A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

$100,000 Drone Detection Contest



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 14th 15, 11:22 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default $100,000 Drone Detection Contest

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/100000-Drone-Detection-Contest-225359-1.html
$100,000 Drone Detection Contest
By Russ Niles

MITRE Corporation has put a $100,000 bounty on misbehaving drones through a
contest aimed at bringing them down. The not-for-profit think tank, which does
a lot of government-sponsored research, says it's "working with multiple
federal agencies" to come up with system(s) that can detect small drones that
might pose a threat and then force them to land safely with their payloads
intact. "The potential for nefarious use of this technology is unsettling and
has become a major safety and security concern for multiple Federal agencies,"
MITRE said in a news release http://www.mitre.org/research/mitre-challenge
announcing its brainiac contest.

Anyone (individual, group or organization) who comes up with the winning
all-in-one suggestion will win $60,000 cash or even more if the idea is
especially clever. There is also a $20,000 prize for the best detection system
and one for the best method of forcing drones to land. One entry can win the
whole prize package. Entrants have to submit white papers outlining their
projects by Feb. 7 and a selection committee will decide which go on to the
live flight testing phase to be held next fall. One company has already said it
can do the forced landing phase. As we reported in October, the DroneDefender
has been developed by the Battelle Memorial Institute, which is another
not-for-profit think tank.

----------------------------------------------------
http://www.mitre.org/research/mitre-challenge
MITRE Challenge
The MITRE Challenge: Countering Unauthorized Unmanned Aircraft Systems

The use of small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), known also as drones, within
the United States is growing quickly as costs drop and interest rises.
Government, industry, and hobbyists are finding many ways to use these small
aircraft. However, we’re also seeing unauthorized uses—resulting in drones that
potentially threaten the safety of aircraft in the national airspace and create
security concerns by operating near sensitive locations. The potential for
nefarious use of this technology is unsettling and has become a major safety
and security concern for multiple Federal agencies.

While counter-UAS technologies exist today, they are predominantly focused on
large UAS and military scenarios. MITRE is working with multiple Federal
agencies to help them understand the safety and security issues presented by
small UAS and potential mitigations. One way to solicit solutions from a wide
range of innovators from industry, academia, and other organizations is through
a "challenge." MITRE believes, as does the Federal Government, that challenges
and prize competitions are a creative approach to identifying and nurturing
diverse potential solutions to a critical national problem.

The MITRE Challenge is looking for solutions to detect and safely interdict
small UAS (weighing less than 5 lbs.) that pose a potential safety or security
threat in urban areas.

Have you got a creative solution that will improve safety and security in U.S.
airspace?

Would you like to prove that your solution is the best and be rewarded for your
ideas?

Take the challenge!

The MITRE Countering UAS Challenge provides participants multiple benefits:

The opportunity to describe and potentially demonstrate your system to multiple
federal agencies.

A no-cost technical assessment of your system against real-world criteria.
A chance to win prizes up to $100,000.

MITRE’s challenge enables you to apply your ingenuity to a growing national
security concern. Step up to the challenge!

Challenge Details

To date, much of the government's research on counter-UAS technologies has
focused on military force-protection scenarios. These technologies and
interdiction methods are not necessarily appropriate for small UAS operating
within the civil airspace of the United States. In our Challenge we are looking
for systems that a

Aligned with domestic safety and legal requirements, allowing deployment in a
populated, U.S. domestic environment, with consideration of public safety and
applicable laws and regulations.

Affordable, enabling potentially large-scale deployment to protect a wide
variety of interests, from critical infrastructure to sensitive security
locations.

Technologically scalable, allowing for protection against multiple simultaneous
aircraft and those aircraft designed to defeat interdiction.
Innovative, offering unique ideas and/or additional value, such as the ability
to identify the operator of a threatening aircraft.

The MITRE Countering UAS Challenge is seeking to identify solutions that are
specifically able to: 1) detect small UAS during flight and determine which are
threats based on a geographic location and flight trajectory, and 2) interdict
small UAS that are perceived as threats by forcing them to be recovered in a
safe area with any payload still intact.

