Plot to Use RC Model Planes as Missiles/Bombs

[folti78]

2. The ingredients to make explosives are also under scrutiny - just try getting your hands on any quantity of Potassium these days - just try.

Or just fertilizer containing potassium, without being a registered farmer.

Also IIRC the manufacturing process of most high explosives are rather dangerous without the proper equipment and training. Your hypothetical chemists either skip the idea (if they are smart enough) or has a high chance of blowing up/maiming/poisoning themselves in their lab.

3. Rc aeroplane bomb for assassinating a president - even more stupid than "I detonate something on a window seat, and I'll sneak it in by hiding it in the place least searched (underwear)"

4. Shaped charge or FAE instead of just making this thing a huge pipe bomb - even more needlessly overcomplicated and fail-prone than the real plots

5. Travel time for a bullet < 1 sec. Easier to hide, not as obvious a trail (buying the plane, engines, fuel!!!, needing place to train flying the plane (people knowing you) Also - starting the plane from an apartment window is risk, as they need to build up speed. (Given you have a window big enough to get it out.) Also, these engines have to run up for quite a time before launch - noise and fumes will give you away - another trail on you.

People already mentioned that jamming around the POTUS being done 7/24 already, at least for selected frequencies, so mobile phones and walkie-talkies will work(but their traffic monitored) but RC controllers not.

is there a particular reason al the terror plots since 9/11 have been so pathetic?

Yes, they practically hit the jackpot with 9/11, but lost all their cells in the US. At least the ones that were capable to pull off anything more complex than "don dynamite vest, find large group of people, push button to explode". All that's left are either one-off whackjobs like the Fort Hood shooter or impressionable idealists with limited or no real world experience/knowledge to make successful attacks. Although the underwear bomber was at least partially successful. AQ sacrificed a pawn, while TSA got more power to humiliate travelers at the airports.

[Broomstick]

To anticipate the question : Could they use this system to fly into an aircraft (engine, cockpit whatever)?
Yes, with practice, from a head-on approach. The camera view completely lacks depth perception, and I can tell from experience that relying on the camera instead of your eyes causes plane loss. Trying to intercept the aircraft in an angled approach is very hard to impossible. Head on is the only reliable way.

There are pilots in the US who have no stereoscopic vision who nonetheless safely fly airplanes every day - one eyed pilots are permitted. It's a matter of practice and nothing more. Those who use stereo vision overestimate the difficulty of this for someone who uses monovision 24/7. Get a one-eyed pilot. Or have a two-eyed pilot practice sufficiently.

[Broomstick]

On a side note, why are R/C jet engines thousands of dollars? I've seen home made turbines (turbojet, turbofan, turboshaft) that work just fine made for hundreds of dollars or less. Is it a 'niche market' thing?

You could probably get cheaper ones, it's just such a pain in the ass when your cheapo-mini-turbine catches fire or blows up, that's all. Yes, it's a niche market, the parts are small, and there's not a huge enough demand to result in a cost-savings from huge lots produced at one time.

[Broomstick]

1. Everyone blowing himself up with a dynamite corset per definition lost everything, including their manhood. Do you think they wind up in paradise as fine goop?

Alas, one can only hope...

[Broomstick]

People already mentioned that jamming around the POTUS being done 7/24 already, at least for selected frequencies, so mobile phones and walkie-talkies will work(but their traffic monitored) but RC controllers not.

Last time that "jamming" was mentioned I asked for a cite on it, and none ever materialized. Does such a thing actually exist, or it is internet rumor?

[LaCroix]

To anticipate the question : Could they use this system to fly into an aircraft (engine, cockpit whatever)?
Yes, with practice, from a head-on approach. The camera view completely lacks depth perception, and I can tell from experience that relying on the camera instead of your eyes causes plane loss. Trying to intercept the aircraft in an angled approach is very hard to impossible. Head on is the only reliable way.

There are pilots in the US who have no stereoscopic vision who nonetheless safely fly airplanes every day - one eyed pilots are permitted. It's a matter of practice and nothing more. Those who use stereo vision overestimate the difficulty of this for someone who uses monovision 24/7. Get a one-eyed pilot. Or have a two-eyed pilot practice sufficiently.

I was referring to the fact that the cam doesn't allow you to look to the side to check if your approach is still good - I can fly just well using just the cam, but you can't really tell if your wings are clearing the trees by an inch or a yard, since you can't turn and look.

