UAS Summit NOTES, January 16, 2015
Unmanned Aircraft Systems Summit: January 16, 2015
Summary:
To further our efforts to reduce the risk to the Nation's Critical Infrastructure, the United States Department of Homeland Security's Critical Manufacturing & Defense Industrial Base Sectors will be hosting a one day Unmanned Aircraft Systems(UAS) Summit. The UAS Summit will be an onsite presentation and two segments of the summit will be presented by webinar.
This Summit is intended for members of the Critical Infrastructure Community and not the general public. Due to the sensitive nature of the material being presented, participants planning to attending in person must be a member of the Critical Infrastructure Community as defined in the National Infrastructure Protection Plan.  *This event is not open to solicitors or to the media.
This event will cover a diverse set of subjects and topics concerning several key aspects of Unmanned Aircraft Systems that will discuss the illicit use of UAS, Air Traffic Security, UAS Detection technology, FAA Enforcement, Countering drones and Law Enforcement.  The UAS Summit will be an onsite event and two presentations will be conducted in conjunction with a webinar presentation that will start at 10:00am and end at 12:15pm.
Location:
2451 Crystal Drive Room 150 (First Floor Auditorium), Arlington, Virginia 22209
***Due to the sensitive nature of the material only two presentations will be broadcasted by webinar.***
Speaker and Presenter Information:
This event will feature several guest speakers from various agencies and industry and subject matter experts from various universities and companies.
Relevant Government Agencies:
All other DOD or Military, Dept of Homeland Security, SSA, FAA

Commentary Afterward:
Shown below is a collection of my notes from in-person attendance at this event.  Please understand that they are not exhaustive and I simply gathered what I could while I was present.  I was writing so fast that I had trouble transcribing my own handwriting into this document and it's all a bit scattered.  The event host will be emailing me a link to recorded audio which only covers Carol Might's presentation from the FAA.  If any of my notes seem unclear, it may have been unclear to me also so any explanations of what I have written may be limited.  I also apologize in advance for any typographical errors or mistakes made.
My personal impression of this event was quite positive.  I entered with the thoughts that these speakers were "out to destroy" the hobbyist and commercial use UAS community.  They are not.  Despite their words and presented information, they truly are not.  I honestly believe that these individuals sincerely have the country's security concerns at heart and feel that they are doing their best to preserve the rights and freedoms that we currently enjoy here.  They are professionals and are all VERY good at their jobs.  Truly, if they were "out to get" anyone or any community or any group - they would probably quash whatever was in their way.  I genuinely believe that their motives are more pure than most of us give them credit for.  Jason Litowitz and Brandon Sasnett both appear to be techie, educated, and informed about UAS technology.  These guys do the same stuff that most of us in the industry do, but they do it with the intent of learning what the "bad guys" can do with it in an effort to protect us (the American people) from harm.  Both have made clear and open statements that they do not wish to ban UAS flight, nor do they want to stifle the technology.  It may look like scare tactics that they presented, but the data is true and people do need to know about the potential to do bad with this technology.  Joseph Scott is along the same line of reasoning.  He works with development of the systems to stop illicit use of UAS with the intent to protect American people.  Carol Might with the FAA came off as approachable and helpful.  Whether or not she is a true decision maker, I am not sure, but her primary responsibilities include the safety of the public and that position is to be respected.  Charles Raley is sharp.  He's an FAA attorney and we wouldn't expect anything less from him.  He knows his stuff.  My two open questions to him weren't answered the way I wanted them to be but they didn't fall on deaf ears and he took a few moments to cover the topics for everyone listening.  From all angles, it seems as if he also does not wish to see a ban on UAS in this country and understands the need for commercial growth.  Remember he's an attorney - he's a "mediator" of sorts, and wants to keep all parties happy - slowly but surely - he's also working toward positive forward momentum.
So, in short, I was impressed with this group and I learned a lot about both the information they presented and their personal attitudes toward this industry.  While I don't necessarily agree with everything that was said, I do agree that their work is very important and needed in today's world.

