents, 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* Using trained eagles to neutralise UAVs. These eagles would be trained into considering UAVs as preys so that they could catch these drones and place them in a safe area. <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><br />
* Geo-fencing software built into the UAVs restricts consumer UAVs to even be able to fly within a certain range of unwanted areas such as airports. <ref name="Drone sightings and close encounters"> Gettinger, D., & Michel, A. H. [https://dronecenter.bard.edu/files/2015/12/12-11-Drone-Sightings-and-Close-Encounters.pdf" "Drone sightings and close encounters: An analysis"], Center for the Study of the Drone, Bard College, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-14.</ref><br />
* Using high powered radio waves to disable drones, it blocks their communication with the controller and switches them off mid-air. <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><br />
<br />
== Advantages and disadvantages ==<br />
<br />
=== UAV Detection ===<br />
<br />
; Radar system:<br />
When it comes to UAV detection, radar systems provide a sufficient solution. <br />
There already exists much research on these type of systems. <br />
This partly helps with financing the solution as it is already existing technology, which should be cheaper than technology that is not fully developed yet. <br />
The disadvantage is that many airports already make use of radar systems, but that they do not seem to suffice. <br />
What one should ask themselves is whether or not these radar systems can be made in such a way that they would be reliable right now.<br />
Furthermore, how reliable would these radar systems be in the future if they are `apparently' already not reliable enough right now? It seems to be the case that UAVs can be designed with certain materials such that they will not reflect the reflections of a radar system such that a radar system will not notice/detect any aerial object whilst there might be a hostile UAV flying over an airport.<br />
All in all, radar systems offer an inexpensive way to detect UAVs, but not each type of UAV is detected.<br />
<br />
; Echodyne's radar<br />
Echodyne designs and manufactures radars with unparalleled price-performance. <br />
MESA technology is used, which is a fundamental breakthrough in high-performance radar with game-changing benefits in many markets. <br />
Acuity is an intelligent radar control software suite to enable user configurability. <br />
At an order of magnitude lower cost, Echodyne radar radically outperforms all other radar sensors in its class<ref name="govsomething">Snapshot: DHS Silicon Valley Innovation Program Successfully Transitions Three Technologies to CBP https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/2019/02/05/snapshot-svip-successfully-transitions-three-technologies-cbp</ref>.<br />
Their 3D Security radar offers superior sensor performance in a compact, solid-state, all-weather product. <br />
A recent winner in the SOFWERX Game of Drones competition, EchoGuard is the `perfect' radar for a multilayered perimeter defense solution.<br />
Furthermore, Acuity API integrates seamlessly with existing security ecosystems to provide situational awareness.<br />
<br />
Their radar can be seen in usage in the following [https://youtu.be/_tPcxEfU5d8 video]. <br />
Echodyne provides another [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VarxP_rOTKI video] that depicts a visualisation of the working of their radar.<br />
<br />
The specifications of the 3D Security radar are as follows:<br />
<br />
* Size: 8.0in x 6.4in x 1.57in (20.3cm x 16.3cm x 4cm)<br />
* Weight: 1.25kg<br />
* Power: DC +15V to +28V<br />
* Operating: <50W<br />
* Hot standby: <15W<br />
* Hibernate TBR: <100mW<br />
* Field of View: 120° Azimuth x 80° Elevation<br />
<br />
This radar reliably detects and tracks aircraft and cars at 3km, people walking at 2km, and sUAS at 1km.<br />
<br />
The guardian reported that one such system could cast around 150 000 dollars<ref name="guardianencho">Super Bowl: experimental radar aims to stop drone drama at game https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/28/super-bowl-drones-radar-start-up-experiment</ref>.<br />
<br />
; WiFi receiver:<br />
WiFi receivers can accurately determine the position of drones.<br />
They are, however, very susceptible to interference.<br />
For example, WiFi signals can be blocked by obstacles. <br />
While it might be sufficient for right now, it is very possible for malicious attackers to attach WiFi interfering tools to their UAVs.<br />
Then, WiFi receivers might not be as reliable in the future. <br />
When it comes to solutions, reliability is one of the main concerns as the solutions has to work in all cases.<br />
<br />
; Listening on communication between drone and ground:<br />
Listening to communication between a drone and its operator can be an easy way to detect the presence of both the drone and the operator. <br />
Often, this type of communication is not encrypted.<br />
The U.S. government displayed how easy it is to hack drones made by Parrot, DBPower, and Cheerson<ref>The U.S. government showed just how easy it is to hack drones made by Parrot, DBPower and Cheerson. (2017). Recode. Retrieved 15 February 2019, from [https://www.recode.net/2017/1/4/14062654/drones-hacking-security-ftc-parrot-dbpower-cheerson]</ref>.<br />
One significant disadvantage, however, is that custom built drones might use significantly different communication standards which do make use of encryption.<br />
So this solution is only good when the communication is not encrypted, which still happens quite often as of now.<br />
The number of communications that do make use of encryption is suspected to increase with the years as the technology gets more established.<br />
Then, this solution does not provide a way of detecting drones.<br />
<br />
; Detecting drones with other drones:<br />
When we use drones to detect other drones, we do not depend on insecure channels. <br />
With this solution, we are not just limited to drones in the line of sight as the drone-detecting drone can fly around.<br />
A disadvantage, however, is that flying around with a drone at a busy airport can be quite dangerous. <br />
Furthermore, these drones can only stay in the air for a limited time due to battery or accu related constraints.<br />
This can be mitigated by simply using larger batteries, but this increases the weight of the drone, which leads to some negatives again. <br />
This might, however, still provide to be a sound solution as it makes dealing with the illegal drone activity easier as the drone itself can, for example, be weaponised.<br />
<br />
=== UAV Identification ===<br />
; Identification by coded signal:<br />
UAV identification through coded signals can quickly identify activity.<br />
A disadvantage, however, is that other areal entities, such as bird, might also be targeted. <br />
This is due to birds being able to be roughly similarly sized as drones.<br />
Thus, this method can identify aerial activity, but there is no guarantee that only illegal drone activity is identified. <br />
Then, this could lead to negative results when we consider, for example, birds.<br />
It is possible they are targeted by the drone interception system.<br />
<br />
; 3D radar system with machine learning:<br />
UAV identification through a 3D radar system that uses machine learning can eventually lead to a precise system.<br />
The issue with it is that it first needs data to learn from.<br />
The gathering of this data can provide to be difficult.<br />
Furthermore, even if it learns from this data, it does not always have to lead to correct results as there are, often, biases in data.<br />
<br />
; X-band radar system<br />
UAV identification through an X-band radar system can perform accurate shape analysis of flying objects using doppler and high-frequency radar signals.<br />
Attaching a radar system to a drone, however, can be an issue around airports as this might result in interference with already existing systems.<br />
<br />
=== UAV Neutralisation ===<br />
; Missiles<br />
The use of missiles might, on the one hand, be a rapid method and affordable method to take out hostile drones. However, there are a few downsides to this method. First of all, missiles are very dangerous, especially in an area where, apart from hostile UAVs, many aeroplanes with innocent passengers fly. The chance exists that a missile might miss an unwanted UAV and, instead, hit an aeroplane. Which would be disastrous and would only make the situation worse, especially if the unwanted drone was just a hindrance to the airport. UAVs are often quite small and can move/switch directions pretty quickly it is actually quite hard for a missile to correctly take out a UAV. Furthermore, might the unwanted UAV actually be taken out by a missile, then it will most definitely be destroyed meaning that police investigation will be more difficult. All in all, the use of missiles at and around airports is most likely a bad idea.<br />
<br />
; Lasers<br />
Lasers are very precise and can be used in multiple ways to deal with drones. On the one hand, a very narrow laser beam can be pointed at an unwanted UAV to melt the body of the UAV causing structural failure and crashing of the UAV. On the other hand, a wide laser beam can be used to target multiple unwanted UAVs at the same time, taking out their control systems causing them to crash. Both methods require pretty close range to a target, the exact range depends on the type of laser that is used, and clear sight to the targetted UAV(s). However such systems could be attached to moving vehicles making such systems very mobile. Another advantage is, compared to the use of missiles, is that there is no need to reload as it uses the energy of a generator or the vehicle it is attached to. However, this means that the energy could deplete might there be too many targets, or might a target take too long to take out. Also, one might not always have clear sight to a target, or the range might be too long, making this method ineffective. <br />
<br />
; Interfering with GPS<br />
Interfering with the GPS of a UAV, will not cause any harm to the drone. Then the drone can be inspected, once landed, to find out who is responsible for the UAV. However, when interfering with the GPS of a UAV, the pilot will be unable to send commands to the UAV making the UAV uncontrollable. This might cause the UAV to crash into aeroplanes, buildings or crowds of people. Hence this method can only be used when a UAV is in a so-called 'safe space' where it cannot harm anyone/anything. Furthermore, GPS interference might also affect the GPS systems of the aeroplanes at the airport. It might be the case that this method of neutralisation will not work against every UAV, as some UAVs might not use GPS to communicate with its pilot. Also, if a UAV is autonomous, it does not even need communication with a pilot necessarily. Lastly, it might also be difficult to get regulatory approval for the use of jamming devices due to jurisdictions.<br />
<br />
; GPS spoofing<br />
This method is similar to the method discussed above (Interfering with GPS) and thus also shares the most advantages and disadvantages. However, an advantage of this method compared to GPS interference is that the targetted UAV will not be uncontrollable, but instead, the UAV can just be safely landed on the desired location. Apart from that, it shares the same disadvantages as GPS interference.<br />
<br />
; Capturing UAVs using nets underneath other UAVs<br />
This method is a method that is not harmful to UAVs/the surroundings and does use interference which might cause problems for aeroplanes at the airport; those are two significant advantages. Another advantage is that it is a very affordable method to deploy to counter unwanted UAVs and allows for safe retrieval of UAVs. However, UAVs carrying a net to capture hostile UAVs, mostly just have room for carrying a single net to capture a hostile UAV. Meaning that if the UAV misses the net, it needs to return and completely be reset. Another thing is that these UAVs need to be able to follow small and very fast hostile UAVs to be able to place a net over them. This might be quite an issue, since carrying a net might be pretty heavy for a UAV causing it to move more slowly. Lastly, using this method, there will be even more UAVs in the air space, meaning even more interference for the airport.<br />
<br />
; Bazooka net system<br />
This method is quite similar to previously mentioned method (Capturing UAVs using nets underneath other UAVs), however, in this case instead of using a UAV carrying a net, it uses a bazooka to capture a hostile UAV. It will also be quite affordable and straightforward to implement. Another advantage of this method is that there will not be any extra UAVs in the air space which might cause more interference. However, this method might be more inaccurate since a net needs to travel in the air for a longer period before reaching an unwanted UAV, giving the UAV more time to evade the net. Furthermore, a bazooka firing a net will have more limitations in its range compared to UAVs carrying a net as it might not be able to reach unwanted UAVs which are high up in the air space.<br />
<br />
; Geo-fence coordinates<br />
This method is the easiest solutions for the airports, as they will not need to implement a system to neutralise UAVs since UAVs simply will not be able to enter the air space of airports. However, this method is dependent on drones being programmed not to enter certain areas and will therefore not always avoid unwanted UAVs at airports. This might help against unwanted consumer UAVs that accidentally enter the air space above airports due to ignorant pilots. However, if someone really has terrible intentions with an airport, it will be straightforward to either turn off the geo-fencing software on a UAV or simply design their drone which will not have any geo-fencing software either. Furthermore, the software of the UAVs must continuously be updated according to new areas that might not be entered by UAVs, which might not be possible. Lastly, this solution also does not help against a large number of UAVs that already exist and can still be used for interference at airports. So in summary, this method might be useful for taking on a large part of newly bought UAVs, but can easily be avoided and should not be relied on by airports as the only method against UAVs.<br />
<br />
; Eagles<br />
Using eagles to intercept drones is an economically friendly solution. <br />
Furthermore, the chances of a technical malfunction are non-existing.<br />
It is, however, still possible for the birds to deviate from the standard procedure when intercepting a drone even after extensive training.<br />
Moreover, flying birds near and around airports can be dangerous as they can get damaged by aeroplanes and other obstacles. <br />
<br />
The Dutch police started using eagles to intercept drones back in 2016 already<ref name="eagles_dutch">Haye Kesteloo, Dutch police halts use of eagles to intercept drones (2017) [https://dronedj.com/2017/12/07/dutch-police-eagles-drones/]</ref>. <br />
This, initially, seemed like a successful approach to seize drones mid-air. <br />
Not long after their initial usage, the Dutch political part `Partij voor de dieren' expressed their concerns regarding the safety and the wellbeing of the eagles.<br />
<br />
After a year of training the birds, the police have concluded that the eagles were barely used.<br />
Furthermore, the NOS reports, the training of the eagles is more complex and more expensive than the police expected. <br />
Additionally, there was little to no return in training these birds. <br />
Moreover, the birds did not always follow the procedures they were instructed to follow and therefore, the police was not convinced the birds would follow these procedures in real use<ref name="eagles_dutch">Haye Kesteloo, Dutch police halts use of eagles to intercept drones (2017) [https://dronedj.com/2017/12/07/dutch-police-eagles-drones/]</ref>.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Anti_drone_eagles.png|thumb|550px|Anti-Drone Eagles - title text: It's cool, it's totally ethical--they're all programmed to hunt whichever bird of prey is most numerous at the moment, so they leave the endangered ones alone until near the end.|center]]<br />
<br />
<br />
Let us consider the following comic created by Randall Munroe on May 26, 2017. This comic raises an important ethical argument against the use of eagles in anti-drone mechanisms. <br />
While eagles, the predators they are, have natural inclinations to attack central parts of drones while evading sharp bits, their lives are still put at risk.<br />
<br />
Cueball (person in the middle) argues that using eagles as anti-drone mechanisms is unethical as it forces a rare animal to put their lives at risk. <br />
Cueball compares it to using police dogs for traffic control, which is something that most people would frown upon after giving it some thought. <br />
<br />
The effectiveness of eagles depends a lot on the conditions of how they are used. Naturally, eagles cannot be used everywhere, but they are often effectively used where some form of ground security is present that can be used to identify and arrest those illegally flying their drones. This is partly due to these people not being able to replenish their hardware indefinitely. <br />
<br />
Not only would the use of eagles be unethical, but also ineffective. <br />
That is partly due to the supply of eagles being rather limited. Furthermore, there are natural boundaries to how fast they can be replenished, whereas more drones can easily be created to replace those that have been destroyed. Of course, this will involve more money, but we should be prepared for the worst. As brought up in the third part of the comic, traffic control dogs would be similarly ineffective, as dogs would struggle to run equally fast as racing motorcycles. Moreover, they would, in most cases, be too powerless to stop the motorcycle even if they could keep up them.<br />
<br />
Megan (the girl on the right) states that both ideas, the usage of eagles and dogs, sound `cool'. She does, however, understand the ethical argument that Cueball raises against their use for traffic control. On the other hand, Black hat (the man on the left) goes a step further and states that he has created a drone that hunts eagles. This flips the premise from `anti-drone eagles' to `anti-eagle drones'. In the title text, which represents a statement from Black hat, he continues that it is ethical because they - the `anti-eagle drones' - only target the most populous species first, although they will eventually eradicate the endangered ones once they bring down the number of all birds of prey. Here, Black hat seems to miss the point that it is not merely the relative number of birds that creates an ethical problem, but the fact that animals' lives are being put at direct risk by humans. This is especially negative when other mechanisms can be used that are similarly effective for a bit more money, if not equal or less. <br />
The construction of his anti-eagle drone may simply be for the point of making the eagles' goals not only dangerous but also entirely ineffective. <br />
<br />
All things considered, the comic above raises a critical ethical argument against the use of eagles in anti-drone mechanisms. <br />
<br />
; Radio interference<br />
This method is actually really similar to the previously discussed GPS interference method and shares the same advantages and disadvantages as that method.<br />
<br />
== Comparison chart == <br />
In order to summarise the differences between the above solutions, we made a comparison chart. In this chart, we quantify the various attributes of each solution to allow us to see what solution is better for which type of airport.<br />
<br />
We have chosen to look at the following attributes:<br />
* Cost<br />
** Purchase cost<br />
** Maintenance/upkeep cost<br />
* Range<br />
* Speed<br />
* Danger to Humans<br />
* Emission<br />
* Disturbance to surroundings<br />
* Effective on which drone categories<br />
* Scalability<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! <br />
! style="font-weight:bold;" | Purchase price<br />
! style="font-weight:bold;" | Maintenance cost<br />
! style="font-weight:bold;" | Range<br />
! style="font-weight:bold;" | Speed of operation<br />
! style="font-weight:bold;" | Danger to humans<br />
! style="font-weight:bold;" | Emission<br />
! style="font-weight:bold;" | Disturbance to the environment<br />
! style="font-weight:bold;" | Effect on different types of drones<br />
! style="font-weight:bold;" | Scalability<br />
|-<br />
| style="font-weight:bold;" | DETECTION<br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| Radar system<br />
| 22,000 EUR per 5km radius<br />
| Estimated at 200 per year<br />
| 5km up to 25 km radius<br />
| <1 second<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| All<br />
| Only limited by cost of extra devices<br />
|-<br />
| WiFi system<br />
| 100 euro per device<br />
| Estimated to be 0<br />
| 5 meters per device<br />
| <1 second<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| Only those with controls on 2.4 or 5 GHz<br />
| Limited by cost and space usage of devices<br />
|-<br />
| Using drones<br />
| Cost of a good drone at <br />
1849 euro per drone<br />
| Estimated at 300 euro per year for repairs<br />
| 5km per drone<br />
| Estimated average of 2 minutes<br />
| Collision with aircraft<br />
| None<br />
| Noise from drones<br />
| Only on drones that are slow and large<br />
| Cost limited, eventually cctv system would be cheaper<br />
|-<br />
| style="font-weight:bold;" | IDENTIFICATION<br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| Coded signal<br />
| Estimated around 400 EUR<br />
| Estimated to be 0<br />
| Roughly 322 km radius around receiving antenna<br />
| Expected to be around 5 seconds<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| All<br />
| Cost limited for adding more receivers<br />
|-<br />
| Radar technology<br />
| Estimated at around <br />
22,000 EUR<br />
| Estimated at 200 per year<br />
| 5km up to 25 km radius<br />
| < 1 second<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| All<br />
| Cost limited for adding more radar devices<br />
|-<br />
| style="font-weight:bold;" | NEUTRALISATION<br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| Missiles<br />
| More than 100000 Euro<br />
| Estimate at around 5000 euro per year<br />
| Roughly 150 km<br />
| Roughly 4 minutes<br />
| Great risks of hitting unwanted targets<br />
| A lot<br />
| Noise and smoke from missiles<br />
| Only slow moving large drones<br />
| Cost limited only<br />
|-<br />
| Lasers<br />
| Figures estimate around 150,000,000 for development<br />
| Unsure, firing costs roughly 1 dollar<br />
| 1.6km<br />
| <1 second<br />
| Risks of hitting unwanted objects<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| Only slow moving drones<br />
| Cost limited only<br />
|-<br />
| GPS interference<br />
| Roughly 300 USD<br />
| Estimated to be 0<br />
| 500m radius<br />
| <1 second<br />
| Planes will also be affected as they use GPS<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| All drones using GPS to navigate<br />
| Cost limited only<br />
|-<br />
| Nets<br />
| Estimate around 1200 Euro per net gun<br />
| Estimated to be around 100 euro per net<br />
| 30 meters<br />
| Estimated around 30 minutes<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| Most drones that are not too fast<br />
| Cost limited only<br />
|-<br />
| Eagles<br />
| No cost estimation found<br />
| No clue<br />
| Roughly 7 square Km<br />
| Estimated around 5 minutes<br />
| Collisions between bird and planes could be deadly<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| Only drones of similar sizes to an eagle's prey<br />
| Very cost intensive<br />
|-<br />
| Geofences<br />
| free<br />
| free<br />
| No limit<br />
| instant<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| Only drones sold in stores<br />
| No need<br />
|-<br />
| Radio interference<br />
| Estimated around <br />
22000 Euro<br />
| Estimated at 200 per year<br />
| Roughly 3km<br />
| Roughly 2 seconds<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| None<br />
| All<br />
| Only cost limited<br />
|}<br />
<br />
----<br />
Back to the [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | root page]].<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /></div>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nlhttps://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Present_situation_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3&diff=68647Present situation - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 32019-03-13T20:03:09Z<p>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nl: /* Airport Interview */</p>
<hr />
<div><link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.tue.nl/favicon-64.ico" type="image/x-icon"><br />
<link rel=http://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2018_3_Group4&action=edit"stylesheet" type="text/css" href="theme.css"><br />
<div style="width:calc(100vw - 175px);background-color:#EFEFEF;padding-bottom:35px;position:absolute;top:0;left:0;"><br />
<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;"><br />
<br />
<div style="display: block; position: absolute; right: 0%;"><br />
; Page navigation<br />
# [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | Root]]<br />
# [[Notes - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Notes]]<br />
# [[Initial ideas - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Initial ideas]]<br />
# [[Project setup - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Project setup]]<br />
# [[General problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|General problem]] <br />
# [[State of the Art - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|State of the Art]]<br />
# [[Specific problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Specific problem]]<br />
# [[Present situation - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Present situation]]<br />
# [[Solutions - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Solutions]]<br />
# [[Airports under a microscope - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Airports under a microscope]]<br />
# [[Decision tree - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Decision tree]]<br />
# [[Future - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Future]]<br />
# [[Conclusion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Conclusion]]<br />
# [[Discussion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Discussion]]<br />
</div><br />
<br />
= Present situation =<br />
In this section, we consider the present situation regarding the specific problem description. <br />
We interview and airport and look at current solutions.<br />
<br />
== Airport Interview ==<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
We asked the following questions:<br />
<br />
* What is the airport's current mechanism for detecting drones?<br />
* How will the airport respond when the drone is sighted in restricted aerospace?<br />
* Roughly how much damage will the airport take if a drone were to restrict air traffic for 1 hour?<br />
* 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?<br />
* What would be the maximum budget for an automated anti-drone mechanism?<br />
* What kind of system would you imagine when thinking of anti-drone mechanisms? <br />
<br />
We contacted most major Dutch airfields; Eindhoven, Schiphol, Maastricht Aaken, Groningen, Twente, Den Helder, Rotterdam the Hague and Bergen op zoom.<br />
<br />
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:<br />
* '''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.<br />
* '''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<br />
* '''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 larger.<br />
* '''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<br />
* '''What would be the maximum budget for an automated anti-drone mechanism?''' None, for safety there will always be a budget available.<br />
* '''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.<br />
The correspondent also told us he was very interested in our research, offering the opportunity for further collaboration.<br />
<br />
== Solutions ==<br />
<br />
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]].<br />
<br />
* 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>.<br />
* 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>.<br />
* 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>.<br />
* 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>.<br />
* 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>.<br />
* 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>.<br />
<br />
== Limitations ==<br />
=== The jurisdiction regarding drones is not up to date with current technology ===<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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€ <ref name = "Mediamarkt drone">[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. </ref>. 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 <ref name = "New wet">[https://www.bright.nl/nieuws/artikel/4499011/drones-regels-europa-easa-amsterdam-drone-week "Bright: Nieuwe regels voor drones gaan medio 2019 in"] November 2018, Retrieved on 12-02-2019. </ref>. 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<ref name = "rondetafel">[https://www.tweedekamer.nl/debat_en_vergadering/commissievergaderingen/details?id=2018A05009 "Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal: Rondetafelgesprek over Drones en killer robots"], January 2019, Retrieved on 13-02-2019 </ref>. These examples show that the regulations of drones are not up to date with the current technological advances of drones.<br />
<br />
=== Limitation of current solutions ===<br />
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>.<br />
<br />
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 someones head, he or she could get seriously injured. Furthermore, the crashing drone can also break certain equipment when falling down. 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.<br />
<br />
