Drones
It's out of hand and getting worse. :(
Shortly before the fast-moving blaze jumped the freeway and the cars caught fire, officials had to halt water drops because of a recreational drone flying nearby. It was the third time in recent weeks that firefighters were grounded because of drones. The devices could collide with aircraft that fly at low altitudes, authorities say.
I've seen video of chopper blades in tight spots take out a fair-sized tree limb without so much as a blink, and keep on choppering, I have a hard time believing your average drone would bother one.
Now, if you hit one in a plane, going, say, 300+mph...
...you're gonna have a bad time.
I've seen video of chopper blades in tight spots take out a fair-sized tree limb without so much as a blink, and keep on choppering, I have a hard time believing your average drone would bother one.
Now, if you hit one in a plane, going, say, 300+mph...
...you're gonna have a bad time.
Yea but you know how these things are - regulations are more likely to be sparked by the chopper's insurance policy then by what's possible.
We need a system to create no fly zones on the fly...
Which shouldn't be that difficult, the current drone boom is still young and the industry is in the stage of increasing the size of the pie more then competing for the size of their slice. If we want any kind of standardization, This is probably the best time to do it, and it could help ease the minds and gain some points with the FAA, which could be useful for the drone industry in the long term.
The need could not be more obvious. Licensing (for the same reason automobiles and drivers are licensed) is desperately needed.
The need could not be more obvious. Licensing (for the same reason automobiles and drivers are licensed) is desperately needed.
Except that drones already have the problems driver licencing is going to be facing: Handling the fact a lot of the time your driver is a software.
So I think maybe going the opposite route is better:
Software standards.
They can include automatically taking away control within certain situations - regulations are a lot easier to code then to teach and certify for. For instance if a no-fly zone is placed because an emergency helicopter has to go through (standard signal), it could require to leave the area automatically if the pilot themselves don't leave it within a certain warning time.
It could even include things such as restricted no fly boxes around roads organized by certain height that would function as berriers for both human piloted and software piloted drones.
And for strictly software piloted, it could be used for giving commercial drones designated air routes windows the same way we do for for airplanes and satellite orbits, which would mean a pizza delivery drone doesn't risk collision with a fire safety inspection drone.
Perhaps most importantly, it could require a certain mean of identification. Because when it comes to criminal activities drones can take part of, from invasion to privacy to actual violence (explosives in a pizza box?), you kind of want that.
It can also be used for... *Ring* sec, I have a call. "Who is this? Oh, the Oceania BB offices? You are interested in my ideas? Why thank you... I will be on my way to your offices in Airstrip One immediately".
I got a drone for Christmas. It's technically a drone because it flies and is remote controlled and has a camera. But I consider it a toy because the transmitter only reaches 100 feet. Once it's out of range, it lands, (often in a tree.)
I'm not sure what regulations apply to me, but I think all the drone regulations do. And I read some FAA rule about proximity to airports, and I'm just within the 5 mile no-fly zone of my local airport. I understand the reasoning for that rule, but it's kind of ridiculous that it's against the law for me to walk down the street to the softball field and fly this thing around at a 50 foot elevation, but I can get a super long string and fly a kite at hundreds of feet from the same field and nobody will blink an eye.
Not sure what the point of my post is, other than to point out all the confusion about the rules and how some of them are ridiculous. If you make ridiculous rules, people will get used to ignoring the rules, and they may ignore rules that aren't so ridiculous.
[YOUTUBE]PPDTTMA98iQ[/YOUTUBE]
Yeah, won't it be fun when 500 fans in a football stadium
each launch their personal micro's and fly into the huddle, etc., etc.,
... the potentials are enormous.
Try this glatt.
[YOUTUBEWIDE]32IPBmcwplQ[/YOUTUBEWIDE]
Yeah, won't it be fun when 500 fans in a football stadium
each launch their personal micro's and fly into the huddle, etc., etc.,
... the potentials are enormous.
They'll all get Christmas cards from Bill Belachek though.
[YOUTUBEWIDE]MgeRchTHxVk[/YOUTUBEWIDE]
This video is titled "Firefighters shoot douchebag's interfering drone out of the air", when what it should say is "Douchebag firefighters shoot douchebag's not quite interfering drone out of the air".
[YOUTUBEWIDE]lEsieFoe-ns[/YOUTUBEWIDE]
I mean, it's not even close to interfering with those firefighters, unless those firefighters are doing something they don't want caught on video.