The challenge will consist of two phases:

Phase 1: Paper Evaluation. Interested participants must submit a white paper
outlining their approach and a Participant Agreement
http://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/pdf/MITRE-Challenge-Participation-Agreement.pdf.
White papers and signed Participant Agreements are due by February 7, 2016. A
panel of domain and technical experts from MITRE and U.S. Federal Agencies will
review the papers and MITRE will select a subset to continue to phase 2. MITRE
will inform these participants of their selection in May.

Phase 2: Live Flight Evaluations. MITRE will host a live flight assessment of
systems in the Fall of 2016 and determine the Challenge winners. Scoring will
be based on a number of operationally relevant criteria. Details on the
criteria for the flight assessment will be provided to those selected to
participate in Phase 2.

MITRE is offering a total prize package of $100,000 as a part of this
challenge. The best end-to-end system will win $60,000; $20,000 will be awarded
to the best detection system and $20,000 to the best interdiction system. (It
is possible for a single participant to win all three prizes.) MITRE may award
additional non-monetary prizes to recognize especially creative or novel
approaches worthy of attention.

Phase 2 participants will also be invited to a technical exchange event with
Federal officials. At this event they will be able discuss their systems and
receive feedback on system capabilities. This will give participants a better
understanding of the government's goals and concerns within the counter UAS
space. This event will be a unique opportunity for challenge participants to
interact with Federal officials who are actively managing activities in this
field.

Challenge Webinar

https://youtu.be/dWJcHMIKjG8
(Video) On December 2, 2015, MITRE hosted a webinar about the Challenge, which
provides additional information for potential participants.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mitre.org/research/mitre-challenge/uas-challenge-components
UAS Challenge Components


UAS flying
Terms & Definitions

Terminology within the Countering UAS field is not consistent across
organizations, so the same term has different meaning for various audiences.
This page describes the terminology we will use for the Countering UAS
Challenge.

This challenge will judge system performance in two keys areas: (1) detection
and determination, and (2) interdiction.

Aircraft. Target Aircraft refer to the airborne unmanned aircraft that are to
be detected and acted upon.

Zones. The Protected Area is the area under protection from small UAS
incursion. The Potential Threat Zone is the area in which an intruding aircraft
is considered to be a potential threat. Collateral Damage Zones are defined as
locations where recovery would have potential safety implications. Safe Zones
are locations where recovery would have minimal safety impacts.

Detection and Determination

Detection. Participants must be able to detect and track one or more Target
Aircraft within a pre-defined area. All Target Aircraft used within the
Challenge will be commercially available units weighing under five pounds and
may be modified to counteract potential interdiction methods. For the bulk of
the live flight evaluation the Target Aircraft will not be operated via remote
control.

Determination. Determination refers to the ability to accurately recognize
whether or not a tracked UAS is a potential threat based upon its trajectory.
We define a potential threat as any Target Aircraft that, based on its
trajectory, may enter the Potential Threat Zone (see the figure below for a
conceptual representation). The Potential Threat Zone is a three-dimensional
buffer zone (size, geometry and ceiling to be specified) around the Protected
Area. For the Challenge, Target Aircraft trajectories will clearly either enter
or avoid the Potential Threat Zone. In the diagram a circle is used for
representative purposes.


Figure 1: Potential threat zone around home base and example quadcopter
trajectories
Interdiction

Challenge participants must safely interdict unmanned aircraft that pose a
potential threat. For this challenge, a safe interdiction means bringing the
UAS to a Safe Zone for recovery that is outside defined Collateral Damage Zones
with the payload still intact, if possible. Interdiction methods must be
domestically viable.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mitre.org/research/mitre-challenge/uas-challenge-details
UAS Challenge Details


Three researchers use a whiteboard to illustrate their ideas.
Countering Unauthorized UAS: What to Expect

This MITRE Challenge consists of two phases. In the first phase, participants
will submit white papers that describe how their systems work. From this pool,
a subset of applicants will be selected to participate in the second phase,
which consists of a live flight technical evaluation.

