New drone laws won't work.

Most RC modelers are responsible enough to fly their aircraft at designated sites, away from where they can be a danger or nuisance. If drone owners did the same, there wouldn't be a problem.

There are rules in place for RC aircraft which should also apply to drones. If the drone boneheads followed them, there wouldn't be any undue attention.

Some countries already have more stringent laws like Japan, for example. I have friends there who were also into RC aircraft:

Yes, he'll just tell the drone to stay in place while they all wait for the authorities to come by. [/sarcasm] lol your knowledge of firearm safety is shit. The real rule you're trying to cite is do not point at anything you're not willing to kill or destroy.

And the shooter in this case really know his gun safety. In a different article, the man mentioned that he shot almost straight up and used #8 birdshots which are consist of tiny 2mm pellets which are virtually harmless when falling back down. FYI celebratory fires (people shooting up into the sky) can be lethal when the bullets fall back down. Not too many people (and shooters) are aware of this. This is why the reckless endangerment charge is bullshit to anyone who's familiar with gun safety. The man did everything he can to minimize the danger while still protecting his privacy.

They have got to get these drone laws in order. I can't believe its even possible for anyone to have the right to fly a camera over someone's property and record take pictures, ect. Yet they go to his house to get the drone back ? Hopefully in light of this event, and many others that have been happening recently, it will wake up the ones who are responsible for making the rules.

If you're talking about the guy that shot down the drone because it was hovering over his daugther who was sun bathing, they downloaded the flight information. It was never hovering, and it was all BS. Guy was just paranoid.

I own and fly quadcopters all the time. (you guys don't know the definition of drones, because none of the UAV's anybody is talking about are drones). There are already FAA regulations out there, and most operators follow the guidelines. I've never had anybody come up to me acting mad or going off about their privacy, because I follow the rules. It's actually the exact opposite. I've had a few newspapers and news organizations do small stories on my charity work done with the quad copters.

That being said, I think their needs to be more regulations. The laws on them are kind of in limbo and in a weird space. I just don't hope they over regulate because I like the artistic creative they can bring.

The drone was being controlled by a creep who also flew near the neighbors window and and then over the man's sunbathing daughter....he had every right to shoot that sick fucker drone down....

Make all the silly stereotypes you want but he did what needed to be done to protect his daughters privacy..........But you covniently left that out of your rant so you Probally have another agenda here...

Drone is shorter to spell than quadcopter. He He. ;)

It's always the few that ruins it for everybody else. Unfortunately, if RC modelers can't police their own ranks, someone else will have to.

We need drone police ! Lol .. These drones will have built in drone disabling technology, and can take over your control. Or they can be able to grab the other drone, and dronenap it. Lol ..

How is it BS? Regardless of whether it was hovering or flying slowly (the guy had enough time to see the drone, go into the house, get the gun, load it with birdshots, and take it down over their house so it's safe to assume the drone wasn't flying very fast), it was still an invasion of privacy.

What is YOUR definition of drones? Because I'm pretty sure you're the one who has the wrong idea about what that term describes.

The DJI phantom series are considered quad copters, not drones. They don't fly that fast. With heavy winds pushing you, you might hit 40 mph, at most. Go on the DJI forums and you'll get flamed and made fun of to no end for calling it a drone.

The flight data showed otherwise. He was never hovering over the daugther. He was never hovering at all. The media embellished this story.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/new-drone-telemetry-suggests-shot-down-drone-was-higher-than-alleged/

"The pilot of the drone shot down Sunday evening over a Kentucky property has now come forward with video provided to Ars, seemingly showing that the drone wasn’t nearly as close as the property owner made it out to be. However, the federal legal standard for how far into the air a person’s private property extends remains in dispute.

According to the telemetry provided by David Boggs, the drone pilot, his aircraft was only in flight for barely two minutes before it was shot down. The data also shows that it was well over 200 feet above the ground before the fatal shots fired by William Merideth."

If you watch the video, the guy has proof he wasn't spying on the guys daugther. The guy was paranoid, lied about the situation and shot it down. He said he shot it around 80 feet, when the flight data shows he was between 200-280 feet and was passing by.

gg wp.

People couldn't care less about how a particular manufacturer or their fanboys choose to define a word. FAA (and 99.99% of the English speaking population) defines drones as unmanned aircraft regardless of model of propulsion.

@n64dd: I don't one bit buy his story yet.why not release flight video? That would be the ultimate truth right there, How does this prove that this was his first flight that day? Your telling me that he was ready in under 2 minutes to shoot this thing down? Why do you take his word over the shooters without question? Becaue he's a gun owner?

Under the current definition by the FAA, the media, whatever else is out there, a drone is a UAV. So you could make a paper airplane and it would be considered a drone.

http://bestbeginnerquadcopters.com/quadcopter-vs-drone/ Some reading material.

@n64dd said:

@hood_honky said:

The drone was being controlled by a creep who also flew near the neighbors window and and then over the man's sunbathing daughter....he had every right to shoot that sick fucker drone down....

