Why We Need Certain Consumer Drone Regulations 176
stowie writes: In the last week, state and federal firefighters have fought more than 270 wildfires in California. Here's the problem: firefighters are seeing more unauthorized consumer drones flying over active wildfires. Maybe the drone owners don't know or maybe they don't care, but temporary flight restrictions are placed over wildfire areas due to the aircraft used to help contain the fires. The aircraft used to knock down flames and survey burn areas have to cease operations when there is a drone in the air.
Give firefighters shotguns (Score:1)
Re:Give firefighters shotguns (Score:5, Insightful)
Let them clear the airspace.
No, the FAA should have clear authority in clearing the airspace. The FAA should regulate drones as any other aircraft, and make a clear distinction between a "drone" and an RC toy.
That means that drone operators must comply with FAA rules, check weather briefings and NOTAMs before every flight and stay the F out of a TFR.
Re:Give firefighters shotguns (Score:5, Insightful)
the FAA should have clear authority in clearing the airspace.
The FAA already has that authority. People are ignoring the rules, or just aren't aware of them. This not evidence that we need more regulations.
Nine people were killed in South Carolina last week. Clearly, South Carolina needs to make murder illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
The FAA already has that authority.
Yes, you are right.14 CFR specifies that the FAA has authority over everything that is man-made and flies.
People are ignoring the rules, or just aren't aware of them. This not evidence that we need more regulations.
The FAA has authority to create rules, but the current set of rules need to be applied to newer technology. In short, the rules are limited to:
restricting operations to 400 feet above the surface; requiring that the devices give right of way to, and avoid flying near manned aircraft; and using observers to assist in operations;
(source: https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/... [faa.gov])
What we should have is a set of rules which make a clear distinction between a "drone" and a toy aircraft. For example, I have one of those tiny Hubsan x4 quadcopters. The maximum distance it can fly is 300ft according
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly, South Carolina needs to make murder illegal.
Everyone would rather outlaw a flag instead.
I mean how else we gonna celebrate our second place finish in the great war of northern aggression?
Re: (Score:2)
Birds don't comply with FAA rules... and it's not inconceivable that one to have a drone that looks like a bird from a distance.
Of course, then you might also risk having it shot down anyways...
But what happens when technology gets to the point that you can make a drone that believably (to a human being on the ground) looks like a protected species of bird?
Re: (Score:3)
Birds don't contain carbon fibre, metal and volatile batteries.
Aircraft are designed to survive hitting and/or ingesting birds.
Re: (Score:2)
Now just in case anyone out there isn't clear, a drone is a lot more dangerous to hit than most birds due to mass and strength of many components.
Also, if you are so unworried about birds, you should wonder why airports spend so much
Re: (Score:2)
Bird's also don't generally like flying above a fire.
It's hot and there is a bunch of toxic smoke.
Birds hitting planes don't destroy planes. They cost a lot of money to repair though, hence effort and money spend to keep them (and animal rights groups) away.
On that topic, I would like to seem some testing done on turbofan engines ingesting PETA protesters.
Re:Give firefighters shotguns (Score:4, Informative)
But these "drones" are RC toys.
Re: Give firefighters shotguns (Score:3)
Obviously, "geese and other flying things" are smarter than some drone owners.
Re:Give firefighters shotguns (Score:4, Interesting)
As someone who lives in a rural area** , I agree (I don't want my house burning down because some dumbass thought it'd be cool to get a GoPro video and block the firefighters), but that's not going to help the poor bastard who is making a retardant run and accidentally comes up on one.
Given the fairly limited range of the radios used to control said drones, why not just arrest and jail the idiot who is operating the drone for hindering active firefighting operations? Even better, fine the dummy for any costs associated with an aborted retardant run (ever price-out jet fuel? charge 'em that for a few aborted runs and I bet that no one else would even want to try.) The authorities usually cordon off a *huge* zone around an active fire (especially areas in its projected path) with mandatory evacuation orders, and further orders to bodily remove anyone dumb enough to be within that zone. They emphatically do not screw around with this... which leads me to wonder who would be dumb enough to risk the ire of authorities and property owners by pulling such a stupid stunt.
