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?
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.
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.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
"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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
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."
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.