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 in the near future, 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.<br />
----<br />
Back to the [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | root page]].<br />
<br />
= References =<br />
<references /></div>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nlhttps://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=File:EASA-drone-gewichtsklassen.jpg&diff=67696File:EASA-drone-gewichtsklassen.jpg2019-03-01T21:13:12Z<p>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nl: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nlhttps://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Present_situation_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3&diff=67693Present situation - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 32019-03-01T20:22:49Z<p>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nl: /* Airport Interview */</p>
<hr />
<div><link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.tue.nl/favicon-64.ico" type="image/x-icon"><br />
<link rel=http://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2018_3_Group4&action=edit"stylesheet" type="text/css" href="theme.css"><br />
<div style="width:calc(100vw - 175px);background-color:#EFEFEF;padding-bottom:35px;position:absolute;top:0;left:0;"><br />
<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;"><br />
<br />
<div style="display: block; position: absolute; right: 0%;"><br />
; Page navigation<br />
# [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | Root]]<br />
# [[Notes - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Notes]]<br />
# [[Initial ideas - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Initial ideas]]<br />
# [[Project setup - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Project setup]]<br />
# [[General problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|General problem]] <br />
# [[State of the Art - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|State of the Art]]<br />
# [[Specific problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Specific problem]]<br />
# [[Present situation - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Present situation]]<br />
# [[Solutions - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Solutions]]<br />
# [[Airports under a microscope - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Airports under a microscope]]<br />
# [[Decision tree - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Decision tree]]<br />
# [[Future - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Future]]<br />
# [[Conclusion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Conclusion]]<br />
# [[Discussion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Discussion]]<br />
</div><br />
<br />
= Present situation =<br />
In this section, we consider the present situation regarding the specific problem description. <br />
We interview and airport and look at current solutions.<br />
<br />
== Airport Interview ==<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
We asked the following questions:<br />
<br />
* What is the airport's current mechanism for detecting drones?<br />
* How will the airport respond when the drone is sighted in restricted aerospace?<br />
* Roughly how much damage will the airport take if a drone were to restrict air traffic for 1 hour?<br />
* 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?<br />
* What would be the maximum budget for an automated anti-drone mechanism?<br />
* What kind of system would you imagine when thinking of anti-drone mechanisms? <br />
<br />
We contacted most major Dutch airfields; Eindhoven, Schiphol, Maastricht Aaken, Groningen, Twente, Den Helder, Rotterdam the Hague and Bergen op zoom.<br />
<br />
Groningen airport was the only airport to respond, they stated that due to security concerns they were not able to help us with our research.<br />
<br />
== Solutions ==<br />
<br />
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]].<br />
<br />
* 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>.<br />
* 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>.<br />
* 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>.<br />
* 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>.<br />
* 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>.<br />
* 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>.<br />
<br />
== Limitations ==<br />
=== The jurisdiction regarding drones is not up to date with current technology ===<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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€ <ref name = "Mediamarkt drone">[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. </ref>. 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 <ref name = "New wet">[https://www.bright.nl/nieuws/artikel/4499011/drones-regels-europa-easa-amsterdam-drone-week "Bright: Nieuwe regels voor drones gaan medio 2019 in"] November 2018, Retrieved on 12-02-2019. </ref>. 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<ref name = "rondetafel">[https://www.tweedekamer.nl/debat_en_vergadering/commissievergaderingen/details?id=2018A05009 "Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal: Rondetafelgesprek over Drones en killer robots"], January 2019, Retrieved on 13-02-2019 </ref>. These examples show that the regulations of drones are not up to date with the current technological advances of drones.<br />
<br />
=== Limitation of current solutions ===<br />
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>.<br />
<br />
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 someones head, he or she could get seriously injured. Furthermore, the crashing drone can also break certain equipment when falling down. 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.<br />
<br />
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 in the near future, 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.<br />
----<br />
Back to the [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | root page]].<br />
<br />
= References =<br />
<references /></div>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nlhttps://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Present_situation_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3&diff=67198Present situation - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 32019-02-25T18:12:48Z<p>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nl: /* Airport Interview */</p>
<hr />
<div><link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.tue.nl/favicon-64.ico" type="image/x-icon"><br />
<link rel=http://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2018_3_Group4&action=edit"stylesheet" type="text/css" href="theme.css"><br />
<div style="width:calc(100vw - 175px);background-color:#EFEFEF;padding-bottom:35px;position:absolute;top:0;left:0;"><br />
<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;"><br />
<br />
<div style="display: block; position: absolute; right: 0%;"><br />
; Page navigation<br />
# [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | Root]]<br />
# [[Notes - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Notes]]<br />
# [[Initial ideas - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Initial ideas]]<br />
# [[Project setup - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Project setup]]<br />
# [[General problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|General problem]] <br />
# [[State of the Art - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|State of the Art]]<br />
# [[Specific problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Specific problem]]<br />
# [[Present situation - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Present situation]]<br />
# [[Solutions - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Solutions]]<br />
# [[Airports under a microscope - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Airports under a microscope]]<br />
# [[Decision tree - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Decision tree]]<br />
# [[Future - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Future]]<br />
# [[Conclusion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Conclusion]]<br />
# [[Discussion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Discussion]]<br />
</div><br />
<br />
= Present situation =<br />
In this section, we consider the present situation regarding the specific problem description. <br />
We interview and airport and look at current solutions.<br />
<br />
== Airport Interview ==<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
We asked the following questions:<br />
<br />
* What is the airport's current mechanism for detecting drones?<br />
* How will the airport respond when the drone is sighted in restricted aerospace?<br />
* Roughly how much damage will the airport take if a drone were to restrict air traffic for 1 hour?<br />
* 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?<br />
* What would be the maximum budget for an automated anti-drone mechanism?<br />
* What kind of system would you imagine when thinking of anti-drone mechanisms? <br />
<br />
We contacted most major Dutch airfields; Eindhoven, Schiphol, Maastricht Aaken, Groningen, Twente, Den Helder, Rotterdam the Hague and Bergen op zoom.<br />
<br />
== Solutions ==<br />
<br />
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]].<br />
<br />
* 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>.<br />
* 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>.<br />
* 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>.<br />
* 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>.<br />
* 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>.<br />
* 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>.<br />
<br />
== Limitations ==<br />
=== The jurisdiction regarding drones is not up to date with current technology ===<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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€ <ref name = "Mediamarkt drone">[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. </ref>. 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 <ref name = "New wet">[https://www.bright.nl/nieuws/artikel/4499011/drones-regels-europa-easa-amsterdam-drone-week "Bright: Nieuwe regels voor drones gaan medio 2019 in"] November 2018, Retrieved on 12-02-2019. </ref>. 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<ref name = "rondetafel">[https://www.tweedekamer.nl/debat_en_vergadering/commissievergaderingen/details?id=2018A05009 "Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal: Rondetafelgesprek over Drones en killer robots"], January 2019, Retrieved on 13-02-2019 </ref>. These examples show that the regulations of drones are not up to date with the current technological advances of drones.<br />
<br />
=== Limitation of current solutions ===<br />
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>.<br />
<br />
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 someones head, he or she could get seriously injured. Furthermore, the crashing drone can also break certain equipment when falling down. 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.<br />
<br />
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 in the near future, 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.<br />
----<br />
Back to the [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | root page]].<br />
<br />
= References =<br />
<references /></div>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nlhttps://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Project_setup_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3&diff=66135Project setup - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 32019-02-18T12:56:40Z<p>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nl: /* Project setup */</p>
<hr />
<div><link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.tue.nl/favicon-64.ico" type="image/x-icon"><br />
<link rel=http://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2018_3_Group4&action=edit"stylesheet" type="text/css" href="theme.css"><br />
<div style="width:calc(100vw - 175px);background-color:#EFEFEF;padding-bottom:35px;position:absolute;top:0;left:0;"><br />
<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;"><br />
<br />
<div class="floatright"><br />
; Page navigation<br />
# [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | Root]]<br />
# [[Notes_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Notes]]<br />
# [[Initial_ideas_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3| Initial ideas]]<br />
# [[Project_setup_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3| Project setup]]<br />
# [[State_of_the_Art_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | State of the Art]]<br />
# [[Specific problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Specific problem]]<br />
# [[Present_situation_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Present situation]]<br />
# [[Solutions_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Solutions]]<br />
# [[Conclusion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Conclusion]]<br />
# [[Discussion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Discussion]]<br />
</div><br />
<br />
= Project setup = <br />
In this section, we put the project setup under a microscope.<br />
We take a look at the objectives of the project, the approach taken, the planning during the project, milestones of the project, and deliverables that will exist at the end of the project.<br />
<br />
== Objectives ==<br />
The objective of our project is designing a decision model for airports to decide what anti-drone solution is the best. This model will be delivered by means of a report that can indicate which solutions are better for which types of airports. This report will also give extensive argumentation for why certain solutions outperform others in certain scenarios.<br />
<br />
Objectives of the project as a whole include:<br />
* Gaining insight into accidents and incidents involving various forms of drones.<br />
* Identify and specify the currently existing countermeasures and counter mechanisms against drones and UAVs in general. <br />
* Identify and specify the USE stakeholders of the problem space and their interests regarding possible solutions. <br />
* Propose multiple possible solutions to the problem.<br />
* Identify the advantages and the disadvantages centred around user interests for each provided solution.<br />
* Validate and verify that our proposed solutions solve the discussed problems with respect to the USE stakeholders and their interests.<br />
* Design a decision model around which we base our report<br />
<br />
== Approach ==<br />
We now take a look at how we will approach this project. We will start our approach by doing an extensive study into the current state of the problem. We will do this by studying the literature of different forms. We will look at papers where this problem has been discussed before, but also at what the current solutions are at the moment and what their flaws are. Furthermore, we also look at studies and research of institutes that have made investigations into this phenomenon. <br />
<br />
After we as a group have a good grasp on the problem, we analyse the problem ourselves from a USE (User, Society, Enterprise) point of view. These three components will be central in our study and the development of our design as the users of the technology always need to be the main focus. Following this study into the USE aspects surrounding our problem space, we expect different categories of subproblems to arise. For example, when considering two distinct incidents involving UAVs, they might be categorized by the type of failure that occurred, be it a human failure or technical failure. We expect that many of these distinctions can be made, and as different categories of subproblem might involve different USE aspects, they might require different solutions.<br />
<br />
After this, we will provide possible solutions for a number of distinct problem categories. First, we set up a list of requirements and functionalities centred around the user. For each discussed problem category, we will then present multiple implementations of these requirements and functionalities, which will be our first drafts. These draft solutions will be further discussed and analyzed based on their advantages and disadvantages. We will also provide research into the feasibility of these proposed solutions.<br />
<br />
As the discussed subproblems heavily integrate with various aspects of society, we are also interested in the ethical aspects of the evolution of the proposed technologies of counter-drones. We will investigate the ethical and regulatory consequences of these developments. We might also provide insight into which areas of the problem space have not been sufficiently discussed by previous research and falls outside the scope of ours. For future reference, we also look ahead and shortly discuss improvements or otherwise changes to our proposed solutions, that are not currently possible due to technical or other limitations. Finally, we will wrap up with completing the wiki and our documentation of the project.<br />
<br />
Once we have a good comparison fo the various existing solutions, we will implement them in a concise decision model, aimed at informing Airports of the status quo regarding drone defences, and provide a decision model to allow them to choose the most suitable option for them. The model will be presented in a report that extensively talks about the various solutions in order to provide airports with as much information as possible about what technology can offer them<br />
<br />
== Planning ==<br />
We now take a look at the [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WyOdatUQELl1FZiSwcJMECZ4LAajeBZCeK_Gs31QYe4/edit?usp=sharing planning] of the project.<br />
The planning is presented in the form of an excel sheet that clearly states the tasks that need to be carried out, by whom these tasks will be carried out, an estimation of the time that it takes to carry this task out, if the task has been completed or not, and when it needs to be completed. <br />
Furthermore, an orange cell indicates that this will be done during a group meeting, and a blue cell indicates that this will be done outside of a meeting. Note that this planning also considers the division of work to a large degree.<br />
<br />
== Milestones ==<br />
We now consider the milestones within the project. Here, we consider Table 1 that displays the accomplishments on a specific date. Furthermore, if there were any learning moments during each of these accomplishments, they will be written down in the `Aditional notes' column and taken into consideration for the next accomplishment. Note that this table will be regularly updated throughout the course. <br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" | style="vertical-align:middle;" | border="2" style="border-collapse:collapse" ;<br />
|+ '''Table 1: Milestones'''<br />
! align="center"; style="width: 10%" | '''Date'''<br />
! align="center"; style="width: 30%" | '''Accomplishment'''<br />
! align="center"; style="width: 30%" | '''Additional notes'''<br />
|-<br />
| 06/02/2019<br />
| Finalise the decision of the subject<br />
| N/A<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Finalise research into State of The Art<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Formulate analysis of problem space<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Formulate possible solutions to identified problems <br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Formulate advantages and disadvantages of each solution<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Formulate possible further improvements<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Formulate conclusions regarding proposed solutions<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Create presentation format of our research<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Present complete research <br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Finalise the Wiki and documentation<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Deliverables ==<br />
We now cover the deliverables of this project. <br />
The deliverables focus on the problem introduced in the problem description.<br />
These deliverables for this project will be as follows:<br />
In this section, we refer to the [[Present situation - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|present situation]], which 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 the limitations.<br />
* A presentation regarding the problem and possible solutions. <br />
<br />
This presentation will be held in the final week of the course. In this presentation, we start by introducing a problem through a summary of the problem description. Then, the finding regarding the problem will be presented. This is followed by multiple solutions to the problem with their advantages and disadvantages. Then, we zoom into the `best' solution and provide a design regarding this solution. If possible, a demonstration will also be given.<br />
<br />
* A Wiki page in the form of a literature research<br />
<br />
This Wiki page contains an in-depth study regarding the problem introduced in the problem description. An extensive literature study will be presented, which offers multiple solutions with both their advantages and disadvantages. Furthermore, it will be argued what solution would be the `best'. This is followed by areas that are still undiscovered and improvements that can be made to our design.<br />
<br />
----<br />
Back to the [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | root page]].</div>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nlhttps://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Notes_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3&diff=66052Notes - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 32019-02-18T09:43:45Z<p>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nl: /* Week 3 */</p>
<hr />
<div><link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.tue.nl/favicon-64.ico" type="image/x-icon"><br />
<link rel=http://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2018_3_Group4&action=edit"stylesheet" type="text/css" href="theme.css"><br />
<div style="width:calc(100vw - 175px);background-color:#EFEFEF;padding-bottom:35px;position:absolute;top:0;left:0;"><br />
<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;"><br />
<br />
<div class="floatright"><br />
; Page navigation<br />
# [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | Root]]<br />
# [[Notes_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Notes]]<br />
# [[Initial_ideas_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3| Initial ideas]]<br />
# [[Project_setup_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3| Project setup]]<br />
# [[State_of_the_Art_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | State of the Art]]<br />
# [[Specific problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Specific problem]]<br />
# [[Present_situation_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Present situation]]<br />
# [[Solutions_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Solutions]]<br />
# [[Conclusion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Conclusion]]<br />
# [[Discussion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Discussion]]<br />
</div><br />
<br />
= Notes =<br />
<br />
We present notes that were taken during the meeting with the professors.<br />
<br />
== Week 2==<br />
* We should focus on a certain context rather than considering the problem in general.<br />
* Consider when something is allowed and when it is not allowed with respect to drones around airports.<br />
* Look at a debate Royakkers attended regarding rules and the regulation of drones.<br />
* Look at the guidelines that should be set in stone on the first of March in the Netherlands.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Week 3 ==<br />
* We moeten een concreter beeld maken over wat wij gaan opleveren. We hebben besloten om een decision model te maken voor vliegvelden om een afweging te maken tussen bestaande technology en de potentie voor investering in nieuwe technology<br />
* We moeten hiervoor kijken wat voor informatie er in ons model moet komen<br />
* Duidelijke requirements van verschillende vliegvelden helpen ons ook met het maken van een duidelijk beeld van de benodigheden van vliegvelden<br />
* In dit model moeten we een cost analysis doen op basis van informatie die een vliegveld ons geeft of op basis van de kosten van vorige attacks.<br />
* Om dit report te maken moet het volgende gebeuren:<br />
** Opzoeken in de literatuur hoe een decision model gemaakt moet worden<br />
** Een duidelijkere lijst van bestaande oplossingen en oplossingen waar investering voor nodig is<br />
** Een duidelijkere lijst van voor en nadelen op basis van eisen van vliegvelden<br />
<br />
== Week 4 ==<br />
*<br />
*<br />
*<br />
*<br />
<br />
<br />
== Week 5 ==<br />
*<br />
*<br />
*<br />
*<br />
<br />
<br />
== Week 6 ==<br />
*<br />
*<br />
*<br />
*<br />
<br />
<br />
== Week 7 ==<br />
*<br />
*<br />
*<br />
*<br />
<br />
<br />
== Week 8 ==<br />
*<br />
*<br />
*<br />
*<br />
<br />
<br />
== Week 9 ==<br />
*<br />
*<br />
*<br />
*<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
Back to the [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | root page]].</div>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nlhttps://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Solutions_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3&diff=65754Solutions - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 32019-02-16T17:04:28Z<p>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nl: /* Advantages and disadvantages */</p>
<hr />
<div><link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.tue.nl/favicon-64.ico" type="image/x-icon"><br />
<link rel=http://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2018_3_Group4&action=edit"stylesheet" type="text/css" href="theme.css"><br />
<div style="width:calc(100vw - 175px);background-color:#EFEFEF;padding-bottom:35px;position:absolute;top:0;left:0;"><br />
<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;"><br />
<br />
<div class="floatright"><br />
; Page navigation<br />
# [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | Root]]<br />
# [[Notes_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Notes]]<br />
# [[Initial_ideas_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3| Initial ideas]]<br />
# [[Project_setup_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3| Project setup]]<br />
# [[State_of_the_Art_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | State of the Art]]<br />
# [[Specific problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Specific problem]]<br />
# [[Present_situation_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Present situation]]<br />
# [[Solutions_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Solutions]]<br />
# [[Conclusion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Conclusion]]<br />
# [[Discussion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Discussion]]<br />
</div><br />
<br />
= Solutions =<br />
In this section, we consider the requirements of solutions for the problem proposed in the specific problem description, all possible solutions, and both the advantages and disadvantages of each solution.<br />
<br />
== Categories ==<br />
<br />
When considering the state of the art research presented in the relevant Section, we can distinguish multiple categories in which the presented solutions might fall. In this Section, we further elaborate on these different categories, and as such provide a better overview and allow for more a more specific formulation of requirements. Firstly, different anti-UAV systems serve different purposes. For our study, we differentiate between the following purposes:<br />
<br />
=== Purposes ===<br />
; UAV Detection: These systems serve to detect the presence of UAVs in unwanted airspaces. They often also locate the UAV in question and sometimes include the possibility of continuous location tracking to assist systems categorised under the other purposes.<br />
; UAV Identification: Systems from this category serve to identify UAVs, obtaining more information about the UAV than simply its location. This information might include simple statistics, such as the average size of the drone which can often be observed by a human, given that the UAV is present in their field of view. More complicated statistics might also be obtained, such as a serial tracking number to identify commercial UAVs. <br />
; UAV Neutralisation: Drone neutralisation systems serve to neutralise a drone. This is the main topic of our study since UAV presence in the airspace above an airport introduces various risks, discussed in other Sections, that have to be neutralised in order to maintain public and societal security.<br />
<br />
Now that the scope of the purpose of the anti UAV systems for airport security that we consider has become clear, we might further distinguish the main purpose considered in this study. As such, we differentiate between 3 different subcategories, all part of the drone neutralisation purpose. These categories are as follows:<br />
<br />
=== Categories ===<br />
; Preventative solutions: This category encompasses all solutions that serve to prevent the problem from occurring. More specifically, entries of this category focus on keeping UAVs away from airspace belonging to airports. An example might include the geofencing system that was described previously and will be elaborated on further in the following sections.<br />
<br />
; Corrective solutions: Solutions from this category focus on solving the problem of UAV presence in the airspace over airports, specifically when said UAV is already present in that airspace. These solutions attempt to do so with minimal damage to the parties involved, an example might consist of a procedure where the control of the drone is overridden, either automatically or by a human, before the drone is removed from the airspace by landing or flight and after which control could be passed back to the pilot.<br />
<br />
