• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

OT: Unmanned Aerial Drones for SPD - Public meeting

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,
1. They have had a variance from the FAA for quite a while.
2. They have had the FCC license for quite a while.
3. They're stupidly simple to jam, and ergo, crash.
4. They're not armored, and quite delicate... Prone to any... shall we say... airborne metallic particles.

Uplink and downlink are NOT encrypted, which means anyone worth 2 ***** with radios and computers can not only see what they're seeing, but control it/jam it.

It's an OTS system, with limited range. We're talking a few hundred yards tops. IOTW, if the drone is in range, so is the officer.
 

OlGutshotWilly

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
443
Location
Snohomish, WA, ,
Autonomous quad drones are a reality. They can map and fly themselves through buildings and crowded structures.
http://iarc.angel-strike.com/symposium2012.php

You can run, but can't hide.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjQPHprBTPs

Compare the model airplane with the $52,000 BAT. 14km ranges flying autonomously at 150m or less altitude.
http://jornada.nmsu.edu/bibliography/07-033.pdf

This one is autonomous, but tethered. Imagine this one when the tether goes away. These are not your toy model 2.4hz quad rotors.
http://www.suasnews.com/2012/02/122...autonomous-hovering-platform-makes-its-debut/

Have fun with this one. Many pages of police requests and plans to order more and bigger drones. Seattle is small potatoes.
http://www.suasnews.com/category/police/

Pay attention to the one that is built for wind and rain:
http://www.suasnews.com/2012/10/19071/crpf-to-buy-advanced-uavs-to-fight-naxals/

AND.........it's already started. Be glad you are not in his shoes. Apparently not ALL the predator drones are in the war zones:
http://www.suasnews.com/2012/04/14477/first-man-arrested-with-drone-evidence-vows-to-fight-case/

Although this is just an article in a newsmagazine, anyone who is a pilot, and follows the AOPA and FAA websites, knows that drones are coming to your local airspace soon.
http://theweek.com/article/index/228830/the-drone-over-your-backyard-a-guide

Putting on your tinfoil hats will not stop this transformation.
 

OlGutshotWilly

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
443
Location
Snohomish, WA, ,
No. Clearly you may not. (Red herring, I know ;))
14 CFR 91.119
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface--

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

Rapgood,
Part 91 119 (Delta 1) actually would let you operate a helicopter 8 feet above the property in question as long as it was conducted "without hazard to persons or property on the surface".

Congested area as used in Part 91 is more of a Subjective term rather than a well defined Objective term, open to argument by FAA lawyers:)

IE: This regulation first appeared in the Air Commerce Regulations of 1926. The purpose of the rule is to provide minimum safe altitudes for flight and to provide adequate protection to persons on the ground. Unfortunately, neither the FAA nor the NTSB has ever provided airmen with a precise definition of what constitutes a "congested area." Rather, a "congested area" is determined on a case-by-case basis. According to the Board, "the determination must take into consideration all circumstances, not only the size of an area and the number of homes or structures, but, for example, whether the buildings are occupied or people are otherwise present, such as on roads."
http://www.aerolegalservices.com/Articles/Congested Areas Under FAR 91-119 2008-08-28.shtml
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
OlGutshotWilly I followed one of the links you provided and I do not have an issue with them using drones as in these case, Once it was found he had 6 cows that belonged to another and law enforcement came out that is when he ran them off with rifles and when they returned to serve a warrant is when they used the drone to locate him, might I add to reduce the threat to all involved.


First Man Arrested With Drone Evidence Vows to Fight Case
The bizarre case started when six cows wandered onto Rodney Brossart’s 3,000 acre farm. Brossart, an alleged anti-government “sovereignist,” believed he should have been able to keep the cows, so he and two family members chased police off his land with high powered rifles.

After a 16-hour standoff, the Grand Forks police department SWAT team, armed with a search warrant, used an agreement they’ve had with Homeland Security for about three years, and called in an unmanned aerial vehicle to pinpoint Brossart’s location on the ranch. The SWAT team stormed in and arrested Brossart on charges of terrorizing a sheriff, theft, criminal mischief, and other charges, according to documents.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Interestingly enough, at least one Washington court has held that, as the owner/tenant of the curtilage, that owner/tenant can take aim with a firearm at your Cessna and you and be within the law, State v. McKinley, 87 Wn. App. 394, 397-398 (1997) (although I strongly discourage one from doing so), while another says you can't, State v. Smith, 118 Wn. App. 480, 93 P.3d 877 (2003), review denied, 151 Wn.2d 1014 (2004). This poignant contrast provides a clear and succinct example of the dearth of absolutes in the law.

Really? where do I find the full text of that opinion? I've punched that info in and came up with nothing.

I can think of no reason whatsoever a court would rule you can take pot shots at aircraft passing over your property.

I certainly think it would constitute a violation of CFR 91.11
§ 91.11
Prohibition on interference with crewmembers.
No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated.


There is nothing in Washington law on use of force (RCW 9A.16.020) that allows the use of force in those circumstances. furthermore the state cannot confer any rights of propert to use of airspace above your house, federal law (49 USC § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace) Says that the Government of the United States has exclusive sovereignty over the airspace of the United States. there is no legal way in hell you can shoot at an aircraft in flight unless it's like a Chinese helicopter or something and you're part a resistance movement named after your high school mascot.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Interestingly enough, at least one Washington court has held that, as the owner/tenant of the curtilage, that owner/tenant can take aim with a firearm at your Cessna and you and be within the law, State v. McKinley, 87 Wn. App. 394, 397-398 (1997) (although I strongly discourage one from doing so), while another says you can't, State v. Smith, 118 Wn. App. 480, 93 P.3d 877 (2003), review denied, 151 Wn.2d 1014 (2004). This poignant contrast provides a clear and succinct example of the dearth of absolutes in the law.

Should I be able to find those LexNex?
 

Sparky508

Newbie
Joined
Jul 10, 2009
Messages
347
Location
Graham, , USA
Prohibition on interference with crewmembers.
No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated.


Well since these are unmanned, and no crew member should be aboard, and that devices similar but not exactly in construction to these have been termed "predator" drones, I believe we are in the clear per the WDFW's rules regarding taking them under acts of depredation.

I'm thinking number 2 or 1 size shot, non toxic of course, through a modified or improved cylinder choke. :confused:
 

bmg50cal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
306
Location
WA - North Whidbey/ Deception Pass
Get a Metro Barrel extended choke tube...

http://www.hastingsdistribution.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=28

MB-in-use.jpg


image001.jpg
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
Really? where do I find the full text of that opinion? I've punched that info in and came up with nothing.
I believe that you did come up with nothing.
I can think of no reason whatsoever a court would rule you can take pot shots at aircraft passing over your property.

I certainly think it would constitute a violation of CFR 91.11
§ 91.11
Prohibition on interference with crewmembers.
No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated.
Maybe. But, I think that is one helluva stretch in interpreting the law. I would gladly defend that case!

There is nothing in Washington law on use of force (RCW 9A.16.020) that allows the use of force in those circumstances. furthermore the state cannot confer any rights of propert to use of airspace above your house, federal law (49 USC § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace) Says that the Government of the United States has exclusive sovereignty over the airspace of the United States. there is no legal way in hell you can shoot at an aircraft in flight unless it's like a Chinese helicopter or something and you're part a resistance movement named after your high school mascot.
Bzzzt! Red herring argument! "Use of force" had absolutely nothing to do with the decision. And, again, I encourage you to do your homework before hitting the "Reply" button. It brings to mind the analogy of attempting to teach a dog how to sing. It makes you look foolish... and it pisses off the dog.

Should I be able to find those LexNex?
Yes. If you have trouble, let me know and I'll PM you copies of the ones you cannot access.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
I believe that you did come up with nothing.

Maybe. But, I think that is one helluva stretch in interpreting the law. I would gladly defend that case!


Bzzzt! Red herring argument! "Use of force" had absolutely nothing to do with the decision. And, again, I encourage you to do your homework before hitting the "Reply" button. It brings to mind the analogy of attempting to teach a dog how to sing. It makes you look foolish... and it pisses off the dog.


Yes. If you have trouble, let me know and I'll PM you copies of the ones you cannot access.

well I need to read that decision, but I can't find it anywhere. the only case I can find involving a Washington court that year with that title involved unlawful possession of a firearm.
Use of a firearm is an act of force, if you are not justified in using force you're commiting assault or murder, or vandalism if you damage my plane. you cannot legally shoot at my plane for any reason unless I'm threatening you to a proper degree nessecary with it.

so if you have a copy of that opinion please put it up. and if you feel so confident why don't you try shooting at some aircraft and tell us how it works out for ya....
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
well I need to read that decision, but I can't find it anywhere. the only case I can find involving a Washington court that year with that title involved unlawful possession of a firearm.
Try the sixth floor of the King County Courthouse. It's called a "law library" and that is where, historically, copies of all court decisions are stored; including State v. McKinlay, 87 Wn. App. 394, 397-398 (1997).

Use of a firearm is an act of force, if you are not justified in using force you're commiting [sic] assault or murder, or vandalism if you damage my plane. you cannot legally shoot at my plane for any reason unless I'm threatening you to a proper degree nessecary [sic] with it.

so if you have a copy of that opinion please put it up. and if you feel so confident why don't you try shooting at some aircraft and tell us how it works out for ya....

Again, you are much too quick on the "Reply" button, and less considered in your response. If you had actually read my reference to McKinlay, you would have noted that I specifically discouraged all from following Mr. McKinlay's lead...

In addition to the Law Library, you might also want to look at what Google returned.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Try the sixth floor of the King County Courthouse. It's called a "law library" and that is where, historically, copies of all court decisions are stored; including State v. McKinlay, 87 Wn. App. 394, 397-398 (1997).

I have limited funds for travel to king county, I'm sure the Kitsap law library has it, and that's where I was going if no one came up with it online



Again, you are much too quick on the "Reply" button, and less considered in your response. If you had actually read my reference to McKinlay, you would have noted that I specifically discouraged all from following Mr. McKinlay's lead...

And I also misread you, I thought you said the decision said you could fire at aircraft, after re-reading I realize I was wrong in how I first read your claim, and for that I apologize

In addition to the Law Library, you might also want to look at what Google returned.

Thanks.
 

xd shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
333
Location
usa
As a manufacturer and supplier of R/C aircraft to LE, as well as "other" govt agencies, I feel I should dispel a few myths and misconceptions about these aircraft.

These aircraft can be as small as a hummingbird, and as large as your typical GA full size aircraft. I can only talk about the medium sized birds, between 5 and 50 Lbs AUW, as that's our area of expertise and use.

We supply Helicopter type aircraft, both single rotor and multirotor, with anywhere from 10 minutes to 3 hours of flight time, utilizing Battery power, Turbine Power, and Gas power. These aircraft can be flown at night as well.

We have supplied LE, at both the state and local level, USAF, USA, and USN (strangely no Marine use...Yet :) ), EPA, DOT of a number of States, and of course individual Civilians used to do AP (Aerial Photography).

Some of these aircraft are flown Manually, some have full GPS Waypoint Navigation, most are flown LOS (line of sight), but those with the GPS Waypoint CAN be flown further away, including out of range of the radio used to fly the aircraft.

Todays radio systems are designed to be interference proof, though you MAY be able to view any video being downlinked if you can find the right channel and freq being used, whether 900 mhz, 1.3 ghz, 2.4 ghz, or 5.8 ghz.

Now, How are these being used?.....

My LE Customers are using these aircraft for accident site reconstruction pictures, which is required by Law when there has been a fatal accident. Imagine if you will, an accident on a major highway, which of course ties up traffic for HOURS.... When you finally get up to the accident site, there's a bunch of people standing around, seemingly doing nothing. Why aren't they cleaning up the site, clearing the road, getting traffic moving? Because they are waiting on the unit involved with the investigation to get their pics and description of what happened. In a lot of these cases, overhead pics are the most telling, so they may be waiting on a vehicle such as a ladder truck to get high enough to get these overhead pics. Of course it's not as simple as just putting the ladder up, the truck has to be rigged first, then the ladder goes up, then someone climbs up there for a pic or 2.

Good, except now they need a pic from the other side of the accident. Stow the ladder, rig the truck to move, move the truck, rerig it for ladder ops, put the ladder up, etc, etc, etc....Point is, it's quite a lengthy process for a few pics....Typically taking 2-4 hours.

A better idea is one of our aircraft, getting the SAME job done in 30 minutes.

Imagine also a Meth lab operation, either in a home or in an outdoor area, about to be taken down, but the SWAT Commander wants some overhead intel of the fenced in backyard or the surrounding areas for possible threats or avenues of escape. Call in the Full size, noisy, and expensive to operate helicopter, OR Throw one of my birds in the air thats quieter, cheaper, and if it get shot at or shot down, no one gets hurt.

BTW, both of the above scenarios HAVE taken place (the accident investigations and Meth Lab takedowns). So far no one has shot at one of my birds, that I'm aware of. :)

Could they be abused by LE? Of course. Just as some in LE abuse their power and authority. And just like in those cases, any abuse of UAS's will have to settled by the court system. The officers that I have trained and worked with are VERY conscious of the potential to invade someone's privacy and seemed very careful of where and when they would be operating these birds. Consider that they WANT the ability to use these aircraft for lawful purposes and would NOT want a case be brought up concerning privacy issues that may ground them.

