Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Robotics The Military United States Hardware Idle

Activists' Drone Shot Out of the Sky For Fourth Time 733

Posted by samzenpus
from the and-stay-down dept.
garymortimer writes "Photos provided by the animal rights group show the multicopter smoking on the ground, with its lithium polymer battery supply smoldering. Another photo shows the drone's video camera smashed. The drone, dubbed 'Angel,' was a Cinestar 8 octocopter estimated at $4,000. This wasn't the first time SHARK has been shot out of the sky. This is the fourth drone that the group has lost while investigating pigeon shootings. One drone landed on club property, and is the subject of an ongoing lawsuit."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Activists' Drone Shot Out of the Sky For Fourth Time

Comments Filter:
  • by blogagog (1223986) on Monday November 19, 2012 @06:29PM (#42032591)
    This group sneaking cameras into others' private property should be arrested for being peeping Toms.
  • by getto man d (619850) on Monday November 19, 2012 @06:31PM (#42032629)
    No, check out Air Rights [wikipedia.org]. I would be careful if a military / police drone was flying high enough above your property, in regards to the OP.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 19, 2012 @06:37PM (#42032713)

    In 1926 the U.S. Congress passed the Air Commerce Act, which declared that the "navigable air space" of the U.S. was a public highway, open to all citizens. Navigable air space was defined as the sky above "the minimum safe altitudes of flight" as determined by federal regulators — typically 500 to 1,000 feet above the ground.

  • by Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) on Monday November 19, 2012 @06:41PM (#42032767)

    The 'hunters', and I use that word loosely, seem to be growing pigeons in cages and releasing them from crates, whereupon they are shot by people standing a few yards away. 'Canned hunting' they call it. Idiot rednecks I call it.

  • by rjr162 (69736) on Monday November 19, 2012 @06:41PM (#42032775)

    Right from the FAA (and seeing how this "drone" is setup, I'd have to guess it would fall under the Helicopter section)

    This is the FAR
    If you're interested, shown below is Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 91.119 of the
    General Operating and Flight Rules which specifically prohibits low-flying aircraft.
    91.119 Minimum safe altitudes; general
    Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the
    following altitudes;
    (a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue
    hazard to persons or property on the surface.
    (b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any
    open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a
    horizontal radius of 2.000 feet of the aircraft.
    (c) Over other than congested areas.
    An altitude of 500 feet above the surface except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In
    that case, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or
    structure.
    (d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed In paragraph
    (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the
    surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with routes or altitudes
    specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.
    Helicopter operations may be conducted below the minimum altitudes set for fixed-wing aircraft.
    The reason? The helicopter's unique operating characteristics, the most important of which is its
    ability to execute pinpoint emergency landings during power failure. Further, the helicopter's
    increased use by law enforcement and emergency medical service agencies requires added
    flexibility in the application of many FAA provisions.

  • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Monday November 19, 2012 @06:43PM (#42032811) Homepage Journal

    No, check out Air Rights [wikipedia.org].

    Beat me to it.

    Essentially, a property owner/renter "owns" the airspace up to about 500-ft (150m).

    And no, that doesn't mean you can take pot-shots at passenger aircraft. Unmanned drones I would think are another story.

  • by Above (100351) on Monday November 19, 2012 @06:47PM (#42032853)

    Here's the FAA altitude regulations:

    Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes; general
    Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes;
    (a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
    (b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2.000 feet of the aircraft.
    (c) Over other than congested areas.
    An altitude of 500 feet above the surface except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In that case, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
    (d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed In paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.
    Helicopter operations may be conducted below the minimum altitudes set for fixed-wing aircraft. The reason? The helicopter's unique operating characteristics, the most important of which is its ability to execute pinpoint emergency landings during power failure. Further, the helicopter's increased use by law enforcement and emergency medical service agencies requires added flexibility in the application of many FAA provisions.

