Is it legal to shoot a drone?

[Cedar Park Dad]

Another consideration to think about:

Your ol' lady is lying down in the back yard wanting that all-over tan. She sees a drone flying at the back edge of your property (let's say it was a suburban area, large lots with an alley in between). You walk out, responding to her scream, and pop a shot at the drone (don't miss, though - that bullet or pellets have got to go somewhere, and you don't want to hit the kids in the lot a few yards south of you).

You hit the drone - it crashes into your yard (or the alley) and you retrieve it. While inspecting it you notice the company name on it and call it. They say they'd like their drone back. In fact, they're sending someone out right now to re-posses their property. And the front door bell rings. And you open it to find a mean looking deputy sheriff, along side a guy in a flight suit.

It seems that you took down a $5,000 drone that was photographing the house behind yours for the real-estate office that's handling the sale of the house. The company that operates the drone gets $500 per house to do a package of video and still photograph, and it was doing a 360 degree orbit around the house when all this went down.

And, oh, by the way, the sherriff is there to arrest you for destruction of private property over $2,000 (the camera being flow by the drone is a special one) and its on-board diagnostics shows that it's trash, now.

Seems the drone company had a permit from the county to do the flights, and ... well, you see where this is going, don't you?

I'm not saying that the whole thing isn't worth it to you and the ol' lady, but not all the drones flying around are owned by a hobbyist that invested $49 at Radio Shack for a toy quadcopter.

So... you're saying the government can give 3rd parties permission to make a porno starring my hypothetical wife without her knowledge or consent?

well...could she have been seen by a passing helicopter?
Would you need permission from the county to do flights?

[Dave2]

Another consideration to think about:

Your ol' lady is lying down in the back yard wanting that all-over tan. She sees a drone flying at the back edge of your property (let's say it was a suburban area, large lots with an alley in between). You walk out, responding to her scream, and pop a shot at the drone (don't miss, though - that bullet or pellets have got to go somewhere, and you don't want to hit the kids in the lot a few yards south of you).

You hit the drone - it crashes into your yard (or the alley) and you retrieve it. While inspecting it you notice the company name on it and call it. They say they'd like their drone back. In fact, they're sending someone out right now to re-posses their property. And the front door bell rings. And you open it to find a mean looking deputy sheriff, along side a guy in a flight suit.

It seems that you took down a $5,000 drone that was photographing the house behind yours for the real-estate office that's handling the sale of the house. The company that operates the drone gets $500 per house to do a package of video and still photograph, and it was doing a 360 degree orbit around the house when all this went down.

And, oh, by the way, the sherriff is there to arrest you for destruction of private property over $2,000 (the camera being flow by the drone is a special one) and its on-board diagnostics shows that it's trash, now.

Seems the drone company had a permit from the county to do the flights, and ... well, you see where this is going, don't you?

I'm not saying that the whole thing isn't worth it to you and the ol' lady, but not all the drones flying around are owned by a hobbyist that invested $49 at Radio Shack for a toy quadcopter.

So... you're saying the government can give 3rd parties permission to make a porno starring my hypothetical wife without her knowledge or consent?

well...could she have been seen by a passing helicopter?
Would you need permission from the county to do flights?

n5wd's scenario is a drone getting video for a real-estate company, which would necessarily be somewhat close-up. A passing helicopter likely wouldn't be able to resolve the same level of detail.

Edit: Although with all the various advancements in image/video processing, who knows? And it may well be time for us, as a society, to re-evaluate what areas (i.e. a fenced in backyard) we consider to be private. But until that happens, IMHO, n5wd's hypothetical drone is violating my hypothetical wife's privacy in a huge way.

[KD5NRH]

n5wd's scenario is a drone getting video for a real-estate company, which would necessarily be somewhat close-up. A passing helicopter likely wouldn't be able to resolve the same level of detail.

I don't know when your last looked at telephoto lenses, but I've seen a group of researchers testing out their camera by reading the *frame* of a license plate over a mile away.

For that matter, pretty much every pro sporting event has some gear out there of the range and quality that could produce a magazine-ready spread from a couple thousand feet.

[Dave2]

n5wd's scenario is a drone getting video for a real-estate company, which would necessarily be somewhat close-up. A passing helicopter likely wouldn't be able to resolve the same level of detail.

I don't know when your last looked at telephoto lenses, but I've seen a group of researchers testing out their camera by reading the *frame* of a license plate over a mile away.

Yes, but they were specifically looking a certain area. If a random helicopter was "just passing by" and had their optics zoomed in that far, the resulting video would just be a blur, no? Now if they were specifically trying to film someone where a reasonable person would expect privacy, I think existing laws make that illegal.

[KD5NRH]

If a random helicopter was "just passing by" and had their optics zoomed in that far, the resulting video would just be a blur, no?

Not necessarily; I've taken some very clear shots from moving trains and such. Remember, minimum safe altitude over a sparsely populated area is 500', and there's no minimum cruising speed for a helicopter; they're not going to go faster than they can get good photos if that's the goal of the flight. As for changing targets from whatever they originally set out to photograph, spotting a human form at that altitude would be easy.

ETA: That 500' number is for fixed wing aircraft. I forgot helicopters are generally allowed to go lower as long as due care is taken.

[cb1000rider]

Texas has a pretty strict Drone Law already. You cannot fly a drone over private property without permission. Filming private property from a drone without permission is a big no no.

Can you provide a reference? I'm unaware of that law... I understand there was legislation that made it illegal to take photos of people or property in Texas via drone if the intent was to snoop, but I'm not aware on a prohibition of actual flight... (HB912 governs the photo taking)

My understanding of FAA rules is that they're not regulatory - yet. That is, how do you regulate a bunch of people that you're not licensing? Their stuff - at this time - is "best practice"... They do have pending rules, but I don't think they're in force yet...

