Another Drone Pilot does it Again
07-30-2015, 08:16 AM
#2227
to .360' almost 3/8" in diameter , bigger than most marbles..
http://www.shotgunworld.com/amm.html#shotgraphic
07-30-2015, 08:18 AM
#2228
[h=1]Kentucky man shoots down drone hovering over his backyard and now charged with recules endangerment and other stuff.[/h]
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ken...ard/ar-AAdGg2x
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ken...ard/ar-AAdGg2x
07-30-2015, 12:28 PM
#2229
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kentucky man shoots down drone hovering over his backyard and now charged with recules endangerment and other stuff.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ken...ard/ar-AAdGg2x
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ken...ard/ar-AAdGg2x
07-30-2015, 01:43 PM
#2230
Of course, this is an urban area... I know that to hunt deer close to my house you have to use a certain type of weapon. (No rifles allowed).
Gerry
07-30-2015, 01:56 PM
#2231
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (209)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: right here
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LCS: He just might prove his point in Court. The drone operator violated his Property Rights, gave No Permission to fly over his house, and second, it was Invasion of his Privacy. If he wins the lawsuit, and he just might, he may then counter sue the idiot that caused him undue distress, violation of Privacy, Trespassing, and his time. He may just make some money, more Power to em. The drone operator is an idiot , and not flying his aircraft within the FAA Rules and the AMA Suggestions. This is the exact same point of this Thread.
07-30-2015, 02:46 PM
#2232
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LCS: He just might prove his point in Court. The drone operator violated his Property Rights, gave No Permission to fly over his house, and second, it was Invasion of his Privacy. If he wins the lawsuit, and he just might, he may then counter sue the idiot that caused him undue distress, violation of Privacy, Trespassing, and his time. He may just make some money, more Power to em. The drone operator is an idiot , and not flying his aircraft within the FAA Rules and the AMA Suggestions. This is the exact same point of this Thread.
07-30-2015, 03:06 PM
#2233
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (209)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: right here
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope he recovers his costs and added punitive...but it would be better if none of that was necessary. I hope info surfaces on the ultimate outcome. It really is a shame so many resources are wasted on such silliness. FWIW I am not sure what FAA rules were violated and AMA's suggestions seem less than relevant in such civil matters.
07-30-2015, 04:00 PM
#2234
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may very well be right about all the other...IDK...but I think if it is proved that the RPV was BLOS that surely would be against FAA rules if I understand them properly. FWIW Your point about the invasion of privacy concerns be the most...and the single biggest reason I side with the home owner...The sanctity of an individual's home is something that should never be violated.
07-30-2015, 04:46 PM
#2235
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
LCS: He just might prove his point in Court. The drone operator violated his Property Rights, gave No Permission to fly over his house, and second, it was Invasion of his Privacy. If he wins the lawsuit, and he just might, he may then counter sue the idiot that caused him undue distress, violation of Privacy, Trespassing, and his time. He may just make some money, more Power to em. The drone operator is an idiot , and not flying his aircraft within the FAA Rules and the AMA Suggestions. This is the exact same point of this Thread.
I hope he recovers his costs and added punitive...but it would be better if none of that was necessary. I hope info surfaces on the ultimate outcome. It really is a shame so many resources are wasted on such silliness. FWIW I am not sure what FAA rules were violated and AMA's suggestions seem less than relevant in such civil matters.
So we'll see more of these stories, and in most cases the quad flyer won't be charged (in similar cases). Both sides in this case operated recklessly. Just because you might be able to do something, doesn't mean you should. These type of flights will enflame and antagonize people and some will react poorly. For me, the solution is to not do it in the first place, but if it does happen, let the pros deal with it. Is any of this worth civil or criminal charges, guns being drawn, and potential loss of life?
