And trust me, FAA regs are poorly and ambitiously worded. I'm not supprised people are arguing with Datsun. Its hard to wrap one's head around how ludicrous some of these laws sound.
And trust me, FAA regs are poorly and ambitiously worded. I'm not supprised people are arguing with Datsun. Its hard to wrap one's head around how ludicrous some of these laws sound.
How easy are these drones to hijack by scanning for the control frequency and sending a louder signal? I might want to start a drone collection
It's not really "Jaming" so should not get you in trouble with the FCC. Maybe?
Never mind, just found out that someone beat me to it. Now I want one of these Skyjackers! One article: http://theaviationist.com/2013/12/16/skyjack-drones-hack/
"Amazon's Prime Air announcement last week brought concerns about the use of commercial drones to the fore, but one programmer may have just muddied the waters even more. Notable hacker Samy Kamkar recently modified a Parrot AR.Drone 2 with his custom software, called SkyJack, allowing it to seek out the wireless signals of other UAVs and take control of them, even while in flight.
If his name sounds familiar, that's because Kamkar is the same hacker-turned-legit security researcher that released a worm that took down MySpace back in 2005 and later went on to expose security weaknesses in several major credit cards.
For his latest project, Kamkar rigged a Parrot AR.Drone 2.0 with a Raspberry Pi, a USB battery, and two wireless adapters, before uploading his custom programming. The SkyJack software is designed for Linux devices and runs a few supporting programs in sequence to effectively hijack any drones in the area.
Once activated, one of the wireless adapters will detect any nearby wireless connections in range and identify the ones associated with other UAVs. It then automatically disconnects these drones from their owners through raw packet injection, much like a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack. Meanwhile, the other adapter creates a wireless network of its own and connects to the disabled drones as if it were their original owners'."
Datsun1500 wrote: I never said they are coming to take your toys. All I've said is it is a felony to shoot any drone out of the sky. Show me where I'm wrong.
The law actually says aircraft, not drone. We can start there.
Drone isn't even a legal term used by the FAA. The terms actually are Unmanned Aircraft and Unmanned Aircraft System (subpart B, section 331).
And should you happen to read the FAA definition of an unmanned aircraft you find —The term ‘‘unmanned aircraft’’ means an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.
Which a paper airplane would very clearly fall under, in spite of you insisting otherwise. FAA does not have any sort of paper airplane exemption.
Your dismissing of a paper airplane is an application of the reasonable man doctrine of law. Something I do not disagree with. We are differing in the application of the reasonable man doctrine.
I actually do understand the difference, for you are looking at the matter from the perspective of a commercial drone holder. I am looking at it from the perspective of a model aircraft holder. We are not subject to the same standards by the FAA, though we are held to the same law.
FAA, under the reasonable man interpretation of the law, would not take legal action for the swatting down of a paper airplane. While they technically can, for a paper airplane is indeed an unmanned aircraft, they will not. Somewhere above this level, they might take action. Eventually, and especially when the aircraft is no longer unmanned, they would take action.
So others can tag along in the technical minutia:
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Sec_331_336_UAS.pdf
and
https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=16474
and
https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/
Where is Adrian Thompson when you need him?
WilD wrote:SVreX wrote: Did you notice the part where the guy got arrested?I think it's worth noting that he was arrested under local law for what amounts to discharging a firearm in a residential area and not any FAA/federal law. This entire discussion has been pretty much moot from the beginning, but the discussion of FAA rules is indeed pretty interesting.
Almost right. The FAA didn't have to enforce their law, because local police had it covered. They COULD add a Federal felony charge if they chose to, but they basically have bigger fish to fry.
But discharge of a firearm was not the charge. The actual charges were first degree criminal mischief AND first degree wanton endangerment. That would be the destruction of the drone AND the discharge of the firearm.
Criminal mischief :
(1) A person is guilty of criminal mischief in the first degree when, having no right to do so or any reasonable ground to believe that he has such right, he intentionally or wantonly defaces, destroys or damages any property causing pecuniary loss of $1,000 or more.
You are assuming stuff the article does not say. I'm just reading.
The article also made the FAA position clear by saying "...a [sic] FAA spokesperson told local media that shooting at an unmanned aerial vehicle posed a bigger threat".
NOHOME wrote: How easy are these drones to hijack by scanning for the control frequency and sending a louder signal? I might want to start a drone collection
Right.
That's some of what I was hinting at earlier when I said people were silly to be worrying about cameras.
A similarly configured device could be used to identify vulnerable WIFI signals throughout an entire neighborhood, capture IP addresses, UIDs, jam signals, perhaps even logins and/or passwords.
They've had thermal sensors mounted, can model geography, fly in swarms, fly automated flight patterns, infrared, guns, insecticide distribution, whatever.
This is why the FAA cares. A lot. And why good regulations have to be developed to steer the industry. Current regs are terrible, but FAA is not about to loosen up on them until they can better understand what they are dealing with.
"berkeleying thing was taking pics of me under my canopy so I shot it down." Duh.
foxtrapper wrote: —The term ‘‘unmanned aircraft’’ means an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft. Which a paper airplane would very clearly fall under, in spite of you insisting otherwise. FAA does not have any sort of paper airplane exemption.
Paper airplanes are not operated at all. 
If a paper airplane is an unmanned aircraft, then so is a baseball.
If an aircraft (no matter how big or small) is picked up by a tornado and thrown into a crowd, FAA has no jurisdiction.
It wasn't operated by anyone. It was airborne debris during an extreme weather event.
SVreX wrote: If an aircraft (no matter how big or small) is picked up by a tornado and thrown into a crowd, FAA has no jurisdiction. It wasn't operated by anyone. It was airborne debris.
You're not very familiar with FAA Aircraft Accident and Incident Notification Investigation and Reporting, are you? It's a tedious read, but yes indeed the FAA has jurisdiction and you'd better report it.
And at the risk of seeming obvious, a baseball is not an aircraft, not even when airborne. Just as dust, leaves, birds opposums and clouds can be airborne, yet not be aircraft. A paper airplane on the other hand, very precisely meets the definition of a model aircraft as defined in section 336(c). "model aircraft" means an unmanned aircraft that is— (1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.
The word sustained is undefined, so I suppose you can quibble over that if you wish. I'm sure the FAA would be very happy to interpret a paper airplane as being unable to hold a sustained flight and have nothing to do with them. Again, that reasonable man interpretation of law.
And for gods sakes, don't ask the FAA about flying paper airplanes at altitude over 400 feet.
In reply to Datsun1500:
So let me see if I understand this correctly-you are suggesting that if we use an army of trained bees to take down a drone the FAA wont care?(as long as the bee trainer is legal)
In reply to foxtrapper:
You are incredible.
So, if I take a piece of paper and crumble it in a ball and throw it across the room, it's trash.
If I take a piece of paper and fold it in little folds and throw it across the room, it's trashy origami.
But if I take a piece of paper and fold it in little folds that happen to be in a shape that MIGHT VAGUELY resemble an aircraft and throw it across the room, the FAA somehow has legal jurisdiction.
That is completely absurd.
How about if I am just terrible at making origami butterflies, and they happen to look a bit more like aircraft?
There is LITERALLY NO DIFFERENCE between a paper airplane and a baseball. Both can sustain flight equally, both are launched the same manner, both have the same means of propulsion and operator control.
Actually, the baseball has an alternative launch method that can enable it to sustain flight for a good deal longer than the average paper airplane.
But have fun with it, if it means so much to you.
Just read another article (linked from the yahoo feed) in which the homeowner has a teenaged daughter who was sunbathing behind a 6' privacy fence. The drone was dropping quite low and pretty clearly "peeping" on her.
After the shoot down the drone owner and three of his buddies came calling and had to be shooed off the property under threat of firearms.
Only after that did the owner call the police and file a complaint.
SVreX wrote: Cameras and spying on neighbors is barely a blip on the radar. There are much more significant things they can do.
I'd imagine the potential for wi-fi snooping is outtasight. Like wardriving on a much larger scale.
SVreX wrote: That is completely absurd.
Which has been your argument and complaint about the FAA regulations all along.
I've been pulling the regulations themselves and citing them. Something neither of you two have done. You two just proclaim "drones" and away you both go with "it's a felony to shoot one down".
Now if you're finally willing to admit that the FAA is not breathing hot and heavy over everything in the air, we're good to go. That has been what I said from the very begining, and both of you have been arguing against.
In reply to foxtrapper:
You are using the regs out of context and distorting their meaning. You are conveniently quoting the parts you want to to try and support an incorrect argument.
Datsun is simply referring people to the actual regs, regardless of whether he agrees.
Your position is argumentative. His position is informative.
Big difference.
All of this talk has made me want to get a drone (sometimes called a quadcopter).
In reply to KyAllroad:
That's all I've seen about it from the beginning......I mean, they knew exactly where it was, even after it taking buckshot.
There is far more at play here, and honestly, they should have booked the drone operator as well.
Shooting down a drone that passes by his house? Sounds like a member of the Alex Jones fanclub.
So, how many here would be surprised to learn that there are already drone porn sites?!
I wouldn't.
In reply to spitfirebill:
I'm sure that's where plenty of the "Voyer" videos come from......which is illegal as berkeley BTW.
NOHOME wrote: So, how many here would be surprised to learn that there are already drone porn sites?!
I was surprised to learn of the site containing chicks farting on cakes. I wouldn't be surprised about this.
P.S. Don't go.
Well now the news is full of drones packing guns. So now if I see a drone I can be in fear for my life?
NOHOME wrote: So, how many here would be surprised to learn that there are already drone porn sites?!
You saw that one too?
N Sperlo wrote:NOHOME wrote: So, how many here would be surprised to learn that there are already drone porn sites?!You saw that one too?
Who me?
Hell I don't even have to go looking, if it's a recognized word in the dictionary, there will be a porn site dedicated to it.
You'll need to log in to post.
