Someone Try to Shoot Down My Mavic?

[andrew reeves]

first of all if you magnify the vid, the white dot comes from above the ground behind a tree. at that distance from where the projectile is originating it's hard to believe a person launched it a your drone at such distance even with binoculars or scope on a rife. Why would that person be looking at your drone from that distance. To find out what it is, remove what is it not, first, the remaining can be discussed in more detail latter. To me, it's still a projectile. but, what type and why??????

 

[Lelantos]

That is a bug, or some other piece of debris floating around that caught the light just right. It was not coming at the drone but rather the drone flew by it.

If you fly hang gliders or paragliders, you would be familiar with such things, they are very common. Absolutely, positively, NOT a projectile, rpg, potato, golf ball or any other object hurled towards the drone.

 

[Dronebow]

Are you saying that you can put five pellets from an air rifle in a group less than the size of a half dollar at 100 yards, OUTDOORS?

Bud

Maybe you aren't aware of how precise and powerful pellet guns are now days... They even have "air" rifles capable of taking down large game.

 

[Blades]

Maybe you aren't aware of how precise and powerful pellet guns are now days... They even have "air" rifles capable of taking down large game.

Take a look this is the pcp pellet gun I have. It is very accurate and Powerful also quiet in the 22 cal.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Blades]

How true.

Bud

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Blades]

I was using my iPhone when flying my Mavic that day. Didn't even have a clue at the time the neighbor was shooting at it while cruising around the border of the neighborhood. He lives right behind me so I have to get kinda close to takeoff and land from my own property.

I thought about what to do after seeing the footage a day or two later. Thought about calling the police but ultimately decided I didn't want the trouble. My state has a law going into effect in July that makes photographing anyone's backyard illegal. Even if by accident. So pretty much flying my Mavic in my neighborhood will be illegal when I come back from my next deployment.

The guy just moved into the neighborhood and I'm not sure he knows where I live and don't want any trouble.

I'm deployed over seas for about half of the year. I don't want the guy doing something stupid to wife or family while I'm gone so I figured I wouldn't provoke the situation.

I'll just keep an eye on him now that I know he's an idiot and keep my quads clear of him.
Haven't flown much since this happened last week.

If I have to register my quad with the FAA and my quad gets treated like an actual aircraft. It would be nice if we had some backing to prevent this kind of situation.

I feel like the news and hysteria of all drones are out to spy you and reports of people shooting down drones has made this type of behavior acceptable.

As an example, when I mention I like to fly my quad around to coworkers, I get the typical "I'd shoot that damned there thing down if it was flying over my property herrrrrrrp derrrrrrp"

I could give a crap what anyone is doing in their backyard but I understand people's right to privacy and their concern. To them it's this evil thing they hear about in the news that's out to get them.

I just wish I could fly without any hassle if I'm genuinely not trying to cause any trouble. I'll be glad when the drone panic dies down and drones are more accepted if that ever happens. If it's like cameras, RFIDs and other similar inventions, it will die down eventually.

This was a very insightful read about "The Privacy Panic Cycle" and I thought it you guys might like it.

http://www2.itif.org/2015-privacy-panic.pdf

Edit: words

Not sure what state you live in but here in FL they passed a law like that. No taking pictures of anyones backyard. Which that is pretty much impossible to do when flying any quad with a camera. But I believe it is just so they can sue you but they still have to prove that you are (spying) intentionally violating their privacy from what Some have said.
I can look at google earth and see there backyard and google maps to see the front with the street view soooo... I was under the impression I own up to 85 feet above my property but above that planes are flying helicopters are going over and they're not getting sued for looking in backyards.

 

[PacketRacket]

Not sure what state you live in but here in FL they passed a law like that. No taking pictures of anyones backyard. Which that is pretty much impossible to do when flying any quad with a camera. But I believe it is just so they can sue you but they still have to prove that you are (spying) intentionally violating their privacy from what Some have said.
I can look at google earth and see there backyard and google maps to see the front with the street view soooo... I was under the impression I own up to 85 feet above my property but above that planes are flying helicopters are going over and they're not getting sued for looking in backyards.

I live in Southern Georgia. I was mistaken about the law I spoke about earlier. This law was vetoed by our governor after it passed the state senate and house.

