California Legislation May Allow First Responders To Take Out Drones

Required Snark writes: During the recent North Fire that burned vehicles on I-15 in California, firefighters had to suspend aerial operations because of the presence of drone aircraft, according to CNN. Quoting: "Five such 'unmanned aircraft systems' prevented California firefighters from dispatching helicopters with water buckets for up to 20 minutes over a wildfire that roared Friday onto a Los Angeles area freeway that leads to Las Vegas. Helicopters couldn't drop water because five drones hovered over the blaze, creating hazards in smoky winds for a deadly midair disaster, officials said."

In response, state officials have introduced legislation that would allow first responders to disable drones in emergency situations. A second bill would allow jail time and fines for drone users that interfere with firefighting efforts. "Senate Bill 168, introduced by Gatto and Sen. Ted Gaines, R-El Dorado, would grant 'immunity to any emergency responder who damages an unmanned aircraft in the course of firefighting, air ambulance, or search-and-rescue operations.' Los Angeles County fire Inspector David Dantic declined to comment on the specific legislation, but said his agency's aircraft cannot operate safely if a drone is in the same airspace."

Comments

More by whom

[Anonymous Coward]

More legislation by people who don't know how laws actually get applied, or probably rather just don't care.

If these people are flying their drones unlawfully then reasonable measures should certainly be allowed to stop them. But, if they are being flown unlawfully, the question of whether emergency workers had immunity should not even enter the discussion. If a drone is damaged it is the owner's negligence and conduct to blame. If emergency workers get immunity that means they could step on your 20,000 dollar drone while fighting a fire in your neighbor's backyard and do nothing but laugh in your face.

Re:More by whom

[SJHillman]

" they could step on your 20,000 dollar drone while fighting a fire in your neighbor's backyard"

If you're leaving a $20,000 drone in the backyard where it can be stepped on, then maybe you need a lesson in how to take care of your toys.

Re:More by whom

[techno-vampire]

If these people are flying their drones unlawfully then reasonable measures should certainly be allowed to stop them.

Yes, they certainly should. Alas, that's not going to stop some fool with more money than brains from misusing a drone that way, or from suing the agency after the fact. And, if they can persuade a jury that their drone wasn't really interfering, they might even collect. This bill is just an attempt to close the barn door before the horse escapes so that those frivolous lawsuits either don't get filed in the first place or get thrown out if they do.

Re:More by whom

[Anonymous Coward]

More legislation by people who don't know how laws actually get applied, or probably rather just don't care.

I believe they are legalizing shooting the damn things down so the fucktard that decided to do this can't go and try to sue anyways.

If anything the fucktards doing this need to have their homes lit on fire...while some assholes fly 10 drones over his house to film it. Oh and parking a couple of dump trucks to block the fire department from getting to it.

Re:More by whom

[Adriax]

So you believe this will cause firefighters to break into adjacent houses and smash any drones they find for funsies?

Re:More by whom

[Mr D from 63]

If emergency workers get immunity that means they could step on your 20,000 dollar drone while fighting a fire in your neighbor's backyard and do nothing but laugh in your face.

They can already plow a car out of a fire zone with a fire truck if they need to. Laughing in the face of the owner is optional, probably not endorsed by the fire dept.

Re:More by whom

[MightyMartian]

The real pity here is that the same rights are not extended to regular citizen. I have seen about three drones fly over my property, one of which I think was a surveyor of some kind, but the others were clearly just some nosy fucking assholes.

Re:More by whom

[Mr D from 63]

Yeah, firefighters are the type of people that go around destroying people's property for no reason, and then laugh in their face. We can't trust them. They enter homes without knocking all the time.

Re:More by whom

[Coren22]

Or smash the windows of the car blocking the hydrant.

Re:More by whom

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, and your insurance might end up paying for any damage done to _their_ equiptment.

Also, they'll totally do this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I know a few volunteer firefighters, they take their job seriously (and they should). It's not like they are going around intentionally being dicks, most really are in to make shitty situations better and not some power trip, but if you're illegally blocking them they won't hesitate to do whatever they need to do, and the law is (again, rightly imo) entirely on their side.

Re:More by whom

[towermac]

Yes. Both items are already law.

But given the activist courts that CA has seeded, it is possible a firefighter could get sued successfully after the fact.

I would say, irony; but probably just unfortunate. For us.

That is what I dislike most about liberalism: Equality under the law has to be done away with. And that is irony.

Re:More by whom

[ssyladin]

Oblig link:

https://www.google.com/search?...

Re: More by whom

[Anonymous Coward]

Single shot, nobody will know. Just do it. It's your property anyways. Nobody calls the cops when I shoot a snake in my backyard.

Re:More by whom

[Anonymous Coward]

"Typical firefighters. Glory hogs and thieves!"

-Backstrom

Re: More by whom

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they call the cops when you shoot minorities in your backyard?

Re:More by whom

[ScentCone]

one of which I think was a surveyor of some kind, but the others were clearly just some nosy fucking assholes

Is everyone who drives a car past your property also a nosy fucking asshole? What information do you have that the people flying those aircraft gave a rats ass about your property or you or your activities? Please be specific.

Some people fly remote control aircraft just for the fun of flying - just like people who fly hot air balloons, ultralights, hang gliders, parachutes, and more. To say nothing of the Cessnas and Beechcraft and other machines that have probably flown over your property many time over the years. Either you need to relax a bit and realize that You're Not That Interesting ... or you need to get a LOT more worked up and paranoid than you already are, because there are probably people near you - RIGHT NOW! - holding cameras that can remotely send pictures of what you're doing to cloud storage that's not completely secure from government intrusion and Chinese hacking. You are worried about all the people around you all day, who could be spying on you with their smartphones, right? No? I see.

Re:More by whom

[AK Marc]

More legislation to try and catch the US up with the rest of the world. Here (outside the US), firefighters are "allowed" to commandeer water from wherever necessary to fight a fire. This includes driving a fire truck over a residential fence to drop the intake hose in someone's pool and empty it to fight a fire (though, doing so to a fiberglass pool could cause $50k or more damage). The only exception is that if the owner asks you to stop, and the owner is someone with diplomatic immunity, then the firefighters must leave.

Here, if a fire fighter were to spray a fire with a hose or arial drop, and a drone is hit with water and damaged, then the person who was damaged has no means to claim. He should have been aware of his surroundings and not operated where emergency services needed to be.

In the US, if a fire fighter tramples the roses saving your children, you can sue (not that you'd be likely to win, but you can sue almost anyone for almost any reason). What should be done is to recognize firemen as agents of the state (as they are here) and give them sovereign immunity.

Though, with all that impunighty, the firemen could be in disrepute. Here the number one most trusted profession (above police, doctors, and others) is firemen. Maybe because despite having more power than the police to trespass, they almost never use it. The only time I've heard of the pool being used for water was for rural-ish properties where the pool water was being pumped onto the house owned by the pool owner. Putting out your house with your own water doesn't seem like too bad a deal.

Re:More by whom

[fredgiblet]

I wish I had all the points to give you.

Re:More by whom

[Grishnakh]

There's a thing called "airspace". Maybe you should go read about it. Cessnas and Beechcraft have to fly over a certain altitude to be legal (except over runways at airports of course). The airspace from your yard up to that limit is not public domain, it's private property. So no, people aren't allowed to just fly their drones wherever they want.

Re:More by whom

[Grishnakh]

I believe firefighters are also the most trusted profession here in the US too. Certainly far above police; the police here suck.

I've never heard of a firefighter doing anything to abuse his power, ever. That's certainly not the case with cops, where it's a regular occurrence. I've even read about an asshole policeman, a few years ago, arresting a firefighter because he wouldn't move his fire truck, which he was using to shield an accident scene from traffic. That didn't work out too well for the cop IIRC.

Re:More by whom

[Will.Woodhull]

I'm not keen on seeing guys in a helicopter trying to shoot down a drone with a gun. Every card carrying NRA nut knows damwell you should not shoot until you know what is within range behind your target. Shooting drones from a copter puts everyone in danger.

shooting them from the ground is no better. That bullet is going to come down somewhere and will have regained lethal energy in its descent. Even if you hit the drone, as lightweight as those things are you still have a lethal bullet wandering around in the wild blue yonder.

Now if there is a way to deploy some kind of frequency limited EMP or jamming signal that would cause all drones in the area to drop like flies, that would be good. And I think it would be possible. And the way current laws are, I think if the jammer was made reasonably directional, property owners who were getting tired of being buzzed by drones would have a way of exercising their God given property rights.

Yeah, youbetcha. Bring on the jammers!

Re:More by whom

[Anonymous Coward]

If a drone is damaged it is the owner's negligence and conduct to blame.

That's right, and that's already the case.

What they're trying to do is, you know, prevent half a dozen first responders from being killed because some shitstain flies his drone into a jet engine as, say, a firefighting plane makes a low-level pass a few hundred feet off the ground.

The concern is not "oh, somebody might get sued for damaging a private citizen's drone," it's "oh, some fuckstick with a remote controlled plane could kill a few first responders." We tend to value human life somewhat more than we value your Parrot AR drone.

Re: More by whom

[Rakarra]

Single shot, nobody will know. Just do it. It's your property anyways. Nobody calls the cops when I shoot a snake in my backyard.

You'd have to check the regulations, but the air high above your property is not considered your property. There's a certain distance above which it becomes airspace that you do not own.

Re:More by whom

[ScentCone]

You have your basic information wrong. The airspace above your property up to the 500 (1000 in dense areas) feet above which airplanes must fly is NOT under your control. Here's a googling hint for you: 1946.

Re:More by whom

[AK Marc]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/180...

Firemen were only on that poll once, in 2001 (after 9/11) and they topped it. Not sure why they weren't included before or after. Other polls I found were too small or international. Internationally, teachers are more trusted than they are in the US, so they rise up. And medical personnel regularly beat firemen as well. Though firemen are consistently near the top, just about everywhere. The point was that with infinite power, comes little abuse in firemen. Though not so with other professions.

Those who would be firemen are those who should be cops. They want to help others. They have power, but don't want it, and don't abuse it.

Instead, in the US, the people who become cops are the ones that want to abuse power.

Re:More by whom

[kenai_alpenglow]

Shotgun. Used to shoot things flying around from ground level. Though most of the targets have feathers...

Re:More by whom

[AgNO3]

Yeah I'm sure they can come up with a solution. The law isn't going to stop drone dicks. Its not even going to make is possible to destroy them with any kind of ease. What it does is protect fire fighters who, when able, can destroy them from being sued by the pin heads flying them.

Re:More by whom

[AgNO3]

Using an axe to get in no less.

Re:More by whom

[AgNO3]

People trust police where you live?

Re:More by whom

[zm]

As long as everyone in the area is aware of potentially falling drones, and keeps their attention on the sky, (what else is there around to look at?) taking them down indiscriminately should be pretty safe. So, yeah.. this is a bad idea.

Re: More by whom

[flaming error]

"Single shot, nobody will know."

The bullet will land somewhere. For most of us, the bullet's landing site will be a high-density residential area that's not our own back yard.

Re:More by whom

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

You know how great the moderation system is when a post that completely misses the point is at +5.

Re:More by whom

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

You do know that these drones will try to avoid being hit, right?

Re:More by whom

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

What if a firefighter broke a window out of your car, but not parked in front of a hydrant?

Re:More by whom

[Anonymous Coward]

Short range. And still with the need to make certain that misses will not inflict damage (though much less lethal, a pellet burying itself in your facial tissue is going to be unpleasant).

Re:More by whom

[kheldan]

What this legislation is, is the beginning of the necessary paper trail, which if drone owners continue to be irresponsible with their toys, will inevitably lead to privately-owned drones being outlawed. With any luck it's just a relatively small group of knuckleheads who don't have the sense to know not to do this, and them getting slapped with fines, or bills owed to the State for the trouble they caused will serve as an object lesson to the rest of drone owners: Keep your toys out of the way of emergency services.

Re:More by whom

[Gryle]

US Army Kiowa pilots have rifle-out-the-door and sidearm-out-the-door qualifications as part of their gunnery table. I'm not saying firefighters need M4s, but higher-caliber pistol would probably do the trick nicely.

Re:More by whom

[kosmosik]

> In the US [...] you can sue (not that you'd be likely to win,
> but you can sue almost anyone for almost any reason)

That is normal in any sane jurisdiction. In _civil_trial_ you can sue almost everyone for compensation (not for freedom restraints). Please do distinguish civil vs. criminal law. Basically in civil law you can sue anybody (f.e. me) for anything (f.e. for educating you). In criminal law that is the state or the victim that sues and the penalty would be freedom restraint (jail or something similar). In civil right there is compensation for the side suing. Usually sane countries have some protections about bogus claims. For example in my country if you wish to sue somebody on civil basis for an ammount exceeding ~20,000EUR you need to pay in a vadium of about 10% prior. If you win the trial - you win. But if you loose you also loose the vadium and you need to pay up for all associated costs.

Re: More by whom

[TWX]

Well, the FCC yields the floor on radio towers to the FAA, and the FAA allows for radio towers in most places to be up to 200' tall without any major permitting hurdles.

I envision a rocket-powered net system like in Hatari!, but instead of capturing monkeys in a large tree it'd be used to occasionally clear the air of "debris" in one's property.

Re:More by whom

[TWX]

I looked up United States vs Causby. It seems to indicate that one has a reasonable right to the airspace above one's house, and that if the Government takes that airspace (in this case, low-flying aircraft less than 100' off the ground) that the property owner has the right to be reimbursed. Causby was owed money under the "Takings Clause" of the Fifth Amendment.

