Slashdot Mirror
Feds To Deploy Anti-Drone Software Near Wildfires (thehill.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Hill: Federal officials are launching a new "geofencing" program to alert drone pilots when they're flying too close to wildfire prevention operations. The Department of Interior said Monday it would deploy software warnings to pilots when their drones pose a risk to the aircraft used by emergency responders fighting wildfires. The agency said there have been 15 instances of drones interfering with firefighter operations this year, including several leading to grounded aircraft. Drone-related incidents doubled between 2014 and 2015, the agency said. Officials built the new warning system with the drone industry, and the agency said manufacturers could eventually use it to build drones that automatically steer away from wildfire locations. The program is in its pilot phase, the agency said; officials hope to have a full public release in time for next year's wildfire season. "No responsible drone operator wants to endanger the lives of the men and women who work to protect them and we believe this program, which uses the global positioning system to create a virtual barrier, will move us one step closer to eliminating this problem for wildfire managers," Mark Bathrick, the director of the Interior Department's Office of Aviation Service, said in a statement.
Just vac and let it burn already. If you can't suppress them it is a waste of money, if you do suppress them there will be larger fires at a later date. Save $$$ and spend it on better management.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Ohhh, that was horrible!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I don't trust the federal government to be telling the truth here.
I can't find the Slashdot article, but the FAA was caught lying in front of congress about how drones interfere with other aircraft. They were taking every occurrance where a pilot says that they see a UFO, and counting that as a drone. Another example was the case where a commercial plane was damaged by something striking it, and they claimed it was a drone even though they found no evidence of it. They found their boogeyman and want to blame everything on it.
We have a problem that government agencies can make rules without having to prove their case. And they aren't elected officials so they don't answer directly to the people.
It could be that various government organizations see drones as a threat to government opaqueness. The FAA is going to do everything they can to limit drone use. This is where the surveillance society swings the other way - people can keep better track of the government. Whenever we see these claims about drones, take them with a grain of salt. Start asking what evidence they have that there was a drone present. Most drones are so cheap and light, that a 2mph breeze will make them uncontrollable. It strains believability that firefighting helicoptors are threatened by bits of plastic lighter than many birds. Are there really drones operating over forest fires? Until I see real evidence, a random pilot claiming "I couldn't do X because of a drone" isn't going to convince me to tighten regulations.
How about a common sense regulation saying that anyone operating a drone over a certain weight has to be available on a particilar CB radio channel?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A bird is a lot different from a flying piece of metal and birds will try to avoid the plane, a drone would not. Need to supply these pilots with like a EMO gun to shoot the drones down. When owner comes to claim the drone, slap him with a 10K fine for being a stupid SOB.
And what if someone was TRYING to bring down the aircraft with a drone?
...just wait until geofencing is applied to self driving cars, and for political reasons. "I'm sorry dave, I can't take you to the protest zone..."
Shouldn't drones be fighting the fire? Why send humans up there? Drones have more carrying capacity per horsepower (no bulky life support systems needed) potentially better maneuverability, and don't risk lives. Yes, it's new technology and the ideal drone for that job may not exist yet- but that's the future and it should begin now.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Amateur indeed. Sounds like you should lose your license if you're going to be that inconsiderate. Things are a little different when you're traveling at 220-250 knots only 100-500 feet from sometimes vertical ground. And yeah, getting those damn things sucked into the engine can cause big trouble and be very expensive. The radome is made of thin fiberglass. Just hearing the clank of hitting anywhere is going to have the pilot wondering what happened, or what fell off the plane. They don't need to be rubbernecking all around looking out for your damn toys. Show some respect (they probably don't teach that anymore these days) and stay out of the fucking way! Or what, you want to run your little RC cars in front the firetrucks too? GTFOH! Asshole! What a dick! If i were in charge, I would have you taken out and summarily shot, and your little dog too! Be goddamn grateful I'm not!
Screw it. Why am I getting pissed for? You can't be serious. If you are, then you're a pathological little shit!
On the other hand we should be using semi-autonomous UAVs for firefighting and search and rescue so we can reduce the human risk. But not piloted by a damn amateur!
For a six digit guy you sure are a real turd!
These are slow speed too, it poses no measurable threat. But they don't care.
It's quite shocking when they pretend a drone is so dangerous that they won't fly to put out a fire if they see a drone that they know poses no threat.
People really die in wildfires, REALLY, not some imagined hypothetical concept. The drones potentially can spot them trapped and be useful. But because the fire department plays prima donna when it spots a drone THAT IS NOWHERE NEAR THEM, and lands their planes, people die.
These are plastic too, brittle, even less threat than a bird with its sinues. Imagine if they did their prima donna act everytime they spotted a bird!
It would be dangerous to take down drones using machine guns, flak guns, or traditional missiles, because of the debris from the ordinance falling down. But fuel-air explosives might work very nicely with not much stuff coming down except the drone and the rocket.
