Warning: this is a political video from an animal rights group, so it's very anti-hunting. However, the analysis of the damage to the hexacopter when it was shot is interesting.
You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!
Warning: this is a political video from an animal rights group, so it's very anti-hunting. However, the analysis of the damage to the hexacopter when it was shot is interesting.
You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!
Comments
Thanks, Gary and Mark. I agree. The comments are now closed.
just like the last time this exact thing was posted a few weeks ago. close it out... this is digressing
I think this is getting a little unkind and should be closed Chris.
John, before calling people "retards" you should put a little more thought into your posts. Again, this has to be rehashed:
1) It is not illegal in any way to fly over somebody's property.
2) The drone was shot with a rifle bullet, not a drone, they were not shooting at pigeons with rifles, it was obviously a targeted shot.
3) The beginning of sentences are usually marked with a capital letter in the English language.
4) "grap" is not a word.
The passage in the AC 91.57 part c. that is being referred to here is dated June 9, 1981 and is likely to be modified with the current talks regarding sUAS in the National Airspace. The passage reads as follows:
You can find a copy of the original article on the AMA' website here. This passage is commonly misinterpreted but it is meant to restrict model aviation to below 400' AGL AND require notification to the control tower when flying within 3 miles of a controlled airport.
I myself had misunderstood this passage until I recently read it myself and understood the punctuation of the two separate statements. One thing that is absent in AC 91-57 is any reference to a horizontal limit to the flight envelope. The AMA has a clear LOS rule however I would like to see what the Federal standard is with respect to distance from the control point (the pilot in command). Does anyone know of any such controlling document?
The range limits of the typical 72MHz system is about 5k and the average 2,4 GHz system has a range of about 2k. There are LRS systems common for use if FPV operating in the 70cm HAM band on 433-435MHz capable of ranges of up to 50k!
Food for thought!
BTW IMHO Not hunting!! Depraved indifference to life. I find it hard to believe that any educated individual would find this to be acceptable behavior. In fact I find it appalling that we as a society feel safe putting a weapon of any kind in the hands of someone who has such an appalling disrespect for the humane treatment of a living animal.
Regards,
Nathaniel
I'd be more concerned about the guys flying over someone's property than those who exercise their rights... plus these kind of retards do not help our cause/hobby to be honest
Mike I was commenting more on the intent of the FAA rules like your post.. as a safety agenda sort of thing. Also, the LAPD is also enforcing their local ordinances not the FAA's. I don't believe that you would have a local police angency enforcing the FAA rules.. but could be wrong. in LA there are local ordinances regarding UAV flight.. which would make sense in a highly populated area like LA.
My question would be who enforces the FAA 'rules'.. these are rules not laws and so what could these guys in the video face if caught anyway? And who would take them to court/jail?
I don't believe they can use anything that isn't shot (shotgun), but clearly a single bullet was shot at the UAV which would not have been from a shotgun
John - that was spot on ;) Glad someone brought the logical to light :) Look these hunters can do what they want on their own property, and to counter the journalist. They are licensed to shoot on property period. So he needs to do better research, secondly they have the right to hunt these birds the way they are, I think the way they act on a personal note (i.e. the Hunters is immature at best - IMHO) but they can do what they want on their private property as long as it is legal, and this type of pigeon shooting is legal in many many states. I think this journalist is going to start more problems then he will solve IMHO, and as Joshua and others indicated. His flying was dangerous on a multitude of levels - and he put a lot of citizens at risk doing what he did so close to a road and pedestrian traffic and vehicle traffic. Also remember, he indicated the story got picked up as well the video by national press. So one must assume he got PAID for this, so hey FAA doesn't paid flight require a COA ?
so let me get this straight.. they are flying over someone's private property (they shouldn't be there) and they are filming ppl shooting pigeons in flight...?!?! and they claim someone shot them down on purpose ?? lol next time grap a camcorder, go to your local shooting range and stand near one of the targets - then whine like a pu### that those bad criminal pro gun guys shot you
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next