nav search
Data Center Software Security Transformation DevOps Business Personal Tech Science Emergent Tech Bootnotes BOFH

back to article
Bloke sues dad who shot down his drone – and why it may decide who owns the skies

What is the sky?

Where do you draw the limit for where the sky is?

Clearly flying one inch over a person's head is not really considered in the sky.

Clearly 1km or so up is in the sky.

I don't know what shot was in this thing, but if it came within shotgun range, it is in someone's close vicinity and I would argue it isn't in the sky. #6 bird shot only has an effective range of 100m or so fired upwards. 00 buck (9-ball) - a typical home defence load - has longer range, but you'd be damn lucky to hit a drone with that.

22
1

Re: What is the sky?

From an earlier article on arstechnica it was #6 buckshot as he supplied the gun plus casing to law enforcement and was the basis of his defence

3
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Re: What is the sky?

Yep. The drone was very low. And aside from the sheer fact it could be brought down by such a short-range weapon (physical proof), there's neighbour and family eyewitnesses and the fact that it was over his garden long enough - where it filmed his two daughters - for him to watch it, decide it was over-staying its welcome, go into the house, get his shotgun, come back out aim and shoot it.

Really this is one of the worst foundational cases you could get if you're the person who wants to intrude on people's privacy with drones because the drone owner was in all sorts of wrong. Even the part: "who then threatened him with a handgun" is very different when you know the context. After shooting down the drone, the owner showed up with three other men at his house. With four unknown and hostile guys approaching them he warned them that if they came on his property he'd shoot. Now that last part as a reaction some will disagree with (and that maybe fair), but I wasn't there and four angry men approaching me would make me defensive too. At any rate, right or wrong, it's a bit different in reality from the impression you get from "then threatened him with a handgun".

Way I read it, the drone owner is self-entitled, aggressive and thinks it's fine to hover over people's fenced in gardens filming them or their family members and I'm on Meredith's side on this. I think a large part of the reporting has been slanted by the angles that he "owns a gun" which makes him immediately a desirable target for anti-gun lobbyists who would like to paint him as a gun-happy thug. Citation to avoid defensive down-votes from people who are against gun ownership: Alistair Dabbs in this very site declared unreservedly that anyone who wanted to own a gun was "a budding psychopath". With prejudices like that, how objective is reporting actually going to be? And of course the fact that this took place in Kentucky which everyone who's never been there knows, is filled with nothing but drunken bigoted hicks. I mean just listen to that accent! How could the guy not be a crazy over-reacting nut?

Anyway however you feel about this, the various attempts to cast this has someone shooting down an innocent drone that was just flying along through the sky have been exploded. Even more so than the drone itself.

73
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: What is the sky?

#6 bird shot only has an effective range of 100m or so fired upwards

100m is over 300ft, which is well into Amazon's proposed "commercial drone" airspace. That's a pretty long way when we're talking back-yard operated drones.

And I imagine it doesn't take a lot of physical damage to bring down a small toy drone - a single pellet strike to any of several components would probably do it.

2
8

@h4rm0ny - Re: What is the sky?

Downvoted, not for the gun stuff (see later), but because here's the drone owner's version

* * * * *

In a video Boggs sent WDRB, he comments on drone's path 40 seconds before, during and after the incident.

"We are now one minute and 18 seconds into the flight," he says on the video. "We are now 193 feet above the ground. This area here is the world-famous drone slayer home, and this is a neighbor's home, and our friends live over here, and over here, and over here. You will see now that we did not go below this altitude -- we even went higher -- nor did we hover over their house to look in. And for sure didn't descend down to no 10 feet, or look under someone's canopy, or at somebody's daughter."

"We are right now one minute, 56 seconds over the drone slayer's house. We're still not on his property line -- we're just now getting ready to cross it....In less than two seconds...we are outside of his property, still at 272 feet. He shot the drone here, and you'll see it rapidly lose altitude, and the drone crash. Boom -- there it goes. Crazy, in the words of the great Paul Harvey, now you know the rest of the story."

