Shooting Down the Drones

[JoeB]

[Sasquatch Jim]

The drone shooter said he used number 8 shot.  Number 8 shot is only sold as trap shooting loads.
 The drone operator says the drone was at 272 feet altitude when hit.
 Someone has to be lying here.  Number 8 trap load has almost no power at that altitude and the shot spread would be so wide as it might not even hit from a well aimed shot.  Either the shooter used a heavier shot or the drone operator has faked the video.
 Try setting up a target 272 feet above a shooter, ( maybe up a cliff or something ), and see if number 8 shot can even penetrate
 a cardboard box.  It might be able to on a horizontal shot but I doubt a vertical shot would.
 272 feet is only 28 feet short of a football field.  Number 8 shot as small and light as it is looses a lot of velocity in that distance.
 It would loose a lot more in a vertical shot.

[SteveAZ]

  That would be sporting.  A string hanging from your drone with a small weight at the end.   Fly your drone over the enemy drone
  and the string gets snared in the enemy drones' rotors then is released from your drone so that yours does not crash with it.
 

This and variations of this, dropping nets, having a lower "bumper" frame etc would be really fun.

Might be time to save up for a drone. These things are getting annoying around my neck of the woods as well and a bit of dogfighting would be fun.

[homebrew]

The drone shooter said he used number 8 shot.  Number 8 shot is only sold as trap shooting loads.
 The drone operator says the drone was at 272 feet altitude when hit.
 Someone has to be lying here.  Number 8 trap load has almost no power at that altitude and the shot spread would be so wide as it might not even hit from a well aimed shot.  Either the shooter used a heavier shot or the drone operator has faked the video.
 

Looking at that video, it appears that the drone crashes at 45 feet or so, so the drone operator might simply be using bad altimeter data (sea level, or a barometric-based altitude, which is my guess).  That makes the drone's height as recorded 227 feet.  8 trap load carries almost no penetrative power at that range, as you say, but all it would take is to get a pellet or to to interfere with the rotors to make the thing crash.  Drones are pretty fragile things.

That said, the shooter doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who has a box of #8 next to his shot gun. 

[rocker59]

Even at 227 feet (75-yards), and even with a heavier load, I don't see the shooter taking it down with a shotgun.

Those kinds of shots can be made with 12-ga magnums with duck/goose loads, but those are looong shots.

The heavier the load, the fewer the pellets, and at those distances I just don't see it happening.

If the shooter has spent #8 shells at the scene that were given to the police, it will be easy to disprove the drone pilot's claim with a  simple demonstration at a range somewhere.

Now, if there were spent #2 or #4 3-1/2" magnum shells laying around at the scene, the shooter will have some 'splainin' to do...

[Sasquatch Jim]

  A deer slug wil do fine if you are a good enough shot.
 Some shotguns have a rifled barrel for deer and can easily put a slug in a dinner plate at 100 yards.
 What a sight that would make.  The drone would come down as confetti.
 The drone pilot would most likely keep his distance too.

[rodekyll]

The effective range of #8 (lead) is about 40 yards.  The absolute range is about 75.  Steel would be less.

[edit]

For those of you not familirat with what #8 size is -- we're all familiar with a BB (.177").  The sizes go down like this:

BB  1 2 4 6 7.5 8.  #8 is about 0.090" -- smaller than a gnat. 

[threebrits]

I see a market for drone jamming devices in the near future.

[Lannis]

I see a market for drone jamming devices in the near future.

I see a need for a different "Wind-Up" subject for Wild Guzzi in future other than shooting at drones.   This one's about played .... 

Lannis

[charlie b]

I think that drone operator screwed with the data.

PS if he has recorded GPS data then he has the video feed recorded which would show how close he was to the house.

[steamdriven NZ]

Our rules have just changed here, today I think it comes in. Part 102 allows people to become a licenced  operator (for those who use them commercially and can prove they know what they are doing) so businesses using them can continue to do so.

http://www.caa.govt.nz/rpas/

exerpt:

"Consent

Part 101 requires operators to obtain the consent of property owners and people that they are flying over. It is a two step requirement:

    First, a operator must not use airspace above people unless they have the consent of people below the flight; and
    Second, an operator must not use airspace above an area of property unless prior consent has been obtained from any persons occupying that property or the property owner;

It is important to note that this is only one aspect of the risk mitigation required in Part 101. There is still an overarching obligation to take all practicable steps to avoid any hazards.

If you cannot obtain consent, or obtaining consent is impractical, it may be a signal that your operation is too hazardous to be conducted under Part 101. You can apply to the CAA to be certificated under Part 102. Part 102 allows the Director of Civil Aviation to work though different options with an operator and/or to relax or remove one or both of the consent requirements altogether."

[rodekyll]

I read that and the interpretation.  I don't think it helps much for the situations we're discussing.  The interpretation said as an example, that to fly over a public park the operator would have to first get the consent of every person on the grounds.  Ditto with private property -- all people on the ground in range of the camera in the flight path.  One objection and they're grounded.  It's not workable on a practical level.

[rodekyll]

The safety issues around shooting a projectile in an upward trajectory over a population are immense, and yes, this case needs to be tested along those lines as well as the invasion of privacy line.  My hope is that some reasonable and effective limit of citizen response is arrived at.

I completely reject that because the invading camera is somehow not in the physical hands of the voyeur it's use is not an invasion of privacy.  There is a case in WA St right now where a remote-controlled camera was found in a church lavatory.  It's being investigated for (among other things) criminal privacy violations.  The camera was not installed by any government.  I don't see any difference between that case and this one as far as the privacy part goes.  A "private citizen" is just that.  On their own property they have the right to privacy from everyone, not just the government.  Photographing or recording them by any means without their permission is a violation of the law and their rights.

