91–100 of 150 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Knocking a slow moving object out of the sky is literally not rocket science. No, but it's not a matter of some yahoos with a gun shooting them: https://twitter.com/sommervilletv/status/1080724993238069249
Pistols and rifles, not birdshot? RPGs? What a complete joke. If you put these morons in charge of hunting birds they'd probably conclude that shooting birds doesn't work either. Try hunting birds with pistols and rifles and you'll have the same result. Meanwhile in Kentucky: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/judge-rules-in-f... Meanwhile in Virginia: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/65-year-old-…
Furthermore, imagine you have your dream-drone-killer... how do you even find them? Neither of these recent sightings were even verified to be drones, they just received reports of sightings, therefore initially they would need to deploy devices to find/verify them. Once spotted, it wouldn't be hard to send a couple trained shooters with shotguns loaded with birdshot, assuming knowing their location isn't already enough to find the pilots...
Do they really have to be so paranoid about drones?
note: will be buying my drone today before the US FAA gets any brights ideas.
Just as in Gatwick before this, the police and the airport are not able to produce even grainy footage of a drone that is supposedly "buzzing" the tower. Gatwick reported "67 sightings", but couldn't confirm if some (all?) were their own drones [1]. And now Parliament is tabling new powers for the police [2]. Was there ever any evidence presented that there was ever a drone present? Is there any evidence that this wa…
They were not all of their drones, because reports were coming in before the police had launched any drones. Among the people reporting drone sightings before the police turned up at Gatwick were pilots
Considering that a passenger jet on final approach has a speed > 300 km/h and that a household drone is something like 30 cm wide you wonder how many of these drones were in fact hovering kestrels on the hunt for voles. How can you distinguish the two?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does Heathrow bear a resposibility to prove anything to you or any other random person on the internet? You seem to be insinuating some conspiracy by asking vague questions.
Err, yes, yes they do if it's going to be used as justification to pass sweeping new police powers.
Just as in Gatwick before this, the police and the airport are not able to produce even grainy footage of a drone that is supposedly "buzzing" the tower. Gatwick reported "67 sightings", but couldn't confirm if some (all?) were their own drones [1]. And now Parliament is tabling new powers for the police [2]. Was there ever any evidence presented that there was ever a drone present? Is there any evidence that this wa…
IMO the odds of this being a mass hysteria event are at least 3:1 versus an actual drone being intentionally flown to disrupt air traffic. I would say it’s less likely an intentional misinformation campaign to get new police powers, but even that is more likely than an intentional drone attack, again just my opinion. It’s absolutely incumbent on the authorities to provide incontrovertible evidence of an illegal drone…
Someone needs to invent a drone interceptor that just flys into another drone and ruins the props.
To those wondering why we can't just take down the drones, it's not as simple as a jammer or a shotgun. Jamming drones is a non starter for the most part. You can make a drone operate on just about any frequency you want and with modern equipment becoming more frequency agile, this will only get worse. A simple thought experiment would be a drone using GSM for video and control. Can you just jam all phones? Obviously…
Birdshot has such small energy when falling you hardly feel it. It is more like rain. No way it would damage the skin of an aircraft.