Author Topic: another drone attack foiled by American shotgunners! ( we've seen this movie b4) (Read 15300 times)

MechAg94 · « **Reply #25 on:** November 20, 2012, 12:08:44 PM »

The article seemed to indicate they were transmitting, but they might have been doing both.

It seems to me that flying a camera low over someone's property for the purpose of surveillance ought to be illegal or require a warrant. I suspect that will be an upcoming legal issue soon if it is not now. If it is not, I assume papparazi will be using them if they don't already. We could start a new group whose purpose is surveillance of politicians' homes. That will get action taken quick.

Ben · « **Reply #26 on:** November 20, 2012, 12:45:26 PM »

The difficulty will be in defining illegal "camera" use - which can basically be lumped in with remote sensing. Arguments, especially form .gov entities would be that from the aspect of image capture, there's no difference between a small UAV at 100 feet, a large UAV at 10K feet, a manned aircraft at 10K feet, or a satellite at 200 miles. Any of them, with the right equipment, can capture very high resolution imagery and other data.

For that matter, what are your privacy rights if you live in a valley and the guy with a house on the hill uses a big ass telescope to look at your house, which again is a form of remote sensing? I don't have enough legal knowledge to even make an educated guess, but it seems that to protect privacy, as far as small UAVs are concerned, the first step might be to restrict physical access within "X" vertical feet of a private property. And that still doesn't address side-looking capability.

Right now the only physical restrictions via altitude I know of are what Avenger mentioned, and those are airspace class restrictions for safety. Then of course the general UAV restrictions in national airspace, but the FAA seems to be handing COAs out left and right for law enforcement use for small UAVs.

vaskidmark · « **Reply #27 on:** November 20, 2012, 05:35:56 PM »

Remember that only the government needs a warrant to invade your privacy at close range. Not-government SHARK folks must contend with a hodge-podge of case law on civil torts of invasion of privacy, harassment of hunters, gross negligence (damn thing would not have fallen on my head if they had not put it in the air), and a whole bunch of other stuff.

On the other hand, most laws on destruction of property are misdemeanors, and lawsuit awards are generally limited to actual damages + costs.

stay safe.

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #28 on:** November 20, 2012, 05:40:18 PM »

most laws on destruction of property are misdemeanors,

"it was coming right at me!!!"

ArfinGreebly · « **Reply #29 on:** November 20, 2012, 06:18:38 PM »

I wonder what frequency the radio control uses for those things.

A little jamming could be entertaining.

kgbsquirrel · « **Reply #30 on:** November 20, 2012, 06:20:27 PM »

Quote from: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 20, 2012, 05:40:18 PM

most laws on destruction of property are misdemeanors,

"it was coming right at me!!!"

Hey, all those spinning blades are dangerous!

Tallpine · « **Reply #31 on:** November 20, 2012, 06:23:59 PM »

If it crashes on my property then it's trespassing, or maybe littering.

MillCreek · « **Reply #32 on:** November 20, 2012, 07:59:13 PM »

I thought it was an alien craft coming to take me for probing, so I had to defend myself.

RaspberrySurprise · « **Reply #33 on:** November 20, 2012, 10:09:26 PM »

Quote from: ArfinGreebly on November 20, 2012, 06:18:38 PM

I wonder what frequency the radio control uses for those things.

A little jamming could be entertaining.

At least until the FCC finds out and rides you like a pony.

vaskidmark · « **Reply #34 on:** November 20, 2012, 10:26:39 PM »

Quote from: ArfinGreebly on November 20, 2012, 06:18:38 PM

I wonder what frequency the radio control uses for those things.

A little jamming could be entertaining.

Google the professor's kid who wins octocopter "wars" by jamming the competition.

stay safe.

RoadKingLarry · « **Reply #35 on:** November 20, 2012, 10:28:43 PM »

How high were they running the thing? Would a couple of hand thrown bolas be an option?

vaskidmark · « **Reply #36 on:** November 20, 2012, 10:59:44 PM »

It's a shooting event. Let's keep it that way.

http://www.ahsrescue.com/p-1561-bridger-shoulder-line-gun-kit-in-pelican-case-accessories.aspx

stay safe.

roo_ster · « **Reply #37 on:** November 20, 2012, 11:05:38 PM »

Quote from: ArfinGreebly on November 20, 2012, 06:18:38 PM

I wonder what frequency the radio control uses for those things.

A little jamming could be entertaining.

99% likely it was one of the proprietary 2.4GHz wave forms. You'd have to jam a rather large block of freqs.

kgbsquirrel · « **Reply #38 on:** November 20, 2012, 11:08:06 PM »

Quote from: RoadKingLarry on November 20, 2012, 10:28:43 PM

How high were they running the thing? Would a couple of hand thrown bolas be an option?