Make all the silly stereotypes you want but he did what needed to be done to protect his daughters privacy..........But you covniently left that out of your rant so you Probally have another agenda here...

The flight data showed otherwise. He was never hovering over the daugther. He was never hovering at all. The media embellished this story.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/new-drone-telemetry-suggests-shot-down-drone-was-higher-than-alleged/

"The pilot of the drone shot down Sunday evening over a Kentucky property has now come forward with video provided to Ars, seemingly showing that the drone wasn’t nearly as close as the property owner made it out to be. However, the federal legal standard for how far into the air a person’s private property extends remains in dispute.

According to the telemetry provided by David Boggs, the drone pilot, his aircraft was only in flight for barely two minutes before it was shot down. The data also shows that it was well over 200 feet above the ground before the fatal shots fired by William Merideth."

If you watch the video, the guy has proof he wasn't spying on the guys daugther. The guy was paranoid, lied about the situation and shot it down. He said he shot it around 80 feet, when the flight data shows he was between 200-280 feet and was passing by.

gg wp.

As many have observed, almost 300ft (or 100yds) at a moving target is a difficult if not impossible shot and made even more improbable by the #8 shot the shooter used.

The gestapo suddenly cares because now it can try and make some money by initiating a license requirement for this hobby. I believe that extreme liberal senator Schumer said as much today. There already exist laws when it comes to flying toys or whatever you call them. The government's response is to tax the hobby and add additional laws rather than enforcing what are already on the books.

Do you even read your own shit?
"The fundamental difference between the terms “drone” and “quadcopter” is one of characterization – drone is the general term used for all unmanned aerial vehicles, though quadcopter identifies with a particular set of drones with four engines that make lift for vertical takeoff through their propellers."

Quadcopter is a type of drones, as stated in your own link.

And also, no, a paper airplane is not a machine so it's not defined as aircraft by the FAA.

I read it. Drone is a sweeping generalization is what i'm getting at. Of course a paper airplane isn't a UAV according to the FAA, but technically it is defined by what a UAV is.

BTW, did you read about the flight record I posted earlier? I want to know your thoughts since the guy that shot the drone flat out lied.

Point is no one is misusing the term drones and you just plainly wrong when you stated the "none of the UAV's anybody is talking about are drones".

Again, no, it's not. FAA's term for all drones as UASs or Unmanned Aircraft Systems, and we already established that a paper plane is not an aircraft.

Agree to disagree, what do you think of the flight record?

I replied to it already. There's plenty of discrepancies in the drone owner's story. Notably, that it's nearly impossible for #8 shots to hit and damage the craft at 200~300 ft up in the air.

BTW I like how you are using the term drone now despite ragging on people doing the same earlier.

Hard to argue with flight logs, they don't lie.

and the drone thing, ;)

@n64dd: you very well can argue the flight logs, we have no way of knowing rather This was really his 1st take off that day. And for his maiden voyage as he claims, he decided to fly it that far off, not even a test run? Why did he need to go over their property to get videos of his friends property? There was so much opening before those houses.

Again what doesn't he release flight video? Why is the shooter wrong for ensuring his privacy from God knows Who. the man had a 6 foot fence...he wants privacy

Nope, it's pretty easy to fake. I worked in the UAV innovation office (A2Q) at the Pentagon, and we run simulated in theater flights complete with fake flight logs all the time to test the system.

If you worked at the pentagon, i work for nasa.

@bmanva said:

@n64dd said:

@bmanva said:

@n64dd said:

@bmanva said:

@n64dd said:

BTW, did you read about the flight record I posted earlier? I want to know your thoughts since the guy that shot the drone flat out lied.

I replied to it already. There's plenty of discrepancies in the drone owner's story. Notably, that it's nearly impossible for #8 shots to hit and damage the craft at 200~300 ft up in the air.

BTW I like how you are using the term drone now despite ragging on people doing the same earlier.

Hard to argue with flight logs, they don't lie.

and the drone thing, ;)

Nope, it's pretty easy to fake. I worked in the UAV innovation office (A2Q) at the Pentagon, and we run simulated in theater flights complete with fake flight logs all the time to test the system.

If you worked at the pentagon, i work for nasa.

Uh huh.

Blah blah blah blah blah. More gun nut nonsense. He was arrested and will be found guilty and liable. It is illegal to shoot someone elses drone in this situation. You don't "shoot" something to protect your privacy, which he hasn't even demonstrated was violated. Idiotic.

@n64dd said:

@bmanva said:

@n64dd said:

@bmanva said:

@n64dd said:

@bmanva said:

@n64dd said:

BTW, did you read about the flight record I posted earlier? I want to know your thoughts since the guy that shot the drone flat out lied.

I replied to it already. There's plenty of discrepancies in the drone owner's story. Notably, that it's nearly impossible for #8 shots to hit and damage the craft at 200~300 ft up in the air.

BTW I like how you are using the term drone now despite ragging on people doing the same earlier.

