Just got word a former employer had a Phantom 4 pro shot during a mission. Fortunately not much damage. They finished the mission (for some ungodly reason) and have the photo series showing the shooter.
Supposedly shooting down a UAS carries the same weight as shooting at a manned aircraft, it will be interesting to hear how this plays out. Please post updates.
One would think shooting at a drone is not a good strategy given that there's an onboard camera with a wide FOV. OTOH a shot in the back may not be recorded.
Which begs the question, obviously the shotgun the best weapon against drones, but a shotgun's max range is limited to +- 1000 feet so if you're?ÿ running @ altitude 500' or so the angle for not direct overhead shots could trigonometrically not be within range.?ÿ Concerning shot size #9 does not have enough range, #5 could bridge the gap?ÿ with enough scatter to touch the drone with a pellet. Obviously a drone is not armoured so even a single pellet could wreak havoc.
So I'd run a long choke barrel automatic shotgun or pump action with a couple of #9 rounds for the first close in likely kills, followed by several #5 rounds for 50% more range and maybe a last #2 for a prayer?ÿ kill.?ÿ All of course Magnum rounds.
Clearly pistols and rifles are not effective, although if you have?ÿ a fully automatic rifled weapon you could spray the drone and maybe get a hit which would be devastating.
Bring it on,?ÿ a drone coming in low and slow over my property where I'm suspicious?ÿ will suffer massive damage as best I can.?ÿ Get my permission first or suffer the consequences.?ÿ I treat?ÿ dogs the same way unless the owner warns me his dog is a wanderer, harmless and a sweetie.
By dog is barking out of its mind and me thinking critter confrontation and here I'm out the door with?ÿ the 1100 auto loaded to the max and some drone is buzzing my back yard invading my wife and daughter during their private sun tan session and I'm gonna blast that gizmo.
IMVHO, I own the sky from the ground to the stars above and without prior consultation about access, nothing best be winging itself across my domain.
This particular drone was in a right of way corridor. Have yet to hear if notification was given, but it was when I worked there. SUAS are exempt from our State restrictions if used for mapping, but it was still policy to be decent and notify.
I respect others and value my own rights as much as anyone. We are pretty far apart on how to translate that to daily actions.
On one of our projects, the client offered to give notice to owners. They had a good track record on it, but we backed them up with our own letters. Turns out they misunderstood our schedule. Does that justify destroying my equipment and doubling my mob costs?
It's also important to understand the difficulty evaluating the location of a flying object. If you have no frame of reference on size you cannot judge the range well. The more experience you get, the more you admit and compensate for it. If you shoot at something that turns out to be nowhere near your property, your defense is toast. If you do it with a handgun or rifle and kill or injure somebody you should go to prison. It's simply irresponsible.?ÿ
I own several firearms of different varieties. They are tools I will use to defend my family if needed. They are not my only tools. While making it a go to problem solver works to sell movies, it sucks as a way to act in society. I'll stop there before it devolves into a p and r thread...
Yup, my post was tongue in cheek.?ÿ Obviously when discharging firearms great liability is involved if not protecting oneself or others.
My acreage is considerable so any UAV at low altitude is intrusive and any (shotgun) response will not endanger others.?ÿ Frankly, I'd shoot at it for fun.
The drone laws in New Zealand say you can't fly (whether filming or not) over property that does not belong to you, unless you have permission from the owner. So that includes council public parks, roads, etc, whereby you need their permission to fly. Apparently you also need the permission of anyone you fly over. [There's also a law (although probably archaic) that it is illegal to discharge a firearm within 100m (100 yards) of a dwelling, even if it's yours - and to this day that has caught many people out - I often wonder if there is the same or similar law in USA]. Here's an extract from a district council website:
There was a court case many years ago in Georgia concerning air space and who owns it. Walt Robillard was involved in some way. The finding as I remember it was that you own the ground and the air space as high as you can control the air space. I know it was more complicated than that but that was the gist of it This case involved a powerplant building a cooling tower and cutting off line-of-sight air space for a telephone microwave communication system.
