Shoot that drone down

On 05/28/2016 03:20 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

At least one US case was thrown out after a homeowner shot down a
drone
due to invasion of privacy. That sets precedence.

that was because it was creeping on his teenage daughter by the
pool.

The ruling cited privacy. What that privacy is is irrelevant.

it's not irrelevant.

Of course it's irrelevant. Privacy means nobody should know what the
substance of what was private. The father's motivations may be
narrower
- but the judge's ruling is what was relevant: privacy.

then why not shoot down *any* plane that overflys someone's property?

where i live, small planes often fly over houses at around 2000 feet
(the lowest i've seen is 1700 feet).

You indeed have amazing powers! You can tell the difference between
an airplane's altitude of 1,700 feet and 2,000 feet! Without being in
the cockpit and observing the altimeter.

more of your uninformed spew, as expected.

there's no need to be in the cockpit to find out the altitude of planes
flying overhead. that information is broadcast for anyone to receive.

you claim to have been a pilot. familiarity with avionics is something
an actual pilot would have known. you must not have been a pilot.

Actually, small planes can legally fly lower than 1,700 feet. In a
congested area, the minimum is 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle
within a 2,000 foot radius of the airplane, or 500 feet in a
non-congested area. Restrictions and exceptions may apply.

the altitude isn't the issue. invasion of privacy is.

Altitude *is* the issue when you raise it as an issue. As you did.

nope. i said that the guy who shot down a drone did so because it was
creeping on his daughter, not because it was flying too low.

i have no idea what altitude that drone was at (nor do you), but
presumably it was not very high since the cameras on drones aren't all
that great and generally have a wider field of view, so to get a good
shot of the girl, it'd need to be fairly close.

invading someone's privacy, the actual issue here, can be done at much
higher altitudes than a typical drone because far better cameras and
lenses can be used.

Pilots do not broadcast altitude information unless requested or for
some special purpose as in entering the approach pattern. Besides,
you said you've "seen" planes at 1,700 feet, not heard the pilot
declaring his/her altitude. Usually, the pilot enters that pattern at
1,500 feet.

You're making **** up.

it's not me who is making **** up.

i didn't say anything about pilots declaring anything or entering
approach patterns.

you made that part up.

it's also not hard to see a plane at altitudes much higher than 1700
feet, unless you're visually impaired, which you must be (along with
numerous other impairments).

as usual, you're arguing against what was never said.

snip

You said "where i live, small planes often fly over houses at around
2000 feet (the lowest i've seen is 1700 feet)"

I would like to know what method you use to determine a plane's altitude
when you are on the ground. Or were you in the plane at the time,
looking at the instruments? But that couldn't be, because you said "the
lowest I've _seen_ is 1700 feet." If you were in the plane, you couldn't
have seen that plane flying over your house.

If you meant that you were in the plane at the time, perhaps you should
have said something like "I've often flown over the the houses where I
live as low as 2000 feet, and sometimes as low as 1700 feet".

To quote Mr Cooper: "You're making **** up."
--
Ken Hart

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:


where i live, small planes often fly over houses at around 2000 feet
(the lowest i've seen is 1700 feet).

You indeed have amazing powers! You can tell the difference between
an airplane's altitude of 1,700 feet and 2,000 feet! Without being in
the cockpit and observing the altimeter.

more of your uninformed spew, as expected.

there's no need to be in the cockpit to find out the altitude of planes
flying overhead. that information is broadcast for anyone to receive.

you claim to have been a pilot. familiarity with avionics is something
an actual pilot would have known. you must not have been a pilot.



snip

You said "where i live, small planes often fly over houses at around
2000 feet (the lowest i've seen is 1700 feet)"

I would like to know what method you use to determine a plane's altitude
when you are on the ground. Or were you in the plane at the time,
looking at the instruments? But that couldn't be, because you said "the
lowest I've _seen_ is 1700 feet." If you were in the plane, you couldn't
have seen that plane flying over your house.

already explained and still quoted above:
there's no need to be in the cockpit to find out the altitude of planes
flying overhead. that information is broadcast for anyone to receive.

obviously, i have such a receiver (more than one, actually).

If you meant that you were in the plane at the time, perhaps you should
have said something like "I've often flown over the the houses where I
live as low as 2000 feet, and sometimes as low as 1700 feet".

why would i do that when that's not what happened?

To quote Mr Cooper: "You're making **** up."

to quote me, you're an idiot.

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

As to the rest, in the US (generally) aircraft can fly in unpopulated
areas 500' above ground; 1000' above populated areas (towns) or lower
(in both cases) for the purpose of taking off/landing provided the later
does not pass 83' above a private property. And the 2000' lateral rule.
(I don't recall the over-water rules which are more lenient other than
the 2000' lateral rule (IIRC)).

what the rules say and what actually happens are not necessarily the
same.