* * * * *

Now, regarding the guns, if someone starts shooting at and destroying my property, I think I'd be a little miffed, and if I wanted to have a word with them, I doubt I'd just go up to their house, knock on the door and say "excuse me, old chap, would you mind not doing that?" I'd want a few friends with me. When we see the guy I want to speak to is packing a side arm and threatening 'If you cross my sidewalk, there's gonna be another shooting" I think we're going to back off. (NB nowhere can I find anything that says the drone owner or his friends are carrying firearms...)

So have "the various attempts to cast this has someone shooting down an innocent drone that was just flying along through the sky" really been exploded?

10
25
Silver badge

Re: What is the sky?

However as these mature and we have better cameras on them the bottom line is that it won't matter if they're 100m up or 1000m they'll be able to zoom in on whatever they like or take high enough resolution footage that it can then be look at later on a computer.

Personally as far as I'm concerned they should be treated the same as CCTV cameras - fine to cover your property but not any other private residence without consent.

I don't own a drone but I do like them - but there's a time and place.

7
1
Silver badge

Re: @h4rm0ny - What is the sky?

>>"Downvoted, not for the gun stuff (see later), but because here's the drone owner's version"

Okay, so you downvoted me because the drone owner has now produced a contradictory account. Understood. I've now watched and read your link including the Fox News interview. One thing I note, though it's an aside, is how Meredith is having photos of himself plastered everywhere and footage of him in an argument when he's being arrested. The argument seems to revolve around the fact that someone is filming him being arrested which plausibly seems to be the drone owner or friend showing up to film Meredith being arrested after he called the police on him. Meredith isn't violent in any way, but is swearing. If someone called the police on me and then filmed my arrest, I would not be happy either. I also don't like the PR angle that Boggs keeps trying to play with things like "the world famous drone-slayer" and such. Everything I've read with Boggs seems to give me the feeling he's playing some PR battle against the guy. One example is the photograph of a drone shown several times in your link of a distant blur in the sky and an enlarged inset showing it's a drone. Is there any claim that this photograph actually was taken at the time? No. It's almost certain it wasn't. But it's presented as if it was. The site you link to has multiple hallmarks of this sort of "truth-y" presentation.

Now specifically as to him coming forward with his own version, I would be stunned if the map he showed on his iPad was remotely admissible as evidence. Drones record basic telemetry which you export as a text file as I understand it. I haven't used this software but I would lay good money that I could produce you whatever flight path you wanted. Unless the iPad was seized at the time by the police (which it wasn't), there's no evidence of Boggs' is story. Whilst on the other side we have multiple eye-witness statements, the range of the shotgun itself, where the shotgun presumably fell and the sudden appearance of flight path data.

>>Now, regarding the guns, if someone starts shooting at and destroying my property, I think I'd be a little miffed, and if I wanted to have a word with them, I doubt I'd just go up to their house, knock on the door and say "excuse me, old chap, would you mind not doing that?" I'd want a few friends with me

You wouldn't call the police or something? You'd get your mates together and go round there? How is what you're saying different to what I said. I simply pointed out that a lone line saying "and then threatened the owner with a gun" is quite different to four angry people showing up and you warning them to stay off your property.

>>"When we see the guy I want to speak to is packing a side arm and threatening 'If you cross my sidewalk, there's gonna be another shooting" I think we're going to back off. "

Crossing the sidewalk means the pavement. It's a street-facing house - crossing it means you're now walking into his garden. Just to be clear.

>>"(NB nowhere can I find anything that says the drone owner or his friends are carrying firearms...)"

And nowhere in my post will you find it stated that they were. I simply observed that four angry unknown men pulling up outside your house and heading into your property is a very different mental image to "and then he threatened them with a gun". And your facts are supporting that, so I stand by it. Four men don't need a gun to make me feel threatened.

31
0

Re: @h4rm0ny - What is the sky?

I think what's really clear is that *both* of them are playing PR games.

