Mysterious Drones Flying Nighttime Patterns Baffle Colorado Officials (thedenverchannel.com) 82
doug141 writes: At least 17 big drones, likely over the FAA limit of 55 pounds, are flying a grid search pattern over NE Colorado (Warning: source paywalled; alternative source), nightly between 7 and 10 p.m. at 40 MPH and about 300 feet. The FAA has no information and the USAF and DEA say the aircraft aren't theirs.
Looking for illegal Marihuana operations (Score:5, Interesting)
At night it's easier to see with thermographic cameras at night.
Re: (Score:2)
circular fields, with central pivot irrigation (Score:2)
Re:circular fields, with central pivot irrigation (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There is probably still a market for aerial photography, but at the level of building access roads (for seismic, for drilling, for extraction trucks or pipelines) and for the purpose of proving the absen
Re: (Score:2)
We've had such "sniff
Re: (Score:2)
That's what they were doing this past summer in the same area - using IR cameras to help with irrigation.
Re: (Score:2)
Or. Marijuana thieves who don't care as much if the growing operation is legit.
Looking for sacred cows. (Score:2)
But...but...legalization was suppose to take the crime out of the drug business.
Re:Looking for illegal Marihuana operations (Score:4, Funny)
You make a good point. It's tricky to see anything at night during the day.
Re: (Score:2)
At night it's easier to see with thermographic cameras at night.
Except that Marijuana cultivation is legal in Colorado.
Unless this is a Privateer looking for fields to raid for themselves...
Re: (Score:2)
Except that Marijuana cultivation is legal in Colorado.
Yes, but not all grows are legal. My understanding is that they don't spend so much effort on finding illegal grows in Colorado as here in California where they made the licensing scheme ridiculously onerous and therefore many people attempt to bypass it, but there's always someone.
Re: (Score:2)
This does not eliminate the profit margin of illicitly grown weed grown on someone else's property with no testing and no taxes paid.
not sayin', but ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude? He's clearly one of them aliens. That electric hair is a dead giveaway. My guess is he's Andromedan.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude? He's clearly one of them aliens. That electric hair is a dead giveaway. My guess is he's Andromedan.
No, silly!
Everyone knows that Andromedians look like this:
https://vignette.wikia.nocooki... [nocookie.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Yummy, I'll take two Andromedians that look like the one on the right, Alex...for $200.
Alex: Ah, but you didn't pose your response as a question, no Andromedians for you this Christmas.
Re: (Score:2)
He is hot!
Apple mapping systems (Score:1, Funny)
UFOs (Score:4, Funny)
Literally.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you freak out every time you see a plane in the sky and don't know who the pilot is?
Not knowing who is operating a drone doesn't make it a UFO.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, actually it does. It's unidentified (they don't know EXACTLY what kind of drone or who's operaring it, it's flying, and it's an object.
That's all a UFO is.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite - they've been identified as drones, just not who's drones. I think a UFO is when they don't even know what they're looking at is.
Re: (Score:2)
So they’re UFDs, then.
Yeah, not as catchy.
Re:Be the Americans you are (Score:5, Funny)
Ahh, we come in peace (shoot to kill, shoot to kill, shoot to kill) We come in peace (shoot to kill, shoot to kill men)
Re: Be the Americans you are (Score:1)
Star Trekkin' across the universe! Boldly going forward 'cause we can't find reverse!
shoot them down (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:shoot them down (Score:4, Informative)
'then they are fair game for anti-drone tech to take them all down'
No they are not. They appear to be operating legally in class G airspace. The craft aren't required to have externally visible markings. And most likely anyone that has that much money invested in multiple craft likes this has a part 107 waiver. Colorado has issued 72 of waivers https://www.auvsi.org/our-impa... [auvsi.org] . Mear operation doesn't necessarily imply that it is unauthorized.