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't necessarily want someone videoing my burning house. It's a little insensitive, at best. But I could see a usefulness in documenting the work of the firefighters, or the progression of the fire itself, or the condition of parts of the house immediately prior to destruction by fire, and for legal/insurance purposes.
But, to stop fighting the fire, to knock a NON-interfering drone, that looks to be 75-100 feet away, out of the air only raises my suspicions as to what they didn't want caught on video.
power corrupts.
Firefighters have power at the scene of a fire. They saw the drone and decided they had the power to take it out, so they did.
The problem is... One of the problems is with new high tech toys, the early adopters are often type A personalities who go gung ho with little regard to whether they annoy others. Since in this case we often don't know who the [strike]perp[/strike] operator is, this builds resentment against the toys, and everyone who uses them.
However, if you buzz me, regardless of federal law, I'll blow that motherfucker to hell.
However, if you buzz me, regardless of federal law, I'll blow that motherfucker to hell.
ditto. I have no patience for this kind of personal invasion. What's the recommended shot for a 12 gauge?
For a reasonably close drone, I'd say bird shot, #6, or so, ought to do the trick.
For people looking at ya driving by on the street, double-ought buck.
Depends how good a shot you are, but probably anything from #2 down to #000.
I enjoy flying r/c model airplanes. Only one of mine has camera on it (forward-facing GoPro). Are they "drones" or toys? I call them toys. Expensive toys.
Shoot at my $4500 P-51 and i'm coming after you with my (200 mph) kamikaze jet.
Planes are different, they don't hover, although they can be threatening.
Since Amazon made headlines 18 months ago, when half the population said cool and the other half scoffed, the discussion died down. However, once they secured the patent, Amazon's drone team has been working behind the scenes, sort of flying below the radar. Now they have
proposed a plan to the FAA to establish zones and rules for them to move forward with this plan.
What's the recommended shot for a 12 gauge?
Apparently, #8 works preeety damn good...
Planes are different, they don't hover, although they can be threatening.
...and loud as hell sometimes.
I'd keep
my r/c planes close to the r/c airport.;)
Actually, mine fly at my dropyard. Lots of open space, hardly any traffic, hardpack to take off and land on, grass to, um, emergency land, on. I could fly at home, but my neighbors might not like the mosquito-like noise and there are a lot of trees, plus an interstate downwind. Not a great idea for r/c flight.
[YOUTUBEWIDE]Hr-xBtVU4lg[/YOUTUBEWIDE]
Take
that, you mean old drone, you...:lol2:
ArticleHmm, if the Feds say I'm not supposed to use a shotgun, maybe a trained Eagle... hmm
This will only continue to get worse until we all realize that drones must be licensed just like other hardware that can also be harmful. Pilots and planes are licensed. Cars are licences. Drone can easily be licensed. Which includes a VIN number in the digital transmissions to and from each drone.
Unfortunately, emotion rather than logic dominates both the anti-drone and we have the right to do anything pro-drone advocates.
I bet that "wedge-tailed eagle" has a different tail now,
... and it won't try hunting that kind of bird again.
I have a 10x10 with 32 inch barrels. The goose rounds I have shot are BB or BBB. Is there any update on the case in Kentucky? I think the guy was justified
I haven't heard anything else about the drone killer. Probably be a while before that gets to court.
**********************************************
I did find this today.
Drone video of a flash flood on Maui:
[YOUTUBEWIDE]1Csgc6adNaE[/YOUTUBEWIDE]
Dude has less than 20 seconds from the first noticeable increase in flow til he goes over. No one hurt.
That escalated quickly. I don't understand who was swinging from the chopper.
[strike]Whutsthatnow?[/strike] Nevermind, I for got there was even a heliocopter in that vid.
We all knew it was just a matter of time...
[YOUTUBEWIDE]t5JgnMJzCtQ[/YOUTUBEWIDE]
That's no drone, that's an aircraft, a plane, subject to all sorts of FAA restrictions. Even as an experimental, they'll be all over him. Ten minutes of battery life is just long enough to get in trouble.
all sorts of FAA restrictions
The black socks with shorts tells me he is British. (Plus the union jack sticker and the license plate on the trailer.)
Oh, I thought the black socks and shorts just meant he is a dweeb. :rolleyes:
Or, he's not wearing shorts. They're actually boxers, and he just took off his trousers.
Because he doesn't like flying by the seat of his pants.
