Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Bullockist wrote:
Obviously with shotguns, specifically Droneslayers' 200m ranged one

No no. 20mm cannon. Come on this DakkaDakka. When we say dakka we mean DAKKA!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Put a tracker on. If they go over a residential area it gets reported to the PoPo, and they then get charged under local peeping tom ordnances.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I'm pretty sure under FAA regulations you can't fly within a certain distance above residential areas.

No such rule exists. You are required to maintain a minimum altitude of 500', up to 1000' above the highest point within a 2000' horizontal radius over "congested areas", except when landing or taking off. This rule is entirely about keeping the ability to safely handle an emergency without endangering people on the ground, and does not care at all about whether the area in question is residential. And of course these minimum altitudes are low enough to have no problem taking pictures of someone's back yard if you have a decent camera.

Also, this rule only applies to fixed-wing aircraft. Helicopters can fly as low as they want, as long as there is no hazard to persons or property on the surface. Which should tell you pretty clearly that this is about being able to glide to a safe emergency landing spot, not privacy issues.

 Frazzled wrote:
Put a tracker on. If they go over a residential area it gets reported to the PoPo, and they then get charged under local peeping tom ordnances.

The FAA says no to this. Aircraft, including drones, are allowed to fly over residential areas.

Change it. Its just the FAA.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:
Obviously with shotguns, specifically Droneslayers' 200m ranged one

No no. 20mm cannon. Come on this DakkaDakka. When we say dakka we mean DAKKA!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Put a tracker on. If they go over a residential area it gets reported to the PoPo, and they then get charged under local peeping tom ordnances.

Why do you keep on making this assumption that if there's a drone, they must obviously be trying to get photos of people whilst they're naked? You keep on insisting that the guy that flew the drone is a pervert, yet there's virtually no evidence for that statement. Why so quick to assume that anyone with a drone is a pervert?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which I think is a good thing. Drones should not have free reign like they currently do in most areas.

So how exactly do you propose to regulate them? Keep in mind that airspace in the US is under federal control, and the FAA frowns rather strongly upon lower-level governments saying "you can't fly here". And current FAA policy is that drones are no different from piloted aircraft, and the FAA gets authority over them.

Then they would be regulated by the FAA, presumably. That's how it works in the UK.

I never knew these drones had such precise altimeters. Does it work by radar?

 Ouze wrote:

 kronk wrote:
That's a cool picture.

I'll draw all over it if you like.

Can you add gordon freeman to it?

 Goliath wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:
Obviously with shotguns, specifically Droneslayers' 200m ranged one

No no. 20mm cannon. Come on this DakkaDakka. When we say dakka we mean DAKKA!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Put a tracker on. If they go over a residential area it gets reported to the PoPo, and they then get charged under local peeping tom ordnances.

Why do you keep on making this assumption that if there's a drone, they must obviously be trying to get photos of people whilst they're naked? You keep on insisting that the guy that flew the drone is a pervert, yet there's virtually no evidence for that statement. Why so quick to assume that anyone with a drone is a pervert?

Because the drone was hovering over his teenaged daughter who was sunbathing at the time.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which I think is a good thing. Drones should not have free reign like they currently do in most areas.

So how exactly do you propose to regulate them? Keep in mind that airspace in the US is under federal control, and the FAA frowns rather strongly upon lower-level governments saying "you can't fly here". And current FAA policy is that drones are no different from piloted aircraft, and the FAA gets authority over them.

Nope. The FAA considers them UASs (Unmanned Aircraft Systems). Looking into this, they apparently restrict UASs from operating in a commercial capacity and treat them as hobby aircraft. In fact they levied a $10,00 fine against a man who flew one to take pictures of a college campus for pay.

The Pirker Case

The one case that all eyes have been watching over the past few years and has been responsible for all the media frenzy of late.

In 2011, Raphael Pirker of Team Blacksheep (AKA "Trappy"), a Swiss citizen, was contracted by a publicity firm under contract with the University of Virginia to take aerial videos over and around the campus with his remote controlled powered fixed-wing Styrofoam glider (a Ritewing Zephyr). A couple years later, after viewing his flight online, the FAA levied a $10,000 fine claiming he had operated an UAS for commercial purposes, which the FAA does not permit under current regulations for UAVs/UAS in U.S. airspace.

Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) are inherently different from manned aircraft. Introducing UAS into the nation's airspace is challenging for both the FAA and aviation community, because the U.S. has the busiest, most complex airspace in the world. The FAA is taking an incremental approach to safe UAS integration.

What Can I Do with my Model Aircraft?
UAS come in a variety of shapes and sizes and serve diverse purposes. Regardless of size, the responsibility to fly safely applies equally to manned and unmanned aircraft operations. The FAA is partnering with several industry associations to promote safe and responsible use of unmanned aircraft. Read more about the Know Before You Fly educational campaign.

