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

[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

[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

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

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

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:How?

[Jarik C-Bol]

High powered water gun.

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?

[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: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?

[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: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.