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

[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

[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

[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

[kenai_alpenglow]

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

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

[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

[murdocj]

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

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

[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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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: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.

In Soviet Russia

[ClickOnThis]

In Soviet Russia, drones take out you!

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

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.

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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[sysrammer]

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

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: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.

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:Question

[Cro Magnon]

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

Re:How?

[lhowaf]

Behold the advent of the hunter-killer drone!

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

[OhPlz]

It was an undocumented drone flying over a sanctuary city.

Re:How?

[PRMan]

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

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: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:Finally, a win against the Republicans!

[perlwannabe]

Trolls gonna troll

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.

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: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.

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.

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.