New Telemetry Suggests Shot-Down Drone Was Higher Than Alleged

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."

Comments

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Impossible with #6 or lesser shotgun shot

[geggam]

... 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

Re:Impossible with #6 or lesser shotgun shot

[X0563511]

Go grab a model aircraft. Spin up the prop, and drop a piece of shot into the prop.

You'll probably end up with a broken prop, without any appreciable ballistic energy being involved.

Re:Impossible with #6 or lesser shotgun shot

[DRJlaw]

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...

Re:Impossible with #6 or lesser shotgun shot

[ameline]

He was using #8 shot. The range with a 30 degree muzzle elevation for #8 is 100 yards. If the drone was at 200 feet altitude, and that much downrange (angle would be 45 degrees) the distance would be just under 100 yards -- I think if the altitude of 200 is correct (big if) these tables show that it was at the very limit of the range of #8 shot. I think it's far more likely that the drone was at around 100 feet or less above ground, and within 100 to 150 feet of the shooter. Even aviation grade barometric altimeters are often out by as much as 25 feet, and must be set for the ambient pressure (which drifts).

terminology

[jsepeta]

Is it a drone, capable of flying by itself, or is it a radio controlled vehicle that must be piloted?

Was it lingering over the guy's property or passing through his airspace?

Clearly the pilot did not take evasive action. Being able to shoot it makes it seem like he was pestering the homeowner.

Might want to reconsider paying the fine...

[Above]

I can pay the fine

Federal Law does not put drones in a special category. They are just another aircraft. The penalty is up to 20 years in federal prison, and a $250,000 fine. That's in addition to the charges this individual has already faced for discharging a fire arm in the city he lived in, as they make that illegal there.

More interestingly, there is a line here that is not well defined. What's the difference between:

• Google taking pictures from a Satellite for google maps.

• Bing taking pictures from a Cessna at 10,000 feet for Bing maps.

• The police helicopter flying over at 3,000 feet but only using their eyes.

• The police helicopter flying over at 3,000 feet and using their 100x super-zoom camera.

• The drone at 400 feet with a GoPro.

• The done at 100 feet with a GoPro.

• The drone hovering outside your window with a GoPro.

I think most people would say the first is fine, and it's not legal to try and shoot down the google satellite. Similarly, I think most people would be ok with taking action against the last one to protect privacy (even if that isn't legal per the federal law I cited above). This technology is so new, we simply haven't decided as a society where the line should be drawn, and our old laws probably don't work well.

It's not just personal houses either. What about the drones used by activists to fly over industrial operations breaking the law and get footage of it? Can the industrial operations shoot them down? If they do the same thing with a Cessna at 3,000 feet everyone would say no. What makes a drone at 400 any different?

Re: Might want to reconsider paying the fine...

[Anonymous Coward]

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].

Altitude is difficult to estimate

[damn_registrars]

There have been studies done before asking average people to estimate how high an object is in the sky (generally balloons or kites) and the estimates were generally awful. Even judging the difference between 60 and 200 feet is generally beyond the range of what most humans can comprehend in vertical distance.

Re:shooter should have talked to owner first

[bws111]

Why is it the property owners reponsibility to go find and talk to the drone operator? The drone operator, on the other hand, knows where his toy is going so maybe HE should actually act like a responsible person and let the property owners know what he is doing ahead of time.