You can even go to the FAA website and download signs to post around your property notifying drone pilots that you're a no fly zone:

No Drone Zone

The FAA is leading a public outreach campaign to promote safe and responsible use of unmanned aircraft systems.
We are offering a digital toolkit with outreach materials to federal, state, and other partners to educate unmanned aircraft operators that flying in certain areas is prohibited. This toolkit includes No Drone Zone signage for any medium, including print and web.

http://www.faa.gov/uas/no_drone_zone/



The good news is that FAA regulations are available for public comment and will go through rulemaking this coming Spring. They're also considering forcing all drone owners to register their drones.

See people, this is what happens when people abuse something, the federal parents step in and force regulation down our throats.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which I think is a good thing. Drones should not have free reign like they currently do in most areas.

So how exactly do you propose to regulate them? Keep in mind that airspace in the US is under federal control, and the FAA frowns rather strongly upon lower-level governments saying "you can't fly here". And current FAA policy is that drones are no different from piloted aircraft, and the FAA gets authority over them.

Then they would be regulated by the FAA, presumably. That's how it works in the UK.

I never knew these drones had such precise altimeters. Does it work by radar?

Could be a simple pressure system to determine the altitude, which wouldn't be 100% accurate but would be good enough most of the time.

It does have GPS, which is apparently able figure out where the sensor is physically located.

Or so I am told at least.

 Goliath wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:
Obviously with shotguns, specifically Droneslayers' 200m ranged one

No no. 20mm cannon. Come on this DakkaDakka. When we say dakka we mean DAKKA!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Put a tracker on. If they go over a residential area it gets reported to the PoPo, and they then get charged under local peeping tom ordnances.

Why do you keep on making this assumption that if there's a drone, they must obviously be trying to get photos of people whilst they're naked? You keep on insisting that the guy that flew the drone is a pervert, yet there's virtually no evidence for that statement. Why so quick to assume that anyone with a drone is a pervert?

Thats what parents do. look in the general direction of their kid? OMG PERVERT!!!!!! PArents think everyones pervy

 agnosto wrote:
Nope. The FAA considers them UASs (Unmanned Aircraft Systems). Looking into this, they apparently restrict UASs from operating in a commercial capacity and treat them as hobby aircraft. In fact they levied a $10,00 fine against a man who flew one to take pictures of a college campus for pay.

Yes, I was generalizing a bit because I don't think most people here care much about the precise details of the regulations. The point I was trying to make is that the FAA treats them as any other aircraft for purposes of claiming authority over them. Obviously drones get their own regulations, just like single-engine and multi-engine piloted aircraft have different regulations.

You can even go to the FAA website and download signs to post around your property notifying drone pilots that you're a no fly zone:

No you can't. Those signs are intended for government or police use, to enforce existing FAA airspace regulations (national security areas, etc) of the same type that piloted aircraft have to deal with. There is no ability to declare the airspace above your property a no-fly zone for drones. And when airspace is made off-limits it is because of safety and/or national security issues, not a perceived right to be free of drones in "your" airspace.

Now, there are various proposals and services that claim to allow you to designate a no-fly zone over your property, but compliance with that request is entirely voluntary. Some drone manufacturers may voluntarily obey a database of "stay out" requests but that doesn't make it a law.

The good news is that FAA regulations are available for public comment and will go through rulemaking this coming Spring. They're also considering forcing all drone owners to register their drones.

See people, this is what happens when people abuse something, the federal parents step in and force regulation down our throats.

This is true, but the proposed regulations have very little to do with protecting the "right" to be naked in your yard without anyone seeing you and a lot to do with careless drone operators doing stupid things like flying into the approach path to major airports. It's a safe bet that the FAA will impose safety regulations (while at the same time opening up commercial drone use to companies that follow the safety regulations), but I would be very surprised if they care one bit about privacy issues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Change it. Its just the FAA.

There is a lot of precedent against doing so. It could theoretically happen, but you're a lot more likely to win the lottery.

The amazing thing is that the only actual crime committed by anyone was the discharge of a firearm within city limits, which the man freely admitted to, despite a complete lack of any actual threat whatsoever.

And the response to that is "feth drones" and "the man is a pervert and a liar".

You want stupid gun laws? Because situations like that is how you get stupid gun laws.

 d-usa wrote:
The amazing thing is that the only actual crime committed by anyone was the discharge of a firearm within city limits, which the man freely admitted to, despite a complete lack of any actual threat whatsoever.

And the response to that is "feth drones" and "the man is a pervert and a liar".

You want stupid gun laws? Because situations like that is how you get stupid gun laws.