$0.02

[Cam3512]

"Reasonable Expectation of Privacy (REP)"

You have it inside a bathroom and inside your house.  That changes when you're in public places (none), and to an extent when you're outside your house.  I can watch you cut your grass all day long, or sunbathe by your pool in your Guzzi thong as long as I don't tresspass on YOUR property.  I can even creep into your neighbor's property to watch you, and you have no legal standing. 

If one private citizen kicks in your door and searches your house to steal your red suspenders, it's not a violation of your 4th amendment rights.  It's  burglary or a home invasion (if you're home). 

It's complicated.

[rodekyll]

We're talking about someone jumping the fence and sneaking into the back yard to photograph me.  Not me mowing my lawn in full view of the street and you seeing me from the street.  You can watch me from a public street if I am in full view of the street.  You can't step onto my property and take pictures or recordings of my private family life.  That's an invasion of privacy separate from the trespass issue.  You can't climb a neighbor's tree and photograph my daughter sunbathing behind the backyard fence.  You can't take pictures of my wife in her upstairs bedroom with a telephoto lens from a hovering helicopter.  You can't find a chink in the shrubbery or a gap in the curtain and use that unique angle to claim what you photographed was in the public view.  The aerial angle is exactly that.  I reject the notion that  it's OK to do that with a drone simply because the drone part is undefined, unless the drone was as you say, walking down the public street at human eye level and seeing only what any other pedestrian would have seen. 

These asshats wouldn't be doing this kind of stuff if they had to physically face their victims.  They only have the stones for it when they're flying unmarked drones from an undisclosed location.

[Tom]

An electronic tether is a tether.  Any tethered UAV's has FAA rules.  Any of the rules that affect r/c's would affect drones.  I think that the FAA is crossing their fingers and hoping that enforcement will be done on the local level. 

[Kent in Upstate NY]

For all your drone needs. Double Barrel 16 rounds

[rodekyll]

A lot of the objections to shooting down peepers would go away if there weren't actual firearms involved.  Once the gunfire hysteria is calmed by taking them out without a gun, the focus will turn on the peeper's right to peep instead of the victim's wrong to secure their privacy.

I'm thinking a beanbag round or some sort of net would do the deal without being considered a threat to public safety.  Nobody's mentioned a slingshot-type defense yet either.

[slowmover]

I think a scoped .22 L.R. would be fun to try.

[Sasquatch Jim]

  A good sporting way would be with an inexpensive toy airplane, radio controled, used as a missile to intercept the drone.
 If done over your property you can sue the drone operator for the replacement of your hobby aircraft which was wrecked by
 a trespassing drone.

[Tom]

 :1:  I'd paint mine like a WW II Japanese a/c and turn it into a Kamakaze.

[Lannis]

:1:  I'd paint mine like a WW II Japanese a/c and turn it into a Kamakaze.

Now if I'D said that, someone (I won't mention any names but his initials are Tom) would be ALL up in my grill about ethnic stereotyping ....        

Lannis

[Tom]

Now if I'D said that, someone (I won't mention any names but his initials are Tom) would be ALL up in my grill about ethnic stereotyping ....        

Lannis

Beg to differ.  Historical fact and no racial terms involved.   "Cheap Chinese bike lift" is.  "cheap lift" is better and we know where they're made.   

[Lannis]

Beg to differ.  Historical fact and no racial terms involved.   "Cheap Chinese bike lift" is.  "cheap lift" is better and we know where they're made.   

'Ang on a mo ... you mean "Japanese" is not a racial term and "Chinese" is?    Even if "Japanese" is an ethnic rather than "racial" term, you'll notice I used "ethnic" in my original post.

And how come if a plane crashes into another, the immediate supposition is "Japanese" "Kamikaze"?    Sort of like if one guy shoots another, it's a Mafia war with Sal "Icepick" Pantogeli and Vinnie "Big Vin" Mozzarelli doing it .... seems a bit like ethnic stereotyping ... ?

Just trying to figure out how to navigate this minefield ....

Lannis

[Tom]

Good points.  This is how it was explained to me by an EEOC hearing dude.  White guy that transferred from Washington D.C.  I included that as background.  It's okay to use race to describe something.  When a disparaging term is added before or after, it then turns to a racial slur. 

In a local case that was filed against a Hilo employer for discrimination.  The employer told an applicant that he didn't want any "f-cking Haoles" working for him.  Since this was a Japanese restaurant, he would have been okay with "No Haole" but because he added some swearing to the description.  He, the Japanese owner of the Japanese restaurant was guilty of racism which fell under the EEOC guidelines.  Haole is the local slang for whites.  "Ha" is breath in Hawaiian and "ole" is no.  So to call whites out here as haole is not racial, add a swear word in there and according to the Feds.  You've crossed the line.

So it's okay to call me the "Idiot in Hawaii" but when you call me the "Hawaiian Idiot" then you crossed the line. 

[Tom]

Forgot to add that the Japanese Kamakaze main function was an a/c that was one-way for the pilot as opposed to the Luftwaffe pilots that were expected to ram bombers and bail-out to do it again.  See below on the Sonderkommando Elbe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderkommando_Elbe

[Sasquatch Jim]

  Is that because ( a ) Hawaiian idiot refers to generic idiot in Hawaii,  whereas  (the) Hawaiian idiot infers that there is only one that is officially recognized as an idiot in Hawaii.
  And I know I am not alone or one of a kind.

[Tom]

It's okay to call me the idiot in Hawaii.  To call me the idiot Hawaiian or Hawaiian idiot is crossing the line.  For my inner circle of friends, I tolerate a lot more.