Slashdot Mirror
Drone Diverts Firefighting Planes, Incurring $10,000 Cost
An anonymous reader writes: Fire is raging through thousands of acres of forest in California. A few days ago we discussed how a man's personal drone was shooed away from a fire site. Now, the drone situation has gotten worse. The U.S. Forest Service is helping to fight the fire by sending planes full of fire retardant to drop on the surrounding area. Unfortunately, one of the missions had to be diverted because a private drone had encroached upon the planes's airspace. The mission involved three planes, all loaded with retardant. One was large enough to find another target on which to drop its payload, but the other two simply had to jettison and return to base. Officials say the failed mission wasted at least $10,000. They're now having to spend extra time keeping an eye out for these drones and trying to educate operators on the temporary restrictions in place around forest fires.
If you got nosy neighbors I feel bad for you son. I got 99 problems but a dork's drone ain't one. Serious suggestion, start shooting toy drones down when they're interfering with something important.
As much as I'd like to see drone operators exercise some responsibility, the system is completely broken if you can turn a state into a firestorm with a minor act of arson and some auto-loitering drones.
Step 1. Start fire
Step 2. Set drone to loiter over areas with the most fire, at about 1500 feet
Step 3. The world ends in fire.
If we cannot create firefighting craft which can tolerate drone strikes, then we're completely fucked, because any enemy can utterly destroy our country with nothing but a few container-loads of drones.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
They need retard retardant.
Why doesn't the Forest Service simply set up RF generators to flood the local 2.4/5Ghz spectrum and cause them to lose control/crash?
I think that's more than warranted when a fire is threatening peoples homes.
That or pass a law holding drone operators liable for any loss due to their activity.. make it a civil statue so the burden of proof is much lower and easier to win against them.
Why doesn't the Forest Service simply set up RF generators to flood the local 2.4/5Ghz spectrum and cause them to lose control/crash?
Because they're drones, idiot. They tend to hover in place when they lose signal, or if they're fixed-wing, they fly circles which is even worse for your purposes.
If you want to bring down drones, you're going to need a net. Or a really big HERF.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Place some guns on the front of the planes and just shoot them down. Once a few get shot down they will learn.
Flooding the airwaves would have the desired effect, idiot.
Drones can't enter the area if they're hovering in place. Idiot.
I guess it's time to post a significant reward for information leading to the arrest of the person who did this. Apparently just the news stories about how stupid this is isn't enough to dissuade these idiots. So a good stiff fine is needed, and his drone seized. Hopefully that would finally send a message. Time for someone to 'fess up and spread the word to others.
Being an RC airplane enthusiast myself, it angers me to see such lack of regard for the rights and property of others. It's exciting to see such technology but unfortunately the barrier to entry is now so low that people are able to act without thinking.
What the fuck? Have you tried just counting the number of cities in the general vicinity of a forest? Hint: it's a significant proportion of the world. We use airplanes because they're fast, they can carry immense loads of water or fire retardant, they're far safer for their operators than any other mechanism and they're quite cheap for the amount of work they can do. To not use airplanes is a suggestion only a complete idiot would make.
Exactly. If people want to move to the middle of nowhere, they need to take on the expense of protecting their homes themselves. There's absolutely no reason the rest of us should need to subsidize the lifestyle of people already rich enough to move to those places.
"If you want to bring down drones, you're going to need a net. Or a really big HERF."
Or maybe a load of fire retardant dropped on it. I mean, if you're going to ditch it anyway...
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Amazingly, guns are not the solution to every problem, despite what the NRA has told you.
RF jamming and/or GPS spoofing would be a better/easier way to down these craft, and a drop from 500 feet into a forest fire would have the same deleterious effect on the airframe that bullets would.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Leave the drones to the professionals at Amazon, Google, and Verizon. They're the ones to best manage that public airspace soon to be worth billions of dollars. And be sure and spread all the FUD possible about private drones, anecdotal "evidence" is great, if you don't have any, make it up.
Drone in the same "airspace". Guffaw.
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
Can we stop calling them drones. They're remote controlled (hobby) airplanes. Drones makes it sound like it's a weaponized, autonomous craft weighing hundreds of pounds.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
You're 100 million% right.
It's very fortunate that none of them have little computer doohickeys on them that you could use for preprogramming a route.
In fact the very idea is crazy.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
1. they're remotely operated UAVs, not drones.
2. Shoot the motherfuckers down. Yes, you read that right. If an aircraft is in airspace it shouldn't be, destroy the fucking thing. If there's a situation that calls for larger aircraft equipped to deal with the situation, and there's a fucking UAV in the way, tag it, kill it and wait for the first twat to roll into a police station to complain that his toy has been shot down and arrest the cunt,
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Pilot: "Nearing fire, ready to drop flame retardant. I can see a small pilotless drone ahead. What are my orders?"
Commander: "Pilotless drone? I don't wish to be responsible or liable for any outcome, including the worst thing I can imagine. Why are you asking me what to do, when I can't see it?"
Pilot: "I am not accepting responsibility for any outcome you can imagine."