Just a concept, but I like it anyway
[YOUTUBEWIDE]PdBdQw8VuA0[/YOUTUBEWIDE]
Maybe on Mars. :rolleyes:
Maybe on Mars. :rolleyes:
So... Will this one magically change human psychology across the entire species too? :p:
Human psychology may change but physics won't, those rotors won't carry the weight of an air ambulance, so send it to mars with the rest of the science fiction fantasy.
I thought you meant with the lower gravity on Mars this will actually work there.
Oh regarding the physical design I agree - at that weight you'd basically just want to go with an unmanned helicopter design, and in particular for this purpose - If anything, the extra pitch & roll of the quad design is something you'd probably prefer not to have when you have a patient inside any every extra motion is another direction for blood to spill.
But you are missing the point - one of biggest reasons there are more ambulances on the road then from the sky are the costs of pilots themselves. This is one area where the vehicle construction can be made to meet demand and be mass produced for cheaper, by the bottleneck is in the skill. The other massive reason is also skill related but indirectly - regulations in regards to where it can land and how low it can fly in urban or highly populated areas. Now, take these restraints away...
...And you'll have a fleet of ambulances that can't fly in the rain. Ok, some kinks do need to be worked on. But I wouldn't call that science fiction.
That's a whole different ball game from the vehicle I commented on. Yes mass production should make air ambulances(VTOL type) cheaper but two problems in the woodpile. One is government regulations on aircraft, the other is it would be grouped with "medical equipment", the biggest ripoff and fastest skyrocketing group in the inflation index. We all know greed triumphs over all.
UT, even though Mars gravity is only 38% of ours, the atmosphere is not VTOL friendly, way to thin.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) says that up to a million new consumer drones could be sold this Christmas, and it is terrified of what civilians with no air safety knowledge might do with them. Rich Swayze, the FAA's Assistant Administrator for Policy, International Affairs, and Environment told the Airlines for America (A4A) Commercial Aviation Industry Summit in Washington on 28 September that the state agency is rushing to implement a consumer education campaign before the holiday season begins in earnest.
Kill 'em with fire.
linkWhen I got my toy drone for Christmas last year, it had absolutely no instructions about rules for flying it. In fact, the Engrish was so bad, it wasn't even clear how to fly it.
I got a drone for Christmas. It's technically a drone because it flies and is remote controlled and has a camera. But I consider it a toy because the transmitter only reaches 100 feet. Once it's out of range, it lands, (often in a tree.)
I'm not sure what regulations apply to me, but I think all the drone regulations do. And I read some FAA rule about proximity to airports, and I'm just within the 5 mile no-fly zone of my local airport. I understand the reasoning for that rule, but it's kind of ridiculous that it's against the law for me to walk down the street to the softball field and fly this thing around at a 50 foot elevation, but I can get a super long string and fly a kite at hundreds of feet from the same field and nobody will blink an eye.
Not sure what the point of my post is, other than to point out all the confusion about the rules and how some of them are ridiculous. If you make ridiculous rules, people will get used to ignoring the rules, and they may ignore rules that aren't so ridiculous.
Turns out I really was confused. I knew about the 5 mile rule, but didn't realize Reagan National has a special 15 mile rule.
The FAA just announced that all owners will be required to register their drones. That prompted me to really try ti figure out where I'm allowed to fly near me. So I made the following map.
Now, this map is not complete, because I didn't factor in two other things I know about, which is that you can't fly a drone within THREE Miles of a scheduled sporting event starting 1 hour beforehand and going 1 hour afterwards. (My reading of the rule is that this includes school sports.) And the second thing is that national parks don't allow drones in their airspace. I'm sure there are other rules too. Like can you fly one over a nuke plant? Probably not.
So here's what I've come up with so far.
[ATTACH]53800[/ATTACH]
https://www.mapbox.com/drone/no-fly/ tries to assemble a map of drone no-fly zones, but it is crowd sourced, so I'm not sure how accurate it is.
That stripe from Chicago southwest through Jolliet, then west, is curious. :confused:
Hover your mouse over it - "Illinois and Michigan Canal".
It's out of hand and getting worse. :(
Yup indeed it is!!
Last wek I saw my frist drone!!!!!! -- I was out shopping and wehn me and a friend came out,it was hovering in the parking lot!! (looked errie)
I tried @ all costs to stay OUT OF ITS CAMERA VIEW!! (I didnt see anyone operating it)
Sam's club has a couple for x-mas. Got a few extra grand to spend?
Hover your mouse over it - "Illinois and Michigan Canal".
