Super Bowl Security to Shoot Down Drones within 32 miles of stadium

seems like fun to me.


wait, they're calling drone owners 'pilots'? wtf
 
Yeah get a drone kill and paint the silhouette on the nose of an Eagle! Hell yeah! Wonder if they go guns or use an AMRAAM.....
 
if they use drones to shoot down drones, must their drones shoot themselves down?

drone on drone action ... stand by for the next update for Call of Duty - Super Bowl 50 module
 
Maybe they'll release a swarm of hunter-killer drones. The last thing somebody's Christmas present will see on it's GoPro will be that red Cylon eye.
 
Article says F-15s will be up on patrol. We'll see. Shoot downs might be more exciting and entertaining than the game! :yes:
 
Who's budget does this come from? NFL isn't going to want to pay for that kind of security, are these F15s AF or ANG? Does the Fed or State gov pay for them? City? County? My guess is that since this TFR is a Federal deal, that the Federal taxpayer will be footing the bill rather than just local, but that's just my guess.
 
gkainz said:
if they use drones to shoot down drones, must their drones shoot themselves down?

drone on drone action ... stand by for the next update for Call of Duty - Super Bowl 50 module
Click to expand...
The UN-Hunger games. Since drones don't eat.
 
It sure would be fun in the parking lot dodging the falling bombs/bullets/drone parts....
 
Ah. The drone issue is on the big stage now. Snipers on roofs to shoot them down?? F15's in the air to shoot them down?? Breaking news, F15 takes out rogue sniper, film on the 11 o'clock news. Hmm, drones would be a fun addition to those paintball places.
 
Going to be lots of questions raised if they do shoot something down. I can just see the PIO at the press conference.... "Yes we got the drone with the direct impact of the AIM 9L missile, but unfortunately it did not explode until it hit the bus load of tourists 5 miles down range.":hairraise:
 
32 miles, eh?

So they'll be patrolling from Gilroy to South San Francisco and from Altamont to a mile off the coast of Santa Cruz...

30E3406400000578-3432434-image-a-10_1454621548628.jpg

http://www.mapdevelopers.com/draw-c....3541079,-121.9552356,"#AAAAAA","#000000",0]]

Looking for something that ranges from the size of a deck of cards to a decent sized craft.

Interesting...
 
So have they given any thought about where the stray bullets from the drone snipers' rifles will end up?

The article indicates they will have a sniper placed at the stadium, presumably for the purpose of shooting drones. How are they going to get the rest of the drones within the 32 mile radius? They aren't cutting an F15's 20 mm cannon loose over the city areas for a drone.
 
luvflyin said:
Ah. The drone issue is on the big stage now. Snipers on roofs to shoot them down?? F15's in the air to shoot them down?? Breaking news, F15 takes out rogue sniper, film on the 11 o'clock news. Hmm, drones would be a fun addition to those paintball places.
Click to expand...

What about that whole "follow your shot to ground" thingio?

Agree drones'd fun at paintball, but a little spendy, dontcha think?
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
Dude, it's the Daily Mail. It IS ridiculous, almost by definition. Check out some of their other headlines today.

The FAA has indeed called the Super Bowl a "no drone zone," but the threats to shoot them down are, ahem, "fanciful."

It amazes me how many people will believe whatever they read.
Click to expand...

I get what your saying, but I would expand that to all media. I will say that I have seen articles in the Daily Mail (a U.K. based paper) about matters in my home town, (Indianapolis), that have been dead on, and have given better information than our local media.

That said, I generally trust the media when it comes to aviation and legal matters about as far as I can throw them.
 
PPC1052 said:
If it makes you feel better, here's NBC's take:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/su...nd-super-bowl-could-face-deadly-force-n510606
Click to expand...

There is NBC's assumption.

And, as Gregor noted from the regulations: "The United States Government may use deadly force against the airborne aircraft, if it is determined that the aircraft poses an imminent security threat."
Click to expand...

That's well short of an FAA threat to shoot down drones. It says they can, legally. This is true of every TFR, and every restricted or prohibited airspace. It doesn't mean there is an antiaircraft battery next to the stadium.

Don't believe everything you read. If the FAA really did threaten that, don't you think it would be a little easier to find a primary document? None of the FAA's statements say drones will be shot down. They say that you shouldn't fly there.
 
Last edited:
PPC1052 said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...drones-fly-32-miles-Super-Bowl-SHOT-DOWN.html


Seems ridiculous to me.
Click to expand...

Here's the FAA "statement" that's mentioned in that news article:

https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=84766

There's not much too it. A few words in the statement. A few words in the youtube video. I didn't know that the FAA was capable of writing something so terse and lacking in detail.

At this point the youtube video has 9k views, with about as many dislikes as likes.
 
MAKG1 said:
There is NBC's assumption.

Don't believe everything you read. If the FAA really did threaten that, don't you think it would be a little easier to find a primary document? None of the FAA's statements say drones will be shot down. They say that you shouldn't fly there.
Click to expand...

What the FAA says is 1) don't fly a drone within 32 miles, and 2) (according to NBC) FAA spokesman Ian Greger noted regulations that authorize deadly force: "The United States Government may use deadly force against the airborne aircraft, if it is determined that the aircraft poses an imminent security threat."

So, not really a stretch to say that the FAA is threatening to shoot down drones, regardless of how likely it is to actually occur.
 
