Man, 26, charged in model airplane plot to bomb Pentagon

Are there new rules on the horizon? How can we help policing UAV technology's illegal use and proliferation to wrong hands?


Man, 26, charged in model airplane plot to bomb Pentagon



Views: 1731

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Rules? No rules will help the situation. Look at guns, drugs, etc.. Rules only cramp the rule-followers' style.

What a noob, Fbi kept feeding him sh** , and looks like he was a real idiot.. the kind who would be idiot enough to use some deprecated beta code before reading tfm. :D

More details:

"Ferdaus stated that he planned to attack the Pentagon using aircraft similar to 'small drone airplanes' filled with explosives and guided by GPS equipment."  (Phew, no explicit mention of Ardupilot!)
"Agents seized remote-controlled models of a U.S. Navy 1960s Phantom jet fighter and a 1950s Sabre jet fighter that allegedly belonged to Rezwan Ferdaus."  (Below are images of the planes, grabbed from here):

These are hardly beginner planes, and I highly doubt that they're particularly adapted to carry large payloads or be controlled easily using autonomous means.  He may have had a degree in physics, but that doesn't mean that he could have even come close to pulling this off.

If you were going to do serious damage and blow something up, you wouldn't use a drone you would use a car or van just like terrors always have. A story like this is not an excuse to regulate. Otherwise cars would be banned with that kind of logic.
It's not the method that should be illegal, it's the action.

What an idiot, even if he hit 100% on target it wouldnt do much more then maybe demolish a few rooms and piss us off

and I highly doubt that plane would carry much weight before it becomes so short-ranged that its inefective as a terror weapon


Also dosent the Pentagon have things like Missles to shoot down things like this?

I was not sure about posting this, because it flirts with topics which I do not believe are appropriate. However, I was encouraged to post it anyways, so long as I keep to the site policies. Here, then, is my initial reaction to this discussion:


DIYDrones has some pretty clear policies about this; but bear in mind this is largely about promoting the truth, that UAVs offer tremendous benefits for civilian and hobbyist applications, in contrast to the potential (illusionary?) message that they are destructive devices. 
Physics may well be the principle "prevention" here. If you look at the math, it just does not make sense. We spend hundreds of hours, and thousands of dollars to put a 100g or less payload in the form of a camera into the air. We talk, in this community, about safety, and it is true that these devices use high current, lipo batteries, and fast spinning blades that can cut your hands. Some of the devices created by this community might even weigh as much as 10 pounds, and might really hurt if they were to crash into you. But it simply does not make sense for these fantastically useful devices to be considered a threat to the public or Pentagon. The main utility of all UAVs is photo and video; the militaries of the world might put weapons on them, also, but they build thirteen ton UAVs to carry the weapons. If you build anything that is thirteen tons, it could be used for destruction, in the air, on the ground, or in the ocean. 
Let's hope the public does not get the wrong message. It is unfortunate that the agents involved chose to feed this criminal-minded individual with RC planes. Who knows, maybe they did so because they *knew* how ineffective he would be, if he managed to get out of hand. It would be tragic if the news and public were to buy into the same illusion this idiot seems to have held.  The automobile parked outside most people's house is almost certainly hundreds, if not thousands, of times more dangerous both to the individual and to the general public than the devices built and flown here. 
Let's hope the media does not try to turn this into a circus; they might find some crazies who will talk up the danger of UAVs, and the simple math that makes it obvious that an RC plane is not a danger is lost on the news, so it is hard to defend against. I think the American public is smarter than that, even if the news does play it up.




Thanks Mike! Well said.

+1 Mike, yup nothing to add

The capability of a model airplane to do any substancial damage is not possible and only imaginary.

If such plane was half scale + then I would be concerned.


Yup - nothing uplifting or enlightening in this entrapment. Personally, I wonder if this individual was targeted for entrapment _because_ of his name/ethnicity/religion. Second, I wonder if the FBI initiated the contact, and established the idea; or the other way around.


The truth is that today's "smart bombs" actually started out 50 years ago at Northrup Grumman as "Target Practice" Drones - built no less by Marilyn Monroe.







Whats more interesting is that the platforms look like turbines, the military wanted civil ones banned in the USA and it was on the cards for a while. I wonder if that idea is being opened up again. We hear that the AMA was completely sidelined in the talks for next years yet again maybe but then again it never happens sUAS rules over there. 

The affidavit from the FBI is now out there

Reply to Discussion



Season Two of the Trust Time Trial (T3) Contest 
A list of all T3 contests is here. The current round, the Vertical Horizontal one, is here

© 2019   Created by Chris Anderson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service