** Yes, I know what a defensible zone is and I fully do my best to insure one around the homestead. I also sit down with my wife and audit/arrange things every spring (sometime before fire season) to insure that an evacuation order means that either one of us can grab the important/critical shit (and the dogs), and get out of Dodge within five minutes, maximum. It's a good practice to have if you live in a forested wilderness, truth be told.
Re: (Score:1)
They emphatically do not screw around with this... which leads me to wonder who would be dumb enough to risk the ire of authorities and property owners by pulling such a stupid stunt.
If I were a betting man, I'd place my money on unsupervised 12-year-olds.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd place my money on 30 something male with a good job in the tech industry.
Probably also has quite a few bitcoins and hangs out on Reddit and /.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Given the fairly limited range of the radios used to control said drones
Some people use UHF channels to control the "drone" (multirotor) the record distance is up in the tens of kilometers.
The rest I agree with, since it's my hobby and it's rapidly becoming regulated or plain illegal to do what I love, these people piss me off something fierce.
I don't fly over 400 feet up, over people or property, and certainly not near an airport.
Shooting lithium batteries in a dry forest (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If the fire-fighter is the one shooting down the drone -- they're already there.
And in this case, the fire crew can send the fire-alarm bill directly to the drone-operator. The FAA doesn't need the money anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Shooting lithium batteries in a dry forest does not seem like a good solution to the problem.
1) The forest is already on fire
2) I doubt a shotgun would cause it to explode
3) Even if it did, it would most likely extinguish itself before it reaches the ground
4) If a shotgun really is unreasonable then maybe something like foam, a net, and
electrical surge, or even just using a high powered stream of water would probably
work just as good.
Basically, treat it the same way you would treat any other unauthorized airplane with the e
Mindless drones. (Score:1)
I'm not afraid of a giant forest fire, but I'm terrified of drones.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not afraid of a giant forest fire, but I'm terrified of drones.
If you're the pilot of a firefighting aircraft, you understand and mitigate the risks of flying over fires, and through experience those risks and means of mitigation have become reasonably well known. You are not "afraid", you are appropriately cautious.
Drones, on the other hand, are not a well defined risk and can show up in front of you without any notice. Yes, if it means you might crash into an active fire area*, you are scared of drones.
* said areas are typically mountainous and have few readily av
Re: (Score:2)
And? (Score:3, Insightful)
The title of the linked story is, "Here’s a Perfect Example of Why We Need More Consumer Drone Regulation". It sounds like the existing regulation covers this just fine. Just nobody knows how to enforce it yet.
Why do we need new laws for stuff the existing ones cover?
Re: (Score:2)
I think they expect some kind of impractical technical solution, like having drone firmware automatically avoid such areas somehow.
Re: (Score:2)
What if a drone starts to actively harm? (Score:2, Interesting)
My odd little brain has been thinking what if there's a drone that attacks you terminator style? How would the find who the drone owner is?
We've seen software bots go out and get illegal stuff, what if we have a hardware bot doing the same? Hmm, the tool to make a harmful autonomous bot are out there; regulation won't help much at this stage.
Re: (Score:2)
drone based drug delivery system.... hmmmm
Re: (Score:2)
Identifying the owner of the gun that fired the bullet you found in a body is not a trivial task. Figuring out which gun fired the bullet is the first step, and even that required some time and energy to develop and turn into an effective process. Then you have to tie the gun to the shooter, which is even harder and often impossible.
Really there's nothing new here, just the way in which a crime could be committed, and people stupid/sociopathic enough to do it.
TIC solution (Score:2)
The aircraft used to knock down flames and survey burn areas have to cease operations when there is a drone in the air.