Since private parties cannot 'take' in that sense from someone without the government providing a medium through which to do it, that would mean that private parties would be trespassing rather than 'taking'. I would expect that if someone's drone was taken-down by the rightful owner or tenant of that property that it might be difficult for the drone owner to seek legal action.

I am not a lawyer, but it does not appear to support your assertion.

Re:More by whom

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you have your basic information wrong...

500 feet is the "bottom" of controlled airspace AND the altitude blow which "normal" aircraft must not fly except under extenuating circumstances (Emergency Services, etc - like firefighting, SAR, etc) . 1000 feet in "dense" areas is to give a 500+ foot margin of error to "big plane" pilots so they can avoid skyscrapers.

UAV's and RC aircraft are supposed to stay below 400 feet AGL for traffic separation.

Unfortunately, most of the DJI Phantoms out there are flown by idiots who have no clue about when/where/how they should operate. Which is why you have airspace incursions around wildfires, airports, etc.

It is really simple. Stay 400 feet and below. Turn Away & Descend. Stay at least 5 miles from an airport unless operating with local ATC cognizance. Fly with an observer who is watching the airspace around your aircraft. "Heads Down" is not safe. If you see anything that makes you go "ooh, that would make a cool video," make sure you are not interfering with someone's safety. And do us all a favor, get RTL-SDR ADS-B 1090/978 with FlightAware or FlightRadar24 up and running on your GCS or your laptop. I don't want to be picking your 3A ESC out of my blades.

ADS-B 1090/978 in/out, TCAS, dual RTK-GPS, TERCOM, Optical MTI, redundant autopilots, power line and antenna detection, recovery parachute, RF track & scan, PIR/FLIR, Passive radar, BVLOS/FPV capable, 5Gb/sec aggregate, Section 333 operations applied for...

Re: More by whom

[Anonymous Coward]

"Single shot, nobody will know."

The bullet will land somewhere. For most of us, the bullet's landing site will be a high-density residential area that's not our own back yard.

Falling bullets are not the hazard many think they are. They are coming down at a much slower velocity than they went up, its falling back to earth at a velocity imparted from gravity / air resistance not its firing. Injuries are generally from people firing at a low angle where the bullet still has a lot of momentum from its firing.

And people are more likely to use shotguns for drones and birdshot is much less of an issue as it falls back down.

Still backyard shooters should be fined and/or jailed. Firing within city limits and all that, the preceding being only relevant to the punishment. Differentiating those who might chip the paint on someone's car as opposed to those who might hurt a person.

Re:More by whom

[flopsquad]

They want to help others. They have power, but don't want it, and don't abuse it.

So, basically Ned Stark.

Re:More by whom

[Anonymous Coward]

That bullet is going to come down somewhere and will have regained lethal energy in its descent.

A false myth. Going up is fast because of the initial muzzle velocity imparted by the high pressure propellant gas. Coming down start at zero and the only downward force is gravity, which gets counteracted by air resistance. Same distance, but it goes up fast and comes down slow.

Re:More by whom

[Anonymous Coward]

You know how great the moderation system is when a post that completely misses the point is at +5.

First day here, huh?

Re:More by whom

[murdocj]

Well, someone is missing the point, that's for sure.

Re:More by whom

[Anonymous Coward]

That bullet is going to come down somewhere and will have regained lethal energy in its descent.!

I see you don't know much about guns. Let me help you. A bullet will only retain a lethal velocity if it follows an arc. If you just fire it up in the air you can run out and try to catch it if you want. If you don't believe me, ask any artillery guy.

Re:More by whom

[mysidia]

Don't worry.... as soon as it becomes legal, there are manufacturers that are going to make specialized drone-killing weapons that pose little/no danger to humans themselves, As long as the drone crashing doesn't itself pose a danger.

The first thing that comes to mind is a HERF gun.

Re:More by whom

[Grishnakh]

Exactly.

And the cops are basically Joffrey Lannister Baratheon.

Re:More by whom

[citizenr]

and if you arent EXTRA DOUBLE PLUS polite to a cop maybe you should get a permanent lesson in respect of authoritah! aka get shot in the face, or beaten to death in a cell.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07...

This is what happens when you give people unquestionable immunity.

Re: More by whom

[Anonymous Coward]

Good info, but how does this settle how high private property airspace goes and the landowners rights to shoot it down?

If you know this, please add as you seem knowledgeable on this.

Re:More by whom

[citizenr]

>drone wasn't really interfering .....frivolous lawsuits

logic much?

Re:More by whom

[citizenr]

Fucking YES I do!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:More by whom

[Anonymous Coward]

EMP requires a massive amount of energy. Too much to be useful. It could also be very dangerous to use because it could unintentionally burn out non-targeted systems.

Jamming may work but you will need to block GPS as well which could also have unintended consequences. If you don't block GPS then many drones will just continue on mission or return home if their control signal is lost. Also, you would need to continue to jam for a long time otherwise the craft will just recover. BTW, intentionally jamming any signal is illegal in the US.

Re:More by whom

[NormalVisual]

They can already plow a car out of a fire zone with a fire truck if they need to.

Or push cars driven by idiots out of the way with the truck if they refuse to yield. I watched a hook & ladder truck do that one time at an intersection in Norfolk, VA.

Re: More by whom

[Anonymous Coward]

Lower velocity yes. Much lower is a matter of debate. Lethal velocity, almost certianly. A few years ago, some d-bag in my town shot at a street light with a .44 magnum, the bullet went about a mile, through a home's wall, killing an aunt and niece who were asleep.

Birdshot basically falls back to the earth at a non-dangerous velocity 2-300 yards away depending on shot size.

I think, however, for anti-drone use, high power water cannons are justified.

Re: More by whom

[Anonymous Coward]

White are the minority, idiot. Look at the world population by race.

Re: More by whom

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't be able to see a drone that high. But if I shot some guy's drone down over my property what's he going to do? Tryin to retrieve it is suicide. I will shoot again. Call the police? He threw a piece of surveillance equipment to my property, fuck 'em. He has no right to monitor my property. In my neighborhood it's only okay to have surveillance cameras if they don't record anyone else's property.

Re:More by whom

[Anonymous Coward]

Comes down slower. Many gun/bullet combinations would still be lethal. Especially true of the high velocity Spitzer bullets that would be the best candidates for killing drones (less windage problems, shorter time to target so less leading problems).

Re:More by whom

[Anonymous Coward]

"Now if there is a way to deploy some kind of frequency limited EMP or jamming signal that would cause all drones in the area to drop like flies, that would be good. "

If the vehicle is fully autonomous this may have no effect. If not autonomous it may have an unknown effect (e.g. drone hovers when control is lost, flies in a circle, loops the loop - who knows). It might cause some to fall out the sky but it is hard to jam in a precise area. So jamming is not likely to be very effective.

Using EMP would have even more unknown effects, including damaging rescue services.

If it's hard to tell if there is anything behind a drone when shooting at it then it would be even harder to tell if a dozen drones are going to fall on people's heads when you may not even know where all the drones are.

Re:More by whom

[Stuarticus]

Sentence much? I only ask because it doesn't look like it.

Re: More by whom

[ChinggisK]

That's only true when you're talking about firing straight up. At lower angles a bullet can go in an arc and still have a significant amount of lateral velocity when I comes down because gravity only acts in the vertical direction. It will still be slowed down somewhat by air resistance but that's not necessarily enough to make it non-lethal (if bullets couldn't overcome air resistance then guns would be useless in an atmosphere).

Re: More by whom

[dave420]

But we're not talking about the world, but on a particular society in a specific location. Get a grip.

Re:More by whom

[tehcyder]

You know how great the moderation system is when a post that comments on the moderation of a post that completely misses the point and is at +5 is at +5.

Re: More by whom

[tehcyder]

Single shot, nobody will know. Just do it. It's your property anyways. Nobody calls the cops when I shoot a snake in my backyard.

That's fine until it crashes in your neighbour's yard killing their dog and causing his pregnant wife to miscarry in shock. You sick bastard.

Re:More by whom

[tehcyder]

My solution? A small air-burst nuke.

As a bonus it would probably blow the fire out too.

Re:More by whom

[tehcyder]

Yeah, firefighters are the type of people that go around destroying people's property for no reason, and then laugh in their face. We can't trust them. They enter homes without knocking all the time.

Look, they work for The Government don't they? As such, they are all part of the conspiracy to impose a New World Order, just as much as the NSA and the lizard king Trump.

Re:More by whom

[AmiMoJo]

Just buy some used weather balloons with 999ft tethers, problem solved.

Re: More by whom

[KGIII]

Most of us do not have a high power water cannon nor will we be building them. Many of us, on the other hand, have shotguns. The 12ga shotgun is the most frequently owned size firearm in the United States. (Followed by firearms chambered in .22lr if the statistics are still the same as they were a few years ago.) Bean bag rounds or wooden blocks would be interesting choices but require one be prepared and be a decent shot. Bird shot is likely the best choice for minimal risk with maximum potential.

Re:More by whom

[KGIII]

Years ago, I was driving in a convoy from Quantico over to Norfolk. You may NOT interfere with a military convoy. It is generally a bad idea as well as being illegal. My instructions where to maintain the speed of the convoy, remain in pattern (keep to the lane), and to accept no interference. A small Honda crossed between our HMMWVs and slowed down for some stupid civilian reason. I did not slow down. I pushed him for a good 500+ feet before his vehicle worked its way off and to the right where the vehicle rolled onto its side.

We were not traveling quickly and there were 'flasher trucks' (with appropriate signage) ahead, beside, and in front of the convoy. This was a regular convoy that was done quite often in that area. The driver tried to sue, called the cops, etc... A couple of us were called in to speak to the Captain and nothing ever came of it. Similar happened at an intersection in Quantico itself, just north of the base. In that case the driver even ended up going to jail for a short stint. They had driven around the MP and into the intersection.

I have no experience in firefighting vehicles but I can assure you that we do laugh about it when it happens. We just do not do so when there is a chance we can be observed by outside parties. We are not dicks. It is just funny. Okay, we might be dicks too. However, I am not going to disobey an order to protect you from your own stupidity. I can, and will, run your ass off the road.

Convoys travel at speeds of 40 mph or less usually. We were probably traveling at 45 mph and the first vehicle mentioned was probably going only about 5 mph less and had slowed down to that speed. It was not a rough impact but they insisted on hitting the brakes after impact. Their vehicle was trashed. Some paint was missing from the HMMWV. There was not even a dent on the bumper. I understand that they had pulled in to take a picture (pre-cell phone days and pre-digital camera days) and, frankly, there was barely enough room between vehicles for them to even fit their car in there. I do not regret downshifting... There is a guy with his upper body poked out of the top and he is wielding an M202... Why, oh why, would you get in our way???

Re:More by whom

[KGIII]

Historically, firemen have not always been so cool. They were private, for profit, businesses and had all the evils associated with that. They would do stuff like steal your stuff. They would let your house burn. They would intentionally burn other properties to protect one that had been insured with that particular fire company. This has, obviously, changed for the better.

Terry Pratchett has a bit of a novel that sort of covers this. It actually is not so very far from the truth. I forget the name but it is a good read, as all of his work seems to be.

A lady friend was a coke dealer. Her house caught on fire. There was some damage to the barn but little damage. The FIREMEN used their axes to break into a safe that was in the barn. They found coke, money, and a small caliber pistol. They claimed the act of breaking into the safe was necessary to ensure the fire was completely out. They got off with zero charges and the owner was charged with a number of crimes for the cocaine, money, and firearm. They were successfully prosecuted and ended up with a suspended sentence, a large fine, and a felony on their record.

That is the exception and not the norm.

Re: More by whom

[Anonymous Coward]

White are a minority in California. Update your assertion, you are failing all over.

Re:More by whom

[Cederic]

38 deaths in 7 years suggest it's probably best to avoid the risk: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/maga...

Re:More by whom

[Cederic]

However, I am not going to disobey an order to protect you from your own stupidity. I can, and will, run your ass off the road.

No, you're just going to risk killing someone instead. You stupid cunt.

Disobey the order. You took an oath to protect the American people, not fucking kill them.

Re:More by whom

[KGIII]

Don't get in between vehicles during a convoy. If you do you will be punted off to the side of the road. You may be hurt or even die as a result. It is a stupid safety risk and there are clear warning signs with big flashing lights and giant hardened vehicles all around you. Do not be stupid and you will not be hurt. Get in the way and I can and will run you over. Exceptions? I'd have broken orders had it been a distressed pedestrian or a child or something similar. Other than that? Nope... I am going to keep going - and I am going to chuckle about it.

Re:More by whom

[Cederic]

Well done. You're a prime example of why the US army keeps fucking up its ability to accomplish missions abroad.

Re:More by whom

[KGIII]

Absolutely. There are so many Army bases in Norfolk and Quantico that it is hard to spit without hitting one. Those damned Army people...

Show me on the doll where the Marine touched you?

Or where you the idiot who decided to pull into a convoy, brake, and then act as if they were wronged? There is a reason that we are not held accountable for such and a reason we are held accountable if we fail to obey orders.

You do not interfere with a convoy. Doing so will get you hurt. You do not run out across the firing line. Doing so will get you hurt. Upholding the Constitution has nothing to do with protecting stupid people from themselves. This is not complicated. I will not slow down and potentially harm my fellow Marines for you. I will not even risk it. I will for a child, a distressed pedestrian, or some old person or something like that though. I am not a monster, just an asshole.

Re:More by whom

[Cederic]

I have pulled into a military convoy in the past.
I've walked up to German soldiers while their convoy was stopped and photographed them before. They pulled out an anti-tank weapon, pointed it at me and then posed for the photograph.
I've been in a military convoy before.

