A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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 » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Shoot that drone down



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 28th 16, 02:38 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Shoot that drone down

On 2016-05-28 02:13, Rich A wrote:
So, you can't shoot a drone down that's invading your privacy, but of course the STATE wants weapons to bring them down. The wonderful, wonderful STATE.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...k-police-72271


That's not so bad. I'd use a shotgun myself - there wouldn't be much
surviving it. Several firms have developed microwave transmitters that
put a powerful, narrow beam pulse on the drone to disrupt the
electronics - after the crash it might not be all that salvageable.

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

Not sure about Canada or other locales where shooting a shotgun is
considered damned impolite, wot.

--
She hummed to herself because she was an unrivaled botcher of lyrics.
-Nick (Gone Girl), Gillian Flynn.
  #2  
Old May 28th 16, 03:04 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Shoot that drone down

In article , Alan Browne
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.
  #3  
Old May 28th 16, 04:17 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Shoot that drone down

On 2016-05-28 10:04, nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
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.

--
She hummed to herself because she was an unrivaled botcher of lyrics.
-Nick (Gone Girl), Gillian Flynn.
  #4  
Old May 28th 16, 04:40 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Shoot that drone down

In article , Alan Browne
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. he said that if it just flew over his property or
if it was much higher (where it couldn't get closeup views of his
daughter), he wouldn't have bothered.

the fact that it was low enough and close enough to creep on her was
why he took action.
  #5  
Old May 28th 16, 04:48 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Shoot that drone down

On 2016-05-28 11:40, nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
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.

--
She hummed to herself because she was an unrivaled botcher of lyrics.
-Nick (Gone Girl), Gillian Flynn.
  #6  
Old May 28th 16, 05:04 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Shoot that drone down

In article , Alan Browne
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).

someone on board could have a high resolution camera with a long
telephoto lens and get far better quality results than from an fpv
drone that's a few hundred feet up.
  #7  
Old May 28th 16, 06:55 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Shoot that drone down

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.

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."
  #8  
Old May 28th 16, 08:20 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Shoot that drone down

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.

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."


"creep on"? What does that mean? It's very difficult to creep up on
someone when flying an airplane. Do you mean "creep out"?


nope. i meant creep on.

What was the person laying out by the pool, anyway? Or did you mean
lying out by the pool?


grammar flames means you can't refute anything. no surprise there. you
ain't foolin' anyone.
  #9  
Old May 28th 16, 09:12 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Shoot that drone down

On 2016-05-28 12:04, nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
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?


See[1] before replying.

If a helicopter were operating low and near enough with no obvious other
purpose than to invade your privacy, then you could likely get away with
it. OTOH, the endangering/taking of human life in that situation would
put you at serious odds with the law. One would be better to bring the
action to the FAA. If there was possible invasion of privacy, then just
make a police complaint and/or sue. (As the fellow in this case could
have done as well).


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


[1] Unless there is NOTAM to the contrary they can fly down to 1000'
above the height of the buildings in a populated area and a lateral
clearance of 2000' from structures (tower, building). Lower for the
purpose of landing/taking off (eg: if there is a runway that has an
approach/departure over the built area.)


someone on board could have a high resolution camera with a long
telephoto lens and get far better quality results than from an fpv
drone that's a few hundred feet up.


True to form you miss the point.

The operation of the drone in this case was in a flight operations grey
zone, but in a clear invasion of privacy zone irrespective of what was
going on in private.

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)).

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.

--
She hummed to herself because she was an unrivaled botcher of lyrics.
-Nick (Gone Girl), Gillian Flynn.
  #10  
Old May 28th 16, 09:25 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default Shoot that drone down

On 2016-05-28 13:55, 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.


Said altitude being above sea level - not ground level.

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).


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).

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.

--
She hummed to herself because she was an unrivaled botcher of lyrics.
-Nick (Gone Girl), Gillian Flynn.
 




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 Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Shoot that drone down newshound Digital Photography 0 May 28th 16 12:40 PM
One of the hazards of drone-photography. Eric Stevens Digital Photography 3 October 28th 15 09:27 PM
More drone issues Savageduck[_3_] Digital Photography 7 July 1st 14 05:48 PM
The 1st FAA Prosecution of a Civilian Drone UAV Eric Stevens Digital Photography 8 November 3rd 13 12:27 AM
Drone helicopter with 1.8G camera Savageduck[_3_] Digital Photography 1 December 30th 11 04:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:31 AM.


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