Commander: "I'm not taking the fall for it. Ordering you to get out of there. We will blame the other drone commander, and assign liability to him"
Pilot: Roger that. Jettisoning flame retardant. Record this - 'See? See? See what you made me do??'"
Commander: Recording. 'Seeing, Seeing, Seeing what he made you do.' Liability transferred.
Now I wasn't there, so the above dialogue is just speculation, but from my years in the public sector, imagined liability relayed to outside command is rather dronelike and occurs pretty often. "making an example" out of someone follows.
Gently reply
.
Incidents such as this one, and the increasing number of close calls at major airports involving drones, are making me re-evaluate my opinions about drone regulation.
Too many drone operators are putting public safety at risk in order to have their fun.
What's it going to take before these idiot drone operators come to their senses? A two-hour delay in fighting a fire that allows a fire to go from contained to out-of-control? The crash of an airplane with 300 passengers on board? What?
Why doesn't the Forest Service simply set up RF generators to flood the local 2.4/5Ghz spectrum and cause them to lose control/crash?
Because there is NO lawful justification for interfering with the band in such a manner. This is why there are no cellphone jammers along the highways. Idiots still causing traffic incidents while texting or checking out Kim Kardashian's latest status update. In fact, not even the GOVERNMENT are allowed to use jammers, which is precisely why they're being so cagey about Stingray.
Citation: 18 U.S.C. 1362 and 18 U.S.C. 1367, 47 U.S.C. 301, 47 U.S.C. 302a, 47 U.S.C. 333, 47 U.S.C. 503, 47 U.S.C. 510.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
A mid-air collision or some one on the ground who gets killed by the fire would have been manslaughter. Drone owners are idiots. News channels with helicopters ask permission and coordinate, and the Forest Service does so as they are mandated to respect freedom of the press. We need to license drones just like we do light aircraft and require training. Get rid of the idiots.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
I agree that "drones" must be kept out of flight paths, but what kind of damage can a five pound RC helicopter do to a multi-ton flying fire truck?
Exactly. If people want to move to the middle of nowhere, they need to take on the expense of protecting their homes themselves. There's absolutely no reason the rest of us should need to subsidize the lifestyle of people already rich enough to move to those places.
Right you are! And there's no reason we should subsidize people who choose to live near the coasts and risk hurricane damage. There's no reason we should subsidize people who choose to live in tornado-prone areas. There's no reason we should subsidize people who choose to live too close to rivers in flood-prone areas. There's no reason we should subsidize people who choose to live in earthquake-prone areas.
Uhhh...
Where the fuck should we all live???
You are the one who is 100 million% right. The idea that we must come up with a single solution to every possible contingency, instead of coming up with one solution that covers most contingencies and then addressing outliers as they come up? That is so fucking correct, words cannot express how correct that is.
That was sarcasm BTW.
It is NOT our job to bail out failing banks, nor irresponsible people, nor obsolete industries. Yes, the government routinely does all three and more. But N wrongs do not make (N+1)th wrong right both as in "answer" and as in "of way".
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
The problem is not the use of aircraft. The problem is the use of federal tax dollars. People who live there can pool their money and hire firefighting equipment, be it airplanes, be it trucks, be it jet packs to evacuate people. If the cost is really commensurate with the level of subsidies enjoyed by tax payers who choose not to live in fire prone (or hurricane prone, or flood prone, or mine subsidence prone) areas, we would not mind. It is the out-of-proportion entitlement mentality of these people that is in question.
The problem is not the use of aircraft. The problem is the use of federal tax dollars. People who live there can pool their money and hire firefighting equipment, be it airplanes, be it trucks, be it jet packs to evacuate people. If the cost is really commensurate with the level of subsidies enjoyed by tax payers who choose not to live in fire prone (or hurricane prone, or flood prone, or mine subsidence prone) areas, we would not mind. It is the out-of-proportion entitlement mentality of these people that is in question.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Except that most of the forest fires happen on Federal land. Especially in the western US, the Federal government owns huge tracts of land. If you don't do anything then you are liable for damages when problems on your property start interfering with others. The government does have some immunity to suits like this but has been successfully sued for damages caused by forest fires.
People are starting to think along your lines but old bad habits die hard, especially when you have to pay for them yourself.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Get a bunch of people involved in it.
Consumer-grade 'drones' are fun toys to play with (I don't own one but I'll take it on faith that they are). But as with just about anything, my 'rule of thumb' holds true: Get a large group of people involved in something that's otherwise good, and they'll find a way to ruin it for everyone else. Because of that here's what's likely to happen:
All drones, regardless of being miltary, government, commercial, or privately owned, will have to be registered (similar to any other aircraft), and perhaps be required by law to have some sort of transponder incorporated into their design, so they can be identified remotely just like any other aircraft. Furthermore, all prospective drone pilots will be required to take and pass a training course before even being allowed to purchase a drone. That way drone owners, like in this article, can be held accountable for their actions, and maybe the dumbshits that would do something like this can be weeded out before they even get their hands on a drone in the first place.