Yes, and the Joliet Ammo Plant. I figured it was the Lake Michigan to Illinois & Mississippi, rivers connection. It just seemed odd the whole hundred or so miles of what is essentially a man made river, is restricted airspace. I suppose terrorists could attack the measures keeping the Carp out of the lake.
Drone carrying drugs, hacksaw blades crashes at Oklahoma prison
The package contained two hacksaw blades, a mobile phone, a mobile phone battery, a hands-free device, two packages of cigarettes, two packs of cigars, super glue, a 5.3-ounce bag of marijuana, a 0.8 ounce bag of methamphetamine and a bag of heroin weighing less than one gram.
[ATTACH]53898[/ATTACH]
How high will the Trump Border Wall have to be to stop these illegal alien criminal drones ?
.
couldn't work out how to fit a gun control reference in there? cmon try harder
Newports!?! Shoot that fucker down. :apistola:
How high will the Trump Border Wall have to be to stop these illegal alien criminal drones ?.
Trump Tower. Then The Donald can have more pentahouse apartments overlooking the little people. This time Mexicans.
Newports!?! Shoot that fucker down.
Apparently, it's legal to do that very thing.
At least in Kentucky.
Blaze away!!
:sniper:
Yeah, he got off, but I wouldn't count on that in the future. It probably depends on the acceptance of nerd indignation in the particular area. If the drone owner or his actions, were obnoxious in the opinion of the local powers that be, they could probably throw it out, feeling safe it wouldn't go to a higher court.
But I know they did the right thing.;)
Yes it is, the kind that fly down instead of up.
There's a website where you register your property as a no-fly zone.
A private website with no official standing.
All you have to do is enter your;
Name
Address
Phone number
Email address
GPS coordinates(optional)
Yeah, sure. :rolleyes:
...passwords, account numbers...
I could use a drone this coming week to fly around my few acres of woods in the hunting safety zone near my house, and have it take pics of the hunters who trespass and fire their rifles within a few yards of our windows. Maybe once it gets a good photo, with details on the hunting license visible, it could squirt essence of skunk onto them, or indelible neon purple dye. Or very smelly dye ... that would allow the Game Commission officers to positively identify the guys firing high-powered rifles in people's backyards.
I'm sure there must be a market for the skunk-dye-squirting mechanism.
They'll just say "Thanks!"
Lots of hunters use skunk scent as a cover-scent to mask human odor.
Really, Ortho, if those guys are on your property, or are on posted no hunting property, you can call the cops. In today's Great American Culture Of Fear, the cops would be all over those guys, like a cheap suit. Or better yet, call the fish and game folks, they'll set shit straight. With a quickness.
Dye? Skunk smell? There are drones with shotguns, shoot 'em, A hunting accident. ;)
The cops don't answer hunter trespass calls in this area; only Game Commission officers do. They're good people but stretched thin. They possess a weapon that truly scares hunters, though: they can revoke hunting licenses. They do set these asshats straight, it's just that they aren't right nearby when you need 'em.
A hunting accident with bullet trajectory coming from the sky might be suspect, although at least the cops would answer THAT call ... :cool:
This is the first time I've heard of someone using a drone to protect their rights. Usually drones fall squarely on the anti-rights side of issues.
Except, that is, for your right to use a drone...
It's definitely up there with keeping armored bears.
The cops don't answer hunter trespass calls in this area...
I find it difficult to believe, in today's world, that cops won't respond to armed trespasser calls. Or, at the very least shots fired calls. In a populated area, no less...
They possess a weapon that truly scares hunters, though: they can revoke hunting licenses.
Much worse than that, they can take your gun/bow, truck/vehicle, anything/everything in it, or attached to it. Sometimes for seemingly trivial infractions.
Drone record.
[YOUTUBE]mOBQXuu_5Zw[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBEWIDE]mOBQXuu_5Zw[/YOUTUBEWIDE]
Yes, but if you don't have a badge, and probably a court order, it ain't legal.
Snapped at the local city park:
[ATTACH]55581[/ATTACH]
I have never seen a drone at the park.
But, then again, we have ordinances regulating adult bookstores...We've never had one of those either.
Snapped at the local city park:
[ATTACH]55581[/ATTACH]
I have never seen a drone at the park.
But, then again, we have ordinances regulating adult bookstores...We've never had one of those either.
I didn't know bees can read
That's racist, or speciesist. :p:
A friend of mine just started a drone business over here called National Drones. He's planning on turning it into a franchise operation and then sitting on his arse for the rest of his life, or until he gets bored enough for the next bright idea to hit.