I haven't seen anybody rammed off the road because I haven't done any of these things in Norfolk (America) and Quantico, where apparently US soldiers are taught to be brain dead fuckwits that have no fucking regard for the people around them.

I will for a child, a distressed pedestrian, or some old person or something like that though. I am not a monster, just an asshole.

Oh, so you knew the age of everybody in the car you knocked off the road? You fucking hero. I hope you got a medal.

Re:More by whom

[KGIII]

Well yeah, I am high enough to see the one male driver of the vehicle. Don't worry - you're not special. I'd do the same to you.

Re: More by whom

[Anonymous Coward]

Do I detect a market for non-lethal anti-drone 12 gauge rounds?

Get your Uncle Dave's Drone Buster rounds at Walmart, with their specially shaped salt pellets.

Re:More by whom

[Anonymous Coward]

I've walked up to German soldiers while their convoy was stopped and photographed them before.

This is all I needed to know.. you're likely Eurotrash, which means you're a special type of stupid.

There's a reason your militaries don't fuck with ours son, because you'll LOSE.

In addition, what you don't seem to get is that a convoy maintains integrity and speed to avoid being ambushed, and in our military you train as you fight.. maybe the OP was training, maybe they had a real mission, I don't know.. but stay the hell out of the way.

Re:More by whom

[Will.Woodhull]

So we could use some of the USA excess nuclear weapons inventory to put out California fires? What's not to like about that?

Re: More by whom

[KGIII]

This might even be a good market for the .410. However, we should aspire to make the rounds expensive and not available to the general public. We will sell a cheap knock-off at Walmart.

Re:More by whom

[RyoShin]

I am imagining a Drone-seeking Drone. Something larger and faster than the average "consumer" "drone", which ideally can capture a drone, bring to police, and they can impound it; or (if unable to catch it) has a tethered stun net it can use to shoot at, disable, and pull in the offending drone.

Re:More by whom

[Anonymous Coward]

And if they WERE being flown lawfully the state of California has no jurisdiction or authority...

Idiots ruining it for everybody...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, don't go flying your stupid drone over a fire just for the sake of updating your instagram or whatever else, you scumtard

How?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just exactly how do they propose 'taking out' a drone? I can only hope that they're not thinking about shooting out of the sky. Remember, any bullets that go up must come down

Re:How?

[sribe]

Just exactly how do they propose 'taking out' a drone? I can only hope that they're not thinking about shooting out of the sky. Remember, any bullets that go up must come down

Bird shot doesn't come down with enough velocity to be a hazard. But of course, it has extremely limited range for the same reason.

Re:How?

[Jarik C-Bol]

High powered water gun.

Re:How?

[ScienceofSpock]

For firefighters, a high pressure water blast should do the trick. EMT's might have to fashion some sort of rudimentary surgical-tubing slingshot, though.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bird shot in wax slugs. It will hit hard enough to have a sizable impact, but will break up immediately so not to provide a hazard if dropping on someone.

Re:How?

[techno-vampire]

No need for EMTs to improvise. All they have to do is include a Wrist Rocket in their kit, plus appropriate ammo.

Re:How?

[lhowaf]

Behold the advent of the hunter-killer drone!

Re:How?

[PRMan]

Radio jamming. Send a strong downward signal to drones until they land in the fire.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh, Just fly over it with a helicopter. Instant loss of lift.

Re:How?

[towermac]

This is actually a good point. I was wondering how much the drones were actually interfering.

I'm betting there is a little grandstanding going on by someone who already had a strong opinion on private drone ownership.

Re:How?

[PopeRatzo]

I was wondering how much the drones were actually interfering.

Were you? Were you really wondering?

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyli...

After the fire-fighting aircraft were grounded because of drone activity, the wildfire went from 750 acres to 3500 acres.

Do you really think - are you such a goofball - that you think the people in charge of fighting a wildfire in California are going to call a halt to firefighting activities because they simply had an opposition to private drones?

I hope you never have need of any first responders.

Re:How?

[perlwannabe]

Maybe with a water spray
http://www.bing.com/videos/sea...

Re:How?

[Camel Pilot]

Far too limited range.

Now a fly over with a helicopter (especially a fire fighting class helo) with the subsequent downwash would certainly clear the air quickly.

Re:How?

[ksheff]

In this case, they could have always dropped a big bucket of water on it.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is actually a good point. I was wondering how much the drones were actually interfering.

Having a drone get sucked into an engine or collide with the cockpit canopy while they're flying through the smoke and turbulence over a raging forest fire is guaranteed to give a pilot a very bad day.

(No need to thank me for the effort of pointing out the blindingly obvious to you, son; I live only to serve those who are so desperately in need of such services.)

Re:How?

[AgNO3]

What you can't see you can't avoid and what you aren't in control of can avoid you. So drone is above flight path gets sucked down. See how that's a problem. I thought this site was for people who knew shit like math and physics. Pilot should 100% not be having to watch out for drones while navigating a helicopter in a fire zone.

Re:How?

[CrimsonAvenger]

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyli...

After the fire-fighting aircraft were grounded because of drone activity, the wildfire went from 750 acres to 3500 acres.

So, a link to an article about Tom Selleck, coupled with TFA, which talks about the firefighters being delayed TWENTY MINUTES by the drones.

So, the fire grew from ~1 square mile to ~5 square miles in 20 minutes? Really?

Or perhaps it took longer than 20 minutes, and you have some proof that it wouldn't have grown that much if those 20 minutes had been used properly?

Re:How?

[Gryle]

If the windspeed is right and the there's enough fuel, wildfires spreading that rapidly is not out of the question. Stray embers get caught up in the wind and are pushed far downwind before landing and ignite a whole new area. It's not always possible to isolate the two burn areas and the two fires become one. Repeat multiple times and yes it's possible for fire to spread that rapidly. Source: conversations with a US Forest Service Ranger who handles wildland firefighting coordination and response every year during wildfire season in Arizona.

Re:How?

[Mr. Freeman]

Unless they miss.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who needs bullets? A high-pressure hose should do the job just fine.

Re:How?

[Khyber]

" So drone is above flight path gets sucked down."

Except the original idea poster said fly ABOVE the drone.

Re:How?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only evidence of non-firefighting aircraft I saw was the video from the news helicopter (or drone? was the news camera one of the unauthorized drones?). No drones were shown in that video.

What evidence substantiates the claim that any privately operated drones were even present? (unless.. the videos themselves were from the drones? "two of the drones pursued our lead plane, one underneath, one actually flying over the top" was preceded and followed by video taken from above and slightly below what appears to be a DC-10 modified for firefighting use - is this an issue of general drone use being a problem, or news crews being a problem?)

Re:How?

[flopsquad]

Just exactly how do they propose 'taking out' a drone? I can only hope that they're not thinking about shooting out of the sky. Remember, any bullets that go up must come down

Water cannon? I'm sure they could outfit the water drop helicopters with a high pressure, low volume hose for just this purpose.

Re:How?

[TapeCutter]

I don't know about this particular fire but the growth is plausible in the right conditions, the big fires here in Oz that are driven by strong desert winds are capable of igniting spot fires up to 20 km downwind from the main front. Not much you can do to tame a fire that spreads that quickly and ignores firebreaks, except get out of it's way. 20 minutes in the early stages of such a fire is a very long time and can make a huge difference to the outcome.

Not sure that shooting drones is the most practical solution, I think pointing a firehose at the thoughtless pricks using them would be much more effective.

Re:How?

[PopeRatzo]

What evidence substantiates the claim that any privately operated drones were even present?

North Fire Drone Truther.

Re:How?

[PopeRatzo]

yeah.....but how do we know that the drones were the problem and they arent manufacturing one simply to pass legislation? wouldnt be the first time

So, you think firefighters grounded the firefighting aircraft in order to pass legislation?

Are you really ready to go full Alex Jones and trash guys fighting a wild fire in a populated area? What is your malfunction?

Re:How?

[AgNO3]

Yeah brain surgeon did you read that the pilots last job should be trying to see an 18in square thing while trying to line up a run on a fire? The elevation of that run is whatever it HAS to be. So what pilot should have to waste time re align path take out drone then circle back to make its run? You don't understand the process do you?

Re:How?

[ganjadude]

no no no thats not what i am saying.

im simply making the argument that while it happened as said, maybe it wasnt as big of a deal as it was, maybe they were overly cautious (not a bad thing) and maybe they are now using the issue to pass legislation

as an example in 07 i believe it was in my state of NY they were in the middle of a debate trying to raise taxes on cigarettes in my county. it was a tough battle and they were losing. then all of a sudden there is a wild fire (minnewaska st park) that they blamed on a discarded cigarette.

the problem with that assessment is I was working there at the time and we were informed of a controlled burn to take place that coincided with the discarded cigarette.

the day after they announced it was a smoke, they passed the bill raising taxes

Re:How?

[bobbutts]

Radio jamming could interfere with responders using radio signals.

Re:How?

[Khyber]

"Yeah brain surgeon did you read that the pilots last job should be trying to see an 18in square thing while trying to line up a run on a fire?"

Well, as I sit here and look at my pilot's license (which I started working on 17 years ago) I'm just going to go with you're absolutely fucking clueless on the subject at hand and should not be talking.

Re:How?

[Stuarticus]

It's easy macgyver, just stick these wires coming out of the joystick into this car radio that I have attached to a solar panel and press down on the joystick. I think it sends a unicode down arrow or something.

Re:How?

[Phreakiture]

Just exactly how do they propose 'taking out' a drone?

There is at least one case where a drone was taken out by a fire hose at a house fire. The troubling thing in that case, though, is that a firefighter took his hose off of the fire to take out a drone that was far enough away as not to be causing any real problem. The fire department ended up replacing the drone.

Re:How?

[david_thornley]

Ever flown a helicopter low over a large fire? I haven't either, so I'll take the word of people who do. In areas with unpredictable updrafts and vision-obscuring smoke, where any landing is fatal, I think I'd be real unhappy about uncontrolled objects in my flight area.

Re:How?

[AgNO3]

Oh if I am being an ass so what. We are talking about fire and people lives. 1% reduction in safety is to much for people already risking their lives.

Re:How?

[KGIII]

Source: Me. I trained to be a volunteer "fire jumper" (though we usually go in with choppers and fast rope down instead of bailing out of an airplane). I only was on scene a half dozen times and none of them required jumping or even fast roping.

Anyhow, fires grow quickly. Very quickly. Once they build up enough energy they expand even more rapidly. Stopping them from building that much energy is a concern and is a very time-sensitive matter. Anything interfering with the containment process, any delays, are cause for future damages. Your house is destroyed in an average of something like five minutes from the start of a fire. Twenty minutes is a very long time in a crisis. It is generally not just twenty minutes, it is twenty *additional* minutes.

Re:How?

[KGIII]

You don't have a pilot's license. It is the internet, the one place you do not have to lie.

Re:How?

[Khyber]

I do have mine. Started with the (now gone) "You Can Fly" program from the Huntsville, AL Aviation Challenge adult camp. My first 20 instructed hours were there.

Re:How?

[KGIII]

LOL I was just screwing with you. In hindsight it was not so obvious. My bad.

Er...how?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> Allow First Responders To Take Out Drones

Er...how would they do that? Fire a weapon into a smokey background? Jam the radio...in a way that couldn't possibly interfere with other emergency communications? Or what?

Re:Er...how?

[bledri]

>> Allow First Responders To Take Out Drones

Er...how would they do that? Fire a weapon into a smokey background? Jam the radio...in a way that couldn't possibly interfere with other emergency communications? Or what?

Nuke it from space. It's the only way to be sure.

Re:Er...how?

[Fire_Wraith]

Depends on the kind of jam they use.

I hear raspberry works great, but only the Lone Star state would dare use raspberry jam, so it's pretty much out for California.

Re:Er...how?

[Jarik C-Bol]

High pressure water gun.

Re:Er...how?

[SJHillman]

Raspberry jam is known to the state of California to cause birth defects in drones.

Re:Er...how?

[DigiShaman]

Possibly via directional RF jamming. Just aim in the general direction and hopefully get the drone to either land on it's own and out of the way via "lost mode". From there, physically disable the unit (sack it, crush it, pull battery, etc)

Re:Er...how?

[Threni]

They wanted to drop water but couldn't because of the drones. Why, they were afraid they'd damage the drones in putting out a fire? Solution, drop water on the drones.

I imagine jamming the drones signals wouldn't be hard. Also, if this is something that's a persistant problem which can't be ignored, then i imagine a solution would be for the first responders to launch their own drones to take down the bad guy's. They would have a remote pilot so no need for the people doing the fire-fighting to waste resources.

Re:Er...how?

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

Jarik FTW!

Re:Er...how?

[simcop2387]

They weren't afraid of damaging the drones, they were afraid of the drones crashing the planes dropping the water. The air dropping planes end up flying rather low to avoid dispersing the water too far since the heat in the fire is enough to otherwise boil it off before it hits the ground, making it roughly useless in that case. Since the drones are flying high enough that they could hit the planes or end up in the jets there's a real risk of a crash which isn't going to help anybody at all.

Re:Er...how?

[__aaclcg7560]

Being California, it's apricot.

Re:Er...how?

[XxtraLarGe]

High pressure water gun.

Or something like this?

Re:Er...how?

[Coren22]

Perhaps they will invest in a net gun, or a few weighted bolas.

Re:Er...how?

[PopeRatzo]

they were afraid of the drones crashing the planes dropping the water

Not just planes, but helicopters too.