; Destructive solutions: These solutions have the same area of focus as the previous category of corrective solutions, namely the minimising of further risk to air traffic above airports after a UAV has entered the airspace. The main difference is that, while corrective solutions attempt to do so in a non-destructive way, this limitation does not apply to destructive solutions. Sub-systems of a UAV or the UAV as a whole may be destroyed or permanently disabled. A coarse example consists of taking down unwanted UAVs with firearms, causing damage to the UAV and rendering it unable to continue operations.<br />
<br />
This division into categories is not entirely black on white, however. Consider an abstract example system that temporarily incapacitates a UAV in flight, causing it to cease operation and enter a free fall towards the ground. This might result in the destruction of the drone, given the collision with the ground. We have found a grey area in our division into subcategories, and as such, we further define destructive solutions as those solutions, where the incapacitation of the drone follows from the destruction, and not the other way around. We also require the destruction to be an integral part of the solution, if we want it to count as a destructive solution. In this example, the destruction is not guaranteed nor does the incapacitation follow from the destruction. Instead, the destruction might follow from the incapacitation, dependent on other circumstances. Therefore, this specific example counts as a preventative or corrective solution, based on where the UAV in question is located. Note, however, that this is based on the keywords `temporarily incapacitates'. If the incapacitation of the UAV or one of its subsystems were permanent, the destruction would be guaranteed since it does not depend on how hard the UAV hits the ground anymore. In this case, it would count as a destructive solution.<br />
<br />
== Requirements ==<br />
<br />
A solution to the specific problem described will have to adhere to requirements.<br />
These requirements are not simply capabilities the solution has to provide in the form of functional requirements, but they should also cover constraints posed on the solution.<br />
The constraints can be on the design of the solution in order to meet specified levels of quality, on the environment and technology of the system, and on the project plan and development methods.<br />
Note that there can exist multiple different types of solutions and that we, therefore, have to keep the requirements of a solution as abstract as possible. <br />
We should not limit the solution space with these requirements.<br />
Instead, we should provide a general outline of what capabilities (functional requirements) the solution should provide and under what constraints (non-functional requirements).<br />
<br />
Furthermore, these requirements might serve as a basic framework for further development of solutions to similar problems, thereby widening the scope to other problem spaces involving UAVs as well.<br />
<br />
The capabilities(functional requirements ) of the solution are as follows:<br />
* The solution should be able to take down any type of drone effectively.<br />
* The solution should not endanger any humans with any of its actions.<br />
<br />
The constraints (non-functional requirements) on the solutions are as follows:<br />
* The solution should adhere to the new rules proposed in the `New Rules' subsection in the `Present situation' section.<br />
* The solution should adhere to the new rules proposed in the `Limitations' subsection in the `Present situation' section.<br />
<br />
== Possible solutions ==<br />
<br />
As we have already elaborated on, a possible solution can be categorised into the purpose it fulfils with respect to anti-UAV systems at and around airports.<br />
Since a full anti-UAV system should be able to do three things: detect flying objects, identify that this object is an (unwanted) UAV, and lastly neutralisation of the UAV. However, the identification of the object might be something that is up for discussion, since it might be safer to neutralise every flying object, we will discuss this later on. As most possible (partial) solutions only cover one or two of the three things it should be able to do, before it can be considered at a full anti-UAV system, for each of the (partial) solutions listed below, they are divided up into categories of its purposes it fulfils. Such that, later on, we can compare and afterwards combine multiple of these partial solutions into one system that meets the needs of the users.<br />
<br />
==== UAV Detection ====<br />
<br />
* Radar system for detecting the location and height of an object in the air. The radar makes use of a transmitter which produces an electromagnetic signal which is radiated into airspace with an antenna. If this signal hits an areal object, it will get reflected in many directions. This reflected signal is received by the radar antenna then it is processed to determine the geographical data of the object.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* A Wi-Fi receiver can be used to detect a UAV based on the signature of the signal reflected from the propellers of a UAV. Similar to a radar, a transmitter broadcasts signals and a receiver captures reflected signals that bounce of a UAV. <ref name="RF-based detection of drones">Nguyen, P., Ravindranatha, M., Nguyen, A., Han, R., & Vu, T. [https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2935632 "Investigating Cost-effective RF-based Detection of Drones"], ACM, June 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Detect a UAV by listening to the communication channel between the UAV and its controller using a wireless receiver. Usually, UAVs communicate with their controllers a few times per second to update their status and to receive commands from the controller. A system could collect wireless samples and observes the signal, analyse them and can then detect a UAV's presence. <ref name="RF-based detection of drones">Nguyen, P., Ravindranatha, M., Nguyen, A., Han, R., & Vu, T. [https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2935632 "Investigating Cost-effective RF-based Detection of Drones"], ACM, June 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Detection of UAVs with the use of other UAVs that fly around the airports, carrying lightweight radar systems or cameras to scan their environment.<br />
<br />
==== UAV Identification ====<br />
<br />
* Identification of any specific aircraft can be done by broadcasting a coded signal, which is decoded by air traffic control towers. Such that allies and enemies can be identified and to avoid targeting a friendly aircraft. As a result, all aircraft where radar service is provided should require systems that are able to broadcast coded signals for identification, for this solution to work. <ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* For identification of UAVs, employing a 2D antenna and appropriate signal processing to create a multibeam, 3D, wide area overcomes the weakness of scanning radars and achieves high detection sensitivity. A decision tree based classifier can be used to identify the difference between UAVs and other moving objects. Where it rejects non-UAV targets, decreasing the number of false positives and increases true positives. Such that when neutralising such a moving object in the air, with high probability, it will be a drone instead of for example a flying bird. <ref name="difficult to detect microdrones">Jahangir, M., & Baker, C. [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7590610/ "Persistence Surveillance of Difficult to Detect microdrones with L-band 3-D Holographic RadarTM"], Sensor Signal Processing for Defence (SSPD), September 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* A lightweight, X-Band (10.5GHz) radar system for use on a small-scale (less than 25 kg) rotorcraft. The prototype implementation of the radar is small enough to be carried by a drone and is able to differentiate other 'miniature rotorcrafts' (drones) by their doppler signature. The prototype uses a radar system which utilises electromagnetic energy to gain information on objects by analysing the reflected energy. <ref name="Radar-Based detection mini air vehicles">Moses, A., Rutherford, M. J., & Valavanis, K. P [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6044363 "Radar-Based Detection and Identification for Miniature Air Vehicles"], Control Applications (CCA), September 2011. Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
<br />
==== UAV Neutralization ====<br />
<br />
* Taking out UAVs by using air to air missiles, where these air missiles could be launched from other UAVs used by the airport or possibly any other aerial vehicle.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Taking out UAVs or disabling specific subsystems might be achievable by using lasers. Different kinds of lasers can be used for different purposes, either permanently or temporarily disabling a UAV. <ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Electromagnetic attacks to interfere with the GPS signals of the UAV, that the UAV uses to position itself. Jamming the GPS signals causes the UAV not to be able to follow the pilot's navigation commands accurately.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Taking control of a UAV by spoofing the GPS signals of the UAV, such that the UAV thinks that it is still talking to the original pilot when it is actually being taken over. This way the drone can easily and safely be landed somewhere out of danger.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Capturing a UAV using another UAV carrying a net, which drops the net over the unwanted UAV. Thereby taking control of the UAV as the net makes sure the UAVs rotors get tangled in the net making sure it is unusable for the pilot. Then with a parachute on the net, it can be made sure that the UAV lands safely on the ground<ref name="How do you catch a drone? With an even BIGGER drone and a giant net: Tokyo police reveal bizarre 'UAV catcher'">Liberatore, S., [https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1627_Jan2018.pdf "How do you catch a drone? With an even BIGGER drone and a giant net: Tokyo police reveal bizarre 'UAV catcher'"], DailyMail, December 2015, Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* A bazooka with an intelligent locking system to aid the controller to hit the UAV successfully, that shoots a net to capture a UAV. The rotors of the UAV will then get tangled in the net, making sure it cannot cause any harm anymore. Then a parachute that is attached to the net will make sure that the UAV will land safely on the ground. <ref name="The SkyWall 100 bazooka captures drones with a giant net">Burns, M., https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/04/the-skywall-100-bazooka-captures-drones-with-a-giant-net/?guccounter=1 "The SkyWall 100 bazooka captures drones with a giant net"], TechCrunch, 2016, Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* Transmitting geo-fence coordinates, avoidance commands or disruption of radio communication in order to avoid UAV's entering no-fly zone. <ref name="US10157546B2 - Anti-drone flight protection systems and methods"> Etak Systems LLC.[https://patents.google.com/patent/US10157546B2/ "Anti-drone flight protection systems and methods"], Google patents, 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* Using trained eagles to neutralise UAVs. These eagles would be trained into considering UAVs as preys so that they could catch these drones and place them in a safe area. <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><br />
* Geo-fencing software built into the UAVs restricts consumer UAVs to even be able to fly within a certain range of unwanted areas such as airports. <ref name="Drone sightings and close encounters"> Gettinger, D., & Michel, A. H. [https://dronecenter.bard.edu/files/2015/12/12-11-Drone-Sightings-and-Close-Encounters.pdf" "Drone sightings and close encounters: An analysis"], Center for the Study of the Drone, Bard College, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-14.</ref><br />
* Using high powered radio waves to disable drones, it blocks their communication with the controller and switches them off mid-air. <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><br />
<br />
== Advantages and disadvantages ==<br />
==== UAV Detection ====<br />
; Radar system:<br />
* Pro:<br />
** A lot of the technology already exists, making the solution cheaper.<br />
** Radar systems are very accurate.<br />
* Con:<br />
** Most airports already have radar systems, and they do not seem to suffice. Adding custom gear could cause interference.<br />
<br />
; WiFi receiver:<br />
* Pro:<br />
** Can accurately determine the position of drones.<br />
* Con:<br />
** Wifi is very susceptible to interference.<br />
** WiFi signals are blocked by obstacles.<br />
<br />
; Listening on communication between drone and ground:<br />
* Pro:<br />
** Intercepting communication is an easy way to detect the presence of drones.<br />
** Often communications are not encrypted<ref>The U.S. government showed just how easy it is to hack drones made by Parrot, DBPower and Cheerson. (2017). Recode. Retrieved 15 February 2019, from [https://www.recode.net/2017/1/4/14062654/drones-hacking-security-ftc-parrot-dbpower-cheerson]</ref>, allowing the interception of precise location <br />
* Con:<br />
** Prosumer or custom built drones might use very different communication standards or fly a pre-programmed path.<br />
<br />
; Detecting drones with other drones:<br />
* Pro:<br />
** as the radar system is moving, there are no objects that can block the list of sight<br />
* Con:<br />
** Flying around with a drone at a busy airport can be quite dangerous.<br />
** Drones can only stay in the air for a limited time due to battery constraints.<br />
<br />
==== UAV Identification ====<br />
; Identification by codedsignal:<br />
* Pro: <br />
** Can quickly identify unwanted uav's <br />
* Con:<br />
** Other unidentified areal ventitis such as birds might also be targeted, as they are similarly sized to drones<br />
<br />
; 3D radar system with machine learning:<br />
* Pro:<br />
** The system will be very precise<br />
* Con:<br />
** The precision of the system may not bee very good when it is gathering data to learn from.<br />
<br />
; X-band radar system<br />
* Pro:<br />
** The high-frequency radar signal allows for very accurate shape analysis of flying objects using doppler.<br />
* Con:<br />
** Attaching a radar system to a drone can be an issue around airports.<br />
<br />
==== UAV Neutralization ====<br />
; Missiles<br />
* Pro:<br />
** Missiles will quickly take out a drone<br />
** Missiles are relatively cheap<br />
* Con:<br />
** The unwanted drones could be destroyed, meaning that police investigation will be more difficult<br />
** Having missiles at an airport could pose a safety issue<br />
<br />
; Lasers<br />
* Pro:<br />
** Lasers are very precise<br />
Con:<br />
** Dangerous if it were to malfunctions<br />
** A huge amount of energy would be required to fire the laser<br />
<br />
; Interfering with GPS<br />
* Pro:<br />
** It won't cause harm to the drones<br />
* Con:<br />
** It may cause harm to other devices using GPS, such as aeroplanes.<br />
** Getting regulatory approval of jamming devices can be difficult in some jurisdictions.<br />
<br />
; GPS spoofing<br />
* Pro:<br />
** It could be used to safely retrieve the drone, making sure it lands in the desired location<br />
* Con:<br />
** GPS spoofing may also affect aeroplanes' GPS as well<br />
** Won't work if the flight path is pre-programmed, or if the drone is programmed to hover in one position <br />
<br />
<br />
; Capturing drones with nets underneath other drones<br />
* Pro:<br />
** Cheap and easy to implement<br />
* Con:<br />
** Requires drones to fly near aeroplanes<br />
<br />
; Bazooka net system<br />
<br />
* Pro:<br />
** Easy to implement<br />
** Allows for safe retrieval of drones<br />
* Con:<br />
** Limited range<br />
<br />
; Geo-fence coordinates<br />
<br />
* Pro:<br />
** Robust solution<br />
** Very cheap to implement<br />
* Con:<br />
** Hobbyist drones could simply ignore these constraints<br />
<br />
; Eagles<br />
<br />
* Pro:<br />
** Eco-friendly solution<br />
** Low chance of technical malfunction<br />
* Con:<br />
** Flying birds around airports is dangerous<br />
<br />
; Radio interference<br />
* Pro:<br />
** It won't damage the drones<br />
* Con:<br />
** It may cause harm to other devices, such as aeroplanes.<br />
** Getting regulatory approval of jamming devices can be difficult in some jurisdictions.<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
Back to the [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | root page]].<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /></div>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nlhttps://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Solutions_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3&diff=65718Solutions - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 32019-02-16T08:32:31Z<p>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nl: /* UAV Identification */</p>
<hr />
<div><link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.tue.nl/favicon-64.ico" type="image/x-icon"><br />
<link rel=http://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2018_3_Group4&action=edit"stylesheet" type="text/css" href="theme.css"><br />
<div style="width:calc(100vw - 175px);background-color:#EFEFEF;padding-bottom:35px;position:absolute;top:0;left:0;"><br />
<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;"><br />
<br />
<div class="floatright"><br />
; Page navigation<br />
# [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | Root]]<br />
# [[Notes_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Notes]]<br />
# [[Initial_ideas_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3| Initial ideas]]<br />
# [[Project_setup_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3| Project setup]]<br />
# [[State_of_the_Art_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | State of the Art]]<br />
# [[Specific problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Specific problem]]<br />
# [[Present_situation_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Present situation]]<br />
# [[Solutions_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Solutions]]<br />
# [[Conclusion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Conclusion]]<br />
# [[Discussion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Discussion]]<br />
</div><br />
<br />
= Solutions =<br />
In this section, we consider the requirements of solutions for the problem proposed in the specific problem description, all possible solutions, and both the advantages and disadvantages of each solution.<br />
<br />
== Categories ==<br />
<br />
When considering the state of the art research presented in the relevant Section, we can distinguish multiple categories in which the presented solutions might fall. In this Section, we further elaborate on these different categories, and as such provide a better overview and allow for more a more specific formulation of requirements. Firstly, different anti-UAV systems serve different purposes. For our study, we differentiate between the following purposes:<br />
<br />
=== Purposes ===<br />
; UAV Detection: These systems serve to detect the presence of UAVs in unwanted airspaces. They often also locate the UAV in question and sometimes include the possibility of continuous location tracking to assist systems categorised under the other purposes.<br />
; UAV Identification: Systems from this category serve to identify UAVs, obtaining more information about the UAV than simply its location. This information might include simple statistics, such as the average size of the drone which can often be observed by a human, given that the UAV is present in their field of view. More complicated statistics might also be obtained, such as a serial tracking number to identify commercial UAVs. <br />
; UAV Neutralisation: Drone neutralisation systems serve to neutralise a drone. This is the main topic of our study since UAV presence in the airspace above an airport introduces various risks, discussed in other Sections, that have to be neutralised in order to maintain public and societal security.<br />
<br />
Now that the scope of the purpose of the anti UAV systems for airport security that we consider has become clear, we might further distinguish the main purpose considered in this study. As such, we differentiate between 3 different subcategories, all part of the drone neutralisation purpose. These categories are as follows:<br />
<br />
=== Categories ===<br />
; Preventative solutions: This category encompasses all solutions that serve to prevent the problem from occurring. More specifically, entries of this category focus on keeping UAVs away from airspace belonging to airports. An example might include the geofencing system that was described previously and will be elaborated on further in the following sections.<br />
<br />
; Corrective solutions: Solutions from this category focus on solving the problem of UAV presence in the airspace over airports, specifically when said UAV is already present in that airspace. These solutions attempt to do so with minimal damage to the parties involved, an example might consist of a procedure where the control of the drone is overridden, either automatically or by a human, before the drone is removed from the airspace by landing or flight and after which control could be passed back to the pilot.<br />
<br />
; Destructive solutions: These solutions have the same area of focus as the previous category of corrective solutions, namely the minimising of further risk to air traffic above airports after a UAV has entered the airspace. The main difference is that, while corrective solutions attempt to do so in a non-destructive way, this limitation does not apply to destructive solutions. Sub-systems of a UAV or the UAV as a whole may be destroyed or permanently disabled. A coarse example consists of taking down unwanted UAVs with firearms, causing damage to the UAV and rendering it unable to continue operations.<br />
<br />
This division into categories is not entirely black on white, however. Consider an abstract example system that temporarily incapacitates a UAV in flight, causing it to cease operation and enter a free fall towards the ground. This might result in the destruction of the drone, given the collision with the ground. We have found a grey area in our division into subcategories, and as such, we further define destructive solutions as those solutions, where the incapacitation of the drone follows from the destruction, and not the other way around. We also require the destruction to be an integral part of the solution, if we want it to count as a destructive solution. In this example, the destruction is not guaranteed nor does the incapacitation follow from the destruction. Instead, the destruction might follow from the incapacitation, dependent on other circumstances. Therefore, this specific example counts as a preventative or corrective solution, based on where the UAV in question is located. Note, however, that this is based on the keywords `temporarily incapacitates'. If the incapacitation of the UAV or one of its subsystems were permanent, the destruction would be guaranteed since it does not depend on how hard the UAV hits the ground anymore. In this case, it would count as a destructive solution.<br />
<br />
== Requirements ==<br />
<br />
A solution to the specific problem described will have to adhere to requirements.<br />
These requirements are not simply capabilities the solution has to provide in the form of functional requirements, but they should also cover constraints posed on the solution.<br />
The constraints can be on the design of the solution in order to meet specified levels of quality, on the environment and technology of the system, and on the project plan and development methods.<br />
Note that there can exist multiple different types of solutions and that we, therefore, have to keep the requirements of a solution as abstract as possible. <br />
We should not limit the solution space with these requirements.<br />
Instead, we should provide a general outline of what capabilities (functional requirements) the solution should provide and under what constraints (non-functional requirements).<br />
<br />
Furthermore, these requirements might serve as a basic framework for further development of solutions to similar problems, thereby widening the scope to other problem spaces involving UAVs as well.<br />
<br />
The capabilities(functional requirements ) of the solution are as follows:<br />
* The solution should be able to take down any type of drone effectively.<br />
* The solution should not endanger any humans with any of its actions.<br />
<br />
The constraints (non-functional requirements) on the solutions are as follows:<br />
* The solution should adhere to the new rules proposed in the `New Rules' subsection in the `Present situation' section.<br />
* The solution should adhere to the new rules proposed in the `Limitations' subsection in the `Present situation' section.<br />
<br />
== Possible solutions ==<br />
<br />
As we have already elaborated on, a possible solution can be categorized into the purpose it fulfils with respect to anti-UAV systems at and around airports.<br />
Since a full anti-UAV system should be able to do three things: detect aerial objects, identify that this object is an (unwanted) UAV, and lastly neutralization of the UAV. However, the identification of the object might be something that is up for discussion, since it might be safer to neutralize every aerial object, we will discuss this later on. As most possible (partial) solutions only cover one or two of the three things it should be able to do, before it can be considered at a full anti-UAV system, for each of the (partial) solutions listed below, they are divided up into categories of its purposes it fulfils. Such that, later on, we can compare and afterwards combine multiple of these partial solutions into one system that meets the needs of the users.<br />
<br />
==== UAV Detection ====<br />
<br />
* Radar system for detecting the location and height of an object in the air. The radar makes use of a transmitter which produces an electromagnetic signal which is radiated into airspace with an antenna. If this signal hits an areal object, it will get reflected in many directions. This reflected signal is received by the radar antenna then it is processed to determine the geographical data of the object.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* A Wi-Fi receiver can be used to detect a UAV based on the signature of the signal reflected from the propellers of a UAV. Similar to a radar, a transmitter broadcasts signals and a receiver captures reflected signals that bounce of a UAV. <ref name="RF-based detection of drones">Nguyen, P., Ravindranatha, M., Nguyen, A., Han, R., & Vu, T. [https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2935632 "Investigating Cost-effective RF-based Detection of Drones"], ACM, June 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Detect a UAV by listening to the communication channel between the UAV and its controller using a wireless receiver. Usually, UAVs communicate with their controllers a few times per second to update their status and to receive commands from the controller. A system could collect wireless samples and observes the signal, analyse them and can then detect a UAV's presence. <ref name="RF-based detection of drones">Nguyen, P., Ravindranatha, M., Nguyen, A., Han, R., & Vu, T. [https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2935632 "Investigating Cost-effective RF-based Detection of Drones"], ACM, June 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Detection of UAVs with the use of other UAVs that fly around the airports, carrying lightweight radar systems or cameras to scan their environment.<br />
<br />
==== UAV Identification ====<br />
<br />
* Identification of any specific aircraft can be done by broadcasting a coded signal, which is decoded by air traffic control towers. Such that allies and enemies can be identified and to avoid targeting a friendly aircraft. As a result, all aircraft where radar service is provided should require systems that are able to broadcast coded signals for identification, for this solution to work. <ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* For identification of UAVs, employing a 2D antenna and appropriate signal processing to create a multibeam, 3D, wide area overcomes the weakness of scanning radars and achieves high detection sensitivity. A decision tree based classifier can be used to identify the difference between UAVs and other moving objects. Where it rejects non-UAV targets, decreasing the number of false positives and increases true positives. Such that when neutralizing such a moving object in the air, with high probability, it will be a drone instead of for example a flying bird. <ref name="difficult to detect microdrones">Jahangir, M., & Baker, C. [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7590610/ "Persistence Surveillance of Difficult to Detect microdrones with L-band 3-D Holographic RadarTM"], Sensor Signal Processing for Defence (SSPD), September 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* A lightweight, X-Band (10.5GHz) radar system for use on a small-scale (less than 25 kg) rotorcraft. The prototype implementation of the radar is small enough to be carried by a drone and is able to differentiate other 'miniature rotorcrafts' (drones) by their doppler signature. The prototype uses a radar system which utilizes electromagnetic energy to gain information on objects by analyzing the reflected energy. <ref name="Radar-Based detection mini air vehicles">Moses, A., Rutherford, M. J., & Valavanis, K. P [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6044363 "Radar-Based Detection and Identification for Miniature Air Vehicles"], Control Applications (CCA), September 2011. Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
<br />
==== UAV Neutralization ====<br />
<br />