The area where this incident took place was sufficiently built up that
one would have to stay above 1000'. A stabilized telephoto shot (and
yes, you would need a stabilization system) from there that would invade
privacy would be a very expensive endeavour and not likely at all except
perhaps for law enforcement or ENG. The later are very careful about
what they shoot and the former need cause or warrant.

stabilized lenses as well as stabilized camera mounts are common and
not that expensive, especially compared to the cost of flying.

anyone bothering to fly a plane to invade someone's privacy is going to
have the necessary camera equipment. otherwise, why bother with the
flight.

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:


where i live, small planes often fly over houses at around 2000 feet
(the lowest i've seen is 1700 feet).

You indeed have amazing powers! You can tell the difference between
an airplane's altitude of 1,700 feet and 2,000 feet! Without being in
the cockpit and observing the altimeter.

more of your uninformed spew, as expected.

there's no need to be in the cockpit to find out the altitude of planes
flying overhead. that information is broadcast for anyone to receive.

Said altitude being above sea level - not ground level.

big deal. it's trivial to convert msl to agl and it can even be done
automatically.

And you're not required to have an altitude reporting transponder or
ADS-B (position/alt reporting transponders) in most airspace. Class A/B
required/usually; class C sometimes, most everywhere else below
18,000/12500 (US/Canada) feet it is not required for VFR (or even most
IFR) flight. The vast majority of airspace is E and G.

If you're near a large enough city then aircraft in the area will tend
to operate the transponder in MODE C (altitude reporting), not for
compliance but self preservation. (Controllers will report altitudes of
aircraft outside their zones to other aircraft in contact if the
altitude is known - so if you have it, use it).

that's the point.

i live close enough to more than one major airport, so every plane i
see has at a minimum, a mode c transponder. i've yet to see a plane
that *didn't* send altitude, although sometimes it takes several
seconds until it gets interrogated.

if i lived in the farmlands of nebraska, it would be different. i don't.

you claim to have been a pilot. familiarity with avionics is something
an actual pilot would have known. you must not have been a pilot.

Nor you. To start with altitudes you see on FligthRadar24 and the like
are above sea level; not above ground level. And even that is
meaningless if you don't know about local NOTAMs or even voluntary
neighbor friendly procedures that have pilots stay above certain
altitudes in order for the local airport to be in the good graces of the
community. (aka noise abatement).

i wasn't talking about flightradar24 or notams.

i'm talking about the altitude of planes flying over my neighborhood.
that's all.

Actually, small planes can legally fly lower than 1,700 feet. In a
congested area, the minimum is 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle
within a 2,000 foot radius of the airplane, or 500 feet in a
non-congested area. Restrictions and exceptions may apply.

the altitude isn't the issue. invasion of privacy is.

if you creep on someone laying out by the pool, you aren't going to get
very far by saying "i was flying above the faa minimum."

From the FAA minimum above a built up area you would need very
expensive stabilization gear to get a good shot of most anything
personally private. It's not likely at all.

actually not that expensive, but it's also not that likely that someone
will fly a drone to creep on girls either.

On May 28, 2016, Tony Cooper wrote
(in ):

On Sat, 28 May 2016 18:01:21 -0400,
wrote:

In , Alan Browne
wrote:


where i live, small planes often fly over houses at around 2000
feet
(the lowest i've seen is 1700 feet).

You indeed have amazing powers! You can tell the difference between
an airplane's altitude of 1,700 feet and 2,000 feet! Without being in
the cockpit and observing the altimeter.

more of your uninformed spew, as expected.

there's no need to be in the cockpit to find out the altitude of planes
flying overhead. that information is broadcast for anyone to receive.

Said altitude being above sea level - not ground level.

big deal. it's trivial to convert msl to agl and it can even be done
automatically.


Trivial? It was for me flying out of the FBO that I normally used
where 1,500 asl was 1,487 agl. Not for those flying out of a Colorado
airport, though, where it would be a big deal. Like crashing into a
mountain big deal.

How do you "convert" the measurement? It's not like inches to
millimeters. There are two different distances involved. They are
not converted to one distance. The only reason to know the msl is to
calibrate the altimeter.

actually not that expensive, but it's also not that likely that someone
will fly a drone to creep on girls either.

What *is* this "creep on" thing? Are you talking about spiders or
caterpillars with cameras?

It could be one of these:
http://erlerobotics.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ErleSpider_W1.jpg
or one of these:
http://www.bitforms.com/schulke/spider-drone-2

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On May 28, 2016, Savageduck wrote
(in news.com):

On May 28, 2016, Tony Cooper wrote
(in ):

On Sat, 28 May 2016 18:01:21 -0400,
wrote:

In , Alan Browne
wrote:


where i live, small planes often fly over houses at around 2000
feet
(the lowest i've seen is 1700 feet).

You indeed have amazing powers! You can tell the difference between
an airplane's altitude of 1,700 feet and 2,000 feet! Without being
in
the cockpit and observing the altimeter.

more of your uninformed spew, as expected.

there's no need to be in the cockpit to find out the altitude of
planes
flying overhead. that information is broadcast for anyone to receive.

Said altitude being above sea level - not ground level.

big deal. it's trivial to convert msl to agl and it can even be done
automatically.


