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.
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.
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.
" 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.
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.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
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.
Anonymous coward responding to anonymous coward claiming that anonymous coward looks dumb for responding to anonymous coward.
-AC
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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'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!
Will
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.