* Taking out UAVs by using air to air missiles, where these air missiles could be launched from other UAVs used by the airport or possibly any other aerial vehicle.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Taking out UAVs or disabling specific subsystems might be achievable by using lasers. Different kinds of lasers can be used for different purposes, either permanently or temporarily disabling a UAV. <ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Electromagnetic attacks to interfere with the GPS signals of the UAV, that the UAV uses to position itself. Jamming the GPS signals causes the UAV to not be able to follow the pilot's navigation commands accurately.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Taking control of a UAV by spoofing the GPS signals of the UAV, such that the UAV thinks that it is still talking to the original pilot when it is actually being taken over. This way the drone can easily and safely be landed somewhere out of danger.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Capturing a UAV using another UAV carrying a net, which drops the net over the unwanted UAV. Thereby taking control of the UAV as the net makes sure the UAVs rotors get tangled in the net making sure it is unusable for the pilot. Then with a parachute on the net, it can be made sure that the UAV lands safely on the ground<ref name="How do you catch a drone? With an even BIGGER drone and a giant net: Tokyo police reveal bizarre 'UAV catcher'">Liberatore, S., [https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1627_Jan2018.pdf "How do you catch a drone? With an even BIGGER drone and a giant net: Tokyo police reveal bizarre 'UAV catcher'"], DailyMail, December 2015, Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* A bazooka with an intelligent locking system to aid the controller to hit the UAV successfully, that shoots a net to capture a UAV. The rotors of the UAV will then get tangled in the net, making sure it cannot cause any harm anymore. Then a parachute that is attached to the net will make sure that the UAV will land safely on the ground. <ref name="The SkyWall 100 bazooka captures drones with a giant net">Burns, M., https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/04/the-skywall-100-bazooka-captures-drones-with-a-giant-net/?guccounter=1 "The SkyWall 100 bazooka captures drones with a giant net"], TechCrunch, 2016, Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* Transmitting geo-fence coordinates, avoidance commands or disruption of radio communication in order to avoid UAV's entering no-fly zone. <ref name="US10157546B2 - Anti-drone flight protection systems and methods"> Etak Systems LLC.[https://patents.google.com/patent/US10157546B2/ "Anti-drone flight protection systems and methods"], Google patents, 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* Using trained eagles to neutralize UAVs. These eagles would be trained into considering UAVs as preys so that they could catch these drones and place them in a safe area. <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><br />
* Geo-fencing software built into the UAVs restricts consumer UAVs to even be able to fly within a certain range of unwanted areas such as airports. <ref name="Drone sightings and close encounters"> Gettinger, D., & Michel, A. H. [https://dronecenter.bard.edu/files/2015/12/12-11-Drone-Sightings-and-Close-Encounters.pdf" "Drone sightings and close encounters: An analysis"], Center for the Study of the Drone, Bard College, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-14.</ref><br />
* Using high powered radio waves to disable drones, it blocks their communication with the controller and switches them off mid-air. <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><br />
<br />
== Advantages and disadvantages ==<br />
<br />
* Advantages and disadvantages based on the requirements of a solution (feasibility of actually making it and jurisdiction).<br />
<br />
==== UAV Detection ====<br />
; Radar system:<br />
* Pro:<br />
** A lot of the technology already exists, making the solution cheaper.<br />
** Radar systems are very accurate.<br />
* Con:<br />
** Most airports already have radar systems, and they don't seem to suffice. Adding custom gear could cause interference.<br />
<br />
; WiFi receiver:<br />
* Pro:<br />
** Can accurately determine the position of drones.<br />
* Con:<br />
** Wifi is very susceptible to interference.<br />
** WiFi signals are blocked by obstacles.<br />
<br />
; Listening on communication between drone and ground:<br />
* Pro:<br />
** Intercepting communication is an easy way to detect the presence of drones.<br />
** Often communications are not encrypted<ref>The U.S. government showed just how easy it is to hack drones made by Parrot, DBPower and Cheerson. (2017). Recode. Retrieved 15 February 2019, from [https://www.recode.net/2017/1/4/14062654/drones-hacking-security-ftc-parrot-dbpower-cheerson]</ref>, allowing the interception of precise location <br />
* Con:<br />
** Prosumer or custom built drones might use very different communication standards or fly a pre-programmed path.<br />
<br />
; Detecting drones with other drones:<br />
* Pro:<br />
** as the radar system is moving, there are no objects that can block the list of sight<br />
* Con:<br />
** Flying around with a drone at a busy airport can be quite dangerous.<br />
** Drones can only stay in the air for a limited time due to battery constraints.<br />
<br />
==== UAV Identification ====<br />
; Identification by codedsignal:<br />
* Pro: <br />
** Can quickly identify unwanted uav's <br />
* Con:<br />
** Other unidentified areal ventitis such as birds might also be targeted, as they are similarly sized to drones<br />
<br />
; 3D radar system with machine learning:<br />
* Pro:<br />
** The system will be very precise<br />
* Con:<br />
** During the learning phase the system will not be as good.<br />
<br />
; X-band radar system<br />
* Pro:<br />
** The high-frequency radar signal allows for very accurate shape analysis of flying objects using doppler.<br />
* Con:<br />
** Attaching a radar system to a drone can be an issue around airports.<br />
----<br />
Back to the [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | root page]].<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /></div>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nlhttps://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Solutions_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3&diff=65682Solutions - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 32019-02-15T07:19:43Z<p>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nl: /* UAV Detection */</p>
<hr />
<div><link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.tue.nl/favicon-64.ico" type="image/x-icon"><br />
<link rel=http://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2018_3_Group4&action=edit"stylesheet" type="text/css" href="theme.css"><br />
<div style="width:calc(100vw - 175px);background-color:#EFEFEF;padding-bottom:35px;position:absolute;top:0;left:0;"><br />
<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;"><br />
<br />
<div class="floatright"><br />
; Page navigation<br />
# [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | Root]]<br />
# [[Notes_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Notes]]<br />
# [[Initial_ideas_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3| Initial ideas]]<br />
# [[Project_setup_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3| Project setup]]<br />
# [[State_of_the_Art_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | State of the Art]]<br />
# [[Specific problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Specific problem]]<br />
# [[Present_situation_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Present situation]]<br />
# [[Solutions_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Solutions]]<br />
# [[Conclusion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Conclusion]]<br />
# [[Discussion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Discussion]]<br />
</div><br />
<br />
= Solutions =<br />
In this section, we consider the requirements of solutions for the problem proposed in the specific problem description, all possible solutions, and both the advantages and disadvantages of each solution.<br />
<br />
== Categories ==<br />
<br />
When considering the state of the art research presented in the relevant Section, we can distinguish multiple categories in which the presented solutions might fall. In this Section, we further elaborate on these different categories, and as such provide a better overview and allow for more a more specific formulation of requirements. Firstly, different anti-UAV systems serve different purposes. For our study, we differentiate between the following purposes:<br />
<br />
=== Purposes ===<br />
; UAV Detection: These systems serve to detect the presence of UAVs in unwanted airspaces. They often also locate the UAV in question and sometimes include the possibility of continuous location tracking to assist systems categorised under the other purposes.<br />
; UAV Identification: Systems from this category serve to identify UAVs, obtaining more information about the UAV than simply its location. This information might include simple statistics, such as the average size of the drone which can often be observed by a human, given that the UAV is present in their field of view. More complicated statistics might also be obtained, such as a serial tracking number to identify commercial UAVs. <br />
; UAV Neutralisation: Drone neutralisation systems serve to neutralise a drone. This is the main topic of our study since UAV presence in the airspace above an airport introduces various risks, discussed in other Sections, that have to be neutralised in order to maintain public and societal security.<br />
<br />
Now that the scope of the purpose of the anti UAV systems for airport security that we consider has become clear, we might further distinguish the main purpose considered in this study. As such, we differentiate between 3 different subcategories, all part of the drone neutralisation purpose. These categories are as follows:<br />
<br />
=== Categories ===<br />
; Preventative solutions: This category encompasses all solutions that serve to prevent the problem from occurring. More specifically, entries of this category focus on keeping UAVs away from airspace belonging to airports. An example might include the geofencing system that was described previously and will be elaborated on further in the following sections.<br />
<br />
; Corrective solutions: Solutions from this category focus on solving the problem of UAV presence in the airspace over airports, specifically when said UAV is already present in that airspace. These solutions attempt to do so with minimal damage to the parties involved, an example might consist of a procedure where the control of the drone is overridden, either automatically or by a human, before the drone is removed from the airspace by landing or flight and after which control could be passed back to the pilot.<br />
<br />
; Destructive solutions: These solutions have the same area of focus as the previous category of corrective solutions, namely the minimising of further risk to air traffic above airports after a UAV has entered the airspace. The main difference is that, while corrective solutions attempt to do so in a non-destructive way, this limitation does not apply to destructive solutions. Sub-systems of a UAV or the UAV as a whole may be destroyed or permanently disabled. A coarse example consists of taking down unwanted UAVs with firearms, causing damage to the UAV and rendering it unable to continue operations.<br />
<br />
This division into categories is not entirely black on white, however. Consider an abstract example system that temporarily incapacitates a UAV in flight, causing it to cease operation and enter a free fall towards the ground. This might result in the destruction of the drone, given the collision with the ground. We have found a grey area in our division into subcategories, and as such, we further define destructive solutions as those solutions, where the incapacitation of the drone follows from the destruction, and not the other way around. We also require the destruction to be an integral part of the solution, if we want it to count as a destructive solution. In this example, the destruction is not guaranteed nor does the incapacitation follow from the destruction. Instead, the destruction might follow from the incapacitation, dependent on other circumstances. Therefore, this specific example counts as a preventative or corrective solution, based on where the UAV in question is located. Note, however, that this is based on the keywords `temporarily incapacitates'. If the incapacitation of the UAV or one of its subsystems were permanent, the destruction would be guaranteed since it does not depend on how hard the UAV hits the ground anymore. In this case, it would count as a destructive solution.<br />
<br />
== Requirements ==<br />
<br />
A solution to the specific problem described will have to adhere to requirements.<br />
These requirements are not simply capabilities the solution has to provide in the form of functional requirements, but they should also cover constraints posed on the solution.<br />
The constraints can be on the design of the solution in order to meet specified levels of quality, on the environment and technology of the system, and on the project plan and development methods.<br />
<br />
While providing these requirements, we need to make sure they are atomic. <br />
Furthermore, they need to be clearly identified, sufficiently precise and unambiguous, sufficiently verifiable, and prioritised. <br />
We use the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoSCoW_method MoSCoW model] for the prioritisation of the requirements. <br />
This model considers ''must have'', ''should have'', ''could have'', and ''won't have'', which indicate the priority of a requirement.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, these requirements might serve as a basic framework for further development of solutions to similar problems, thereby widening the scope to other problem spaces involving UAVs as well.<br />
<br />
The functional requirements (capabilities) of the solution are as follows:<br />
* The solution should be able to take down any type of drone effectively.<br />
* The solution should not endanger any humans with any of its actions.<br />
<br />
The non-functional requirements of the solution are as follows:<br />
* The solution should adhere to the new rules proposed in the `New Rules' subsection in the `Present situation' section.<br />
* The solution should adhere to the new rules proposed in the `Limitations' subsection in the `Present situation' section.<br />
<br />
== Possible solutions ==<br />
<br />
As we have already elaborated on, a possible solution can be categorized into the purpose it fulfils with respect to anti-UAV systems at and around airports.<br />
Since a full anti-UAV system should be able to do three things: detect aerial objects, identify that this object is an (unwanted) UAV, and lastly neutralization of the UAV. However, the identification of the object might be something that is up for discussion, since it might be safer to neutralize every aerial object, we will discuss this later on. As most possible (partial) solutions only cover one or two of the three things it should be able to do, before it can be considered at a full anti-UAV system, for each of the (partial) solutions listed below, they are divided up into categories of its purposes it fulfils. Such that, later on, we can compare and afterwards combine multiple of these partial solutions into one system that meets the needs of the users.<br />
<br />
==== UAV Detection ====<br />
<br />
* Radar system for detecting the location and height of an object in the air. The radar makes use of a transmitter which produces an electromagnetic signal which is radiated into airspace with an antenna. If this signal hits an areal object, it will get reflected in many directions. This reflected signal is received by the radar antenna then it is processed to determine the geographical data of the object.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* A Wi-Fi receiver can be used to detect a UAV based on the signature of the signal reflected from the propellers of a UAV. Similar to a radar, a transmitter broadcasts signals and a receiver captures reflected signals that bounce of a UAV. <ref name="RF-based detection of drones">Nguyen, P., Ravindranatha, M., Nguyen, A., Han, R., & Vu, T. [https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2935632 "Investigating Cost-effective RF-based Detection of Drones"], ACM, June 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Detect a UAV by listening to the communication channel between the UAV and its controller using a wireless receiver. Usually, UAVs communicate with their controllers a few times per second to update their status and to receive commands from the controller. A system could collect wireless samples and observes the signal, analyse them and can then detect a UAV's presence. <ref name="RF-based detection of drones">Nguyen, P., Ravindranatha, M., Nguyen, A., Han, R., & Vu, T. [https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2935632 "Investigating Cost-effective RF-based Detection of Drones"], ACM, June 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Detection of UAVs with the use of other UAVs that fly around the airports, carrying lightweight radar systems or cameras to scan their environment.<br />
<br />
<br />
==== UAV Identification ====<br />
<br />
* Identification of any specific aircraft can be done by broadcasting a coded signal, which is decoded by air traffic control towers. Such that allies and enemies can be identified and to avoid targeting a friendly aircraft. As a result, all aircraft where radar service is provided should require systems that are able to broadcast coded signals for identification, for this solution to work. <ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* For identification of UAVs, employing a 2D antenna and appropriate signal processing to create a multibeam, 3D, wide area overcomes the weakness of scanning radars and achieves high detection sensitivity. A decision tree based classifier can be used to identify the difference between UAVs and other moving objects. Where it rejects non-UAV targets, decreasing the number of false positives and increases true positives. Such that when neutralizing such a moving object in the air, with high probability, it will be a drone instead of for example a flying bird. <ref name="difficult to detect microdrones">Jahangir, M., & Baker, C. [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7590610/ "Persistence Surveillance of Difficult to Detect microdrones with L-band 3-D Holographic RadarTM"], Sensor Signal Processing for Defence (SSPD), September 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* A lightweight, X-Band (10.5GHz) radar system for use on a small-scale (less than 25 kg) rotorcraft. The prototype implementation of the radar is small enough to be carried by a drone and is able to differentiate other 'miniature rotorcrafts' (drones) by their doppler signature. The prototype uses a radar system which utilizes electromagnetic energy to gain information on objects by analyzing the reflected energy. <ref name="Radar-Based detection mini air vehicles">Moses, A., Rutherford, M. J., & Valavanis, K. P [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6044363 "Radar-Based Detection and Identification for Miniature Air Vehicles"], Control Applications (CCA), September 2011. Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
<br />
==== UAV Neutralization ====<br />
<br />
* Taking out UAVs by using air to air missiles, where these air missiles could be launched from other UAVs used by the airport or possibly any other aerial vehicle.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Taking out UAVs or disabling specific subsystems might be achievable by using lasers. Different kinds of lasers can be used for different purposes, either permanently or temporarily disabling a UAV. <ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Electromagnetic attacks to interfere with the GPS signals of the UAV, that the UAV uses to position itself. Jamming the GPS signals causes the UAV to not be able to follow the pilot's navigation commands accurately.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Taking control of a UAV by spoofing the GPS signals of the UAV, such that the UAV thinks that it is still talking to the original pilot when it is actually being taken over. This way the drone can easily and safely be landed somewhere out of danger.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Capturing a UAV using another UAV carrying a net, which drops the net over the unwanted UAV. Thereby taking control of the UAV as the net makes sure the UAVs rotors get tangled in the net making sure it is unusable for the pilot. Then with a parachute on the net, it can be made sure that the UAV lands safely on the ground<ref name="How do you catch a drone? With an even BIGGER drone and a giant net: Tokyo police reveal bizarre 'UAV catcher'">Liberatore, S., [https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1627_Jan2018.pdf "How do you catch a drone? With an even BIGGER drone and a giant net: Tokyo police reveal bizarre 'UAV catcher'"], DailyMail, December 2015, Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* A bazooka with an intelligent locking system to aid the controller to hit the UAV successfully, that shoots a net to capture a UAV. The rotors of the UAV will then get tangled in the net, making sure it cannot cause any harm anymore. Then a parachute that is attached to the net will make sure that the UAV will land safely on the ground. <ref name="The SkyWall 100 bazooka captures drones with a giant net">Burns, M., https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/04/the-skywall-100-bazooka-captures-drones-with-a-giant-net/?guccounter=1 "The SkyWall 100 bazooka captures drones with a giant net"], TechCrunch, 2016, Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* Transmitting geo-fence coordinates, avoidance commands or disruption of radio communication in order to avoid UAV's entering no-fly zone. <ref name="US10157546B2 - Anti-drone flight protection systems and methods"> Etak Systems LLC.[https://patents.google.com/patent/US10157546B2/ "Anti-drone flight protection systems and methods"], Google patents, 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* Using trained eagles to neutralize UAVs. These eagles would be trained into considering UAVs as preys so that they could catch these drones and place them in a safe area. <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><br />
* Geo-fencing software built into the UAVs restricts consumer UAVs to even be able to fly within a certain range of unwanted areas such as airports. <ref name="Drone sightings and close encounters"> Gettinger, D., & Michel, A. H. [https://dronecenter.bard.edu/files/2015/12/12-11-Drone-Sightings-and-Close-Encounters.pdf" "Drone sightings and close encounters: An analysis"], Center for the Study of the Drone, Bard College, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-14.</ref><br />
* Using high powered radio waves to disable drones, it blocks their communication with the controller and switches them off mid-air. <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><br />
<br />
== Advantages and disadvantages ==<br />
<br />
* Advantages and disadvantages based on the requirements of a solution (feasibility of actually making it and jurisdiction).<br />
<br />
==== UAV Detection ====<br />
; Radar system:<br />
* Pro:<br />
** A lot of the technology already exists, making the solution cheaper.<br />
** Radar systems are very accurate.<br />
* Con:<br />
** Most airports already have radar systems, and they don't seem to suffice. Adding custom gear could cause interference.<br />
<br />
; WiFi receiver:<br />
* Pro:<br />
** Can accurately determine the position of drones.<br />
* Con:<br />
** Wifi is very susceptible to interference.<br />
** WiFi signals are blocked by obstacles.<br />
<br />
; Listening on communication between drone and ground:<br />
* Pro:<br />
** Intercepting communication is an easy way to detect the presence of drones.<br />
** Often communications are not encrypted<ref>The U.S. government showed just how easy it is to hack drones made by Parrot, DBPower and Cheerson. (2017). Recode. Retrieved 15 February 2019, from [https://www.recode.net/2017/1/4/14062654/drones-hacking-security-ftc-parrot-dbpower-cheerson]</ref>, allowing the interception of precise location <br />
* Con:<br />
** Prosumer or custom built drones might use very different communication standards or fly a pre-programmed path.<br />
<br />
; Detecting drones with other drones:<br />
* Pro:<br />
** as the radar system is moving, there are no objects that can block the list of sight<br />
* Con:<br />
** Flying around with a drone at a busy airport can be quite dangerous.<br />
** Drones can only stay in the air for a limited time due to battery constraints.<br />
----<br />
Back to the [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | root page]].<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /></div>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nlhttps://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Solutions_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3&diff=65681Solutions - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 32019-02-15T07:18:43Z<p>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nl: /* Advantages and disadvantages */</p>
<hr />
<div><link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.tue.nl/favicon-64.ico" type="image/x-icon"><br />
<link rel=http://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2018_3_Group4&action=edit"stylesheet" type="text/css" href="theme.css"><br />
<div style="width:calc(100vw - 175px);background-color:#EFEFEF;padding-bottom:35px;position:absolute;top:0;left:0;"><br />
<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;"><br />
<br />
<div class="floatright"><br />
; Page navigation<br />
# [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | Root]]<br />
# [[Notes_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Notes]]<br />
# [[Initial_ideas_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3| Initial ideas]]<br />
# [[Project_setup_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3| Project setup]]<br />
# [[State_of_the_Art_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | State of the Art]]<br />
# [[Specific problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Specific problem]]<br />
# [[Present_situation_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Present situation]]<br />
# [[Solutions_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Solutions]]<br />
# [[Conclusion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Conclusion]]<br />
# [[Discussion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Discussion]]<br />
</div><br />
<br />
= Solutions =<br />
In this section, we consider the requirements of solutions for the problem proposed in the specific problem description, all possible solutions, and both the advantages and disadvantages of each solution.<br />
<br />
== Categories ==<br />
<br />
When considering the state of the art research presented in the relevant Section, we can distinguish multiple categories in which the presented solutions might fall. In this Section, we further elaborate on these different categories, and as such provide a better overview and allow for more a more specific formulation of requirements. Firstly, different anti-UAV systems serve different purposes. For our study, we differentiate between the following purposes:<br />
<br />
=== Purposes ===<br />
; UAV Detection: These systems serve to detect the presence of UAVs in unwanted airspaces. They often also locate the UAV in question and sometimes include the possibility of continuous location tracking to assist systems categorised under the other purposes.<br />
; UAV Identification: Systems from this category serve to identify UAVs, obtaining more information about the UAV than simply its location. This information might include simple statistics, such as the average size of the drone which can often be observed by a human, given that the UAV is present in their field of view. More complicated statistics might also be obtained, such as a serial tracking number to identify commercial UAVs. <br />
; UAV Neutralisation: Drone neutralisation systems serve to neutralise a drone. This is the main topic of our study since UAV presence in the airspace above an airport introduces various risks, discussed in other Sections, that have to be neutralised in order to maintain public and societal security.<br />
<br />
Now that the scope of the purpose of the anti UAV systems for airport security that we consider has become clear, we might further distinguish the main purpose considered in this study. As such, we differentiate between 3 different subcategories, all part of the drone neutralisation purpose. These categories are as follows:<br />
<br />
=== Categories ===<br />
; Preventative solutions: This category encompasses all solutions that serve to prevent the problem from occurring. More specifically, entries of this category focus on keeping UAVs away from airspace belonging to airports. An example might include the geofencing system that was described previously and will be elaborated on further in the following sections.<br />
<br />
; Corrective solutions: Solutions from this category focus on solving the problem of UAV presence in the airspace over airports, specifically when said UAV is already present in that airspace. These solutions attempt to do so with minimal damage to the parties involved, an example might consist of a procedure where the control of the drone is overridden, either automatically or by a human, before the drone is removed from the airspace by landing or flight and after which control could be passed back to the pilot.<br />
<br />
; Destructive solutions: These solutions have the same area of focus as the previous category of corrective solutions, namely the minimising of further risk to air traffic above airports after a UAV has entered the airspace. The main difference is that, while corrective solutions attempt to do so in a non-destructive way, this limitation does not apply to destructive solutions. Sub-systems of a UAV or the UAV as a whole may be destroyed or permanently disabled. A coarse example consists of taking down unwanted UAVs with firearms, causing damage to the UAV and rendering it unable to continue operations.<br />