  • Re:hunting? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) on Monday November 19, 2012 @06:47PM (#42032861) Journal

    Actually, when they are eatten they are called "squab". But, I've heard they are delicious.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squab_(food) [wikipedia.org]

    Sort of like how we call cooked cow "Beef", cooked pig "Pork" , and cooked deer "Venision".

  • Uh, right. (Score:5, Informative)

    by bmo (77928) on Monday November 19, 2012 @06:53PM (#42032969)

    FTFA

    >âoeSHARK used the drone to successfully videotape illegal animal abuse committed at the pigeon shoot for nearly the entire day,â

    No they didn't.

    Pigeon shooting is legal.

    http://bensalem.patch.com/articles/da-dismisses-pigeon-shoot-citations [patch.com]

    âoeThe shooting of pigeons in Pennsylvania is unquestionably legal,â the release stated. Efforts by Seeton and others to persuade the Pennsylvania General Assembly to ban pigeon shooting failed as recently as December 2011.

    The DAâ(TM)s office agreed however that efforts must be made to ensure that animals wounded but not killed by shotgun are humanely killed. Gun clubs must conduct a complete search of their property and adjacent areas for the purpose of retrieving wounded birds at the end of the pigeon shoot.

    And good luck getting pigeon shooting banned in PA, or any other kind of shooting and hunting. The first day of deer season is a state holiday, for instance.

    --
    BMO

  • Re:wait... what? (Score:4, Informative)

    by scot4875 (542869) on Monday November 19, 2012 @07:04PM (#42033113) Homepage

    The drones are just a tactic to disrupt the hunters.

    "Hunters" should be in quotes everywhere it's used in relation to this article. These people are as about as much of a "hunter" as a clay pigeon shooter is. It's kind of pathetic, really.

    --Jeremy

  • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Monday November 19, 2012 @07:11PM (#42033211) Homepage Journal

    "a property owner/renter "owns" the airspace up to about 500-ft (150m)." Which is about the maximum range of a shotgun.

    For slugs/sabot rounds, yea, about 150 yards is max range.

    For birdshot (the type of ammo you'd typically see in a pigeon hunt), you're looking at more like 40-60 yards.

  • Re:wait... what? (Score:5, Informative)

    by IonOtter (629215) on Monday November 19, 2012 @07:29PM (#42033441) Homepage

    "Do you have a citation for that?"

    He doesn't, but I do:

    [animallaw.info]

    Purdon's Pennsylvania Statutes and Consolidated Statutes. Title 34 Pa.C.S.A. Game. Chapter 23. Hunting and Furtaking. Subchapter A. General Provisions. Â 2302. Interference with lawful taking of wildlife or other activities permitted by this title prohibited

    Citation: PA ST 34 Pa.C.S.A. Â 2302

    Summary: This reflects Pennsylvania's hunter harassment law. It is unlawful for another person at the location where the activity is taking place to intentionally obstruct or interfere with the lawful taking of wildlife or other activities permitted by this title. Activities prohibited by this law include: driving or disturbing wildlife for the purpose of disrupting the lawful taking of wildlife; blocking, impeding or harassing a person engaged in lawful taking; using various stimuli to affect wildlife behavior to hinder lawful taking; and interjecting oneself into the line of fire, among other activities. Violation of this section is a summary offense of the second degree. A person adversely affected by prohibited activities may bring an action to restrain such conduct and to recover damages.

  • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Monday November 19, 2012 @07:39PM (#42033573)

    Birds are not shot with rifles, they are shot with shotguns, also sometimes called scatter guns. These are smooth bore weapons, no rifling, that can fire out "shot" which is a collection of small pellets. How small varies depending on the shot load. For bird hunting "birdshot" is used. The largest would be about 4mm though that is rarely used, more commonly it is around 2.5mm. The purpose of this is threefold:

    1) To increase the area of effect. Point shooting a small, moving, target is very hard. Shot spreads out and thus provides a wider hitbox. It makes it far easier.