I'd like to hear a lot more information about how they identify these drones. Are people really standing near these extremely dangerous, fast moving fires where they could be burned alive to fly their drones? Could be. People do dumb things. Is it pilots spotting drones or people on the ground? Most drones are going to be hard to spot from a moving plane in an area with smoke, wind, fire, flying debris, etc. Most planes are going to be going over 100mph. Stall speed + some margin for error. Unexpected small objects might be hard to correctly identify at this speed.
Do we have video or pictures of the suspect drones or only stories of people who saw one? I assume the drones are getting spectacular footage of these fires and uploading youtube. It would be nice to have links to the videos.
If they have all these drones in the fire areas, I assume they have caught some of the drone operators. There aren't going to be hoards of non-emergency personal in the area near a fire. A guy with a transmitter is going to stick out. He'd be easier to see than a small drone. He's bigger.
A lot of these fires are dangerous because of high winds. What where the winds of at the time the drones were spotted, and what is the upper limit at which a drone can be reasonably operated?
You are perhaps an aeronautical engineer? Or have done sophisticated calculations to back up you claims? Or you know a lot about drones, like how they are made of large pieces of steel?
Or you are just an angry person who believes firmly in authority without any need for deep thinking.
It may surprise you to learn that drones are not made out of large chunks of steel. Rather flimsy plastic and maybe aluminium. Remember, they need to be able to fly.
Deliberately trying to catch a plane with a slow drone would be extremely difficult, especially as the pilots are likely to see them. And there was no suggestion of this. Guided rockets, on the other hand ...
If a bird shaped / massed object presents a serious hazard to your aircraft, then your aircraft was never safe to begin with. Don't take me wrong, I'm all for responsible drone ownership and flying, however if you are seriously worried about the ability of a 2 lb drone to take down your aircraft, you should be much more worried about the 10lb canadian goose you are just as likely to hit.
The fault in your logic is believing this has anything to do with forest fires.
It's a really handy cover for adding geofencing to all production drones. More likely it'll be used to keep drones away from protests so the cops can shoot people without any needless disruption.
http://www.professionalpackers...
The article is light on details and seems to be the work of a confused reporter. Software alone is not going to achieve what is described. This is on the same level of stupidity as claiming that an Internet kill switch would be a simple software implementation or that police could deploy software to stop target cars to avoid the need to chase...
Geofencing is built into the firmware of several the flight controllers used in "drones" and has been in use for several years. It can be either user settable or automatically set, based on airspace restrictions, to limit flight to within a specific area or to define areas where the controller should not fly. While a government could setup a database or restricted areas to be used by the flight controllers, there is no way to update them on the fly to warn a drone in flight away from a specific area. The "drones" in use today simple lack any connectivity that would allow this.
The "drones" do not transmits anything to identify themselves or their "pilot" and they lack the hardware and software necessary to receiver any warnings. No ID means they couldn't just call up the pilot and warn them off.
To implement the suggested system, there would first need to be upgrades in hardware and software to every drone in use which would simply not be possible for millions of them. There are a lot of incompatible technologies and few industry standards. There has been some technologies developed to allow drones to identify themselves, like a manned aircraft might, but they are prohibitively expensive to the hobbyist which accounts for almost every drone in use. The next generation could start adopting this in the more advanced drones but that could still leave the toy level out.
I've been building and flying drones for four years. I entirely support prosecution of those that break the rules or in any way interfere with manned aircraft operations. It tends to be a specific group of people that cause most of the problems, those with no radio control experience that buy a ready to fly package which simply requires they the batteries to get flying. They are not educated in the proper safety or rules that should be followed. Those in the hobby know not to fly around people, airports or build up areas and are sensitive to the rights of other to privacy and to enjoy their lives without some drone buzzing around.
Wow! You're such a fag! Your mother should be shot for giving you life! Get off the fucking planet! NOW!
Why don't you ask the same question about detailed calculations and engineering experience to the posts baselessly claiming drones are no different than birds? If the safety hasn't been established, aviation tends to default to treating something as dangerous until proven otherwise. Until testing to show things like drone battery packs ( who said anything about giant hunks of steel other than you?) can't cause serious problems for a plane,especially when flying in demanding conditions, the people involved will continue their risk adverse ways.
It is surely only a matter of time before we can make cheap disposable surveillance drones out of light paper, soft plastic motors, new technology lightweight cameras, and flexible electronics powered by soft cloth batteries. With virtually no significant mass these can provide valuable information to ground controllers while minimizing or eliminating risk to other services in the same area.
I have enough trouble finding a drone visually against a clear sky when I am not moving and can hear it's motions. You expect to see one from a moving vehicle against more difficult backdrops like smoke and hills, and accurately gauge it's motion?
