Drone Shot Down

[Matt Sharp]

Any word on if he retrieved the drone or not? I'd like to see the drone video, if there is any.

[Paul R Johnson]

They always say first impressions shouldn't count, but the first picture I saw shows the guy sitting there smugly with two guns. In America, you seem to have a right to own lots of weapons, quite why everyone needs them, I'm not that clear on, but you have a right, so you take it. The law says you can have a gun, and defend yourself with it, again, defend yourself seems to include shooting things that might possibly hurt you, people, lions, drones, humming birds (the noise clearly would impact on your mental health). You can't understand why the world is laughing. We are arguing over the height of a drone? If it was low then blasting it out of the sky is fine, if it was high, then that's bad? Surely what is bad is letting an idiot like this have access to anything other than a stone to throw, and even then, he'd push it to a boulder. People do have guns in the UK. They are people who genuinely need them, so mainly farmers to protect their animals from others. Even then, we had a farmer go to prison because he shot a burglar who was robbing him! Having a weapon should require responsibility, and giving complete berks like this a gun is your real problem, not the guy annoying him with a drone. In the UK people object to drones overflying too. They write to the newspapers, they complain to the police or contact their member of parliament - they don't take the law into their own hands. Let people have guns and they will use them. Not all gun owners are irresponsible. Cars reveal road rage tendencies in many. You give these people guns for gods sake!

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Steven Digges

I BELIEVE it HAD to be a lot closer than that. You don't even fire at a dove at 100 yards, can barely see one. It won't even bring one down if you hit it. That is what that load is made for.

Maybe you should double-check those beliefs then.

I didn't believe that homeowner from the start. I felt like he was probably just being hysterical from all the overblown posturing I've seen from people on this issue.

[Paul R Johnson]

When you learn to fly here, the 500ft minimum is a tricky one. One instructor I had said that if you can tell a cow from a bull, then you are below 500ft, if your altimeter has failed.

[Steven Digges]

Hey Gary,

That video changes everything. Good for the pilot that he has video evidence that he was not a pervert checking out girls sunbathing. My first exposure to this story was an interview of the shooter, not wearing camouflage or showing off his gun, saying, "it was hovering 80 feet over my house, while my wife and 19 year old daughter were sunbathing, so I shot it down". I am glad the pilot has the data to defend himself!

This is a video forum that I enjoy in a lighthearted but seriously informative fashion. I am not going to engage anybody in a debate on gun control here. This is not the place for that Paul.

Did some yahoo needlessly shoot down a drone that was or was not spying on him is fair game. But it is a gray, emotionally charged area of politics not usually broached on this forum. I will not debate gun rights here on DVINFO.net. This is not the proper forum for that discussion.

Kind Regards,

Steve

[Sabyasachi Patra]

I am surprised that one can aim up and shoot an object 272 feet up with a #8. If all this is true, then he should be immediately picked up by the olympic shooting team for trap shooting.

PS: How correct is the altimeter reading of the Phantom 3?

[Mark Williams]

30 years of shooting sporting clays and my accuracy range with #8 shot is about 40 yards. Past 100 yards and the falling shot could rarely penetrate paper. Of course we are only taking him at his word that he was using #8 shot.

[Don Palomaki]

Buck shot sizes go from 000 to #4. #4 buckshot is 0.24" diameter. There is no #8 buck shot.
#8 shot is small 0.09" diameter. It typically has an effective range of about 120 feet for breaking clay targets

Shot that size might carry up perhaps 200 yards. if fired at a ~45 degree angle, and would likely feel like rain when it lands on you. Vertical distance might be more like 100 yards before it starts to fall.

The drone flight recording may or may not be accurate - may or may not be edited - but its release is self serving. Did he edit out any close approaches? How old were the mentioned sun bathing girls? While most drone cameras we fly are wide angle, other lens configuration are not unheard of, they just cost money.

Some drones maybe relatively fragile easy to knock down if a spinning prop hits something hard and heavy enough.

Both parties sound like a collection of village idiots, the guy who shot the drone in a city where discharge of firearms is prohibited (should have called the police in this case) and the guy who apparently flew the drone over others' yards on a persistent basis. What we do not know is the history of the involved individuals.

A few idiot drone pilots are the overall communities own worst enemy - flying in the way of emergency operations and manned aircraft.