The benefit of these aircraft do outweigh there potential for abuse, UAS's (Unmanned Aircraft System's) have been used for SAR, locating lost children and bad guys hiding in a bushy area with the use of FLIR, I personally helped in the search for Stacy Peterson using one of my aircraft (didn't find her unfortunately :( ), and have searched for signs of Bigfoot!!

Those that are concerned about privacy of their backyard, have you looked at google maps lately? Obviously it's not realtime, but go see what Google shows inside your Privacy fence... :)


Just my .02 on the matter, from my unique perspective. :)

multi.jpg
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
SPD holds drone show and tell
http://www.king5.com/news/cities/seattle/SPD-holds-drone-show-and-tell-149268715.html
Seattle Police are showing off the unmanned aerial vehicles (aka drones) they're testing, thanks to permission the department got from the FAA.
KING 5 News's Linda Brill reports that the SPD's drone is called the Dragonflyer X6. It's just larger than a breadbox and weighs about 3 pounds. It has three cameras --still, video and infra red.
The Dragonflyer has a short battery life, SPD said. It can fly for about ten minutes before it needs a battery change.
This drone is not programmed to fly autonomously. FAA rules require two people to operate it, and the FAA requires police to clear an area below where the drone is flying.


Seattle police don't plan to use high tech drones for surveillance

http://www.king5.com/news/cities/se...itizens-using-high-tech-drones-149176185.html

There's a lot of concern about the Seattle Police Department's testing of drones. Police say they do not intend to use them for general surveillance. KING 5's Linda Brill takes a look at the technology and the tensions.


Seattle police want right to videotape protesters
http://www.king5.com/news/cities/se...-right-to-videotape-protesters-149159635.html

SEATTLE -- Seattle police want the right to videotape protests and public demonstrations as a proactive way to fight crime. A city law makes that illegal, so the department is asking for a change in that would let officers track certain people through a camera's lens.

SPD points to the Occupy the Port protest last fall, at which masked protestors threw bricks and paint at police. Once trouble broke out, police turned their cameras on.
Could the violence have been prevented if officers had been videotaping before the demonstration?
"The police department would do open videotaping of demonstrations for the sole intent of protecting those who are exercising the First Amendment from those who would harm them," said Sgt. Sean Whitcomb, Seattle Police Department.
Under current city law, police are not allowed to collect information about citizens without cause.
According to Seattle Municipal Code, "No person shall become the subject of the collection of information on account of lawful exercise of a constitutional right or civil liberty." Changing the law requires city council approval.
The city law was passed in the late 1970s after it was revealed that SPD had amassed secret files on political activists, including Charles Royer, who went on to become mayor.
"In an open and free society, we should expect to engage in political activity without surveillance and videotaping," said Jennifer Shaw of the ACLU.
On Seattle streets, there a a difference of opinion on the issue.

The SPD is also testing two airborne surveillance vehicles (aka drones) equipped with cameras, which they say they do not intend to use for surveillance on protests.


 

bmg50cal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
306
Location
WA - North Whidbey/ Deception Pass
KING 5 News's Linda Brill reports that the SPD's drone is called the Dragonflyer X6.

King 5 misspelled it... Draganflyer...

Already linked to in the thread... ;)

By the way they are very expensive; last time I looked a lesser model was over $15,000 a few years ago. I better start OCing a wrist rocket with me in Seattle... :D

http://www.draganfly.com/

[video=youtube;1rff4IvB3tA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rff4IvB3tA[/video]
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
Seattle police want right to videotape protesters
http://www.king5.com/news/cities/se...-right-to-videotape-protesters-149159635.html

SEATTLE -- Seattle police want the right to videotape protests and public demonstrations as a proactive way to fight crime. A city law makes that illegal, so the department is asking for a change in that would let officers track certain people through a camera's lens.

Under current city law, police are not allowed to collect information about citizens without cause.
According to Seattle Municipal Code, "No person shall become the subject of the collection of information on account of lawful exercise of a constitutional right or civil liberty." Changing the law requires city council approval.

And all this time I thought it took an amendment to the Constitution to prohibit the anonymous exercise of Constitutional Rights and Civil Liberties currently protected under the penumbra of the Bill of Rights. Now, I learn that all it takes is a vote by the city council. That sure is convenient for them!
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
And all this time I thought it took an amendment to the Constitution to prohibit the anonymous exercise of Constitutional Rights and Civil Liberties currently protected under the penumbra of the Bill of Rights. Now, I learn that all it takes is a vote by the city council. That sure is convenient for them!

anonymous? If I wanted to go to a public demonstration and ask everyone their name and then write those names down in a notebook before going home is that illegal?

I mean if it's in someone's house I can understand. but a public gathering on a public square or street one can't observe what people are doing?
 
Top