07-30-2015, 05:16 PM
#2236
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know I shouldn't be surprised to read stuff like this on the web, but if what this guy did isn't the definition of reckless what is? Knee jerky and ill thought out response to a quad flying over his house. And unless I missed it in the different stories, he never proved that the guy was filming anything, just that it had a camera on it. He had the time to go in and select a specific guage of ammo, but didn't think to call the cops? Great that he had a gun and all, but what if the drone guys did too. Really worth a possible fire-fight? It will cost him to defend, just as it does anyone who breaks the law and is charged. I do suspect however the charges will be decreased, some minor charge agreed to, and a fine paid.
He was in the air, not on the property. He has no rights to the air over his home....doesn't need permission to fly over it no more than a private pilot does flying a plane. Not sure where you come up with invasion of property either. He won't countersue, has not cause of action, only the ramifications of his actions to deal with. He was just as reckless as the dope flying over the guys house. But the guy flying didn't break any laws. Notwithstanding what you or I think about what is right or wrong, but what the guy can be charged with.
Again, no basis in law for him to sue, no cause of action (not that that hasn't stopped a lawsuit from being filed). It stopped becoming a civil action once the guy shot a gun, it's now a criminal matter. You are right though, lots of time and effort will be wasted on this. Better approach would have been letting the pros deal with it. I'd like to see what the outcome is as well. To many of these stories get reported, and then you never hear about the outcome.
Again, you may feel this....but it ain't the law. Only one guy got cuffed and stuffed, and it wasn't the quad flyer. Right or wrong, that's fact.
So we'll see more of these stories, and in most cases the quad flyer won't be charged (in similar cases). Both sides in this case operated recklessly. Just because you might be able to do something, doesn't mean you should. These type of flights will enflame and antagonize people and some will react poorly. For me, the solution is to not do it in the first place, but if it does happen, let the pros deal with it. Is any of this worth civil or criminal charges, guns being drawn, and potential loss of life?
He was in the air, not on the property. He has no rights to the air over his home....doesn't need permission to fly over it no more than a private pilot does flying a plane. Not sure where you come up with invasion of property either. He won't countersue, has not cause of action, only the ramifications of his actions to deal with. He was just as reckless as the dope flying over the guys house. But the guy flying didn't break any laws. Notwithstanding what you or I think about what is right or wrong, but what the guy can be charged with.
Again, no basis in law for him to sue, no cause of action (not that that hasn't stopped a lawsuit from being filed). It stopped becoming a civil action once the guy shot a gun, it's now a criminal matter. You are right though, lots of time and effort will be wasted on this. Better approach would have been letting the pros deal with it. I'd like to see what the outcome is as well. To many of these stories get reported, and then you never hear about the outcome.
Again, you may feel this....but it ain't the law. Only one guy got cuffed and stuffed, and it wasn't the quad flyer. Right or wrong, that's fact.
So we'll see more of these stories, and in most cases the quad flyer won't be charged (in similar cases). Both sides in this case operated recklessly. Just because you might be able to do something, doesn't mean you should. These type of flights will enflame and antagonize people and some will react poorly. For me, the solution is to not do it in the first place, but if it does happen, let the pros deal with it. Is any of this worth civil or criminal charges, guns being drawn, and potential loss of life?
Last edited by littlecrankshaf; 07-30-2015 at 05:23 PM.
07-30-2015, 06:42 PM
#2237
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
My opinion is there won't be any lawsuits, everyone always mentioning suing right away...then the reality of that process sets in when the find out the time and costs of that. Of the two though...guess who has the better case from a legal standpoint on recovering damages? Hint: not the dude with the gun.
All a moot point if the quad pilot and the shooter both used some common sense.
07-30-2015, 07:47 PM
#2238
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And you don't? lol I base what I say on what I read in the news about that instant story, not what I think the law is or should be ( invasion of privacy, trespassing, endangering structures?? etc). So far, I'm not wrong on the fact that the shooter broke the law and was arrested. That's fact. And it seems like some at least agree with me that the quad pilot acted poorly, not a great idea to fly over someone's house (but again, doesn't appear to be illegal). Now we'll see if the charges stick on the shooter. The story says nothing about a working camera capturing video, or that the quad pilot did anything wrong. What might happen to both of them is up in the air though, but I would like to know how the charges pan out.