Jason Litowitz:  National Counterterrorism Center, NCTC/DI/WTTG/CWCB
Part of the UAS Threat Working Group
Started with 4 members in September 2013 including Jason to determine the threat of UAS.  It has grown to 65 members - NCTC monthly meetings - protection policy planning.  Jason explained that this Working Group is an open forum discussion.
There also exists a Secret and Top Secret version of this same briefing from Jason.
"When the AMA was created, the M meant models and referred to the models of THAT time period."
He went on to explain the technological advances since fuel-powered balsa wood airplanes.
This was the 51st briefing since June of 2013.
"Models" gives a connotation of simple little "mall helicopters" which aren't "serious aircraft" - but overseas, we are seeing similar sized aircraft carrying surveillance gear and weaponry.
Jason explained who "MILO Danger" was and www.dangerousinformation.com.
- A DIY weaponized surveillance drone firing paintball markers was shown in a video.
- The same drone was shown in a video simulating an attack on a crowd of people.
- A focus was placed on the remote trigger mechanism designed by "MILO Danger."
Jason did explain that the hobbyist and UAS community denounced these videos openly.
He also expressed a concern that this type of video could ENCOURAGE new, unplanned behavior.
There has been a heavy increase in extremist interest in UAS since 2000 to deliver IEDs, chemical and biological agents and firearms.
"Overseas and domestic want to develop UAS technology for illicit means."
Jason was very clear to mention that the UAS/hobbyist communities are good about self-policing and that there ARE good people within the industry.
Commercial users and hobbyists possess the same technology as the military (GPS, waypoints, etc.) - this is a crossover technology.
"The new arms race is UAS technology and drone strikes."
"Department of Commerce representatives are trying to track the import/export of this technology."
UA = Unmanned Aircraft, UAS = Unmanned Aircraft System (inclusive of radio gear/FPV equipment, etc.)
Showed graphic of Republic of Georgia Indigenously Produced UAS and then photos of "RC Model Enthusiast Aircraft" being very similar (both were copies of the US Shadow platform).
The Republic of Georgia started obtaining UAS from Estonia, then Israel, and now they are creating their own UAS.
A video was shown of Homeland Security Chairman, Michael McCall, from 2012 with him explaining that common UAS are possessed by Columbia, Hezbollah, and other insidious groups which could be modified to attack assets within the United States.
In 2014, 35 States considered UAS bills and resolutions.  10 States enacted new laws.
AK, UT, IA, IL, WI, IN, OH, TN, LA, and (another that I missed).
In Louisiana, SB356 prohibits UAS use in certain locations and details prison terms and fines/penalties for violation.  Jason spoke appreciatively of this but said nobody has been prosecuted under it.. yet.
A video was shown highlighting commercially available model turbine powered jet planes.  The video seemed to show their power/speed and destructiveness.  It was specifically mentioned that these types of aircraft did NOT need to be weaponized to be able to kill people on the ground.  The jet in the video crashed and a decent sized fireball erupted from the crash site.
"Groundstations and FPV did not exist when these were 'models'."
It is easy to fly these aircraft with cockpit-style FPV - and a graphic of a GPS enabled HUD was shown.
"Someone could be controlling a UAS from inside of a minivan and nobody would know he's in there."
"Bad Guy" TACTICS (in order of feasibility):  Reconnaissance and Surveillance, Law Enforcement Harrassment, Smuggling, WiFi Security Hacking, Chemical and Biological Dispersion, Kinetic Attack ("everyone's favorite") of stationary or moving targets.
A graphic of a model helicopter with a chemical sprayer was shown.
www.pigtracking.com was mentioned.
Question from Attendee:  "Has there been any chatter about IED besides just chem/bio spraying?"
Jason:  "YES, but there hasn't been much success yet internationally.  I highlighted the sprayer because it is a commercially available product."
Recon/Surveillance sample:  Turkish P.D. using Phantom for surveillance - video coordinating movements to protesters to avoid riot police, etc.  Command&Control - Turkey shot it down with a 12 gauge shotgun.
Harassment sample:  TOM ZEBRA - video showing him taunting officials at the LA Air Force Base.  Bringing up lawsuits for entrapping law enforcement members.
Question from Attendee:  "IS it illegal to fly over military installations?"
Jason:  "I'll let the FAA answer that.  Legislation is on the way."
Showed video of air traffic disruption - 2009 video of interference with police helicopter.  Now this same video is used to promote and sell products online - tagging, "You too can harass law enforcement!"
Smuggling:  Prison smuggling - recovered DJI hexacopter and "gas" powered helicopter.  "UAS can be utilized to smuggle guns into prisons."
WiFi Hacking:  SNOOPY DRONE sample shown.  "This UAS can fly over and retrieve information from people's cell phones, stealing personal information, Facebook accounts, and banking information."
Showed video of a chemical sprayer DIY sample.  Times Square during New Year's Eve or Stadium - this type of UAS could be used to drop anything, including just water which would create a psychological effect / hysteria - causing mass trampling.
Kinetic Attack:  showed video of turbine jet crash and explosion. "This may seem like a small explosion but if it was my kid that was in the stadium that was burned up - it wouldn't be a small thing."
Asked the attendees if anyone has ever heard of "FPS Russia" - the Georgia boy with a terrible Russian accent.  A graphic depicting a fully automatic rifle attached to a militarized quadcopter was shown from 2012.  After a pause, it was explained that this was a fake device and video.
However, he then showed the REAL videos with a handgun equipped UAS shooting watermelon targets.  He made sure to point out that the triggering mechanism was identical to the one shown earlier by MILO Danger with his paintball equipped UAS.
Another video was then shown which showed a fuel powered model helicopter with an SUAS 12 full on shotgun and full auto dumping 10 round magazine.
Then, ANOTHER photo was shown of a UAS carrying a Judge .410 pistol and then the attendees were all told that none of the gun toting UAS were in violation of any laws.
"I can do drone strikes like the infidel!"
- It sends a political message.
- There is little warning.
- There is a HUGE psychological impact.
- No radar signature.
- Circumvent / overwhelm ground based protection.
- Discreet method for conducting standoff attack.
A slide was shown titled "Terrorist Disadvantages"
- Must Learn To Fly (showed Real Flight software!)
- Building / buying off the shelf
- Integrating components
- a few more bullet points that I missed
* basically, it was explained that the only hindrance to illicit UAS use was time to figure the technology out for themselves.
Showed examples of Kinetic Attacks.
Mentioned 2011 arrest in D.C. of Rezwan Ferdaus:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rezwan_Ferdaus
Mentioned an April 2014 arrest of a Moroccan man with similar charges.
Told sample story of Recon/Surveillance use during a Harlem fire - making video of first responders.
Showed video of German Chancellor Merkel being non-reactive to UAS flying and landing within 3 feet of her speaking location.  Explained that anything could have been attached to that UAS.
Showed a graphic of terrorist goods seized, including some R/C gear (small EDF jet and radio Tx).
Syrian rebels claim tehy can drop 50kg of explosives on Syrian military bases via UAS.
Jason talked a lot about how much interest there is in UAS in the Middle East including a story about how these Syrian rebels built a comically silly looking UAS which was non-functional, then tried wings and jet aircrafts which were failures and now, they have been purchasing numerous DJI Phantoms and seem to have what they are looking for.
"The DJI Phantom is the terrorist's weapon of choice."
OPERATION REDCAPE:
Remote Explosive Delivery via COTS Aerial Platform Experiment
$5K was spent on 3 weaponized planes purchased primarily from hobby stores.
2lb anti-armor warheads were created and mounted on the planes.
Video was shown of the destruction done by these UAS to armored military vehicles.
A slide was shown titled, "Indicators of Malicious RCMA Intent"
- Focus on weight carrying at point of purchase
- Beginner pursuit of advanced capabilities such as autonomous flight
- (several more bullet points that I missed)
"The threat is NOT going away."
"This is a hot topic at the White House."
Side Note:  the Threat Working Group has a quadcopter within the logo (which looks pretty cool!)
Question from Attendee:  "Is there any viable defense of this technology?"
Jason:  "Joe Scott will be able to answer that shortly and we'll discuss Operation Foul Ball today also."
Brandon:  "No one system exists.  Maybe an RF and acoustic system."
Question from Attendee:  "How soon will someone be able to buy a system with a 50lb payload?"
Jason:  "Now."