..and before you get mad at me for saying this, I suggest you direct your rage at the moron who's flying his drone in the airspace of firefighting aircraft trying to do their job. 'Muh freedoms' doesn't, and shouldn't, extend to anyone being stupid, inconsiderate, and borderline illegal.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
If there's one entitled person here, it's you, for you seem quite entitled to have authority in deciding where federal money is spent.
How much is Diane Feinstein's office paying Slashdot to publish stories like this? I fly R/C helicopters and I sure as fuck don't want them banned or restricted to the point where they have to be equipped with the sort of expensive equipment it would take for them to respect NOTAMs.
Not to mention that it won't work. There's already open-source versions of the control systems. What component are you going to restrict?
The idea that we must come up with a single solution to every possible contingency, instead of coming up with one solution that covers most contingencies and then addressing outliers as they come up?
That is precisely what you propose when you suggest outlawing drones from these areas. Guess what? They're already outlawed there, but people are flying them anyway. These people aren't even malicious, they're clueless. Now, what happens when people do act with malice? It's the same reason why V2V is fucking ignorant. You can't trust the other actors.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The plane did not *have* to divert, the plane *chose* to divert, to make a point about drones.
If the drone was operating between 800 and 900 feet off the ground, it was well out of any potential collision zone.
An airtanker on a retardant run operates at an altitude of 150 to 200 feet.
Except that most of the forest fires happen on Federal land.
Yeah. You know why they have forest fires raging out of control there? Piss-poor management. See, the only management that goes on in the BLM land is mismanagement. Strip-mining, clear-cutting, oil-pumping, cattle overgrazing. And then we stop forest fires that really need to continue, to burn out the old brush. So then when we do get a fire, we get a supermassive fire that's expensive to fight.
We could institute building codes that prohibit the use of flammable materials in a fucking forest. We don't do that. In fact, code mandates horrible opposites to that. Like, your wiring has to be jacketed with PVC, which releases an assload of dioxin when it burns. Thanks!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The whole effort is one big exercise in running away.
Irony: our fearless leaders forgetting or failing to comprehend the import of the story about the Hydra, then compounding that failure for so long that the Hydra is now made out of fire.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Because there is NO lawful justification for interfering with the band in such a manner.
Of course there is. They're not permitted to use their radio equipment in an unlawful manner, so they're already operating without protection of the FCC.
We don't use cellphone jammers because they are indiscriminate. But they could use a direction antenna to bring down the drone... if it weren't a fucking drone, which will probably just hover in place until the batteries run out if you interrupt its radio signal.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Determine how dangerous the buggers really are to aircraft, and if they're not very. Then go through them. If you hit them, recover the pieces dust for fingerprints and arrest the owners for attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder. And if (actually, when) it happens to an airliner, you can also add the word "mass" somewhere in those accusations.
http://www.techenstein.com/cal-fire-aircraft-forced-down-by-military-drone/
This is an RS-20 UAV with orange wings, and has nothing to do with this story other than it fitâ(TM)s the profile and we needed an image. Stock photos are frequently used by the media because they have so little actual information to go on.
On Wednesday June 24, Cal Fire aerial tankers were forced to the ground by a military reconnaissance drone. The 4 ft wide orange fixed wing drone was first spotted at 11,000 ft and crossed paths with a Cal Fire tanker and spotter aircraft. In fear for their lives, the Cal Fire aircraft had to return to base, as did all other Cal Fire aircraft that were in the air.
"Oh I saw a small plane flying at 900ft off the ground at an elevation of 11,000ft above sea level, in the middle of a national park miles away from civilisation, the only possible explanation is that this is an IGNORANT HOBBYIST DRONER! Fear, Uncertainty, Death!"
If you're into RC at all, you'd know that it's pretty damn hard to make a craft capable of flying at that altitude, that far away from the nearest feasible take off point. Why is everyone assuming that this is a hobbyist UAV? Isn't it much more likely that it is a military UAV?
We're working on it...
Beware of the Leopard.
Their retardant properties are outstanding.
Yeah it's great for blowing jihadiis out of their Lexuses in Yemen but that doesn't mean it scales for civilian contexts and populated areas where, you know Newton's Laws of gravitational force act on bodies. You can't have even 4 lb objects flying anywhere they want because each one turns into a downward missle as soon as it malfunctions for any reason whatsoever or runs into a power line or a bird or whatever (whatever =~ 1 million other unforeseen events).
Air space is controlled by the FAA , just some people don't understand that and think drones==kites, 'cause , you know , they're both marketed as harmless toys.
We're not going to be a society whizzing drones overhead ala The Jetsons with falling anvil warning signs ala The Roadrunner everywhere. This is where Hanna Barbera visions of the future break down.
We'll have makebot manufacturing in our general localities before that happens.
Amazon wants to do this and even with all their power to buy the votes of politicians, it aint' gonna happen.
I'm not a pilot. But it's only logical that if you're piloting a friggin DC-10, and PUTTING YOUR LIFE ON THE LINE, a few hundred feet above the ground, with little margin of error, that you are rightly incensed that some amateur almost killed you messing around with their drone.