<br />
This division into categories is not entirely black on white, however. Consider an abstract example system that temporarily incapacitates a UAV in flight, causing it to cease operation and enter a free fall towards the ground. This might result in the destruction of the drone, given the collision with the ground. We have found a grey area in our division into subcategories, and as such, we further define destructive solutions as those solutions, where the incapacitation of the drone follows from the destruction, and not the other way around. We also require the destruction to be an integral part of the solution, if we want it to count as a destructive solution. In this example, the destruction is not guaranteed nor does the incapacitation follow from the destruction. Instead, the destruction might follow from the incapacitation, dependent on other circumstances. Therefore, this specific example counts as a preventative or corrective solution, based on where the UAV in question is located. Note, however, that this is based on the keywords `temporarily incapacitates'. If the incapacitation of the UAV or one of its subsystems were permanent, the destruction would be guaranteed since it does not depend on how hard the UAV hits the ground anymore. In this case, it would count as a destructive solution.<br />
<br />
== Requirements ==<br />
<br />
A solution to the specific problem described will have to adhere to requirements.<br />
These requirements are not simply capabilities the solution has to provide in the form of functional requirements, but they should also cover constraints posed on the solution.<br />
The constraints can be on the design of the solution in order to meet specified levels of quality, on the environment and technology of the system, and on the project plan and development methods.<br />
<br />
While providing these requirements, we need to make sure they are atomic. <br />
Furthermore, they need to be clearly identified, sufficiently precise and unambiguous, sufficiently verifiable, and prioritised. <br />
We use the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoSCoW_method MoSCoW model] for the prioritisation of the requirements. <br />
This model considers ''must have'', ''should have'', ''could have'', and ''won't have'', which indicate the priority of a requirement.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, these requirements might serve as a basic framework for further development of solutions to similar problems, thereby widening the scope to other problem spaces involving UAVs as well.<br />
<br />
The functional requirements (capabilities) of the solution are as follows:<br />
* The solution should be able to take down any type of drone effectively.<br />
* The solution should not endanger any humans with any of its actions.<br />
<br />
The non-functional requirements of the solution are as follows:<br />
* The solution should adhere to the new rules proposed in the `New Rules' subsection in the `Present situation' section.<br />
* The solution should adhere to the new rules proposed in the `Limitations' subsection in the `Present situation' section.<br />
<br />
== Possible solutions ==<br />
<br />
As we have already elaborated on, a possible solution can be categorized into the purpose it fulfils with respect to anti-UAV systems at and around airports.<br />
Since a full anti-UAV system should be able to do three things: detect aerial objects, identify that this object is an (unwanted) UAV, and lastly neutralization of the UAV. However, the identification of the object might be something that is up for discussion, since it might be safer to neutralize every aerial object, we will discuss this later on. As most possible (partial) solutions only cover one or two of the three things it should be able to do, before it can be considered at a full anti-UAV system, for each of the (partial) solutions listed below, they are divided up into categories of its purposes it fulfils. Such that, later on, we can compare and afterwards combine multiple of these partial solutions into one system that meets the needs of the users.<br />
<br />
==== UAV Detection ====<br />
<br />
* Radar system for detecting the location and height of an object in the air. The radar makes use of a transmitter which produces an electromagnetic signal which is radiated into airspace with an antenna. If this signal hits an areal object, it will get reflected in many directions. This reflected signal is received by the radar antenna then it is processed to determine the geographical data of the object.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* A Wi-Fi receiver can be used to detect a UAV based on the signature of the signal reflected from the propellers of a UAV. Similar to a radar, a transmitter broadcasts signals and a receiver captures reflected signals that bounce of a UAV. <ref name="RF-based detection of drones">Nguyen, P., Ravindranatha, M., Nguyen, A., Han, R., & Vu, T. [https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2935632 "Investigating Cost-effective RF-based Detection of Drones"], ACM, June 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Detect a UAV by listening to the communication channel between the UAV and its controller using a wireless receiver. Usually, UAVs communicate with their controllers a few times per second to update their status and to receive commands from the controller. A system could collect wireless samples and observes the signal, analyse them and can then detect a UAV's presence. <ref name="RF-based detection of drones">Nguyen, P., Ravindranatha, M., Nguyen, A., Han, R., & Vu, T. [https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2935632 "Investigating Cost-effective RF-based Detection of Drones"], ACM, June 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Detection of UAVs with the use of other UAVs that fly around the airports, carrying lightweight radar systems or cameras to scan their environment.<br />
<br />
<br />
==== UAV Identification ====<br />
<br />
* Identification of any specific aircraft can be done by broadcasting a coded signal, which is decoded by air traffic control towers. Such that allies and enemies can be identified and to avoid targeting a friendly aircraft. As a result, all aircraft where radar service is provided should require systems that are able to broadcast coded signals for identification, for this solution to work. <ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* For identification of UAVs, employing a 2D antenna and appropriate signal processing to create a multibeam, 3D, wide area overcomes the weakness of scanning radars and achieves high detection sensitivity. A decision tree based classifier can be used to identify the difference between UAVs and other moving objects. Where it rejects non-UAV targets, decreasing the number of false positives and increases true positives. Such that when neutralizing such a moving object in the air, with high probability, it will be a drone instead of for example a flying bird. <ref name="difficult to detect microdrones">Jahangir, M., & Baker, C. [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7590610/ "Persistence Surveillance of Difficult to Detect microdrones with L-band 3-D Holographic RadarTM"], Sensor Signal Processing for Defence (SSPD), September 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* A lightweight, X-Band (10.5GHz) radar system for use on a small-scale (less than 25 kg) rotorcraft. The prototype implementation of the radar is small enough to be carried by a drone and is able to differentiate other 'miniature rotorcrafts' (drones) by their doppler signature. The prototype uses a radar system which utilizes electromagnetic energy to gain information on objects by analyzing the reflected energy. <ref name="Radar-Based detection mini air vehicles">Moses, A., Rutherford, M. J., & Valavanis, K. P [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6044363 "Radar-Based Detection and Identification for Miniature Air Vehicles"], Control Applications (CCA), September 2011. Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
<br />
==== UAV Neutralization ====<br />
<br />
* Taking out UAVs by using air to air missiles, where these air missiles could be launched from other UAVs used by the airport or possibly any other aerial vehicle.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Taking out UAVs or disabling specific subsystems might be achievable by using lasers. Different kinds of lasers can be used for different purposes, either permanently or temporarily disabling a UAV. <ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Electromagnetic attacks to interfere with the GPS signals of the UAV, that the UAV uses to position itself. Jamming the GPS signals causes the UAV to not be able to follow the pilot's navigation commands accurately.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Taking control of a UAV by spoofing the GPS signals of the UAV, such that the UAV thinks that it is still talking to the original pilot when it is actually being taken over. This way the drone can easily and safely be landed somewhere out of danger.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Capturing a UAV using another UAV carrying a net, which drops the net over the unwanted UAV. Thereby taking control of the UAV as the net makes sure the UAVs rotors get tangled in the net making sure it is unusable for the pilot. Then with a parachute on the net, it can be made sure that the UAV lands safely on the ground<ref name="How do you catch a drone? With an even BIGGER drone and a giant net: Tokyo police reveal bizarre 'UAV catcher'">Liberatore, S., [https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1627_Jan2018.pdf "How do you catch a drone? With an even BIGGER drone and a giant net: Tokyo police reveal bizarre 'UAV catcher'"], DailyMail, December 2015, Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* A bazooka with an intelligent locking system to aid the controller to hit the UAV successfully, that shoots a net to capture a UAV. The rotors of the UAV will then get tangled in the net, making sure it cannot cause any harm anymore. Then a parachute that is attached to the net will make sure that the UAV will land safely on the ground. <ref name="The SkyWall 100 bazooka captures drones with a giant net">Burns, M., https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/04/the-skywall-100-bazooka-captures-drones-with-a-giant-net/?guccounter=1 "The SkyWall 100 bazooka captures drones with a giant net"], TechCrunch, 2016, Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* Transmitting geo-fence coordinates, avoidance commands or disruption of radio communication in order to avoid UAV's entering no-fly zone. <ref name="US10157546B2 - Anti-drone flight protection systems and methods"> Etak Systems LLC.[https://patents.google.com/patent/US10157546B2/ "Anti-drone flight protection systems and methods"], Google patents, 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* Using trained eagles to neutralize UAVs. These eagles would be trained into considering UAVs as preys so that they could catch these drones and place them in a safe area. <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><br />
* Geo-fencing software built into the UAVs restricts consumer UAVs to even be able to fly within a certain range of unwanted areas such as airports. <ref name="Drone sightings and close encounters"> Gettinger, D., & Michel, A. H. [https://dronecenter.bard.edu/files/2015/12/12-11-Drone-Sightings-and-Close-Encounters.pdf" "Drone sightings and close encounters: An analysis"], Center for the Study of the Drone, Bard College, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-14.</ref><br />
* Using high powered radio waves to disable drones, it blocks their communication with the controller and switches them off mid-air. <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><br />
<br />
== Advantages and disadvantages ==<br />
<br />
* Advantages and disadvantages based on the requirements of a solution (feasibility of actually making it and jurisdiction).<br />
<br />
==== UAV Detection ====<br />
* Radar system<br />
** Pro:<br />
*** A lot of the technology already exists, making the solution cheaper.<br />
*** Radar systems are very accurate.<br />
** Con:<br />
*** Most airports already have radar systems, and they don't seem to suffice. Adding custom gear could cause interference.<br />
<br />
* WiFi receiver<br />
** Pro:<br />
*** Can accurately determine the position of drones.<br />
** Con:<br />
*** Wifi is very susceptible to interference.<br />
*** WiFi signals are blocked by obstacles.<br />
<br />
* Listening on communication between drone and ground<br />
** Pro:<br />
*** Intercepting communication is an easy way to detect the presence of drones.<br />
*** Often communications are not encrypted<ref>The U.S. government showed just how easy it is to hack drones made by Parrot, DBPower and Cheerson. (2017). Recode. Retrieved 15 February 2019, from [https://www.recode.net/2017/1/4/14062654/drones-hacking-security-ftc-parrot-dbpower-cheerson]</ref>, allowing the interception of precise location <br />
** Con:<br />
*** Prosumer or custom built drones might use very different communication standards or fly a pre-programmed path.<br />
<br />
* Detecting drones with other drones<br />
** Pro:<br />
*** as the radar system is moving, there are no objects that can block the list of sight<br />
** Con:<br />
*** Flying around with a drone at a busy airport can be quite dangerous.<br />
*** Drones can only stay in the air for a limited time due to battery constraints.<br />
----<br />
Back to the [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | root page]].<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /></div>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nlhttps://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Solutions_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3&diff=65680Solutions - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 32019-02-15T07:13:15Z<p>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nl: /* Advantages and disadvantages */</p>
<hr />
<div><link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.tue.nl/favicon-64.ico" type="image/x-icon"><br />
<link rel=http://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2018_3_Group4&action=edit"stylesheet" type="text/css" href="theme.css"><br />
<div style="width:calc(100vw - 175px);background-color:#EFEFEF;padding-bottom:35px;position:absolute;top:0;left:0;"><br />
<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;"><br />
<br />
<div class="floatright"><br />
; Page navigation<br />
# [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | Root]]<br />
# [[Notes_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Notes]]<br />
# [[Initial_ideas_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3| Initial ideas]]<br />
# [[Project_setup_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3| Project setup]]<br />
# [[State_of_the_Art_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | State of the Art]]<br />
# [[Specific problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Specific problem]]<br />
# [[Present_situation_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Present situation]]<br />
# [[Solutions_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Solutions]]<br />
# [[Conclusion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Conclusion]]<br />
# [[Discussion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Discussion]]<br />
</div><br />
<br />
= Solutions =<br />
In this section, we consider the requirements of solutions for the problem proposed in the specific problem description, all possible solutions, and both the advantages and disadvantages of each solution.<br />
<br />
== Categories ==<br />
<br />
When considering the state of the art research presented in the relevant Section, we can distinguish multiple categories in which the presented solutions might fall. In this Section, we further elaborate on these different categories, and as such provide a better overview and allow for more a more specific formulation of requirements. Firstly, different anti-UAV systems serve different purposes. For our study, we differentiate between the following purposes:<br />
<br />
=== Purposes ===<br />
; UAV Detection: These systems serve to detect the presence of UAVs in unwanted airspaces. They often also locate the UAV in question and sometimes include the possibility of continuous location tracking to assist systems categorised under the other purposes.<br />
; UAV Identification: Systems from this category serve to identify UAVs, obtaining more information about the UAV than simply its location. This information might include simple statistics, such as the average size of the drone which can often be observed by a human, given that the UAV is present in their field of view. More complicated statistics might also be obtained, such as a serial tracking number to identify commercial UAVs. <br />
; UAV Neutralisation: Drone neutralisation systems serve to neutralise a drone. This is the main topic of our study since UAV presence in the airspace above an airport introduces various risks, discussed in other Sections, that have to be neutralised in order to maintain public and societal security.<br />
<br />
Now that the scope of the purpose of the anti UAV systems for airport security that we consider has become clear, we might further distinguish the main purpose considered in this study. As such, we differentiate between 3 different subcategories, all part of the drone neutralisation purpose. These categories are as follows:<br />
<br />
=== Categories ===<br />
; Preventative solutions: This category encompasses all solutions that serve to prevent the problem from occurring. More specifically, entries of this category focus on keeping UAVs away from airspace belonging to airports. An example might include the geofencing system that was described previously and will be elaborated on further in the following sections.<br />
<br />
; Corrective solutions: Solutions from this category focus on solving the problem of UAV presence in the airspace over airports, specifically when said UAV is already present in that airspace. These solutions attempt to do so with minimal damage to the parties involved, an example might consist of a procedure where the control of the drone is overridden, either automatically or by a human, before the drone is removed from the airspace by landing or flight and after which control could be passed back to the pilot.<br />
<br />
; Destructive solutions: These solutions have the same area of focus as the previous category of corrective solutions, namely the minimising of further risk to air traffic above airports after a UAV has entered the airspace. The main difference is that, while corrective solutions attempt to do so in a non-destructive way, this limitation does not apply to destructive solutions. Sub-systems of a UAV or the UAV as a whole may be destroyed or permanently disabled. A coarse example consists of taking down unwanted UAVs with firearms, causing damage to the UAV and rendering it unable to continue operations.<br />
<br />
This division into categories is not entirely black on white, however. Consider an abstract example system that temporarily incapacitates a UAV in flight, causing it to cease operation and enter a free fall towards the ground. This might result in the destruction of the drone, given the collision with the ground. We have found a grey area in our division into subcategories, and as such, we further define destructive solutions as those solutions, where the incapacitation of the drone follows from the destruction, and not the other way around. We also require the destruction to be an integral part of the solution, if we want it to count as a destructive solution. In this example, the destruction is not guaranteed nor does the incapacitation follow from the destruction. Instead, the destruction might follow from the incapacitation, dependent on other circumstances. Therefore, this specific example counts as a preventative or corrective solution, based on where the UAV in question is located. Note, however, that this is based on the keywords `temporarily incapacitates'. If the incapacitation of the UAV or one of its subsystems were permanent, the destruction would be guaranteed since it does not depend on how hard the UAV hits the ground anymore. In this case, it would count as a destructive solution.<br />
<br />
== Requirements ==<br />
<br />
A solution to the specific problem described will have to adhere to requirements.<br />
These requirements are not simply capabilities the solution has to provide in the form of functional requirements, but they should also cover constraints posed on the solution.<br />
The constraints can be on the design of the solution in order to meet specified levels of quality, on the environment and technology of the system, and on the project plan and development methods.<br />
<br />
While providing these requirements, we need to make sure they are atomic. <br />
Furthermore, they need to be clearly identified, sufficiently precise and unambiguous, sufficiently verifiable, and prioritised. <br />
We use the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoSCoW_method MoSCoW model] for the prioritisation of the requirements. <br />
This model considers ''must have'', ''should have'', ''could have'', and ''won't have'', which indicate the priority of a requirement.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, these requirements might serve as a basic framework for further development of solutions to similar problems, thereby widening the scope to other problem spaces involving UAVs as well.<br />
<br />
The functional requirements (capabilities) of the solution are as follows:<br />
* The solution should be able to take down any type of drone effectively.<br />
* The solution should not endanger any humans with any of its actions.<br />
<br />
The non-functional requirements of the solution are as follows:<br />
* The solution should adhere to the new rules proposed in the `New Rules' subsection in the `Present situation' section.<br />
* The solution should adhere to the new rules proposed in the `Limitations' subsection in the `Present situation' section.<br />
<br />
== Possible solutions ==<br />
<br />
As we have already elaborated on, a possible solution can be categorized into the purpose it fulfils with respect to anti-UAV systems at and around airports.<br />
Since a full anti-UAV system should be able to do three things: detect aerial objects, identify that this object is an (unwanted) UAV, and lastly neutralization of the UAV. However, the identification of the object might be something that is up for discussion, since it might be safer to neutralize every aerial object, we will discuss this later on. As most possible (partial) solutions only cover one or two of the three things it should be able to do, before it can be considered at a full anti-UAV system, for each of the (partial) solutions listed below, they are divided up into categories of its purposes it fulfils. Such that, later on, we can compare and afterwards combine multiple of these partial solutions into one system that meets the needs of the users.<br />
<br />
==== UAV Detection ====<br />
<br />
* Radar system for detecting the location and height of an object in the air. The radar makes use of a transmitter which produces an electromagnetic signal which is radiated into airspace with an antenna. If this signal hits an areal object, it will get reflected in many directions. This reflected signal is received by the radar antenna then it is processed to determine the geographical data of the object.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* A Wi-Fi receiver can be used to detect a UAV based on the signature of the signal reflected from the propellers of a UAV. Similar to a radar, a transmitter broadcasts signals and a receiver captures reflected signals that bounce of a UAV. <ref name="RF-based detection of drones">Nguyen, P., Ravindranatha, M., Nguyen, A., Han, R., & Vu, T. [https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2935632 "Investigating Cost-effective RF-based Detection of Drones"], ACM, June 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Detect a UAV by listening to the communication channel between the UAV and its controller using a wireless receiver. Usually, UAVs communicate with their controllers a few times per second to update their status and to receive commands from the controller. A system could collect wireless samples and observes the signal, analyse them and can then detect a UAV's presence. <ref name="RF-based detection of drones">Nguyen, P., Ravindranatha, M., Nguyen, A., Han, R., & Vu, T. [https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2935632 "Investigating Cost-effective RF-based Detection of Drones"], ACM, June 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Detection of UAVs with the use of other UAVs that fly around the airports, carrying lightweight radar systems or cameras to scan their environment.<br />
<br />
<br />
==== UAV Identification ====<br />
<br />
* Identification of any specific aircraft can be done by broadcasting a coded signal, which is decoded by air traffic control towers. Such that allies and enemies can be identified and to avoid targeting a friendly aircraft. As a result, all aircraft where radar service is provided should require systems that are able to broadcast coded signals for identification, for this solution to work. <ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* For identification of UAVs, employing a 2D antenna and appropriate signal processing to create a multibeam, 3D, wide area overcomes the weakness of scanning radars and achieves high detection sensitivity. A decision tree based classifier can be used to identify the difference between UAVs and other moving objects. Where it rejects non-UAV targets, decreasing the number of false positives and increases true positives. Such that when neutralizing such a moving object in the air, with high probability, it will be a drone instead of for example a flying bird. <ref name="difficult to detect microdrones">Jahangir, M., & Baker, C. [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7590610/ "Persistence Surveillance of Difficult to Detect microdrones with L-band 3-D Holographic RadarTM"], Sensor Signal Processing for Defence (SSPD), September 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* A lightweight, X-Band (10.5GHz) radar system for use on a small-scale (less than 25 kg) rotorcraft. The prototype implementation of the radar is small enough to be carried by a drone and is able to differentiate other 'miniature rotorcrafts' (drones) by their doppler signature. The prototype uses a radar system which utilizes electromagnetic energy to gain information on objects by analyzing the reflected energy. <ref name="Radar-Based detection mini air vehicles">Moses, A., Rutherford, M. J., & Valavanis, K. P [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6044363 "Radar-Based Detection and Identification for Miniature Air Vehicles"], Control Applications (CCA), September 2011. Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
<br />
==== UAV Neutralization ====<br />
<br />
* Taking out UAVs by using air to air missiles, where these air missiles could be launched from other UAVs used by the airport or possibly any other aerial vehicle.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Taking out UAVs or disabling specific subsystems might be achievable by using lasers. Different kinds of lasers can be used for different purposes, either permanently or temporarily disabling a UAV. <ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Electromagnetic attacks to interfere with the GPS signals of the UAV, that the UAV uses to position itself. Jamming the GPS signals causes the UAV to not be able to follow the pilot's navigation commands accurately.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Taking control of a UAV by spoofing the GPS signals of the UAV, such that the UAV thinks that it is still talking to the original pilot when it is actually being taken over. This way the drone can easily and safely be landed somewhere out of danger.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Capturing a UAV using another UAV carrying a net, which drops the net over the unwanted UAV. Thereby taking control of the UAV as the net makes sure the UAVs rotors get tangled in the net making sure it is unusable for the pilot. Then with a parachute on the net, it can be made sure that the UAV lands safely on the ground<ref name="How do you catch a drone? With an even BIGGER drone and a giant net: Tokyo police reveal bizarre 'UAV catcher'">Liberatore, S., [https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1627_Jan2018.pdf "How do you catch a drone? With an even BIGGER drone and a giant net: Tokyo police reveal bizarre 'UAV catcher'"], DailyMail, December 2015, Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* A bazooka with an intelligent locking system to aid the controller to hit the UAV successfully, that shoots a net to capture a UAV. The rotors of the UAV will then get tangled in the net, making sure it cannot cause any harm anymore. Then a parachute that is attached to the net will make sure that the UAV will land safely on the ground. <ref name="The SkyWall 100 bazooka captures drones with a giant net">Burns, M., https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/04/the-skywall-100-bazooka-captures-drones-with-a-giant-net/?guccounter=1 "The SkyWall 100 bazooka captures drones with a giant net"], TechCrunch, 2016, Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* Transmitting geo-fence coordinates, avoidance commands or disruption of radio communication in order to avoid UAV's entering no-fly zone. <ref name="US10157546B2 - Anti-drone flight protection systems and methods"> Etak Systems LLC.[https://patents.google.com/patent/US10157546B2/ "Anti-drone flight protection systems and methods"], Google patents, 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* Using trained eagles to neutralize UAVs. These eagles would be trained into considering UAVs as preys so that they could catch these drones and place them in a safe area. <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><br />