I hope they're friendly...
yes. They're photography drones. :)
They're the ones that are most aggressive. :unsure:
They're the ones that are most aggressive. :unsure:
And you thought 'pepping toms' and eavesdroppers were not dangerous.
Flying Scotsman hit by drone on North York Moors
Police are investigating after the Flying Scotsman was struck by a drone while steaming across the North York Moors.
Passengers were terrified by a "huge bang" when the drone hit the rear carriage of the train on preserved railway tracks between Grosmont and Pickering.
Linda Wild, of Whitby, who was travelling on the train, said: "We could see a drone on the left-hand side of the train and thought it must be taking photos.
"The next thing we knew there was an almighty crash. It sounded like it had crashed into the roof.
"It was such a shock and could have caused a major accident. What if it had gone through the window?"
Mrs Wild, who was travelling with her husband and some friends, said the rest of the journey was "brilliant".
But that the incident around 4pm on Sunday had scared her and left her with huge concerns about the use of drones and their safety.
She complained to a guard on the train and British Transport Police are now investigating along with North Yorkshire Moors Railway bosses.
Liz Parkes, head of operations at the NYMR said: "We are aware of a report of a drone grazing the back carriage of the 15.30 60103 Flying Scotsman service from Grosmont on Sunday March 13 in the Huntingbridge area.
"This is currently being investigated by the NYMR and British Transport Police.
"While no damage was caused, obviously drones are distracting to our drivers and could result in a criminal prosecution for endangering trains.
"If any members of the public become aware of any incidents of this nature, we would urge them to report it immediately to a North Yorkshire Moors Railway staff member or the British Transport Police so it can be investigated further."
Drones have been frequently used to record images of the Flying Scotsman which has been seen in public for the first time in more than a decade following a £4.2m restoration.
The damned things get everywhere.
Daily TelegraphPassengers were terrified
huge bang
almighty crash
such a shock
could have caused a major accident
scared her and left her with huge concerns
no damage was caused
One of these things is not like the others.
They probably only mean damage to the train, the drone might have been demolished. I would certainly hope a drone couldn't damage a train... Nonetheless, those passengers are clearly wusses.
Freaking the passengers is worse than damaging the train. You know every freaked passenger will tell everyone they know and some they don't. Then each of the people told will tell everyone they know, etc. Somewhere along the line immigrants/refugees will be added to the story, and maybe terrorist flying bombs. When the railroad tries to clarify what actually happened, it will become a conspiracy to hide the truth about UFOs, because you can't handle the truth. Bad juju in the PR department. Maybe I'm exaggerating a tiny bit, but I think it's a distinct possibility.
By the way, did you know Buddhist guerillas from Iceland are using drones to spray paraquat on tea plants? I heard it from a guy who works for the government.
I'm pretty sure Walt Disney's head is running the operation from a pickled pigs feet jar somewhere on the Arkansas River.
Dronesaw
[YOUTUBE]6Viwwetf0gU[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBEWIDE]6Viwwetf0gU[/YOUTUBEWIDE]
Remember the drone that hit a plane landing at Heathrow?
Apparently, it was not a drone.Remember the drone that hit a plane landing at Heathrow?
Apparently, it was not a drone.
Pilots are somewhat anxious about drones at the moment so I suppose an occasional false alarm is understandable.
There have been four reported incidents in the last few months which are detailed here:
Aviation Safety Network.
A representative from
BALPA was interviewed on the TV news a few days ago and he pointed out that whilst extensive research has been carried out on bird strikes, nobody knows what effect the ingestion of a battery into a jet engine could have. However, the words pretty disastrous spring to mind.
A bit of thread drift, but this video vividly illustrates the effect on a jet engine when a Heron was ingested.
[YOUTUBEWIDE]9KhZwsYtNDE[/YOUTUBEWIDE]
Now take that Heron and stick a lithium battery up it's ass. :eek:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jTKfFxwpbUU
Sorry for the junky link, but I was reminded of this video where the engine test slices the chicken.
That's kinda weird. I was just thinking about that very video this afternoon. Specifically, the hail and water portion.
Whether it's a nosy neighbour, that annoying kid down the road or the latest manifestation of international terrorism, you too can protect yourself against their weapon of choice, the drone.
All you need is the SkyWall100 Drone Defence System.