OK, so we should be using firefighting drones, right?
obvious solution (Score:3)
> The aircraft used to knock down flames and survey burn areas have to cease operations when there is a drone in the air.
Or, just shoot the drone down. You probably wouldn't even need firearms -- maybe some kind of EMP pulse and let the drone fall into the fire. Or a non-lethal shotgun round designed to take out propellers. (Say, a big tangle if nylon fishing line.)
The thing is, as a drone pilot, if I see a fire, the last thing I want to do is get in the way of firefighters and/or emergency services. That's inexcusable. But to the extent it doesn't interfere, I'd sure love to get some footage. It might even be useful later. I wonder if there's some kind of compromise. Like, drones can scout out the situation until aircraft are deployed, and then must leave the area or risk destruction and/or heavy fines.
Re: (Score:2)
"heavy fines" how ....national drone registry?
Re:obvious solution (Score:4, Insightful)
"heavy fines" how ....national drone registry?
Manned aircraft have to carry transponders and broadcast their license code. It's not unreasonable that "drones" (etc.) which can reasonably easily interfere with aircraft (anything with more than 500' of range might be one possible criteria) should carry a low-power transponder which can be used to ID them. It could work like active RFID, and only broadcast when ID is requested.
Re: (Score:3)
Manned aircraft have to carry transponders and broadcast their license code.
In SOME airspace SOME aircraft have to carry transponders that TRANSPOND to radar interrogation with the code assigned by ATC. It's not a broadcast, it's not a "license code", it's not associated with any specific aircraft until ATC assigns it.
a low-power transponder which can be used to ID them. It could work like active RFID, and only broadcast when ID is requested.
And this would remove the risk of collisions exactly how? "Oh my, there's a drone somewhere in the area. It's ID is ... I guess I can fly right through it because it IDd itself..."
Re: (Score:2)
In SOME airspace SOME aircraft have to carry transponders that TRANSPOND to radar interrogation with the code assigned by ATC. It's not a broadcast, it's not a "license code", it's not associated with any specific aircraft until ATC assigns it.
That sounds like a great system. If you want to fly your drone in controlled airspace, then you should have to have something like that on it.
And this would remove the risk of collisions exactly how? "Oh my, there's a drone somewhere in the area. It's ID is ... I guess I can fly right through it because it IDd itself..."
Last I checked, it was possible to make antennas directional, or even determine direction from an antenna array. But maybe I just imagined that, and you're being snarky because you're really clever and not just because you're being defensive.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like a great system. If you want to fly your drone in controlled airspace, then you should have to have something like that on it.
Nonsense. You shouldn't be in a place where you endanger manned aircraft in the first place.
In the second place, that system depends on ATC providing traffic separation services to the manned aircraft, which they do not do for VFR flights.
Third, it depends on the pilot actually seeing the target to avoid it. Smokey air, turbulence, pilot busy flying and looking for the drop site, not a very good recipe for seeing a small drone before it hits you.
Fourth, it depends on the area having radar service. No r
Re: (Score:2)
I can (and do) build drones out of 3 sticks, 4 motors, 4 speed controllers, one flight controller, one receiver and 4 props with 30 minute flight times and 10km range.
What are you babbling about again? transponderwoohoo??
Re: (Score:2)
Or the fire department launches a drone to follow the other drone home and capture photographic evidence. Give it a strobe so it also serves to warn firefighting aircraft of the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
BEGUN this drone war has
Re: (Score:2)
That's because you were probably raised right and still have the sense you were born with.
We can't assume the same about everybody else. In fact, it's safest to assume everyone else has no idea how to behave and will fuck stuff up more often than not.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, I can imagine a reason why people would bring their drone into a wildfire - cool video shoot.
