TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote:

KD5NRH wrote:

Dave2 wrote: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]

Keith, we need someone as erudite as you to be interviewed about gun issues from time to time. Too many times we get Bubba and "Yeah, well I seed thet whut we needed wuz fer us to be able to carry our gun . . ." and people tune out at the end of the first sentence.

BTW, I didn't see Interlude in there anywhere.

And surprising myself because I am a bit of a train nut, I just watched the train video, and of course one of the things that struck me was that when they blew the whistle, that didn't show up in the sound effects.

Back OT.

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

If those projectiles can indeed make it 1km high, they are doing pretty good, although I expect that retained energy at that height is probably next to nothing. The next thing to do, if you're paranoid enough, is to build a remote controlled (complete with co-axial video for aiming) flexible shotgun mount into the roof of your house, including a shotgun suppressor, and you can shoot those puppies down all day with little chance of being detected. Looks like I got my summer project set up for me. Let's see: Semi-auto shotgun, need; GoPro 4 camera, need; co-axial gun mount from WWII tank, need; parts for remote firing system, got those in the garage some place.

If you are going to shoot it, be aware the cameras could stream data to the device in the operators hand.
That means you have a good chance to have your picture taken shooting the thing out of the sky and a minute later you are on YouTube.
Otherwise I agree, it is a privacy violation.

bmwrdr wrote:

Keith B wrote:You must have watched Hot In Cleveland last night. LOL
....
....
If you are going to shoot it, at least make sure it destroys the camera and any evidence of who did the shooting.

If you are going to shoot it, be aware the cameras are streaming data to the device in the operators hand.
That means you have a good chance to have your picture taken shooting the thing out of the sky and a minute later you are on YouTube.

Forgot to put in there 'while wearing a ski mask'.

jimlongley wrote: Keith, we need someone as erudite as you to be interviewed about gun issues from time to time. Too many times we get Bubba and "Yeah, well I seed thet whut we needed wuz fer us to be able to carry our gun . . ." and people tune out at the end of the first sentence.

BTW, I didn't see Interlude in there anywhere.

Jim,

Thanks fer tha komplemant, butt I ain't thet edumacated. I iz jest un ole hillbillie frum tha Ozarks.

And I think this was taken after Interlude was retired. RIP

Guys, there are simply much better ways to take out a low-flying drone.

cb1000rider wrote:

jimlongley wrote: Without regard for the legality of shooting it down, if the drone is L.E. and it is over my property, they had better have a warrant, or I will consider it as eligible to be interfered with as a non L.E. drone.
And how am I supposed to know the difference. will the L.E. drone have special markings so I will know?

I've had LE helos light up my house at 3am and then proceed to orbit it. It's a bit disconcerting. No warrant. They don't need one. And it'll make you think twice about stepping out with a firearm.
How is the drone situation any different?


In terms of spying, it's pretty easy to use a drone to pop up over the neighboring lot and monitor next door... Pretty hard to tell, unless you're on a huge parcel, if the drone is on your property until it's pretty much overhead.

For the most part I agree with you, and as I understand the law you are correct. However, I think there is a big difference between a helicopter and a personal drone. For one thing, any idiot can fly a drone, a helicopter pilot has to have some training and a license, and since flying a helicopter costs a lot of money, presumably has a reason other than peeping for flying over your property, as well as an incentive to behave somewhat responsibly (this may be less true in town where there are many more peeping opportunities). A camera equipped drone is pretty much over your property just to peep and the owner has no incentive to behave properly.

A helicopter is large and typically has markings that allow it do be identified. You may be able to tell, for instance, that it's a police helicopter. If it's not, you can still presumably trace ownership, and it may have either a flight plan, or have been tracked. Accountability is a possibility. It's going to be pretty hard to discover who was peeping with that drone unless you catch them in the act, so the owner is unlikely to face any accountability, which gives them incentive to behave poorly.

The owner and or pilot of a helicopter is much less likely to be merely a peeping tom, and is probably in law enforcement, with at least some constraints on the fruits of his peeping. A pervert looking for thrills is relatively unconstrained. For instance, the cops aren't likely to post video of you sunbathing nude in your backyard on the internet, or through the window of an upstairs bedroom of your daughter changing her clothes.