* Geo-fencing software built into the UAVs restricts consumer UAVs to even be able to fly within a certain range of unwanted areas such as airports. <ref name="Drone sightings and close encounters"> Gettinger, D., & Michel, A. H. [https://dronecenter.bard.edu/files/2015/12/12-11-Drone-Sightings-and-Close-Encounters.pdf" "Drone sightings and close encounters: An analysis"], Center for the Study of the Drone, Bard College, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-14.</ref><br />
* Using high powered radio waves to disable drones, it blocks their communication with the controller and switches them off mid-air. <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><br />
<br />
== Advantages and disadvantages ==<br />
<br />
* Advantages and disadvantages based on the requirements of a solution (feasibility of actually making it and jurisdiction).<br />
<br />
==== UAV Detection ====<br />
* Radar system<br />
** Pro:<br />
*** A lot of the technology already exists, making the solution cheaper.<br />
*** Radar systems are very accurate.<br />
** Con:<br />
*** Most airports already have radar systems, and they don't seem to suffice. Adding custom gear could cause interference.<br />
<br />
* WiFi receiver<br />
** Pro:<br />
*** Can accurately determine the position of drones.<br />
** Con:<br />
*** Wifi is very susceptible to interference.<br />
*** WiFi signals are blocked by obstacles.<br />
<br />
* Listening on communication between drone and ground<br />
** Pro:<br />
*** Intercepting communication is an easy way to detect the presence of drones.<br />
*** Often communications are not encrypted{{https://www.recode.net/2017/1/4/14062654/drones-hacking-security-ftc-parrot-dbpower-cheerson}}, allowing the interception of precise location <br />
** Con:<br />
*** Prosumer or custom built drones might use very different communication standards or fly a pre-programmed path.<br />
<br />
----<br />
Back to the [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | root page]].<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /></div>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nlhttps://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Solutions_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3&diff=65679Solutions - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 32019-02-15T06:50:31Z<p>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nl: Pro and con list layout check</p>
<hr />
<div><link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.tue.nl/favicon-64.ico" type="image/x-icon"><br />
<link rel=http://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2018_3_Group4&action=edit"stylesheet" type="text/css" href="theme.css"><br />
<div style="width:calc(100vw - 175px);background-color:#EFEFEF;padding-bottom:35px;position:absolute;top:0;left:0;"><br />
<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;"><br />
<br />
<div class="floatright"><br />
; Page navigation<br />
# [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | Root]]<br />
# [[Notes_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Notes]]<br />
# [[Initial_ideas_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3| Initial ideas]]<br />
# [[Project_setup_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3| Project setup]]<br />
# [[State_of_the_Art_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | State of the Art]]<br />
# [[Specific problem - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Specific problem]]<br />
# [[Present_situation_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Present situation]]<br />
# [[Solutions_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Solutions]]<br />
# [[Conclusion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Conclusion]]<br />
# [[Discussion - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3|Discussion]]<br />
</div><br />
<br />
= Solutions =<br />
In this section, we consider the requirements of solutions for the problem proposed in the specific problem description, all possible solutions, and both the advantages and disadvantages of each solution.<br />
<br />
== Categories ==<br />
<br />
When considering the state of the art research presented in the relevant Section, we can distinguish multiple categories in which the presented solutions might fall. In this Section, we further elaborate on these different categories, and as such provide a better overview and allow for more a more specific formulation of requirements. Firstly, different anti-UAV systems serve different purposes. For our study, we differentiate between the following purposes:<br />
<br />
=== Purposes ===<br />
; UAV Detection: These systems serve to detect the presence of UAVs in unwanted airspaces. They often also locate the UAV in question and sometimes include the possibility of continuous location tracking to assist systems categorised under the other purposes.<br />
; UAV Identification: Systems from this category serve to identify UAVs, obtaining more information about the UAV than simply its location. This information might include simple statistics, such as the average size of the drone which can often be observed by a human, given that the UAV is present in their field of view. More complicated statistics might also be obtained, such as a serial tracking number to identify commercial UAVs. <br />
; UAV Neutralisation: Drone neutralisation systems serve to neutralise a drone. This is the main topic of our study since UAV presence in the airspace above an airport introduces various risks, discussed in other Sections, that have to be neutralised in order to maintain public and societal security.<br />
<br />
Now that the scope of the purpose of the anti UAV systems for airport security that we consider has become clear, we might further distinguish the main purpose considered in this study. As such, we differentiate between 3 different subcategories, all part of the drone neutralisation purpose. These categories are as follows:<br />
<br />
=== Categories ===<br />
; Preventative solutions: This category encompasses all solutions that serve to prevent the problem from occurring. More specifically, entries of this category focus on keeping UAVs away from airspace belonging to airports. An example might include the geofencing system that was described previously and will be elaborated on further in the following sections.<br />
<br />
; Corrective solutions: Solutions from this category focus on solving the problem of UAV presence in the airspace over airports, specifically when said UAV is already present in that airspace. These solutions attempt to do so with minimal damage to the parties involved, an example might consist of a procedure where the control of the drone is overridden, either automatically or by a human, before the drone is removed from the airspace by landing or flight and after which control could be passed back to the pilot.<br />
<br />
; Destructive solutions: These solutions have the same area of focus as the previous category of corrective solutions, namely the minimising of further risk to air traffic above airports after a UAV has entered the airspace. The main difference is that, while corrective solutions attempt to do so in a non-destructive way, this limitation does not apply to destructive solutions. Sub-systems of a UAV or the UAV as a whole may be destroyed or permanently disabled. A coarse example consists of taking down unwanted UAVs with firearms, causing damage to the UAV and rendering it unable to continue operations.<br />
<br />
This division into categories is not entirely black on white, however. Consider an abstract example system that temporarily incapacitates a UAV in flight, causing it to cease operation and enter a free fall towards the ground. This might result in the destruction of the drone, given the collision with the ground. We have found a grey area in our division into subcategories, and as such, we further define destructive solutions as those solutions, where the incapacitation of the drone follows from the destruction, and not the other way around. We also require the destruction to be an integral part of the solution, if we want it to count as a destructive solution. In this example, the destruction is not guaranteed nor does the incapacitation follow from the destruction. Instead, the destruction might follow from the incapacitation, dependent on other circumstances. Therefore, this specific example counts as a preventative or corrective solution, based on where the UAV in question is located. Note, however, that this is based on the keywords `temporarily incapacitates'. If the incapacitation of the UAV or one of its subsystems were permanent, the destruction would be guaranteed since it does not depend on how hard the UAV hits the ground anymore. In this case, it would count as a destructive solution.<br />
<br />
== Requirements ==<br />
<br />
A solution to the specific problem described will have to adhere to requirements.<br />
These requirements are not simply capabilities the solution has to provide in the form of functional requirements, but they should also cover constraints posed on the solution.<br />
The constraints can be on the design of the solution in order to meet specified levels of quality, on the environment and technology of the system, and on the project plan and development methods.<br />
<br />
While providing these requirements, we need to make sure they are atomic. <br />
Furthermore, they need to be clearly identified, sufficiently precise and unambiguous, sufficiently verifiable, and prioritised. <br />
We use the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoSCoW_method MoSCoW model] for the prioritisation of the requirements. <br />
This model considers ''must have'', ''should have'', ''could have'', and ''won't have'', which indicate the priority of a requirement.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, these requirements might serve as a basic framework for further development of solutions to similar problems, thereby widening the scope to other problem spaces involving UAVs as well.<br />
<br />
The functional requirements (capabilities) of the solution are as follows:<br />
* The solution should be able to take down any type of drone effectively.<br />
* The solution should not endanger any humans with any of its actions.<br />
<br />
The non-functional requirements of the solution are as follows:<br />
* The solution should adhere to the new rules proposed in the `New Rules' subsection in the `Present situation' section.<br />
* The solution should adhere to the new rules proposed in the `Limitations' subsection in the `Present situation' section.<br />
<br />
== Possible solutions ==<br />
<br />
As we have already elaborated on, a possible solution can be categorized into the purpose it fulfils with respect to anti-UAV systems at and around airports.<br />
Since a full anti-UAV system should be able to do three things: detect aerial objects, identify that this object is an (unwanted) UAV, and lastly neutralization of the UAV. However, the identification of the object might be something that is up for discussion, since it might be safer to neutralize every aerial object, we will discuss this later on. As most possible (partial) solutions only cover one or two of the three things it should be able to do, before it can be considered at a full anti-UAV system, for each of the (partial) solutions listed below, they are divided up into categories of its purposes it fulfils. Such that, later on, we can compare and afterwards combine multiple of these partial solutions into one system that meets the needs of the users.<br />
<br />
==== UAV Detection ====<br />
<br />
* Radar system for detecting the location and height of an object in the air. The radar makes use of a transmitter which produces an electromagnetic signal which is radiated into airspace with an antenna. If this signal hits an areal object, it will get reflected in many directions. This reflected signal is received by the radar antenna then it is processed to determine the geographical data of the object.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* A Wi-Fi receiver can be used to detect a UAV based on the signature of the signal reflected from the propellers of a UAV. Similar to a radar, a transmitter broadcasts signals and a receiver captures reflected signals that bounce of a UAV. <ref name="RF-based detection of drones">Nguyen, P., Ravindranatha, M., Nguyen, A., Han, R., & Vu, T. [https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2935632 "Investigating Cost-effective RF-based Detection of Drones"], ACM, June 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Detect a UAV by listening to the communication channel between the UAV and its controller using a wireless receiver. Usually, UAVs communicate with their controllers a few times per second to update their status and to receive commands from the controller. A system could collect wireless samples and observes the signal, analyse them and can then detect a UAV's presence. <ref name="RF-based detection of drones">Nguyen, P., Ravindranatha, M., Nguyen, A., Han, R., & Vu, T. [https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2935632 "Investigating Cost-effective RF-based Detection of Drones"], ACM, June 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Detection of UAVs with the use of other UAVs that fly around the airports, carrying lightweight radar systems or cameras to scan their environment.<br />
<br />
<br />
==== UAV Identification ====<br />
<br />
* Identification of any specific aircraft can be done by broadcasting a coded signal, which is decoded by air traffic control towers. Such that allies and enemies can be identified and to avoid targeting a friendly aircraft. As a result, all aircraft where radar service is provided should require systems that are able to broadcast coded signals for identification, for this solution to work. <ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* For identification of UAVs, employing a 2D antenna and appropriate signal processing to create a multibeam, 3D, wide area overcomes the weakness of scanning radars and achieves high detection sensitivity. A decision tree based classifier can be used to identify the difference between UAVs and other moving objects. Where it rejects non-UAV targets, decreasing the number of false positives and increases true positives. Such that when neutralizing such a moving object in the air, with high probability, it will be a drone instead of for example a flying bird. <ref name="difficult to detect microdrones">Jahangir, M., & Baker, C. [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7590610/ "Persistence Surveillance of Difficult to Detect microdrones with L-band 3-D Holographic RadarTM"], Sensor Signal Processing for Defence (SSPD), September 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* A lightweight, X-Band (10.5GHz) radar system for use on a small-scale (less than 25 kg) rotorcraft. The prototype implementation of the radar is small enough to be carried by a drone and is able to differentiate other 'miniature rotorcrafts' (drones) by their doppler signature. The prototype uses a radar system which utilizes electromagnetic energy to gain information on objects by analyzing the reflected energy. <ref name="Radar-Based detection mini air vehicles">Moses, A., Rutherford, M. J., & Valavanis, K. P [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6044363 "Radar-Based Detection and Identification for Miniature Air Vehicles"], Control Applications (CCA), September 2011. Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
<br />
==== UAV Neutralization ====<br />
<br />
* Taking out UAVs by using air to air missiles, where these air missiles could be launched from other UAVs used by the airport or possibly any other aerial vehicle.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Taking out UAVs or disabling specific subsystems might be achievable by using lasers. Different kinds of lasers can be used for different purposes, either permanently or temporarily disabling a UAV. <ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Electromagnetic attacks to interfere with the GPS signals of the UAV, that the UAV uses to position itself. Jamming the GPS signals causes the UAV to not be able to follow the pilot's navigation commands accurately.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Taking control of a UAV by spoofing the GPS signals of the UAV, such that the UAV thinks that it is still talking to the original pilot when it is actually being taken over. This way the drone can easily and safely be landed somewhere out of danger.<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref><br />
* Capturing a UAV using another UAV carrying a net, which drops the net over the unwanted UAV. Thereby taking control of the UAV as the net makes sure the UAVs rotors get tangled in the net making sure it is unusable for the pilot. Then with a parachute on the net, it can be made sure that the UAV lands safely on the ground<ref name="How do you catch a drone? With an even BIGGER drone and a giant net: Tokyo police reveal bizarre 'UAV catcher'">Liberatore, S., [https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1627_Jan2018.pdf "How do you catch a drone? With an even BIGGER drone and a giant net: Tokyo police reveal bizarre 'UAV catcher'"], DailyMail, December 2015, Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* A bazooka with an intelligent locking system to aid the controller to hit the UAV successfully, that shoots a net to capture a UAV. The rotors of the UAV will then get tangled in the net, making sure it cannot cause any harm anymore. Then a parachute that is attached to the net will make sure that the UAV will land safely on the ground. <ref name="The SkyWall 100 bazooka captures drones with a giant net">Burns, M., https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/04/the-skywall-100-bazooka-captures-drones-with-a-giant-net/?guccounter=1 "The SkyWall 100 bazooka captures drones with a giant net"], TechCrunch, 2016, Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* Transmitting geo-fence coordinates, avoidance commands or disruption of radio communication in order to avoid UAV's entering no-fly zone. <ref name="US10157546B2 - Anti-drone flight protection systems and methods"> Etak Systems LLC.[https://patents.google.com/patent/US10157546B2/ "Anti-drone flight protection systems and methods"], Google patents, 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref><br />
* Using trained eagles to neutralize UAVs. These eagles would be trained into considering UAVs as preys so that they could catch these drones and place them in a safe area. <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><br />
* Geo-fencing software built into the UAVs restricts consumer UAVs to even be able to fly within a certain range of unwanted areas such as airports. <ref name="Drone sightings and close encounters"> Gettinger, D., & Michel, A. H. [https://dronecenter.bard.edu/files/2015/12/12-11-Drone-Sightings-and-Close-Encounters.pdf" "Drone sightings and close encounters: An analysis"], Center for the Study of the Drone, Bard College, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-14.</ref><br />
* Using high powered radio waves to disable drones, it blocks their communication with the controller and switches them off mid-air. <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><br />
<br />
== Advantages and disadvantages ==<br />
<br />
* Advantages and disadvantages based on the requirements of a solution (feasibility of actually making it and jurisdiction).<br />
<br />
==== UAV Detection ====<br />
* Radar system<br />
** Pro:<br />
*** A lot of the technology already exists, making the solution cheaper.<br />
*** Radar systems are very accurate<br />
** Con:<br />
*** Most airports already have radar systems, and they don't seem to suffice<br />
*** <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
Back to the [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | root page]].<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /></div>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nlhttps://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Present_situation_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3&diff=65199Present situation - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 32019-02-12T13:18:44Z<p>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nl: Added airport interview questions</p>
<hr />
<div><link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.tue.nl/favicon-64.ico" type="image/x-icon"><br />
<link rel=http://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2018_3_Group4&action=edit"stylesheet" type="text/css" href="theme.css"><br />
<div style="width:calc(100vw - 175px);background-color:#EFEFEF;padding-bottom:35px;position:absolute;top:0;left:0;"><br />
<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;"><br />
<br />
<div class="floatright"><br />
# [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | Root]]<br />
# [[Notes_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Notes]]<br />
# [[Initial_ideas_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3| Initial ideas]]<br />
# [[State_of_the_Art_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | State of the Art]]<br />
# [[Project_setup_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3| Project setup]]<br />
# [[Present_situation_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Present situation]]<br />
# [[Solutions_-_Group_4_-_2018/2019,_Semester_B,_Quartile_3 | Solutions]]<br />
</div><br />
<br />
= Present situation =<br />
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.<br />
<br />
== Rules and regulations ==<br />
Different countries have different rules and regulations when it comes to UAVs. <br />
Furthermore, distinctions are made between recreational use and commercial use. <br />
The United States of America (U.S.A.), for example, considers different rules when it comes to recreational use and commercial use. <br />
The requirements when flying a drone under commercial use are much stricter than flying a drone under recreational use. <br />
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. <br />
Furthermore, a drone needs to be registered so that the owner of the drone can be traced back in case this is needed. <br />
<br />
<br />
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>:<br />
* Fly at or below 400 feet<br />
* Keep your drone within sight<br />
* Never fly near other aircraft, especially near airports<br />
* Never fly over groups of people<br />
* Never fly over stadiums or sports events<br />
* Never fly near emergency response efforts such as fires<br />
* Never fly under the influence<br />
* Be aware of airspace requirements<br />
<br />
<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
=== Recreational use ===<br />
<br />
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>.<br />
This means that one is not permitted to fly over groups of people or connected buildings. <br />
Furthermore, the drone needs to be in sight at all times. <br />
As soon as one sees an aeroplane or helicopter approaching, one must land as quickly as possible.<br />
<br />
<br />
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.<br />
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>. <br />
This includes but is not limited to:<br />
* You must be able to see the drone at all times.<br />
* You may not fly in the dark.<br />
* 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.<br />
<br />
<br />
An overview map for the recreational use of drones has been depicted in Figure 1. <br />
This image accurately presents where one is allowed to fly their drone for recreational use and where it is forbidden to fly a drone. <br />
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.<br />
Furthermore, for uncontrolled airports, flights within a distance of 3 kilometres are permitted, provided that there is no objection from the airport operator. <br />
Additionally, there may always be temporary bans and restricted areas for a limited time due to, for example, events.<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:Overizchtskaart_vliegen_met_drones.png|thumb|upright=4|center|alt=Missing image|Figure 1: Overview map for recreational flying with drones.]]<br />
<br />
<br />
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. <br />
Here, the privacy right of others must be kept in mind. It is, for example, not allowed to secretly film someone. <br />
If pictures are being taken of a specific person or that person is being recorded, the person concerned must be informed.<br />
This leads us to the following point. The owner of a drone is responsible for any damage caused by their drone. <br />
This means that the owner of a drone is liable for any damages or injuries caused by their drone. <br />
Therefore, it is vital for the owner of a drone to verify whether their liability insurance covers any damage to drone incidents. <br />
In some cases, it is possible for the damage to run up to a substantial sum up to thousands of euros. <br />
We can further extend this by considering fines that can be given to drone pilots. <br />
Failing to abide by the rules mentioned above can result in either a warning or a fine.<br />
It is also possible for the controlled drone to be confiscated. <br />
The amount of the fine or the punishment given depends a lot on the type of violation caused by the drone usage. <br />
It will be considered if the drone was used in a professional setting or for hobby purposes. <br />
Furthermore, it will be considered if people were endangered or not. <br />
<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
[[File:Drone-2018.jpg|thumb|upright=4|center|alt=Missing image|Figure 2: A summary considering recreational usage of drones in Dutch.]]<br />
<br />
=== Commercial use ===<br />
On the other hand, we can also consider the commercial use of drones. <br />
Examples include but are not limited to people that use the drone to earn money or people that use drones for business purposes.<br />
For these commercial users, different rules and regulations apply than for recreational users. <br />
A commercial user needs, for example, a license. <br />
The additional rules and regulations for commercial users must minimise the risk of accidents, both in the air and on the ground.<br />
<br />
<br />
Examples of commercial uses include:<br />
* Video production companies that make aerial shots.<br />
* Making promotional films for a company.<br />
* Using a drone for a business, such as companies that want to view hard-to-reach places for certain reasons.<br />
<br />
For using a drone in a commercial setting, the owner of this drone needs an RPAS Operator Certificate (ROC).<br />
One can be requested from the `Inspectie Leefomgeving en Transport' (ILT). <br />
If the drone is being piloted by someone, then this person also needs a pilot's license (vliegbrevet in Dutch).<br />
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>. <br />
There exist two sorts of ROC licenses, namely a regular ROC and a ROC Light. <br />
If a drone is heavier than 4 kilograms, then a ROC is needed. <br />
Otherwise, a ROC-light will be fine in most cases.<br />
Additionally, it is not allowed to fly as high with a ROC Light compared to a regular ROC.<br />
<br />
<br />
Other differences are displayed in Table 2 below. Here, one can more clearly observe the differences between a ROC and ROC Light.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" | style="vertical-align:middle;" | border="2" style="border-collapse:collapse" ;<br />
|+ '''Table 2: Differences ROC and ROC-light'''<br />
! align="center"; style="width: 20%" | '''Rules license'''<br />
! align="center"; style="width: 5%" | '''Drone heavier than 4 kilograms'''<br />
! align="center"; style="width: 5%" | '''Drone lighter than 4 kilograms'''<br />
|-<br />
| Type of license<br />
| ROC<br />
| ROC-light<br />
|-<br />
| Maximal weight of drone allowed<br />
| 150 kg<br />
| 40 kg<br />
|-<br />
| Maximal flight height<br />
| 120 metres<br />
| 50 metres<br />
|-<br />
| Maximal distance between drone and owner<br />
| 500 metres<br />
| 100 metres<br />
|-<br />
| Minimal distance towards crowds<br />
| 150 metres<br />
| 50 metres<br />
|-<br />
| Minimal distance to buildings<br />
| 150 metres<br />
| 50 metres<br />
|-<br />
| Minimal distance to highways<br />
| 150 metres<br />
| 150 metres<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
If one does not abide by the rules, it is possible to obtain a fine and for the drone to be confiscated. <br />
People who do wrong more often can also get a prison sentence.<br />
<br />
=== Summary ===<br />
* https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/drone/documenten/brochures/2016/07/06/regels-voor-drones-verschillen-tussen-recreatief-en-beroepsmatig-gebruik<br />
* https://www.nctv.nl/onderwerpen_a_z/drones/index.aspx<br />
* https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/drone/risicos-van-drones<br />
<br />
In this section, we provide a summary when considering recreational, commercial (ROC), and commercial (ROC Light) usage of drones.<br />
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).<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" | style="vertical-align:middle;" | border="2" style="border-collapse:collapse" ;<br />
|+ '''Table 3: Differences ROC and ROC Light'''<br />
! align="center"; style="width: 25%" | <br />
! align="center"; style="width: 25%" | '''Reacreational flying'''<br />
! align="center"; style="width: 25%" | '''Commercial flying (ROC)'''<br />
! align="center"; style="width: 25%" | '''Commercial flying (ROC Light)'''<br />
|-<br />
| Use of a drone || Hobbyism, recreational use || Commercial use || Commercial use<br />
|-<br />
| Weight drone (total starting mass) || Max. 25 kg || Max. 150 kg || Max. 4 kg<br />
|-<br />
| 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.<br />
|-<br />
| Visual Flight Rules || Always in sight of the pilot || Always in sight of the pilot || Always in sight of the pilot<br />
|-<br />
| Distance to pilot or observer || N/A || Max. 500 metres || Max. 100 metres<br />
|-<br />
| Daylight || Only daylight || Only daylight || Only daylight<br />
|-<br />
| 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<br />
|-<br />
| Distance criteria: || || Exemption possible || Exemption impossible<br />
|-<br />
| Distance to crowds || Not above || Min. 150 metres || Min. 50 metres<br />
|-<br />
| Distance to buildings || Not above || Min. 150 metres || Min. 50 metres<br />
|-<br />