I don't think you realise that this thing was flying around, and there were children on the ground, so they were obviously in grave peril. This brave hero needed to protect them from the dangerous drone flying overhead. Why aren't you thinking of the children?



Also, question. Does the castle doctrine apply to drones?

Seriously though, the fact that you (Frazzled) immediately leapt to the man being a pervert and a liar after finding out the shooter had kids nearby, kinda speaks towards your biases.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I never knew these drones had such precise altimeters. Does it work by radar?

The Phantom 3 uses 3 different methods of positioning: a barometric altimeter, GPS/GLONASS, and within a certain distance of the ground - I want to say 30 feet - a visual + ultrasonic camera system in the belly. The latter is to allow flying indoors, when you can't get a reliable GPS lock and don't want to fly manually.

 d-usa wrote:
The amazing thing is that the only actual crime committed by anyone was the discharge of a firearm within city limits, which the man freely admitted to, despite a complete lack of any actual threat whatsoever.

And the response to that is "feth drones" and "the man is a pervert and a liar".

You want stupid gun laws? Because situations like that is how you get stupid gun laws.

Yeah, I mentioned earlier that everyone always screams after a mass shooting "we don't need new laws, enforce the ones we have". Well, here's a guy who fired a gun into the air in a residential neighborhood and the charges were dismissed despite not making a self-defense claim (which in his jurisdiction is the only legal defense). And yet, shrugs.

A drone flying over your property may be harassment, but that's a matter for the police. If you shoot down a drone, and it hits someone on the ground, or your falling ammunition hits someone, you've created a much greater public threat than the original problem. That's not OK.

 Ouze wrote:
...

Yeah, I mentioned earlier that everyone always screams after a mass shooting "we don't need new laws, enforce the ones we have". Well, here's a guy who fired a gun into the air in a residential neighborhood and the charges were dismissed despite not making a self-defense claim (which in his jurisdiction is the only legal defense). And yet, shrugs.

...

The reason for that is that most people don't want their neighbours flying drones over to spy on them, and they are pleased to see one get shot down. It's a case that if it went to jury trial might well have produced a perverse verdict.

The information about the altimeter systems is very interesting. Presumably the operator needs to calculate the barometric system for meteo, and the downwards looking ultrasonic is a backup to cope with the minor inaccuracy in GPS (flying over buildings and trees, and so on).

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Presumably the operator needs to calculate the barometric system for meteo

Probably not. Height above ground level is what a drone cares about, not its altitude above sea level. If you're flying a full-size plane you need to set the altimeter to the current pressure because things like runway elevations are given relative to sea level and you really don't want to be off by 100'. But a drone cares way more about buildings (which aren't mapped) than terrain elevation, and isn't going to stay in the air long enough for changing weather to make a meaningful change in altimeter readings. All you'd need for 99.9% of drone uses is to set the altimeter to zero when the drone is turned on and track the change in pressure from the reference level.

 Goliath wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The amazing thing is that the only actual crime committed by anyone was the discharge of a firearm within city limits, which the man freely admitted to, despite a complete lack of any actual threat whatsoever.

And the response to that is "feth drones" and "the man is a pervert and a liar".

You want stupid gun laws? Because situations like that is how you get stupid gun laws.

I don't think you realise that this thing was flying around, and there were children on the ground, so they were obviously in grave peril. This brave hero needed to protect them from the dangerous drone flying overhead. Why aren't you thinking of the children?



Also, question. Does the castle doctrine apply to drones?

Seriously though, the fact that you (Frazzled) immediately leapt to the man being a pervert and a liar after finding out the shooter had kids nearby, kinda speaks towards your biases.

Considering thats WHAT THE FATHER SAID, who then used a short range weapon to take out the drone, the fact there is no video from the drone to support the "victim," his teenage daughter was sunbathing where it occurred, and the judge threw it out, I'd say I'm pretty justified Brit.

 Frazzled wrote:

Considering thats WHAT THE FATHER SAID, who then used a short range weapon to take out the drone,

Which is the point he's making:
This is a "he said, he said"--but you keep immediately making mental gymnastics to support one side while labeling the other as a "pervert".

the fact there is no video from the drone to support the "victim,"

Ouze has pointed out that this particular model when it loses power can corrupt the footage. So did you ever think that maybe "Droneslayer" screwed up by pretending it was the Blitz and shooting the thing down?

his teenage daughter was sunbathing where it occurred,

You don't get to shoot down news helicopters or passenger airlines flying over your house when your teenage daughter is sunbathing, why should you be able to shoot down a drone?

and the judge threw it out, I'd say I'm pretty justified Brit.

And I still question why the hell the judge threw it out in this manner.