My opinion is there won't be any lawsuits, everyone always mentioning suing right away...then the reality of that process sets in when the find out the time and costs of that. Of the two though...guess who has the better case from a legal standpoint on recovering damages? Hint: not the dude with the gun.
All a moot point if the quad pilot and the shooter both used some common sense.
My opinion is there won't be any lawsuits, everyone always mentioning suing right away...then the reality of that process sets in when the find out the time and costs of that. Of the two though...guess who has the better case from a legal standpoint on recovering damages? Hint: not the dude with the gun.
All a moot point if the quad pilot and the shooter both used some common sense.
FWIW I don't think it has been said, but bird shot posses little risk to anyone or anything other than the target as it appears to have been used in this case... And that's speaking from first hand experience. IMO the FPV probably presented more risk...and just because there is no law against what the operators have done doesn't make it right...well unless your metric is only what is subjectively applied by laws that are less than adequate all too often.
07-31-2015, 03:21 AM
#2239
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I think we both probably agree it's not right to fly a machine like this over someone's yard or property, even if a camera isn't filming. I think that kind of flying is reckless and opens the pilot up to civil and probably criminal charges down the line. I suspect the laws are going to start coming down harshly against that type of flying as well. We'll both be around to see it....
07-31-2015, 03:44 AM
#2240
Bullets falling from the air are not lethal. That is anything shot over a 60 degree angle or so. And shotguns only have a range of 100 yards or so and the shot is going too slow to be lethal. I would like to point out that bullets shot at about a 45 degree range may be lethal to about a mile so pointing a rifle in the air without a lot of uninhabited land is unwise. However it is perfectly safe to point a shotgun in the air for about 100 yards around you.
07-31-2015, 04:02 AM
#2242
Here is a legal study of the current state of common law on "air rights". Best to factor in these facts.
http://aviation.uslegal.com/ownershi...over-property/
http://aviation.uslegal.com/ownershi...over-property/
07-31-2015, 04:11 AM
#2243
My Feedback: (102)
There is now a bounty on the head of the illegal operators in California. It is getting serious now. Look for the hammer to fall soon, and my guess is that those who have been doing this are going to see significant fines. With a $75,000 reward for their identification their ID will not remain secret for long.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/07/3...-officials-say
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/07/3...-officials-say
07-31-2015, 04:29 AM
#2245
My Feedback: (102)
If OBL had surrounded himself with modelers who would sell their soul for a new Lipo or a bottle of Zap, he would have been outed before the day was out....haha. If anyone knows these guys they are probably hanging by the phone till the offices open this morning.
07-31-2015, 05:14 AM
#2246
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we both probably agree it's not right to fly a machine like this over someone's yard or property, even if a camera isn't filming. I think that kind of flying is reckless and opens the pilot up to civil and probably criminal charges down the line. I suspect the laws are going to start coming down harshly against that type of flying as well. We'll both be around to see it....
07-31-2015, 11:37 AM
#2247
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Weatherford,
TX
Posts: 1,379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A goose does not have a hard object embed in it like an electric motor (s). And jet engines are not design to resist a goose, they are designed to hold up against the internal loads, loads generated by spinning compressor blades are much higher loads than a goose hitting a engine. We test fighters to resist a four pound bird at 400 Knots. That is a canopy test. No one can survive an inflight collision with a Lammergeyer, an extremely large bird found in the Pyrenees in Spain/France. We have lost many F-4s to those birds, it usually plows through the windshield killing the pilot. We lost an F-111 going supersonic when it hit a 2 ounce bird at 12,000 feet over the Rocky Mountains. Moral of the story, birds have the right of way.
08-01-2015, 05:51 AM
#2250
Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Warren, MI
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.wdrb.com/story/29670583/u...ws-flight-path
And the rest of the story. Shows the altitude data,just under 300' was the lowest he flew.
My feeling is Bubba ' s gonna have to get out his check book!
And the rest of the story. Shows the altitude data,just under 300' was the lowest he flew.
My feeling is Bubba ' s gonna have to get out his check book!
Last edited by smeckert; 08-01-2015 at 05:54 AM.