Brandon Sasnett:  Army I2WD
Quote shown from Chris Anderson (DIY Drones / 3DR), "The hobbyist and toy industry is BEATING the military."
Brandon, "Hobbyists have a lack of respect for the technology."
He then highlighted flyaways and lack of concern for understanding what UAS can do.
"UAS are a HIGH VALUE THREAT."
"These systems are highly dangerous - i.e. NOT TOYS!"
"The military isn't responsible for the rise of drones, consumerism is."
Hobbyists are always pushing the technology for faster and longer range and capabilities.
DJI claims that 10K multirotor aircraft are sold and shipped domestically each month.
"Bad guys want to use them for the same reason as hobbyists."  ?????
Brandon explained how the no fly zones work with DJI products and that they are never accurate and they can be easily circumvented with firmware rewrites.
A few slides were shown with detailed explanations of the technology behind flight controllers, GPS, and autopilot systems.
A slide was shown with the "mathematics" behind a falling DJI Phantom called, "Impact from Flyaway".  The impact force was "calculated" at 380,426.72 foot lbs of pressure.  This was described as a serious "kinetic weapon system."
The acronym P.A.N.I.C. was shown: P=Powerplant/Propulsion, A=???, N=Navigation, I=Imaging, C=Command and Control.  If any of these are identified, the aircraft could be de-engineered or located.
OPERATION "FOUL BALL":
Took place during the MLB All-Star game in Minneapolis.  This was a seminar-like explanation of what technology exists to detect and locate use of UAS through a sample of work performed at this stadium.
"Drone Be Gone" in a can does not exist and a LOT of effort is needed to detect/locate in-flight UAS.

