By Matthew Schroyer sUAS News
“As soon as I hit the go home mode, because the GPS and compasses were damaged, it went crazy,” Hindi said. “I flipped off the ‘come home’ mode and went into manual control. It wasn’t working right, but we were able to bring it in for a crash landing anyway.”
“I had more control than I anticipated,” he said. “I couldn’t believe it didn’t just drop out of the sky.”
Read More
http://www.suasnews.com/2012/11/19719/activists-drone-shot-out-of-the-sky-for-fourth-time/
Comments
I'm awake now so doing it now
Seconded.
since the majority of the discussion has turned to cars, bullets, and name calling, let's close out this thread.
Will, the point about the bullet that you seem to be missing is this:
You do not shoot birds in flight with bullets. This is probably illegal in most places, as shooting bullets in the air is dangerous. It's also darn-near impossible. You hunt birds with shotguns, the spray makes it much easier to hit, and the small pellets are far less dangerous when they fall back to earth.
The Octocopter was hit with a bullet, not shot. Ergo, they can not claim that it was a stray shot that hit the machine, it was targeted. This is therefore intentional destruction of property.
This guy would be better off with an X8 than a Cinestar. Since it will be moving, it will be much harder to hit. I would think it would be impossible for them to hit it in flight, since these inbred rednecks need to shoot at birds in boxes. (since we have now descended to throwing around irrelevant stereotypes).
I just went back and read the article at suasnews.com again. It turns out that the pilot of the drone was not claiming to be a journalist at all. The activists were monitoring the activities taking place at the shooting club, by their own words. For me this changes things somewhat. It's still an obnoxious use of a beautiful tool, but at least they are not claiming to be journalists. A journalist would put on a hidden camera and get inside.
There is a lot of what not to do here, what kind of idiot uses a public road to set up their ground station on? He's lucky that no one was hit by a car! Forget all the privacy questions of private property overflight, this was reckless behavior on the ground.
@Peter meister
The problem is peter your idea of "PRIVATE PROPERTY" as you emphasized is already not what the law says it is. The drone was not on private property because the sky can't be owned by anyone as it is laid out in today’s laws. Honesty this is no different than paparazzi taking video of a star on a private beach from a helicopter. Dislike it all you want but you can’t really do anything about it because they are also within the law to do so. You’re also confusing not being prosecuted with being innocence when it’s more likely no one wanting to touch this hornet nest of a case because everyone knows it’s going to blow-up in their face.
@will snodgrass
this isn't likely a job they're getting paid to do their activism after all but besides that do you know how weak that Prius remark sounds right? lol
Sprinters are the prius of the van world, mine got around 22MPG, and that was a high roof model, They're sweet!
I still put this "Drone Journalist" guy in the same category as Trappy though : /
He's threatening real uses of drones for journalism, such as the 60 Minutes Australia crew exposing the interment camps. That was a situation where the government was trying to keep embarrassing information hidden and it would have been ridiculous(from a journalistic point of view) to ask for government permission to fly over and expose this truth.
Will, you do not shoot pigeons with bullets.
He was very clearly driving a white Sprinter.
The video pretty obviously shows this was a single bullet, not shot, they were shooting bullets in the air. Not cool.
Yes, and at the rate they're going through drones, it would actually be cheaper.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 5 Next