How To Shoot Down a Drone

gurps_npc writes: Popular Mechanics has a nice article about how to shoot down a non-military drone. Interestingly enough, a Super Soaker will do the job while a standard paint gun does nothing. It doesn't take much energy as long as it is concentrated. A BB gun can do it as well — if you can hit the the target. "Other good non-gun options include pretty much any other solid-projectile slinger. Slingshots will likely work—again, assuming you can hit." They add, "Last but not least, you never want to underestimate the power of just throwing crap. A rock, a baseball, anything you can fling straight, accurate, and fast. All it takes to down a drone is a bent propeller or enough of a jolt to flip it."

Comments

Japan does it right

[fustakrakich]

You gotta put all the nasty bits in a roll cage, and only one motor to fail

Re:Japan does it right

[fustakrakich]

Distance...

Next question

Re:Japan does it right

[camperdave]

Did you even watch the video? It flies. Sure it can also roll along the ground, but the main thing it does is fly. And since it flies, it will be out of reach of whatever pulp inducing tools may be brought to the party.

Re:Japan does it right

[ToasterMonkey]

You gotta put all the nasty bits in a roll cage, and only one motor to fail

and how many control surfaces?

Re:Japan does it right

[fustakrakich]

Yeah, let's see one of your quads do that! I like your style! Guess you didn't notice it flying all over the arena. I think the ad said it'll go up to 60kph because the prop doesn't have to provide any lift near that speed, not too shabby. A little more aerodynamic, and we might have a race I will grant that the camera could have been mounted in a better place, maybe next year's model.

Re:Japan does it right

[fustakrakich]

I'm sorry. My previous response was far too long, and completely ruins the effect of this one. Regardless, let me come in again:

Did you even watch the goddamn video you linked to?

Yes...

NEXT question!

Re:Japan does it right

[NewtonsLaw]

Dont' even need to do that now... manufacturers are making almost unbreakable props as seen in Youtube video. Good luck shooting down a drone if you can't break the propellers!

Re:Japan does it right

[fustakrakich]

There were six or eight of them. It doesn't look like you need them all to maintain control, and they're also protected inside the cage. The ones around the prop tips and the base were free floating. The overall design just makes much more sense, being safer and far more robust. I am surprised it doesn't dominate the market. It did cost a lot of money to make the first time, but it's an old video, and being a military project, well, you know the routine there. Prices should be comparable now.

Re:Japan does it right

[fustakrakich]

You don't have to break the prop. Just get it tangled up in the fish net. The globe can bounce off of it.

Re:Japan does it right

[JaredOfEuropa]

Civilisation

Re:Japan does it right

[Opportunist]

I dunno, but using technology to peep on your neighbors is not what I'd call civilized.

Re:Japan does it right

[jellomizer]

Oh come on, this is the high point of civilization.

Hey look technology, it's scary!
Let's throw rocks at it!
That will show how powerful me am!

Or we could just be like our barbaric ancestors and stop and think about it
Why we don't want drones over our property?
What are the causes that urge people to fly these drones?
Is there a way to change culture to prevent this from occurring?

I guess the difference between civilization and barbaric nature is the difference between ? and !

Re:Japan does it right

[I'm New Around Here]

That's strange. In the story last week, several comments were explaining how all props are so fragile they break if a bird farts at them.

Re:Japan does it right

[fustakrakich]

Who?

Re:Japan does it right

[fustakrakich]

Now that would be a cool contest! Man against nature..

Re: Japan does it right

[BronsCon]

Not the AC this AC replied to, but... Solving the problem of people flying drones over other peoples' property without permission does not need to be solved in anyone's lifetime, though sooner would be better (and it's often easy to get permission for a flyover as long as you're not doing anything creepy with it). Slving the problem of someone flying a drone over my property, on the other hand, does need to be solved in my lifetime; in fact, in a much shorter period of time: it needs to be solved while the drone is flying over my property.

To put that another way: Someone flying their drone over your property and filming you without permission is, apparently, a problem we both agree does not need to be solved in my lifetime. However, when that drone flies over my property without permission, potentially filming me, well... waiting for my grandkids to solve the problem (after being born and growing up) doesn't really do any good, does it?

Better the people being incosiderate with their toys be given a problem of their own: their toys being destroyed bythe people whose lives they violate with them. And that's an easy problem to solve: get permission to use your toys on my property.

Re: Japan does it right

[KGIII]

I said it in a prior post. I will absolutely shoot one down over my property - and I will get away with it - I may get a fine but I will contest even that because I have enough money to do so. Privacy is important to me.

On the other hand, if you bring your toy and ask? I will probably try to help make your visit an enjoyable one. I will bring you a beverage and a snack - and play with your toy if you let me. You may even convince me to buy a toy too.

I'd even let someone make a track, even cutting down trees, if they wanted to. I need them to do one thing, I need them to get permission. I will grant it except in very rare circumstances that I can only imagine and are very unlikely to be true.

I do not have a super soaker. I do have a shotgun. I am not going to pick up a rock and throw it - I am going to use my shotgun to throw smaller rocks at it more rapidly and more accurately. More likely I will not even notice...

Re: Japan does it right

[BronsCon]

And I don't get why anyone would argue with that. This isn't complicated stuff, but I think it's clear who the drone owners are in this crowd.

string..

