Another major airport shutdown due to drone sitings, this time in the US: EWR was shutdown this evening because of drone sitings near TEB.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/22/us/ne...ngs/index.html

A drone at 3,500 feet doesn't sound like some hobbyist or prankster or anyone with a standard consumer-level drone. I wonder if there is more to this story.

I think it's achievable with a mid-level consumer drone.

A DJI Mavic Pro can climb at 5 m/s and descend at 3 m/s. That's about four minutes to get up and six minutes to get down, leaving at least 10-15 minutes of operating time.

So, I'd be interested in knowing if the drone showed up at 3,500 feet for a few minutes, or if it was hanging out there for a long time.

I recently saw a video of a youngest person who was doing what he claimed to be high altitude flying with drones. Altitude achieved was over 3.000'. He knew he was in violation of rules but claimed he was not anywhere near an airport or flight paths. Guess that made it OK in his mind. Problem was he was unable to descend and lost control of the aircraft. Crash location was never determined but the area was populated with homes so someone could have been hit and injured.

I feel there needs to be a new class of laws for people who illegally operate drones or other remotely piloted aircraft with the potential of hefty fines and/or jail time.

Not to stay into OMNI territory, but perhaps there's something about the technology that would enable LE to take over the drone. I've seen suggestions for a kill-switch that LE could activate remotely, but the problem with that is where the drone comes down. It might not be on a vacant runway.

Penalties are all well and good, but I don't think they are a sufficient deterrent.

DJI limits their drones to 500m unless they are hacked. I have no idea how complex the hack to remove the limit is. Other manufacturers are similar I believe.

"Taking over" an aircraft in flight safely and quickly by an untrained person with line-of-sight (maybe) would be technically challenging. Even if technically feasible, this would be like giving LE a backdoor to device/content encryption. Back doors weaken security for everyone and are an easy target for serious hackers with bad intentions.

Someone who is technically skilled or well funded could easily replace the software with something with no limits that can't be intercepted/overridden.

Well-written laws with well-defined well-enforced criminal and civil penalties for bodily harm, property damage, and disruptions are the only answer. The reality is that model-aircraft and model-rockets that could cause these sorts of disruptions have been used for decades, but the technical, financial, and time-commitment barriers were sufficient that the hobby communities stayed generally well behaved.

Now the technology has been made easy to access by any idiot with some cash or an internet connection. The results are predictable.