Shooting one down would be no different than shooting a car that passed by the street in front of your house because you didn't know the reason for operation. Or, possibly in this case because registration expired.
Re: (Score:3)
You might also find out what prison rape is like.
Colorado law says the airspace isn't yours. You don't have a right to destroy other peoples property.
Im not saying the drones are a good thing. Clearly they are disturbing people. But getting all cowboy and shooting things you dont understand aint a sane response.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:shoot them down (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to have an odd idea of how the law works.
if even the FAA & FCC and whatever government entity that is required to be notified of these drones dont know about them,
What makes you think any notification of any agency is required? Are you required to file a report with the government every time you fly a kite or buy a helium balloon?
then they could very well be illegal
"They could be breaking the law." Is no excuse for shooting them down, any more than "He could have killed somebody." is an excuse for shooting a random pedestrian.
Re: (Score:1)
There are regulations in that weight class. Something that big falling on someone's head is going to be significantly more dangerous than a kite or a helium balloon.
Re:shoot them down (Score:4, Insightful)
You are correct. I deal with larger drones for my job and we can't fly them over public areas. Any testing has to be done over airfields. Oh and they all have tail numbers registered with the FAA. I never gave it much thought until lifting one. 40 pounds falling from the sky is lethal.
Re: (Score:2)
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Not so, organized crime does it too. And it is only because to the State that private enterprises generally can't do it.
Re: (Score:2)
But only for the short term. When the state finally catches up to them, those ill-gotten profits are all legally forfeit.
Re: (Score:2)
From an operating altitude of 300ft (100m), a single 454g mass (I think that's a pound, but I'm not sure if American or Imperial) is sufficient to be lethal, for some shapes. Wearing a hard hat would probably shift the odds considerably in the target's favour - which is why they're required on worksites with "overhead work".
Actually, at such low masses and long drops, air resistance (and therefore object shape and density) become significant questions.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because a drone (or airplane for that matter) is properly registered, doesn't mean you'll be able to identify it in the air. Last I checked you're not legally required to carry a transponder, nor register a flight plan, so long as you stay out of restricted airspace (commercial or military)
Re: (Score:2)
Crop dusters frequently fly around a few hundred feet above the ground, and they aren't required to notify anybody unless they fly in and out of controlled airspace.
Re: (Score:2)
Shooting one down would be no different than shooting a car that passed by the street in front of your house
The car is probably manned, the drones aren't. On the other hand, shooting at a car will get local law enforcement after you, while shooting at a drone involves the feds.
Re: shoot them down (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe The FAA considers unmanned aircraft of any size to be covered under Title 18 of the United States Code 32, which describes “sabotage to include destruction of any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States.” Violation of this code carries a maximum prison sentence of 20 years.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd build a GPS jammer, you could easily do it with a hackRF. If drones lose GPS signal they go into hover mode. Eventually the batteries will give out and do an emergency landing.
Re: (Score:1)
https://www.fcc.gov/general/ja... [fcc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Some drones, with which you have some familiarity, may do that. Others may do differently. Unless you can cite all the laws which apply in your country, then all the exceptions. That should take you a few days writing.
The computational demands of terrain following and dead reckoning are pretty low these days. Even "find a flat area, land and turn on the come-hither strobe" isn't exactly hard to think through, and when your drone's weight is "on it's feet" t
Re: (Score:2)
Shooting down drones means putting bullets in the air with no backdrop, and very little hint of where they might come down. A fisherman has demonstrated that fishing rods with ordinary weights on the line are very effective, much safer, and you can recover your inexpensive ammunition. There is an excellent recording from the drone of just such a takedown at https://petapixel.com/2015/08/... [petapixel.com] .
They have no information... but they haven't (Score:1)
taken them down yet
my bet is they know
i say less than 24 h until at least one of them is brought down
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of possibilities: probably legal (Score:3)
I don't see anything to indicate that the drones are operating illegally. (thought this may be an indication that rules on drone use need updating). I could imagine all sorts of remote sensing technology tests for some company that for reasonable competitive reasons doesn't want to reveal what it is doing.
The night time operation is interesting, but could just indicate that the work is being done on the drones during normal work hours.
Or it could be deeply suspicious surveillance
Re: (Score:1)
A few years of spending and state/federal funding should still show in budgets.
The federal gov has the money but needs local police to collect the data.
Watch for the spending "tell" to get around poor city police and federal limits on who the FBI can legally collect on.
The local police ned the FBI level budgets...so its a team effort to buy federally and keep the resulting data sets local.
The federal gov brings the cash, the states keep the data as the
Re: (Score:2)
The rules are
* not in restricted airspace
* below 450 feet
* below 55 pounds
* within line of sight of the operator
I won't put any confidence in their mass measurements without a photo. 55 pounds is huge, and it's easy to overestimate the mass of a UAS..
Re: Lots of possibilities: probably legal (Score:2)
Obvious (Score:4, Funny)
Strange things happening in an isolated part of Colorado? They must belong to John Galt, of course.
Re: (Score:1)
Strange things happening in an isolated part of Colorado? They must belong to John Galt, of course.
Who is John Galt? ;^)
John Galt is (Score:2)
the mythical superhero of an anti-christian movement from a teenage fiction book by a lady with daddy issues; that far too many people never matured beyond... but unlike comics, it's slow, dull, and without pictures. It continues the Russian tradition of self subversion which forever dooms their country.
Go ahead, take down a drone, or just watch closely (Score:5, Interesting)
Following is an incomplete list of defense contractors in Colorado. Law enforcement agencies, wildlife management [state.co.us], and fire prevention [colorado.gov] are also researching drones. If you take down a drone because you think it is operating illegally, or perhaps beause you just don't like them, you should be prepared to be the center of a shit-storm of legal action.
Alternately, you could acquire a cheap software defined radio [bliley.com] and run something like dump1090 [satsignal.eu] (don't forget UAT on 978 mhz [stackexchange.com]) and watch very closely what is, or isn't, broadcasting it's location. Online services like Flightaware won't show low and slow little things, and will also filter out signals requested by operators for privacy reasons, so receiving the data yourself is the only way to be sure if something is broadcasting. If a drone is designed to be operated over a municipal area, then it might be broadcasting ADS-B [wikipedia.org] information that will at least tell you it's FAA registration information. If a drone is not broadcasting ADS-B info and it flies outside of class G airspace [wikipedia.org], and you can document it with good photographs and recorded ADS-B data of other, overhead aircraft (airlines are everywhere), then you've just documented a regulation violation that jeopardizes everyone's safety, especially civilian aviation. Please report it to the FAA [faa.gov] and local law enforcement with as much data as you can. But please, don't take the law into your own hands. It would be silly to face legal action because you interfered with an agency legally tasked with counting antelope.
Lockheed Martin: [google.com]
Ball Aerospace [google.com]
Ratheon [google.com]
Sierra Nevada Corporation [google.com]
Northrop Grumman> [google.com]
Re: Go ahead, take down a drone, or just watch clo (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, whoever is doing the flying KNOWS the cat is out the bag. Dumb don't know statements don't cut the mustard. They better come clean.
There's nothing to come clean about, and trying to bring down such drones with fishing line or balloons will land you in a world of hurt from which you cannot hide. High-end drone sensors can see such things quite well. The chances of these drones being operated by local or federal law enforcement is quite high, and if they are being operated by a defense contractor in test and development, then they'll have both federal and local law enforcement on speed dial. You really don't want to poke that bear. C
Drone registry? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
No.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of this made no sense to me.
What has the article got to do with helicopters?
What does "Criminals collect on all transport ..." mean?
" ... retrofit with collection ..." ?
Can anyone make sense of this?
First Contact (Score:3)
Could this be the explanation? (Score:1)