Would this worry you? Homeland Security

As most of you know we made a video tape of a control line ship flying the pattern. This has been mentioned in several of the model magazines and has received a little notoriety. Well yesterday I received a hand written letter from someone in Connecticut. Basically he says he is a handicapped person interested in getting into giant scale RC aircraft. This is an excerpt from his letter..

"I am looking for video equipment that can be on board the aircraft and I can see where the model aircraft is at, at all times, by way of the camera on board the aircraft and I'll have the monitor. Where can I find this type of equipment? Need mailing address."

What do you guys think? I wouldn't have thought anything about it but this guy isn't just looking at recording in-flight pictures he wants to fly the airplane via remote video.

>in Connecticut. Basically he says he is a handicapped person
>interested in getting into giant scale RC aircraft.

The minute I read "giant scale" I got worried/suspicious. I am curious about what type of handicap would necessitate the use of a remote video control system. Maybe we need to convince him to fly control line planes instead.
DennisV

LAST EDITED ON Apr-21-04 AT 11:47 AM (CDT)
 
Actually I worded that incorectly, what he actually said was...

"I would like to get into the hobby of Giant Model Aircraft".

Edit: Oh Ya! and he says he can't afford the $20.00 for the video but he wants me to send him the details of how the video system is set up.

>Actually I worded that incorectly, what he actually said
>was...
>
>"I would like to get into the hobby of Giant Model
>Aircraft".
>
>Edit: Oh Ya! and he says he can't afford the $20.00 for the
>video but he wants me to send him the details of how the
>video system is set up.

WHAT! If he can't afford $20.00 how's he going to buy all this video equipment? Well if he's not a terrorist he's definetly a moocher.

Hi Bob,

It doesn't worry me. I can see the attraction of flying an RC model in this manner, and I can visualize handicaps which prevent someone from easily flying RC in the conventional manner. Try running a wheelchair for a while (yes, I know someone managed to fly a CL ship at VSC from one)..

I also do not equate an RC model, even a giant one, with something that can do major damage to anything. There are far simpler methods to do evil things.

An RPV, outside obvious military use, would more likely be useful to transport drugs, and that is still of questionable value. A more benign use could be for aerial photography, certainly we know its appeal.

(P.S. Bob, check your mailbox for a private message..)

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"Always carry a flagon of whiskey in case of snakebite and furthermore always carry a small snake." -W.C. Fields

I don't know what the big deal is. I see video equipment like this every month in the RCM magazine. It's old news.

Bob:
Something might be "rotten in Denmark" and it sure don't smell so good in Connecticut, either. It's a measure of our collective paranoia that we even consider the darker side of letters like this. If the author simply wanted to look out the video window while flying, that's one thing. But his stated goal is to see where it is at all times, certainly useful for controling it and that's another thing altogether. (Wow, could you imagine the vertigo trying to navigate at 2000 feet and only seeing what's displayed on the itty-bitty screen with a fixed focal length camera?) The author might simply be what he claims and wants to shake off his handicap. And it seems like there are far easier ways to deliver bad things than trying to make a backyard UAV but the freedoms we take for granted also allow somebody to do it right under our noses. If it wouldn't bother you, I'd be inclined to forward it to the Federales. But certainly, don't respond unless you want to start a dialogue with this fellow or you can verify he is what he says he is. Mail gets lost sometimes, ya know.

Rollin Keszler

Ya it is sad that we find ourselves even questioning something like this in the first place.

>Ya it is sad that we find ourselves even questioning
>something like this in the first place.

I wouldn't sweat it, nor would I forward a darn thing to "the Feds"- they are part of the problem. The number of hoaxes, scams, and general nutball behavior on the 'net is no different than in "real life" we just now have nearly instant access to it world wide. Personally, I would just ignore it unless he contacts you again, then procede on that basis- I doubt you'll hear from him.

Jake

I agree with Alan ,tell him to buy a R/C Modeler magazine .There are atleast half a dozen suppliers selling different video systems ect in there every month.

Go to www.micropilot.com They sell gps autopilot circuit boards that turn any RC into an autonumous flying machine. Just punch in the waypoints and turn her loose. The basics for $1800 and it will land itself back at its starting point for $4 grand. On the AMA website you can read Maynard Hill's amazing story about the transatlantic flight, but I think now that flight could be duplicated if you could just get the engine to run long enough. There's another website but I forget the URL. Can't believe Ashcroft hasn't knocked on the their doors yet. Don

Well first you would need to learn how to fly a standard R/C plane. If you did that by the time you were proficient you would know all the in's and outs of it and would know where to go. All the hobbyist that I know read their magazines front to back every page. This person is not a hobbyist. Sure you can get this equipment lots of places. The point is that if you loved flying as we do you would not have to ask as it's put in your face everytime you pick up a magazine. Kinda strange?

A guy I work with is doing a very, very nice giant scale P 51. He's at around $2000 and still going so if $20 is a problem, humm?