Re:Er...how?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of all the nits to pick...

Re:Er...how?

[barc0001]

In this story's context? I imagine one of those helicopters swinging their big heavy water filled bucket into one would sort its hash quite impressively. Similarly, I'm sure a Martin Mars water bomber wouldn't even scratch its paint hitting one head on.

Re:Er...how?

[barc0001]

Maybe they shouldn't fly planes in the sky then. Nature's got tons of these autonomous drones they call "birds". Which seem to hit planes with considerable frequency and seldom cause any significant damage, I might add. The average seagull has more mass than the average drone.

Re:Er...how?

[Anonymous Coward]

Self-steering missiles would be cool!

Re:Er...how?

[Anonymous Coward]

Few of these mystical "birds" you're talking about have hand grenades (vulgo LiPo batteries) stuck up their butt or wear medieval body armor (vulgo steel nuts, bolts or engine parts).

Besides that you seem to conveniently seem to forget that each bird strike on an ariplane grounds said airplane for multiple hours or days, just to inspect it for damage or to fix/ replace the turbine whose internal parts got shredded by your "natural autonomous drones".

Re:Er...how?

[fredgiblet]

Birds are also usually smart enough to get out of the way when a helicopter is approaching, or a fire is raging for that matter.

Re:Er...how?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bird strikes can and do cause plane crashes. Airports spend lots of money scaring birds away from flight paths. Fire fighting planes and helicopters operate with very tight safety margins (close to ground, in rugged terrain *that is on fire* etc) so even the surprise and distraction caused by hitting a drone is a potential disaster - let alone a hit in the windshield or a propeller.

Re:Er...how?

[Grishnakh]

Seagulls aren't made of metal.

Re:Er...how?

[Grishnakh]

You can't "kill" a drone. It's not alive.

And with many weapons systems, you don't "destroy" the target either, you incapacitate it; for flying threats, that means hurting it enough that it just falls out of the sky instead of hitting its target and detonating.

So yes, "take out" is proper layman's terminology.

Re:Er...how?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's talking about the fact they won't legally be charged for destroying it.

Re:Er...how?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Allow First Responders To Take Out Drones

Er...how would they do that? Fire a weapon into a smokey background? Jam the radio...in a way that couldn't possibly interfere with other emergency communications? Or what?

Nuke it from space. It's the only way to be sure.

Using a green laser of course would be illegal and might blind the operator.

Re:Er...how?

[st3v]

Gotta get rid of the bleeps, sweeps, and the creeps...

Re:Er...how?

[AK Marc]

Jam the radio...in a way that couldn't possibly interfere with other emergency communications?

Since it's illegal for any drones to operate over 4.9 Ghz range, and that's what the first responders are transitioning to, I don't see an issue. Jam the drone frequencies. They are almost all on unlicensed spectrum, so it wouldn't be hard to figure out what they are or how to jam them.

Re:Er...how?

[Anonymous Coward]

Flamethrower. I mean, if everything around it is already on fire, why not?

Re:Er...how?

[Known Nutter]

Since it's illegal for any drones to operate over 4.9 Ghz range, and that's what the first responders are transitioning to,

Just for the sake of accuracy, I feel it necessary to point out that most (certainly not all) public safety is transitioning to 700 and 800 MHz radio systems if they are not there already. These agencies are generally located in urban and suburban areas.

Most wildland fire radio traffic occurs on HF and VHF frequencies, in the neighborhood of 30 MHz and 150 MHz, respectively.

No public safety agency operates voice communication on 4.9 GHz, although there can be microwave back-haul links and systems associated with public safety radio systems operating there.

Much of the traffic on HF and VHF associated with wildland fire operations is simplex, and a mess at 4.9 GHz would have no appreciable affect on those communications. So yeah, jam away.

Re:Er...how?

[Gryle]

In this instance "neutralize" would be more appropriate. But nice try.

Re:Er...how?

[TapeCutter]

They were afraid the drones would be sucked into a jet engine or smash through a windscreen, they are also afraid of large birds for the same reason but there is fuck all they can do to stop natural bird strikes.

Re:Er...how?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Allow First Responders To Take Out Drones

Er...how would they do that? Fire a weapon into a smokey background? Jam the radio...in a way that couldn't possibly interfere with other emergency communications? Or what?

Fire a shotgun blast at the damn thing with birdshot.

Fire a shotgun blast at the idoit holding the small box with the antenna sticking out of it and a flag on top-- with buckshot.

Re:Er...how?

[goose-incarnated]

They were afraid the drones would be sucked into a jet engine or smash through a windscreen, they are also afraid of large birds for the same reason but there is fuck all they can do to stop natural bird strikes.

To add to what TapeCutter said: you aren't going to find many birds flying that low above a raging forest fire. Ever stood downwind of a bushfire? You'll get pelted by every single living thing that lives in that place as they run to escape the fire. Seriously, there aren't going to be birds above a forest fire.

Re:Er...how?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets see....

A airplane made of steel and aluminum against a quad made of wood and plastic ..... Hmmmm

How about just mowing it down, a few quads getting crushed by a 8,000 pound aircraft will get the quads out of the air.

Re:Er...how?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're a helicopter carrying a few tons of water. Go up 20 feet, dump over drone.

Either the drone is no longer a problem, or some manufacturer gets the best advertisement ever.

Re:Er...how?

[KGIII]

You are retarded. Straight up retarded.

We can do something about drones. We can not control the birds.

You are suggesting that if something is beyond our control we should not control those things we can. Why? Because you are too stupid for words.

Jamming

[techno-vampire]

All of those drones are controlled by transmissions on a fairly narrow band. Jamming that band would make the drones continue on in a straight line and eventually out of the danger zone. Of course, you'd have to make sure that they were heading in a safe direction before you started jamming, but the odds are that almost none of them would be heading on a collision course unless their owners were exceptionally stupid.

Re:Jamming

[kimgkimg]

You assume they are being actively piloted. The could be following a waypoint program in which case the only way to "jam" these would be to jam their GPS signal.

Re:Jamming

[Jarik C-Bol]

A goodly number of the 'drones' these days have 'return to launch point' modes that activate when 2 way communication with the controller is lost, so jamming those would actually serve to clear the flight space, and locate the pilot/owner. Probably will see that mode become mandatory in any models above the indoor flight only size if this behavior persists.

Re:Jamming

[Anonymous Coward]

Many drones will stay hovering in place when communication is lost. After certain period, it will fly back home using GPS.

Re:Jamming

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Don't many drones remember their own path and return to base when they lose signal?

These aren't model planes of olde tymes.

Re:Jamming

[RJFerret]

Erm, drones typically navigate by GPS signals, without direct control necessarily. They won't continue "straight", they'll follow their flightpath. If under remote control, typical programming has them maintain location for a period of time to regain lost signal, then return to launch site via retracing the previous flight path (presumed clear of obstructions) if signal is not restored within that period of time.

IE, jamming control signals might induce more intrusive behavior than physical disabling, such that they plummet. Jamming GPS signals has other more intrusive complications nowadays.

Re:Jamming

[techno-vampire]

Erm, drones typically navigate by GPS signals, without direct control necessarily. They won't continue "straight", they'll follow their flightpath. If under remote control, typical programming has them maintain location for a period of time...

My understanding is that the problem here isn't pre-programed drones, it's drones controlled by fools who are trying to get pictures or videos of the action. If they're programmed to hover if their signal drops, that's fine; they're now a fixed obstacle to be avoided, not a constantly moving distraction.

Re:Jamming

[Paco103]

Mandatory mode? Mine runs a modular radio system which I can operate on any band I choose, including digital over cellular if I so desire. It also runs open source software on open source hardware, so it's pretty easy to control what "modes" it can operate on. This isn't something that can be controlled by a dictating rules to a few commercial manufacturers, though I don't know if statistically that may solve the majority of the problem. They're not hard or expensive to build. The flight controller is nothing more than an arduino with an accelerometer and (optional) GPS.

Re:Jamming

[towermac]

All drones are pre-programmed, even if you are redirecting the thing in mid flight.

If you are directly flying the thing, then it isn't a drone; it's an RC craft. Which have been around longer than any of us have been alive.

Re:Jamming

[iksbob]

Off-the-shelf toy-style drones are typically on the 2.4GHz band, yes. Once you get in to picking your own electronics, sending control and telemetry data over other ISM bands is relatively trivial.

Re:Jamming

[techno-vampire]

It doesn't really matter what bands the telemetry use; all you need to do is make it impossible for whatever ID10T is using it to maintain control.

Re:Jamming

[spire3661]

NO fucking jamming. God damn why does this have to be continually explained, Jamming is not on the table at all, EVER in the USA. Its 100% illegal and will remain that way.

Re:Jamming

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless they introduce legislation to grant fire crews immunity to jamming laws during an emergency....

Re:Jamming

[spire3661]

The FCC is not going to grant jammers to local Fire Depts. Federally, jamming is a non starter. Its wrong, illegal AND immoral. The only legal jammer i know of for use inside the US is the one that goes with the President.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Jamming

[thegarbz]

Many owners prefer to hover in place when GPS is lost. This is especially important in a complicated built up area where the drone may hit an obstacle if flying autonomously.

Re:Jamming

[Jarik C-Bol]

true, but the impression I have gotten so far is that the people who actually care to build their own advanced multi rotors (like yourself) are generally aware of the regulations surrounding RC aircraft and their use, and abide by them.
The people who fly over crowded sports stadiums, through firework shows, or into the flight path of fire fighting crews are the people with more money than sense, who blew a couple grand on an inspire or phantom, and think they can do whatever they want with it.
I think that safety measures in the mass produced models would probably take care of a great deal of the problems, and the rest is up to the multi rotor community to police itself, which the RC community has done fairly well for decades.

Re:Jamming

[tomhath]

Its wrong, illegal AND immoral.

That's your opinion, Which is worth what you charged for it.

Re:Jamming

[iksbob]

It matters if you're trying to jam a specific device or class of devices without taking out all radio traffic in the area. Jamming is the equivalent of a loud, constant noise drowning out speech. If the frequencies of the noise are far enough above or below that of the speech, it may still be possible to pick out what the speaker is saying. You can get around that by either being intelligent about what you're trying to jam (match frequencies) or by blocking everything (white noise).

Re:Jamming

[techno-vampire]

If all you want to do is prevent their owners from controlling them and most of the controllers use a fairly narrow band, that's all you need to jam. And, you don't have to jam a wide area, just a big enough radius to keep the drones out of your way.

Re:Jamming

[iksbob]

As I said, off-the-shelf drones are typically on the 2.4GHz band, yes. The 433 MHz and 900 MHz bands should be practical with protocol tweaks.

Re:Jamming

[spire3661]

Illegal is a matter of fact, not opinion. Messing with the airwaves (that we all own) for your own personal use certainly fits the bill for being immoral in my opinion. Jamming is bad and you should feel bad for thinking its ok.

Re:Jamming

[Anonymous Coward]

That's ok. If it doesn't respond to initial attempts telling it to get the hell out of the way, it will get the hose.

Is this really something new?

[ibpooks]

Firefighters already have the ability to damage private property when it is necessary to contain an emergency situation. I can't imagine this law adds additional powers, but perhaps clarifies that existing standards still apply to a new technology that didn't exist at the time. Perhaps also a reasonable public awareness / scare campaign to remind people to keep their drones away from disaster areas where they are interfering with life safety.

Re:Is this really something new?

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

Obligatory example:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Re:Is this really something new?

[kheldan]

Agreed. If your car is parked in the way of firefighters, you might find your windows smashed open, and a firefighters' hose run through it. Drones shouldn't only be no different, but in fact even more 'expendable': they're a nuisance, and for all we know some drone pilot might be intentionally trying to hamper firefighters' efforts.

I say, shoot them down with no hesitation whatsoever. They are toys being played with by irresponsible persons, who may even have criminal intent.

To the inevitable nudniks who are going to yell and scream about muh private property and muh freedoms: shove it up your ass. You and your goddamned little flying toys shouldn't have any rights in this situation. Play with your toys responsibly or lose them.

Re:Is this really something new?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Yep. I'm a big proponent of aerobots for all kinds of social good, and the FAA is doing a terrible job (hampering the march of progress) but absolutely the FD should be able to clear them, even with dedicated anti-aerobot drones (birdshot from a helicopter is going to be all kinds of fun but probably not too effective). The broken car windows are a perfect analogy - if it were my car that I stupidly parked in front of a hydrant (I wouldn't but I'm not perfect and could miss one) I would absolutely want my car windows broken if they prevented a firefighting operation.

Curiosity is not sociopathy and the two are not interrelated, but stupidity is stupidity and needs to be handled.

Re:Is this really something new?

[Anonymous Coward]

More than that, aren't said 'drone' operators already violating FAA rules in such circumstances? Granted I haven't looked into it, but I suspect this would be just additional legislation on top of that.

Perhaps it's necessary at this junction. The idiots who do this probably deserve a swift kick in the ass, figuratively and monetarily speaking. Just no damn common sense or decency to be found there...

Now that I think of it, would such 'drone' opeator behavior also be considered obstruction of justice during a state of emergency? Or some such thing... Any lawyers about?

Re:Is this really something new?

[kheldan]

Actually I was thinking that a small net dropped or flung at the offending drone would be very effective. All you have to do is foul it's rotors and it drops like a rock. Also that way would potentially allow for retrieval later by officials, who might be able to determine who owns it, so they can level whatever criminal charges are appropriate and/or levy fines.

Re:Is this really something new?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck safety standards, we don't need no stinking safety standards. What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Is this really something new?