[Les Wilson]

Originally Posted by Don Palomaki

...A few idiot drone pilots are the overall communities own worst enemy ...

It's not just idiots:
Drone drops drugs in Ohio prison yard, spurring inmate fight | Fox News

[Robert Benda]

Originally Posted by Sabyasachi Patra

I am surprised that one can aim up and shoot an object 272 feet up with a #8. If all this is true, then he should be immediately picked up by the olympic shooting team for trap shooting.

PS: How correct is the altimeter reading of the Phantom 3?

Well he did say it took him 3 shots. lol.

/Doesn't the altimeter reading base off of take of position, rather than true elevation? If they live in an area with hills, a reading of 270 feet could easily be closer to 200 feet, if he flew a little.

/For wide angle or not, if the shooter's quote of the flyer saying he'd owe him $1800 is true, than it seems unlikely it was anything other than a GoPro.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Don Palomaki

How old were the mentioned sun bathing girls?

Let's not give any credence to pervert hysteria. It's a convenient enough excuse that gullible people tend to buy wholeheartedly.

[Greg Boston]

Originally Posted by Steven Digges

This is a video forum that I enjoy in a lighthearted but seriously informative fashion. I am not going to engage anybody in a debate on gun control here. This is not the place for that Paul.

Did some yahoo needlessly shoot down a drone that was or was not spying on him is fair game. But it is a gray, emotionally charged area of politics not usually broached on this forum. I will not debate gun rights here on DVINFO.net. This is not the proper forum for that discussion.

Kind Regards,

Steve

Agreed, Steve. I already removed one thread a short while back that went quickly into political gun talk. This isn't the place to engage in those types of discussions.

Unfortunately, "drones" are the current media buzzword if you'll pardon the pun. It seems almost any discussion of them turns into political debate. I always liked to believe that the contributors to DVINFO were able to have intelligent discussion on things related to video.

I find it a disturbing trend amongst people in general to immediately label others who have differing views or moral compass as 'idiots' and 'morons'. I just see the tension building up in the public at large as they take to social media to lash out from the keyboard. That's not how DVINFO is intended to operate.\

As I stated before, the Flying Cameras forum was created to provide a place to exchange knowledge about the different platforms available and how they might work/not work for the needs of various shooters, much like the other forums on DVINFO. We're supposed to be here helping others out with their video related issues.

-gb-

[Don Palomaki]

Is the altimeter GPS-based, if so that provides some information on accuracy. The ones I've used are not very precise for altitude, especially while moving.

I see the girl was said to be 19, it would be nice to be 19 again, or 29...

[Paul R Johnson]

I hadn't realised it was a political hotspot - so sorry for that.

Seriously though, the law in the US, if I have understood it, does within certain limits give people permission to do this. However, the law has no precise way of dealing with aerial objects. Let's assume you have a paid commission to overfly a property for the purposes of recording the layout and appearance - I'm thinking property sales (what we'd call estate agents, and you, I think realtors??).

This is a perfectly reasonable use, but angles are important - filling the frame probably pushes the height limit as they're usually wide angle devices. The drone is then flying at the legal minimum altitude, but probably below it, because 500ft is still pretty high. The cameras face forward and down, so a drone will be over somebody else property to take the shot, not over the target? Looking upwards, many home owners would assume it is they who are the target - they cannot see the frame!

If your laws allow it, the drone would be a legitimate target. Here, we would have an impossible job to locate the person with the control and get them arrested, and many police forces would not prioritise it as an essential immediate problem. So here, we can moan and groan, but in the US there would be a legal alternative. This case is obviously a distorted one, but Pythagoras is the problem. The camera is on the hypotenuse with the altitude (maybe the real problem) on the opposite side. The real subject is the distance away on the adjacent side. From the ground, this is not visible.

If overflying is banned, it will be impossible to take the kinds of shots people want. The people on the ground are understandably ignorant.

Somebody will produce a gun 'rule' and taking potshots on something over your own property could be more common.

[Ervin Farkas]

Originally Posted by Greg Boston

Agreed, Steve. I already removed one thread a short while back that went quickly into political gun talk. This isn't the place to engage in those types of discussions.

Greg,

I was the original poster of the discussion you deleted entirely. It started as a clean discussion, fact based, with an official document I posted... a discussion about the legality of drones in GA.

Would it not serve better the purpose of this forum to delete only the offending post instead of deleting the whole discussion?

Respectfully,