[time-nuts] Spoofing GPS

[lists at lazygranch.com]

If the GPS is jammed, the UAV goes into a failsafe mode. That can mean a lot of things, but often just orbit. I FOIAd a crash near Creech that sounded according to newspaper account as to crashing in "free territory". It failsafed into the side of a mountain located on restricted territory.

The deal with UAVs used in cities is they will probably be controlled via  terrestrial link rather than satellite. Satellite control can be troublesome.  Weak signals and significant latency. 

-----Original Message-----
From: "J. Forster" <jfor at quikus.com>
Sender: time-nuts-bounces at febo.com
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:42:16 
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement<time-nuts at febo.com>
Reply-To: jfor at quikus.com, Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
	<time-nuts at febo.com>
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Spoofing GPS

IMO, your failure rate estimate does not include the probability that some
people might not like being spied on by UAVs.

I can easily see a market for ground based GPS jammers, especially, in the
more rugged, fertile, and inaccessible areas of California.

YMMV,

-John

=================





> On 6/26/12 3:38 PM, J. Forster wrote:
>> Whether it's spoofing or jamming, domestic drones are becoming
>> ubiquitous,
>> because they are just so tempting, and sooner or later one is gonna
>> crash
>> onto a populated area, either by accident or deliberate mischief.
>>
>> A piloted aircraft may be able to avoid hitting a school; a drone may
>> not.
>>
>>
> That *is* the significant problem with non-government UAVs.  All fine to
> run them over the desert on the southern border or out over the Mojave.
>   By and large, UAV failures, as you note, don't have the option of
> doing a Great Santini.
>
> The  (catastrophic) failure rate of UAVs is something like 100 or 1000
> times higher than for military piloted craft, which in turn is something
> like 100 or 1000 times that for civilian craft.
>
> I did some calculations last year, and if Los Angeles decided to put up
> a UAV 24/7 to replace things like helicopters, we could expect a crash
> into the city about once a week.
>
> The MQ-9 Reaper and RQ-1 Predator have a reported Class A mishap rate of
> about 10 per 1000 flight hours...  Class A = >$1M in damage or death..
> bear in mind that if a $500k drone augers in out in the desert, that's
> not a Class A mishap.
>
> So, 1 year is about 8760 hours, so we could expect 87.6 Class A
> mishaps/year if the LAPD decided to fly the current flavor of UAV.  Yes,
> that would create some interesting news stories.  How long til we see a
> tailfin with LAPD sticking out of an elementary school a'la Cerritos.
>
> For comparison, in around 2000-2005, the commercial accident rate was
> about 0.01 per 100k hours.  The Air Force reported about 1 per 100k
> hours.  General aviation is 10/100k hours.  (these are non-specific
> "accidents", so they aren't directly comparable to Class A mishaps)
>
> There's a great report from MIT on this.. google for Weibel ICAT report
> UAV safety
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to
> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>
>



_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
.