Drone vs. Police Helicopter in my own hometown

[sar104]

Otherwise they should not have touched the drone prior to confirming in person who owed the drone.

Why?

 

[tcope]

Why?

That is how you justified the external registration requirement as something that did anything vs my argument that it actually created a more dangerous situation for first responders.

 

[deleted member 877]

Thank you. I've been checking every once in awhile for an update. Unfortunately is us still not clear on how they matched the drone to the person. If I had to guess based on the info available it would either seem that there might have been external info on the drone. Otherwise they should not have touched the drone prior to confirming in person who owed the drone.

Also, flying at night is not illegal as they stated. Not least as I recall.

You see a drone sitting there all on its own with no operator in sight. I don't think the judge is going to have a problem with it being touched. In any case, the guy admitted to his wrong-doings so any further argument about technicalities is now pointless.

Edit: OK, so I see your point about the drone being a possible "booby trap" threat but I think that is stretching it a bit - certainly not something that would help the defendant in terms of mitigating circumstances.

 

[sar104]

That is how you justified the external registration requirement as something that did anything vs my argument that it actually created a more dangerous situation for first responders.

It was not my justification, it was one of the stated reasons for the requirement - and you never produced any actual argument against it beyond the kind of straw man response that you are trying again. Nowhere was it proposed that no drone could be touched without external identification, firstly because that makes it impossible to deal with an unidentified drone and, secondly, because some situations obviously wouldn't require it. Like this one, where they observed the subject fly, land and then run away, so that the concern was dangerous flying, not a weaponized drone.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

We finally have an update on this story:

Man facing charges in incident involving drone and Columbus police chopper

One item mentioned in the television report, but not in the article: Police tracked down the drone owner using "information on the SIM card."

Larry

The article seems to state the tracking down in part, story may have been updated.
But no sim card could be involved at the Police end ?
Unless the device sim number is recorded somewhere on flight records ?

If the facts of this are right, this is a typical cases where the drone operator needs a decent sentence, it sounds like it wasn't a minor indiscretion or lapse in following rules or common sense.

On the other hand . . .
At night it's hard to imagine what he could have seen of the chopper, if the chopper saw his drone and was maneuvering around it, and the drone operator was too maneuvering to try and retain what he thought was clearance from the chopper, then it may be part choppers fault.
We all know seeing something in daylight in such a case would be hard through a camera view, or even with daytime VLOS.
His defense will be interesting.

 

[larryc43230]

I'm reading between the lines here, but I'm guessing that the police spokesman who was interviewed for the TV story misspoke when he called it a SIM card. He seemed to indicate that they'd found personal files on the card which allowed them to track down the drone operator. What they more likely found was the microSD card, not a SIM card.

Larry

 

[tcope]

It was not my justification, it was one of the stated reasons for the requirement - and you never produced any actual argument against it beyond the kind of straw man response that you are trying again. Nowhere was it proposed that no drone could be touched without external identification, firstly because that makes it impossible to deal with an unidentified drone and, secondly, because some situations obviously wouldn't require it. Like this one, where they observed the subject fly, land and then run away, so that the concern was dangerous flying, not a weaponized drone.

Your posts:
[/quote]Agreed. They really don't want to have to call bomb disposal every time they find a crashed drone in a sensitive location. If they can deal with the situation with a quick call to the local FSDO to locate the owner and verify that it is not a threat then that is a much better outcome. The motivation for this is so blindingly obvious that I'm having a hard time accepting that anyone doesn't actually understand it. [/quote]

That's standard practice, and how our security deals with threats too - mostly bags and briefcases. If it's labeled and they can find the owner then it gets resolved non-destructively. If it's not labeled it gets the full treatment.

Was this drone labeled with a registration number that they confirmed to be correct and did they (somehow) confirm that the person did not rig it to explode _before_ they ever touched it? This is _exactly_ how you explain the external registration would be used. _You_ used it as an argument against my point that the external registration actually made it more dangerous for first responders (as the registration itself is a complete farce).

This was in response to me explaining that anyone can put any information in the FAA registration database. Someone who rigs a drone to explode is simply going lie. As _you_ stated, they will verify this info, touch the drone and, boom. What? You say someone just calls the person. $20 throw away cell phone and the terrorist simply lies on the phone. No way to trace anything to that person. They touch the drone and, boom.

So now we have a real world example of what _really_ happens... do the first responders actually confirm, without a doubt who the owner is and that they did not rig the drone to explode or so they touch the drone first... as I stated in my "strawman argument"?

No mention of anyone confirming who the owner was _before_ they touched the drone... only a good indication that they touched it first to find out who the owner was.