If you want to complain about low flying fixed wing aircraft - the rule is 500' in sparsely populated areas. The rules also say "safe altitude" - most aircraft can't make a safe emergency landing from 500'. Different for helicopters. Different for float planes over water. I believe it's 1500' in populated areas.

[CoffeeNut]

Texas has a pretty strict Drone Law already. You cannot fly a drone over private property without permission. Filming private property from a drone without permission is a big no no.

Can you provide a reference? I'm unaware of that law... I understand there was legislation that made it illegal to take photos of people or property in Texas via drone if the intent was to snoop, but I'm not aware on a prohibition of actual flight... (HB912 governs the photo taking)

My understanding of FAA rules is that they're not regulatory - yet. That is, how do you regulate a bunch of people that you're not licensing? Their stuff - at this time - is "best practice"... They do have pending rules, but I don't think they're in force yet...

If you want to complain about low flying fixed wing aircraft - the rule is 500' in sparsely populated areas. The rules also say "safe altitude" - most aircraft can't make a safe emergency landing from 500'. Different for helicopters. Different for float planes over water. I believe it's 1500' in populated areas.

Here is the full law

I'm pretty sure you're correct in your assumption. If you're just flying your drone without the intent to "conduct surveillance" then you're good to go. If you happen to catch images of your neighbors that they wouldn't want published then you must delete them. If you do delete them ASAP then it is listed as a defense to prosecution.

[philip964]

Here is a story about the FAA loosening a little on drones

Http://www.cnet.com/news/faa-eases-barr ... drone-use/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


This realitor got FAA permission

http://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_prog ... -11138.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But are there others?

[Chemist45]

You could learn Falconry - I'm told falcons are heck on drones.
Then there is this:
http://www.popsci.com/rapere-anti-drone-interceptor" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A drone that takes out other drones by dropping string into the propellers.

[Dave2]

If a random helicopter was "just passing by" and had their optics zoomed in that far, the resulting video would just be a blur, no?

Not necessarily; I've taken some very clear shots from moving trains and such.

Ok, I just want to make sure I'm understanding this (and that we're talking about the same thing)...
You can take video (because "still" cameras don't keep taking shots on their own if you set them down), from a moving platform, at some "ungodly" zoom, and get clear images without having to continually re-aim the camera at your subject?

Remember, minimum safe altitude over a sparsely populated area is 500', and there's no minimum cruising speed for a helicopter; they're not going to go faster than they can get good photos if that's the goal of the flight.

As for changing targets from whatever they originally set out to photograph, spotting a human form at that altitude would be easy.

ETA: That 500' number is for fixed wing aircraft. I forgot helicopters are generally allowed to go lower as long as due care is taken.

Well, yes, but then we're talking about specifically spying on someone, which, as I said earlier, I think is already illegal.

[cb1000rider]

Well, yes, but then we're talking about specifically spying on someone, which, as I said earlier, I think is already illegal.

I'm not sure. It's illegal in Texas (per above) to spy on someone via taking photos or video via a drone if done intentionally.
I could, however, get in an airplane or helicopter, and do the exact same thing and it would be legal as long as I didn't violate FARs in the process (500' or 1500' - take your pick).

[Pawpaw]

If you're going to try to shoot one down, make sure you're using the right ammo!!!

[rbwhatever1]

If you're going to try to shoot one down, make sure you're using the right ammo!!!

Mr. Drone, meet granddads Red Letter 12 Gauge...

[Keith B]

If a random helicopter was "just passing by" and had their optics zoomed in that far, the resulting video would just be a blur, no?

Not necessarily; I've taken some very clear shots from moving trains and such. Remember, minimum safe altitude over a sparsely populated area is 500', and there's no minimum cruising speed for a helicopter; they're not going to go faster than they can get good photos if that's the goal of the flight. As for changing targets from whatever they originally set out to photograph, spotting a human form at that altitude would be easy.

ETA: That 500' number is for fixed wing aircraft. I forgot helicopters are generally allowed to go lower as long as due care is taken.

Go out to http://www.bing.com/maps" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. You can zoom down to many areas like cities and some smaller towns and very clearly see the homes in pretty good detail. When you zoom down that low the images you are seeing is taken by an aircraft flying over with a camera . The images are a composite and you can actually rotate the view to see pretty good detail. Here are some examples of both airplane and satellite available to the general public https://apollomapping.com/imagery/high- ... on-imagery" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now, that is just an image that is available to the public for free or for a fee. The military has had technology for years that will read a license plate from a satellite in space with de-blurring technology, and now a hi-res satellite that can read them directly http://www.techtimes.com/articles/12938 ... ellite.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As for the cameras on helicopters, I can tell you they can get extremely clear zoomed video from 4-5 miles away if the air is clear. Here is video of me flying some of Fox 4's people and the helicopter was over 1 mile out from us. The video was HD on the television and VERY clear.

[video]http://youtu.be/kaIsouojQ_s?t=11m[/video]

Here is a video shot from a HD helicopter cam showing the capabilities and how well it can zoom as well pan with the the movement of the video platform (helicopter) and the train. Be sure to put the video in 1080p resolution

[video]http://youtu.be/Gq19haG7A1w[/video]

[MechAg94]

Some of these issues are why I was suggesting that if you had to shoot or throw something at the drone which was low over your property, use something that has limited range as that makes it obvious how low the drone was flying and/or that it was hovering and not just passing by.