Sadly, it appears taki
Re:obvious solution (Score:4, Interesting)
But you aren't going to get anywhere near a forest fire in a little battery powered drone. Watch the big heavy helicopters bounce around over the flames. A drone is going to go tits up rapidly in any updraft. After you lose your thousand dollar toy you might think of a less expensive stupid hobby next time - like buying a boat.
A drone sitting over the firefighters or behind them is going to be completely out of the flight line. No danger to anybody since all of the firefighters are wearing hard hats anyway.
And hopefully, the pros with the $20 000 drones that have the range and altitude to get in the way are smart enough to read the NOTAMs and have some common sense. Yes, there will be exceptions, but you can't make stupid illegal. Adding more anti stupid regulations is rarely successful.
Re:obvious solution (Score:5, Insightful)
A drone sitting over the firefighters or behind them is going to be completely out of the flight line.
Firefighting aircraft do not appear magically directly over a fire and then magically disappear after dumping their loads. They have to get from the landing area to the fire and then back again. As a drone operator, you have NO IDEA what the flight path of the firefighting aircraft will be since they have to consider weather and winds and desired destinations in their planning.
And it's not a "flight line" -- that's the place where the airplanes park.
Yes, there will be exceptions, but you can't make stupid illegal.
You can make "dangerous" illegal. And putting an aircraft into a no-fly zone just to take pictures is not just stupid, it is dangerous -- which is why they put temporary flight restrictions over active fires in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
not to mention there is work being done to equip wildfire fighting teams with their own drones to expand their spotting/scouting ability. right now that's done with spotter planes, like the ubiquitous Piper Cub, but the wind shears and smoke can put those spotters at risk, plus they also have to coordinate with the firebombers, refuel, etc. Drone scouting is a way to expand the firefighters capabilities and provide more immediacy, without risking a pilot's life or putting another pilot in the air. but these
Re: (Score:2)
You'll notice the article only has one reported incident of a drone and wildfire. The other, is a neighbor taking pictures of a house fire.
Re:obvious solution (Score:5, Insightful)
You probably wouldn't even need firearms -- maybe some kind of EMP pulse and let the drone fall into the fire.
Right, because an EMP is so much easier to create, more portable, and less likely to cause collateral damage than a beanbag fired from a shotgun.
Or a non-lethal shotgun round designed to take out propellers.
Or a beanbag that carries enough kinetic energy to knock it down no matter where you hit it.
a big tangle if nylon fishing line
Right, let's launch loads of plastic all over the place.
I wonder if there's some kind of compromise. Like, drones can scout out the situation until aircraft are deployed, and then must leave the area or risk destruction and/or heavy fines.
Fine, let the fire department fly their scout drones to recon the fire before moving in. As far as civilians are concerned, stay the fuck away and let the professionals do their jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
> 3. Allowing aircraft to shoot at each other is a non-trivial legal and ethical problem. What happens if your stray rounds hit some kids playing in a park? Bullets can fly for miles and miles.
I'm not qualified to address the other points, but would like to point out that bird shot, which I believe would be much more effective than bullets against drones, has an effective range in tens of yards. Much further than that and the shot has lost the great majority of it's horizontal velocity and becomes tiny
Really? (Score:2)
That must make their operations damn difficult.
I mean I can only assume that they must also cease operation if there are any large birds in the area (a duck, goose, hawk, eagle, etc would do at least as much
damage to them if hit).
Must make fighting forest fires very difficult..
Re: (Score:2)
birds hear better and dodge better
Re: (Score:1)
birds hear better and dodge better
Who cares? A C-130 (or similar) hitting anything but a military-style drone would barely get scratched. Seriously, these things weigh less than 10 kilos, much smaller than said birds. Why is this an issue?