Your take was "Way I read it, the drone owner is self-entitled, aggressive and thinks it's fine to hover over people's fenced in gardens filming them or their family members and I'm on Meredith's side on this", but you (and your upvoters) didn't seem to have done any looking to see if there *was* an "on the other hand" version which may contradict it, hence the downvote.

As for the gun stuff, personally I don't live in a country where there are people who think that "go for your gun" is the apparent default method of resolving an issue. (If Meredith was so concerned about the drone, why didn't *he* call the Police...?)

6
13

Re: What is the sky?

I don't know what shot was in this thing, but if it came within shotgun range, it is in someone's close vicinity and I would argue it isn't in the sky.

The simplest laws are often the best so I propose that ground up they start with the following. Unless it is making an emergency landing, if it is over my land and I can hit it with buckshot from my land then it is in my airspace and may be reasonably hit with buckshot until it is no longer in my airspace.

If someones daughters are sunbathing in a secluded spot of their garden, its wholly inappropriate to be flying camera drones overhead to get a better view. The drone owner isn't covering himself in glory here, regardless of what he may state he was or was not doing.

10
3
Silver badge

Re: @h4rm0ny - What is the sky?

Boggs' video - we only have his word on the provenance, though lord knows it is very difficult to fake such stuff with today's home computers.

Boggs is an idiot, and an annoying one at that. Who the flock wants to listen to a flying weedwhacker disturbing the peace after work? One of my neighbors used to drive an ic model car up and down the street all fucking sunday. What a great way to help the neighbors relax, eh?

9
0
Silver badge

Re: @h4rm0ny - What is the sky?

>>"I think what's really clear is that *both* of them are playing PR games."

Actually, I don't see the same sort of tactics from Meredith. True, he could just be amazingly convincing in playing the role of an average Kentucky townsfolk and him having his face plastered across our media in a prison photograph is just some clever double-bluff game, but he seems fairly blunt and sincere to me.

>>"but you (and your upvoters) didn't seem to have done any looking to see if there *was* an "on the other hand" version which may contradict it, hence the downvote."

You don't know what I'm familiar with. You'll find comments on me about this on El Reg's coverage going back to their first stories on it. It's something I've been following in depth for sometime. I don't suppose there's any reason to suppose upvoters of my post are ignorant either. Assuming that you know more than other people and downvoting them on the assumption that they simply don't know as much as you or their opinions would be different, is flawed, imo.

>>"As for the gun stuff, personally I don't live in a country where there are people who think that "go for your gun" is the apparent default method of resolving an issue"

Nor do I. I live in the UK and am as English as they come.

>>"(If Meredith was so concerned about the drone, why didn't *he* call the Police...?)"

That's a counter to my proposing that a better response to property destruction would be to call the police rather than gather your mates and go round there as you suggested. It doesn't take away in any manner from my point. Should he have called the police? Maybe. It likely would have been gone by the time they got their and proving ownership would be very difficult. But sure, calling the police is what I would have done. However, my point was to add some context to what was presented in this article which was Meredith following up shooting down the drone by going and threatening the drone owner. You want to argue that calling the police on the drone would be a better response than shooting it down, be my guest. But don't try and counter my point by saying 'yeah, well why didn't he call the police, then?' There's a large difference between an obviously confrontational situation of gathering your mates and going round someone's house and the immediate response of whether or not to damage a mechanical device that is on your property and you consider to be actively infringing on your life. One is potentially violent and by definition pre-meditated. The other is neither.

7
4
Silver badge

Re: @h4rm0ny - What is the sky?

There's a large difference between an obviously confrontational situation of gathering your mates and going round someone's house and the immediate response of whether or not to damage a mechanical device that is on your property and you consider to be actively infringing on your life. One is potentially violent and by definition pre-meditated. The other is neither.

Hang on, what? Are you saying that blowing something out of the sky with a shotgun isn't violent? And turning up to a house occupied by someone who has just done this, unarmed, is somehow the more violent action?

