Slashdot Mirror
Why We Need Certain Consumer Drone Regulations
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.
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?
> 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.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Smokeater pilots are well familiar with dodging flaming buzzards. Drones don't catch fire, so the pilots would have a hard time spotting them before they were sucked into an intake.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
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.
BlameBillCosby.com
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.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
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.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
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.
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...
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
But these "drones" are RC toys.
Birds don't contain carbon fibre, metal and volatile batteries.
Aircraft are designed to survive hitting and/or ingesting birds.
Remove all metal and flammable batteries from the drones.
Make them out of meat and bone.
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.
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.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
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 /.
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" 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.
Obviously, "geese and other flying things" are smarter than some drone owners.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese