Don't fly near airports you could lose your drone. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/l ... rones-a3232581.html

Yes, that is just the same old crap being regurgitated by a media who has nothing better to report on. All these stupid ideas have been aired before on this forum, some are stupid, most completely impossible technology wise.

They sure do have 1. Net guns and 2. Net Drones that will chase yours and snag it ( its probably faster than yours too, unless your in Sport mode). Ive seen the videos of them in action.

They are being made for, bought, and employed by airport security around the country.

Frankly,  if you are foolish and irresponsible enough to fly near airports,  you deserve to lose your drone.

FatedFilmsNC Posted at 2016-4-26 15:07
They are being made for, bought, and employed by airport security around the country.

And if they are, they are likely a total waste of money.
What's been demonstrated so far would require having an anti-drone and operator on standby within a few hundred metres of wherever an evil drone is likely to appear.
That would require a lot of anti-drone drones and operators to provide coverage for any large airport.
And if ever used for real their effectiveness is likely to be very disappointing.

labroides@yahoo Posted at 2016-4-26 19:17
And if they are, they are likely a total waste of money.
What's been demonstrated so far would requ ...

Correct, and in every demonstration I have seen, the 'dangerous' Phantom drone just sits in the one place while the valiant defender drone comes along and snags it. Come on, what a load of rubbish, no-one in their right mind is going to sit and wait to be caught. And if they decide to run, I bet the Phatom can outrun the other drone.

When you watch these ridiculous demonstrations, don't be fooled by these staged events. I tell you now, if they tried to catch my drone, I would ram them and take out their expensive drone.

FatedFilmsNC Posted at 2016-4-26 15:07
They are being made for, bought, and employed by airport security around the country.

Do you have evidence of that?

Geebax Posted at 2016-4-26 19:26
Do you have evidence of that?

So far all I've seen is a bunch of over-optimistic promos from companies hoping to snag some high value contracts from gullible government departments.
This is the most recent one I've seen:  http://www.engadget.com/2016/03/ ... anti-drone-bazooka/
"It can drop a wayward quadcopter from 100 meters."
But first they have to get an operator somewhere within 100 metres of the evid drone.

labroides@yahoo Posted at 2016-4-26 19:59
So far all I've seen is a bunch of over-optimistic promos from companies hoping to snag some high  ...

And, more importantly, the drone has to stay within range and keep quite still, otherwise that thing is useless, like all the other netting devices.

Geebax Posted at 2016-4-27 06:17
And, more importantly, the drone has to stay within range and keep quite still, otherwise that thi ...

labroides@yahoo Posted at 2016-4-26 17:59
So far all I've seen is a bunch of over-optimistic promos from companies hoping to snag some high  ...

actual nab at 2:40

Cute videos, but they only help make my point. The flying device has only one shot, and none of the target vehicles were making any real effort to evade it.

Here's one that will easily take down a moving drone.


RedHotPoker

Geebax Posted at 2016-4-27 06:57
Cute videos, but they only help make my point. The flying device has only one shot, and none of the  ...

Then you didn't watch the videos I just posted. In one of them, one drone operator tries to outrun the drone with the net, before it ultimately gets snagged. They exist people, and are currently residing with dozens of airport security personnel across the country. If somebody calls the cops to say they spotted somebody flying their drone near the airport, airport security would just simply go and grab the net drone and fly out towards the rogue drone. And, If your flying your drone and you see another drone flying towards you, your not gonna think that it's a drone that's about to shoot a net and catch yours, so your unlikely to try to make an escape (since you don't know the other drone is targeting yours).

FatedFilmsNC Posted at 2016-4-28 05:26
Then you didn't watch the videos I just posted. In one of them, one drone operator tries to outrun ...

Yes, I did watch the video clip, and all the others. No-one was seriously trying to escape, they all put up a modicum of fight and just got snagged. I would put up a P4 against one of those any day and the P4 would always win. And any airport that has bought one has wasted its money, as there are so few credible reports of drones roaming around airports.

If you really want to take down a drone, then a shotgun is a far more practical way of doing it, they are cheap, already exist and have mulit-shot capability. And if the 'rogue drone' can be proved to be endangering lives, then no judge will ever convict you for using it.

Geebax Posted at 2016-4-27 18:30
Yes, I did watch the video clip, and all the others. No-one was seriously trying to escape, they al ...

Umm..actually, you will get in more trouble shooting down a drone, why do you think people are trying to develop these net technologies? It is ILLEGAL to shoot any real gun up into the air in the majority of states, as what goes up, must come down...Mythbusters actually found two people who had been hit by bullets coming back down...one fatally. So yea, there's a reason people aren't lining up to put forth the idea of shooting down rogue drones. Best believe the White House will shoot your drone down (if you manage to fly your drone there) because security>everything there

I don't understand the argument about it being allegedly 'technologically challenging' to create countermeasures for drones to defend an airspace.

Most civies certainly don't have access to such technologies but rest assured the capabilities are already there?

Look at Raytheon and the line of products they offer. Probably won't be with a projectile based system like the Phalanx, but perhaps a lasing one would work just fine as active drone countermeasures in protecting restricted airspace.

Death Ray? No..
The tech is quite simple to bring down a UAS.
GPS and WiFi jamming systems can be used to make your bird drop like a rock.
Of course doing so is illegal for regular citizens, but international airports should really have a this.

What makes me laugh, is that everyone thinks you need a potato type gun to direct the signals to point to the drone and pull a trigger when in fact they can place in a ground styled shield type emitters to disrupt the UAS and force it to land.

Also makers of UAS also have the Geofencing for restricted areas to prevent the UAS from entering into a restricted area.

The Net gun idea has some merit, but limited and requires a human to be ready to chase and shoot down a drone so not quite a solid idea.
Hawks are the other one, and well that opens a can of worms for PETA.

So right now it is funny to watch all the different ways private businesses are selling their idea and it will be a while before they finally hire real folks who know their stuff to set in place standards for stopping UAS in restricted airspace for international airports.

microcyb Posted at 2016-4-29 01:58
Death Ray? No..
The tech is quite simple to bring down a UAS.
GPS and WiFi jamming systems can be us ...

'GPS and WiFi jamming systems can be used to make your bird drop like a rock.'

I think you are forgetting how a Phantom flies, jamming systems will not make it 'drop like a rock'. If GPS is blocked, the aircraft simply goes into ATTI mode, if the control channel is jammed, it goes into RTH mode. If both were used at the same time, it would wander off aimlessly and eventually crash into something.

And that would be rather pointless wouldn't it? The last thing you want is an aircraft spearing off somewhere to crash into something on the ground. What everyone ignores in watching these videos is that probably none of them are real, the whole event is staged to make the point.