Slashdot Mirror
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."
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."
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.
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.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
High pressure water gun.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
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.
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.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.