| Distance to works of art, port and industrial areas || Not above || Min. 50 metres || Min. 50 metres<br />
|-<br />
| Distance to railway lines || Not above || Min. 50 metres || Min. 50 metres<br />
|-<br />
| 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<br />
|-<br />
| Distance to vessels and vehicles || N/A || Min. 150 metres || Min. 50 metres<br />
|-<br />
| Where are you allowed to fly? || Not in controlled airspace || Not in controlled airspace || Not in controlled airspace<br />
|-<br />
| || 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<br />
|-<br />
| || 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<br />
|-<br />
| 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<br />
|-<br />
| Certificate of Airworthiness for the drone || N/A || Certificate of Airworthiness (technical inspection required) || Exemption Certificate of Airworthiness (no technical inspection)<br />
|-<br />
| Registration in aircraft register || N/A || Proof of registration || Proof of registration<br />
|-<br />
| Minimum age || N/A || 18 years old || 18 years old<br />
|-<br />
| Operational manual || N/A || Handbook necessary || N/A<br />
|-<br />
| Insurance || Not required || WA insurance required || WA insurance required<br />
|-<br />
| Notification obligation || N/A || 24 hours before flight with Minister and mayor NOTAM || N/A<br />
|-<br />
| Fines || N/A || +/- 10 000 euro || +/- 400 euro<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Airport Interview ==<br />
In order to get a clearer view of the issues our users (airports) face today we decided to ask them a couple of questions. We want to obtain a clearer view 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.<br />
<br />
We asked the following questions:<br />
* What is the airport's current mechanism for detecting drones?<br />
* How will the airport respond when the drone is sighted in restricted aerospace?<br />
* Roughly how much damage will the airport take if a drone were to restrict air traffic for 1 hour?<br />
* 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?<br />
* What would be the maximum budget for an automated anti-drone mechanism?<br />
* What kind of system would you imagine when thinking of anti-drone mechanisms?<br />
<br />
We contacted 2 major Dutch airports, Amsterdam Schiphol and Eindhoven airport via email. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Solutions ==<br />
* Actual solutions being used<br />
* Solutions that are going to be used within the next few years<br />
* https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/drone/documenten/kamerstukken/2019/01/15/beantwoording-vragen-van-het-lid-remco-dijkstra-vvd-over-drones-bij-londen-gatwick<br />
* https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/drone/documenten/kamerstukken/2018/11/01/beantwoording-vragen-schriftelijk-overleg-drones<br />
* https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/drone/documenten/rapporten/2018/05/28/bijlage-1-handhavingsanalyse-drones<br />
<br />
== Limitations ==<br />
* Limitations regarding the jurisdiction<br />
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 rising 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. <br />
<br />
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€ <ref name = "Mediamarkt drone">[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. </ref>. This seems like an obvious<br />
<br />
* Actual solutions not good enough / violations of laws<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
Back to the [[PRE2018_3_Group4 | root page]].<br />
<br />
= References =<br />
<references /></div>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nlhttps://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2018_3_Group4&diff=64775PRE2018 3 Group42019-02-10T22:08:29Z<p>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nl: /* State of the Art */</p>
<hr />
<div><link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.tue.nl/favicon-64.ico" type="image/x-icon"><br />
<link rel=http://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2018_3_Group4&action=edit"stylesheet" type="text/css" href="theme.css"><br />
<div style="width:calc(100vw - 175px);background-color:#EFEFEF;padding-bottom:35px;position:absolute;top:0;left:0;"><br />
<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;"><br />
<br />
= 0LAUK0 - 2018/2019 - Q3 - group 4 =<br />
<br />
<!-- Think <br />
twice <br />
before <br />
copy <br />
pasting <br />
parts<br />
of<br />
this<br />
work <br />
:) <br />
--><br />
<br />
== Group members ==<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="border-style: solid; border-width: 1px;" cellpadding="3"<br />
!style="text-align:left;"| Name<br />
!style="text-align:left;"| Student ID<br />
!style="text-align:left;"| Major<br />
|-<br />
| Jort de Bokx || 1050214 || Software Science<br />
|-<br />
| Sander de Bruin|| 1006147 || Software Science<br />
|-<br />
| Stijn Derks || 1008002 || Software Science<br />
|- <br />
| Martin de Quincey || 1007047 || Software Science and Applied Mathematics<br />
|-<br />
| Nick van de Waterlaat || 1009357 || Software Science<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Introduction ==<br />
<br />
The goal of this wiki page is to show a study/analysis/design/prototype of a robotic subject. This research is an assignment of the course Robots Everywhere (0LAUK0). For this project, students work in a group of 5 choosing a subject in the core of robotics to work on, thereby making sure the USE aspects are leading. <br />
<br />
== Initial ideas ==<br />
<br />
=== Robotic surgery === <br />
With all the progress in robotics, we have now reached a stage in time where it is (almost) possible to let robots do surgery. There have been quite some recent breakthroughs, and it is also already applied to some scale in hospitals. However, there are some aspects to this robotic technology that need closer investigation.<br />
<br />
=== Medical rehabilitation with the help of robots ===<br />
Many people suffer from injuries that may require long-term medical rehabilitation. This rehabilitation is typically complex and takes a lot of trained staff to help guide the patients through the process. Then there might be benefits for both the patients and the staff helping the patients with rehabilitation if robotics were to help the rehabilitation process.<br />
<br />
=== Drone interception ===<br />
Between 19 and 21 December 2018, hundreds of flights were canceled at Gatwick Airport, following reports of drone sightings close to the runway. The airport did not have any measures to prevent this issue. Many users of airlines were stranded, and airlines (enterprises) lost. The airport only had detection and tracking devices, but no counter-drone mechanism. Just like birds, drones can cause enormous damage to aeroplane engines and are therefore illegal around airports. However, no airport yet has a fully working anti-drone defense mechanism, while most airports do have anti-bird systems, consisting of noise mechanisms to scare birds away.<br />
<br />
=== Drone pesticides === <br />
An important consequence of the increased global population is the demand for food. In order to meet these demands, farmers require the use of pesticides to ensure enough yield from their crops. However, the overuse of pesticides and fertilizer can have huge negative impacts on society. Hence we the use of drones to analyse the state of farmland and automatically apply fertiliser and pesticides as needed could make a farmer’s job easier, making the production more eco-friendly.<br />
<br />
=== Trading bot ===<br />
Trading bots have been used on the stock market for quite some time already, but ever after the boom of cryptocurrencies, the usage of these bots has become ever more increasing. The stakeholders of these bots are people that are active in, for example, the stock market and cryptocurrency market. People could use such a bot in order to achieve a passive income. It would be interesting to design such a bot for interested parties. Furthermore, it would be interesting to consider the ethical discussion regarding the permission to use such trading bots in the stock market.<br />
<br />
=== Networking AI ===<br />
Gridlock is problematic in large western cities, but also many large cities with underdeveloped infrastructure in countries like Asia. It massively hinders any form of transport, and also unnecessarily increases pollution. Forms of AI in private cars or forms of public transport such as buses or trains might help reduce this problem. On an abstract level, buses or trains could adjust their schedule or route such that they are deployed at places where passengers are waiting in real time, not where they are expected to be waiting. This way, one might prevent the case where two half-full buses are driving on similar routes. By sharing information and adapting to real-time information, in this case only one bus would be necessary. <br />
<br />
=== Use drones to monitor and improve marine life ===<br />
Due to climate change, many problems arise. A large part of these problems emerge in the seas and underwater. Examples include changes to the habitat of marine mammals, irreversible damage to coral reefs, and already endangered species being threatened quicker by their changing environment. A current use for them is flying through and capturing fluid samples of the exhaled fluids of whales, to monitor their health. Specific autonomous robots designed for underwater operation might help monitor the state of coral reefs, and introduce new coral to a reef to support its growth.<br />
<br />
Chosen concept: '''Drone interception''' modified such that it can be applied in a more general setting.<br />
<br />
== Problem description ==<br />
Between 19 and 21 December 2018, hundreds of flights were canceled at Gatwick Airport, following reports of drone sightings close to the runway<ref name="BBC News airport">[https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-46623754 "Gatwick Airport: Drones ground flights"], 20 December 2018. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref>. <br />
A total of 760 flights were disrupted on the 20th of December due to the drone. Naturally, this angered many people whose flight was delayed. Not only does it anger people, but it is also a financial worry for the airport organization as all of these people with delayed flights have to be compensated. <br />
The airport did not have any `good' measures to prevent this issue. Gatwick chief operating officer Chris Woodroofe said: `The police are looking for the operator and that is the way to disable the drone'<ref name="BBC News airport">[https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-46623754 "Gatwick Airport: Drones ground flights"], 20 December 2018. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref>.<br />
Woodroofe further elaborates that the police had not wanted to shoot the devices down because of the risk from stray bullets. This is, of course, not something that is to be repeated as this caused a lot of inconvenience for many travelers. <br />
The airport itself only had detection and tracking devices, but no real effective counter mechanisms available.<br />
This issue is not limited to the setting of airports, but it can be further extended to any hot spot, such as the centre of cities, special events that involve important figures, and more.<br />
With the ever-increasing possibilities of technology, it should in the future not be unexpected for an ''unmanned aerial vehicle'' (UAV) to suddenly show up and wreak havoc.<br />
This havoc can range from taking pictures of people in public places to spy or stalk them to terrorists that use UAVs to drop bombs in highly populated areas. <br />
These occurrences are more likely to appear as the technology we possess increases. <br />
<br />
We think that we should not sit idle and passively wait for the worst-case scenarios to occur before starting to think about countermeasures.<br />
The recent incident between 19 and 21 December 2018 at Gatwick Airport should already sound an alarm that we should take an active attitude and develop mechanisms that counter UAVs in effective ways. <br />
These mechanisms should be able to deal with much more than mere birds and should consider any form of terrorism that can be caused through the airspace.<br />
<br />
== Objectives ==<br />
<br />
=== Objectives of the project as a whole include: ===<br />
* Gaining insight into accidents and incidents involving various forms of drones.<br />
* Identify and specify the currently existing countermeasures and counter mechanisms against drones and UAVs in general. <br />
* Identify and specify the USE stakeholders of the problem space and their interests regarding possible solutions. <br />
* Propose multiple possible solutions to the problem.<br />
* Identify the advantages and the disadvantages centred around user interests for each provided solution.<br />
* Validate and verify that our proposed solutions solve the discussed problems with respect to the USE stakeholders and their interests.<br />
<br />
== State of the Art ==<br />
<br />
===Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism<ref name="Game of drones">Yin, Tung. [https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/lawreview/vol2/iss4/5/ "Game of drones: defending against drone terrorism"], Tex. A&M L, 2015. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref>===<br />
<br />
This article discusses the threat of weaponized drone warfare. Not only are drones UAVs that may hinder people at places like for example airports, but they can also be equipped with weaponry, and this potentially makes them extremely dangerous. Weaponized drones could be used in terrorism as they are unmanned and can be operated from a distance, meaning that no people are put at risk. However, for this same reason, it can also be used for military purposes. On November 3, 2002, the era of weaponized drone warfare began when an American drone blasted a car with a missile, killing all six occupants. Since weaponized drones form such a threat to potentially innocent people, the article lays out the three challenges to defending against drone terrorism: detecting potentially hostile drones, identifying them, and destroying or neutralizing them.<br />
<br />
The detection of drones could be done by using a radar detection system, where the location and height of a detected object in the air can be calculated. However, the key challenge of the radar system is to determine whether such a detected object is actually a drone. Furthermore, due to the way a radar detector works, a drone can be created using materials such that it will not be detected. Therefore, there is a need for a proper identification system to classify a detected object as a potentially dangerous drone. Identification of any specific aircraft, at present, relies upon broadcasting a coded signal, which is decoded by air traffic control towers. Such that allies and enemies can be identified and to avoid targeting a friendly aircraft. As a result, all aircraft where radar service is provided should require systems that are able to broadcast coded signals for identification. Once a drone has been detected and identified as potentially hostile, it needs to be neutralized. Drones can be shot down, have their guidance systems damaged, or their control signals can be jammed or interfered with. Air-to-air missiles and gunfire, lasers can be an effective weapon against drones. Lastly, electromagnetic attacks that consist of interfering with the GPS signals would make the drone uncontrollable to the pilot and using 'spoofing' could enable an attacker to take control of the drone.<br />
<br />
=== Investigating Cost-effective RF-based Detection of Drones<ref name="RF-based detection of drones">Nguyen, P., Ravindranatha, M., Nguyen, A., Han, R., & Vu, T. [https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2935632 "Investigating Cost-effective RF-based Detection of Drones"], ACM, June 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-06.</ref> ===<br />
<br />
The focus of the article is on the detection of a drone, such that it can be dealt with. More specifically, a drone detection system that autonomously detects and characterizes drones using radio frequency wireless signals. Where two approaches are proposed, both using inexpensive technology, e.g., WiFi and inexpensive software-defined radios, to automatically detect drones. One active method that detects drones by observing the reflected wireless signal, and a second passive method that listens to the communication between the drone and its controller. In the active method, a Wi-Fi receiver can be used to detect a drone based on the signature of the signal reflected from the propellers of a drone. Similar to a radar, a transmitter broadcasts signals and a receiver captures reflected signals that bounce of a drone. The passive method detects a drone by listening to the communication channel between the drone and its controller using a wireless receiver. Usually, drones communicate with their controllers a few times per second to update their status and to receive commands from the controller. A system could collect wireless samples and observes the signal, analyse them and can then detect a drone's presence.<br />
<br />
=== Clash of the drones<ref name="Clash of the drones">Revell, T. [https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0262407918302768?token=46C1E8F0CB90223A0686AB1C85D4A41EA70E6BA75BE9D29EA0FC0BFB1CB5408074B99732B2951EBCD17A2823824DFD24 "Clash of the Drones"], NewScientist, February 2018. Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref> ===<br />
The motivation for this article was the trouble at Gatwick Airport in London, where flights had to be diverted because a drone was spotted nearby. They stated that in the year 2017, in the UK alone, it has happened over 100 times that a drone was too close to an Airport. These events are undesirable, and thus authorities are trying to find reliable and safe strategies to take down these drones. They state that current countermeasures of taking out drones cause too much collateral damage. One option would be “Geo-fencing”, where drones would simply be fenced out due to software. However, this requires the manufacturers to implement this and the users to not tamper with this, which is considered too risky. The Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security even gave away $30.000 for the best idea to take out drones, so the desire for such technology is high.<br />
<br />
Ideas were among others using other drones to take out the undesired drone. Other examples were using airguns to bring the drones to the ground, and training animals such as eagles to take down the drones. The consequences of drones on airports are catastrophic. Even a small drone could seriously damage the windshield of an airplane, so there need to be forbidden zones for drones to guarantee public safety.<br />
<br />
=== Small Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (drones), Mid-Air Collision Study<ref name="Small Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (drones) Mid-Air Collision Studyt">UK Department for Transport, [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/628092/small-remotely-piloted-aircraft-systems-drones-mid-air-collision-study.pdf "Small Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (drones) Mid-Air Collision Study"], July 2017, Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref> ===<br />
The Department for Transport, the Military Aviation Authority and British Airline Pilots’ Association commissioned a study about what the consequences are of a collision mid-air between a manned aircraft and a drone. The goal of the study was to find the minimum speed at which such a collision would cause critical damage to the aircraft. An important note is that they only focused on windscreen collisions, and did not take, e.g. the motors into account. The main results of the study were that for aviation airplanes with windshields that were not birdstrike-certified, the damage done was critical at speeds well below the regular cruise speeds. <br />
<br />
For airliners, their windscreens are much more resistant. For drones in the 1.2kg class, no critical damage occurred, but for drones in the 4kg class, damage did undoubtedly occur. Another interesting remark is also that how the drone was built has a significant influence on the damage done, for example, if the motors are covered in plastic or not. Their study also concluded that drones do much more damage than regular birds at equal speeds and with equal weight. This is due to the fact that birds act more like a fluid when colliding at such speeds, whereas the drones do not act like this due to their hard materials.<br />
<br />
=== Drone Safety Risk: An assessment<ref name="Drone Safety Risk: An assessment">Civil Aviation Authority, [https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1627_Jan2018.pdf "Drone Safety Risk: An assessment"], January 2018,. Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref> ===<br />
This study, published by the Civil Aviation Authority, 2018, has investigated the likeliness of a collision between a drone and an airplane, as well as the consequent damage. In January 2018, there have been seven confirmed cases of a direct collision between a drone and a civil or military aircraft. Furthermore, they have estimated that the probability of a drone being in the proximity of an aircraft going at speeds high enough such that a collision could cause damage, is about 2 in a million. Furthermore, the probability of consequently causing critical damage is even lower than this probability.<br />
<br />
They have also investigated the consequences of a drone colliding with a turbo-fat jet engine. They have concluded that a small drone would not do any significant damage. On top of that, even if it did damage, a multi-engine aircraft should still be able to land most likely. However, they also stated that helicopters are much more susceptible to drone collisions.<br />
<br />
=== How do you catch a drone? With an even BIGGER drone and a giant net: Tokyo police reveal bizarre 'UAV catcher' <ref name="How do you catch a drone? With an even BIGGER drone and a giant net: Tokyo police reveal bizarre 'UAV catcher'">Liberatore, S., [https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1627_Jan2018.pdf "How do you catch a drone? With an even BIGGER drone and a giant net: Tokyo police reveal bizarre 'UAV catcher'"], DailyMail, December 2015, Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref>===<br />
In this article, an emerging technology is discussed to take out unwanted drones. They do not only discuss the technology but also report on the fact that this technology has been officially employed by police in Tokyo, Japan. The technology that they use is a drone with a net attached to it, making it able to catch the unwanted drones. The primary motivation for this deployment of technology was a security breach from 2015. A man called Yasuo Yamamoto controlled a drone that contained dangerous concentrations of radioactive cesium and landed it on the roof of the Japanese Prime Minister’s Official Residence. It managed to stay there undetected for 14 days after it was accidentally discovered during a tour around the building for new employees. The goal was to raise awareness to close all nuclear reactors in Japan.<br />
<br />
The developed counter-drones will be used to find and capture malicious drones who fly dangerously close near public officials, in the fear of, e.g. a drone containing explosives. The deployment of these drones was part of a larger project of Japan in order to strengthen airspace security. Masahiro Kobayashi, an Osaka-based lawyer, mentioned that the biggest fear raised by experts is still the possibility of unmanned aircrafts coming too close to commercial airplanes.<br />
<br />
=== The SkyWall 100 bazooka captures drones with a giant net<ref name="The SkyWall 100 bazooka captures drones with a giant net">Burns, M., https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/04/the-skywall-100-bazooka-captures-drones-with-a-giant-net/?guccounter=1 "The SkyWall 100 bazooka captures drones with a giant net"], TechCrunch, 2016, Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref> ===<br />
This article discusses a new type of technology in order to take unwanted drones out mid-air. In a nutshell, it is a bazooka which can shoot nets as far as 100 meters away. The bazooka is portable and can be operated by a single individual, meaning it is not a stationary weapon and can thus be moved from place to place. Important to note is that after the net is shot and the drone has been successfully shot, a parachute on top of the net is deployed to avoid any dangerously falling debris. The product is not meant for regular people, but the device is marketed to be deployed at sensitive events and near buildings such as an airport.<br />
<br />
The bazooka is also equipped with an intelligent locking system to aid the controller to hit the drone successfully. They also announced the SkyWall 300, which is a remotely controlled mounted tripod with the same effect but with a further range. The SkyWall 100 was not yet available at the time of release, but nowadays it has been used multiple times, for instance at a Berlin air show in April 2018.<br />
<br />
=== A literature review on new robotics: automation from love to war<ref name="From love to war">Royakkers, L. M. M., & Est, van, Q. C. (2015). A literature review on new robotics: automation from love to war.International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(5), 549-570. DOI: 10.1007/s12369-015-0295-x</ref>===<br />
<br />
In this literature review, Royakkers and Est investigate the social significance of robotics for the coming years in both Europe and the US by studying robotics developments in five different areas: the home, health care, traffic, the police force, and the army. Royakkers and Est argue that our society currently accepts the use of robots to perform dull, dangerous, and dirty industrial jobs, but wonder how this will be in the future as robotics is moving more and more out of the factory. Royakkers and Est provide a literature review that `attempts to provide an engaged but sober (non-speculative) insight into the societal issues raised by the new robotics: which robot technologies are coming; what are they capable of; and which ethical and regulatory questions will they consequently raise?' Especially the areas that concern the police force and the army are useful for the problem definition we provided. <br />
<br />
Royakkers and Est argue that police robots are still in an experimental, exploratory phase, but that the USA and Japan are way in front of Europe when it comes to the development of these robots. The two applications that are central are carrying out surveillance and disarming explosives. One ethical issue that Royakkers and Est bring up is a discussion about privacy versus safety. They argue that a tricky issue with robots is the violation of privacy. Moreover, there is a risk of manipulation of sound and recordings, which would be a considerable disadvantage. Furthermore, what happens if malicious attackers steal important data stored on such a robot? The increasing deployment of police robots would also mean that police officers must acquire new skills, which costs time and money. It could also eventually lead to the loss of essential police skills as the police officers will be trained in different ways. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, there is an important legal complication regarding the deployment of airborne robots for police purposes. That is, it is not yet clear how they can be deployed following existing laws and regulations. Abuse and proliferation are important factors that have to be kept in mind as well. Specific safety rules will have to be met, and these robots must not pose any danger to civilians at all. What would happen if one of these robots were hacked? There could be disastrous consequences, which could then lead to even stricter legislation concerning employing these robots. That is not all. Armed police robots will raise critical ethical questions on the usage of these robots.<br />
<br />
=== Developing tools to counteract and prevent suicide bomber incidents<ref name="counteract suicide bombers">Royakkers, L. M. M., & Steen, M. (2017). Developing tools to counteract and prevent suicide bomber incidents:A case study in Value Sensitive Design. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(4), 1041-1058. DOI:10.1007/s11948-016-9832-8</ref>===<br />
<br />
In this paper, Royakkers and Steen describe how teams of developers and designers engaged with ethics in the early phases of innovation based on case studies in the ''SUicide Bomber COunteraction and Prevention'' (SUBCOP) project. In order to achieve that goal, Value Sensitive Design (VSD) is used as a reference. The most important ideas presented in this scenario are the focus on the effectiveness, the safety, and the utility of the tool developed. That is, their ability to remove the threat, the ability to survive the threat, and the ability to properly utilize the tool. Five selected tools were developed by different teams of researchers and developers of different organizations: ''An Acoustic Warning Signal Projector'' (A-WASP), electronic countermeasures to prevent remote detonation, procedures for using electroshock devices, a system that produces a Water Mist, and a protective shield. Here, these last two are both for blast and fragmentation mitigation. These tools are aimed at various things. Some tools such as the Water Mist focuses on protecting bystanders, whereas the electroshock devices are intended to approach and engage suspects. At the end of their paper, Royakkers and Steen conclude that the researchers/developers involved are able to do something similar to VSD, supported by relatively simple exercises in the project, such as meetings with potential end-users and discussions with members of the Ethical Advisory Board of the project.<br />
<br />
=== Persistence Surveillance of Difficult to Detect microdrones with L-band 3-D Holographic RadarTM<ref name="difficult to detect microdrones">Jahangir, M., & Baker, C. [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7590610/ "Persistence Surveillance of Difficult to Detect microdrones with L-band 3-D Holographic RadarTM"], Sensor Signal Processing for Defence (SSPD), September 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref>===<br />