    2) To decrease damage to the target. A high powered rifle round could annihilate much of a bird, rendering any meat one might get useless (remember this was all developed back when it was hunting for sustenance). Light shot causes shallower wounds.

    3) Safety. So long as the gun is fired above the horizon, it is of no danger. The shot is metal spheres, and thus cannot maintain a ballistic trajectory. Due to their small size, they are very subject to friction and lose their kinetic energy quickly. When they fall to the ground, they are not dangerous.

    So no, there will be no problems with someone missing and hitting a neighbour. For a bullet to be dangerous over long distances it needs to be fired from a rifled weapon. The spin stabilizes it and allows it to maintain a ballistic trajectory and thus its energy even over very long distance. Thus when fired at an upward angle it could indeed fly for a long time and hit with lethal force.

    For all those reasons, you'll see something like this done with 12ga shotguns loaded with #6-8 birdshot, not a 7.62x51mm rifle loaded with BTHP rounds.

  • by Firethorn (177587) on Monday November 19, 2012 @07:43PM (#42033637) Homepage Journal

    For slugs/sabot rounds, yea, about 150 yards is max range.

    Well, the effective range of birdshot depends on the type. #6 will go further than #20.

    What I find interesting about that figure is that the old tradition of defining 'national waters' was historically been the max range of the shore cannons of the day.

    Thus, defining 'personal air space' as the max range of common arms* that a homeowner might have seems pretty traditional.

    *Well, common shotguns which won't have a horribly dangerous projectile coming down, potentially miles away. Even a rifled slug doesn't have that range.

  • Re:hunting? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Cosgrach (1737088) on Monday November 19, 2012 @07:48PM (#42033715)

    WHAT?!?!!

    Dude, I used to raise chickens. They eat pretty much anything. Worms, snails, bugs, small children, and yes, some grain - you name it, chickens will eat it.

    If you are eating 'free range' chickens, then they are eating everything in sight. Caged chickens eat mostly grain, but that is not their natural diet. They get grain to make them fat.

  • by Firethorn (177587) on Monday November 19, 2012 @08:14PM (#42034049) Homepage Journal

    Bit of advice: When shooting at targets in the air, hunters generally use a shotgun, IE a smoothbore firearm loaded with little balls of lead or bismuth* alloys. In any case, shotguns loaded with shot are hazardous for far shorter distances, which is why you're allowed to fire them into the air.

    Given that they were hunting pigeons, shooting at the drone with a rifle would require the 'dipshit' to go back to his vehicle or building and retrieve a rifle, and it's a tough shot.

    It's far more likely many of the hunters 'donated' a shot or two at the drone with their pigeon guns. Pigeons relatively small birds, a commonly recommended size [chuckhawks.com] is #7.5. As Dick Cheney [apfn.org] so ably demonstrated while hunting quail using the same #7.5 shot you'd expect for pigeon, you can easily survive being shot in the face with it merely 30 yards away.

    Given the way the protestors tend to operate, I can fully believe them going 'closer! closer! to the point that the drone ends up within easy range** even for short range shot. Then it's just a matter of a 'lucky hit', which isn't hard when each shot is tossing ~250 pellets at the target.

    *Less enivornmentally hazardous than lead.
    **With this type of shot, it's more a question of penetration at range than the hitting itself. If they're not doing enough damage, I'd imagine that a few might of had some shells loaded with larger pellets, perhaps #4-5, which would have more energy out that far, at the expense of fewer balls.

  • by saleenS281 (859657) on Monday November 19, 2012 @08:43PM (#42034363) Homepage
    There are different tags for doe vs. buck to account for this, the DNR isn't stupid. For every "trophy buck hunter" there are 10 guys who just want venison in the freezer and would much rather take the easier deer.

Computers are unreliable, but humans are even more unreliable. Any system which depends on human reliability is unreliable. -- Gilb

Working...