[Anonymous Coward]

You want firefighters to fire on a tiny drone moving around in the air?

Re:Is this really something new?

[Solandri]

The problem with the broken car window analogy is that it's pretty obvious when a car is parked illegally in front of a fire hydrant. It's not at all obvious when there's a tiny drone in the way of firefighting aircraft. So the analogy would be more like the fire truck driving up to park in front of a fire hydrant, and suddenly an unseen mine someone has planted blows up, engulfing the fire truck and killing everyone on board.

Telling the fire department that they have permission to destroy any mines (drones) they see doesn't really solve the problem. The problem is not just that these things are in the way, but that these things are in the way and you can't really see them. That's why all the ideas to shoot them down, as satisfying as that would be, won't work. If you could be assured you knew where each drone was, then it's not really a problem because you can just fly around them. It's the unseen drone which will make for a very bad day.

Re:Is this really something new?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is all about the counts. Police work is so shoddy nowadays that a single charge just won't hold up in court, so the prosecution wants hundreds of "counts" against a perp so hopefully it will overwhelm his defense and at least one of them will stick. It is the same logic that induces states with Driving Distracted laws to create specific anti-cell phone laws.

Re:Is this really something new?

[houghi]

who may even have criminal intent.

And this is the reason why we can not have nice things, like "inocent untill proven guilty"

If they are in the way, by all means destroy them. If they are not in the way, please concentrate on doing your job, like saving lives.

Or should they arrest bystqnders as they might trying to hamper firefighters efforts and may even have criminal intent.
We could even do that if there is NO fire.

You can even smash a cars window if it saves a live it is legally parked for all I care. However the reason to do the taking down of drones should be because it hinders saving lives; not because so,ebody ,ight want to do somethging.

What you are after is a ban on drones and that has nothing to do with first responders.

In Soviet Russia

[ClickOnThis]

In Soviet Russia, drones take out you!

[Uhh ... maybe not just in Soviet Russia.]

It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission

[Lucas123]

FTA: "Five such 'unmanned aircraft systems' prevented California firefighters from dispatching helicopters with water buckets for up to 20 minutes over a wildfire that roared Friday onto a Los Angeles area freeway that leads to Las Vegas."

Yeah, I wouldn't have asked permission before shooting those drones from the sky.

Re:It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permiss

[tompaulco]

FTA: "Five such 'unmanned aircraft systems' prevented California firefighters from dispatching helicopters with water buckets for up to 20 minutes over a wildfire that roared Friday onto a Los Angeles area freeway that leads to Las Vegas."

Yeah, I wouldn't have asked permission before shooting those drones from the sky.

This makes me support the FAAs proposed rulemaking to make it necessary to register such drones. Then we would be able to know who was responsible and give them the bill for hundreds of millions of dollars of damage that they caused.

Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[thedarb]

I'm sure helicopters have to deal with birds sometimes. These drones don't appear to be that durable or heavy, are you telling me that the propeller blades can't handle these little things without causing a disaster?

I am not a drone owner or user... but I just can't believe these things are that hazardous to an aircraft the size of a helicopter. Am I very very wrong here?

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[amRadioHed]

Birds are usually smart enough to stay away from helicopters, aren't they?

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[AndroSyn]

Do YOU want to be in a helicopter when a drone gets sucked into its intake. What happens then? The helicopter's engine likely stalls, the helicopter then goes into autorotation if you are lucky...landing in the fire you are trying to put out.

What if the drone smashes into your windshield in limited visibility, knocking the pilot out cold or worse.

You are very wrong here. Look at the airplane that landed in the Hudson River that was taken out by a goose. Seriously, a goose, a lot of drones are of similar weight or larger, also a lot softer.

If bird strikes are a hazard, how would a drone NOT be a hazard?

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[ThomasBHardy]

While the drone frame may be plastic, I would suspect that the motors and batteries are fairly dense materials. These striking a helicopter blade would seem to be a risky proposition.

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[Anonymous Coward]

ok, here's your choice.

Stick a bird in your garbage disposal, or a drone.

Neither will be good, but one will be a bigger hazard than the other.

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently there was a near miss the other day at Chopin Airport in Warsaw/Poland, when a Lufthansa Embraer found itself face to face with a drone.

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[Anonymous Coward]

A manned helicopter was shot down by an estes model rocket. At least this is what it was being blamed on due to someone seeing something that looked like a smoke trail and a smudge of blue paint. Sometime in the late 1980's.

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[Spy Handler]

There are little drones and there are big drones. The big ones can weigh 5 pounds or more. Also all drones have steel parts like electric motors.

Maybe Mythbusters or somebody can do a test, shouldn't be that hard or expensive. Get a helicopter tail rotor and mount it on a platform and spin it to normal operating RPM. Fly a popular drone such as a DJI Phantom with a GoPro mounted on it into the tail rotor. See what kind of damage occurs.

My guess is that the damage to the tail rotor will be major and the helicopter will experience yaw stability issues, but a decent pilot should be able to make an emergency landing.

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[Anonymous Coward]

Birds are usually smart enough to stay away from fire.

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[tlhIngan]

They wanted to drop water but couldn't because of the drones. Why, they were afraid they'd damage the drones in putting out a fire? Solution, drop water on the drones.

I'm sure helicopters have to deal with birds sometimes. These drones don't appear to be that durable or heavy, are you telling me that the propeller blades can't handle these little things without causing a disaster?

I am not a drone owner or user... but I just can't believe these things are that hazardous to an aircraft the size of a helicopter. Am I very very wrong here?

It's not the hazard, it's the potential hazard.

Let me set up the firefighting environment.

You're in an aircraft. Could be a helicopter. Could be an airplane (single engine agplanes are commonly used). You're flying low to the ground, because if you go too high, the effectiveness of your water/retardant/foam drop diminishes significantly. So you're having to fly in a narrow band of altitude above ground. You can't go up - lowers the effectiveness, you can't go down - reduces your spread, and again, lowers the effectiveness because you're not covering as wide an area.

OK, now we're near the fire. As everyone knows, heat rises, and fires generate a lot of it. This makes for wicked turbulence as you fly - it's extremely difficult maintaining attitude ("blue side up"). You've got to fly this path to lay your water/retardant/foam in the planned area, with air upsetting your aircraft and making it hard to keep a straight line (i.e., straight and level flight).

You're concentrating making your location, dropping your load (which alters the CG of your aircraft - in some, they will pitch up as they get lighter, in others, pitch down, and you must correct for this as you're dropping. If you don't, your chances of crashing are basically certain).

In other words, it's already a hard job, and now you want to add avoidance to the mix? I mean, if you're dropping, and a drone comes up, that could distract the pilot long enough to do the wrong thing. Or it could hit the aircraft and damage a prop, at a time when the workload is high.

I did mention you were already low to the ground, right? So if you have a problem, you can't fix it - and if you can't fix it, you're going down. If you're lucky, there's a crew nearby who will come to your aid in your crashed aircraft. If not, and you land in flames, well, hero down.

But I'm sure it was all worth it to be on YouTube, right?

And that's the real danger - it's really turbulent, so drones are no match for the wicked air currents. There's a chance that "harmless drone" far away could be gusted right into you, perhaps damaging a control surface (and it doesn't take much - the aluminum bends really easily).

Plus, it's high workload - you're already busy enough flying, you really shouldn't have to worry about other aircraft in the area. (And you don't - there's an aircraft flying overhead that manages the airspace so you will not encounter another firefighter accidentally. That control aircraft schedules every helicopter, agplane, waterbomber, etc., in sequence so as to allow the pilot to just concentrate on their job - dropping their load at the right place and right time).

Since this is /., how about a work analogy - say you have a deadline coming up and you need to finish your module by that time. In a normal environment, you're given the alone time you need to concentrate because it's tricky, and it's due end of the day. Drones are more like those coworkers and your boss asking you to come into a meeting, or bugging you every 10 minutes with a question. That's why drones are so dangerous - they're distracting and their potential for harm is heightened because of the urgency of the task at hand.

And in the end, really - it's all just so some idiot can have something cool to post on your YouTube channel.

And FYI - the airspace around a wildfire is restricted airspace - no aircraft

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a good excuse to stay away and have some coffee until police is called in and shoot them down. Life or property really does not matter as long as the proper procedure is followed.

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[Chris Johnson]

Also bear in mind what a drone is. These five drones were competing with each other to get better footage. Dramatic close footage of helicopters is clearly good footage, and the kind of person who fights to get camera drones into the middle of a situation like this is the kind of person who'd try to get the helicopters and everything else in the shot good and tight. Close-up of the helicopter dumping water? Score!

These aren't stray animals, they are provably human beings on the scene somewhere, putting themselves and others in danger in order to be annoying paparazzi and excessively-wealthy-Silicon-valley-cocks AT THE SAME TIME.

By all means, shoot the drones on sight. No human paparazzi need be harmed, unless they croak from getting in the way of a massive fire on purpose.

I'm alarmed and impressed that they managed to get FIVE competing drones, all getting in the way as they tried to be 21st century paparazzi-by-wire. Literally, five rich people were doing this at the same time? What were they, waiting for the rich drone pilot bat-signal?

"DANGER on the freeway. Quick! Get in the way, and film it to post on rich douches of Instagram!"

Not that I'm bitter :D

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[steelfood]

For starters, birds tend to fly away from forest fires.

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[Chris Johnson]

All this plus drones flown by arrogant fools to get impressive camera footage will actively try to be IN the vicinity of anything on the scene. If there is an aircraft trying to make a firefighting pass, every single drone being flown with this agenda will try to get NEARER to the plane than all the other drones to ensure there aren't extra drones in the shot.

They'll not only try to get in the way but they'll try to get closer than the other drones for bragging rights. It's certainly not 'cool' to be the drone farthest away from the shot. Hence, human intervention actively making the problem worse.

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[Paco103]

Considering the number that die smacking into windows and windmills, I can't imagine this has to do with intelligence. They might avoid the noise?

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[drpimp]

I would tend to agree with a skilled pilot being able to recover at a higher altitude. The real issue is with a yaw issue at really low altitude you have little room for recovery. No to mention, when those helis are coming in hot and not hovering for a drop, 90+ mph even a 5 lb object can potentially be damaging.

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[Applehu Akbar]

This happened to a news helicopter in Phoenix in 1991, killing the pilot. For years, the air over Phoenix has been analyzed at approximately 40% news helicopters. After two of them collided in 1991, this activity has been somewhat more restrained.

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[bobbied]

Exactly this..

Air drops are done low and slow where the work load is high. Bad things happen quickly under these conditions and you can be dead almost before you realize there is a problem.

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[Anonymous Coward]

Birds don't have batteries that can explode.
Besides, over a fire the only birds you'll find are ground level and very well done.

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they are that dangerous, but that is beside the point: The airspace above wild fires is restricted, as is the airspace near airports. The drones could be made of harmless jelly and they still wouldn't be allowed there. This is not your decision to make.

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[AdamHaun]

Thank you for the thorough explanation. I wish I had mod points.

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[AdamHaun]

In addition to what others have said, lithium batteries batteries tend to burn or explode when traumatized. And motors are made out of metal.

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are very wrong here. Look at the airplane that landed in the Hudson River that was taken out by a goose. Seriously, a goose, a lot of drones are of similar weight or larger, also a lot softer

Duh... that plane was taken out by a *flock* of geese -- not just "a goose".

You might also want to know that a goose weighs quite a bit more than a small drone and is actually much less frangible.

And let's look at how much of this is fact and how much is FUD.

How many birdstrikes were there last year? Answer: hundreds of reported incidents in the USA alone, many resulting in over $400m worth of damage and more than 200 people have died as a result of bird-strikes since 1988.

Okay... now how many actual collisions took place between full-sized aircraft and recreational drones occurred in the past year? NONE. NOT ONE! Zero, zilch!. How many people have died as a result of collisions between drones and full-sized aricraft? NONE!

Sure, it makes sense to try and mitigate the risk of a drone collision as much as possible but let's not fall victim to the FUD that is being spread by the media and other groups within the aviation industry.

You might also want to do some research as to just how "hardened" modern aircraft are to the effects of such collisions. The engines and other parts of the aircraft structure are regularly tested by firing 8lb bird carcasses and fist-sized blocks of ice at them. Compared to these, a cheap plastic Phantom 2 drone represents a *very* small threat.

Wake up and look at the facts -- not the FUD the media is throwing at you. Use your brain!

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the airplane that landed in the Hudson River that was taken out by a goose. Seriously, a goose, a lot of drones are of similar weight or larger, also a lot softer.

If bird strikes are a hazard, how would a drone NOT be a hazard?

To be fair to the Airbus, it hit more than one goose. They don't know how many, but the accident report says the entire windscreen was covered in splattered goose and large numbers of goose body dents were found on the intakes of both engine cowls.
With THAT said, I have a friend who flies a quadcopter that mounts a Canon DSLR. The quad weighs 70 pounds without the camera. Can you imagine hitting that?

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on this is obvious what the differences are. Birds don't typically buzz around your head for 10 minutes, intentionally fly close to you, troll you, etc. Drone pilots do that, because they're cheap and there's tons of douchebags with one that have no respect for people's safety.

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[Grishnakh]

(and you better damn well have a way of communicating when and where a restricted airspace is

They have that, it's called "TFRs". Any pilot can tell you that. Anyone who doesn't know that has no business flying any kind of aircraft.

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[Anonymous Coward]

An emergency landing into a raging wildfire on a rugged mountainside? Sounds like a great idea!

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you comparing the motor of a garbage disposal to the motor of a helicopter?