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking of stuff getting in the engines or catching on airspeed probes or something. Aside from that, yeah, the typical consumer drone will get brushed aside pretty handily
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
This sort of comment infuriates me. The fact is that flying any sort of aircraft is risky and lives are on the line, moreso with aerial fire fighting. Any risk that can be eliminated should be. A drone may be small and unlikely to damage full scale aircraft but why take that risk? To do so is foolish and stupid. Like a lot of drone kiddies seem to be. Keeping idiots with their drones away from airports, highways, fire fighting, etc should be done because it's the smart and prudent thing to do.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But it's not your risk to take, nor the drone kiddie's right to take that risk. You honestly think people should be "free" to fly drones in a reckless manner that endangers the lives of others, particularly passengers on an aircraft? That's a strange idea of "freedom." What about the freedom of the pilots already risking their lives to fight the fire? What about the freedom of people just wanting to travel safely from point a to point b. Surely the pilot's freedom to fly how they need to to fight a fire
Re: (Score:2)
caseih raises more excellent points, but IMO misses the worst flaw in your reasoning: it's not okay to drive on the wrong side of the road just because if you cause a head-on collision you'll be held responsible.
Even assuming that you identify the drone 'pilot' responsible, and manage to indict them for what they did; holding somebody responsible for damage or injury doesn't undo the fact that through act or neglect they injured somebody who was innocently going about their day, or in this case, doing thei
Re: (Score:2)
an intelligent society eliminates risks -BEFORE- they cause harm, not after. your "logic" (and that's being generous) is the stupidity that says we shouldn't regulate food producers based on the theory that if they poison and kill someone "the market will punish them"....but meanwhile some is still dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it your opinion that it's OK to do something that kills someone, provided you can be sued? Or that all drone operators have enough insurance to cover the consequences of messing up firefighting?
Re: (Score:2)
There was a story a few months back of a drone interfering with a police helicopter of the Brooklyn Bridge. Everyone was up in arms about it, saying how it jeopardized the lives of pilot and passengers. A few days later it was revealed that it was, in fact, the helicopter that pursued the drone. They determined this by listening to the cockpit recordings and the pilot was laughing about chasing the drone.
Re: (Score:2)
"Less than 10 kilos"...22 pounds.
How many birds do you know that weigh 22 lbs?
One of the most common birds involved in bird strike incidents is the common Canadian goose. They weigh ~10lbs. And they manage to damage aircraft. Particularly if they strike the engines, which is a serious threat. And they're made of a lot softer material than drones are. Metal and hard plastic into a turbine is bad news. You are an idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I would think most birds flee the area around a large wildfire pretty quickly, showing more common sense than drone operators.
Re: (Score:2)
how likely do you think is that birds hang around a raging wildfire?
The relevant regulation (Score:1)
It is your responsibility to know the latest TFRs before you fly anything. Using your flying RC toy during an emergency situation (riot, crime in progress, fire, natural disaster, et al.) is illegal. [risingup.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Using your flying RC toy during an emergency situation (riot, crime in progress, fire, natural disaster, et al.) is illegal."
No it isn't. The FAA's authority to impose flight restrictions, temporary or otherwise, only extends to the point that there is a fucking valid reason to do so. Drones pose so little threat in the described situation that the FAA has no authority to do that shit.
This goes for nearly all government authority. Federal agencies don't get to make up some bullshit and have their way wh
consumers (Score:2)
wait when you say drones you don't mean consumers?!!
This isn't a "perfect" example for more regulation (Score:3)
The article already states that flight restrictions are in effect around a wild fire. So the regulations to prevent this is already in place.
Sounds like an awareness and education issue, the regulations for this example are already appropriate.
Re: (Score:2)
On top of awareness and education, accountability is part of the issue. Significant fines, or possibly jail time for a 2nd offense, would go a long way to preventing this kind of nonsense. Also, a way to identify drones easily should be mandated if they are causing these kinds of problems. I do like the option for firefighters to shoot em down, and think it should be added on top of everything else.
Or why we should regulate aircraft more... (Score:1)
Let's just make it illegal to fly aircraft anywhere close to where I'm flying my drone.... Problem solved. I was here first, YOU fly somewhere else. You are not better than me or in any kind of advanced situation.