Phase 1: November 9, 2015 to February 7, 2016

Those interested in participating in the MITRE Challenge must submit a white
paper outlining their approach and a Participant Agreement. Requirements for
the white paper are available on the Submission page. MITRE will hold a webinar
on December 2, 2015, to discuss the Challenge, explain the submission process
and participation requirements, and answer questions. Details of the webinar
will be posted on November 23, 2015.

Applicants must submit their white papers and signed Participants Agreement by
February 7, 2016 (11:59 PM EST).

MITRE will establish a panel, consisting of domain and technical experts from
MITRE and U.S. Federal Agencies to review the papers and MITRE will select a
subset of participants to continue to Phase 2. MITRE will inform those
participants whose entries will not be proceeding to Phase 2 in early March.
Participants still under consideration at that time will be asked to provide a
video or other photographic evidence to verify their Technical Readiness Level.
In May 2016 MITRE will notify participants selected for Phase 2. MITRE will
provide the details of the live flight competition, including date and
location, at that time.

Phase 2: Early Fall 2016

MITRE will host a live flight assessment of systems in the fall of 2016 in an
operationally realistic environment. During the test, competitors must: 1)
detect UAS in flight, track, and determine which are threats based on a
geographic location and the UAS’ flight trajectory, and 2) interdict UAS
characterized as threats by forcing them to be recovered in a safe area with
payloads intact.

Teams will be scored based on how accurately they can determine which small UAS
are threats (based on their flight trajectory), as well as on whether
interdiction is performed in a safe and timely manner.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mitre.org/research/mitre-challenge/uas-challenge-submission-details
UAS Challenge Submission Details


Two researchers use a whiteboard to illustrate their ideas.
UAS Challenge Application

Those interested in participating in the MITRE Challenge must submit a white
paper outlining their approach and a Participant Agreement. Three approaches
are available for this submission, and applications must be received no later
than February 7th to be considered:

Via email to
Via the regular mail:
The MITRE Corporation,
Challenge Team, MS: T760,
7525 Colshire Drive, McLean, VA 22102-7539.

Via a secure transfer mechanism
Email
no later than February 2, 2016, to receive an account
on this mechanism

MITRE will confirm receipt of applications via email.

White Paper Sections

Applicants must submit a white paper describing their system that includes the
following items. The paper must be no more than 15 pages long; links or
references to additional material will not be reviewed.

Download the White Paper Guidelines PDF
http://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/pdf/MITRE-Challenge-Submission-Guidelines.pdf

1.0 Introduction and Overview

1.1 Contact information

Provide your company/team name, the name of the system, affiliation, and a
primary POC (to include email and phone number)

1.2 Category

Select the category that best describes your system:
(A) Detection/determination only, (B) Interdiction only, or (C) Complete
End-to-end Solution

1.3 Company/Team Overview

Give a short overview of the history of the company and/or the team which
developed the system solution

1.4 System Overview

Give a general overview of the system including a description of the sensor
technology, processing algorithm, and interdiction method as applicable.
Describe unique dependencies or risks for your system (Examples: authority for
RF jamming, hazardous materials, physical danger zones, etc.)
Describe the key small UAS features that your system exploits (Examples: RF
emissions, metal components, heat signature, etc.)

1.5 Technical Specifications

Include technical specifications of your system
Power requirements
Size
Weight
Environmental constraints

2.0 System Description

Provide details about your conceptual design, at a level sufficient for
reviewers to understand the technical efficacy of your proposed design. Be sure
to explain your design’s existing maturity (examples: summary of lab testing,
live flight-testing, and exercises or events in which your system has
participated, etc.)

2.1 High-level Concept of Operations

Provide a high-level concept of operations for how the system would be used.
Example scenarios would be useful.

Briefly describe analysis and testing done to confirm performance.

Note: Complete sections 2.2 and 2.3, as applicable to your proposed system. The
more information you provide, the more confidently we will be able to evaluate
it against other proposals.

2.2 Detection/Determination Technical Approach

Detection and Tracking

Describe the detection (sensor) modalities used, e.g. radar, RF detection,
EO/IR cameras, etc. Consider including more details on effective range,
altitude above the surface, resolution of target, and probability of detection.
Describe your system’s capabilities to detect one or more small UAS.