Lets make it a little fairer. How about the fan blade on a old truck. You know the kind that is bolted to the water pump pulley. Shove pretty much any reasonable sized drone into that and you would have no problem breaking it down to a reasonable size.

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[Shaiku]

Caution: Your mouth is spewing ignorance.

If you seriously want to argue that these things are flying around in class G airspace then let me come back by informing you that there is a large TFR to the surface during firefighter operations and they are busting that TFR. It is not a free-for-all just because it's close to the ground.

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[roger10-4]

I think my reasonable expectation is: I'd rather not be the pilot of a helicopter carrying tons of water to be the one that finds out what happens.

"...or you suck it up and figure out a way to keep your personnel safe." - this is what the legislation is providing - a way to keep personal safe by allowing them to remove unnecessary hazards from an already extremely dangerous situation.

It's reasonable to assume "restricted air space" takes on a different meaning in the context of wildfires. The water buckets are sometimes filled from the closest source of water available. I lived in Colorado during a couple of the major fires a few years ago. The helicopters were filling buckets from a reservoir next to a golf course (maybe 1500 yards from the office I was working in) with trails that people run/walk by all the time. It seems like common sense that one should consider this area as restricted air space and stay out of the way.

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[Anonymous Coward]

and the kind of person who fights to get camera drones into the middle of a situation like this is the kind of person who'd try to get the helicopters and everything else in the shot good and tight.

Maybe. You don't know, you're just presenting this as an argument because it conveniently supports your position.

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[Anonymous Coward]

As I said before, you're simply repeating an opinion that happens to support your position. This is nowhere near factual - you've no idea what any particular drone pilot is thinking, other than yourself. You're a fool.

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[Anonymous Coward]

The turbines on commercial helicopters are significantly smaller than they are on large passenger jets. A drone is not likely to get sucked into the intake. All helicopters used in firefighting are multi-engine. Losing one turbine is not going to cause the other one to stall. Even if both (all) turbines are lost, there is no "autorotation IF YOU'RE LUCKY." Autorotation is automatically. It is the failure mode. Engine RPM less than Rotor RPM = autorotation. A drone is also unlikely to smash through the windshield. You don't get that kind of damage flying at 120 kts like you do in a passenger jet flying 500+ kts (or even 200+, in the case of Flight 1549, which also involved a whole flock, and not a single flimsy plastic device).

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if it's a tail rotor strike (the yaw issue you mention), then the pilot is going to autorotate, and yaw is not an issue in autorotation. Even at 500' he'll still have time.

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you know, the drone strikes the windshield of the helicopter and the pilot is out cold. a 50-100lb drone is going to do a lot of damage..A lot of these drones are a LOT bigger than you think. We're not talking about a $20 piece of plastic, we're talking about fairly heavy machines that can seriously injure people.

  There have been many cases of helicopter pilots ending up with birds on their laps. I think the risk of a drone in restricted airspace isn't anything to fuck around with.

As for the autorotation, that's nice and all..when you autorotate into a fucking fire.

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[Anonymous Coward]

And how many pilots have been blinded temporarily by morons. Yes, no airplanes have crashed into drones...yet. It's a matter of time, really.

I have no problems with people flying drones, I have problems with people being FUCKING morons with them. Fucking around with firefighter helicopters, you deserve to have your shit burned. Actually I think the fuckheads should be set on fire.

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[sysrammer]

"Even at 500' he'll still have time..." to auto-rotate into a fire.

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[sysrammer]

"You're a fool". Perhaps true, but not an "arrogant fool", as you.

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[sysrammer]

"If it flies like a drone, hovers like a drone and looks like a drone.... Shoot it!"

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[vux984]

My guess is that the damage to the tail rotor will be major and the helicopter will experience yaw stability issues, but a decent pilot should be able to make an emergency landing.

An emergency landing onto a flat open field? Sure.

An emergency landing from a small distance above the tree line above a dense forest? And don't forget there is smoke everywhere obscuring visibility... because the forest is on fire right below you where you are now trying to... "land".

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh certainly the landing on the Hudson was a *LOT* of birds. That said, how would a helicopter or airplane handle hitting more than one drone, there were 5 up there? Imagine hitting 5 of those 70lbs drones.

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[BitZtream]

Do YOU want to be in a helicopter when a drone gets sucked into its intake.

You run on the second turbine until you can land. These aren't single engine craft.

The helicopter's engine likely stalls

Helicopters don't 'stall', thats fixed wing aircraft.

the helicopter then goes into autorotation if you are lucky

This isn't optional, its the way they work, autorotation happens without any intervention from the pilot at any point when the turbine is producing less power than the energy stored in the rotors. If this did not happen, powering down the turbine would cause the aircraft to spin out of control in circles due to the torque differences. This happens in normal operations, it is in fact required just to turn the damn thing off on the ground.

landing in the fire you are trying to put out.

You don't drop flame retardant materials in the middle of the fire, you drop them on the edges or small sections, making it trivial to 'not land in the fire', though your alternative landing sites are probably effectively dangerous due to terrain ... otherwise you'd use a fire truck.

What if the drone smashes into your windshield in limited visibility, knocking the pilot out cold or worse.

The wind shields of modern aircraft are designed for heavy high speed impacts, unless you fly into a predator drone, this is unlikely to be a problem. A helicopter simply doesn't fly fast enough (and can't due to the laws of physics) to make this a serious issue.

You are very wrong here. Look at the airplane that landed in the Hudson River that was taken out by a goose. Seriously, a goose, a lot of drones are of similar weight or larger, also a lot softer.

It was taken out by multiple, in multiple engines. It flew into a flock of them. Not one, not two, but more than 4 at a minimum judging by insturmentation.

If bird strikes are a hazard, how would a drone NOT be a hazard?

They are a hazard and should be removed from the picture in emergency situations in whatever way the first responders see fit.

The problem, which you are completely ignoring because 'omg think of the children' over reactions is what happens when the first responders take out a drone for bullshit reasons, like the cops who shoot down a drone recording them breaking the law and beating someone on the side of the road?

First responders are people, nothing more. Many of them will abuse any power they're granted. Not all, but many, and if you want to avoid having those professions attract people who abuse power, you must properly constraint that power. Otherwise, people react like you, with a whole bunch of reasons to 'do the right thing' ... but all the reasons as simply wrong due to ignorance such as your own.

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[BitZtream]

...

Its unlikely to cause very much damage to the tail rotor actually, a dent or something, maybe some vibration, but nothing thats going to down the aircraft. Tail rotors aren't made out of Balsa and a Phantom is pretty small.

And further more, 'major'' damage to the tail rotor isn't going to be something the pilot can deal with. The tail rotor either works well enough to fly and the pilot won't really notice, or it fails to the point where it doesn't counter act the torque of the main rotors, in which cause the pilot's skill level doesn't matter, the aircraft can not be 'flown' in any sense of the word. In order to not spin around in circles till he passes out, then dies, he's going to auto rotate the craft immediately, which means a very hard landing in an almost certainly unplanned place. While this is a maneuver that heli pilots are required to train for ... its also one that doesn't actually go well when you do it in a real situation. People tend to get hurt very badly or die in an auto rotation.

Re:Are drones really THAT dangerous?

[KGIII]

It is a small thread - just like you said. Now, why would you want to increase the risks of something tragic happening? What possible motive would you have for adding risks? There is only a small risk of actual permanent damage so you do not mind if I punch you in the nuts, right?

Re:Finally, a win against the Republicans!

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know how much dumber you look than the person who trolled you does?

Re:Finally, a win against the Republicans!

[Anonymous Coward]

Anonymous coward responding to anonymous coward claiming that anonymous coward looks dumb for responding to anonymous coward.
-AC

Should have been doing that all along

[Anonymous Coward]

They should have been doing that from the get go. Shoot them down, run them over, dump water on them. As soon as the idiot comes forward claiming the firefighters destroyed their $10000 drone, then arrest them and toss them in jail for putting their lives in danger. Simple as that. No legislation needed.

Re:Should have been doing that all along

[peter303]

They've been trying to do that to guys who shine lasers at pilots. But they catch less than one percent. I think there were 30 incidents in one night at Newark recently.

Re:Finally, a win against the Republicans!

[Anonymous Coward]

Would this be considered an Anonymous Coward Standoff?

Question

[Earthquake Retrofit]

Are aircraft really so fragile that toy helicopters can cause them to crash or are these really big drones?

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, a drone that gets sucked into a jet engine or hits the props for a helicopter could take down the craft.

The videos of fighter jets flying through explosions is laughable, the plain would have sucked in a piece of debris and it would have destroyed the engine.

Re:Question

[Cro Magnon]

Aircraft have been taken out by geese. Drones are a lot harder than goose.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

public service is 100% morons who love bureaucracy and any excuse that they can't do their jobs and need more funding and powers to do their job.

it will never end.

kill everyone.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps for the same reasons we don't dispose of laptop batteries in garbage disposals?

Re:Question

[dayton967]

The short answer yes. If a drone was flying over the road at your windshield, as you are doing 65mph, you'll probably have problems driving, and even lower it could still do damage to your car if was at the grill level. Now double or even triple that speed, and your probably going to have even more serious damage. Remember double the speed, quadruple the force. As for around airports, they actually hire people to scare off and keep the birds away from the airport to protect the air space from bird strikes, and often civil airplanes are used at a high altitude limiting the time of risk to take offs and landings.

As for forest fire fighting, they are incredibly difficult for a pilot to work, with limited visibility, thermal up drafts and down drafts, high speeds, and drastic in-flight weight changes. These all create a massively complex flying environment, and in many cases considered as dangerous as flying a military fighter in combat. Now this is where drones become the problem unlike birds they might stay in an area where the birds would normally leave, secondly for water bombers they fly relatively low, often well within the limits of legal and physical capabilities of the drones.

Re:Question

[Applehu Akbar]

And they suck as Thanksgiving dinner.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

How many bird strikes on planes occur each year? I would bet thousands if not tens of thousands.

How many times has a bird strike caused a plane to crash? Probably a couple per year if you include small non-commercial aircraft. There are also probably a few hundred cases where the birds cause some damage to the plane but do not compromise the flight safety.

How many times has a bird strike cause a large commercial plane to crash? Lets say it happens once every 10 years. It's such big news when it happens that proves the catastrophic scenario is a remote, rare event.

With these drones there are several pertinent questions that should be asked:

1. How big are they? Do they have a 10' or larger wingspan? If they are being used miles from populated areas then they are probably much larger than your standard hobby drone. Unfortunately all the stories use the unqualified "drone" which can mean a huge variety of devices.

2. What is their altitude? Is their altitude within 50' vertical of the altitude of the firefighting plane or helicopters? If the drone is flying at 200' and the firefighters are flying at 300', how do you propose to cause a mid-air collision? Even if they are flying at the same altitude a collision isn't that likely. Or do you imagine that the drone is a jet-powered war drone that is specifically targeting the firefighters and trying to take them out?

I see a lot of hyperventilating both from the public officials and pundits here on /., but I would bet that there is a far greater chance that a mechanical failure or environmental condition (we are talking about big forest fires here) would take out the plane or helicopter than having a crash caused by the drone.

What would you think if your friend was driving down the road and you pointed out a car on a side street, and your friend started screaming "He's going to hit me!" and made a fast U-turn to get away from that "dangerous" other car?

Re:Question

[Princeofcups]

Remember double the speed, quadruple the force.

That works if you are bouncing off a brick wall, not smashing a small object into a larger one. Force is change in momentum with respect to time, not momentum squared.

Re:Question

[david_thornley]

Sure. Now bear in mind that we have conservation of energy, not just momentum, and that kinetic energy does vary as the square of the speed. That energy does have to go somewhere, such as deforming materials involved. Bullets don't have that much momentum. The old .45 pistol round has less momentum than you can get swinging a 10-lb sack of potatoes (I found a source saying 5.4 lb-f/s, and I'm assuming pound is a unit of mass here, because the dimensions don't work if it's a unit of force). While I'd rather not be hit by the potatoes, it isn't likely to hurt me much. It's the concentrated energy you have to worry about.

Re:It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permiss

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

They need a nonlethal solution. Bullets, or even shotgun pellets, would have to fall somewhere eventually.

In case of emergency.

[xenotransplant]

The first thing I do in an emergency situation is grab my expensive hobby aircraft and use it to show all my friends on vine how much better I am than they are because I have an expensive hobby.

ham radio

[kingnite9915]

How about making it like ham radio: you get a license, mark your drone with your number. You get in the way, get government knows who to bring the remains back to.

Re:ham radio

[Mycroft-X]

How about you make it ham radio -- use FCC regulations to prohibit the piloting of radio controlled aircraft on anything other than available ham bands. There are already transmitters and receivers used for exactly that purpose on the 70cm band, and FCC regulations require the remote station to be identified and to carry the callsign of the operator in the signal (usually via on-screen-display video signal).

So license information is required to be both on the drone itself and trackable via signal. No need to register the drone any more than you register a radio, it just needs to be operated by a licensed operator.

Re:It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permiss

[silas_moeckel]

Drones don't take birdshot well and it's safe downrange. Beanbag rounds and similar crowd control should be fine and something cops would already have.

Re:Finally, a win against the Republicans!

[__aanfwt7763]

i see what you're doing wrong. you're reading the "by Anonymous Coward on.." line and thinking that is the post. that simply tells you if someone has logged in to a slashdot account before they made the post, which is actually below. you gotta be pretty stupid not to see that. of course, you could be even dumber and think people not logging in to post or having an account at all is a negative. that would be pretty fucking dumb though. if you were that dumb you probably would have issues with many daily things in life.

Re:California is for cows.