"But he was not hard to find. Detectives say the data from the drone they confiscated led them right to Cook. Plus, there was a witness. "

"Police say witnesses saw a man running from the scene. But officers confiscated the drone and the SD card inside."

 

[tcope]

Edit: OK, so I see your point about the drone being a possible "booby trap" threat but I think that is stretching it a bit - certainly not something that would help the defendant in terms of mitigating circumstances.

Not my thinking... the FAAs... and the reason why they changed it to an external posting of the registration number. I actually argued that this only served to put first responders in _more_ danger (basically because the registration is nothing more then a joke that a 5 year old can circumvent. No we have a real world example to see if those arguing against my statement were correct. Did the first responders confirm (I guess in person as I supported a phone call not being enough) that the owner did not booby trap the drone before they touched it.

 

[sar104]

Your posts:
Agreed. They really don't want to have to call bomb disposal every time they find a crashed drone in a sensitive location. If they can deal with the situation with a quick call to the local FSDO to locate the owner and verify that it is not a threat then that is a much better outcome. The motivation for this is so blindingly obvious that I'm having a hard time accepting that anyone doesn't actually understand it.

I just don't believe that you can really be so clueless, and I'm annoyed that I've let myself be dragged back into this argument.

Presumably you understand the reason for LE/security requesting that bags, briefcases etc. should be tagged? It's not that the tag guarantees or verifies ownership because yes - it can be forged. It's so that they have a chance to locate a real person, face to face, who can provide ID and vouch for ownership and likely explain the situation. That avoids having to bring in a bomb disposal team with all the associated disruption. This is the same, except with drones. The record doesn't prove ownership - it allows them to locate and separately verify the owner.

Was this drone labeled with a registration number that they confirmed to be correct and did they (somehow) confirm that the person did not rig it to explode _before_ they ever touched it?

No - and because of the circumstances they almost certainly didn't consider it a potential danger of that kind. It was followed back to its operator. Had it been discovered at a public event, or in a sensitive location, then that likely would have been a concern, and in the absence of being unable to locate the owner they might well have treated it as a potential bomb.

This is _exactly_ how you explain the external registration would be used. _You_ used it as an argument against my point that the external registration actually made it more dangerous for first responders (as the registration itself is a complete farce).

Yes - that's exactly how it would be used. It doesn't matter how many times you attempt that deflection - the purpose of the registration is the same as the bag tag - it isn't proof of who owns it - it's a mechanism to locate the owner. The only farce here is your continued attempt to defend your ridiculous position.

This was in response to me explaining that anyone can put any information in the FAA registration database. Someone who rigs a drone to explode is simply going lie. As _you_ stated, they will verify this info, touch the drone and, boom. What? You say someone just calls the person. $20 throw away cell phone and the terrorist simply lies on the phone. No way to trace anything to that person. They touch the drone and, boom.

Oh look - another shameless straw man. Of course - LE will just call the anonymous phone number and someone with a dodgy accent will tell them it's all fine. Is that how they deal with suspicious luggage - just call the number on the tag? Or perhaps they thought of that in advance and figured out that a phone call isn't positive ID.

So now we have a real world example of what _really_ happens... do the first responders actually confirm, without a doubt who the owner is and that they did not rig the drone to explode or so they touch the drone first... as I stated in my "strawman argument"?

Not if they don't suspect it of being a bomb. Which obviously they didn't, or they would have destroyed it.

No mention of anyone confirming who the owner was _before_ they touched the drone... only a good indication that they touched it first to find out who the owner was.

"But he was not hard to find. Detectives say the data from the drone they confiscated led them right to Cook. Plus, there was a witness. "

"Police say witnesses saw a man running from the scene. But officers confiscated the drone and the SD card inside."

Correct. At least you got one thing right.

 

[tcope]

Presumably you understand the reason for LE/security requesting that bags, briefcases etc. should be tagged? It's not that the tag guarantees or verifies ownership because yes - it can be forged. It's so that they have a chance to locate a real person, face to face, who can provide ID and vouch for ownership and likely explain the situation. That avoids having to bring in a bomb disposal team with all the associated disruption. This is the same, except with drones. The record doesn't prove ownership - it allows them to locate and separately verify the owner.

So in order to support your point you need to turn all drones over .55lbs into _some_ bag in _a few places. Yet, you accuse me of using a strawman argument. Odd how that works only one way.

I carry around backpacks all over the place. They don't need to be tagged as you claim. I guess if I fly my drone outside of a secure area that requires a "tag", I don't need to display the registration. Your comparison is flawed at the least.

