Birds trained to in-flight attack, disable, retrieve and deliver drones to its handler. Input please?!

[KI5RLL]

Yes they are trained to attack from the bottom to avoid the props, twist it to IMU disable the props, and return it to the handler.

No Aeroscope or shotgun needed.

Bird handler (cop) now has your drone and FA#.

Discussion please?

 

[YVRGUY]

COME AND GET ME…SMILE!!!

 

[KI5RLL]

Yes they are trained to attack from the bottom to avoid the props, twist it to IMU disable the props, and return it to the handler.

No Aeroscope or shotgun needed.

Bird handler (cop) now has your drone and FA#.

Discussion please?

Drone over the stadium? Launch the falcon as the crowd cheers!!

 

[KI5RLL]

“The crowd cheered as the falcon was launched to go get the drone illegally flying over the stadium….”

 

[mobilehomer]

Illegal in the U.S. Only military, under certain circumstances, can bring down an aircraft.

 

[DSRT_VLTR]

I fly exclusively in the Sonoran Desert in AZ, home to countless aggressive Red Tail Hawks, curious ravens & the occasional Golden Eagle. I fly Mini 2 with a strobe flashing when in flight. No bird attacks in 53 flights (So far!)

 

[Jagerbomb52]

Illegal in the U.S. Only military, under certain circumstances, can bring down an aircraft.

Not only that you would have every animal rights organization up your butt for using them.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Videos are 6yrs to 4yrs old.
It was a big story at the time.

Dutch police stopped using this method of drone prevention maybe a year or two ago (edit, actually a lot longer ago).
A couple of articles from 2016 / 2017.

Dutch police will stop using drone-hunting eagles since they weren't doing what they're told

Who could have predicted this was a bad idea?

www.theverge.com

Dutch police retire convocation of drone-catching eagles

Police in the Netherlands may have been a tad too hasty in testing a squadron of drone-catching eagles. NOS has learned that Dutch law enforcement officials are retiring the birds (they're going to new homes) and winding down the program. Not surprisingly, the decision is a response to both...

www.engadget.com

 

[KI5RLL]

Illegal in the U.S. Only military, under certain circumstances, can bring down an aircraft.

Oh they have no shortage of pedanticisms and loopholes to hide behind. The guy hiding behind the badge and gun always gets to decide, not us.
Illegal to fly over a stadium? We see jet formations do it quite often, for the cheering crowd. Yes they claim immunity to the laws they push.
Loophole manufacture is always a tactic.

“It was only a birdstrike….”
“There was no person or equipment that took down that drone…”
“The drone wasn’t ‘on’ or ‘in’ the stadium so…”
“No person took down that drone….”
“It was a rogue bird attacking a rogue pilot…”
“We are not responsible for what a simple bird chooses to do….”

We KNOW they already have the talking points typed up.

 

[Jagerbomb52]

Oh they have no shortage of pedanticisms and loopholes to hide behind. The guy hiding behind the badge and gun always gets to decide, not us.
Illegal to fly over a stadium? We see jet formations do it quite often, for the cheering crowd. Yes they claim immunity to the laws they push.
Loophole manufacture is always a tactic.

“It was only a birdstrike….”
“There was no person or equipment that took down that drone…”
“The drone wasn’t ‘on’ or ‘in’ the stadium so…”
“No person took down that drone….”
“It was a rogue bird attacking a rogue pilot…”
“We are not responsible for what a simple bird chooses to do….”

We KNOW they already have the talking points typed up.

You really should study the rules for manned aircraft and unmanned aircraft....there really are no Loopholes as you put it.

 

[mobilehomer]

Oh they have no shortage of pedanticisms and loopholes to hide behind. The guy hiding behind the badge and gun always gets to decide, not us.
Illegal to fly over a stadium? We see jet formations do it quite often, for the cheering crowd. Yes they claim immunity to the laws they push.
Loophole manufacture is always a tactic.

“It was only a birdstrike….”
“There was no person or equipment that took down that drone…”
“The drone wasn’t ‘on’ or ‘in’ the stadium so…”
“No person took down that drone….”
“It was a rogue bird attacking a rogue pilot…”
“We are not responsible for what a simple bird chooses to do….”

We KNOW they already have the talking points typed up.

Every fly-over, or drone shot you see at a stadium has tons of regulations and permits associated with it.

 

[KI5RLL]

You really should study the rules for manned aircraft and unmanned aircraft....there really are no Loopholes as you put it.

Pt. 61 or Pt. 107.
So it IS legal to fly over a stadium?
Or do you need a permit to be allowed to.
Otherwise it is illegal to overfly a stadium.
Rules and TFR’s are pretty clear yes.
Of course there are no loopholes to those who use them. (Now trite topic): Is the pilot “on” or “in” the plane?
Neither of which matter once illicit, or legal, birds are catching drones. Expect both.
Thanks for the input and discussion. Is good exposure.