I am an "Emergency First Responding Citizen", WHY are you interfering with a FIRST RESPONDER who is monitoring and inventorying the scene of an accident by needing to fly your special big-plane RIGHT where I'm trying to fly my drone?
(See how easy it is, that holier-than-though label of "emergency"
Why We Need.... (Score:2)
We need "rules" because a huge fraction of our population are clinical knuckleheads and somehow don't automatically know better than to harass women, buzz sporting events, disturb fire fighters, interfere with airports, etc. with their store-bought drones. One thing has become very obvious as these now daily incidents have appeared; the vast majority of these idiots are using DJI Phantoms. People with the wit and motivation to build their own drones are usually not the culprits of this silly shit.
But ye
Me! (Score:1)
But me, me and me!
I want the freedom to use MY drone, whenever I want! Me, me, me! The evil government is stripping me from all my rights and freedoms! Me, me, me! I let no government sponsored fireman tell me I can't use MY drone that I paid for with MY money!
I already pay HIS salary with MY money, so he should shut up! Me, me, me!
Virtual Reality? (Score:2)
What makes anyone think that one solitary person is going to obey drone regulations?
You can buy a cheap drone for $200, and a really good one for $1000.
People who seriously contemplate passing rules that will regulate drones are living in some sort of off beat virtual reality. What's next, laser pointers?
Gimme a break.
Re: (Score:1)
Its been done already.
Just because you make it illegal doesn't mean people pay attention.
U.S.C. TITLE 18, CHAPTER 2
Sec. 39A. Aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft
(a) OFFENSE -- Whoever knowingly aims the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, or at the flight path of such an aircraft, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
A bunch of other laws here:
http://www.laserpointersafety.... [laserpointersafety.com]
A statistical reason to support regulation? (Score:2)
There is always a perfectly reasonable sounding justification people can dream up to justify a ban on just about anything.
Example: Cars kill tens of thousands a year. Car deaths are bad so ban Cars. While being completely one-sided at least this example provides an objective cost in lives lost due to vehicles.
The only thing worse than one-sided arguments is parading specific cases as "perfect examples" to justify a course of action regardless of relationship those cases have to larger reality... and of co
Video of drone hitting jet plane... (Score:2)
Regulation because regulation is failing? (Score:2)
There's something to be said about introducing new regulations because people are ignoring the existing regulations. Like making weapons illegal because people use them for murder.
Re: (Score:2)
Useful, not detrimental (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some idiot flying a drone into a fire zone isn't going to help the firefighters. Even if said idiot shares his or her footage, it's probably in an area the firefighters didn't need information on. A drone directed by the firefighters might be very useful. Similarly, firefighters may have aircraft laden with fire retardant flying in the restricted area, but that doesn't mean we should allow random private aircraft.
Reason for the current regulation ? (Score:2)
FAA Mimimum Safe Altitude (Score:2)
The FAA Mimimum Safe Altitude is 1000' so we limit consumer drones to 500'. This solves 90% of the problems. We prohibit use of any drones within 3 miles of controlled airspace at airports.
At wildfires simplly allow police and firefighters involved aircraft operations only, to use highpower frequency jammers when the aircraft are within 3 miles of their position. Then you require any drones that lose control signals to automatically land safely.
If their drone was over the fire and they lose it then that is
Embrace drones, for hell's sake... (Score:2)
Oh, wait, it already exist... http://www.kaman.com/aerospace... [kaman.com]
But I guess people prefer to have their taxes go to war machine to kill other people of a different culture, rather than real public safety machines which would make a change...
Drones are DOA (Score:2)
Yeah it's like this. Until physics prevents a flying drone that fails or is interfered with from following Newton's Laws, drones are too dangerous to be flying over populated areas.
