Welcome, Commercial Drone Pilots!
Join our growing community today!
Sign up

DroneShield’s Deployment Results in Arrest at College Football Game

BigAl07

Administrator
Staff Member
Premium Pilot
DSAR Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2018
Messages
2,817
Reaction score
2,533
Age
53
Location
Western North Carolina
On August 31, 2019, DroneShield’s system was being utilised at the opening game of the football season at a major college team stadium. This deployment was part of the university’s efforts to provide protection against unmanned aerial vehicles. (See the link below for the FULL story . . .)

And for anyone who isn't aware of what DroneShield is here is their website directly:

 
On August 31, 2019, DroneShield’s system was being utilised at the opening game of the football season at a major college team stadium. This deployment was part of the university’s efforts to provide protection against unmanned aerial vehicles. (See the link below for the FULL story . . .)

And for anyone who isn't aware of what DroneShield is here is their website directly:
Some amazing technology
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
Here we have a similar technology, no drone escapes with normal systems, not by chance.
 
On August 31, 2019, DroneShield’s system was being utilised at the opening game of the football season at a major college team stadium. This deployment was part of the university’s efforts to provide protection against unmanned aerial vehicles. (See the link below for the FULL story . . .)

And for anyone who isn't aware of what DroneShield is here is their website directly:
Gatwick, are you watching? :D
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: PatR and BigAl07
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
I think this is what LEA is operating under...Law Enforcement Guidance for Suspected Unauthorized UAS Operations
The entire toolkit can be found at Public Safety and Law Enforcement Toolkit
Thanks, that is helpful,but after reading the document my question remained. Where does the local fuzz gets the authority to interfere with an FAA registered UAS in mid flight (assuming it was registered). I am usually on the side of LE, but am also interested in sources of authority.
 
A perfectly vague story, though,. kinda like Gatwick...except it only made sUAS news. Let's see if it goes viral, then it must be true.:p
DETAILS, PLEASE.

OR:

A missed opportunity by media and FAA to make an example of "dreaded drone" stories to excite the public and justify passing new drone laws.

OR:

Yet another good salesman's marketing trick to close the big deal. ( I heard that was what Gatwick was all about.)

thanks for the article, Al.
 
A perfectly vague story, though,. kinda like Gatwick...except it only made sUAS news. Let's see if it goes viral, then it must be true.:p
DETAILS, PLEASE.

OR:

A missed opportunity by media and FAA to make an example of "dreaded drone" stories to excite the public and justify passing new drone laws.

OR:

Yet another good salesman's marketing trick to close the big deal. ( I heard that was what Gatwick was all about.)

thanks for the article, Al.
OR"

The story just is....
 
Thanks, that is helpful,but after reading the document my question remained. Where does the local fuzz gets the authority to interfere with an FAA registered UAS in mid flight (assuming it was registered). I am usually on the side of LE, but am also interested in sources of authority.

In the document I saw the FAA referring to State and local regs/laws regarding drone use as the authority to inject themselves into the mix but aren't those laws and regs bogus? Only the FAA has the authority to administer the NAS so how can any other law apply except for the physical surface? I'm not that up on the legality but there seems to be a lot of holes in the logic behind it....but that is just me.
 
In the document I saw the FAA referring to State and local regs/laws regarding drone use as the authority to inject themselves into the mix but aren't those laws and regs bogus? Only the FAA has the authority to administer the NAS so how can any other law apply except for the physical surface? I'm not that up on the legality but there seems to be a lot of holes in the logic behind it....but that is just me.
You are right. The local gendarmes have always had the authority to enforce state statutes, such as endangerment, disorderly conduct, trespassing, obstructing governmental operations, etc. on drone calls (they can be quite creative ;) ).
FARs are outside their bailiwick and authority so I am curious as to what authority (state law, US Code) they relied upon to interfere with a UAS midflight.
 
I’m with Luis; the LEA Guidance document does not provide for local agency sUAS mitigation actions. In fact, it pretty much limits such action to only a few federal agencies. The prohibition of flight over stadiums hosting sporting activities falls under DHS/TSA jurisdiction.
 
A perfectly vague story, though,. kinda like Gatwick...except it only made sUAS news. Let's see if it goes viral, then it must be true.:p
DETAILS, PLEASE.

OR:

A missed opportunity by media and FAA to make an example of "dreaded drone" stories to excite the public and justify passing new drone laws.

OR:

Yet another good salesman's marketing trick to close the big deal. ( I heard that was what Gatwick was all about.)

thanks for the article, Al.
A perfectly vague story, though,. kinda like Gatwick...except it only made sUAS news. Let's see if it goes viral, then it must be true.:p
DETAILS, PLEASE.

OR:

A missed opportunity by media and FAA to make an example of "dreaded drone" stories to excite the public and justify passing new drone laws.

OR:

Yet another good salesman's marketing trick to close the big deal. ( I heard that was what Gatwick was all about.)

thanks for the article, Al.

 
  • Like
Reactions: LUIS MARTINEZ

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
4,277
Messages
37,605
Members
5,969
Latest member
KC5JIM