Hey, there! Log in / Register
Hawk takes out drone in skies over Cambridge
By adamg on Fri, 10/10/2014 - 5:37am
Christopher Schmidt reports he was flying his quadcopter over Magazine Beach on Wednesday when a hawk took exception to the craft's existence. Both bird and drone appeared to survive OK (Schmidt says he shut off the rotors to avoid hurting the bird).
H/t Swrrlygirl.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
It's a bit hard to tell, but
It's a bit hard to tell, but I think that's a peregrine falcon. Those things are awesome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peregrine_falcon
Nope
Immature Red-tailed Hawk. The thumbnail for the video shows a definitive field mark very well - a band of dense dark streaking across the belly below a white breast. No other raptor around here has that. You can tell it's an immature because the tail is barred, not plain red.
Immatures this time of year are out on their own for the first time and aren't very good hunters so they'll try to attack just about anything that moves. Adults are smarter and will sit and wait for more appropriate prey - rats, pigeons, rabbits in the city - without putting in so much effort.
That explains the vortex of feathers...
Thanks for explaining. That explains the vortex of grey feathers in my yard yesterday. Plumage everywhere but not a trace of meat.
Flight pattern (& size at distance) are all wrong.
I'm calling juvenile red-tailed hawk, but my mother could tell for sure. She's far better at this than I am.
Adorable!
Just more proof-Don't mess
Just more proof-Don't mess with mother nature!
They'll attack R/C gliders, too
Hawks are great for showing R/C glider pilots where the lift is and flying with them is a cool feeling. Every once in awhile, though, you'll get one like this one that feels threatened and gets feisty.
Good reaction by the pilot shutting the motors down.
Awesome. Kudos to the owner
Awesome. Kudos to the owner for not harming the bird too.
At least the story didn't end with
"Well, I shut off the rotors to avoid harming the bird. Crash landed the plane, but the bird's OK."
Definitely a Red-tailed Hawk
Definitely a Red-tailed Hawk
I nominate that hawk for the FAA's new mascot.
it will be more effective at regulating uav usage anyway! (In fairness to the FAA, it is in a very difficult and not admirable position. It is only a matter of time before one of these uavs that is operated by an irresponsible owner is takes down a manned aircraft).
The paps
I'm more worried about the paparazzi starting to use drones to invade people's privacy. If a drone peeped in your window at the Four Season's, there's not much you can do to catch the perpetrator.
Just hire a hawk
The video was the hawk's resume reel. Prices start at two pigeons to disable a "GoPro" style drone.
We've had UAV's forever
Hate to break it to you, but we've had UAV's for a very long time, only we called them radio controlled aircraft. And even before R/C, people were chucking free flight models into the air. My dad flew models in the 30's. New FAA regulations shouldn't affect what people have been doing safely for years. New regulations should cover the newer technologies that give aircraft extra capabilities, such as using cameras and FPV (first person view).
The newer aircraft that have come out in the last few years are fantastic, have made flying easier, and added a new dimension to flying. Unfortunately, some people feel they should be able to fly it anywhere, putting bystanders at risk. I'm sorry, but flying something like a 10 oz hand-launched glider somewhere shouldn't be an FAA issue.
Not these UAVs.
Don't worry merlinmurph, you're not breaking the news to me. I am, of course, aware of this.
What is new, however, is the proliferation of the devices because of the increased number of uses (e.g., I don't ever remember seeing a high def video camera on any of the r/c aircraft that I flew as a kid, and accordingly, they didn't appeal to anyone except flight enthusiasts) and the increased range of the devices from base.
As you point out, some people feel that they can fly these things anywhere. Accordingly, I can't follow, fully, your last point. Since FAA has plenary authority over the national airspace, who else can/should regulate this? Surely you would agree that there must be some regulation that would prohibit the flying of these things in the vicinity of, say, Castle Island, Constitution Beach or Coughlin Park in Winthrop?
It's certainly a sticky issue
And I certainly wouldn't want to be the FAA guy making the decisions. FUgly.
For this issue:
Well, that's already covered. For decades, people have already had the capability of doing something stupid like flying R/C planes in those places and laws already cover it. Nothing new here.
The FAA got involved because of all the Homeland Security crap. People see us using Predator drones taking out Taliban members overseas and then people call these UAV's drones, so drone = drone. Well, not really. One is a weapon and one is a toy, so let's not get carried away.
If the FAA makes new rules, I just want to make sure it doesn't affect what people have already been doing for a very long time.
Example:
A larger, competition model sailplane is generally launched using an electric winch. When it gets released, it's somewhere between 300-400+ feet up. From that point, you hope to hook onto some lift, gain altitude and stay up for awhile. You can easily surpass 1000 ft of altitude.
The FAA wanted to limit R/C flight to 400 ft. That would definitely suck and put a damper on something that was never a problem in the first place.
Should the FAA control whether someone flies in some park? No, that should be up to local authorities.
Reminds me of a story
when I was growing up. In the late 1960s, there was a local RC model plane club that would meet on Sunday mornings in the parking lot of the old Sylvania plant on Endicott Street in Danvers and fly their planes. IIRC, several of the members of this club were Sylvania employees.
Once a month or so, my father would take me and my brothers up there to watch these model planes, some of which were quite well done.
So, one morning, we went up there and the parking lot was empty for no apparent reason. We came back a couple of weeks later, and the same thing - no activity. Shortly thereafter, we learned that the group was no longer allowed to use the Sylvania parking lot to fly their planes from.
The story goes that, one morning, one of the pilots got a little bored with his normal flight routine and decided to start 'buzzing' cars coming north on Route 128, which was adjacent to the plant. While no accidents apparently occurred because of this, the Massachusetts State Police were not amused and had a few words with Sylvania's management.
Typical overreaction
Ban a whole group because of the actions of one. Great.
FAA Hawk?
Must have been an FAA hawk. You should have told it about the special exemption for motion picture work Chris. I found an explosion of pigeon feathers on the woodpile in my yard yesterday. Had to have been an airborne attack cause a terrestrial animal would have tumbled the wood. Do hawks get very territorial this time of year or are they just fattening up for winter?
Another glorious victory
Another glorious victory against the oppressive colonial human surveillance state!
Good for your kind TLF
I've been a uhubber for about 6 years and that is the most awesome visual Adam has ever posted by far - including all of my lovely stills that have made it up from time to time.
SPECTACULAR CATCH!
and kudos on the rotor thing
The Hawk is
a Paul voter.
Imagine
a "Hawk" in Cambridge. Beware you Cambridge Dove's.