[YOUTUBEWIDE]PYweIQ01iEQ[/YOUTUBEWIDE]
They haven't released a price but with a carbon fiber body, fancy carrying case, and sophisticated electronics, I'll bet it's spendy. Why spend all that money to know down a drone? Oh that's right, you don't have shotguns. :idea:
They haven't released a price but with a carbon fiber body, fancy carrying case, and sophisticated electronics, I'll bet it's spendy. Why spend all that money to know down a drone? Oh that's right, you don't have shotguns. :idea:
We do actually. They've been blasting away at Wood Pigeons in the fields across the road these past two days. :eek:
I'm not well versed in the finer points of firearms laws in the UK, but there is plenty of information here:
Firearm and shotgun certificates in England and Wales financial year ending March 2014
A quote from the above site might be of interest.
There were 582,923 shotgun certificates on issue as at 31 March 2014, an increase of 2.1% from the 570,726 on issue at the end of March 2013.
Despite that statistic, you have to demonstrate a justifiable need to buy a shotgun or other arms.
Farmers, clay pigeon shooters and game shooters will be the usual categories but there are strict police checks made before a shotgun certificate is issued.
That's the legal side of it, but how many guns are in circulation amongst those sections of society who have a more flexible approach to the law?
Broadly speaking though Bruce, you're right. We don't have millions of ordinary people, if I can use that phrase, with a rifle resting in the corner of the kitchen or a Saturday night special in the glove box.
For all practical purposes we don't have a gun culture and I suspect most people have never handled, or even seen, a firearm of any description.
That statement might not hold true in the more dodgy pubs in certain parts of London or any of the major cities of the UK.
And ex-solders have handled them, even the Queen had fired a machine gun. But yes, I was speaking in a general manner as to nowhere near a saturation, nor readily available to someone annoyed by a drone..
[youtube]IDD3-2_wLR8[/youtube]
Who needs a shotgun?
Fool, should have killed it in the name of fashion. ;)
Night drones at Mt Fuji..
[YOUTUBE]5WWwvIgGbkg[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBEWIDE]5WWwvIgGbkg[/YOUTUBEWIDE]
[YOUTUBE]P3fM6VwXXFM[/YOUTUBE]
LinkGreat, scale the puppy up, it'll make a great passenger liner. :haha:
The White House already has them.
Better than the cops shooting unarmed citizens, I guess.
Unless the citizen is flying a drone. ;)
Doncha just know that some kid wearing a propeller beanie hat (propellerhead) is gonna get shot.
Thats called justifiable homicide.
[LIVELEAK]420_1475479949[/LIVELEAK]
This is what happens when some asshole flies their drone into Gatwick Airport airspace. Bigger be better.
[VIMEO]228662010[/VIMEO]
[YOUTUBE]NRUlL-sjRVM[/YOUTUBE]
Drone pilot narrowly avoids terror collision with F-15 fighter jet over Dartmoor
A Devon police drone pilot was forced into evasive action to avoid colliding with two American F-15 fighter jet travelling at 520mph over Dartmoor.
The officer was convinced there was going to be a collision as the military jet sped into view and banked right above Throwleigh, between South Zeal and Chagford, on January 16.
The Airprox board, which investigates near misses, reported the 13lbs device was flying at about 300ft when the police officer heard the jet approaching.
The report said: "He descended the drone as quickly as possible.
"The jet came into view from right-to-left and seemed to pass by the drone at the same altitude; it looked like the jet was within 200m laterally of the drone.
"Once the jet was in view it started banking to the right and he honestly believed it was going to collide with the drone. The jet continued, and was followed a few seconds later by a second jet."
The police drone pilot had completed a task and was returning to the landing site when the incident occurred at around 12pm, the report said.
The F-15 pilot, who was flying at an altitude of 500ft, could not see the drone but the drone pilot said the risk of a collision was 'high'.
Radar records showed that the F15E which is believed to have been from RAF Lakenheath, Suffolk, was flying at its permitted level of 500ft above ground when the incident happened.
The pilot and his weapons systems operator did not see the black drone which had four rotor arms and LED lights.
The police officer told investigations that he had followed 'a stringent set of procedures' before flying his DJI Matrice drone as he did before every flight.
He said he had used the checked airspace, informed the National Police Air Service and local air ambulance as well looking through a list of Notices to Airmen, known as NOTAMs, to see if there was any unusual flying activity.
But investigators suggested that police drone operators could also make use of the Centralised Aviation Data System (CADS) which provides real time information about military and other flights.
A spokesman for Devon and Cornwall Police said there had been 'no criticism' of its drone operator.
Devon Live
If you want the full technical nause, head over to the
UK Airprox Board website and scroll down to report 2018011.