Describe any operational constraints of your system, e.g., susceptibility to
interference from atmospherics, etc.

Describe the tracking algorithms used to track one or more potential targets.
Describe the algorithms' pedigree, if applicable
Determination

Describe your approach used to determine if UAS is a threat based on its
trajectory.

Describe how your approach deals with maneuvering aircraft.

Describe any operational constraints of your system, e.g., the maximum number
of systems that can be tracked simultaneously, etc.

Describe how a human operator is notified when your system perceives a
potential threat.

2.3 Interdiction Technical Approach

Describe your system interdiction approach.

Describe how your system can interdict multiple small UAS at the same time.
Consider including more details on recovery time between interdictions or other
operational constraints.

Describe the expected results of the interdiction e.g., will it crash, land
safely, return to launch point, etc.

Describe any operational constraints of your system, e.g., range, interference,
atmospherics, etc.

Describe the input your system requires to perform interdiction.
2.4 Operational Requirements

Explain the requirements for deploying your system, including the number of
personnel required to operate the system and any specialized training
requirements.

Explain the maintenance requirements of the system.

Describe the environmental requirements required to operate system, including
need for power, shelter, mounting requirements, etc.

2.5 Initial and Recurring Costs

Provide a cost estimate for the initial and recurring costs including
consumables.
Provide a basis and explanation for these estimates.

3.0 Alignment to Challenge Criteria

Explain how your system satisfies the objectives of the challenge. The
following items form the basis of the criteria we will be using for the first
down select of the competition. Please write to each and include any other
information that you feel reviewers will require.

3.1 Aligning with domestic safety and legal requirements

Explain how your system would be deployable in a populated, U.S. domestic
environment, with consideration of public safety and applicable laws and
regulations.

3.2 Affordability

Explain how your system would be potentially deployable on a large scale to
protect a wide variety of interests, from critical infrastructure, to sensitive
security locations, to civil airports.

3.3 Technical Scalability

Explain how your system can function against multiple simultaneous threats.
Explain how your system will be able to continue to be effective as UAS
technology evolves and steps that might be taken to defeat countermeasures.

3.4 Additional Value

Explain additional advantages or value your specific solution might bring to
the community concerned about unauthorized UAS operations, e.g., whether your
system can identify the operator and/or the operator's location of the aircraft
characterized as a threat.

3.5 Technology Readiness

Using the Office of the Secretary of Defense Technology Readiness Assessment
(TRA) document, section 2.5, estimate your system's current and future (by fall
of 2016) TRL.

Note: there is no minimal TRL for the challenge, this is just a tool to help us
understand your current capabilities.
Include a summary of any laboratory experiments, field trials, operational
evaluations, and/or deployments.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mitre.org/research/mitre-challenge/uas-challenge-submission-details
UAS Challenge Submission Details


Two researchers use a whiteboard to illustrate their ideas.
UAS Challenge Application

Those interested in participating in the MITRE Challenge must submit a white
paper outlining their approach and a Participant Agreement. Three approaches
are available for this submission, and applications must be received no later
than February 7th to be considered:

Via email to

Via the regular mail:
The MITRE Corporation,
Challenge Team, MS: T760,
7525 Colshire Drive, McLean, VA 22102-7539.

Via a secure transfer mechanism
Email
no later than February 2, 2016, to receive an account
on this mechanism
MITRE will confirm receipt of applications via email.

White Paper Sections

Applicants must submit a white paper describing their system that includes the
following items. The paper must be no more than 15 pages long; links or
references to additional material will not be reviewed.

