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

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?

[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: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: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

[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.