The same for approaching an aircraft from the side - you just have to guess, as you can't take a peek to see if you're still on collision course while you aim for the predicted impact point. So you basically have no info if you are on course, and turning to take a look will throw you off course.

[folti78]

To anticipate the question : Could they use this system to fly into an aircraft (engine, cockpit whatever)?
Yes, with practice, from a head-on approach. The camera view completely lacks depth perception, and I can tell from experience that relying on the camera instead of your eyes causes plane loss. Trying to intercept the aircraft in an angled approach is very hard to impossible. Head on is the only reliable way.

There are pilots in the US who have no stereoscopic vision who nonetheless safely fly airplanes every day - one eyed pilots are permitted. It's a matter of practice and nothing more. Those who use stereo vision overestimate the difficulty of this for someone who uses monovision 24/7. Get a one-eyed pilot. Or have a two-eyed pilot practice sufficiently.

One-eyed peoples' brains develop methods to gauge depth perception with a single eye(among other things, it involves the comparing two slightly different views of the object in question, taken from slightly different positions when the person slightly moved their head or eye). It's not as good as good as binocular depth perception, but it's still enough for piloting planes or driving cars. Looking through a fixed camera is a different story because it don't give you the same clues and don't have the freedom of moving your head. See LaCroix's post.

[Broomstick]

Guess you guys haven't seen the RC video feed systems that, in fact, allow just that - side views. I recently saw one that's a helmet cam, that is, the view screen you look at is mounted on a helmet, and turning your head turns the cam inside the RC airplane, allowing a much more natural view.

Of course, that's getting a wee bit more sophisticated than the recently arrested gentleman.

[LaCroix]

I think we are now in the price region that would have allowed him to get a proper MANPAD, instead...

[Broomstick]

Such systems are less expensive than you might expect if one has any building skills at all.

On a related note, I heard this morning that the AMA (that's the Academy of Model Aeronautics, not the doctor organization) is setting up a division that you can report "suspected terrorist activities" to add to their list of duplicative "services". Seriously, the Department of Homeland Security and our lovable friends the TSA already have a hotline for that, have had it for years, and it's 866-427-3287. Granted, it was developed for general aviation and not RC models, but I suspect that any report of hinky hijinks with RC models and "toys" reported to that hotline WILL get the attention of the proper authorities. The FBI has a handy page on the internet to allow reporting of suspected terrorism as well. Seriously, this is covered.

What this really means is that the political assholes in local flying clubs will have a means to fuck with people they don't like in a really nasty manner. There are already too many old, sour men with nothing better to do that start arguments with fellow flyers out there, and try to keep "undesirables" out of "their" sport (that is, the poor, the brown/black, and whatever other groups they personally dislike), and it's too much to hope they focus their bile on just each other. They are their own worst enemies.

This is probably why I will continue to NOT be a member of the AMA, and will continue to fly my electric lightweights outside of their "jurisdiction". Should I witness any suspicious activity I will report it to the local authorities, DHS/TSA, or FBI as seems appropriate. I don't need a bunch of middlemen in Muncie to "help" me with that. The AOPA, EAA, USUA, 99's, and all the other general aviation "alphabets" in the US didn't come up with an internal division for this, they all just point their members towards the actual agencies that deal with crime and terrorism and say "call them", they don't try to insert themselves into the process.

I realize, of course, that that above statement seems to be treating the FBI as a competent organization that actually pursues criminals or potential terrorists rather than entrapping people. In actual fact, the authorities HAVE come out to investigate suspicious activities and even made arrests of people who actually WERE doing highly suspicious things without encouragement from possibly overzealous members of law enforcement. Sometimes what initially appeared suspicious was, in fact, legal and innocent activities. In other cases... you know, there are genuinely bad people out there and the FBI takes a lot of them off the streets.

[folti78]

Such systems are less expensive than you might expect if one has any building skills at all.

If ... as usual, people with such talents are rarely go to take up terrorism as a job/hobby. They also invest a some amount of money and time to acquire those skills.

People already mentioned that jamming around the POTUS being done 7/24 already, at least for selected frequencies, so mobile phones and walkie-talkies will work(but their traffic monitored) but RC controllers not.

Last time that "jamming" was mentioned I asked for a cite on it, and none ever materialized. Does such a thing actually exist, or it is internet rumor?

Conceeded.

[Sea Skimmer]

Last time that "jamming" was mentioned I asked for a cite on it, and none ever materialized. Does such a thing actually exist, or it is internet rumor?

