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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |