Unexplained Drones Are Swarming by Night Over Colorado (nytimes.com) 165
They come in the night: Drones -- lots of them -- flying in precise formations over the Colorado and Nebraska prairie. Whose are they? Unknown. Why are they there? Unclear. From a report: "It's creepy," said Missy Blackman, who saw three drones hovering over her farm outside Palisade, Neb., on a recent evening, including one that lingered right above her house. "I have a lot of questions of why and what are they, and nobody seems to have any answers." Since before Christmas, sheriff's departments in the region have been bombarded with reports of large drones with blinking lights and wingspans of up to 6 feet flying over rural towns and open fields. The drones have unnerved residents, prompted a federal investigation and made international news, even though they may be perfectly legal. And still, they remain unexplained. "In terms of aircraft flying at night and not being identified, this is a first for me personally," said Sheriff James Brueggeman of Perkins County, Neb., who has worked in law enforcement for about 28 years and who saw the drones while on patrol Tuesday night. The flights have drawn attention just as the Federal Aviation Administration last week proposed sweeping new regulations that would require most drones to be identifiable. Ian Gregor, a spokesman for the F.A.A., said that the timing of the proposed rule was coincidental, but that the agency had opened an investigation of the sightings in Colorado and Nebraska.
Survey and mapping (Score:3)
with that sort of size then they will be doing a survey/mapping mission most likely for oil and gas
nebraska has lots of oil and gas wells :
https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=d81c1b58437f4abfa0d8dec9b9d8627b [bit.ly]
regards
John Jones
Re:Survey and mapping (Score:5, Interesting)
The size of the drones does imply an organizational element though, so my guess is that it's the DEA surveying for drugs (climate controlled grow-ops are easier to spot via IR at night, which would fit with the timing and hovering over buildings like the farm in TFS), and they would probably have enough pull to stage an op like this without an FAA spokesdroid being provided with the full facts. IIRC, not *all* of Nebraska is legal for grow ops, so if there's a correlation between "low" and "high" counties then that would almost certainly explain it, unless they're just trying to get a feel for the total crop across the entire state.
or activists against oil and gas (Score:2)
drone built at home... the big oil companies dont like people actually finding out they polluted the drinking water...
Re:or activists against oil and gas (Score:4, Interesting)
Then again, it's remarkably hard to estimate the size of things in the air without something to scale from, so I'd take the 2m figure with a pinch of salt until more evidence is provided. TFA also doesn't specifically say *all* the drones are that big, so it could well be that the majority could easily be DJI Phantoms, M2Es, or similar COTS models optimized for surveying, which would seem more likely to be what an activist group would be flying, with a few larger ones in the mix from the DIY crowd.
CBS 9 in Denver: (Score:3)
Here's everyone who has denied responsibility for the drones: The Federal Aviation Administration told The Denver Post that it had no idea where the drones were coming from. The Air Force, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and US Army Forces Command denied responsibility. The Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management told Insider that the drones do not belong to the organization and while it is "not actively engaged" in the investigation, it has offered support to local jurisdictions. North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) told 9News that it is unaware of drone operations taking place in northeastern Colorado. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which has a drone program, told 9News that it is not conducting any work in Colorado and does not own any drone fleets like the ones described. Xcel Energy, which uses drones to inspect electricity and natural gas lines, told 9News that the drones spotted in Colorado and Nebraska don't belong to the company. Amazon, which uses drones for its Prime Air delivery service, told 9News that it is not responsible for the drone fleets. Google, which also has a drone delivery service, told 9News that it is not responsible for the drone fleets. A spokesman for the Colorado Oil and Gas Association told 9News that the drones were "interesting," but he didn't know whose they were. Black Swift Technology, a Denver-based company that researches the atmosphere and conducts area mapping, told 9News that it does not own any drones like the ones described. Drone mapping company Measure denied responsibility for the drones to 9News. Drone mapping company Juniper Unmanned denied responsibility, telling 9News that the drones it owns don't fly at night. The Colorado Department of Transportation denied responsibility, and also told 9News that it doesn't fly drones at night. Drone mapping company Adventure UAV told 9News that it is not responsible for the drones. Ride share app Uber, which has an FAA waiver to fly drones at night, told 9News that it does not fly drones in Colorado. Zipline International, which delivers medical supplies via drone, told 9News that it is not responsible for the drones. Flytcam Motion Pictures, which has an FAA waiver to fly drones at night, told 9News that it is not responsible for the drones.
NASA and SpaceX didn't immediately respond to Insider's requests for comment.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Sky Lark Zeta Sky Observer 2m Wingspan Long Range FPV RC Remote Control
Re: (Score:2)
Though I do wonder how accurate these reports are since they are only flying at night.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless it's DoD, then it's "Don't ask, Don't tell". And you'd be knee-deep in trouble if you do anything about them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why fly them at night then?
Re: (Score:3)
Why fly them at night then?
As per a comment above, IR is easier to see at night and/or the sensors for seeing IR at night are smaller
Re:Survey and mapping (Score:4, Interesting)
Consider also that the hunt might be for radiological specimens, too, like radioactive elements. That fact might also cause there to be little to no "official" information about the quest.
Could be a lost nuke, hunk of radium/thorium/uranium/etc.
You'd want to fly at night to remove the random amount of noise coming from the sun for better signal to noise levels.
Just speculation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it's ag-related, then the night time runs don't fit. What would you do if you had to do it in the dark? What "glows" in the dark?
Further, what kind of drones have a really diffuse dispersion pattern? Why would a diffuse dispersion pattern be useful? They might need to be distant---- from each other (think resolution using an internal source metric).
I'm absolutely AMUSED that no one's talking. Imagine the possible vulnerability this represents!! Somebody knows and isn't talking.
Re: (Score:2)
Duplicate (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
For a moment there I was thinking "another occurrence???" - turns out it's the same one. A change in the Matrix, it seems.
NOT a duplicate (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The 24th...
Although you can't rule out idiots, kids, or idiot kids, there's no rational reason for legal surveying or mapping in the dark without permits.
The primary tactical advantage of night time surveillance is discretion, as it makes the drones a bit more difficult shoot down... these sightings are being reported in the country.
Re: (Score:3)
Although you can't rule out idiots, kids, or idiot kids,
Typical.
I finally succeeded in chasing them off my lawn for good . . . and now they have taken to the skies!
Re: (Score:2)
But as others have pointed out, there are all sorts of non-discretion reasons to do surveys at night.
follow the swarm? (Score:5, Interesting)
how difficult can it be to track the swarm? it has to land sometime, somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear powered drones FTW!
Re: (Score:2)
Well let's think about it. These are large drones probably with considerable range. A bit far to chase with your own small drone. Likely too fast to chase in a car and they can fly in any direction where as you are stuck with roads of uneven terrain. They are probably too low for most radar systems in the area.
So yeah, probably not that easy to track.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they're that large. The reports from TFA seem a bit like 70's UFO witness interviews. No photographs of the activity, using binoculars at night to report no clear markings on the drones, and conflicting reports, such as that they come within 150' of residences and are "too far away too shoot down".
Re: (Score:2)
Why would a larger drone have considerable range? Larger drone = heavier = larger batteries = diminishing returns by adding more weight. They are flying at night so they aren't doing photogrammetry (cameras need light). Larger sensors for mapping like lidar would be expensive and with many drones it would be even more so cost prohibitive. Drones (non fixed wing ones) are fast but not faster than a vehicle, or a strong flashlight and a camera). Looking through meadows and fields with swarms of unlisted d
Re: (Score:2)
how difficult can it be to track the swarm?
Not very. But most likely:
a) People who would track the swarm don't care enough to actually do it since they are likely part of a perfectly legal and sanctioned operation anyway (just because you don't know something doesn't make it false).
b) People who complain about it don't care enough to actually do it since all they care about is writing angry letters.
Here comes the future (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Unexplained dups swarming /. by day (Score:3)
Can't shoot? Blah blah blah (Score:5, Funny)
OK, so no one has any idea where they are coming from or who owns them. And any official entity denies any involvement.
In that case, go ahead and shoot one down. Perfect way to see who owns them by who complains. "Oh, that was your flying thing? Sorry, I was aiming for the clay pigeons with my buddies and it flew in the way right as I fired."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But watch "Men In Black" first, so you can plan for the inevitable.
Re: (Score:2)
That neanderthal approach was ruled out in the TFA which states they are too high to shoot.
Re: (Score:2)
For a shotgun, sure. For a rifle, no.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone is missing the obvious answer (Score:3)
Since no-one has claimed ownership, these are obviously wild free-range drones that have formed a swarm on their own, and have grown in number and size as a result of escaping domestication.
Let them live peacefully in the skies above.
Re: (Score:2)
Unexplained? No one claims resposibility? (Score:2)
Simple. Shoot them down, see who complains.
Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
Your neighbors downrange might not be too happy with your solution, a 30-30 round can travel up to three miles.
Besides, it's illegal. They'll probably show up with the sheriff patrol in tow for destroying their property if you're lucky, if you're not they'll bring the FBI since it's a federal offense to shoot at aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a rural area. 3 miles might make it to the edge of the road by your neighbor's back lot. And no, it's not dangerous when coming down.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong.
https://forensicoutreach.com/l... [forensicoutreach.com]
Personally I've dug a spent round, probably from a deer rifle, out of a cedar tree. My skull is considerably less resistant than a chunk of cedar, YMMV.
New drone regs (Score:2)
Check them out yourself (Score:2)
I'm surprised that there isn't anybody around there with their own drone willing to take a closer look. Please live-stream the video for us, thanks.
Likely suspects (Score:2)
Given the size and so the cost of those drones, it is unlikely to be a private citizen.
Simple: Foxhunt the location of the transmitters (Score:2)
Re:Second amendment (Score:5, Informative)
Someone should fully exercise their rights on a drone or two.
Just make sure that you have acquired a proper Colorado Drone Hunting License:
https://www.latimes.com/nation... [latimes.com]
Re: Second amendment (Score:4, Informative)
Several years ago iran was able to down a stealth CIA Drone by confusing its GPS. I think downing it in working condition would produce more results. Determine the RF used to control it, jam the control signals and scramble GPS. It should automatically land as part of its safe recovery mode. Retrieve it and disconnect the power source.
Re: (Score:2)
Jamming GPS is probably illegal, both directly and as an unauthorized brodcast.
I don't see police or anyone ofticial getting bent out of shape over this, so it's probably a secret government thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Buzzing others' property can be treated as a hostile act.
Some states in the US have "Stand Your Ground" laws that permit folks to use weapons when threatened.
Maybe these laws will soon be extended to "Stand Your Air" . . . ?
Of course, the problem could be eliminated easily if a few folks stopped flying like assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
And of course the definition of "when threatened" is about as nebulous a concept as exists in US law, since it relies on the attacker's definition of whether they felt threatened or not. Some idiot tried to use 'stand your ground' as his defense when he shot through a locked door at someone outside.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.govinfo.gov/conten... [govinfo.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Buzzing others' property can be treated as a hostile act.
False. If your drone is in "navigable airspace" as defined by the FAA, any action against that drone would be a criminal offense. If you don't like that vote to change the laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Buzzing others' property can be treated as a hostile act.
Cool story. Maybe RTFA, no one is buzzing other's property.
Re: (Score:2)
yes you will. 18 USC 32 makes it a felony to destroy ANY aircraft, including drones.
Re: (Score:3)
Damn, you're fucking stupid.
You keep posting that bullshit, yet you don't realize that people have property rights, rights to self defense, etc.
No, the FAA does not own every fucking molecule of air above your property, even if they say they do.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure your neighbors will be excited when spent shot starts falling on their home as well, although probably not "excited" the way you might like.
Re:Second amendment (Score:4, Funny)
For someone "Way Smarter Than You" you seem to have the mentality of a neanderthal.
Maybe, but what a great illustration of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome.
Re:Second amendment (Score:4, Informative)
You have no right to destroy other's property.
You have a right to self-defense against threats, and an unidentifiable arial object going over one's private property other than a licensed aircraft is a potential life-threatening thing; this could be something belonging to a terrorist organization, foreign military, or government.
This cannot be a legally operated UAV, since the FAA's word on the subject mandates line of sight from the control station and prohibits unmanned drones at night past twilight; it is reckless and dangerous operation of a drone merely from the fact of it being in the air at night.
Re:Second amendment (Score:5, Informative)
The lawsuit mentioned in that blog post was dismissed in 2017 as the federal court ruled a lack of jurisdiction [wdrb.com].
Re:Second amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have a right to self-defense against threats, and an unidentifiable arial object going over one's private property other than a licensed aircraft is a potential life-threatening thing
Let's step through this shall we:
a) The drones are so high that even TFA points out that it wouldn't be possible to shoot them. So how much of a threat are they to you really?
b) Where is your evidence that they are not licensed. The only thing stated so far is that they are unidentified. It's completely presumptuous to straight away jump to the conclusion that they are unlicensed and don't have permission to do what they are doing. Information is not perfect, and if we did know everything about everyone no
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You do not need to register your aircraft with the FAA to fly it unless it's of a certain size or operated in certain areas.
You can build your own fucking autogyro and fly around all you want without asking the FAA as long as you're not getting in the way of an airport.
You REALLY seem to like sucking government ass.
Re: (Score:2)
"other than a licensed aircraft"
How do you know if any aircraft is licensed or not?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Nah, Way Smarter Than You has the mentality of NRA gun nut. Neanderthals didn't have guns. Our ancestors evolved into Way Smart Than You so he can use the Second Amendment to shoot at anything that upsets him.
For myself, I believe in adhering strictly to the Constitution. You get one muzzle loading firearm, and under the supervision of the local militia (which we now days know as the National Guard), you get to fire your weapon at designated targets. And no sneaky skivving off from your yearly 2 weeks Nat.
Re: (Score:2)
For someone claiming to adhere strictly, you just went and did the opposite by placing limitations and restrictions where they didn't exist.
Re:Second amendment (Score:4, Informative)
Please read the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, it's not long.
The reason that it says "arms" and not long guns, pistols, swords, whatever, is that the world was a different place. Many private merchant ships were better armed than many naval vessels. Every port town had a cannon battery. Traders often traveled with armed guards and ship convoys sometimes were accompanied by gunboats. Frontier communities often had mortars, rockets, grenades, and carriage-mounted multi-barrel muskets (predecessor to our automatic weapons) for defense against raiders, brigands, Indians, and Frenchmen. The "militia" was considered everyone in a community who could carry a weapon, often including women and older children, they were "regulated" by whatever residents had military experience and frontier communities actively recruited such people with offers of free land or other benefits.
Yes, the 2nd Amendment is outdated. Legally revise or repeal it, trying to do end runs around it, nibbling at the edges, or declaring it says something else entirely as you did just lets the neo-cons attack the other amendments with the same tactics. The automatic weapons ban led directly to the "free speech zones".
Re: (Score:2)
18 U.S.C. 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not in the United States you don't - unless you want to spend a dozen or more years in prison.
Take into account this case about precisely that in Mississippi: https://www.mlive.com/news/jac... [mlive.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In certain US states, you are allowed to protect private property with deadly force.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What if, instead of destroying it, you make it non-functional while over your property? Say, with something crude like a net. Then, if someone wants it back, they will have to trespass in order to get it.... which has clearer legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I see drones flying over my neighbor's property, I shoot them down for him. He does the same for me. When drone owners come looking for their drone, we each tell them that we don't know anything about a drone. We've never been sued. Not even close.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Second amendment (Score:5, Informative)
Under 200ft is the property owners air space. (This is why ham radio operators don't need a federal permit for towers under this height.) Get a long tom shotgun, it will cure the issue.