Actually, no model could carry enough conventional explosives to do massive damage but chem/bio would be another matter and maybe suitcase nukes could be lifted.

If Powell or Rumsfeld, whichever liar, said, "Saddam has remote-control planes that can attack America," this thread wouldn't exist.

I won't be surprised when the RC guys have to be approved by the Ministry of Homeland Security. Gotta make sure those Al Kaida guys don't blow up the parks!

I might remind you that the terrorist that blew up the world trade center in 1993 wqas so stupid he went back to collect his $400.00 deposit. Do not discount anything, "ANYTHING".
It is the so what attitude that amazes me. We are at war. Do you realize that?

We can't be to carefull.

I hate to be so forcefull in my feelings. It is only thru my experience dealing with people that I do not trust sometimes.

It is the wording of the request that should send up the red flag.

DICK BYRON
3325 GALAWAY BAY DR.
GRAND PRAIRIE, TX 75052
972-336-0445

Wrong forum guys!! Let the R/Cers grapple with this one. Just relax-- Paul

This sure isn't control line, but it could have a dramatic impact on how modelers are perceived.

We've all heard that the Feds have trained psychologists/psychiatrists to try to understand someone's motives from their communications. They look for patterns, application of logic, etc. I think of it as two types of "misguided individuals." Those who are mentally unbalanced and have destructive tendencies, and those who are rational, competent, perhaps highly educated and are motivated by an agenda they see in terms of a moral or political war. As pointed out, the original letter wasn't logically self-consistent. Why worry so much about a $20 component in a $1000 system? Why try to look at the ground so you can "fly the plane" when you really need to see the horizon? So we used to have to look out for a small number of indigenous mentally unstable people; unfortunately we are now looking for more competent, more clever, and much more dangerous folks with an agenda. Real bad news. Maybe we should let the experts determine which is which? How about applying the logic they have been using during the recent Congressional hearings: with what we know today, would this piece of information have prevented tragedy X if such-and-such governmental agency or person acted correctly? Yes there might be a backlash against the hobby if we forward info from misguided but harmless folks. Imagine the backlash if the not-so-harmless misguided successfully used a mini-RPV in a terror incident? Would we even be able to fly rubber band powered models? Where?

The differences between "RC" and UAVs are substantial. The RQ-1 Predator, for example is actually flown by rated Air Force pilots from a console on the ground. It duplicates an instrument panel. Kind of like flying IFR, but with a forward looking navigation camera. That is only half of the capability. There is also a systems operator that has control of the optical or SAR payloads which provide the useful imagery products. It takes training and practice to maintain your orientation since the payload line of sight is constantly slewed. It can add to your situational awareness, but you sure couldn't fly the vehicle with only that reference. In fact, the system until recently used the "RC" method for takeoffs and landings. The attrition rate in these flight phases has been quite high. Raytheon now has a terminal guidance/automatic landing equipment to improve this situation. Have you seen the Air Force commercials that shows vignettes of a boy's life as his interest grows in aviation? There are two reasons for the commercials: the current AF pilots don't want to fly Predators (I think they still get flight pay, but it isn't REALLY flying), and it takes extra training and aptitude to hand-fly a UAV a la "RC." As every full scale pilot seems to assume, if I can fly a real airplane I can sure fly a model. We chuckle a lot as they crash either on takeoff, or as soon as they make their first turn back toward the field.... The sensory feedback is totally different and is not transportable. In point of fact, even rated UAV pilots (Hunter, Predator, etc.) have a currency requirement that has to be met before they launch and fly.

In fully autonomous flight, the vehicle flight plan is preprogrammed including waypoints, ascent and descent rates, etc. such as is used on the RQ-4 Global Hawk. This is much more sophisticated and has greater potential for harm in the wrong hands. I haven't seen the navigation system Don Arnold was referring to, but generally, to get it to operate with your system (vehicle, payload, weapon) there is some serious system engineering required. Perhaps they have a turn-key system with predefined vehicle interfaces. Don't forget for a moment that some of these terrorists have (are?) attending universities here in the US and in Europe. Maybe majoring in engineering....

I built an electro-static autopilot system based on Maynard Hill's original concept back in the early 1980's. It was an educational experience, but just one piece of the system that would be needed to make a UAV. Remember the first guys to cross the atlantic with a UAV? They dumped one of them into the ocean during the handoff from "RC" mode to autonomous GPS guided flight. I think they traced it to a software problem. As more pieces of that system become commercially available (you guys have started a pretty good list above) we need to be more concerned. I agree with Larry, there are a lot easier ways to be a terrorist. But then, they aren't always predictable, are they?

During the week I worry about these problems. On the weekend, you guys help me worry about my needle setting, oil content, prop size and whether my line crimps are safe. I can't thank you guys enough for your assistance on those two days.