[thesupraman]

A piece of wood or a rock, some string/rope tied to it, job done.
Much easier to 'hit' it, and once the string is tangled, its not going anywhere.
You can even pull it back for another 'shot' if long enough

Of course if its further away, not so easy.. but then its also probably not yours to 'shoot down' to say the least.

Leaving alone somewhat the question of if you SHOULD 'shoot down a drone'. I wonder how many people would walk
up to a stranger, grab their camera and throw it hard to the pavement - its much the same thing really.
They would have to be doing something pretty damn wrong...

Re:string..

[kenai_alpenglow]

>

Leaving alone somewhat the question of if you SHOULD 'shoot down a drone'. I wonder how many people would walk up to a stranger, grab their camera and throw it hard to the pavement - its much the same thing really. They would have to be doing something pretty damn wrong...

If the stranger is not violating the person's privacy, probably nothing will happen to the camera (or drone). If the camera is pointing in his little girls bedroom/pool/similar-type-situation, the camera (or drone) will likely need replacing---maybe along with stranger's teeth...

Re:string..

[ihtoit]

if said stranger is pointing his camera into my daughter's bedroom, I'll make him eat the fucking thing.

Re:string..

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine, just don't interrupt her webcam show. She probably earns more than you do.

Re:string..

[vux984]

I wonder how many people would walk
up to a stranger, grab their camera and throw it hard to the pavement - its much the same thing really.

I disagree. Its not the same thing at all, because any scenario involving a stranger involves a stranger.

It doesn't escalate straight to throwing the camera to the pavement because I have other options to engage the stranger.

But a drone 10 feet up? What am I supposed to do? Ask it politely to leave? I can do that to the stranger. I can also gauge his 'creepiness / intrusiveness' factor much easier as well; as well as how receptive he is to the fact that I'm not happy he's there, etc.

Re:string..

[arth1]

I'd say the best way to down a drone is using a bigger drone.

Re: string..

[loufoque]

You realize looking at people in swimsuits is not a big deal right?
If you're considering being this violent ovee nothing, you should definitely consult with a psychologist.

Re:string..

[Anonymous Coward]

Leaving alone somewhat the question of if you SHOULD 'shoot down a drone'. I wonder how many people would walk
up to a stranger, grab their camera and throw it hard to the pavement - its much the same thing really.

A surprising number, I think.

They would have to be doing something pretty damn wrong...

Incorrect, they'd have to be perceived as doing something wrong, not actually doing something wrong at all.

There was a story in the local paper about how a man was taking photos in a park. Next thing he knew, a police officer was talking to him about it, and telling him not to take photos or come to the Park.

Because "Think of the Children" took over.

Re: string..

[kenai_alpenglow]

Clicking simple shots a a neighbor hood pool is probably harmless. Single shot from the street at your yard with kid-in-swimsuit also probably harmless. Coming into your privacy-fenced backyard pool standing there for several minutes taking close-ups of small kids in swimsuits.... If you think that's normal, maybe you should be seeing the shrink...

Re:string..

[BronsCon]

its much the same thing really.

Not really, as you can typically see whether my camera is on or not (most P&S cameras have an automatic lens cap) or if the lens cap is present (anyone who gives a fig about their camera makes damn sure the lens cap is on it while not actively shooting). On top of that, it's easy to tell what I'm actively shooting and if, for some reason, you can't figure that out, you can always ask me. Unless you can see radio waves and somehow pick out which of the tens of thousands of waves hitting the drone are the ones coming from said drone's control device, you have no way of tracing those waves back to the control device (which may or may not be in the same location as the pilot) and, therefore, no way to track down the pilot to ask them anything, let alone if (or what) they're filming or photographing.

And if I've forgotten to put my lens cap back on after shooting, I thank the person who raises their concerns to me for reminding me to protect my lens when not in use, then put the cap back on.

Re:string..

[ToasterMonkey]

I wonder how many people would walk
up to a stranger, grab their camera and throw it hard to the pavement - its much the same thing really.

I disagree. Its not the same thing at all, because any scenario involving a stranger involves a stranger.

It doesn't escalate straight to throwing the camera to the pavement because I have other options to engage the stranger.

But a drone 10 feet up? What am I supposed to do? Ask it politely to leave? I can do that to the stranger. I can also gauge his 'creepiness / intrusiveness' factor much easier as well; as well as how receptive he is to the fact that I'm not happy he's there, etc.

I agree with your reasoning.

I don't see why it's any different than someone tossing any object onto my yard, remote control or not, on the ground, in the air, in a tree, on my roof, all the same. I believe I have the right to physically move it if I don't want it there. No need to damage it more than necessary to move it, but I don't need to leave it there, and it's not like we can call for a professional tow as we would for a car. Something as expensive as a drone is going right to the police department for the owner to pick up.

If the owner wants to lower the chance of his expensive flying toy getting damaged, he would be flying it low and slow enough for someone to safely pick up. Um... as with anything else found in my yard, it was like that when I found it, as a general rule.

Re:string..

[Keybounce]

I wonder how many people would walk up to a stranger, grab their camera and throw it hard to the pavement - its much the same thing really. They would have to be doing something pretty damn wrong...