Trivial? It was for me flying out of the FBO that I normally used
where 1,500 asl was 1,487 agl. Not for those flying out of a Colorado
airport, though, where it would be a big deal. Like crashing into a
mountain big deal.

How do you "convert" the measurement? It's not like inches to
millimeters. There are two different distances involved. They are
not converted to one distance. The only reason to know the msl is to
calibrate the altimeter.

actually not that expensive, but it's also not that likely that someone
will fly a drone to creep on girls either.

What *is* this "creep on" thing? Are you talking about spiders or
caterpillars with cameras?

It could be one of these:
http://erlerobotics.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ErleSpider_W1.jpg
or one of these:
http://www.bitforms.com/schulke/spider-drone-2

Actually if you want creepy, take a look at the spider-drone video.
https://vimeo.com/54379173

--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


where i live, small planes often fly over houses at around 2000 feet
(the lowest i've seen is 1700 feet).

You indeed have amazing powers! You can tell the difference between
an airplane's altitude of 1,700 feet and 2,000 feet! Without being in
the cockpit and observing the altimeter.

more of your uninformed spew, as expected.

there's no need to be in the cockpit to find out the altitude of planes
flying overhead. that information is broadcast for anyone to receive.

Said altitude being above sea level - not ground level.

big deal. it's trivial to convert msl to agl and it can even be done
automatically.

Trivial?

yes, trivial.

It was for me flying out of the FBO that I normally used
where 1,500 asl was 1,487 agl. Not for those flying out of a Colorado
airport, though, where it would be a big deal. Like crashing into a
mountain big deal.

whoosh.

How do you "convert" the measurement?

subtraction.

1st grade math.

It's not like inches to
millimeters.

true. it's not. inches to millimeters involves multiplication.

There are two different distances involved. They are
not converted to one distance. The only reason to know the msl is to
calibrate the altimeter.

actually it's one distance. a plane can only be in one place at one
time.

the difference is where the zero point is.

actually not that expensive, but it's also not that likely that someone
will fly a drone to creep on girls either.

What *is* this "creep on" thing? Are you talking about spiders or
caterpillars with cameras?

neither.

On 05/28/2016 06:29 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
snip

What *is* this "creep on" thing? Are you talking about spiders or
caterpillars with cameras?


I could be wrong, but I think it's an urban slang thing, like you hear
if you hang around fast-food joints (or work in their kitchens, like
nospam).

In UrbanDictionary.com, definition #6 says " To have sex with someone,
usually someone you're cheating with. "He been creeping with other women
all over town".
The first five definitions mostly refer to moving slowly or stealthy.

So, ostensibly, the drone "pilot" was in hormone overdrive at the time.

--
Ken Hart

On 05/28/2016 08:58 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2016 19:15:04 -0400, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 05/28/2016 06:29 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
snip

What *is* this "creep on" thing? Are you talking about spiders or
caterpillars with cameras?


I could be wrong, but I think it's an urban slang thing, like you hear
if you hang around fast-food joints (or work in their kitchens, like
nospam).

In UrbanDictionary.com, definition #6 says " To have sex with someone,
usually someone you're cheating with. "He been creeping with other women
all over town".
The first five definitions mostly refer to moving slowly or stealthy.

So, ostensibly, the drone "pilot" was in hormone overdrive at the time.

Even that does not fit his context. A person in an airplane observing
someone "laying" [sic] by a pool is not engaging in sex with that
person.

I think what he did - which is typical for him - was that he made a
mistake in the first usage when he meant "creeping out" and then dug
in his heels in pretense that he meant that formation all along.


Actually, "laying" could be the correct word- assuming they were
installing carpeting around the pool. But of the carpet installers I've
met, there are very few I would want to "creep on".


--
Ken Hart

On May 28, 2016, Ken Hart wrote
(in article ):

On 05/28/2016 08:58 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2016 19:15:04 -0400, Ken Hart
wrote:

On 05/28/2016 06:29 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
snip

What *is* this "creep on" thing? Are you talking about spiders or
caterpillars with cameras?

I could be wrong, but I think it's an urban slang thing, like you hear
if you hang around fast-food joints (or work in their kitchens, like
nospam).

In UrbanDictionary.com, definition #6 says " To have sex with someone,
usually someone you're cheating with. "He been creeping with other women
all over town".
The first five definitions mostly refer to moving slowly or stealthy.

So, ostensibly, the drone "pilot" was in hormone overdrive at the time.

Even that does not fit his context. A person in an airplane observing
someone "laying" [sic] by a pool is not engaging in sex with that
person.

I think what he did - which is typical for him - was that he made a
mistake in the first usage when he meant "creeping out" and then dug
in his heels in pretense that he meant that formation all along.

Actually, "laying" could be the correct word- assuming they were
installing carpeting around the pool. But of the carpet installers I've
met, there are very few I would want to "creep on".

They could be “laying� bricks, or through an accident of anatomy, eggs.

--

Regards,
Savageduck