I don't know the personalities or the history of this, perhaps you do and there's context I don't get. Maybe one, or both of the parties is a certifiable arsehole - this is probably very likely. But you're making a few leaps here. "Gathering a few of your mates" could be "bring a witness in case he shoots me too". Maybe his mates were tiny and non-threatening. To me, being told "if you enter my property I'm going to shoot you" is the most violent action of this whole sordid tale, but that seems to pass as normal behaviour in the US.

In short your assignation of guilt to the one party isn't backed up by the facts quoted in this story or your comments on it.

7
8

Re: @h4rm0ny - What is the sky?

It isn't "violence" in the eyes of the law as it wasn't directed against another person.

10
3

Re: If Meredith was so concerned about the drone, why didn't *he* call the Police

Because on this side of the pond, not all of our men have been castrated.

Also, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

If Meredith had called the police, they would have arrived sirens wailing and the thug would have been long gone with his ill-gotten gains of photos of Meredith's daughters sunbathing. Boggs needs to be up on Peeping Tom charges, not whining about his property loss.

7
4
Silver badge

Re: @h4rm0ny - What is the sky?

>>"Hang on, what? Are you saying that blowing something out of the sky with a shotgun isn't violent? And turning up to a house occupied by someone who has just done this, unarmed, is somehow the more violent action?"

I am saying that blowing something out of the sky with a shotgun isn't inherently violent, yes. It could be - i.e. it's a plane with people on it. But equally it could be a small remote control toy in which case there is no violence directed towards people which is my relevant criteria. Similarly, gathering your mates and going round the house of someone you have a beef with, is confrontational (which was my actual wording) and more likely to lead to a violent situation.

So certainly, barring some loose wording on your part, you have indeed got what I said correct.

>>"To me, being told "if you enter my property I'm going to shoot you" is the most violent action of this whole sordid tale, but that seems to pass as normal behaviour in the US."

I wasn't there. I can't comment with certainty. My point is that one certainly can't support an abstract statement that Meredith shot down the drone and then went on to threaten it's owner with a gun as not pretty misleading when the actual circumstances were four people advancing on his property and him saying that he'd defend himself if they came onto it.

>>"In short your assignation of guilt to the one party isn't backed up by the facts quoted in this story or your comments on it."

I haven't assigned absolute guilt either way. I've just pointed out the facts favour Meredith and there's been some demonstrably loaded reporting on the subject mainly, it seems, based on people's a priori politics and feelings about people with guns.

10
6

Re: What is the sky?

Effective weapons range has a strong historical precedent. The original Three Mile Limit in maritime law was (according to references I read some time ago) based on the practical point that it was the maximum range of cannons of the time.

3
0

Re: @h4rm0ny - What is the sky?

Re calling the police, it's probable that the police would not come for such a 'trivial' complaint, unless they were nearby and there was nothing else going on. They'd probably send someone in a day or two. Note that in that case, determine whose drone it was would be hard or imposdible for lack of evidence.

6
0

Re: @h4rm0ny - What is the sky?

I love that you've gotten 13 downvotes for this.

It's all "We wanted to get into an outrage and harrumph over someone invading people's privacy! How dare you bring FACTS and DATA into the case which shows it isn't nearly as clear-cut a case of peeping tommery as we want it to be! HARRUMPH! I say, HARRUMPH!"

Get over yourselves. Privacy isn't as all-sacrosanct a right as you think, and not all measures are justifiable in protecting it. You want to enjoy privacy, erect a physical barrier between you and people who can potentially see you. We do this all the time, they're called WALLS! And FENCES, and ROOFS. The dude with the drone is in the right here - Kentucky McShotgun was just itching to blast him one of those dat-burnt newfangled snoopin' machines and he took a well-aimed long shot. That doesn't make him a heroic paladin of privacy, it make him the arsehole who shot down someone's drone when it was way, way the hell out of his business.

2
15

Re: If Meredith was so concerned about the drone, why didn't *he* call the Police

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away" is only for use when you are threatened with PHYSICAL HARM. And ONLY with physical harm. Not privacy invasion. Property defense, yes, if you reasonably fear that the other guy will use violence to claim your stuff - if they're breaking in, absolutely. If they grab your wallet and leg it, no.

Do you understand me? It's irresponsible gun-owners like Kentucky McShotgun who put more ammunition in the hands of the gun-grabbers. Unless that drone was FIRING UPON him or his kin, he had NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to shoot it down.

3
16
Silver badge

Re: they're called WALLS! And FENCES

Had fence. Was using it. Droney McFucktard used superior tech to overcome it. Family Valuesguy deployed superior firepower to re-impose *your* ideas of how to protect privacy.

It is instructive that for all the shouting by Dronemeister Boggs, none of the neighbors have rallied to his side. I mean, if someone living on your street fired a fucking shotgun into the air wouldn't you be talking up a storm vis-a-vis complaints, redress, aligning with Mr Freedom In The Skies? If you fireed a shotgun into the sky, wouldn't you expect some anger from your neighbors?

Sounds to me like Boggs' neighbors were only too happy when a sudden sharp BANG removed the annoying ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZ from the sky.

10
1

A country whose default is Fail

What you expect and what you get leaves the door open to leaving the door open and killing any future law suit stone dead.

0
0

What is the sky for stupid?

Down voted I never even read your full reply just followed your link and realised the shootist was bloody good at being a shootist which has to be worth some sort of a reward -even by Kentukian standards.

272 and barely on his property, the aggrieved idiot should find out if his case doesn't appear planned stooopid.

0
0

Re: If Meredith was so concerned about the drone, why didn't *he* call the Police

> Because on this side of the pond, not all of our men have been castrated

Because on this side of the pond, not all of our victims are Klansmen. FTFY.

0
1
Bronze badge

Re: blowing something out of the sky with a shotgun isn't inherently violent,

In USA law, violence is defined as "the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or prop­erty of another". So shooting at someone else's drone is violence. It doesn't have to be directed at a person.

3
0

Re: What is the sky?

i would think you mean more like 100ft, 100m is like 300ft.

0
0

Re: @h4rm0ny - What is the sky?

Hmm, in the video it looks like it drops ~270 feet in about 4 seconds.

Seems a little fast to me?

0
0
Silver badge

Re: @h4rm0ny - What is the sky?

>>"Hmm, in the video it looks like it drops ~270 feet in about 4 seconds. Seems a little fast to me?

Slightly too fast but within margin of error. Distance dropped starting at zero velocity and ignoring drag would be 257 feet. I would expect drag to reduce it further though not necessarily by much. However, the offset could easily be made up for by the drone already having a downward velocity or flipping over when it and accelerating downward faster than gravitational acceleration would explain.

That said, the log is trivially faked and if it were at 270 feet, that's a Hell of a shot to pull off with a shotgun.

0
0

the problem with drones...

... is that they are too easy to operate, hover capable and can be equipped with cameras.

Any perv can buy a cheap camera equipped drone and fly around looking though bedroom windows just as any small criminal can use one to scout houses to see if no one is home.

If I noticed a drone hovering over my backyard at a low enough altitude for a possibly equipped camera to be looking inside my house I'd not only feel uncomfortable with it but threatened as well and honestly were I to have the means to rapidly ground the thing, I would.

I appreciate the hobby of operating R/C vehicles and I admire what some people can make their chosen craft do but my backyard is not the place to do it in, go to a local R/C airfield.

52
6
Silver badge
Megaphone

Re: the problem with drones...

Interesting - drones with cameras might be covered under the Peeping Tom Law

(f) Any person who, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person, secretly or surreptitiously uses or installs in a room any device that can be used to create a photographic image with the intent to capture the image of another without their consent shall be guilty of a Class I felony.

While this applies to a room, I can see a good lawyer making a legal argument extending this to the airspace of drones.

Remember that Roe v. Wade stated that the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment implied a right to privacy. That also comes into play here.