I'm now gonna go mod the parent down as troll and idiot.
I don't understand why they had to divert so much for a tiny drone. Seems like a little jog to the left, and another to the right, and an angry finger gesture ...
Simple solution: send out a chopper dangling a big heavy net to entrap and destroy the "remove controlled (hobby) airplanes." No warning, no discussion. Destroy them. I'm sure the FAA won't complain, and screw the owner.
Same choppers they use to haul big buckets of water to dump on fires, so I'm sure they're available.
Fly a little higher and dump the fire retardant on the drone too.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/550269-drones-threatening-commercial-c-16.html
These guys are, ya know, mostly actual pilots. Unlike most of the posters on this thread (me included).
This thread is the end where the firefighter incident is discussed. I'll save you the time having to read the full discussion :
- drones, worse than birds, scare the crap out of them. These are commercial pilots. Drones are easy to pilot, and cheap to purchase.
- no good solutions are apparent.
The drones are small fry. They're no worse than birds. These drones are small. Very small. Very fragile. Very light weight. These are not military style missile shooting drones but more on the scale of small model aircraft. This whole thing is over reaction.
The drone was 'in the air space' not in imminent collision, not collided.
The probability is the drone would not have been hit by the firefighter plane.
Had the drone been hit then the probability is the drone would be destroyed and the fire fighter plane would barely notice.
Had the firefighter plane noticed it would likely not have sustained any significant damage.
The drones are not a significant threat. Mow them down if they get in the way of the firefighting plane.
This whole thing is an over reaction.
... if the drone was actually physically in the way of the fire department's approach path, or would just have been hit by a few hundred tonnes of retardant. If the latter, it seems a fairly simple decision... Go for it anyhow, and any drone in the way copes as best it can, as it shouldn't be in the airspace in the first place.
-=DaveHowe=-
Because there is NO lawful justification for interfering with the band in such a manner.
Of course there is. They're not permitted to use their radio equipment in an unlawful manner
They aren't. And if they were, that doesn't grant someone else the hijack the airwaves in retaliation.
And Uber scares the crap out of taxi medallion holders. Same reason; might make their licenses less valuable. They both talk about safety and propose onerous restrictions which would just happen to make the service untenable unless you're a large operator.
Why not dump the retardant on top of the damned drone instead of diverting. Idiotic paranoia about drones is rather dumb. Either that or just hit it.
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
An aircraft dropping fire retardant or water on a fire typically conducts its drop at 400 to 800 feet. Moving at about 160 mph. With the obvious (I hope) possibility for major turbulence caused by heated air rising off a fire.
The drone in question had an approximate 4 foot wingspan, and was flying between 800 and 900 feet.
Explain to me why we should turn a fire fighting operation into an aircraft crash scene as well, just because some shithead wants to do a flyby of the firefighting aircraft?
A drone of that size sucked into an engine at low altitude and low speed gives the pilots at best SECONDS of response time to recover and correct the emergency condition. They are already operating in a very risky setting, and you're going to sneer at them for deciding they didn't want to put their lives in the hands of some asshole with an RC plane?
Fuck you.
IMO, there's a big difference between the traditional R/C aircraft people flew for fun and some of these larger-sized drones people are operating now.
I could see some sort of mandatory licensing for the bigger ones, but I think they need to do so while leaving the rest of the hobby alone.
They aren't.
They are. They are required to check advisories like any other pilot, and they had no business flying there.
that doesn't grant someone else the hijack the airwaves in retaliation.
As long as it's done directionally, I'm not seeing a problem... except insofar as that it won't work.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This is the question people need to be asking, whose aircraft was it? Everyone just assumed from the beginning that this was a hobbyist's drone, but I don't think so.
The size of the craft on its own, with a 4-foot wingspan, rules out most if not all commercially available hobby drones. Add the flight capabilities it's supposed to have had and we're not talking about anything you can buy off the shelf. This isn't something you order from Amazon and run out to the hills for a day of fun with your new toy. If it was a hobbyist, it's one who put a lot of money and effort into this aircraft and that type of devotee is highly unlikely to violate TFRs and endanger other a/c. I just don't buy it being a hobbyist either way.
I would put money on this being a government surveillance aircraft that someone didn't re-task to avoid the fire and TFRs. Government gets egg on its face and blames those dastardly hobbyists.
It's ok to be AC.
Surly there has to be an inexpensive way to jam the signal of the drone. Attach a jamming device to each plane and as it flys around the drone loose signal and crash.
FYI: Web site for encouraging responsible UAV operation:
http://www.dronepilotwings.com/
(run by Randy Cassingham of This Is True fame)
"Fish" (David B. Trout)
This seems like one of those cases where the FCC rules limiting frequency interference take a back seat for the greater good. Put noise generator aboard the firefighting planes which jams the control frequencies commonly used by hobby drones and RC aircraft (any drones used by the firefighters can be adapted to use a different frequency - probably military). After these idiots lose control of their precious drone and watch it fall into the fire, they'll learn pretty quickly not to fly them around firefighting equipment.
