White House drone crash – Robohub https://robohub.org Connecting the robotics community to the world Mon, 05 Oct 2026 00:52:08 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.3 Liability concerns for drone co’s imposing technical measures to enforce no fly zones https://robohub.org/liability-concerns-for-drone-cos-imposing-technical-measures-to-enforce-no-fly-zones/ Tue, 03 Feb 2015 16:04:26 +0000 http://robohub.org/liability-concerns-for-drone-cos-imposing-technical-measures-to-enforce-no-fly-zones/ The Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) surrounding Washington, D.C. Source: Wikipedia.

The Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) surrounding Washington, D.C. Source: Wikipedia.

Shortly after a Phantom crash-landed on the grounds of the White House, its maker, DJI, announced that it would release a mandatory firmware update that would restrict flights within 15.5 miles of downtown Washington, D.C.

On Friday, Senator Schumer’s office released a statement urging the FAA to mandate that manufacturers impose technical controls to prevent drones from flying in high risk areas including near airports, other aircraft and the White House.

Whether drone manufacturers enforce “No Fly Zones” on their initiative as DJI has announced it will do, or whether they will be required to do so by the FAA at a later date, there are legal liability issues that should be considered.

If a manufacturer has not imposed technical measures to enforce No Fly Zones, and an operator enters a restricted area, liability is fairly straightforward. Assuming there is no design or manufacturing defect that causes the drone to fly into the restricted area, it is unlikely that the manufacturer would be held liable for any physical injury or property damage that may occur if the operator enters a No Fly Zone.

However, if a manufacturer implements technical measures to restrict drones from entering No Fly Zones, and such measures fail, they may be opening themselves up to legal liability if an operator flies into a restricted area and causes physical injury or property damage. Although it is unclear how liability may be allocated between an operator and a manufacturer in such a case, unless manufacturers are granted immunity from such lawsuits, they may be opening themselves up to liability by attempting to enforce No Fly Zones.

]]> ‘Quadcopter’ crashes onto White House grounds, poses security threat https://robohub.org/quadcopter-crashes-onto-the-white-house-grounds-poses-security-threat/ Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:12:53 +0000 http://robohub.org/quadcopter-crashes-onto-the-white-house-grounds-poses-security-threat/

The White House was put on high alert today as a drone was flown at low altitude onto the south-east side of the complex. A secret service spokesperson said "An investigation is under way to determine the origin of this commercially available device, motive, and to identify suspects". It's been reported that the drone was a 2ft long quadcopter and wasn't carrying a dangerous payload. 

One reporter from The Associated Press tweeted: 

More than a dozen agents searching WH north lawn, w/ flashlights into the bushes pic.twitter.com/iSdknDcBBK

— Nedra Pickler (@nedrapickler) January 26, 2015

While drones are posing a security threat in the wrong hands. There are some simple ways to protect against the everyday off-the shelve drones that are available on the market. Two of the best ways to do this is 'jamming' or 'hacking' which involves intercepting the control links from the operator and either taking control or disabling the device completely. Another possibility is interference with the drones GPS receiver unit making it 'think' it is in a different location than it is. The final might be an actual intercept of the drone, you could possibly use another drone to do this therefore capturing any dangerous payload in the process. 

Alternatively, you can bring in tighter regulation for the manufacturers to control such threats and develop safety measures directly into the platforms. What today illustrates is that we certainly need to be considering the implications of not just how we can use drones but how we can protect against rogue drones too.

]]> The White House was put on high alert today as a drone was flown at low altitude onto the south-east side of the complex. A secret service spokesperson said “An investigation is under way to determine the origin of this commercially available device, motive, and to identify suspects”. It’s been reported that the drone was a 2ft long quadcopter and wasn’t carrying a dangerous payload. 

One reporter from The Associated Press tweeted:

While drones can pose a security threat if they get in the wrong hands, there are some simple ways to protect against the everyday off-the shelve drones that are available on the market. Two of the best ways to do this is ‘jamming’ or ‘hacking’ – which involves intercepting the control links from the operator and either taking control or disabling the device completely. Another possibility is interference with the drones GPS receiver unit, making it ‘think’ it is in a different location than it is. The final might be an actual intercept of the drone: you could possibly use another drone to do this, capturing any dangerous payload in the process.

An alternative is to bring tighter regulations that would require manufacturers to control for such threats by developing safety measures directly into the platforms. What today’s events illustrate is that we certainly must consider not just how to use drones, but how to protect against rogue drones too.

In the latest development, White House officials are reporting that a government employee has come forward to claim responsibility for the crash, saying that he lost control of the drone while flying it for recreational purposes. Follow more here, and on Twitter:


]]>