Carol Might: Federal Aviation Administration, ATC Special Operations, Law Enforcement Liaison
30 year with the FAA as attorney, air traffic controller and flight instructor
"Can I fly here?" questions are usually responded to with gray-area answers.
"Airspace is so complicated"
"UAS cannot meet most requirements in restricted airspace so they can't fly without permission."
UAS Integration - "not that different from manned aircraft."
"Can a UAS do this?" - response is, "Can a manned aircraft do it?"
A lot of her time is being spent on Super Bowl airspace right now.
"Getting airspace restriction is very difficult and time consuming."
Systems Operation Security (SOS) of the FAA was created after 9/11.
GOAL = "Balance the needs of National Security with the demands of the Aviation Industry."
A great amount of time was spent by Carol discussing non-UAS related information and a lot of detail was given about TFRs and more Super Bowl airspace information.
National Capitol Region Coordination Center (NCRCC)
- Reports sightings of UAS.
- 24/7 interagency monitoring and coordinating air security.
- Wants to inform everyone that got a UAS for Christmas about regulations and restricted airspace.
NAS - The FAA controls it "to the ground" and is subject to the safety regulations of the NAS and includes UAS.
The law requires the FAA to maximize access and minimize restrictions in the NAS.
TFRs (Temporary Flight Restrictions) are NOT given to media requests.
Some talk was made regarding airspace restrictions over Ferguson, Missouri.
TFRs CAN include restrictions on SOLELY UAS if need be.
TFRs will be able to be setup "on the fly" by Law Enforcement.
Stadium TFR (30K+ people) applies also to UAS.
** "All outdoor airspace is part of the NAS System and subject to Federal safety regulations."
"...if an indoor stadium, the airspace inside the building is under the owner's control."
Carol encourages local law enforcement to seek out their own local codes to enforce against UAS use (such as trespassing, assault, etc.)
If you believe a UAS/RCA is operating within a 4/3621 TFR:
- Find the operator
- Tell them they are violating Federal air regulations.  Tell them to stop.
- Collect information - name, address, contact info, statements of witnesses, any endangerment.
- Report to the FAA Washington Operation Command Center
** "If the UAS operator is in violation and possesses a Pilot Certificate, he could be in danger."