And the blogger raises several points:
1.) The alleged drone had a four foot wide wingspan fixed-wing aircraft with bright orange wings.
Most hobbyist don't operate unmanned aerial vehicles. They operate what is called First Person View (FPV) aircraft that have limitations due to maintaining a video signal link as well as a flight control link. To operate such a FPV drone at extended distances through a mountainous/hilly terrain, such as where this fire is, is rolling the dice as to whether you will ever see your drone back again. And given the costs of a setup capable of maintaining a video/control link at the ranges alleged means such a FPV operator has some serious money invested in their equipment. The blogger mentions that such capable equipment capable of this is not available off-the-shelf.
2.) The fire department claimed the incident occurred at 11,000 feet.
Is this 11,000 feet "AGL" (Above Ground Level?) or above sea level? Because if it is AGL, again this makes it less and less likely this was a hobbyist operated drone due to the extreme distances/elevation (effectively 2 miles up).
3.) The blogger mentions:
The color orange or red is frequently used by the U.S. Navy as well as other agencies to increase visibility of the unmanned aircraft, and is typically not a concern for hobbyists.
One user in the subreddit post pointed out that the El Mirage dry lake bed is approximately 10 miles from the fire area where allegedly
"there is a UAV/Predator testing site/company there".
While this is by no means conclusive, I'm inclined to call "Bullshit" given the scarcity of information. The lack of an arrested individual to publicly shame/ridicule (it's easy to follow a 4 foot wingspan bright orange drone back to it's controller...), ambiguous "facts" (actual elevation?, distance of separation?) and the proximity to a military unmanned drone testing site within 10 miles leads me to believe this was a military drone.
Leaving all of these media articles cropping up about this incident nothing more than F.U.D. designed to whip up hysteria about a topic that is somewhat controversial.
If that doesn't work, sharks with frigging lasers on their heads.
One of the problems here is information- dissemination.
First, how did the drone operator know he was in the path of the flights. It could very well be that the flight path changed because the winds shifted a bit and they needed to approach differently to hit the intended targets. You also have the problem of the targets changing. These planes were dropping retardant which means they would want to drop on different spots with each flight. Finally, why not- if you have to abort and I assume drop the retardants anyways due to duel considerations, why not drop it on the drone which was at least near the intended target. The drone would likely have been taken out and the next run could fill in the gap and the only lost value would be dropping out of order in the runs.
But seriously, where does a drone operator get the information from or more importantly, how does the fire crew disseminate it so the drone operator would have known?
Solvable problem.
Except. errrmmm, a falling drone is likely powered by a lithium-ion battery that, well ....
Dang.
or some kind of journalists?
Student pilot here, you're wrong. I fly for a hobby and will never earn a living doing it so I have no fear of lost income, but drones are scary because they could kill me. The thought of a quadcopter popping up in front of my flight path on short final is scary indeed - there's already plenty to think about without worrying about that.
Like anything, flying is a calculated risk and I accept the odds, the recent proliferation of cheap drones just makes it a bit riskier. It's not so scary that I'm going to stop, but I would like some kind of formalized rule to mitigate it. Nobody wants draconian restrictions like mandatory licensing, but Joe Sixpack oughtn't try to take a close-up video of my landing without discussing it with me beforehand (link).
OP is correct, there is no good solution apparent.
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
The drone in question was a rather large fixed wing (read plane) drone. Not talking about some small quad rotor piece of crap.
The dissemination is done by smoke signal. Where there is a big fire do not fly you toy. This is dangerous even *IF* there were almost no chance of harm. Additional risks are bad. This is not a complicated subject nor does it need any special dissemination. The person knew there was a fire there. That is why they flew there. They are giving the hobby a bad name and are going to be the cause of additional regulation. People will then whine about the "persecution." Those people will have a huge overlap of those who failed to see why things like this are bad. Those people are not bright and you can join them or educate them. If this is your hobby you should either educate them or punch them in the nuts.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
They are pooling their money, it is called taxes. It is also interesting that you managed to invent a whole bunch of information about these people in your first post. You are starting to sound like one of the nut-job Republicans who was so ashamed of their party that they decided to co-opt the name Libertarian without doing more homework than reading the various Ayn Rand Cliff Notes or watching half of a YouTube video.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Not all fires are fought with air support. Not all fires have 24/7 air support. To say this one at this time would have it because there is a fire is a bit misleading.
Agreed, education is needed and warranted, but I have never- ever- called any civil or military aviation board or the nearest airport or anything when launching model rockets or flying remote controlled airplanes (not the drone type). I have asked people permission to fly on or over their land, but for the most part, it's either my own land or public property. I would have no idea there is a no fly zone that pertained to my small model aircraft or where it might have been. And yes, a 4 foot wingspan is a larger but still small model aircraft. When we get a forest fire in my neck of the woods, they send men in with shovels and heavy equipment and we have firetrucks with four, six and ten wheel drive sending water in. Of course we don't have huge swaths of inaccessible lands in my area as roads are pretty well established.