[__aaclcg7560]

Maybe 30 years ago. I can drive to Stockton with the car windows open on I-5 without ever smelling a freshly made cow pie.

Re:Finally, a win against the Republicans!

[Anonymous Coward]

Trolls trolling trolls trolling troll-trolling trolls.

Re: Finally, a win against the Republicans!

[Anonymous Coward]

So ... I'm a Republican, and I'm all for this. So, uuuum ... nyah nyah nyah nyaaah nyah?

Re:Finally, a win against the Republicans!

[MightyMartian]

I don't think most drone operators are Republicans, myself. I do think many of them are peeping Toms who need to have their remote control aircraft shot out of the sky on a regular basis.

Re:It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permiss

[Anonymous Coward]

Ridicules. Those who don't know would fly without registering and those who do know won't fly registered drones in such scenarios. This is silly.

Re:CHP incompetence

[techno-vampire]

Like stay parked on a freeway with a wildfire raging nearby?

If you're caught on a freeway between off-ramps, there's not much you can do except sit tight and wait. I know, because I was stuck that way one night for over an hour while the remains of a nasty crash were cleaned up enough to get at least one lane open. I was on the up side of a grade and the wreck was on the down-slope so I couldn't even see what was going on. Naturally, we all turned our engines and lights off to save gas. It was slightly foggy, so the first sign I had that things would be moving soon was when the fog suddenly turned tail-light red. Maybe the CHP should have had the drivers evacuate sooner, but I wasn't there and I'm not in the position to have an informed opinion.

Re:It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permiss

[OhPlz]

It was an undocumented drone flying over a sanctuary city.

Re:It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permiss

[Anonymous Coward]

What's this obsession with pre-crime? Firefighter don't shoot bystanders even though bystanders could blow up the firetruck with a grenade, so why should firefighter shoot drones?

They should just assume good faith. If a bystander blows up a firetruck or a drone hits a helicopter, then investigate the situation and file charges.

Applause

[SuperKendall]

I for one think it's about time that human-drone relationships comes out of the closet, and that we do not scorn those drones or humans with such orientations.

Re:Finally, a win against the Republicans!

[Coren22]

Make an account just to claim that? Silly is as silly does.

Re:Finally, a win against the Republicans!

[Chris Johnson]

Clearly, cow-ception. :)

Re:It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permiss

[PRMan]

Kill a squad of firefighters? Are you insane?

Re:It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permiss

[k6mfw]

When authorities do get legal ability to shoot down drones, it seems in practice very difficult to do. Small moving target like back in the days of multiple rapid fire machine guns and flak artillery. Maybe CalFire can get a few of these to add to their fleet of vehicles, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

Re:Holy Knee Jerk Reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

They aren't worried about hurting the drones. They are worried about the danger to the aircraft fighting the fire. Yes, a drone can seriously damage an airplane/helicopter.

Re:It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permiss

[Ichijo]

Should we also bill the person who started the fire?

If so, wouldn't it be double billing to bill that person and also the drone operators?

Re:Holy Knee Jerk Reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

I propose YOU get into a helicopter and sit there while we pelt it with drones just to test out how dangerous they are.

Wrong problem

[Tablizer]

[A bill] would grant 'immunity to any emergency responder who damages an unmanned aircraft in the course of firefighting, air ambulance, or search-and-rescue operations

Seems to me a bigger problem is damage or injury caused by a falling drone after being disabled.

Re:Wrong problem

[tomhath]

No, the bigger problem is someone being burned alive because a drone interfered with the firefighting.

Re:Holy Knee Jerk Reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't care if the drones are damaged.
They care about the chance of the drone damaging the helicopter.

Re:Holy Knee Jerk Reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

Birds don't hover in one place.

that is not the case.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, small aircraft are fragile and drones can hurt them - especially when you fly into one at 100+ knots. Here do an experiment: have a buddy hover a drone 3 or so feet off the ground, and you drive your car into it at only 50mph and see what happens.

It's not like they wait till the sky is clear of birds before they begin operations.

Birds fly away from fires and LOUD aircraft. Drones do not.

Frankly, if asshats like these keep doing shit like this, we're going to see publicly owned drones banned.

Re:It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permiss

[es330td]

In legal terms this is known as "joint and several liability." In English it means "everyone in sight is on the hook until the amount of the judgment is satisfied."

Re:California is for cows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you know that losing your sense of smell is a strong indicator of impending mortality?

Or you don't consider the stench of the cattle feed lots right next to I-5 to be "freshly made"?

Re:It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permiss

[es330td]

It can't be that hard if it is in range. These things move much slower than a goose or duck and one high energy lead pellet to a propeller will probably put it out of service. These things are an awfully big target compared to the dove and quail people hunt.

I know! I know! Pick me!

[Applehu Akbar]

Just classify drones as pets. Then whenever the police are called out on a case, drones would automatically get shot first.

Federal laws

[Anonymous Coward]

If they take down a federal drone, doesn't that override this law?

Impressive

[viperidaenz]

20 minutes flight time is pretty good for a 'drone'

Re:Impressive

[roger10-4]

I don't think you can necessarily extrapolate a drone flight time of 20 minutes from the details in the article. Of the "15-20 minutes" flights were suspended, I'm sure some of that time was used for communication and visual verification drones were no longer present. There was also nothing stating that all 5 drones were airborne simultaneously.

Re:Holy Knee Jerk Reaction

[viperidaenz]

So flying above and being hit by the rotor and having bits of steel and carbon fibre ingested in to the turbine engine isn't going to end badly for the single engine helicopter flying above a burning forest?

USA USA USA!

[DarthVain]

Considering the militarization of the American police and how they are getting surplus military hardware, I suspect this is just the Fire Departments getting jealous.

Bird Shot? The argument will be that the range is too limited.

The first step will be to try and retrofit missiles to fire helicopters. However, I'm sure after you load enough on there, it will start to limit how much water you can carry.... Then they will buy separate Apache attack helicopters to escort the water bombers. However eventually there will be cutbacks, and they will have to eliminate the water bombers, and just shoot missiles at the fires.

Or you could probably rig a localized focused jamming device that will screw with RF long enough for the drone to simply crash, while at the same time not interfering with radio communications or at least not for an extended period of time. That even sounds like kind of an interesting problem to solve...

Re:USA USA USA!

[fredgiblet]

Hmmmmm... The Army is dropping all their Kiowas, maybe they can let them go to the fire departments for a steal.

Re:USA USA USA!

[Grishnakh]

You do realize that these drones aren't any bigger than a suitcase, don't you? You could probably take one out with a small Estes rocket (with no explosive warhead) if you could hit it.

Re:It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permiss

[Damarkus13]

But how do you actually enforce a registration requirement when it's so simple to build a multi-rotor platform from scratch? You may be able to get all the DJI Phantoms registered, but many hobbyist UAVs are assembled from components.

Re:Finally, a win against the Republicans!

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually, our rulers side with the Republicans against us. Finally, they're looking out for us instead of the wealthy Republican-run drone-owning corporations.

I'm a republican and I'd be willing to design, develop and sell drone elimination devices to as many government agencies as wish to pay me... I'm thinking something the size of a suitcase should do it and initial estimates are that it will only cost a million a copy in volume...

Re:Finally, a win against the Republicans!

[perlwannabe]

Trolls gonna troll

Re:It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permiss

[bobbied]

Printed on a 3D printer none the less..... Totally untraceable...

Re:It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permiss

[bobbied]

To use a shot gun you are going to need to be REALLY close to the thing you are shooting. If you get over 20 yards or so, you can forget about doing any kind of reliable damage.

Not already legal?

[Carewolf]

Shouldn't it already be legal? In an emergency you are allowed to break laws necessary to save human lives, or stop an emergency from spreading. Particular destruction of property during fire-fights are textbook examples of that.

You mean this isn't the law already?

[davidwr]

I figured "taking out drones" would fall in the same category as a fireman breaking a car's windows or pushing it out of the way if it's parked in front of a hydrant when the fireman needs access to that hydrant to fight a fire, then asking a cop to ticket the owner for parking in front of the hydrant.

In case you are wondering, the break-the-windows-and-give-the-owner-a-ticket scenario is covered by the law in at least one state if not most/all of them. And no, the car owner isn't allowed to sue the fire dept. for damage to the windows or the water damage when they disconnect and water gets all over the inside of his car.

Re:It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permiss

[ScentCone]

The proposed rulemaking will do no such thing. It explicitly leaves hobbyists alone, as mandated by congress. It only applies to commercial users. People using their 3-pound quadcopter to get some YouTube video of the fire near their house aren't the people that the FAA's new rules will impact.

Re:California is for cows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Stockton smells like wet paper bags. Slightly, but not much better, than cow pies.

Re:Finally, a win against the Republicans!

[ScentCone]

I do think many of them are peeping Toms who need to have their remote control aircraft shot out of the sky on a regular basis.

Based on? Specifically.

a pustulent blister on the bum of model rocketry

[Anonymous Coward]

VILE SLANDER!
That sounds more like the modus operandi of some Centuri shitbird.

Re:It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permiss

[spire3661]

Impossible. The parts are too easy to acquire to make a registry meaningful. You probably think people should use their real name on the internet and all computers be registered too, right? You go after the ones breaking the law, not blanket ban everyone.

THEY CAN SMASH THEM ALREADY

[bussdriver]

They can smash stuff legally already; however, a flying drone is something they are not equipped to smash out of their way, unlike your car parked in front of a fire hydrant... (I've seen a firetruck smash a car that was in the way.)

The law is not needed, what is needed is a way to take out drones quickly. They may not have the right to operate the kind of guns needed to shoot down drones.... plus the falling drone is a new kind of problem -- it is not like cutting holes into burning houses or ripping apart a car.

I would propose a gun which shoots a net on a rope. the net should have some loose strings on it just in case it's one of those drones which have a lot of protection around their propellers. The other benefit is that if you can "bag" a few drones instead of letting them fall, you might be able to track down the owner later on.

Re:THEY CAN SMASH THEM ALREADY

[PPH]

what is needed is a way to take out drones quickly.

Lets see how well a drone can cope with a 5000 lb air drop of fire retardant.

ignore this

[Scorch_Mechanic]

posting to undo incorrect moderation

Re:ignore this

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you explain how a post like yours undoes an incorrect moderation?

Re:It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permiss

[Anonymous Coward]

You play too many video games. Birdshot reliably downs birds at well over 100 yards with an appropriate choke. They would do the same with drones.

Re:It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permiss

[jedidiah]

We have already had a case of a cranky California homeowner taking out a drone with a shotgun. In the worst case, shoot it with a rifle from a direction you know the shot will be harmless if you miss.

Plus, this is forest fires we're talking about. That means that this is the kind of place that hunters already discharge firearms.

Clueless liberals from the concrete jungle need to stay home and stay out of the way.

Re:It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permiss

[Anonymous Coward]

So we need a really tall fence.

Shoot'Em Down!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm gonna get me a shotgun and shoot all the drones I see...

Re:It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permiss

[SvnLyrBrto]

Most consumer drones are pretty small and lightweight. It's a good bet that the stream from the fire hose would be effective for the purpose. I suspect that they're also not waterproof.

Re:It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permiss

[tompaulco]

Should we also bill the person who started the fire?

Sure. Why not? Undoubtedly it was someone throwing a cigarette out of their car in violation of state law.

If so, wouldn't it be double billing to bill that person and also the drone operators?

Well, it would be double billing unless it was a fine, then we can bill to infinity, and nobody gets to complain about double billing.

Technocratic solution

[goodmanj]

The FAA can take jurisdiction on this and work with the FCC to set some pretty reasonable rules that would solve this problem. Pretty much all modern R/C hobby aircraft operate on the same 2.4 Ghz spread-spectrum protocol. These aren't just passive AM/FM systems, they have microprocessors in them. The gubmint could designate an emergency 2.4 Ghz radio transmission, and require commercially-made drones sold in the US to respond to it by beginning a controlled descent. General-purpose R/C systems used for build-your-own aircraft would respond by lowering the throttle servo to near-idle.

So the fire department pushes a button, and all the drones slowly descend to the ground. If yours lands in a lake, well, serves you right for operating a drone in an emergency area. Of course, the emergency transmission can't be secret, so you pass a little law making unauthorized sale or operation of an emergency drone-crash beacon a crime.

It's basically the same idea as the traffic signal pre-emption devices that let fire trucks get a green light whenever they need it. There's even a law covering unauthorized sale of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

Re:It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permiss

[LessThanObvious]

The typical shotgun bird-shot or bean bag loads aren't totally well suited. It's time for law enforcement to do some basic research on a suitable solution for mid-range drone mitigation using readily available tools. Possibly workable would be 12 gauge with 32" barrel chambered for 3 1/2 inch magnum shells and having a tight choke and shot cup designed for maximum range without exceeding #6 shot size for safety. This configuration would probably double the effective range compared to a cylinder choked defensive shotgun with target load bird-shot. Defining the best load for the defensive shotguns issued to police would take some trial and error and with some needed compromise could probably be workable out to about 40 yards max. I'd rather see a purpose built weapon for issue to helicopters in flight as they would no doubt have unique challenges and concerns. Assuming the pilot is in range it also might be effective to simply announce on the load-speaker that the pilot will be arrested if the drone is not grounded immediately.

taking out drones

[bl968]

You mean fire shots into the air which they can't be certain where they will land...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:taking out drones

[RichMan]

That is why you use bird-shot

Re:taking out drones

[WillAffleckUW]

Polycore works better.

Well, more satisfying.

Actually, you're right, birdshot is more effective. But I love watching them go down in a punch.