Even "failsafe" parachutes only slow the descent of the 100lb mechanical thing landing on the pedestrian, window, moving car, bridge, darkened road, power line, etc. etc. et fucking cetera.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Demonstrable harm is implied.
But not demonstrated.
Re: (Score:3)
Wait...are you saying that if a drone hits you in the head there is no demonstrable harm?
Has to happen first.
It means 'evident" or "able to be proved".
Yes.
Be that as t may, you didn't clarify the second half of your post. It doesn't make sense to me. Could you please clarify?
When an authority has a predictable, but dangerous response to otherwise harmless behavior, that can be exploited For example, the militarization of the US's police has resulted in the ploy of "swatting" [wikipedia.org] where law enforcement and emergency service response to a phone call can create a very dangerous situation. Similarly, you can now interfere with air based fire fighting merely by lofting a drone at an inopportune moment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Demonstrable harm is implied. For instance, if I'm at a company picnic and a drone hits me in the head, it won't be much of a problem demonstrating harm to a court.
Ok. What kind of regulations would prevent this? And what regulation will prevent a ball hitting me in the head or any other object a person can use?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't register my bike which is a better anolgy unless that is one hell of a huge drone
Re: (Score:2)
It's been self regulating until recently. RC pilots generally belong to the AMA and the rules for the AMA include putting your name and address inside your aircraft.
Theoretically the AMA also provides insurance for the pilots, but I don't think anyone has ever been able to collect on that in 50 years.
Re: (Score:1)
But maybe those regulations are worded to specifically refer to occupied aircraft. In which case, yeah, those regulations need updating.
Re:Drones (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy wasn't doing anything wrong. If a damn airplane or helicopter is afraid to run into a drone, that's their own fault. The libs always want to regulate everything to death. The firefighters should just let it be...if he was buzzing around their heads or some shit then that would be understandably interfering. But he was not. This idea that we need to destroy innovation... it's unamerican. The video he shot was very cool...and could have been educational to some. I just think some people are afraid of the future.
You think flying an object into a plane's engine, potentially causing it to crash and causing massive damage to the ground, extending the length of the fire, and the death of everyone on board, to be "american", "very cool", "educational", and "innovative"?
I think it's stupid. Helicopters already give you a view of the fire from above, if that's really what you want, but the pilots there know what flight regulations are - not to mention have some actual training. On top of that, your right to fly a recreational vehicle is trumped by the right of the firefighters to save lives or limit damage, flying one yourself and interfering with their job in just plain inconsiderate - which I suppose might be "very cool" and "innovative" to you...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then don't fly manned choppers, fly fire-extinguishing drones.
How much fire retardant does a drone carry?
Now how much fire retardant can a helicopter carry?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the Kmax is a converted heavy lift manned helicopter.
that's not what he's referring to and you know it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A passenger aircraft flies much, much higher than drones, only possibly interfering during take-off and landing. They also fly reasonably predictable paths and the airspace around the airports are tightly regulated anyway. A fire-fighting helicopter, on the other hand, flies much lower, and may have to change paths rapidly to account for the situation.
I doubt an MIT study on drones colliding with passenger aircraft would be valid in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
and if he killed someone? or his drone, not being hardened against smoke and fire, crashed and ignited another fire?
you're an idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
Remove all metal and flammable batteries from the drones.
Make them out of meat and bone.
Re: (Score:2)
When a wildfire gets going the birds generally abandon the area. Also, they're better at see-and-avoid than drones.
Also, firefighting airplanes that are dumping retardant on the fire are going low and slow and it wouldn't take much of a hit to put them too low.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a technology problem.
The sale of RC aircraft may need to further regulation. So far it's been mostly a self regulated process through the AMA helping RC pilots follow safety procedures and comply with FAA rules. But most hobby shops will sell you anything you want without checking for an AMA card, but some of them do at least mention it to those new to RC.
A callsign, license and test, like done in HAM radio, seems like the obvious solution to me. Hobbyists need to understand the rules and be lia