And at least you have the courage to stand by your words and to own them - to be accountable for them. There is that and that is, I feel, a respectable trait and one of the reasons that I, personally, only post as an AC when I clearly identify myself and only due to there being a limitation to the number of times I can post even though I have a karma rating of 'excellent.' So, while I disagree with your points and think you are stretching a bit too thin on the idea of what the government should do - it is kind of there to protect stupid people, those who can not protect themselves and such, I do respect your right to say them and do have a bit more respect that you have the courage to stand by your beliefs rather than attempt petty arguments or name calling.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
How about if you opt to live in the city and you are impacted by crime. Can you call the police to get your stolen car back or do you have to do it action-movie style and go hunt down the thieves yourself with nothing but a gun, your gymnastic skills, and wire-harness stunts? Don't go living in dangerous areas and expect the government to bail you out.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I was a bit curious about that, thank you. When I read the size it made me think that it may not be what the story implies. The AC post above you indicates that it was, indeed, a military drone.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Even still, do you think it prudent to fly your UAV over a forest fire and add the mayhem? Seemingly you do not, you seem to be bright and have a decent set of values. Adding anything, even with the smallest potential, to the already risky situation is a bad idea. I have been in the path of a fast moving forest fire, willfully, and have seen the confusion it can cause. (I took the time to type a bit of this out in response to someone post in here.) Obviously you do not stay in the path of the fire but you do need to be in its path at times.
It is loud, smoky, dangerous, and communication is poor. Any increased complexity to that situation is unacceptable. Any... There is no such thing as, well they are already at risk and the additional risk is trivial... No. Any such risk is unacceptable. If you do not need the risk you do not add it to an already dangerous situation. Is there a chance that the UAV can come down on equipment or personnel? Yes. The chance of that happening is so small you can call it nearly impossible. Is there still that chance, that slim chance? Absolutely thus it is not needed and is a potential liability.
Is that UAV in the air to do something good? If it were being used to help coordinate the folks seeking to control and stop the fire then the risks are outweighed by the potential benefits. They will also be in communication (hopefully) with the various agencies involved in fighting the fire so will know when it is time to leave the airspace and make room for the retardant drops. Was this the case here? Nope. It turns out, from reading the thread, that this was likely a military UAV and not a hobbyist's craft. When I read the size and thought about the range I thought it was odd but I am not a UAV hobbyist so I felt speculation was out of order.
Anyhow, as for your operating choices, you (or any reasonably responsible person) are welcome, nay - encouraged, to come make use of my land. I have a great deal of it and share it liberally. Ask nicely and I will even let you chop trees down to make a trail to fly your craft on but I suspect the trails are already adequate but making some more challenging might be fun. If we do it close enough to the house I could rig something up to expand the wireless signal and you could stream races live to the internet. I suspect cell phone data would be enough for some transfers but may need more than one connection to cover the live video data from a race.
I do not participate in your hobby, I have but I do not find it appealing enough to bother doing it, but I would hate to see your liberties restricted due to the bad behavior of some people. In this particular case it was probably the military or a testing company that violated the airspace but that does not mean that the media cares or that the legislators will not enact draconian laws in an effort to curtail this behavior. You are certainly intelligent enough to know that the legislation is not concerned about doing the right thing and, after all, election season is opening up. It is time to get those campaign talking points in order. It will not impact me one way or the other but I still do not like draconian laws regardless of who they impact.
Thanks for the rational/sane response. I read a lot of responses and this thread is lacking in logic in many of the replies and comments. The breath of fresh air is appreciated.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
In most circumstances, an area where fire retardant is being dropped is way rural, if not straight on wilderness, and falling buckshot worth the falling drone debris.
Luke, help me take this mask off
If the operator doesn't know the source of information, which is from the federal agency regulating air space, they have no business operating. It is like a busine that claim ignorance when they are found to be in non-compliance with permits and such.
If you see my other postings you would realize that I am a progressive, supporting government action on environment, regulation of corporations etc. I defend progressive tax system where the top 1% provide half the tax revenue and urge for even more progressive system. Though I believe such a system would be justified based on kindness,patriotism, etc, I do not invoke them in defense. It is too easy to dismiss them as the touchy feely unthinking socialist/communist ideas, I would use venture capital model, where the government is a venture capitalist with very long time horizon, where it invests on all citizens, not knowing who is going to hit the jackpot and becime super successful. But when they do, they have to pay dividends on their earnings, which is why we tax "successful" people more. We invested in them too.
Here my biggest complaint is about the people who benefit by these government actions staying silent when the crisis is gone, when the anti-government tax cheats come out of the woodwork and start attacking the government. BLM policies that make it fight every fire, not declaring clearly the ares they are not going to fight, not cracking down on polluting miners etc are also bad. But they are par for the course for government action.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
City dwellers pool their money in the name of city taxes and fund their local police force.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Insurance rates of cars and home are high in high crime areas, there is no federally subsidized flood insurance counterparts to high crime areas.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
That is fine. How about the many other circumstances that you mentioned? In fact this started with fire as I recall...
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
And so don't those woods dwellers. Imagine that!
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
It seems likely that you are just assuming your own traits about certain people. I am actually in a position where I feel I should probably pay more in taxes. So, instead, I donate extra and I donate my time. On the other hand, I live in the middle of nowhere and I would like them to fight a fire near my home. At the same time, I am well away from the tree-line and should be okay just by turning on the sprinklers and keeping my roof wet though I am not sure if that could even catch on fire easily.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I wouldn't just because of the chance of losing the plane let along any mayhem it might add to the situation.
I would never say anything like that, my comment was how does someone know. It's a communication thing and despite you thinking it should be obvious, at least three people we know of didn't. Maybe what is needed is an 800 number or website someone can check and possible reminders to check packed into different items with the drone or drone parts.
As for a 4 foot wingspan, I don't have any but I do remember RC planes that large and larger being flown. But these were RC planes and line of sight. I havn't kept up with them and most of my experience was in recreating original planes at scale models that actually fly. I never got into the jet engines though and the larger ones were completely out of my budget. But there is one of the largest planes being flown.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Can you imagine the electronics that could fit into one of these..
I could be convinced to play with one of those. I want to hook up servos and a small caliber pistol in the nose. Maybe something like a Ruger Mk. II. And, yes, there is plenty of room in that thing for lots of fuel and lots of electronics. Something like that could be turned into an autonomous drone. Which looks like it would be less fun, really.
Anyhow, I do not know if the FCC has an 800 number to call and check for flight restrictions. They should. I kind of assumed they did, actually.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
If they do, I don't know about it.
Most of the fun for me was making the replica. It's like building models except they work like the real things. My stuff is a lot smaller but I've seen the larger ones in real life. They have them now with Jet engines and speeds that are unreal for a remote controlled unit. Or if anything, they are way beyond my skill levels. When I was into it enough to spend money, the jets were a pipe dream or electric motor with a prop enclosed in a housing to simulate a jet engine. Now they are a reality and actually burn fuel.
As for mounting a gun, of course that wouldn't be legal but we had some mount flour bombs, open bomb bays and drop bugs (beneficial bugs for pest controls in agriculture). I've heard stories of people mounting home made paintball guns. You could do it but I do not know if the air frame would survive the recoil. You could likely get a POV camera mounted to aim it too with all the new fangled electronics they have now. It sounds like it would be fun to try.
I have a lot of land, an absurd amount, and I believe it is technically illegal for *most* uses of a firearm on an aircraft. However, I have seen "documentaries" (I do not like calling series of one hour episodes documentaries but I guess they are and that is not an important topic at this point) where the host is able to fly in a helicopter and fire out of the door. He got to fire a mini-chain gun at some 6000 rounds/second. Lucky bastard. The most amusing thing I have fired was a fully automatic (and three round burst) grenade launcher. An M-202 is nice but, really... Believe it or not that actually gets a little old after a while.
Anyhow, there is surely a way to allow this. I believe they cull wolf packs from helicopters in Alaska. I seem to dimly recall a story of a VP-hopeful, she was borderline mentally ill and mentally handicapped, doing so and that being a considerable talking point for those who were opposed to her. Allow me to digress a moment, if you will... Seriously? Of all the things wrong with her THAT was a concern? My... I bet she could see Russia from up in that chopper.
When I was younger I built a kit 1/6 scale F-105 (Thunderchief/Thunderchicken) and had a lot of fun with that while drinking too much and being stuck on base. There were a number of us that bought a variety of these kits. Mine needed the electronics and engines to be purchased separately but, again, I digress. It was an expensive venture but not too bad as I was single at the time and my room and board was covered.
Anyhow, I suspect that two things can happen. One is that I could get a permit of some type that would enable me to fire a small round in certain circumstances or areas. Perhaps I need to label it as research but I can get away with it, surely. It would likely just cost time and money. I already have a corporation setup. I could fold it into that easily enough. That is what lawyers are for. The other is that I could possibly just do it and not have to worry about it so long as I stayed on my land. This probably would not be legal but there is little chance of being noticed or prosecuted. Land is cheap where I am, I am in old paper mill territory and they no longer do any harvesting as a business here, so I have bought a lot of re-grown and replanted land that I leave open to the public. It is a bit of an addiction. So, with this much land and living in an unincorporated town? I could probably get away with it even if I posted YouTube videos.
That said, I would not be surprised if I could get this permitted, as I mentioned above, and that it would just cost money and time. I may have to say it is research.
It sounds like it would be fun. A small .22LR has very little recoil and a craft as large as the one you linked to could probably carry it mounted to an aluminum rail that tied into the internal rigid structures.
Hmm... It seems I could be interested in this hobby after all. I will have to do some research and see what I come up with.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
A lot of things could kill you. Most likely your own piloting, statistically.
On the contrary, a lot of people want draconian restrictions like mandatory licensing and restrictions on sale of such vehicles. Which will basically kill their use by hobbyists (except relatively wealthy ones with a ton of time, like yourself). Spend a shitload of time getting a license, then pay the ridiculously inflated prices for a US-legal version of the equipment... ain't nobody going to do that.