I don't know, ask law enforcement how many times they've taken someone's camera, or phone, etc. Clearly, the people filming the police must have been doing something pretty damn wrong ... that is what you meant, right?

Bent properller?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most "drones" are using carbon or plastic propellers. These do not "bend". Well, they might bend but then they go right back to normal.

Also, can we maybe, just maybe, call these things what they are? Remote controlled quad/hexa/octo-copters? Most of the time these are not "drones". Drones are autonomous and very few hobbyist fly autonomous drones (although it is actually very easy).

Re: Bent properller?

[greenfruitsalad]

Not when in ferry or loitering mode.

Silly string

[wierd_w]

If it comes too close, a can of silly string would gum up the propellers quite nicely, even on large drones.

Water cannon is cheaper though.

Garden hose

[Fencepost]

Seems to me that a garden hose with a good high-quality nozzle may be your best bet. No questions about how close it is, no questions about using something dangerous, etc.

You still have the legal liability question, but I think the first thing to do on that if someone were to challenge you would be to subpoena any and all video, photo and GPS logs created by the person suing. Possibly (assuming you have a lawyer involved to write this up) with some sort of motion to compel or attempt to seize computers, smartphones, tablets, etc. along with flash cards, etc. to ensure that responsive materials weren't destroyed.

Of course, you might also look into the options of very low-powered (to avoid widespread damage, for safety, and for size) HERF guns. "Really, it just fell out of the sky! What the hell was the pilot doing dropping that thing on us? He could have hurt someone!"

Re:Garden hose

[mysidia]

Why am I suddenly imaging a joystick-controlled turret mounted on the roof, connected to the water line.... with a booster pump for long-range spraying?

For repelling unwanted birds, of course

Re:Garden hose

[phayes]

You've got seagulls too I see...

Re:Garden hose

[TWX]

Seems to me that a garden hose with a good high-quality nozzle may be your best bet. No questions about how close it is, no questions about using something dangerous, etc. You still have the legal liability question, but I think the first thing to do on that if someone were to challenge you would be to subpoena any and all video, photo and GPS logs created by the person suing. Possibly (assuming you have a lawyer involved to write this up) with some sort of motion to compel or attempt to seize computers, smartphones, tablets, etc. along with flash cards, etc. to ensure that responsive materials weren't destroyed. Of course, you might also look into the options of very low-powered (to avoid widespread damage, for safety, and for size) HERF guns. "Really, it just fell out of the sky! What the hell was the pilot doing dropping that thing on us? He could have hurt someone!"

Or, I donno, you could render the camera/video transmission nonfunctional (if the water didn't do that already) and simply take the thing indoors, then not answer the door when they come knocking, and also not answer the door if they bring a patrolman to knock.

It's very unlikely that a police officer will do any more than knock on the door on the complainant's behalf. If no one answers the officer isn't going to force the issue, and the officer doesn't really have any responsibility as far as civil law goes, so if there's no immediate proof of a crime (remember, the device has been concealed) then the officer will probably just leave, and maybe file a report that a complaint was made and that no followup was possible.

The original operator doesn't really have a whole lot of recourse after that point. Anything that he were to try to do would require pursuits through civil court, up to and including small-claims filings, and he'd have to figure out who to serve papers to, pay for the papers to be served, pay the court filing fees, and then actually have some form of proof to present to the judge, all while serving the papers presents the defendant a chance to present a counter-claim, like trespassing, voyeurism, or other things. All of that assumes that lawyers aren't brought into the equation either, and that the property owner doesn't pull the footage from the machine to present a criminal case to the police, to then have the operator cited.

I've had to pursue small-claims proceedings before, it's a pain in the butt.

Re:Garden hose

[drinkypoo]

Or, I donno, you could render the camera/video transmission nonfunctional (if the water didn't do that already) and simply take the thing indoors, then not answer the door when they come knocking, and also not answer the door if they bring a patrolman to knock.

No, now you're committing a crime, and retaining evidence. But if you render the camera/video transmission nonfunctional, and then smash it into your patio so that it winds up in many pieces, who's to say what happened? They can have all the pieces back.

Silly string?

[Fencepost]

I wonder what a stream of Silly String would do - might be the best option of all, it probably wouldn't destroy or even crash it, but if it got into the propeller shaft area it'd gum things up enough to bring one down but the owner could still clean it out.

I can see the court case now "Your honor, he sprayed my drone with silly string!"

As for paintballs vs throwing things, paintballs don't actually mass that much, they're designed to splatter dispersing the impact, and they're not that dense. One of the animated GIFs in the article shows what looks like paintballs being fired at one but being slowed or stopped by the airstream from one of the propellers. A baseball isn't going to have the same problem, and if a propeller hits it the baseball isn't going to be sliced open and splatter.

Re:Silly string?

[Shadow of Eternity]

Airsoft guns would probably work well. A stream of bbs with enough accuracy and force to bring down most low flying (200ft or less) drones but which are more or less harmless to anything they land on otherwise.

Re:Silly string?

[viperidaenz]

My guess would be make a really big mess

Re:Silly string?

[ArmoredDragon]

That doesn't make sense. Paintballs have more stopping power than a super soaker.

Re:Silly string?