I'm thinking this would be a viable use for Bolo shells. I'm thinking three musket balls threaded with piano wire into a triangle rather than the conventional three strand hand thrown bolo in order to increase the chance of snagging the target with one of the wires.

gunsmith · « **Reply #39 on:** November 21, 2012, 04:52:16 PM »

If you're on a large piece of private property, like a place big enough to hold a shoot, couldn't you simply launch your own drone and crash into their drone?
Maybe a cheaper one perhaps.

kgbsquirrel · « **Reply #40 on:** November 21, 2012, 05:23:23 PM »

Quote from: gunsmith on November 21, 2012, 04:52:16 PM

If you're on a large piece of private property, like a place big enough to hold a shoot, couldn't you simply launch your own drone and crash into their drone?
Maybe a cheaper one perhaps.

Most of those new multi-copters I've seen have their own onboard computerized stabilization systems. You essentially just tell it "I want you to go in this direction" and it takes care of the rest. Bumping it with another craft wouldn't destabilize it like some of the conventional RC helicopters, as the computer would just right the craft again. You'd need to actually break some important bits, like one of the props.

AmbulanceDriver · « **Reply #41 on:** November 21, 2012, 05:48:10 PM »

My neighbor builds these, and so I've talked to him some about it. It all depends on the system you have set up on it. If it's using a DJI autopilot (which I couldn't tell from the video), then the autopilot link is on a 900MHz band. If it's being hand flown (which actually gives it a shorter transmitter link range) then it's likely on a 2.4GHz. Looking at the video, looks like they were using the base autopilot (whether DJI or another brand) and hand flying it into position, then using the autopilot for a position/altitude hold as well as the failsafe "come home" feature. The higher end autopilots can be used to fly it to a position, and the highest end can do waypoint flights that can be overridden by the operator either via the regular radio control, or via the 900MHz autopilot link. It's pretty cool stuff.

I'm really surprised that with a smoking battery pack and a shot out compass/gps module, it managed to come back at all. They likely had to hand fly it back to base.

And yeah, they were using a video downlink to guide/observe/aim the camera, but it looks like they were using an HD downlink and recording on board as well.. Add to that the fact on the video their table with the 'control station' had a directional antenna set up (likely to increase the range of either their video feed).

Most of the HD downlinks run on a 5.8GHz link... And they're.... touchy.... Manage to jam their downlink, and they won't be able to point the camera at anything interesting.

AmbulanceDriver · « **Reply #42 on:** November 21, 2012, 06:01:39 PM »

And realistically, you'd need to take out at least two of the rotors on the same side (on an octocopter - which yes, that's what they were flying) if not three to destabilize it enough to cause it to crash. The autopilot systems on there are pretty robust and can adapt to the loss of a motor/rotor...

Tallpine · « **Reply #43 on:** November 21, 2012, 07:14:23 PM »

Quote from: AmbulanceDriver on November 21, 2012, 06:01:39 PM

And realistically, you'd need to take out at least two of the rotors on the same side (on an octocopter - which yes, that's what they were flying) if not three to destabilize it enough to cause it to crash. The autopilot systems on there are pretty robust and can adapt to the loss of a motor/rotor...

12 gauge magnum with goose loads ?

I guess now I know why I really do need a shotgun

AJ Dual · « **Reply #44 on:** November 21, 2012, 07:27:40 PM »

I'm thinking something like a bird-bomb but full of fine thread...

kgbsquirrel · « **Reply #45 on:** November 21, 2012, 09:04:53 PM »

Quote from: AJ Dual on November 21, 2012, 07:27:40 PM

I'm thinking something like a bird-bomb but full of fine thread...

Nice one. High test fishing line? Ha! Poor man's FlaK round: Bird bomb arrangement with a couple dozen mini-bolos, lead BB's crimped onto the ends of fishing line.

AJ Dual · « **Reply #46 on:** November 21, 2012, 09:09:17 PM »

Yeah, been an idea kicking around in my head for awhile... And this: http://www.amazon.com/Spectra%C2%AE-Braided-Cord-1050lb-test/dp/B004L234TW/ref=sr_1_6?s=sporting-goods&ie=UTF8&qid=1353550071&sr=1-6&keywords=spectra+line

Plus a cluster of larger model rockets for "real" helicopters should the need ever arise.

ArfinGreebly · « **Reply #47 on:** November 21, 2012, 09:16:00 PM »

You know, I wonder if a decent laser could play havoc with the optics.

That would be interesting.

kgbsquirrel · « **Reply #48 on:** November 21, 2012, 09:17:57 PM »

With enough wattage and an aiming system that can illuminate the camera accurately for long enough, you could probably burn the photocathode.

AJ Dual · « **Reply #49 on:** November 22, 2012, 12:36:44 AM »

Well, I've got about 1.2 Watts of relatively short wavelength blue (More energy per photon) to point at such a thing. However the guidance system is very manual. And even when focused at infinity, beam divergence is pretty bad. The 445nm diodes have a rather dash shaped "-" profile, and the fast axis expands well.. fast.

2kW of IR with some adaptive optics and semi-autonomous tracking would be nice.

News:

Author Topic: another drone attack foiled by American shotgunners! ( we've seen this movie b4) (Read 15300 times)