Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Telemetry Suggests Shot-Down Drone Was Higher Than Alleged

Posted by samzenpus on from the lucky-shot dept.

AmiMoJo writes: The pilot of the drone shot down Sunday evening over a Kentucky property has now come forward with video seemingly showing that the drone wasn't nearly as close as the property owner made it out to be. The data also shows that it was well over 200 feet above the ground before the fatal shots fired. The shooter, meanwhile, continues to maintain that the drone flew 20 feet over a neighbour's house before ascending to "60 to 80 [feet] above me."

13 of 528 comments (clear)

  1. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    You would have trouble seeing such a drone at 'well over 200 feet above ground' let alone shooting it down with a shotgun.

    1. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Have you guys ever shot a shotgun??? I call BS on this 200ft claim and the 'expert'.

      Something that small, if he hit it at 200ft, he either got REALLY lucky or fired A BUNCH of times (and got lucky).

      Even birdshot is only effective at 40yds (120ft for you metric weenies (because math is hard)).

    2. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Even birdshot is only effective at 40yds (120ft for you metric weenies (because math is hard)).

      Feet aren't metric. Way to perpetuate the arrogant+ignorant american stereotypes....

    3. Re:Really? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      This seems to suggest that at 200ft the type of shot used here would be quite painful. Granted that isn't firing upwards, but even so it should be enough to damage a small, plastic drone. A broken prop would be enough to bring it down.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Really? by shaitand · · Score: 3, Informative

      Have you ever played with a drone like this? You don't have to blow the thing up, smacking it with one finger in a casual swing is enough to crash one. It's hard enough to keep them up without any one trying to impact them.

      At 200 ft your shot would be a nice little cloud and any of those pellets hitting the drone would be enough to take it down.

      Think a target about 8x the size of a clay and far far more fragile. The actual body isn't more fragile but the flight stability is.

  2. poorly researched article, if at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The 200 ft displayed on video is based on position where drone was turned on and calibrated, based on a barometric altimeter.
    Was the house on a hill or small rise i comparison to where the flght started? Then yes, drone was lower.
    This took only a few minutes research of the drone manuals and the tech support forums.

  3. Impossible with #6 or lesser shotgun shot by geggam · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... simply put at that range ( 200 ft ) any pellets the size of #6 or smaller would simply not have the ballistic energy.

    2 ply cardboard wouldnt be penetrated at 200 feet.

    Source : Years of hunting and shooting with 12 guages

    1. Re:Impossible with #6 or lesser shotgun shot by DRJlaw · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're simply wrong.

      Source: actual ballistics tables

      60 yards is 180 ft -- 20 ft short of the target distance. 500 FPS will still hurt quite a bit.

      Maximum range with "no" ballistic energy is 200 yards, and we're talking about smaller birdshot (#7.5-8), not #6.

      Sign a liability waiver, stand 200 ft away, and allow me to blast away at you with Remington 12 guage #6 if you're so sure of yourself...

    2. Re:Impossible with #6 or lesser shotgun shot by DRJlaw · · Score: 3, Informative

      "The speed at which a projectile must travel to penetrate skin is 163 fps and to break bone is 213 fps."

      Source.

      I can keep this up all day. Vague references to your so-called "hunting experience" don't trump actual data.

  4. Re:Nope... by Dunbal · · Score: 1, Informative

    This is a lot closer to a clay pigeon than an aircraft...

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  5. Re: Might want to reconsider paying the fine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76381

    Myth #1: Unmanned aircraft are not aircraft.

    Fact â"Unmanned aircraft, regardless of whether the operation is for recreational, hobby, business, or commercial purposes, are aircraft within both the definitions found in statute under title 49 of U.S. Code, section 40102(a)(6) [49 U.S.C. Â 40102(a)(6)] and title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations section 1.1.[14 C.F.R. Â 1.1].

  6. Re:Might want to reconsider paying the fine... by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1, Informative

    The FAA can have any opinion it wants, but the FAA isn't the one making the decision.

    A judge will decide whether a sister swatting down her brother's mall-bought $10 RC helicopter is a 20 year federal/$250,000 crime, or if that is asinine.

    Same goes for this guy and the pervert's few hundred dollar RC quad-copter.

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
  7. Re:The missing part of this story's coverage by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Informative

    The telemetry shows that it was too high to be "peeping"

    The telemetry also shows that it was at -45.9 feet when it crashed (see the video.) We can presume the telemetry is accurate and it crashed so hard that it buried itself 46 feet under the ground, or we can assume that this "telemetry" is bullshit.

    You seem to want to presume accurate telemetry even when the evidence is right in front of you that it isnt accurate. Why is that? Why have you stopped giving a shit about accuracy and veracity? What motivation do you have to be willfully ignorant?

    --
    "His name was James Damore."