[Alioth]

But a super soaker will likely cause one or more of the ESCs to fail - electronics generally stop working properly when wet (it can maintain a stream of water for some time). Add a little bit of salt to make the water more conductive just to be sure.

Re:Silly string?

[Vapula]

What about some high pressure cleaner ? More pressure and can sustain water stream much longer...

Re: Silly string?

[BarbaraHudson]

You have to freeze half the paintballs. The frozen ones won't just splat, while the regular ones will blind the camera. When you get your hands on it, return it AFTER shorting out the battery. Light high energy batteries aren't that cheap.

Re: Silly string?

[drinkypoo]

When you get your hands on it, return it AFTER shorting out the battery. Light high energy batteries aren't that cheap.

Do not short out high-energy battery with remaining hand

Re: Silly string?

[BronsCon]

If you can return it, that means you've identified the pilot. In that case, deal with them face-to-face while the drone is still in flight. If they crash it, they can't claim you broke it, can they? In other words, no, don't return it; if the pilot comes to claim it, tell them you have no way of knowing it's actually theirs. True story, even, as anyone could have seen it flying overhead and be able to identify it visually and, well they can't prove the controller they're holding in their hand actually controls the destroyed drone, can they? Tell them they can talk to the local PD about recovering it after you turn it in.

Re:Silly string?

[v1]

Its a similar problem to using explosives to knock down a building. Paintballs have a large enough amount of energy to take down a drone, but it's not applied in the right way. During WW2 when nations were using bombs to knock down buildings, they discovered that, somewhat contrary to common sense, using an explosive with a very fast detonation speed to produce a very string but very brief blast tended to only so supericial damage to buildings. The problem was that the mass of the building had to be overcome before you started to knock it down.

Explosives like ammonium nitrate on the other hand, have a very slow release of energy, while still containing a lot of total energy. So instead of trying to send the bricks flying airborne, which requires a lot of energy, they invest it slowly to PUSH the bricks sideways without lifting them, and shove the building over. "Work smarter, not harder".

Paintballs I think have a simiar problem of incorrect energy delivery. They're delivering all of their energy in a very small package. But when the ball hits, it breaks, and sends essentailly all of the energy-containing mass plattering in all directions, instead of transferring it effciently to the target. Anyone that's played paintball knows, "the balls that break don't hurt that much - it's the balls that DON'T break that leave bruises". 20% energy transfer vs 100% energy transfer. Stopping paint absorbs much more energy than deflecting it. Look at how the paint just parts around the sides of the drone and continues on to create a spray downrange. All that energy wasted!

If you want to use paintballs, the solution is easy. Freeze the paintballs. I absolutely guarantee frozen paintballs will be effective in bringing down a drone. Just keep a sandwich baggie of them in your freezer "in case of emergency". See a drone? Fill your hopper and encourage the drone to "chill out" and take a "break" on your lawn. Just make sure it lands ON your lawn, so it's clear to any authorities that it was in your airspace at the time. (and if it happens to land just outside... you might want to "covertly relocate" it slightly)

If the owner comes traipsing over and insists on your handing it over, refuse admission to your property. Insist that they will be charged with criminal tresspass if they enter or will not leave your property. If the neighbor kids throw a baseball and it lands inside your fenced yard, just because it's their ball doesn't give them legal right to come onto your property to recover it. Tell them to send the cops, you will gladly turn over the drone to the cops, and they can turn it over to the pilot. If they persist, don't resist, just protest and document (picture/film) the tresspass. Then regardless of how the drone thing ends, they WILL be liable for tresspass.

So leave it sitting on your lawn, guarded and covered. If they call the cops, take them to where it landed, point out the camera, turn it over, give your statement, and its all documented. The owner should get a nice dressing down from the cops before they give him back the drone.

Depending on the local laws and the particular judge though, you may be found liable for damage to the drone. Be preapred for that if you go hunting. Even if it doesn't seem fair, the law may not be on your side. If it really worries you, contact your local authorities for their official position on the matter before it comes up.

You might also go down the route "My daughter was upstairs in her bedroom changing to come outside when this drone flew by on our property at the same level, it could have been filming her through the second story window. She had an expectation of privacy that wast being violated. We demand the owner turn over any recorded footage."

Re: Silly string?

[ArmoredDragon]

Frozen paintballs shrivel a bit and cause you to sacrifice accuracy. They also don't hurt any worse than normal ones when shot with, and furthermore they still break apart (although they don't "splatter", they rarely stay in one piece after hitting a person, just like unfrozen balls.)

The material in them doesn't get that hard when frozen using any conventional means of freezing them, and I suspect that if you froze them completely solid (e.g. with liquid nitrogen) they probably wouldn't fire at all (they'd shrivel so much that the barrel would permit too much air to pass by, and assuming they did make it out, they probably wouldn't go far, and even if they did, they wouldn't shoot straight at all.)

My weapon of choice would be

[Applehu Akbar]

A Super Soaker filled with salt water.

Re:My weapon of choice would be

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

I'll try:

My weapon of choice would be to nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Re:My weapon of choice would be

[radarskiy]

"They make RC boats too,"
Most RC boats don't fly.

Re:My weapon of choice would be

[techno-vampire]

Even better: use Dip. Anything that can dissolve a toon can't possibly do anything good to a drone.

Re:My weapon of choice would be

[phayes]

Weight.

Re:My weapon of choice would be

[TWX]

Just about any aerosol paint will dissolve styrofoam. I had a model rocket Space Ship One (that turned out to be a total piece of crap, but that's another matter) mostly made of styrofoam, that after some unfortunate glue drips I attempted to paint, only to watch it start to dissolve.

Unfortunately there aren't good delivery for fluids that aren't just water, especially considering both that a whole lot of fluid would be needed to hit the target if the nozzle is low, and that a lot of fluid is going to miss and land on whatever's on the ground. Personally I don't want the paint on my car, my house, or my elastomeric roof coating to chemically react with anything, so that pretty much means just water.

Re:My weapon of choice would be

[Lumpy]

Then your RC boat is not going fast enough.

Re:My weapon of choice would be

[I'm New Around Here]

You just lost most of this crowd.

I always felt sorry for that poor shoe.

Re:My weapon of choice would be

[drinkypoo]

I had a model rocket Space Ship One (that turned out to be a total piece of crap, but that's another matter) mostly made of styrofoam, that after some unfortunate glue drips I attempted to paint, only to watch it start to dissolve.

Air brush.

You can also buy an aerosol can which has a shrader valve on it, you can charge it from a compressor or a bike pump. But you've got to mix up the amount of water-based paint you need, dump it in there and spray it, and then clean it out immediately for obvious reasons — just as you would treat a pro paint gun, or an air brush for that matter, except it's not as easy to clean.

Unfortunately there aren't good delivery for fluids that aren't just water,

It should be pretty easy to figure out which solvents will dissolve polystyrene foam, and to figure out which of them won't wreck a squirt gun, if only by trial and error. A decently broad sampling of solvents are available at your local hardware store. It's fairly simple also to build your own squirt gun, powered by compressed air.

Re:FTA

[fustakrakich]

But what the heck, let's cater to our knuckle dragging redneck readers...

You gotta a problem with that? Their money is just as good as anybody's.

Re:Garden Hose?

[behrooz0az]

But, but, but there are girls outside, You want them to get wet? Think of the childeren.

Treble hook

[mysidia]

Attached to end of a long rope and loaded into a harpoon gun....

Re:a paint gun 'does nothing' but

[beelsebob]

But a baseball and a rock are both much heavier than a paint ball.

Go after the owner/pilot

[Fencepost]

Going along with the wisdom that bringing a drone down may have some high costs associated with it and the associated recommendation of calling the police:

Be aware of the FAA's Model Aircraft Operations rules and recommendations (https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/) and be ready to go after someone flying a drone around above you - in particular reference section 336(a)(2) of the laws linked on that page, the "community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization." If someone gets antsy when you're pissed off about their drone use, liberal application of the hammer of "Why are you violating the FAA guidelines on drone use? Whose community-based standards DON'T require that you avoid flying your drone above and around uninvolved people? Are you a registered member of that organization? What's their contact information and your membership information?" might be merited.

Depending on how things go you might actually get them ticketed for creating a public nuisance or something along those lines, and that's the kind of thing that can create a record that might be useful in the future.

Re:Go after the owner/pilot

[TWX]

Or ask them to prove that the drone is theirs. They can start with the serial number.

Re:Go after the owner/pilot

[I'm New Around Here]

That could be stolen.

Re:Go after the owner/pilot

[ScentCone]

You're confusing "guidelines" with "laws" (or "regulations"). In fact the FAA has NOT put anything formal into place, and the FAA modernization act explicitly prevents the FAA from doing so with regard to recreational use. The rulemaking that's currently pending applies only to prospective commercial use. Otherwise, the only thing that's actually proscribed is no different than it is with kites or weather balloons or anything else: stay out of the airspace used by actual airplanes, stay away from airports, etc. If someone's doing something objectively dangerous, there are already a thousand local statutes that deal with reckless endangerment regardless of the object being played with.

Re:Go after the owner/pilot

[Fencepost]

You're confusing "guidelines" with "laws" (or "regulations").

No, I'm not. I'm not talking about trying to get the police to go after them for violations of some Federal statute that they've never heard of, I'm talking about putting them on the defensive and getting them to back off of flying their drone over your house. Citing the guidelines is a good start on that.

And frankly if they're not flying it over your house then you just need to get over it.

Re:Go after the owner/pilot

[ScentCone]

At the moment, citing those guidelines is just as likely to impact a thoughtless RC pilot as is citing Miss Manners. If they're the type who already doesn't care, they already don't care. Telling them that an agency with no ability to actually impact them in any way because of the where they are, at that moment, flying ... isn't going to change baked-in jackassery one bit.

Re: Consequence

[Bing Tsher E]

Correct. These flying devices easily could lose control. Nobody but a trained and licensed professional has any business operating one in areas that put the public at risk. Just like with RC model airplanes, clubs of enthusiasts can arrange for special spaces where it is safe to fly them. Anywhere else, people who see one in use should be easily able to call the police and have the thing grounded and it's operator apprehended. Throw in a civil forfeiture clause and the police will be pleased to respond.

or spoof GPS if you're after the big guns

[circletimessquare]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:FTA

[pi_rules]

But what the heck, let's cater to our knuckle dragging redneck readers because we figure if we start to talk about directed RF or other more effective means, we'll loose you at the first multisyllabic word.