On the secret service vehicles, who knows, they'd be insane not to have something though given that we place jammers capable of doing the job on every single hummve/MRAP in Afghanistan and Iraq now and we are talking about a backpack sized device being required to do this. UH-60 Quickfix helicopters have been seen accompanying the president overseas in some instances and they can intercept or jam just about anything barring VLF/ELF communications only use for nuclear weapons systems over a wide area. Some really absurdly capable jammers were desired for the new presidential helicopter, major factor in why that joke of a program was always utterly doomed.

[Hawkwings]

Jamming any frequency in the US is illegal.

http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index. ... d=cellular

The operation of transmitters designed to jam or block wireless communications is a violation of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). See 47 U.S.C. Sections 301, 302a, 333. The Act prohibits any person from willfully or maliciously interfering with the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized under the Act or operated by the U.S. government. 47 U.S.C. Section 333. The manufacture, importation, sale or offer for sale, including advertising, of devices designed to block or jam wireless transmissions is prohibited. 47 U.S.C. Section 302a(b). Parties in violation of these provisions may be subject to the penalties set out in 47 U.S.C. Sections 501-510. Fines for a first offense can range as high as $11,000 for each violation or imprisonment for up to one year, and the device used may also be seized and forfeited to the U.S. government.

Of course, the FCC could and probably has given exceptions to important applications, such as the Secret Service.

[Broomstick]

I am aware of instances of the military testing various types of jamming - when it will affect aviation they generally post a warning saying "these listed systems will be unreliable during X time period due to testing/utilization of jamming technology". While I have no doubt the US government is capable of jamming all sorts of things, I question how routine such procedures are. Certainly, anything that would impair legitimate civilian uses of radio frequencies would be noted, often posted (because it would be real shitty for, example, the legitimate traffic going into and out of O'Hare airport to get fucked due to secret service jamming, right?), and one would hope used judiciously and minimally.

So, while the secret service/government is capable of jamming signals I question the notion of 24/7 constant, broad-spectrum jamming in a bubble around the PotUS.

The fact is, none of us are going to know what the security surrounding the PotUS really entails, because they keep that information secret. I also know that the PotUS visits my area frequently, and so far I haven't heard anything through the grapevine about massive disruption of radio-related activities every time he shows up. Perhaps the jamming is in a very confined radius. Perhaps they don't always use it. Perhaps something else. Regardless, the PotUS does not seem to travel in a LARGE bubble of jamming wherever he goes.

[folti78]

Jamming any frequency in the US is illegal.

http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index. ... d=cellular

The operation of transmitters designed to jam or block wireless communications is a violation of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). See 47 U.S.C. Sections 301, 302a, 333. The Act prohibits any person from willfully or maliciously interfering with the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized under the Act or operated by the U.S. government. 47 U.S.C. Section 333. The manufacture, importation, sale or offer for sale, including advertising, of devices designed to block or jam wireless transmissions is prohibited. 47 U.S.C. Section 302a(b). Parties in violation of these provisions may be subject to the penalties set out in 47 U.S.C. Sections 501-510. Fines for a first offense can range as high as $11,000 for each violation or imprisonment for up to one year, and the device used may also be seized and forfeited to the U.S. government.

Of course, the FCC could and probably has given exceptions to important applications, such as the Secret Service.

So they are illegal for civilians at least or any government entity with public oversight. Question: what about the armed forces' jammers. Are they illegal too or they are exempt from this regulation?

[Broomstick]

Jamming any frequency in the US is illegal.

So is hijacking airplanes, cutting peoples' throats, making bomb threats, deliberately crashing into buildings, causing massive property damage, and deliberately killing and maiming people but for years we had a fucking giant hole in Manhattan and a dent in the Pentagon demonstrating that "illegal" and "impossible" are two entirely different things.

Bad guys don't care about the law. That's one of the things that makes them bad.

The difficulty here is between making sure shit like that doesn't happen again, and not overly restricting the good guys' freedom to do legal stuff.

Also - anyone who thinks the US government wouldn't ignore FCC regulations in the interest of national security needs to wake up and drink another cup of coffee in preparation for meeting reality. There is no question the US military, and by extension, the US government, has jamming technology. I only question that it's in constant operation around the PotUS or any other civilian person or installation.