This paper focusses on the detection of small, difficult to detect, microdrones and how to discriminate drones from other moving objects. Since scanning radars have to find a compromise between time on target and update rate, this can negatively impact the radar from reliably detecting very weak signatures targets in another clutter of objects. What this means is that the scanning radar cannot see a difference between drones and birds, when for example a drone is flying between a group of birds. Then employing a 2D antenna and appropriate signal processing to create a multibeam, 3D, wide area overcomes the weakness of scanning radars and achieves high detection sensitivity. A decision tree based classifier can be used to identify the difference between drones and other moving objects. Where it rejects non-drone targets, decreasing the number of false positives and increases true positives. Such that when neutralizing such a moving object in the air, with high probability, it will be a drone instead of for example a flying bird.<br />
<br />
=== Radar-Based Detection and Identification for Miniature Air Vehicles<ref name="Radar-Based detection mini air vehicles">Moses, A., Rutherford, M. J., & Valavanis, K. P [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6044363 "Radar-Based Detection and Identification for Miniature Air Vehicles"], Control Applications (CCA), September 2011. Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref>===<br />
This paper discusses a radar-based detection and identification method for drones. More specifically the paper describes the design of a lightweight, X-Band (10.5GHz) radar system for use on a small-scale (less than 25 kg) rotorcraft. The prototype implementation of the radar is small enough to be carried by a drone and is able to differentiate other 'miniature rotorcrafts' (drones) by their doppler signature. The prototype uses a radar system which utilizes electromagnetic energy to gain information on objects by analyzing the reflected energy. The types of radars used are continuous wave radars, a frequency modulated continuous wave radar and a Doppler radar. Whilst in the paper the cause of the radar system is to avoid aerial collisions between unmanned vehicles, it might still be useful to us as it is a method of detecting and identifying moving objects in the air. Therefore it this prototype can also be used/expanded for neutralizing such aerial objects, might a drone be detected and identified.<br />
<br />
=== Privacy, data protection and ethics for civil drone practice: A survey of industry, regulators and civil society organisations<ref name="ethics drones">Finn, R. L., & Wright, D. (2016). Privacy, data protection and ethics for civil drone practice: A survey of industry, regulators and civil society organisations. Computer Law & Security Review, 32(4), 577-586.</ref>===<br />
<br />
In this article, Finn and Wright present results of a survey of primarily European drone industry representatives, regulators, and civil society organisations that examined privacy, data protection, and ethics concerning civil drone operations. The article also demonstrates, using self-reported information from industry representatives, that these stakeholders do not have a clear understanding of European privacy and data protection law. Finn and Wright argue that this can impact their levels of liability and protections for individuals on the ground. The findings in this article demonstrate that law enforcement, commercial, and private or recreational drone operators are all thought to be associated with significant privacy, data protection, and ethical risks. Here, the recreational operators are thought to carry the highest risks. The article concludes with a consideration of the implications of these findings for the regulation of privacy, data protection and ethics for civil drone operations.<br />
<br />
=== Robot ethics: Mapping the issues for a mechanized world<ref name="robot ethics mapping">Lin, P., Abney, K., & Bekey, G. (2011). Robot ethics: Mapping the issues for a mechanized world. Artificial Intelligence, 175(5-6), 942-949.</ref>===<br />
<br />
In this article, Lin et al. describe what kind of new ethical and policy challenges are introduced to society due to the emerging technology of advanced robotics. <br />
They point towards the flourishing role of robots in society - from security to sex - and survey numerous ethical and social issues. These issues are divided into three categories; safety and errors, law and ethics, and social impact. Lin et al. argue that these future robotic technologies, first and foremost, need to be safe, while they point towards examples of where this went wrong in the past. They argue that with robotics, the safety issue is with their software and design. Errors and vulnerabilities are likely to exist. These errors and vulnerabilities could lead to fatal results when it comes to robotics. Furthermore, linked to the risk of robotic errors, it may be unclear who is responsible for any resulting harm. Product liability laws are largely untested in robotics and, continue to evolve in a direction that releases manufacturers from responsibility, e.g., end-user license agreements in software. <br />
<br />
It is argued that one way of minimising the risk of harm from robots is to program them to obey our laws or follow a code of ethics. That is, however, easier said than done as laws can be vague and context-sensitive. It is further argued that `even the three (or four) laws of robotics in Asimov's stories, as elegant and sufficient as they appear to be, create loopholes that result in harm'. The importance of privacy and laws concerning this privacy are touched upon. To make things worse, ethical and cultural norms, and therefore law, vary around the world, so it is unclear whose ethics and law ought to be the standard when it comes to robotics. Such challenges could require international policies, treaties, and even laws. Other questions regarding the social impact are: `What is the predicted economic impact of robotics?', `How do we estimate the expected costs and benefits?', and `Are some jobs too important or too dangerous for machines to take over?'. The article presents many questions on which the answers can vary a lot. One thing the article makes clear, however, is that we have to start thinking about these challenges already.<br />
<br />
=== Policing Police Robots<ref name="policing police robots">Joh, E. E. (2016). Policing police robots. UCLA L. Rev. Discourse, 64, 516.</ref>===<br />
<br />
Joh argues that as there will be changes in healthcare, manufacturing, and the military due to robots, these robots also have the potential to produce tremendous changes in policing.<br />
She argues that we can expect that at least some robots used by the police in the future will be artificially intelligent machines capable of using legitimate coercive force against human beings. She does not explicitly state whether she thinks this is a good thing or not. She continues by bringing up the assumption that police robots may decrease dangers for police officers by completely removing these officers from situations that have the potential to be dangerous. Moreover, those suspected of crimes may risk less injury if robots can assist the police in conducting safer detentions, arrests, and searches. On the flip side, however, the use of robots also introduces new questions and challenges about how democratic norms and laws should guide decisions made by the police. Joh argues that these questions have yet to be addressed systematically. Furthermore, she states that how we design and regulate some uses of police robots requires a regulatory agenda right now in order to address the foreseeable problems of the future.<br />
<br />
=== Privacy and drones: Unmanned aerial vehicles<ref name="Privacy and drones: Unmanned aerial vehicles"> Cavoukian, A.[http://aspheramedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/pbd-drones.pdf "Privacy and drones: Unmanned aerial vehicles"], Ontario: Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Canada, 2012. Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref>===<br />
<br />
In the paper, Cavoukian discusses, amongst other things, privacy concerns associated with the deployment of UAV technology. Furthermore, the paper addresses the privacy concerns by showing how privacy by design approach can assist in ensuring that the benefits of drones are facilitated whilst reducing privacy issues. Due to the manner in which drones may collect information, they pose privacy issues. The sensor equipment on board of drones may be commonplace in the consumer marketplace. However, drones have the ability to gather information dynamically from vantage points where for example regular video surveillance cameras or the camera of peoples phones could not reach. Since these drones are able to gather information so dynamically, on private property, for example, it creates these privacy concerns. Especially since the drone market is growing so much for the consumer market. Now, if drones were to be designed with privacy in mind, the privacy concerns of the drone could be addressed appropriately. That is, drones should have privacy built into the system, the equipment on the drone should not monitor any private areas — for example, the insides of public washrooms, or peoples homes/backyards, and so forth. <br />
<br />
=== Anti-drone flight protection systems and methods<ref name="US10157546B2 - Anti-drone flight protection systems and methods"> Etak Systems LLC.[https://patents.google.com/patent/US10157546B2/ "Anti-drone flight protection systems and methods"], Google patents, 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-07.</ref>===<br />
<br />
This patent, owned by Etak Systems LLC, a telecommunications company in the US, describes the user of Geo-fencing to avert unmanned aerial vehicles. It describes the use of transmitting geo-fence coordinates, avoidance commands or disruption of radio communication in order to avoid UAV's entering no-fly zone. The patent describes various flow diagrams dictating how a UAV should receive, process and respond to avoidance commands transmitted over cellular networks, or between other UAVs. It assumes flowcharts for cooperating drones, where the main focus of the technology is collision and object avoidance, as well as procedures for the save removal of distressed (low battery, mechanically malfunctioning) or rogue UAVs. The latter flowcharts consider mandatory "kill commands" the UAV is expected to follow, leading to a safe and immediate emergency landing, or, in the case of rogue drones, transmission of a signal interrupting the communication associated with the UAV.<br />
<br />
=== Exploring civil drone accidents and incidents to help prevent potential air disasters<ref name="Exploring Civil Drone Accidents and Incidents to Help Prevent Potential Air Disasters"> Wild, G., Murray, J. and Baxter, G.[https://www.mdpi.com/2226-4310/3/3/22/htm "Exploring Civil Drone Accidents and Incidents to Help Prevent Potential Air Disasters"], Aerospace, 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-08.</ref>===<br />
<br />
Following an alleged drone collision with an Airbus A320 owned by British Airways at Heathrow Airport, the need to understand accidents and incidents involving drones arose. In this paper, Wild, Murray, and Baxter analyse and discuss one hundred and fifty-two events involving drones, or Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS). Differences were found between events involving these RPAS and events involving Commercial Air Transportation (CAT), where these events were categorized by their type, the specific safety issue, and the phase of flight. It was found that, compared to CAT, events involving RPAS more frequently involved a loss of control during flight, events occurring during takeoff, and general issues with the involved equipment. In the analysed events, technology factors, rather than human factors, contribute the most to these accidents and incidents involving RPAS. This article is part of our literature study as it provides more context on various events involving RPAS.<br />
<br />
=== Determination and Evaluation of UAV Safety Objectives <ref name="Determination and Evaluation of UAV Safety Objectives"> Clothier, R., Walker, R.[https://eprints.qut.edu.au/4183/1/4183.pdf "Determination and Evaluation of UAV Safety Objectives"], Queensland University of Technology, 2006. Retrieved on 2019-02-08.</ref>===<br />
<br />
As the integration and acceptance of UAVs in society grows, so does the need for appropriate security measures when these UAVs carry out operations in civilian airspace. In this article, Clothier and Walker discuss the safety measures surrounding UAVs and the need for developers, operators, and regulators of UAVs to prove that they have at least the same level of safety standards as human-piloted aerial vehicles. The paper defines various safety objectives of UAVs, the impact of these safety objectives and their applications on the design and operation of UAVs, and the societal acceptance of the risk factors surrounding UAVs. It is of value to our research as it provides a base analysis of safety objectives of UAVs, and the findings of this work can be used to define appropriate countermeasures for (civilian operated) UAVs.<br />
<br />
=== An innovative response to commercial UAV menance - Anti-UAV falconry <ref name="An innovative response to commercial UAV menance - Anti-UAV falconry"> Slavimir S. Nikolić [http://www.odbrana.mod.gov.rs/odbrana-stari/vojni_casopisi/arhiva/VD_2017-4/69-2017-4-14-Nikolic.pdf "An innovative response to commercial UAV menance - Anti-UAV falconry"], Educons University, 2017. Retrieved on 2019-02-09.</ref>===<br />
This paper from the Educons University in Serbia, talks about how UAV Falconry, i.e. the use of Birlds like Eagels to attack undeisred UAV's. It shows that the use of animals in security related tasks has been done for thousands of years. Recently, the Dutch national police has partnered with private enterprises to train eagles to track and hunt down drones. The paper then discusses many drone related incidents that would have been prevented by the use of these falconry. The enterprise ersponsible for training the eagles is Guard From Above, describes their method as “a<br />
low-tech solution for a high-tech problem”. The use of Eagles is pretty compelling due to their natural talent for mid-air combat, their massive speed advantage compared to drones and the easy of training. However the solution was also criticised in the paper as being expensive, and limited to situations where birds could safely fly. The competition from other systems would deem this technology hard to justify in the future.<br />
<br />
=== Taking Flight: The Future of Drones in the UK <ref name="Taking Flight: The Future of Drones in the UK"> Secretary of State for Transport, UK [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/771673/future-of-drones-in-uk-consultation-response-web.pdf "Taking Flight: The Future of Drones in the UK"], UK Secretary of State for Transport, 2019. Retrieved on 2019-02-09.</ref>===<br />
<br />
The UK is one of the countries at the forefront of the rapidly developing market of commercial UAVs. The public sector employs UAVs to great effect, for example in emergency search and rescue operations, and assist people working in hazardous sector to reduce the risk their job exposes them to. However, sparked by the recent disruptions of operation at Gatwick airport, among others, the government of the United Kingdom presented this document in January 2019 outlining the coming regulations in the drone sector. Existing regulations prohibit drone use near people or property in the UK, as well as requiring the drones to follow a flight path where it stays within line of sight of the operator. The government of the UK outlines in more detail the coming regulations, where they aim to work together with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) as well as drone manufacturers, in an attempt to ensure safety and security in the airspace while civil aircraft become more popular.<br />
<br />
=== Defense against drones <ref name="Battelle"> [https://www.battelle.org/government-offerings/national-security/aerospace-systems/counter-UAS-technologies "Battelle defense against drones"], Battelle Memorial Institute, 2019. Retrieved on 2019-02-09.</ref>===<br />
<br />
As a company specialising in X, Battelle has expertise in the areas of communications, electronic warfare and its countermeasures. They recognise that the growing popularity of UAVs poses real dangers to government and privately owned agencies, officials and assets. To serve the growing need for countermeasures against unwanted UAV presence, Battelle has created a focus area for counter unmanned aerial systems (cUAS). Their current top of the line product is aptly named the DroneDefender, and disrupts the remote control systems and GPS systems of unwanted UAS. Their product presents one possible solution for the problem presented in our study and is therefore of great use to our work.<br />
<br />
=== Counter-unmanned aerial vehicle system and method<ref name="US9085362B1 - Counter-unmanned aerial vehicle system and method"> Lockheed Martin Corp.[https://patents.google.com/patent/US9085362 "Counter-unmanned aerial vehicle system and method"], Google patents, 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-10.</ref>===<br />
<br />
This patent, owned by Lockheed Martin Corp, an aerospace and defence company in the US, describes the use of nets to capture and eliminate unmanned aerial vehicles. The patent shows a variety of methods that these nets can be deployed, from small nets attached to other UAVs to large parachute-like nets attached to larger UAVs or small aerocrafts. The patent also discusses the use of passive capturing methods, where a net is suspended from a parachute and deployed from a UAV, using trajectory calculations an enemy UAV could be captured from above.<br />
<br />
=== Deterent for unmanned aerial systems<ref name="US9715009 - Deterent for unmanned aerial systems"> Parker, D., Stern, D., Pierce, L.[https://patents.google.com/patent/US9715009 "Deterent for unmanned aerial systems"], Google patents, 2016. Retrieved on 2019-02-10.</ref>===<br />
<br />
This patent of a joint invention by three inventors describes an invention meant to fill the need for an integrated system and method of detecting, tracking, identifying and deterring the approach of unwanted UAVs. The patent further describes various systems, specifically for drone detection, classification, interdiction and countermeasures. It describes the differences between Human-in-the-loop (HIL) countermeasures and automatic countermeasures.<br />
<br />
=== EU aviation agency publishes new drone framework<ref name="Unmanned aircraft system (UAS) operations in the ‘open’ and ‘specific’ categories">[https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/opinions/opinion-012018], EASA, 2018. Retrieved on 2019-02-10.</ref>===<br />
This opinion from the European Union Aviation Safety Administration states their opinioon on the widespread ise of UAV's. They beleive that the use of unmanned aircraft systems beyond the visual line of sight are of danger to airlines and other uses of airspace. Hence they propose that all hobbysists should register for an official flight plan in advance. The agency further wishes to distinguish 2 categories for drone usage, The open category covers drones of a mass between 250 grams and 25kg. Their maximum permitted operating height is given by EASA as 120m, or 394ft. They are free to be used as long as the vehicle remains in line of sight. The principle behind specific, or specified, drone flights is that the operator must “declare” them in advance to a regulator. At the time of writing the opinion is still pending.<br />
<br />
=== Gatwick spends 5 million pound on anti drone measures <ref name="Gatwick spends £5m on airport anti-drone measures" >[https://www.ft.com/content/cdaa19e6-0f97-11e9-a3aa-118c761d2745 "Gatwick spends £5m on airport anti-drone measures"], The Financial Times, 2019. Retreived on 2019-02-10.</ref> ===<br />
As a response to the drone incident in december 2018, Gatwick airport has decided to invest in the use of anti drone measures. The airport has partnered with US airports to prepare against potential future attacks. Although the article does not show what exact instruments are to be used, it does show that the need for this technology is imminent. The article shows that anti-drone technology is now more important than ever and comanies like Gatwick airport are willing to invest a lot into current technology, as to avoid incoveniences to it's passengers and the fines resulting from the 140000 standed passengers.<br />
<br />
== Project setup ==<br />
<br />
=== Approach ===<br />
We now take a look at how we will approach this project. As is customary with open projects, we will start our approach by doing an extensive study into the current state of the problem. We will do this by studying the literature of different forms. We will look at papers where this problem has been discussed before, but also at what the current solutions are at the moment and what their flaws are. Furthermore, we also look at studies and research of institutes that have made investigations into this phenomenon. <br />
<br />
After we as a group have a good grasp on the problem, we analyse the problem ourselves from a USE (User, Society, Enterprise) point of view. These three components will be central in our study and the development of our design as the users of the technology always need to be the main focus. Following this study into the USE aspects surrounding our problem space, we expect different categories of subproblems to arise. For example, when considering two distinct incidents involving UAVs, they might be categorized by the type of failure that occurred, be it human failure or technical failure. We expect that many of these distinctions can be made, and as different categories of subproblem might involve different USE aspects, they might require different solutions.<br />
<br />
After this, we will provide possible solutions for a number of distinct problem categories. First, we set up a list of requirements and functionalities centred around the user. For each discussed problem category, we will then present multiple implementations of these requirements and functionalities, which will be our first drafts. These draft solutions will be further discussed and analyzed based on their advantages and disadvantages. We will also provide research into the feasibility of these proposed solutions.<br />
<br />
As the discussed subproblems heavily integrate with various aspects of society, we are also interested in the ethical aspects of the evolution of the proposed technologies of counter-drones. We will investigate the ethical and regulatory consequences of these developments. We might also provide insight into which areas of the problem space have not been sufficiently discussed by previous research and falls outside the scope of ours. For future reference, we also look ahead and shortly discuss improvements or otherwise changes to our proposed solutions, that are not currently possible due to technical or other limitations. Finally, we will wrap up with completing the wiki and our documentation of the project.<br />
<br />
=== Planning ===<br />
We now take a look at the [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WyOdatUQELl1FZiSwcJMECZ4LAajeBZCeK_Gs31QYe4/edit?usp=sharing planning] of the project.<br />
The planning is presented in the form of an excel sheet that clearly states the tasks that need to be carried out, by whom these tasks will be carried out, an estimation of the time that it takes to carry this task out, if the task has been completed or not, and when it needs to be completed. <br />
Furthermore, an orange cell indicates that this will be done during a group meeting, and a blue cell indicates that this will be done outside of a meeting. Note that this planning also considers the division of work to a large degree.<br />
<br />
=== Milestones ===<br />
We now consider the milestones within the project. Here, we consider Table 1 that displays the accomplishments on a specific date. Furthermore, if there were any learning moments during each of these accomplishments, they will be written down in the `Aditional notes' column and taken into consideration for the next accomplishment. Note that this table will be regularly updated throughout the course. <br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" | style="vertical-align:middle;" | border="2" style="border-collapse:collapse" ;<br />
|+ '''Table 1: Milestones'''<br />
! align="center"; style="width: 10%" | '''Date'''<br />
! align="center"; style="width: 30%" | '''Accomplishment'''<br />
! align="center"; style="width: 30%" | '''Additional notes'''<br />
|-<br />
| 06/02/2019<br />
| Finalise the decision of the subject<br />
| N/A<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Finalise research into State of The Art<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Formulate analysis of problem space<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Formulate possible solutions to identified problems <br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Formulate advantages and disadvantages of each solution<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Formulate possible further improvements<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Formulate conclusions regarding proposed solutions<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Create presentation format of our research<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Present complete research <br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Finalise the Wiki and documentation<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== Deliverables ===<br />
We now cover the deliverables of this project. <br />
The deliverables focus on the problem introduced in the problem description.<br />
These deliverables for this project will be as follows:<br />
<br />
* A presentation regarding the problem and possible solutions. <br />
<br />
This presentation will be held in the final week of the course. In this presentation, we start by introducing a problem through a summary of the problem description. Then, the finding regarding the problem will be presented. This is followed by multiple solutions to the problem with their advantages and disadvantages. Then, we zoom into the `best' solution and provide a design regarding this solution. If possible, a demonstration will also be given.<br />
<br />
* A Wiki page in the form of a literature research<br />
<br />
This Wiki page contains an in-depth study regarding the problem introduced in the problem description. An extensive literature study will be presented, which offers multiple solutions with both their advantages and disadvantages. Furthermore, it will be argued what solution would be the `best'. This is followed by areas that are still undiscovered and improvements that can be made to our design.<br />
<br />
== USE aspects ==<br />
=== Users ===<br />
There are multiple stakeholders involved in a solution to the problem introduced in the problem description. By far the largest and most diverse category of stakeholders consists of those parties that are (majorly) disadvantaged by unauthorized or unwanted UAV operations, or malicious events that could follow. We can identify several subcategories of stakeholders whose material possessions or immaterial values are at stake.<br />
<br />
The most important users are as follows:<br />
* The Government<br />
As the governing body, a collection of many large instances with national interests, the government of a nation aims to preserve the material and immaterial assets of its citizens. This goal might be obstructed by the unwanted presence of UAVs or events caused by them.<br />
* Non-governmental organizations<br />
Includes companies or other privately owned bodies that want to protect their material assets against damage from UAV incidents, or protect immaterial assets such as privacy or intellectual property that could be violated by unwanted presence of UAVs.<br />
* Civilians or individuals in general<br />
Civilians or individuals in general are also stakeholders in the problem space that we consider. They might have their assets violated in some way by UAVs or UAV related events, such as civilian espionage empowered by UAVs. Since drone flight is growing as a commercial pass-time, more specifically the operation of drones by civilians for fun is becoming more popular, this user group must also be considered as a stakeholder from this perspective.<br />
<br />
=== Society ===<br />
The society as a whole is affected by the already existing and upcoming dangers of drones. First of all, drones can be a huge hindrance at for example airports (Gatwick airport), football stadiums or other public places. However, apart from simple hindrance, drones can also be extremely dangerous for society, as they can be weaponized and used by terrorists, the military or any other person with bad intentions. Furthermore, more and more people are using drones privately, causing privacy issues for society, as these drones are equipped with a camera most of the times and can easily reach private places. This is why drone interception is so important to society. If there were to be a tool that could detect, identify and neutralize drones, this could help in a decrease of hostile drones and thereby also decrease the aforementioned dangers that drones bring to society.<br />
<br />
=== Enterprise ===<br />
Enterprise is greatly affected by the illegal use of drones, for example, the airlines at Gatwick lost a lot of revenue due to delayed flights and passenger compensation. The airport itself also suffered from the forced shutdown. Other industries are also threatened by drones, espionage via drones can be done remotely, where attackers may steal a company secrets through aerial photography or by taking pictures through windows. Hence the development of anti-drone will be of enormous benefit to existing enterprises but also spark new business opportunities for security contractors and UAV oriented startups.<br />
<br />
== Conclusion ==<br />
<br />
== Discussion ==<br />
<br />
= References =<br />
<references /></div>J.g.j.bokx@student.tue.nl