FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone transmitters

Re:FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone t... by midev on Friday July 02, 2021 @01:54AM (#27708209)

> Youre expected not to board a plane with a bomb

And we have a lot of controls around this! Congrats! You've discovered airline security!

> expected to not operate equipment on wrong frequencies that interfere with others

If I can build a small electronic device, that goes through no controls, and can cause catastrophic damage, that is a HUGE problem.

> Just because you can do something does not mean its ok to do.

lol, you missed the point. If it's that easy to do something, the system needs to change.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone t... by Johnythree on Friday July 02, 2021 @05:37AM (#27709555)

Because aircraft systems are multiply redundant, there is little likelihood of a jammer directly causing an accident.

However, any deterioration in that redundancy is considered a serious safety risk and immediate action is usually taken.

Bottom line: The high redundancy is there to prevent accidents, however any idiot who compromises that redundancy deserves to learn an expensive lesson.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FCC reaffirms $3M fine for marketing unauthorized drone t... by NickNameNick on Friday July 02, 2021 @05:33AM (#27709535)

Building jam resistant navigation radios would require too much power to be practical. The real transmitters are too far away.

[ Parent | on HN ]