When one sits upon the mighty high horse of Being Intellectually Superior one should spell all of their words properly. Some of us knuckle dragging rednecks passed the 3rd grade with flying colors.

Re: Consequence

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel the same way about the apostrophe key. Clearly it's too much responsibility for most people.

"and it's operator apprehended."

"it is" operator, huh?

Fishing pole! Here's proof!

[rMortyH]

http://laughingsquid.com/annoy...
Nailed it! 'nuf said...

Airzooka

[ihtoit]

Airzooka: $2
Bread bag: free
Postman latex band: basically free (just ask your local carrier for one)
The sense of satisfaction from knowing that you used the Force to bring down another fucking drone: priceless.

Fly fishing reel with a heavy sinker

[Antique Geekmeister]

Any moderately capable fisherman who's used a fly fishing rod should be able to make a reasonable accurate cast to drop the lead "sinker" through the path of the propellors, with the monofilament dragged with it, fouling the rotors or even bodily hooking the drone. It also gives you the choice of cutting the line and walking away, or following the line to the crashed drone even if doesn't crash as close as you might wish.

There are some modest risks of dragging monofilament around people's yards, and of hitting a bystander with a sinker, but it seems safer than firing faster projectiles in an inhabited area.

Vortex Cannon FTW

[Irate Engineer]

Knock the fucking thing out of the sky with a Vortex Cannon. Do it the the right way with propane and fire!

No projectile, plausible deniability, loud noise and flames, dead drone. WIN.

Also works well against the neighbor's pets and the damned kids who keep walking on my lawn.

Re:Vortex Cannon FTW

[Sir Holo]

Yes, many simple solutions. Summarizing and expanding:

* Airzooka –hand-held vortex-gun, good to about 25 feet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

* Silly String

* Super Soaker

* Garden Hose

* Green laser-pointer (so you can see where you're aiming). 5 mW is enough to saturate the drone's CCD camera for a good 15 sec. 200 mW+ can be found — those should fry the camera, but who's going to have a record of it? Not the drone.

* Jam its GPS? EM-Pulse. 1.23 &/or 1.56 GHz , directed via Pringles can.

* Jam its RF controller signal? I'm not suggesting anyone cut a hole in their microwave oven, mount it on a gimbal, and again use a Pringles can to direct the jamming beam. That would be illegal.

* Bolo. Not the computer game – a rock on a string. Tangle those rotors.

Most importantly: Do so only if it is over your property. And take the memory card from the thing, but nothing else. That is evidence of their invasion of your privacy.

Do not talk to anyone who knocks at your door! Especially if it's the local law enforcement. You have NO OBLIGATION to answer your door. Just be sure to spirit that memory card away, to a friend, but better a safe-deposit box. It will then require subpoena power for anyone to access it – meaning that it is less likely to have the privacy-invading evidence destroyed by the owner or, more likely, the local LEOs.

Re:Vortex Cannon FTW

[Irate Engineer]

Too much work. Blast it with the Vortex Cannon, call police on drone owner and nail them for littering on your property. Somehow the SD card will be rendered unreadable during this process (propane and fire; geez, thing must of fell on my barbecue grill or something, damnedest luck). Done.

That's a nice drone you got there neighbor...it'd be a shame if something happened to it, wouldn't it?

Ain't it bizarre?

[StevenMaurer]

We're talking a cool technology here (though not quite as new as many think - I remember cameras being put on model rockets in the 1970s), and all slashdot talks about is how to treat them like skeets. "Hurr durr. I'mma gon' shoot it down with my slingshot. No Clem! Use a waterhose, or maybe toss a polecat at it or somethin'."

When did Slashdot become a luddite website?

Re:Ain't it bizarre?

[matthewv789]

When people started flying said drones over other people's houses and property, and when they started interfering with flight operations, aerial firefighting, etc. It's not the technology, but the behavior, and the behavior probably results from a lack of clear laws surrounding their use.

They seem "harmless" at first, when you're just playing around with them, or when a few photographers use them for cool things, but we've seen already that they have the real potential, even likelihood, of being a real nuisance and menace to privacy, operations of manned aircraft, firefighting, etc.

I think ultimately, either the FAA is going to wrest control and the things are just going to be illegal to fly higher than about 20 feet in the air, anywhere in the US, without a license, or else the rules will be clear that above a certain height they're regulated and licensed, and below that, if you fly over someone else's property, it's trespassing and that person's right to do whatever the heck they want with it (in addition that you could be arrested for it), and if you bother people in a public place that's violating the law too.

Re:Ain't it bizarre?

[thinkwaitfast]

I've been a member of the AMA since 1982, would that count? I once stuck a camera on a kite in the 6th grade. Back then, people would never have considered shooting it down.

Re:Ain't it bizarre?

[waTeim]

I think ultimately the opposite will happen. Drones will fill the sky and we'll all be ok with it. Consider that some time in the not-too-distant future drones will be able to autonomously out-fly any human. They wont get tired, and they'll be able sense omni directionally and avoid each other, and just like ceding the responsibility of driving to self-driving cars we will let it happen because time is precious, why waste it? Meanwhile we will have modified our concept of privacy to accommodate drone ubiquity.