[folti78]

I am aware of instances of the military testing various types of jamming - when it will affect aviation they generally post a warning saying "these listed systems will be unreliable during X time period due to testing/utilization of jamming technology". While I have no doubt the US government is capable of jamming all sorts of things, I question how routine such procedures are. Certainly, anything that would impair legitimate civilian uses of radio frequencies would be noted, often posted (because it would be real shitty for, example, the legitimate traffic going into and out of O'Hare airport to get fucked due to secret service jamming, right?), and one would hope used judiciously and minimally.

So, while the secret service/government is capable of jamming signals I question the notion of 24/7 constant, broad-spectrum jamming in a bubble around the PotUS.

The fact is, none of us are going to know what the security surrounding the PotUS really entails, because they keep that information secret. I also know that the PotUS visits my area frequently, and so far I haven't heard anything through the grapevine about massive disruption of radio-related activities every time he shows up. Perhaps the jamming is in a very confined radius. Perhaps they don't always use it. Perhaps something else. Regardless, the PotUS does not seem to travel in a LARGE bubble of jamming wherever he goes.

Yes, a more refined version would be a combined approach, when they monitor radio traffic constantly around the president and only throw up a jamming bubble in case of trouble.

[Broomstick]

I would also think a selective use of jamming would make it more difficult for Bad Guys(TM) to figure out which frequencies the government is most concerned about.

After all, just because certain standard frequencies are used for RC doesn't mean those frequencies have to be used. It's not dictated by physics, just by man-made regulations. If you don't care about breaking the law you won't give up on your nefarious plans just because the FCC says "model airplanes use these frequencies" and oh darn, those are jammed. The electromagnetic spectrum is a big place, after all.

And that's not even touching on programmable stuff that wouldn't have to rely on a transmitted signal.

[folti78]

I would also think a selective use of jamming would make it more difficult for Bad Guys(TM) to figure out which frequencies the government is most concerned about.

After all, just because certain standard frequencies are used for RC doesn't mean those frequencies have to be used. It's not dictated by physics, just by man-made regulations. If you don't care about breaking the law you won't give up on your nefarious plans just because the FCC says "model airplanes use these frequencies" and oh darn, those are jammed. The electromagnetic spectrum is a big place, after all.

Um, I mentioned these back in the original post about jamming. Along with the observation that these solutions will be unavailable to cash and knowledge strapped would be terrorists, like the mastermind behind this plot.

And that's not even touching on programmable stuff that wouldn't have to rely on a transmitted signal.

See above.

As far as I see it from here, people with the necessary skills (in electronics and radios in this case) rarely mix with the people willing to commit acts of terrorism(double that for would be muslim terrorists) in the US and most parts of the developed world.

[Broomstick]

Rarely, but sometimes skill and knowledge do intersect with desire to cause harm.

The thing is, the knowledge is out there and actually much more accessible than when I was learning about radio and electronics and building stuff in the pre-internet days. The items you need are getting cheaper every day, and readily available over the internet as well.

The truth is, the vast majority of people, even the vast majority of disgruntled angry people, actually lack real desire to cause mayhem. Thank Og, because otherwise the world would be a killing zone all the time instead of just rarely. The tools are out there. If they aren't being used it's because most people just aren't terrorists.

[Themightytom]

The tools are out there. If they aren't being used it's because most people just aren't terrorists.

Which is why it makes sense to develop an objective sociological profile of conditions that contribute to organized extremism, to complement existing psychological models. The FBI can apparently identify a latent extremist, and lay out a trail of bread crumbs to trigger that potential, now let's work backwards, and use those issues to identify prevailing dysfunctional notions in our society that contribute to...

Aannnddd another "brilliant" Muslim plot is foiled! I suppose this could be cause for concern, since estimates of the Muslim population in the US range from 1.3 to 7 million; if, say, 1% are radical, then we have potentially 12,000 to 70,000 underwear/shoe/Fort Hood/RC plane murderers running loose. Me, I'm not that concerned. A Muslim accountant or physicist or computer programmer would have about as much ability as me to cause mass casualties, that is, not much. A radical Muslim farmer or miner, weellll...that could make me nervous.

Fuck!

[Sky Captain]

How feasible it would be to fit rc plane with incendiary device and use it to set some high value industrial installation on fire? There are plenty of industrial plants that process large amounts of higly flammable/explosive stuff and might be too well guarded for typical car bombing attack.

[The Yosemite Bear]

remember a couple of decades ago the IRA used to use model rocket kits to make morters, so in a sense this is nothing new....