No - and because of the circumstances they almost certainly didn't consider it a potential danger of that kind. It was followed back to its operator. Had it been discovered at a public event, or in a sensitive location, then that likely would have been a concern, and in the absence of being unable to locate the owner they might well have treated it as a potential bomb.

Sure... only if you completely ignore the entire reason for my posts and your prior posts about the external display of the registration. My question was.... did they support your view of the external registration by not touching it until they had already confirmed who the owner was and was not a threat or did this situation support my view in that they touched it before confirming who the owner was and that he was not a threat. it is as simple as that.

Yes - that's exactly how it would be used. It doesn't matter how many times you attempt that deflection - the purpose of the registration is the same as the bag tag - it isn't proof of who owns it - it's a mechanism to locate the owner. The only farce here is your continued attempt to defend your ridiculous position.

First, no. As I stated initially in this thread, requiring a tagged bag only applies to very limited locations. The drone registration applies to _all_ places. A bag is not less likely to be a bomb in a school (no tag required) as opposed to an airport TSA check. Heck, on that subject, checking a bag in is about the only time I know of when any bag any place is required to have a tag. The airport itself does not even have this requirement. So your analogy is unbelievably flawed. Where does all of this ownership on bags take place anyway? Any place other than TSA in an airport?

Oh look - another shameless straw man. Of course - LE will just call the anonymous phone number and someone with a dodgy accent will tell them it's all fine. Is that how they deal with suspicious luggage - just call the number on the tag? Or perhaps they thought of that in advance and figured out that a phone call isn't positive ID.

Thank you for finally agreeing with my point that the registration and external tag to determine if a drone is a bomp puts 1st responders at greater risk. Again, we can easily prove this with _real world results_.... did they personally confirm that the owner of that drone has not rigged it as bomb prior to touching it? It is _that_ easy.

I think I've made it quite clear to many people willing to listen, that the registration is a farce and the external registration does not serve the purpose the FAA claims. According to their own claims, it would make 1st responders more at risk.

 

[sar104]

So in order to support your point you need to turn all drones over .55lbs into _some_ bag in _a few places. Yet, you accuse me of using a strawman argument. Odd how that works only one way.

That statement is just dripping with irony. You appear not to know what a straw man argument is. Perhaps you should look it up.

I carry around backpacks all over the place. They don't need to be tagged as you claim. I guess if I fly my drone outside of a secure area that requires a "tag", I don't need to display the registration. Your comparison is flawed at the least.

Of course, but try abandoning your backpack in an airport, or outside a stadium, or in a shopping mall, or at a tourist attraction. If it's tagged they will try to contact you. If not they will quite likely call in a team to destroy it. The FAA was able to simplify things by making it a requirement because aircraft, including drones, fall under their jurisdiction. Luggage doesn't fall under any comparable law.

Sure... only if you completely ignore the entire reason for my posts and your prior posts about the external display of the registration. My question was.... did they support your view of the external registration by not touching it until they had already confirmed who the owner was and was not a threat or did this situation support my view in that they touched it before confirming who the owner was and that he was not a threat. it is as simple as that.

This incident neither supports nor contradicts the FAA's argument for external marking, since it wasn't a suspicious object.

First, no. As I stated initially in this thread, requiring a tagged bag only applies to very limited locations. The drone registration applies to _all_ places. A bag is not less likely to be a bomb in a school (no tag required) as opposed to an airport TSA check. Heck, on that subject, checking a bag in is about the only time I know of when any bag any place is required to have a tag. The airport itself does not even have this requirement. So your analogy is unbelievably flawed. Where does all of this ownership on bags take place anyway? Any place other than TSA in an airport?

There you go again - unbelievable. I used the bag tags as an example of why LE would want to be able to ID an object without handling it, and you immediately run straight to another of your stupid straw man arguments that therefore they must be identical situations in all respects.

Thank you for finally agreeing with my point that the registration and external tag to determine if a drone is a bomp puts 1st responders at greater risk. Again, we can easily prove this with _real world results_.... did they personally confirm that the owner of that drone has not rigged it as bomb prior to touching it? It is _that_ easy.

Claiming that I agree with you when I have clearly stated that virtually everything you have written is nonsense actually doesn't work. Your warped reality is yours alone.

I think I've made it quite clear to many people willing to listen, that the registration is a farce and the external registration does not serve the purpose the FAA claims. According to their own claims, it would make 1st responders more at risk.

No - I think you are now talking entirely to yourself. I've seldom tried to reason with anyone who talks so entirely in logical fallacies. And I think that you know full well that you are doing it, and that it's completely deliberate. You just can't help yourself.