If you live in a subdivision you may be able to spy from adjacent property. If you live on acreage as I do, you can't spy on me very well from adjacent property, and to spy effectively, due to many tall trees, would have to hover directly overhead. My outdoor activities cannot be viewed from outside my property. There is no reason for a personal drone to be flying over my property except to spy and I view it no differently than finding a peeping tom peering in my windows.

If you're in town, a helo spotlighting you may be looking for a criminal or searching for some other purpose. Where I live it's never happened, but then, it's extremely unlikely for any fugitives to be roaming around, and would be just about impossible unless they'd driven to the location.

Were it me, I'd get a water hose or super soaker. If it was too high for either, I'd probably be looking for something less likely to draw attention to me, like a pellet gun.

jimlongley wrote:And surprising myself because I am a bit of a train nut, I just watched the train video, and of course one of the things that struck me was that when they blew the whistle, that didn't show up in the sound effects.

Back OT.

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

If those projectiles can indeed make it 1km high, they are doing pretty good, although I expect that retained energy at that height is probably next to nothing. The next thing to do, if you're paranoid enough, is to build a remote controlled (complete with co-axial video for aiming) flexible shotgun mount into the roof of your house, including a shotgun suppressor, and you can shoot those puppies down all day with little chance of being detected. Looks like I got my summer project set up for me. Let's see: Semi-auto shotgun, need; GoPro 4 camera, need; co-axial gun mount from WWII tank, need; parts for remote firing system, got those in the garage some place.

Psst! The whole thing is a joke. Check out the Manufacturer SKU.

Paintball or airsoft gun?

I'm surprised no one has mentioned a high-intensity flashlight with a strobe function.

JSThane wrote:I'm surprised no one has mentioned a high-intensity flashlight with a strobe function.

Won't work. They're "hands off" stable - and stabilized by internal gyros - a pilot really isnt necessary. You could maybe "blind" the remote pilot, but there's usually a "come home" button.

Keith B wrote:

jimlongley wrote: Keith, we need someone as erudite as you to be interviewed about gun issues from time to time. Too many times we get Bubba and "Yeah, well I seed thet whut we needed wuz fer us to be able to carry our gun . . ." and people tune out at the end of the first sentence.

BTW, I didn't see Interlude in there anywhere.

Jim,

Thanks fer tha komplemant, butt I ain't thet edumacated. I iz jest un ole hillbillie frum tha Ozarks.

And I think this was taken after Interlude was retired. RIP

I miss the Interlude days.

I was speaking primarily of your mike presence.

jimlongley wrote:

Keith B wrote:

jimlongley wrote: Keith, we need someone as erudite as you to be interviewed about gun issues from time to time. Too many times we get Bubba and "Yeah, well I seed thet whut we needed wuz fer us to be able to carry our gun . . ." and people tune out at the end of the first sentence.

BTW, I didn't see Interlude in there anywhere.

Jim,

Thanks fer tha komplemant, butt I ain't thet edumacated. I iz jest un ole hillbillie frum tha Ozarks.

And I think this was taken after Interlude was retired. RIP

I miss the Interlude days.

I was speaking primarily of your mike presence.

Seriously, thanks for the complement. I miss flying as the weather has been pretty bad lately.

philip964 wrote:

n5wd wrote: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.

It is a violation of federal law to use a drone for business or commercial uses without a permit from the FAA.

So far the FAA has only issued permits in Alaska for pipeline monitoring.

So to me you would tell the deputy to also arrest the drone operator.

1. Deputy Sherrifs don't enforce federal law, so he probably won't give you satsfaction in that regard.
2. There is no penalty for violating that FAR, which is routinely violated every day by TV stations, real estate companies, builders, private individuals, etc. the FAA is not enforcing that FAR because they have no guideline to let people legally do what is being done, and they probably won't until those guidelines are up and running. So, technically, yes the drone operator was violating a federal regulation, not law. But no one is engorcing it.