My take on it at the time was that I own land with 80 foot pine trees on it and therefore 80 foot of airspace. About this time in the early 90's, the government was using reserve pilots and helicopters looking for marijuana farms. They would get below the trees at the edge of pastures and hover along the treeline looking. Someone must have called them out on it because it stopped suddenly. This was also about the same time they were doing night maneuvers over private property because the government had made the National Forest off limits, might scare the woodpeckers.
Assuming this is also true in other states, if a drone came below the top of the trees, it is trespassing. Obviously, your rifle being able to shoot 1 mile high does not give you claim to 5000 foot of air space. But, If you had a javelin (or a range pole) with string streamers hanging off of it designed to tangle the rotors, then any drone you took down on your property would be within your airspace. Just my opinion.
The drone laws in New Zealand say you can't fly (whether filming or not) over property that does not belong to you, unless you have permission from the owner. So that includes council public parks, roads, etc, whereby you need their permission to fly. Apparently you also need the permission of anyone you fly over. [There's also a law (although probably archaic) that it is illegal to discharge a firearm within 100m (100 yards) of a dwelling, even if it's yours - and to this day that has caught many people out - I often wonder if there is the same or similar law in USA]. Here's an extract from a district council website:
We have the illegal discharge within xxx yards of a dwelling in the US. Where I grew up it was 100 yards. Saw an episode of North Woods Law and they were trying to figure out where someone took a shot from for that reason.
No one owns the airspace "from the ground to the stars" above their property; if that were the case you could sue someone every time any aircraft passed over your land. Depending on the class of airspace you're in the FAA owns everything above 500' AGL at minimum and all the way to the ground in some cases.
IMO, we need common sense to prevail on these UAS issues. I completely agree that no one has the right to fly over private property without the owner's permission, especially (obviously) for nefarious purposes. But the rules about not flying over anyone who isn't an active participant are not only overly restrictive but don't even make any sense. If I'm flying over a plant, for instance, and I have the permission of the owners to do so, it's not realistic that I'm going to go inform every single person who I may chance to pass above. Same thing with flying over a road when making a turn. Regarding any perceived danger to people on the ground, I've said it before, I'd rather get hit by a 4 pound UAS than a Cessna.
(Donning my tin foil hat) ?ÿThey is out to get us. ?ÿDamn them!
?ÿ
?ÿ
The truth is our privacy is being invaded constantly in some form(s). ?ÿCan't take a pee anywhere without possibly being on camera, for example. ?ÿFighting back must occur or Big Brother, Big Sister and the whole damned Universe will soon know what you are thinking before you think it.
?ÿ
Stay off my lawn..................and all of my property.
It's that Rugged Individual ethos?ÿ which makes one justify actions that satisfy a false grievance with their neighbors and community. Nevermind xenophobic issues with anyone that?ÿ does not?ÿ for their sense of place.
Shoot it down. Afterall, it's only some Sino made?ÿ plastic and electronic technology that any government or law enforcement agency or some teenage teenager pest?ÿ is violating your property rights.
...Can't take a pee anywhere without possibly being on camera, for example...
OK.?ÿ Now this is something I'm passionate about.?ÿ If I need to pee, I pee.?ÿ Plain and simple.?ÿ I could care less if it's on camera.?ÿ As long as I make a bona fide effort to seek privacy and I'm not fouling someone's hydrangeas, I'm good.?ÿ If someone wants to throw a bitch because they came home and realized they've recorded a surveyor taking a leak in between their house and the neighbor's, let them bitch.?ÿ In my mind it wasn't me that violated the camera's privacy....
I'll probably get tazered someday by a "by the book" law enforcement officer that catches me in an alley.
Cop: "Let me see your hands!"
Me: "In a minute, I'm busy..."
Tazer deployed. Suspect was not responding to a lawful order..