PPC1052 said:
What the FAA says is 1) don't fly a drone within 32 miles, and 2) (according to NBC) FAA spokesman Ian Greger noted regulations that authorize deadly force: "The United States Government may use deadly force against the airborne aircraft, if it is determined that the aircraft poses an imminent security threat."

So, not really a stretch to say that the FAA is threatening to shoot down drones, regardless of how likely it is to actually occur.
Click to expand...

Sooo... there I am, on the Santa Cruz boardwalk, and I have my drone out taking pictures of me and the family, and here it comes, from a sniper on top of the roller coaster, *thwap*!

And there I am, with shards of drone.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
What about that whole "follow your shot to ground" thingio?

Agree drones'd fun at paintball, but a little spendy, dontcha think?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it'd be spendy but I think there'd be a market. Think of some of the things people with buckets of money do just for the fun and novelty.
 
Jeffythequick said:
Sooo... there I am, on the Santa Cruz boardwalk, and I have my drone out taking pictures of me and the family, and here it comes, from a sniper on top of the roller coaster, *thwap*!

And there I am, with shards of drone.
Click to expand...

If it happens, don't say they didn't warn you.
 
FAA REQUISITION and BUDGET REQUEST
Drone Suppression

F-35 Qty 20
AA-8 Aphid Qty 500
Engineering study to adapt Aphid to F-35

RQ4 Global Hawk Qty 8

MQ-9 Reaper Qty 20
AIM-9 Sidewinder Qty 500

Uh, hey Bob ... do we have anyone that can fly any of these?
Oh crap, add $20 million for hiring and training to the budget.
 
PPC1052 said:
What the FAA says is 1) don't fly a drone within 32 miles, and 2) (according to NBC) FAA spokesman Ian Greger noted regulations that authorize deadly force: "The United States Government may use deadly force against the airborne aircraft, if it is determined that the aircraft poses an imminent security threat."

So, not really a stretch to say that the FAA is threatening to shoot down drones, regardless of how likely it is to actually occur.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, that's a big stretch.

Given that those statements were made on different days, the juxtaposition is NBC's, not the FAA's.

You do understand that brief articles necessarily leave out context, right? It's quite likely that statement was an answer to a question, probably something like "what can the Feds do in response?" If the FAA really was threatening to shoot down drones, they would have said it in their PSA.
 
MAKG1 said:
Oh yes, that's a big stretch.

Given that those statements were made on different days, the juxtaposition is NBC's, not the FAA's.

You do understand that brief articles necessarily leave out context, right? It's quite likely that statement was an answer to a question, probably something like "what can the Feds do in response?" If the FAA really was threatening to shoot down drones, they would have said it in their PSA.
Click to expand...

What? NBC is being sensationalist? Never!
 
gkainz said:
FAA REQUISITION and BUDGET REQUEST
Drone Suppression

F-35 Qty 20
AA-8 Aphid Qty 500
Engineering study to adapt Aphid to F-35

RQ4 Global Hawk Qty 8

MQ-9 Reaper Qty 20
AIM-9 Sidewinder Qty 500

Uh, hey Bob ... do we have anyone that can fly any of these?
Oh crap, add $20 million for hiring and training to the budget.
Click to expand...


They may be doing this...
http://news.yahoo.com/dutch-police-deploy-drone-disabling-birds-prey-145946439.html
raptors-disable-drones.jpg1454521230


At least the droppings from these are safer than bullets.
 
Oh the most mindless hysteria.

Same idiots who believe in "terrorists" and will vote for anything some crooked government official pitches if it involves "the children".


This is why we can't have nice things :no:
 
James331 said:
Oh the most mindless hysteria.

Same idiots who believe in "terrorists" and will vote for anything some crooked government official pitches if it involves "the children".


This is why we can't have nice things :no:
Click to expand...

We can all have nice things! Just as long as they're not so nice that we can't all have the same things. :nono: Can't make anyone jealous of your hard work and success . . . If you do, you'll just be taxed back to the median.
 
James331 said:
Oh the most mindless hysteria.

Same idiots who believe in "terrorists" and will vote for anything some crooked government official pitches if it involves "the children".


This is why we can't have nice things :no:
Click to expand...

Agreed...Man I'm tired of the panicky ass public at large. If they're not worried about drones it's Kardashian's butt. We have really digressed into an "Randian Bureaucratic Idiocracy" pandering influence to the lowest common denominator.
 
Last edited:
Jeffythequick said:
They may be doing this...
http://news.yahoo.com/dutch-police-deploy-drone-disabling-birds-prey-145946439.html
raptors-disable-drones.jpg1454521230


At least the droppings from these are safer than bullets.
Click to expand...
Does the eagle get to paint a drone icon on the side of his head?
Same story, different source. http://news.discovery.com/animals/eagles-trained-to-intercept-drones-in-denmark-160201.htm There was also a thread on the board when the video first came out.
I don't hold out much hope local or federal Leo's would be able to stop drones or capture the miscreant. There are fines and penalties for laser in aircraft. Leo's just get lucky if they find the offending weapon.
 
Can they pick up drones on radar,I've heard them have problems with Cessnas?
 
I was at Patrick AFB for the second Shuttle launch (and it was beautiful). We went over to a hangar and the FAA had a couple of rented Senecas w/ FAA written on the sides, BIG letters, with water-based paint. My Chief asked the Feds whatya gonna do if it's raining and you're trying to chase planes away? They didn't have an answer. Anyway, something like T- less than a minute and some clown flies right over the Cape, stopping the countdown. So, it happens and that's partly why the Feds overreact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top