Dave
LA_Flyer
UAV Engineer and "Pukey Profile Pilot"

>This sure isn't control line, but it could have a dramatic
>impact on how modelers are perceived.
>
>We've all heard that the Feds have trained
>psychologists/psychiatrists to try to understand someone's
>motives from their communications. They look for patterns,
>application of logic, etc. I think of it as two types of
>"misguided individuals." Those who are mentally unbalanced
>and have destructive tendencies, and those who are rational,
>competent, perhaps highly educated and are motivated by an
>agenda they see in terms of a moral or political war. As
>pointed out, the original letter wasn't logically
>self-consistent. Why worry so much about a $20 component in
>a $1000 system? Why try to look at the ground so you can
>"fly the plane" when you really need to see the horizon? So
>we used to have to look out for a small number of indigenous
>mentally unstable people; unfortunately we are now looking
>for more competent, more clever, and much more dangerous
>folks with an agenda. Real bad news. Maybe we should let the
>experts determine which is which? How about applying the
>logic they have been using during the recent Congressional
>hearings: with what we know today, would this piece of
>information have prevented tragedy X if such-and-such
>governmental agency or person acted correctly? Yes there
>might be a backlash against the hobby if we forward info
>from misguided but harmless folks. Imagine the backlash if
>the not-so-harmless misguided successfully used a mini-RPV
>in a terror incident? Would we even be able to fly rubber
>band powered models? Where?
>
>The differences between "RC" and UAVs are substantial. The
>RQ-1 Predator, for example is actually flown by rated Air
>Force pilots from a console on the ground. It duplicates an
>instrument panel. Kind of like flying IFR, but with a
>forward looking navigation camera. That is only half of the
>capability. There is also a systems operator that has
>control of the optical or SAR payloads which provide the
>useful imagery products. It takes training and practice to
>maintain your orientation since the payload line of sight is
>constantly slewed. It can add to your situational awareness,
>but you sure couldn't fly the vehicle with only that
>reference. In fact, the system until recently used the "RC"
>method for takeoffs and landings. The attrition rate in
>these flight phases has been quite high. Raytheon now has a
>terminal guidance/automatic landing equipment to improve
>this situation. Have you seen the Air Force commercials that
>shows vignettes of a boy's life as his interest grows in
>aviation? There are two reasons for the commercials: the
>current AF pilots don't want to fly Predators (I think they
>still get flight pay, but it isn't REALLY flying), and it
>takes extra training and aptitude to hand-fly a UAV a la
>"RC." As every full scale pilot seems to assume, if I can
>fly a real airplane I can sure fly a model. We chuckle a lot
>as they crash either on takeoff, or as soon as they make
>their first turn back toward the field.... The sensory
>feedback is totally different and is not transportable. In
>point of fact, even rated UAV pilots (Hunter, Predator,
>etc.) have a currency requirement that has to be met before
>they launch and fly.
>
>In fully autonomous flight, the vehicle flight plan is
>preprogrammed including waypoints, ascent and descent rates,
>etc. such as is used on the RQ-4 Global Hawk. This is much
>more sophisticated and has greater potential for harm in the
>wrong hands. I haven't seen the navigation system Don Arnold
>was referring to, but generally, to get it to operate with
>your system (vehicle, payload, weapon) there is some serious
>system engineering required. Perhaps they have a turn-key
>system with predefined vehicle interfaces. Don't forget for
>a moment that some of these terrorists have (are?) attending
>universities here in the US and in Europe. Maybe majoring in
>engineering....
>
>I built an electro-static autopilot system based on Maynard
>Hill's original concept back in the early 1980's. It was an
>educational experience, but just one piece of the system
>that would be needed to make a UAV. Remember the first guys
>to cross the atlantic with a UAV? They dumped one of them
>into the ocean during the handoff from "RC" mode to
>autonomous GPS guided flight. I think they traced it to a
>software problem. As more pieces of that system become
>commercially available (you guys have started a pretty good
>list above) we need to be more concerned. I agree with
>Larry, there are a lot easier ways to be a terrorist. But
>then, they aren't always predictable, are they?
>
>During the week I worry about these problems. On the
>weekend, you guys help me worry about my needle setting, oil
>content, prop size and whether my line crimps are safe. I
>can't thank you guys enough for your assistance on those two
>days.
>
>Dave
>LA_Flyer
>UAV Engineer and "Pukey Profile Pilot"

Yep. This is OLD news, the spooks have been doing this for YEARS now, it isn't just recently. You guys who worry over things like this need to take a look at history. In 1938 Orson Wells' Mercury Theater did a Halloween night production radio brodcast of H.G.Wells "The War of The Worlds". The Martians this time landed in New Jersey rather than England, but the short version is a BUNCH of people actually believed the brodcast was a real news account (despite being it being announced before the program began as a fictional play) and fled their homes in terror. In one case, men in one town turned out with their hunting rifles and shot the heck out of their city water tower- thinking it was one of the Martian fighting machines. All this is documented and on record. A movie was made a few years ago: "The Night that panicked America".
I'm not concerned in the least over the foreign "terrorists", it is the ones we have right here at home that I keep watch on- a great many seem to congregate in D.C. for some reason.

Jake