Download the White Paper Guidelines PDF

1.0 Introduction and Overview

1.1 Contact information

Provide your company/team name, the name of the system, affiliation, and a
primary POC (to include email and phone number)
1.2 Category

Select the category that best describes your system:
(A) Detection/determination only, (B) Interdiction only, or (C) Complete
End-to-end Solution
1.3 Company/Team Overview

Give a short overview of the history of the company and/or the team which
developed the system solution
1.4 System Overview

Give a general overview of the system including a description of the sensor
technology, processing algorithm, and interdiction method as applicable.
Describe unique dependencies or risks for your system (Examples: authority for
RF jamming, hazardous materials, physical danger zones, etc.)
Describe the key small UAS features that your system exploits (Examples: RF
emissions, metal components, heat signature, etc.)
1.5 Technical Specifications

Include technical specifications of your system
Power requirements
Size
Weight
Environmental constraints
2.0 System Description

Provide details about your conceptual design, at a level sufficient for
reviewers to understand the technical efficacy of your proposed design. Be sure
to explain your design’s existing maturity (examples: summary of lab testing,
live flight-testing, and exercises or events in which your system has
participated, etc.)

2.1 High-level Concept of Operations

Provide a high-level concept of operations for how the system would be used.
Example scenarios would be useful.
Briefly describe analysis and testing done to confirm performance.
Note: Complete sections 2.2 and 2.3, as applicable to your proposed system. The
more information you provide, the more confidently we will be able to evaluate
it against other proposals.

2.2 Detection/Determination Technical Approach

Detection and Tracking

Describe the detection (sensor) modalities used, e.g. radar, RF detection,
EO/IR cameras, etc. Consider including more details on effective range,
altitude above the surface, resolution of target, and probability of detection.
Describe your system’s capabilities to detect one or more small UAS.
Describe any operational constraints of your system, e.g., susceptibility to
interference from atmospherics, etc.
Describe the tracking algorithms used to track one or more potential targets.
Describe the algorithms' pedigree, if applicable
Determination

Describe your approach used to determine if UAS is a threat based on its
trajectory.
Describe how your approach deals with maneuvering aircraft.
Describe any operational constraints of your system, e.g., the maximum number
of systems that can be tracked simultaneously, etc.
Describe how a human operator is notified when your system perceives a
potential threat.
2.3 Interdiction Technical Approach

Describe your system interdiction approach.
Describe how your system can interdict multiple small UAS at the same time.
Consider including more details on recovery time between interdictions or other
operational constraints.
Describe the expected results of the interdiction e.g., will it crash, land
safely, return to launch point, etc.
Describe any operational constraints of your system, e.g., range, interference,
atmospherics, etc.
Describe the input your system requires to perform interdiction.
2.4 Operational Requirements

Explain the requirements for deploying your system, including the number of
personnel required to operate the system and any specialized training
requirements.
Explain the maintenance requirements of the system.
Describe the environmental requirements required to operate system, including
need for power, shelter, mounting requirements, etc.
2.5 Initial and Recurring Costs

Provide a cost estimate for the initial and recurring costs including
consumables.
Provide a basis and explanation for these estimates.
3.0 Alignment to Challenge Criteria

Explain how your system satisfies the objectives of the challenge. The
following items form the basis of the criteria we will be using for the first
down select of the competition. Please write to each and include any other
information that you feel reviewers will require.

3.1 Aligning with domestic safety and legal requirements

Explain how your system would be deployable in a populated, U.S. domestic
environment, with consideration of public safety and applicable laws and
regulations.
3.2 Affordability

Explain how your system would be potentially deployable on a large scale to
protect a wide variety of interests, from critical infrastructure, to sensitive
security locations, to civil airports.
3.3 Technical Scalability

Explain how your system can function against multiple simultaneous threats.
Explain how your system will be able to continue to be effective as UAS
technology evolves and steps that might be taken to defeat countermeasures.
3.4 Additional Value

Explain additional advantages or value your specific solution might bring to
the community concerned about unauthorized UAS operations, e.g., whether your
system can identify the operator and/or the operator's location of the aircraft
characterized as a threat.
3.5 Technology Readiness

Using the Office of the Secretary of Defense Technology Readiness Assessment
(TRA) document, section 2.5, estimate your system's current and future (by fall
of 2016) TRL.
Note: there is no minimal TRL for the challenge, this is just a tool to help us
understand your current capabilities.
Include a summary of any laboratory experiments, field trials, operational
evaluations, and/or deployments.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  #2  
Old December 15th 15, 02:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default $100,000 Drone Detection Contest

On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:22:57 PM UTC-5, Larry Dighera wrote:
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/100000-Drone-Detection-Contest-225359-1.html
$100,000 Drone Detection Contest
By Russ Niles

MITRE Corporation has put a $100,000 bounty on misbehaving drones through a
contest aimed at bringing them down.