They instead passed a very reasonable law stating basically that no municipalities can inact any drone laws and all previous drone laws are nullified. So far we dodged a bullet.

http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20172018/170216.pdf

 

[Blades]

I live in Southern Georgia. I was mistaken about the law I spoke about earlier. This law was vetoed by our governor after it passed the state senate and house.

They instead passed a very reasonable law stating basically that no municipalities can inact any drone laws and all previous drone laws are nullified. So far we dodged a bullet.

http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20172018/170216.pdf

I wish FL would do that!

 

[PacketRacket]

I wish FL would do that!

I feel ya. We just moved from Jacksonville FL.

 

[Lelantos]

... I was under the impression I own up to 85 feet above my property...

What gave you that impression? I keep reading that people believe they own up to 83' above their property but can find no legal basis for this. There is a supreme court case that mentions 83' but only in the context that the case did not involve the area below that level - it did not establish, or reference that airspace up to 83' is owned by the landowner.

 

[Blades]

What gave you that impression? I keep reading that people believe they own up to 83' above their property but can find no legal basis for this. There is a supreme court case that mentions 83' but only in the context that the case did not involve the area below that level - it did not establish, or reference that airspace up to 83' is owned by the landowner.

Well what gave me that impression was stories like this. (However, exactly what this means is up for debate. For example, you can’t ask commercial planes to stop flying over your house, because the sky is considered to be a public highway. You could potentially, however, prosecute an overzealous news helicopter for hovering over your house if it was impeding your enjoyment of the land. Again, this would vary on a case-by-case basis but there have been instances of people being fined for trespassing for flying over someone’s land; so it’s not unheard of in US or British law.

The most famous case of this kind comes from 1945 when a chicken farmer named Thomas Lee Causby sued the US government for flying approximately 83 feet above his property, the noise of which caused a bunch of Causby’s chicken’s to accidentally kill themselves by running into walls. Causby won his case and the courts agreed that although a property owner wasn’t entitled to own all of the air above their land, they were entitled to enough so that planes flying overhead wouldn’t kill their chickens.)

Common sense if I owned a three-story house and if I sat out on my upper roof deck I shoukd not have a quad flying around me. Not only that but trees on my property are around 60- 90 feet up. I would suspect I own the trees that are on my property and the airspace they are sitting in also. What if I also have chickens and cows on my land?
You are supposed to be entitled to enough airspace to reasonably enjoy the land below that air. Why do you think that you have the right to fly 15-20ft over my backyard or anyones? If so you would be the guy that is giving drones the bad name and making ppl think you are spying on them. I love flying my quad but if someone was flying/ hovering in my yard I would call the cops and get the water hose not the bb gun. But if they were 85ft-up and not just sitting there I would have no problem.
You can find many more stories but do we need to really be any lower then 85ft when over someones land with out permission?

If You Own Land, How Far Above and Below Do You Own?


Do You Own the Air Above Your Home?

 

[rydfree]

What gave you that impression? I keep reading that people believe they own up to 83' above their property but can find no legal basis for this. There is a supreme court case that mentions 83' but only in the context that the case did not involve the area below that level - it did not establish, or reference that airspace up to 83' is owned by the landowner.

A good article on airspace rights here :
If You Own Land, How Far Above and Below Do You Own?

 

[dwallersv]

My air gun can put 5 shots in a half dollar at 100 yards. But that was a gun that shot at your MP!

My .45 Mag can completely obliterate a large watermelon at 1".

Top that, Homey.

 

[Matchlock]

I think this has gone far enough on this forum since it's a Mavic forum and not a gun forum so I'll say no more on the matter.

Bud

My .45 Mag can completely obliterate a large watermelon at 1".

Top that, Homey.

 

[Lelantos]

Well what gave me that impression was stories like this.

That is my point. These are all stories and guesses. The Causby case did not establish any ownership rights. 83ft was used in that case only because the planes in question were not given clearance to fly lower than that, so altitudes below that were not part of the case. You will find no where in that case that 83ft was decided to be the height at which you owned airspace up to.

Here is the case, read it and see for yourself.
United States v. Causby 328 U.S. 256 (1946)
Part (d) of the decision is what is most relevant to us, there is no altitude associated with it.

 

[mookyyzed]

Bugs. They are bugs. What in the world guys. I have plenty of footage of the same thing. Surely most of us do. I'm not going to fart around posting it because this is nonsense.

Ah, the footage I posted was at an altitude of 1300'... not too many bugs that high up that I know of.