Charles Raley:  Federal Aviation Administration Office of the Chief Counsel, Enforcement Division
Former Navy pilot.  FAA attorney - enforces FAA regulations and FARs.
FAA = SAFETY, not security
Congress told them to make a plan for SAFE and STAGED integration of UAS into the NAS (not banned completely).
The definition of "aircraft" is extremely broad, even within the FAA's regulatory text.
The UAS Integration Office website is accessible to the public.
"Commercial use of UAS will be coming out shortly and is in the final stages of development."
Phases:  Accommodation, Integration, Development
Charles reviewed all existing regulations and the basics of a COA and Section 333 Exemptions.
Congress did NOT give the FAA the authority to exempt from Pilot Certification via Section 333.
- This appears to be redirecting the Pilot Certificate requirement for commercial UAS operation onto Congress and not the FAA.
PERMISSION is NOT required from Air Traffic Control if you wish to fly a UAS within 5 miles of an airport.  The pilot must NOTIFY Air Traffic Control but does NOT need PERMISSION.
My Question:  "With heavy commercial UAS restrictions creating an atmosphere of increased unauthorized commercial use, does the FAA have plans to create a small UAS certification or new regulations which may not require a Pilot Certificate?"
Charles:  "That's what the UAS rules are for.  The meat and potatoes of this is the Section 333 and the COAs for now anyway."
Demonstration flight is NOT for hobby/recreation purposes.
Mentioned www.knowbeforeyoufly.org and www.faa.gov/UAS websites.
You may subscribe to updates on the FAA UAS site to be notified when new information is available.
January 8, 2015:  FAA issued, "Law Enforcement Guidance for Suspected Unauthorized UAS Operations."
www.faa.gov/UAS/law_enforcement
Flying OVER National Parks is OKAY.  Taking off or landing in them is NOT okay.
Covered the Raphael Pirker case very dryly but explained it well with the current status of the case and the NTSB decision and the Reckless Endangerment charge.  Charles explained that the video is watchable on YouTube and I could almost swear that he was ABOUT to say that it was really cool to watch but stopped just short of saying that openly.
An Attendee who owned/managed a utility company asked about surveillance of their own property via UAS and the requirement to gain an exemption.  He pointed out that a "hobbyist" could take off outside of their property and land outside of their property and fly over their property with no licensing and all would be perfectly legal and legitimate.  However, for his company to monitor for that using the same technology, a lot of effort would have to go into gaining the proper permissions.  Charles explained that it was the "nature of the regime."
The Public Aircraft (UAS) Statute does NOT require a Pilot Certificate or have any VLOS restrictions.  The Public Aircraft operators are "trusted" to be self-governing.  Over 40 public agencies in the U.S. are currently operating UAS under the Public Aircraft Statute.
My Question:  "It's unfortunate that the most restricted/regulated class of UAS pilots are the ones that have a vested interest in operating responsibly and safely with their aircraft.  Does the FAA have an interest in remedying this situation?"
Charles:  "Again, the UAS rules are there for that reason."  He disagreed with my position about the existence of heavy restrictions and I attempted to clarify it with a comparison between hobbyists and a Realtor wanting to take an aerial photo but needing a Pilot Certificate to do so.
"In 1981, the DJI quadcopter did not exist."
Tethered UAS is still a UAS and subject to FAA regulations.
AC = "Advisory Circular" - it is NOT regulatory!
There is NOT a 400 ft requirement in regulations or any FARs.
The 400ft maximum altitude for UAS flight is ONLY AN ADVISORY and a "Best Practice" !!!
"There is no 400 ft rule."

Joseph Scott:  Department of Homeland Security Office of Science and Technology
Program Manager Resilient Systems Division
Counter UAV Program
- Brief to Critical Manufacturing / Defense Industrial Base Sectors
- Program started approximately 12 months ago
- This is a 2, 5, 10 year technology development department (creating technology that will last)
Field of Responsibility = explosives, resilient systems, chemical and biological, border & maritime
"Small UAS are the emerging threat."
Challenge #1:  Detect, track, and ID UAVs in area of interest
Challenge #2:  Mitigate UAV threats with technology (response)
Challenge #3:  Prevent UAVs from becoming a threat
- Looking to figure out HOW to mitigate UAV threats - seeking answers.
- Sensors may be placed city-wide in about a year or so.
- Partnering with other people countering UAVs:  other government agencies, National laboratories, Academia, Industry, FFRDCS, International partners

On display was a DJI Phantom 2 with a 3lb inert explosive attached:
01

Also on display was a DJI S900 (S800?) with a much larger inert explosive device attached:
02

Don't forget that the 3DR Iris can pack a payload also:
03
04