Re:Ain't it bizarre?

[TWX]

No, they would have considered shooting it down, but because it was not noisy and because a camera in the eighties capable of taking high quality video or film would have been far too large for all but expert kite makers to have put into the air, there wouldn't have been much reason to shoot it down.

Now, you can have a high-definition video capture integrated into a device that weighs a couple of ounces, on a motor-powered device that makes a terrible racket when it operates, that tends to get too close to other people.

Re:Ain't it bizarre?

[TWX]

I don't think that drones will ever be suitable for infants yet somehow obscene.

To get serious, I have no problem with people flying RC aircraft if the following conditions are met:

• The aircraft is operated on land that the operator has explicit permission to use or on public land where use has been granted
• The aircraft is either not flown around bystanders within a reasonable distance limit or all bystanders are comfortable with the operation of the device
• The aircraft is not being used to peer into private property beyond the capabilities of the unaided eye, typically around a 50 degree field of view at a minimum, and is not being used for the purpose of looking at people on their private property where they have a reasonable right and expectation of privacy

I don't think that's too much to ask. Don't put telephoto lenses on drones and fly them on public property (ie, over streets and alleys) to spy on people. Don't fly over private property that the operator has not received explicit permission to fly over. Don't fly over people in public places unless they're there to witness or participate in an RC aircraft demonstration.

These are the some of the same rules that model rocketry enthusiasts are supposed to follow too, if it's any consolation. Don't launch model rockets on or over property where permission hasn't been obtained. Don't fire rockets where the realistic recovery area is over people that aren't involved in the activity. Don't fire rockets where it isn't safe to fire them, bearing in mind the nature of the device.

Re:Ain't it bizarre?

[TWX]

Autonomous flying devices (ie, actual drones) will follow rules too. They won't fly low over peoples' houses. They won't randomly start taking video of people. They will follow FAA rules established specifically for them, or their operators and manufacturers will be held liable.

Re:Ain't it bizarre?

[drooling-dog]

When did Slashdot become a luddite website?

It can't possibly be a nuisance because it's technology? What if we use equally advanced/recent technology to shoot them down? Then only a luddite would let them hover overhead unmolested.

Re:Ain't it bizarre?

[I'm New Around Here]

Great point. I'm going to get my old LinkSys router and Pringles can antennae, and figure out how to make a directed RF beam to take out drones. :^)

Re:Ain't it bizarre?

[DNS-and-BIND]

It has always ever been thus. There is a real antagonism against idiotic tech that will make our lives worse, and this has been in place since Day 1. Your slur against powerless lower-class whites has nothing to do with it. If that's the first thing that comes to mind, it's YOUR problem.

Re:Ain't it bizarre?

[ultranova]

Just treat the things like vehicles: they're restricted to roads/air corriors except for the last step of the trip, can't enter anyone's property without permission, and must obey drone traffick laws (whatever those will be). Then you can put safety nets on routes with heavy traffick.

In other words, drones need to be fully automatic with politeness programmed in.

Re:Ain't it bizarre?

[Ksevio]

I know right?

The correct solution is to fire a rocket that deploys counter drones to take out the invader.

Bonus points are awarded if all parts (including the invading drone) can be recovered.

Re:Ain't it bizarre?

[matthewv789]

That's possible too. I just think there will likely be a lot of conflict, and a lot of stories of problems caused by drones, shot-down drones, new regulations (or attempts at regulation), etc. until such time as they're all autonomous and always following those regulations like TWX suggests. I do agree the technology and economics point to ubiquitous drones in the future, it's more a matter of getting to that point. Everyone, including the FAA, has a lot to learn about how this will all work. And I suspect that, like the Internet, there's going to continue to be ongoing battles to keep them from being electronically hijacked (they're part of the IoT too...), or just breaking the rules to use them in criminal or damaging ways.

Re:Ain't it bizarre?

[BronsCon]

Plus, we're talking about a kite. Trace the string back to the pilot and ask them to stop, no shooting required. A drone has no string.

I'll stick with my Beretta Xtrema2.

[Indy1]

Its designed to shoot down flying ducks and geese, drone can't be too much harder : )

Meh

[Hamsterdan]

A real geek will take it down with his Bat'leth and scream victory

Re:Meh

[Hamsterdan]

Or a Crowbar

The best weapon

[chrysosphinx]

against low altitude quadro drones seems to be a bolas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , it can be made quickly just from boots bound together with shoelaces. I am always carrying a spare pair of boots myself.

octocopter

[scheveningen]

Octocopters are much harder to shoot down because of their redundancy. You can lose two motors and still fly decently.

And if you have a decent pilot, quadcopters are hard to shoot because of their speed and manoeuvrability. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re: octocopter

[BronsCon]

The story isn't the RC aircraft, it's the new phenomenon of idiots who own and use RC aircraft without exercising the common courtesy generally exercised by the RC community since the devices have existed.

Re:a paint gun 'does nothing' but

[phayes]

I doubt even a perfect hit on the lens would do more than tint & blur the image. The water + pigments based paint used in paintballs is designed merely to show a hit but not to be particularly opaque.