[Broomstick]

Without going into too much detail about how to cause mayhem as a terrorist, let me give you a good rule of thumb here:

Whatever the military had in the way of remote control stuff 10 years ago is probably accessible to the civilian world, provided you have sufficient time and money. Whatever the military had 20 years ago is CERTAINLY available to the civilian world, and has come down in price as well.

Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? I don't think so. I don't think so due to technical obstacles. It's easy to build a crude flying device that can cross a large room, it's more taxing to build something steerable, harder yet to build something that can carry a meaningful payload and travel a significant distance. It's not just the hardware, you need a trained pilot as well, or someone with the knowledge to program a computer to act as one.

Cars are readily available and require little or no modification to act as terror weapons. Aircraft of any size are less common, more expensive, more specialized (meaning more modification is likely required), and require skills that 95% of the population do not have, whereas 95% of people either already know how to drive or can easily learn. This is why car and truck bombs are, and will always be, much more common than aircraft bombs. This is also why explosive vests for suicide bombers are more common as well - less hardware, less to go wrong, and any idiot can operate one.

So, while the threat is real, and potentially the hazard is large as we saw in 2001, there are far more plentiful threats in the world to worry about that are far more likely to occur.

Right now, as I said, the people with the necessary skill sets are limited in number. As UAV's both military and civilian become more common that will change and we'll have to worry about former and current military and civilian operators who are disgruntled. However, just as sales of ammonium nitrate fertilizer and diesel fuel are now monitored so are sales of certain types of hardware for RC and model rockets, and I expect such monitoring to only increase in the future.

What disturbs me about this case as reported is that it doesn't seem to be a matter of investigating someone making a pattern of purchases that trigger concern but rather egging someone on to do things they might not otherwise have actually done. I'm a pilot who is married to someone who tinkers in electronics (to the tune of having three patents, among other credentials) and I know for an absolute fact the government has looked me over. As it happens, I'm a pretty boring person as far as my actions go, law-abiding to a fault, and the Authorities aren't really concerned about me. On the other hand, if I had made a habit of designing RC planes that can carry a payload while also having a hobby making home-brew explosives they SHOULD worry more about me - even if not malicious I still stand a better than normal chance of causing trouble by sheer accident in that case.

My point of view is that, if you choose to engage in some activities that have a potential for, shall we say, mass harm you, as a law-abiding citizen, have to consent to some oversight. We do this for automobiles, requiring licensing and obedience to rules, and penalizing those who can't toe the line. We do this with aircraft, again, requiring licensing and obedience AND consent to let the government access your medical records not for your good but to protect the safety of others from people who might be suddenly incapacitated while flying an aircraft. Farmers are allowed to purchase fertilizer that could be made into bombs, but only by allowing the tracking of such purchases and the government might ask for an accounting of what was done with the product, was it really used as fertilizer or not? Already - even prior to 9/11 - certain types of radio control flight were regulated, required permits, or special permissions to engage in. This is all quite reasonable.

There is a problem, however, in that some of these things don't require a massive industrial base to create, they just require know-how. With the proper know-how, you can scavenge what you need to build mayhem-creators from a junkyard. See Radioative Boy Scout for what happens when curiosity meets cleverness. Mr. Hahn is, apparently, not malicious and not a terrorist but still has managed to create some significant chaos, not to mention expensive to clean up messes. The government is definitely watching him, with some justification I'd say. On the other hand, they aren't restricting his freedom, except in regards to where exercise of his knowledge might harm others. Oh, and that business about theft, but that applies to anyone who steals stuff.

[folti78]

The truth is, the vast majority of people, even the vast majority of disgruntled angry people, actually lack real desire to cause mayhem.

Providing basic welfare has it's upside you know ... When people has something to lose when they try to take on The Man, they'll think twice before doing regrettable. Keep it up for a generation or two and the population gets mellowed enough so they'll won't take up the arms at the first bad news. Kinda worked for the Hungarian political elite ever since Kádár invented it, in the Goulash communism.

Thank Og, because otherwise the world would be a killing zone all the time instead of just rarely.

You mean just like the second part of the 19th and the first part of the 20th century, with all the anarchist terrorist attacks, nationalist flareups and in cases full blown low intensity conflicts and border clashes, even in the "civilized" Europe?

The tools are out there. If they aren't being used it's because most people just aren't terrorists.

Yeah, playing harmless pranks with the same skills or using them for the run off the mill criminal underground, doesn't end your ass in jail for the better part of your life like doing it for terrorism.