I would hate to see this stupid thing flying in my face when I am flying my 2-seater Cessna-152 with my kid.
So maybe someone can clear this up for me... The drone I guess was spotted by radar? or visual? or ESP? So rather than "jettison their load" why didn't the planes climb a hundred feet and dump it's load over the drone? As for the idiot that was dumb enough to fly the drone I dare you to file a claim against the US Forest Service for damage, I suspect he will be ignorant enough to cross a fire line to save his precious drone, like he jackass that flew his over an active fire scene. Unfortunately the firefighters simply damaged it and didn't bring it down. For the record, you fly your drone over my fence, I will take it down and keep it, I'll see you in court for aerial trespassing. If you want to see what's in my backyard, pull up Google maps and look.
"If stupid things work...then they are not stupid."
On the contrary, a lot of people want draconian restrictions like mandatory licensing and restrictions on sale of such vehicles.
Perhaps I misspoke. I should have said that I've not heard from anyone who wants this, and I have talked about it with other pilots.
except relatively wealthy ones with a ton of time, like yourself
Your assumptions are showing.
While there are wealthy pilots, most of us are of modest means. My (small) car is paid off so I spend the equivalent of its payment on my hobby during the on season, and that amount will go down once I finish my license. I won't need to buy my own glider outright, but if I do decide to do so, there are perfectly adequate specimens for sale in the $10k-$20k range.
As for time, I fly one day per week - sometimes two, sometimes zero. On the days I do fly, I still have time to mow the lawn, cook dinner, work on household projects, and even watch a movie with family.
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
A near miss is defined as 500 feet:
http://flighttraining.aopa.org...
According to the American Helicopter Services & Aerial Firefighting Association, airtankers fly between 150 and 200 feet:
http://www.ahsafa.org/?page_id...
The article reports a drone altitude of 800-900 feet. Let's take the most pessimal separation from these numbers: 800 - 200 = 600. That gives them a buffer of 100 feet in which this was *NOT* even classifiable as a near miss; there was no danger of a drone to aircraft collision, unless you are claiming that the drone pilot intended to fly the drone into the DC-10 airtanker.
You will find elsewhere on the AHSAFA site that the aircraft do not "dive-bomb" the fires; a fully loaded airtanker had a heck of a lot of inertia, and it's not really an option; they are long, low runs. I refer you to the site however, because I doubt you'd trust my (anecdotal) personal experience with U.S. Forest Service airtankers.
How about shooting a wide net from above at the drone to brind it down from a distance?
Cellphones operate in licensed bands. Thus, jammers are illegal.
Drones (RC crap) operate in unlicensed bands and must accept any interference that may exist. Jamming them is not, technically, illegal. However, jamming them would not be in anyone's best interest -- or really worth the effort. (how many jammers would it take to cover a mountain?)
Arming the DC10 is, of course, the correct answer. :-)
Sure, and how much does it cost to store the thing, to have it launched, and do whatever else has to be done with a glider? I know powered aircraft are often white elephants in that respect.
I don't have a day a week to train so I could legally (under the sort of regime being proposed) fly my model aircraft. And they'd cost that same $10k-$20k once all the proposed equipment to do things like respect NOTAMs and restricted areas is put in. Because no one would make such equipment for hobbyists, they'd make it for the commercial market.
Sure, and how much does it cost to store the thing, to have it launched, and do whatever else has to be done with a glider? I know powered aircraft are often white elephants in that respect.
Much less than a powered aircraft. Gliders generally disassemble and are stored in trailers; maintenance is limited to the annual inspection, washing/waxing, repairs, replacement of wear components, periodic repacking of your parachute if you wear one, um... I'm sure I'm missing something. One of the big expenses is just non-existent: there's no powerplant to maintain! Launching fees vary widely, but they start at ~$5 for a winch launch. Flights can be as short as 5 minutes or upwards of 5 hours, depending on conditions, endurance, and skill. Insurance isn't free, but it's certainly not prohibitively expensive.
I don't have a day a week to train so I could legally (under the sort of regime being proposed) fly my model aircraft. And they'd cost that same $10k-$20k once all the proposed equipment to do things like respect NOTAMs and restricted areas is put in. Because no one would make such equipment for hobbyists, they'd make it for the commercial market.
Most of the FAA's regulations actually make sense, and the licensing requirements for different categories of aircraft / licenses call for different levels of training - flying an ultralight doesn't even require a license (but the pilots are still responsible for following the rules). I would suspect that a drone rating would be a simple knowledge test, and there would be no practical exam since so much of a drone's flight is automated - it might even be something you could self-study for. Obtaining the required number of flight hours, and otherwise preparing for the practical is what constitutes the lion's share of the time/money needed to get a private/light sport/recreational license - you need to know, for example, what causes stalls and how to recover from them. I suspect the exam would cover things like airspace definitions and rules, right-of-way rules, etc.
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"