 

[Jagerbomb52]

We see jet formations do it quite often, for the cheering crowd. Yes they claim immunity to the laws they push.
Loophole manufacture is always a tactic.

You seem to not remember what you are posting and ranting about. You seem to be upset that Maned aircraft can fly over people and unmanned cannot. So which is it. Your all over the place with your comments.

 

[KI5RLL]

Yes thank you. Three separate sentences there. Three separate meanings. Not a linear meaning and yes I see the appearance, in the same paragraph.
My apologies I did not insert subject denominators. (Or whatever that is supposed to be called). Should have expanded out the sentences to declare the topic of each sentence separately. Or use spaced lines etc.
I don’t care to fly over people myself especially crowds or not. I just do wide-open uninhabited flying generally. Would love to fly SK there! Have traveled in BC, AB, SK, MB, ON, QC and I loved the country. Probably will never fly there though.
My point is that people who should NOT be overflying crowds are doing it now, with little to no recourse by authorities.
Authorities who are left standing there, with the Public noticing they could do nothing. As the rogue pilots notice the same and continue. Expect police and such to have to push against some laws to take out these rogue drones. They just fly back and hide and leave authorities thinking of solutions, like birds trained to go capture the illicit drone. Against people who rightly say that it is illegal to take out any aircraft in the US (see comments above.)
The situation opens the possibility for all the problems I mentioned.

 

[Vic Moss]

Illegal in the U.S. Only military, under certain circumstances, can bring down an aircraft.

No quite. DOD certainly can, but so can DHS, SS, and the FBI.

 

[a2tomm]

Yes they are trained to attack from the bottom to avoid the props, twist it to IMU disable the props, and return it to the handler.

No Aeroscope or shotgun needed.

Bird handler (cop) now has your drone and FA#.

Discussion please?

how the hell LEGAL is that ???

 

[Cymruflyer]

Oh they have no shortage of pedanticisms and loopholes to hide behind. The guy hiding behind the badge and gun always gets to decide, not us.
Illegal to fly over a stadium? We see jet formations do it quite often, for the cheering crowd. Yes they claim immunity to the laws they push.
Loophole manufacture is always a tactic.

“It was only a birdstrike….”
“There was no person or equipment that took down that drone…”
“The drone wasn’t ‘on’ or ‘in’ the stadium so…”
“No person took down that drone….”
“It was a rogue bird attacking a rogue pilot…”
“We are not responsible for what a simple bird chooses to do….”

We KNOW they already have the talking points typed up.

You see jet formations doing a flyover of a stadium, yes however, these are highly train expert pilots that have permission to do it and really know what they are doing. Anyone else can fly their plane legally over a stadium and look down to see if but they have a legal limit that they can fly over and also a legal obligation as to how close they can fly over it when a game is going on.

The examples you pointed out have no relation to idiot drone flyers who make illegal flight with their drones, putting people's safety at risk below them. I can't believe you even bother to try and draw a comparison; the two scenarios are so far removed from each other.

 

[KI5RLL]

You see jet formations doing a flyover of a stadium, yes however, these are highly train expert pilots that have permission to do it and really know what they are doing. Anyone else can fly their plane legally over a stadium and look down to see if but they have a legal limit that they can fly over and also a legal obligation as to how close they can fly over it when a game is going on.

The examples you pointed out have no relation to idiot drone flyers who make illegal flight with their drones, putting people's safety at risk below them. I can't believe you even bother to try and draw a comparison; the two scenarios are so far removed from each other.

Thank you.
Yes I hear I have to reduce complexity to increase comprehension.
You read the other paragraph explanation already?
You saw my comment was regarding the blanket statements above that it is illegal to overfly stadiums. It is not finite. Legal ambiguity clouds compliance. At least an example people have seen is jet formations. So yes they see it is legal, under permit or conditions.
Yes these comments are all in the same thread. Once sentence followed by another, is not proof of the other. Yes they are in the same paragraph. On the same forum too. Different topics may be listed in the same thread.
But to try to draw a comparison between rogue and legitimate because they are both in the same sentence or paragraph is very unfair of you to do against The Blue Angels (as an example). They deserve better.

 

[mdallen]

Videos from 2013 and 2016, seen this here before

 

[KI5RLL]

how the hell LEGAL is that ???

1. Consider the illicit use. Lots of money in stealing a drone. These birds just grab and twist, and deliver it to handler. Illicit sales. Or they just think it is fun. The latest new crime ring maybe.
If used by LEO (example to capture a drone in a no zone), police use will call that a confiscation or “Civil Asset Forfeiture” (a whole separate crazy topic.)
2. Since there is such phenomenal pushback against me even mentioning there are pedanticisms or loopholes to legally allow it, well, you can see that one coming already. Or ask the other forum member to explain it since they say otherwise.
3. We will see how quickly a LEO rushes to help you when a trained bird steals your $3000 drone. Especially once they are also using them to catch drones themselves.