25
0
WTF?

Re: the problem with drones...

Why should I have to go to a local R/C airfield to test out my crawling/climbing RC cockroach? If I want to roam the 'hood in search of 'roach fodder, that's what I'll do, thank you very much.

Who ever heard of a flying cockroach! The lunacy of it all!

1
15

Re: the problem with drones...

"secretly or surreptitiously uses" - but drones flying close enough to viably peer in windows are (currently) loud enough to be definitively not-surreptitious, making the Peeping Tom law inapplicable. Although at that point perhaps harassment or neighborhood noise ordinances could come into play instead.

Regardless, if the FAA thinks it is going to somehow protect drones flying within birdshot range of suburban or rural houses, it has mistakenly doubled down on its absurd drone registration idea and the bureaucratic reversal will only come sooner rather than later.

6
3
Silver badge
Happy

Re: the problem with drones...

and honestly were I to have the means to rapidly ground the thing, I would.

A high pressure jet of water might do the trick. A suitably modified Kärcher?

19
0
Silver badge
Childcatcher

Re: the problem with drones...

Damn straight! Any pastime I have zero interest in should only be allowed in disused lavatories, and only in possession of a valid leopard hunting permit (which anyone can easily obtain at the South Pole at the winter solstice of any leap year for a modest fee of one trillion buckazoids as soon as they prove they can wrestle a polar bear)!

11
10
Silver badge

Re: the problem with drones...

>>""secretly or surreptitiously uses" - but drones flying close enough to viably peer in windows are (currently) loud enough to be definitively not-surreptitious, making the Peeping Tom law inapplicable"

Well when that law was written there was no way to do such things without being there in person. So you would be secret and surreptitious. Now you can be secret and surreptitious even with a noisy drone because nobody knows who owns it or who is watching through its eyes.

Surreptitious (adj): 1.kept secret, especially because it would not be approved of:

The person is still being surreptitious even if the drone can be seen. And it's the person who gets charged with a crime, not the tool they use to do it.

11
1
Silver badge
Unhappy

@Rusty 1

Cockroaches CAN FLY , they just are faster on foot

Icon -my thoughts about roaches.

5
0
Silver badge
Linux

Re: the problem with drones...

Sorry, at the South Pole you'll only find Euclidian bears.

8
0

Re: the problem with drones...

>A high pressure jet of water might do the trick.

So might a jammer, or a small maser, or even a lobed EMP generator if you want to get seriously Bond Villain.

2.4GHz and 5.8GHz jammers are illegal of course, but much harder to track down than guns because they don't go BANG!, they'll work through walls, and it's hard to tell the diff between jamming and drone malfunction - especially if you only hack the RF control and not the FPV feed.

I'd guess it's only a matter of time before cheap Chinese versions start appearing on eBay.

5
0

Re: the problem with drones...

But what happens to the drone subject to the jamming? Loss of control resulting in it crashing into some poor random person in the area?

A 5 year old lost an eye to an out of control drone recently in the UK.

Bring down drones by whatever means could easily have regretable consequences.

3
1
Silver badge

@Stoneshop

Cartesian bears, I think

7
0
Meh

Re: the problem with drones...

drones flying close enough to viably peer in windows are (currently) loud enough to be definitively not-surreptitious, making the Peeping Tom law inapplicable.

However, you can surely see that someone could fly a drone, land it, and not be needing the hover capability (say viewing from the roof of a building across the street into the target property).

Also, with the latest battery/ power technology, where a previous 20 minute flight may have been possible, fuel cell retailers are expecting 2-3 hours, so if the R/C device only needs to receive the radio for a couple of hours (having landed the drone in a position from which to view the target), the drone could sit with minimal power consumption, waiting for a radio signal, at which point the camera will be activated, start streaming, and the roof where it is located might be in complete darkness.

So long as the "Peeping Tom" remembers to turn off the camera before running the battery too low, and taking off, to be able to recover the drone, there may be only the noise of the drone at two times - once to position and land it, and the second, possibly under cover of darkness, to take off and land (not necessarily near the drone owner's home).

