In a statement issued on May 18, the president and chief executive officer of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) Michael Toscano responded to recent comments by media pundits and television programs that seem to advocate shooting down domestic unmanned aerial vehicles.
The coming wider use of UAVs in the U.S. has drawn protests from privacy and civil rights advocates because they say it is intrusive and possibly dangerous. On May 16, syndicated newspaper columnist and Fox Television commentator Charles Krauthammer called for a ban on the vehicles and intimated that others with similar beliefs will shoot the aircraft down and become heroes.
“I would predict — I’m not encouraging, but I would predict, the first guy who uses a Second Amendment weapon to bring down a drone that’s hovering over his house is gonna be a folk hero in this country,” said Krauthammer on a May 14 panel on Fox New’s Special Report.
According to AUVSI, a recent episode of NBC’s television show “Harry’s Law” also portrayed its main character shooting down a “drone” in just such a situation.
Toscano called such talk irresponsible and that vigilante approaches to the vehicles could have dire unintended consequences.
“To advocate for people to shoot down any object from U.S. airspace is irresponsible, dangerous and unlawful,” he said, noting the technology is also being used to serve the public good, helping in search and rescue, as well as emergency response. “The myriad of important uses will be imperiled if they become targets,” he said.
“Meanwhile, the suggestion that Americans take up arms against unmanned aircraft also endangers citizens on the ground,” he said.
Toscano said his organization welcomes “civil discussions” on privacy and the use of the aircraft.
As an RQ-7B UAS operator I find this stance our society has taken to be quite ignorant; and any action taken by an outside party against a UAV or its operator, in my opinion, should be a felony offense. At the very least it should be classified as destruction of property, negligent discharge of a firearm, and even a safety violation.
When that aircraft is disabled while in flight, where will it crash when it enters an uncontrolled trajectory? Who will be at blame should it go into a car, home, or even third party personel on the ground? what type of damage will it do? Where will the rounds from their firearm go should they miss?
These are the questions that these vigilantes fail to think of; By far not the acts of a hero, but those of a misguided, irresponsible, backwards thinking individual. UAS is the future, and yet we cling the past; There was a reason we moved on from the Zeppelin.
‘Big Brother’ type surveillance is possible, yes, but it is only a small fraction of what UAS has been, is being, or shall ever be used for.
IR imagery can be used to help firefighting teams combat wild fires, by detecting ‘hot spots’ that eluded ground crews; why do a dangerous job twice when you can get it all done at once quicker and more effectively?
Search and rescue is another vital role. Pilots can only fly so long before they have to RTB and the search is paused; wasting precious time in a fast closing window to locate the personnel in distress.
I agree, but I think we kind of all would here, the potential for good far outstrips the bad. Hammers have moved life forward but they can also do bad.
Society always has been and always will be ignorant and unable to understand most anything beyond designer jeans and Iphones.
Tactical UAS operator here. I’ve been saying the same thing for a long time. As a shooting enthusiast, I’m on several firearm forums and I’ve been floored by the number of times I see this suggested. I don’t know how many of those people are serious, but it’s frightening to see how consistently it’s mentioned….