Um.. Not quite. The FAA literally regulates ALL airspace outside of a structure including the first 200 ft. Property owners do not "own" their airspace, it is federally regulated and is not yours to do with as you please.
The FAA chooses not to regulate structures under 200 feet tall in most areas, but they CAN and DO regulate airspace down to the ground near and around airports.
Finally, Amature Radio operators (of which I am one) are allowed to build antenna structures as high as they choose in most areas. There will be restrictions around airports of course, but they can generally build as high as they want where they want (per FAA rules). The FAA does put requirements on structures, including lighting and painting that go into effect when they are above 200 feet tall, but they don't control location or height. So a Ham can build a 250 foot tower on their property (not near an airport) and as long as you register it with the FAA and fulfill their lighting and color requirements the FAA won't stop you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
18 USC 32 makes it illgal for you to down a drone.
There is no federal law that makes the airspace above your property yours. Not a single law. The courts have set precedence at 85 ft in the 1940's (UNITED STATES v. CAUSBY). but no law explicitly states a height and the states do not have the authority to set limits.
Regardless of any distance above ground, shooting them down is a federal felony akin to shooting down any other plane.
Re:Second amendment (Score:5, Informative)
It's your airspace (possibly, depending on jurisdiction) - but that doesn't make it any less of a crime to damage other people's property while it's there - anymore than you can shoot someone in your living room without consequence - you're still bound by societies laws even on your own property.
It is indeed dependent on what jurisdiction. You hover over a home in Texas and you're trespassing. At that point the owner is legally allowed to shoot the drone. I represented a home owner that did just that. The cops didn't even press charges.
Now just because it's not criminally illegal doesn't mean it's not a civil tort that the operator could sue you over, so I don't recommend it as a first course of action.
As with many things these days, it comes down to people not being assholes. Here that means not flying random drones over other people's back yards. Some people get agitated if they think someone is snooping in their business.
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly as far as the current law is concerned, there's not much you can do about snoops - a drone flying above 300 feet with a decent telephoto lens still has a clear view of almost everything, while being outside your airspace in pretty much any jurisdiction - so you have no legal basis for retribution.
Re:Second amendment (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure that would be theft. If the tax collector parks in your driveway, good luck trying to claim that his car is now yours.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be a shame if some form of interference were to cause it to crash on my property.
The FCC would like a word with you. Depending on the details, using a radio frequency jammer to crash a drone is a federal crime. It is always illegal, though it may be only a civil infraction. This isn't new, either. It's been illegal to jam someone else's lawful transmission (which those drones are doing) since 1934. See section 333 of the Communications Act.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>The rule is that the landowner owns not only as much of the space above the ground as s/he occupies but also as much thereof as s/he may use in connection with the land. However, this right is not fixed. It varies with the varying needs and is coextensive with them.
https://aviation.uslegal.com/o... [uslegal.com]
So no - the airspace above your property generally id NOT considered to belong to you, unless you're actively using it.
Re: (Score:2)
... and different jurisdictions have different guidelines for where exactly the line is drawn. Unless the decision is completely clear-cut it's going to go to court, where regional precedent will have sway.
Re: (Score:2)
A safety threat? Not unless you shoot at it and it falls on you. The principle safety threat would be to whoever is downrange of you, a 30-30 round can travel up to three miles.
Re: (Score:2)
The trick is defining "threat". A trivial threat, a threat to life and limb, a threat to peace and quiet so you can get some restful sleep, or? Someone arguing with you of the wrong race is not a threat, and yet "stand your ground" has been used to justify murder in cases like that. It's all up to the jury in those states and how persuasive your lawyer is. Believe me, if the black guy shot the white guy in that Florida enclave after an altercation, the jury would have convicted, but the other way around
Re: (Score:2)
Banks and Credit Unions need your real IP, because the fraudsters are using faked/spoofed IP addresses. Insecure Transactions? yes that's a big 'no'. Most institutions even have entire countries on a block list, so if you're trying to check your account while in a blocked country, you won't succeed. Since a VPN, by design obfuscates your IP, most Financial Institut