I call dibbs on the ACME rocket-fired, fishnet/parachute.

---
  #5  
Old December 16th 15, 08:46 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default $100,000 Drone Detection Contest

On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 07:19:06 +1200, george152 wrote:

On 12/16/2015 12:18 PM, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 17:36:11 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 5:22:57 PM UTC-5, Larry Dighera wrote:
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/100000-Drone-Detection-Contest-225359-1.html
$100,000 Drone Detection Contest
By Russ Niles

MITRE Corporation has put a $100,000 bounty on misbehaving drones through a
contest aimed at bringing them down.

I call dibbs on the ACME rocket-fired, fishnet/parachute.

---


I'm thinkin' more along the lines of a light weight, directed EMP field
generator ... :-) Something like a radar transmitter that would
electromagneticly overwhelm the GPS and servo-control receivers aboard the UAS,
or better yet powerful enough disable the RX front-end electronics, or to
actually induce sufficient current into the control wiring to lock-up the uP.

A smarter approach might be to employ a high wattage RF transmitter to over
power the "perpetrator's" puny signal, and wrest control of the UAS ...

Of course, a Regain-era "Star-Wars" laser is a natural for the NRA crowed if
accurate targeting could be developed, and collateral damage minimized.


Or a 12 gauge shotgun


Hey. It's apparently legal in Kentucky:
http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/28/9625468/drone-slayer-kentucky-cleared-charges

Judge rules Kentucky man had the right to shoot down his neighbor’s drone
By James Vincent on October 28, 2015 09:21 am @jjvincent

A Kentucky man who shot down a drone flying near his property has been cleared
of all charges by a local judge. William Merideth was originally cited for
criminal mischief and wanton endangerment after shooting the drone out of the
air in July this year, but Judge Rebecca Ward ruled that he was right to do so
after reviewing testimony from neighbors that the aircraft was flying near
Merideth's house.

"I think it's credible testimony that his drone was hovering [...] for two or
three times over these people's property, that it was an invasion of their
privacy and that they had the right to shoot this drone," Ward told the court
according to a report from Sky News. "I'm going to dismiss his charge."

"I'M JUST SHOCKED, BEYOND SHOCKED."

The drone's pilot, David Boggs, described the hearing as "unbelievable,"
claiming that Ward did not review video evidence he submitted showing that the
drone was over 200 feet in the air when it was shot down. "She believed what
the neighbor said and that the drone was below the tree line," Boggs told Ars
Technica. "The judge didn’t look at the video, paid no consideration to the
video. I’m just shocked, beyond shocked."

Meredith gained national attention after shooting down the DJI Phantom 3 drone,
and was dubbed the "drone slayer" by some. The case highlights the murky legal
territory that surrounds the use of drones near private property. Although the
Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) is clear about issues such as licensing drones
for businesses, incidents like the one involving Merideth and Boggs are judged
on a case-by-case basis.

Boggs told Ars that he now plans to file a civil suit against Merideth. "My
original thing was for him to just replace the drone, but it’s much bigger than
that now — he lies and then doubles down on his lies," he said. "I will
probably meet with my attorney this week and we will start that process."

Verge Video: Drone registration is coming. This is what we know
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DJI Phantom drone flight over grid at 2013 Caesar Creek Contest Sean F (F2) Soaring 13 August 15th 13 04:32 PM
Remote thermal detection Bill D Soaring 18 October 24th 12 09:22 PM
Idea for product - LMS method of traffic detection joe smith Products 0 March 6th 07 02:34 PM
Idea for product - LMS method of traffic detection joe smith Products 0 March 6th 07 02:28 PM
Air traffic detection question FISHnFLY Aviation Marketplace 19 April 2nd 04 01:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.