 Frazzled wrote:
Considering thats WHAT THE FATHER SAID

Ah, well if the father said it, it must be true; he's a father and would never lie about anything like the illegal discharge of a firearm, would he?

who then used a short range weapon to take out the drone, the fact there is no video from the drone to support the "victim,"

It is indeed odd that there's no video evidence available from that electronic device that he just shot out of the air. You'd imagine, seeing as it was obviously a military grade P.E.R.V*-Cam, that it would have better bulletproofing.

his teenage daughter was sunbathing where it occurred

Again, he-said she-said, regardless of which, if I'm walking around the garden naked, I don't suddenly have the right to shoot anything that flies above me. (If I were in America, that is)

and the judge threw it out

Ah, so it's correct because the judge threw it out, and the judge threw it out because it was correct, then.

I'd say I'm pretty justified Brit.

Not quite sure why you felt the need to refer to me as Brit, unless you were for some reason trying to imply that I'm not allowed to comment?

Either way, that's still not a refutation of my point. This is a he-said she-said argument. The shooter has made statements implying that the droner is a pervert. You have then immediately taken his side, to the point that you don't need evidence to back up the shooter's claims any more, because the shooter is the one that made them. This is evidence of your own biases.

Saying "The shooter said XX, You stupid british person" doesn't respond to my point that you're taking the shooter's side due to your own biases.

"I think you might be agreeing with what the shooter said too readily, you might be slightly biased"
"Well of course I am, the shooter said it"



*Pilfering Exremely Racy Video

Has anyone read the news articles about this?

Defendant: I was only there to take pictures of my friends house.

Numerous witnesses that testified: It was flying below the tree lines through multiple yards, and was at one point seen flying less then ten feet of the ground looking under a tarp in someone's backyard. Also the defendant has video but he will only supply the footage two seconds before the drone was shot down.

 ChainswordHeretic wrote:
Has anyone read the news articles about this?

Defendant: I was only there to take pictures of my friends house.

Numerous witnesses that testified: It was flying below the tree lines through multiple yards, and was at one point seen flying less then ten feet of the ground looking under a tarp in someone's backyard. Also the defendant has video but he will only supply the footage two seconds before the drone was shot down.

Yes, let's focus on that.

Let's ignore the fact that Merideth claimed early on that he had been "harassed" by drones multiple times. Not that he had been harassed by this particular drone, by drones.

I think it's safe to say that there are knuckleheads on both sides of the fence, and that the finger of shame should be wagged at both.

I'm leaning more towards two fingers of shame wagging at the discharge of firearms by the owner when not in clear danger.

And I don't trust the drone owner, either. A finger at thee, sir.

 ChainswordHeretic wrote:
Has anyone read the news articles about this?

Defendant: I was only there to take pictures of my friends house.

Numerous witnesses that testified: It was flying below the tree lines through multiple yards, and was at one point seen flying less then ten feet of the ground looking under a tarp in someone's backyard. Also the defendant has video but he will only supply the footage two seconds before the drone was shot down.

Do you have a cite for this - the latter item specifically?

Also, how does a drone lift up a tarp and look under it? I feel like maybe I'm not understanding you there.

 Ouze wrote:

 ChainswordHeretic wrote:
Has anyone read the news articles about this?

Defendant: I was only there to take pictures of my friends house.

Numerous witnesses that testified: It was flying below the tree lines through multiple yards, and was at one point seen flying less then ten feet of the ground looking under a tarp in someone's backyard. Also the defendant has video but he will only supply the footage two seconds before the drone was shot down.

Do you have a cite for this - the latter item specifically?

Also, how does a drone lift up a tarp and look under it? I feel like maybe I'm not understanding you there.

In the story he speaks of, the neighbors had on of those canopies opened over their back deck and the drone flew under it. A neighbor backed up the father's story.

http://www.wdrb.com/story/29650818/hillview-man-arrested-for-shooting-down-drone-cites-right-to-privacy

I like this part:

It wasn't long before the drone's owners appeared.

"Four guys came over to confront me about it, and I happened to be armed, so that changed their minds," Merideth said.

"They asked me, 'Are you the S-O-B that shot my drone?' and I said, 'Yes I am,'" he said. "I had my 40 mm Glock on me and they started toward me and I told them, 'If you cross my sidewalk, there's gonna be another shooting.'"

So. Guy thinks he has the right to fire of his gun at people. And threaten them?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So. Guy thinks he has the right to fire of his gun at people. And threaten them?

He never fired is gun at people.

If they were approaching him in his home in a threatening manner, he has the right to tell them to back off.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So. Guy thinks he has the right to fire of his gun at people. And threaten them?

Please slow down and read it again.

From my unxerstanding. Being on the lawn is not a reason to shoot someone.