Who knows how far it will be flown before collection, and in the first place, from whence it came... (in other words, the PT drives to a park within range of the target property, having spotted a suitable target building + person, and taken note of some landmarks... goes back after dark, watches whatever they can, flies the drone back towards the park (and by means of their own hazard lights and headlights, can get visual clues about which direction to fly once near the park).

NB I am in UK, not sure if any similar 'Peeping Tom' law exists, and don't drive.

5
1
Silver badge
Coat

Re: @Stoneshop

Explaining why Euclidian and not Cartesian would be putting Descartes before the horse.

(not all of them are square)

11
0

Re: the problem with drones...

Paintball would be interesting.

3
0
Bronze badge

Re: the problem with drones...

>>it has mistakenly doubled down on its absurd drone registration idea…

Requiring registration numbers on RCMAs (Remote Controlled Model Aircraft) will be helpful for cases such as their getting tangled in power lines or lodged in building exteriors. Carbon fibre is often used on higher end craft and it's electrically conductive. I'm sure the power company will like to know who to bill for repairs when they are called out to pull one out of their high voltage lines. There is a State capitol building the in US that has/had a RCMA lodged at the top edifice of the dome with no way to retrieve it short of a very tall and very expensive crane. A gust of wind pushed it into the building and it was stuck. A person was flying off his high-rise deck in New York (poorly) and damaged one enough banging into other high-rise buildings for it to crash missing a person on the ground by a meter. The guy it nearly crashed on was clever enough to sell the video footage from the memory card to the local TV news. The footage is on YouTube.

If the mad drone photographer was just having a go flying his 'copter, why wasn't in front of the homes instead of around back?

4
0
Bronze badge

Re: the problem with drones...

>>Bring down drones by whatever means could easily have regretable consequences.

If Amazon is allowed to deliver via drone, there will be all sorts of them falling from the sky. It will be the next new sport. Since the service will be expensive, the chances that the payload will be something small and pricey such as an iPhone is pretty high.

4
0
Silver badge

Re: A suitably modified Kärcher?

Well, do you have the maths to show how this is possible, because I've had three Karchers and not only would they be totally unable to put a jet of water up anywhere near the height we are talking and have any force whatsoever behind it, they can barely do the job they were designed for at three feet without failing quickly.

Karcher one lasted about four years, used once per year on 100 ft of 6 foot fence before the pump stripped a gear.

Number two just stopped working after two uses. Never was able to figure it out. I suspect the pressure detection switch mechanism failed. The motor just wouldn't run.

Number three only made one year before the pressure coupling self-destructed so any attempt to use it caused the hose to eject with dangerous force *even though* the security collar was locked down tight.

No more Karchers for me. I'll rent a proper gas powered pressure washer when I need one.

That said, a twelve gauge side-by-side does a lousy job of cleaning the fence, so I suppose it all evens out.

3
0
Silver badge

Re: Bring down drones by whatever means

The obvious way to safely bring down an annoying drone is another drone fitted with a 12 gauge side-by-side.

If additional noise is a consideration, a model airship fitted with a 12 gauge side-by-side could be substituted.

3
0
Silver badge

Re: A suitably modified Kärcher?

"Number two just stopped working after two uses. Never was able to figure it out. I suspect the pressure detection switch mechanism failed. The motor just wouldn't run."

I've had one for over a decade. Still runs fine. It does display an annoying tendency for the motor starting cap connection to vibrate loose from time to time. Simple fix: Open the case and push the cap. spade terminal back on (a little crimp helps with continued retention).

2
0

Re: A suitably modified Kärcher?

Try Draper. Far superior to Karcher.

0
0

Re: "250 grams (1 pound)"

yeah... this stopped me mid sentence.

according to my drug dealer a pound is 448 grams... according to google it's 453.592.

21
0

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

The Register - Independent news and views for the tech community. Part of Situation Publishing