We Ask Again: Where Were the Drones?

[timskins]

Wow. Political much I was about to report you…

Who moderates the moderator?

 

[HoozierDroneDaddy]

There are other considerations to think about when using a drone for this type of work. Type of drone, battery flying time, environment, weather, airspace (local air traffic), allowable AGL limits, signal interference, obstacles, operations over people, all of which we already know. All of which can effect the effectiveness of the mission.

In a wide open area, with clearance, a good camera (possibly with zoom), you could effectively fly around the crowd, or stay over surrounding buildings, without needing to operate over people. This would still allow monitoring high points, roof tops, and other suspicious areas.

In city environments you now have tall buildings limiting effective viewing of required areas and increasing a need for operations over people, communication/power lines between buildings, signal interference, VLOS, etc. This would limit viewable areas and increase the chance of missing a suspicious person or activity.

This is not surveillance in the normal sense as watching a specific person or place for an extended time. It is a SEARCH similar to looking for an escaping subject or prisoner, to prevent a crime and/or prevent loss of life. So surveillance laws would should not be in play.

In either case, use of drones for these activities can be an easy operation or a complicated one based on location and local city, county, state laws. IMHO, when an event such as these occurs the Local Law Enforcement if equipped with UAV's or depending on the speaker, a Federal agency, could and should where possible make an aerial sweep prior to, and during the event as a standard security procedure. Today many Law Enforcement agencies already have drone fleets. Of course, there will be lots of feedback. Who funds it, who is in charge, what equipment can be used, who doesn't want their toes stepped on, etc. The new BLOV rules will obviously effect these operations unless it can be modified.

For those not aware of the implications of 108, here is an important link that everyone should check out. A very important message from Vic Moss effecting ALL drone pilots.

Vic Moss

Okay, here is what y'all have been waiting for. Please, please, please, make some time this weekend to watch and read the following links. This is a comment and video put together by Pilot...

www.facebook.com

 

[Ralph thompson]

I think that we're starting to get off point here. Whether or not you agreed with what Charlie Kirk had to say, and I personally didn't, but he had the right to say it.

As we head towards the midterms there's going to to be more and more politicians from both sides holding open air rallies and there will always be disturbed people from both sides who want to silence them.

As an experienced shooter myself I can tell you that for the perpetrator to have made that shot, he had to have been in position for at least 5 minutes before he pulled the trigger so the fact remains that this could have been prevented had the organizers hired a couple of drone pilots to patrol the rooftops and reported any suspicious activity to security or law enforcement.

Stuart Smith.
The Droning Company

You make good points. As a journalist, I’ve often seen people walking on roofs while operating a drone, somehow they stand out in an otherwise static space. A figure moving around a grey roof is quite visible. Hiring a couple of well trained drone pilots to survey the area before hand and during the event could give security a warning to pause the event, keep the speaker away from or off the stage. I personally didn’t agree with Kirks POV either.

 

[offtheback]

If I owned or managed a security company, drone coverage would be mandatory.

A Mini could have spotted him.