 

[JSKCKNIT]

My question was.... did they support your view of the external registration by not touching it until they had already confirmed who the owner was and was not a threat or did this situation support my view in that they touched it before confirming who the owner was and that he was not a threat. it is as simple as that.

They removed the battery before confirming who the owner was. Personally, I would have been more cautious, especially if I was just targeted with a laser pointer a few days prior.

Homeland Security investigating a drone that forced a helicopter to land

Police made the emergency landing in the parking lot at Forest Park Elementary in Columbus Police tell us the drone was actually following the helicopter and landed in the same parking lot. Accordi…

www.wtrf.com

 

[tcope]

They removed the battery before confirming who the owner was. Personally, I would have been more cautious, especially if I was just targeted with a laser pointer a few days prior.

Homeland Security investigating a drone that forced a helicopter to land

Police made the emergency landing in the parking lot at Forest Park Elementary in Columbus Police tell us the drone was actually following the helicopter and landed in the same parking lot. Accordi…

www.wtrf.com

Imagine that.... I was right all along. The FAA claimed the external registration was needed so that they could rule out the drone being a bomb _before_ opening it up. Yet this is an example of how that is a lie. Yet another lie from the FAA... just like them claiming the problem was not getting a rogue drone, the problem was identifying the owner (shown to be a lie because the registration has _never_ been used to match an illegal flight to an owner).

So local police thought it okay to open a drone before they knew who the owner was. Good thing the FAA is worried that drones can be used as bombs so lets not have 1st responders open up the drone without confirming that the owner means no harm.

#FAAFail

Yet another example of laws being created against drone use that really don't change a single thing. We were all required to register our drones. Yet over the past 5 years it has never been used as intended. We were required to put the registration (valid or not) on the outside of the drone so 1st responders did not need to open the drone to find the own. Yet, this is an example where that is not being done anyway (despite the claims by some people that 1st responders would personally rule out a bomb threat with the owner before opening the drone).

 

[sar104]

They removed the battery before confirming who the owner was. Personally, I would have been more cautious, especially if I was just targeted with a laser pointer a few days prior.

Homeland Security investigating a drone that forced a helicopter to land

Police made the emergency landing in the parking lot at Forest Park Elementary in Columbus Police tell us the drone was actually following the helicopter and landed in the same parking lot. Accordi…

www.wtrf.com

No one in that situation - a reckless pilot flying too close to an LE helicopter, is going to suspect that the drone contained a bomb. That just makes no sense.

 

[tcope]

No one in that situation - a reckless pilot flying too close to an LE helicopter, is going to suspect that the drone contained a bomb. That just makes no sense.

Yup, we all know people who put bombs in drones are only going to make it _really_ obvious. After all, you don't want to fool anyone into thinking it is not going to blow up. That is why all of those suitcases with bombs in them... have "THIS IS A BOMB" written all over them.... without a name tag either.

 

[sar104]

Imagine that.... I was right all along. The FAA claimed the external registration was needed so that they could rule out the drone being a bomb _before_ opening it up. Yet this is an example of how that is a lie. Yet another lie from the FAA... just like them claiming the problem was not getting a rogue drone, the problem was identifying the owner (shown to be a lie because the registration has _never_ been used to match an illegal flight to an owner).

So local police thought it okay to open a drone before they knew who the owner was. Good thing the FAA is worried that drones can be used as bombs so lets not have 1st responders open up the drone without confirming that the owner means no harm.

#FAAFail

Yet another example of laws being created against drone use that really don't change a single thing. We were all required to register our drones. Yet over the past 5 years it has never been used as intended. We were required to put the registration (valid or not) on the outside of the drone so 1st responders did not need to open the drone to find the own. Yet, this is an example where that is not being done anyway (despite the claims by some people that 1st responders would personally rule out a bomb threat with the owner before opening the drone).

Yup, we all know people who put bombs in drones are only going to make it _really_ obvious. After all, you don't want to fool anyone into thinking it is not going to blow up. That is why all of those suitcases with bombs in them... have "THIS IS A BOMB" written all over them.... without a name tag either.

Now you aren't even pretending to make any sense. Reading your posts is just an exercise in horrifying fascination. While I hate to see nonsense posted on this forum, and because I find it difficult to resist trying to combat it, you are back on my ignore list, permanently this time. You are a complete waste of bandwidth. But feel free to keep inventing arguments that no one is making to try to support your position.

 

[BigAl07]

Sorry but this thread is officially a "Goner".....

@larryc43230 if you have more to add to this one just let one of the Staff members know and we'll re-open it for you.


***THREAD CLOSED***