Hard to argue with flight logs, they don't lie.

and the drone thing, ;)

Nope, it's pretty easy to fake. I worked in the UAV innovation office (A2Q) at the Pentagon, and we run simulated in theater flights complete with fake flight logs all the time to test the system.

If you worked at the pentagon, i work for nasa.

Uh huh.

Seems like being wrong is a habit for you.

@bmanva said:

@n64dd said:

@bmanva said:

@n64dd said:

@bmanva said:

@n64dd said:

@bmanva said:

@n64dd said:

BTW, did you read about the flight record I posted earlier? I want to know your thoughts since the guy that shot the drone flat out lied.

I replied to it already. There's plenty of discrepancies in the drone owner's story. Notably, that it's nearly impossible for #8 shots to hit and damage the craft at 200~300 ft up in the air.

BTW I like how you are using the term drone now despite ragging on people doing the same earlier.

Hard to argue with flight logs, they don't lie.

and the drone thing, ;)

Nope, it's pretty easy to fake. I worked in the UAV innovation office (A2Q) at the Pentagon, and we run simulated in theater flights complete with fake flight logs all the time to test the system.

If you worked at the pentagon, i work for nasa.

Uh huh.

Seems like being wrong is a habit for you.

Seems like making up shit is your MO. I'm done with this thread. Can't argue with crazy.

@bmanva: seems to be lol

No sympathy for the drone owner.

Wrong. It's not illegal to shoot drones. If it were, the shooter would have been charged with that crime. But shooting the drone isn't what he's charged with, he's charged with wanton endangerment and criminal mischief. Later is hard to argue as it requires the state to prove criminal intent in the destruction of property.

We all want our privacy, and these drone/helicopter thingy's need to be illegal. Why would anyone want one anyway ? What is the purpose ? I only see them as spy ufo's. They need to get it under control, and fast. I too feel no sympathy for the drone owner, his loss. Why don't he just fly it a park or somewhere away from neighborhoods.

lol except I'm not the guy who comes into a thread, telling how everyone is wrong in their definition of drone, then proceed to use the term in the context you were complaining about in the first place. You should have quit after the first post instead of continuing to embarrass yourself.

It is illegal to shoot at UAV's.

"Whoever willfully…sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years or both".

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/32

You can't fly any personal property over that of another persons. Simple as that. Aircraft have traffic controllers and airspace, with communications across radio transmissions.

This drone was an invasion of privacy and potential safety concern. I didn't read the article but did it state what kind of munition was used?

Wrong again boy genius, personal drones and RC model planes are not public/civil aircraft. We covered this in the first page. Again if shooting the drone was a crime, he would have been charged accordingly, but it's not so shooting drone isn't one of two pending charges. Why don't we use some common sense here?

I guess you disregarded your own advice and decided to stay and see how many times you can be proven wrong in a single thread.

A lot of people disagree with you.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2013/12/10/thankfully-shooting-down-a-drone-will-land-you-in-federal-prison/

I don't care what you mouth breathers established as what you believe to be fact. UAV's that are not public aircraft, are civil aircraft, and it is illegal to shoot at one. Those two words have specific meanings. It's not my fault you don't understand them. Again, the only thing you have proven is that you just don't understand reality.

bmavna is a moron who doesn't know his ass from first base. He's going to give you some absurd reply that has nothing to do with reality.

No need for name calling.

LOL you failed you read your own article AGAIN.
"*(as opposed to being operated as a model aircraft for recreational purposes, which would leave open the question as to whether Title 18 would apply, thanks to Brendan Schulman for that point of clarification)."

For the third time, private UAVs and RC planes are not considered public/civil aircraft. Otherwise the shooter in this instance would have been charged.

There is no defense for the person in charge of the drone. The only charge that has any weight is towards the type of firearm used by the one that shot the drone.

Drone person: Trespassing/potential danger blah blah blah. ......also should be on trial for lacking common sense.

Right that's why reality is the shooter was charged with title 18. Oh wait, he wasn't because title 18 doesn't apply.

And lol @ you being all pissed off.

Looks your fish for support backfired. lol

Holy shit. Are you that stupid? He posted a link with the federal law that shows shooting one down is illegal. OMG. dude, wow. lmao.

lol. https://www.avinc.com/glossary/civilian_uav

Wow you are extra obtuse today confusing CIVIL with CIVILIAN. Try linking FAA definition not some random commercial site selling UAVs. FAA regulations quotes: "The FAA then stated its current policy regarding UAS based on the following three categories: (1) UAS used as public aircraft; (2) UAS used as civil (not civilian lol) aircraft; and (3) UAS used as model aircraft." Also "with respect to UAS used as model aircraft, the FAA reiterated the operating guidelines in AC 91-57, and further noted that to qualify as a model aircraft, the aircraft would need to be operated purely for recreational or hobby purposes, and within the visual line of sight of the operator." [https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf] [https://www.faa.gov/uas/]

In order for UAVs to be considered civil category you need go through a series of procedures for FAA approval. [https://www.faa.gov/uas/civil_operations/]

That's for drones, not quad copters.