Re: Consequence

[TWX]

Never offend with style when you can offend with substance. You're clearly far into style territory, he's well into substance.

Re:a paint gun 'does nothing' but

[Lumpy]

They are quite effective on security cameras. so yes they will work on a RC quad copter camera.

With another drone

[zAPPzAPP]

An interceptor drone, equiped with an unnecessary amount of spikes, skull decals and a rusty paint job should do the trick.

Charlie Wilson's war movie quote

[sciencewatcher]

- Swiss made Oerlikon is what you use to shoot down Mi-29 warships in the mountains, right?
- Oerlikons are a good start, but the Russians will start flying higher altitude missions,

Great Idea

[CanadianMacFan]

Let's start flinging objects around that can hurt other people or damage other things if you miss the drone (and you probably will miss the drone). Yes, the person flying the drone over your backyard is being a jackass but I doubt your neighbours are going to be won over to your side if you break their windows with a slingshot or hit them with a paint gun. If the neighbour is throwing crap into my yard I'm going to be upset at my neighbour and not at the guy flying the drone. Just because one person in your area is acting like a twat doesn't mean give everyone the excuse to.

Re:FTA

[I'm New Around Here]

Some of us knuckle dragging rednecks passed the 3rd grade with flying colors.

Exactly. It was the proudest moment of my teenage years. ;^)

Re: Consequence

[ScentCone]

Just for record-keeping purposes, it would be super handy if you could link to the many reported cases of injuries that comes from the millions of people who are now flying little quad copters around. I'm sure you've got lots to go to with all of the mayhem you're thinking about, considering what you want to be able to do them. And for fun, compare that to the number of people who are hurt annually by other people riding bicycles or walking their dogs. Those things should NOT be out in public. People with bicycles should be confined to club areas where it's safe to operate them. Do you have any idea how much energy can be transferred to a kid walking on a sidewalk when some other kid (plus the mass of the bike) connects with them at, say, 10mph? A horror show.

We MUST round up anything recreational and confine it to safety zones. Especially now that we have so many examples of serious injuries and deaths from flying toy model aircraft around... on which you're now about to cite statistics, right? Right?

A paint gun = used to paint things at range of 2ft

[Legal.2.Troll]

I think you mean a paintBALL gun...

Re:a paint gun 'does nothing' but

[phayes]

I've seen what they do on traffic cameras (my company installed and maintained a few thousand here) so no, the formulation in paintballs will blur and tint but will not blind.

kite

[Lehk228]

just fly a kite up to it and let the kite string foul the drone. $5 kite takes down $500+ drone. also a kite with a bit of wind can move faster than most drones so catching it shouldn't be much of a problem.

Why shoot the drone down when

[golgotha007]

You can simply have it.

Put a transmitter on your drone that rolls through known frequencies (1.2, 2.4, 5.8GHz, 433MHz, etc.). Fly your drone close to the enemy drone, roll through the frequency list and take control ownership. Have your drone proxy transmitter events from the ground so your buddy can fly the enemy drone back to you.

Nobody is encrypting control transmission (yet). I believe it is illegal to encrypt traffic on amateur radio bands...

Re:Why shoot the drone down when

[drinkypoo]

These days it's not that simple. The modern radios are spread spectrum, good luck!

Entanglement

[kheldan]

I'd think that a device that can shoot something to entangle one or more of the propellers would be the most effective and safest method. Something that shoots a net or a string at the drone, which then fouls the props. It it was a string then it could be attached, allowing you to reel in the drone if you didn't manage to entangle a prop, but did manage to get it hooked on the chassis. Or, how about this: A super-soaker, but that's filled with something just sticky enough to foul up the propeller(s), compromise their abilty to produce lift, and then the drone falls (probably more slowly) to the ground, not even actually damaged. Better to hold for ransom, if it's undamaged. Yes, I said 'ransom'; as with so many things, hitting offending drone operators in the wallet will, in the end, probably be one of the most effective ways to get them to behave, I think.

Can we do the same to small propeller planes?

[lamer01]

They are just as big of a nuisance now as drones are expected to be in the future. In my area (nearest airport is 30 miles away) they are tons of these slow flying lawn mowers flying around on the weekends during the summer months. They are just buzzing around. My understanding is that the most common reason for these is that they are piloted by people taking lessons so they slowly circle within 30 miles of the airports. It's very annoying as they are very slow so the noise they generate lasts a few minutes. On certain peak times there could be one of those within hearing distance every 10 minutes. It makes enjoying the outdoors very hard.

Re:a paint gun 'does nothing' but

[fustakrakich]

That's why I reload my paintballs with my own special mix...

Balls, Q?

[RogueWarrior65]

Bolas, 007.

Re:FTA

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

But what the heck, let's cater to our knuckle dragging redneck readers because we figure if we start to talk about directed RF or other more effective means, we'll loose you at the first multisyllabic word.

I think you meant "lose", which, as you may know, is not a multisyllabic word.

You're going after the wrong end...

[weweedmaniii]

Why go after the drone? I'll wager the operator is much less maneuverable and less redundant than the drone...A solid punch to the controller or the operator's nose will achieve the same result, and might get better results. If I owned a drone and I saw an angry person headed toward me, my expensive toy might not be the first thing I'm worried about...