Re:It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permiss

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

I thought about the loudspeaker option, too. However, I'm worried that anyone stupid enough to fly a drone that interferes with firefighters would also be too self-centered to cooperate. Maybe they authorities would need to include the threat "or we will destroy your drone now".

85 damaging accidents a year just in Sacramento

[peter303]

"Sacramento International Airport has had more bird strikes (1,300 collisions between birds and jets between 1990 and 2007, causing an estimated $1.6 million in damage) than any other California airport. Sacramento International Airport has the most bird strikes of any airport in the west and sixth among airports in the US, according to the FAA, as it is located along the Pacific Flyway, a major bird migration path.[13][14]"

FAA may do something like that

[peter303]

They are granting limited commercial use now, generallylightly populated areas: farming, pipelines, disaster surveys, etc.

commercial class drones go for several hours

[peter303]

A serious photography or farmers isnt using a coupule hundred dollar toy drone.

Everything in California must be solved!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hooray! Looks like all the problems in California have been solved!

No need to fret over jobs, economy, taxes, roads, or even traffic!

Those clowns have enough time to spend on this nonsense, wtf?

Expensive?

[TsuruchiBrian]

“Just because you have access to an expensive toy that can fly in a dangerous area doesn’t mean you should do it.”

We've had RC aircraft for almost as long as we've had aircraft. The reason drones are causing this particular problem is precisely because they are no longer expensive.

Re:It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permiss

[Anonymous Coward]

It is beaming the video back somewhere, or the controls will be transmitting. All of which can be traced. Maybe the penalty will be steeper if the drone is unregistered, just like it is for guns.

Re:California is for cows.

[Khyber]

It reeked of cow shit during my trip to San Francisco last year. Give me a break.

Yoda said

[jonhorvath]

Begun the Drone War has

Re:It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permiss

[Khyber]

Want to know how I know you've never fired a real gun before?

Magnum slugs alone on an unchoked barrel can be accurate up to 150 yards.

Licensing of operators, registration of drones

[perpenso]

This is California. One idiot misbehaves and the legislature will pass laws to require licensing of operators, registration of drones, mandatory gps based logging during all flights with such logs preserved and inspectable on demand by a government representative. Failure to provide such logs resulting in a loss of an operating license, fines, etc.

Re:Licensing of operators, registration of drones

[kheldan]

And you know what? I'm perfectly OK with all that, and before you get all pissy with me for saying that, place the blame for it all (if that's what ends up happening) with the parties responsible for it happening: People who can't be bothered to play with their toys in a responsible manner.

Re:Licensing of operators, registration of drones

[perpenso]

I'm actually OK with licensing of operators, something on the order of a 4-hour class covering laws and safety. But I am also confident that the CA legislature will take things far beyond any reasonable point.

And how many aircraft have been taken out by drone

[Anonymous Coward]

Just asking...

Re:Finally, a win against the Republicans!

[Anonymous Coward]

South Park.

Re: California is for cows.

[Anonymous Coward]

What about bad reading comprehension, since you fall into that category?

Dude smells Shit today, not 30 years ago. Losing smell would likely be welcomed over smelling shit.

Can't Shoot Them Down?

[shillbot]

I live in a rural area more than half a mile from a small road. Try suing me for shooting down your toy helicopter if you fly it over my property under legal altitude in this county. Snooping isn't a right.

Re: California is for cows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like I had the reading fail. A comma and period make for different understanding.

My bad.

In Obama's America...

[Anonymous Coward]

Drone takes out you!

All those autonomous flying things, aka birds

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting tired of all this non-sense. A drone represents about zero threat to a large aircraft or helicopter. We have very large birds that hit aircraft daily, that are much large than 90% of the drones out there, and how many planes crash because of this? 1 every ten years or so.

Re:It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permiss

[Anonymous Coward]

When you catch the people with unregistered drones, you arrest them and send them to jail.

That will stop this bullshit pretty quick.

Send the assholes to jail.

Evidence?

[goto11]

A friend of mine floated the theory that there were no actual drones, but that the story of "4 drones" was made up as an excuse for letting the road full of cars burn.

I don't think I would have arrived at that same conclusion myself, but come to think of it, the whole story doesn't really make much sense. If drones were in the area, wouldn't they have just dumped water/flame retardant on them? Wouldn't there be some photographs or other evidence of drone presence?

This on the heels of the "drone with a gun" video making the rounds of the Internet. Seems like a convenient excuse to quickly pass drone legislation.

Re:CHP incompetence

[Anonymous Coward]

Like stay parked on a freeway with a wildfire raging nearby?

If you're caught on a freeway between off-ramps, there's not much you can do except sit tight and wait. I know, because I was stuck that way one night for over an hour while the remains of a nasty crash were cleaned up enough to get at least one lane open. I was on the up side of a grade and the wreck was on the down-slope so I couldn't even see what was going on. Naturally, we all turned our engines and lights off to save gas. It was slightly foggy, so the first sign I had that things would be moving soon was when the fog suddenly turned tail-light red. Maybe the CHP should have had the drivers evacuate sooner, but I wasn't there and I'm not in the position to have an informed opinion.

Wait a sec ...
Are you saying that people don't yet have flying cars in California?

Allow individuals to collect fines?

[ChoGGi]

Minimum of $5000, collectable by individuals

no more drones and a few darwin awards in every fire

Re:Finally, a win against the Republicans!

[__aanfwt7763]

yep. that's clearly exactly why I created the account. your deductive reasoning skills are fucking amazing. Using your logic, You clearly created your slashdot account so you can test whether your newly created gmail account works, by having slashdot send you a confirmation email. Why the fuck would you do something as convoluted as that? seriously, you have to be some kind of a freaking idiot to complicate things so much. you know you can test out a new email account w/o creating a slashdot account - right? you can for example have a friend send an email to your newly created account.

Also, I gotta ask - "Coren22"?? You're trying to tell people REN from ren and stimpy being a COmmunists would be a catch 22? I'm sorry, I may be too dumb, but you need to provide a reason for this derailed train of thought. If Ren from ren and stimpy was indeed a communist, why in the fucking world would that be a catch22? you know what a catch22 is - right? I don't think you do.

Yes 'drones' can take out aircraft

[Anonymous Coward]

This is very simple and very clear. The battery pack on a DJI Phantom, last time I looked, weighs 0.9 lbs and is very small = very dense. Propeller blades travel, at their tips, approx 500 mph. Helicopter blade tips a bit slower but some still over 450 mph. If any of these strike a very dense 1 lb object, severe damage will result. The aircraft will almost certainly be destroyed as a result.

Re:Yes 'drones' can take out aircraft

[BitZtream]

All commercially built helicopters are designed for large bird strikes, a Phantom impacting the rotor or tail rotor is unlikely to cause very much damage. You're imagining a full on direct impact with the main mass of the phantom, which would never happen, its just going to hit one or two of the arms the motors are attached to and that impact will send the rest of the phantom away from the rotor at significant speed and certainly leave the phantom in no flyable shape so its not going to happen again.

LiPo batteries that you're talking about, are far from dense, thats why they are used in aircraft, low mass == low weight == better flight performance

Re:Yes 'drones' can take out aircraft

[ragvalley]

Totally right, as a drone flyer myself I asked a friend who is a helicopter pilot currently working for the government here and his professional opinion is that drones are so lightweight they would be instantly destroyed in a collision with the tail rotor. Collision with the main rotor he says would be almost impossible from the wind turbulence pushing down, the drone would have to be very large and powerfull to sustain itself on that kind of wind, unless it came from the top on which case the tail rotor rule applies.

Including military or police?

[Anonymous Coward]

No? then it isn't about making firefighting easier, is it.

Re:Er...how? You dumbarse!

[Anonymous Coward]

They have a big arse bucket of water to drop on the drones!!!

Before this law they were not allowed to drop water on the drone, now they can!!

How narrow minded and in-imaginative are you?????

Re:It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permiss

[bobbied]

Want to know how I know you've never fired a real gun before?

Magnum slugs alone on an unchoked barrel can be accurate up to 150 yards.

You are wrong, I grew up hunting. I even did a bit of competitive shotgun shooting for a time, though I'm not that good.

You are not going to hit a small moving airborne target with slugs at 150 yards using a shot gun without making an extremely lucky shot. Shooting a stationary target with a shotgun slug at 150 yards is difficult in its own right, unless the target is the broad side of a barn.

I'm not so sure you know what you are talking about, but I wouldn't want to take bets on how much experience you have with firearms....

Re:Finally, a win against the Republicans!

[Anonymous Coward]

slashdot is trolls all the way down.
at least when it's any good...

Re:California is for cows.

[__aaclcg7560]

Try 30 years ago when all you could see from the side of the road was a sea of cattle. The smell was suffocating and the summer heat was oppressive, especially with the windows rolled up, the AC in the car not working and 55MPH was the speed limit. Today we have more techies than cattle to drop cow pies.

Re:It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permiss

[Khyber]

"You are not going to hit a small moving airborne target with slugs at 150 yards using a shot gun without making an extremely lucky shot."

Wanna know how I know you've never been skeet shooting or actual duck hunting?

Protip: Lead your target.

"I'm not so sure you know what you are talking about, but I wouldn't want to take bets on how much experience you have with firearms.... "

My grandfather is a retired Lt. Col. USMC. I spent my summers on Parris Island (He lived on Datau.) I obviously know how to effectively and accurately operate a weapon. You, on the other hand...

Re:It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permiss

[bobbied]

So your grandpa was a Lt Col and a Marine and that makes you an expert in Shotguns... Well excuse me Mr. Expert, obviously I'm not as well educated in firearms as you must be having grown up hunting with an Eagle scout raised by a career Army Sarget for a father... (sarcasm off)

You don't shoot airborne targets with slugs, you use shot, which is NOT very effective at even 100 yards... If you are hitting ducks with slugs at 150 yards (heck if you can hit them with SHOT at that distance), you need to drop this Slashdot gig and do some professional shooting. The pros generally shoot at under 60 yards in competition, you should find the experience easy given you are good enough to shoot out at 150 yards so well, just lead the target a bit more...

Come on, I'm not claiming to be an expert marksman, or even a good shooter, but I do know the physical limitations of the shotgun, what it was designed to do, what it can do, and what it cannot. Shooting an airborne target at 150 yards is clearly something that a shotgun cannot do effectively. Even at half that distance shotguns would be only somewhat effective in the hands of your average shooter, there is no way 150 yards is going to work.

Re:It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permiss

[KGIII]

How do you feel about drunk driving, distracted driving, criminal threatening, driving to endanger, or similar laws?

For the record, I tend to agree with you in theory. Practicality has shown that theory does not hold up to reality.

I'm Asking For Trouble, But ...

[Toad-san]

I've already promised the wife (to her eye-rolling disgust) that if I ever see a drone operator near an emergency scene, I shall:

1 - Punch him in the gut, hard.
2 - Take his controller away and jump up and down on it, repeatedly.

She feels I would be overreacting. I disagree. I haven't even gotten CLOSE to the "And then put the boots to the bastard" phase!

Re:It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permiss

[Khyber]

"You don't shoot airborne targets with slugs, you use shot"

Only if you're a shit shot that can't lead a target (or in your case, likely using the wrong type of metal slug - you use bismuth for distance shooting, not steel or lead.)

" If you are hitting ducks with slugs at 150 yards (heck if you can hit them with SHOT at that distance), you need to drop this Slashdot gig and do some professional shooting."

The pros have been doing 200+ yard competitions for years. My last try at one was 2010 in the southern Mojave.

"The pros generally shoot at under 60 yards in competition"

Using buckshot, or buckshot in a wax slug, maybe, yes. MINIMUM safe fault distance from a metal target being engaged in an officially-constructed range, using metal slugs, is 61 yards (60 yard minimum target distance, one yard fault line allocation minimum.) My 1984 Mossberg M500 is scary accurate with a 26" barrel and just the pip on the end of the barrel, no rear dovetail. Men do distance competition all the time. We've got 12-gauge sabot rounds that are ungodly accurate 200 yards out with proper construction.

Also, with a typical Remington Express ELR shotgun shell, 1300 FPS muzzle velocity, you won't be losing any real accuracy until about the half second mark, when gravity starts making itself profoundly known to the projectile and it begins to drop like a rock. 750 feet, 250 yards maximum safe bet for better than 50% hit rate. I don't see 300 yards just yet, though. Just a tip up of the barrel to compensate, or use a longer barrel that's rifled. I've seen smooth-bore hits at ~225 before.

There's the Hornady SST rounds that get 2,000 FPS muzzle velocity with only a 6.75" drop at 200 yards. That's dead-easy to compensate for.

I've been shooting rifles and handguns of all sorts since I was 6 years old. Spring-piston dart pistols to single-pump breech-load Benjamin .22 pellet rifles (that were just as good as firing an actual .22LR) to 9mm to .40cal to AR-15 to M-16 to .308 crew-served to shotguns (20, 16, 12, and 10 gauge, and the ever-loved venerable .410 as I had a fairly rural life growing up in Texas, Tennessee, and South Carolina with an occasional Louisiana stint.)

http://firearmspedia.com/scatt... Yes, that is a sniper shotgun.

BTW, current shotgun record on a 100 yard grouping is 0.787 inch for 5 shots - zero magnification, red dot sight only. 200's a breeze, you just need to think about your ammunition, and possible crosswinds.

You do not believe, because you cannot conceive. Go spend some time on youtube. This guy nailed a slightly larger-than-human target with a 9mm at 1,000 yards. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Here's a guy (not the one mentioned above) doing slugs 200+ with decent accuracy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...