Most of the aircraft used to fight fires, at least here in SoCal, are helicopters, occasionally some with open cockpits. They're often flying in terrible visibility due to the smoke and have enough to worry about avoiding (powerlines, mountainsides, and the fire itself) without worrying that they're going to get a drone caught up in their rotor. Any drone capable of getting to where it's a problem without obviously being controlled by someone standing around waiting to get picked up by the Sheriff's Deputies is likely large enough to cause trouble for a helicopter.
The DC-10 tanker could probably take a drone hit and not notice, unless it went into an engine. Those things fly *way* lower than you expect, and don't do things you expect a widebody jet to do.
I think wilfires are plenty dangerous to fly in to the point that a firefighting aeroplane ought to be able to deal with worse than drones. And those drones? Plenty chance they'll get caught in a sudden draft or other, and crash and burn. And good riddance, I say. "The authorities" instead cry wolf.
So I think that even should such pillow-soft drones exist, "the authorities" will still cry wolf and demand more regulation, because it's not them that's operating the things. It's random Joe Shmuck who ought to play nice with the expensively licenced and officially sanctioned pilots, but doesn't. So it's really not about whether the things are actual physical dangers; it's simply teh fedz protecting their turf, rightly or wrongly. They'll claim they're right whatever they do, for they're teh fedz.
Then again, I also think fighting wildfires leads to bigger wildfires later on. Much better to have controlled burns, as the Original Americans[tm] used to do. But that, too, is entirely too practical to the white man treaty maker. Why play nice when you can lay down the law, on nature if you have to? It makes for so much more interesting opportunities to fight people or stuff or even abstract concepts.
Sounds like we need to fire drones out of cannons at aircraft windscreens, FOR SCIENCE! (and under carefully controlled conditions of course)
Just remember to thaw the drone out first
Am I the only one who thinks that "EMO gun" sounds like some kind of violation of human rights, or at least like really bad taste?
Ezekiel 23:20
... the usual protocol.
They want this ability so they can get rid of drones wherever and whenever possible. Wildfires provide a way to sell it to other drones.
http://www.professionalpackers...
Feds should organize development of an universal anti collision system, - for drones, planes, trains, ships, etc. This is the Feds' size job. As soon as a manned aircraft is approaching an area an RPAS (Remotely Piloted Aircraft System) operator gets a warning message on a screen.
If a plane and RPAS are close then an autopilots should negotiate automatically and change altitudes respectively. Certainly a manned aircraft has got a priority. There is enough space in 3D world, it is not like at the 2D road intersection. Ans it is doable, as only five figures are to be exchanged periodically: altitude, latitude, longitude, heading, speed, - no broadband is needed to transmit them.
If there is a massive fire people will fly drones anyway to see if they should evacuate their homes or stay. It is possible to build a DYI drone from improvised materials.
Cry wolf? Let's imagine you're in control of the firefighting aircraft operation. It's your job to put them in the sky and take them out, you are the one who assesses the conditions. You've got reports of a couple of drones in the operation zone, but you feel they won't pose any threat and you order the planes up. Now, a plane takes a drone to the engine and goes down. That's your ass in the fire now, you killed the pilot by sending him up there just as the drone pilot did.
I agree it's unlikely to take out an aircraft, but do you feel confident enough that there's no way it could? Enough to risk ending up in the slammer, or even at least having the death of that pilot on your mind forever if it did happen?
I for one, would rather take the approach where nothing in my control killed anyone.
This system simply cannot work. How are you meant to geofence something that has no autonomous control systems and no gps? None of my quads have GPS, autopilot, pathing or anything else that could be used to control them.
That doesn't stop my quads having an aerodynamic ceiling of 3000+ meters or being able to do in excess of 100kph.
I'm not going to fly over a wild fire. I'd be too upset if one of my quads fell into it. But if someone built a quad like mine there isn't anything anyone could do to stop it flying in that direction short of shooting it down. It's not even that I would have to stand close. If I wanted directional antennas will allow me to get well in excess of 5km streaming video from the quad and the control range would be further.
http://www.professionalpackers...
At a distance they can look like apostrophes.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
To what end? It can't be enforced, and it could lead to serious legal problems if somebody did try to enforce it.
How would you compel an operator intent on criminal activity to comply with this regulation? One of the problems with well-meaning regulations like this is not their lack of common sense. It is, rather, their lack of enforceability.
By definition, an operator intent on criminal conduct is not going to be deterred by any regulation prohibiting or interfering with that conduct, right? He wouldn't be a criminal if he was.
And what happens to enforceability when some dolt weaponizes his legal quad copter with the firing mechanism from his legal AR-15? Interfering with the operation of that drone now becomes a 2nd Amendment issue, and that trumps any well-meaning "common sense" regulation. Just look at all the common sense pouring out of the gun lobby, if you are skeptical. The gun lobby successfully defeated common sense regulations (supported by a majority of gun owners in this country, btw) that would have prevented the sale of guns to people on the FBI's "no-fly" list by simply invoking the 2nd Amendment.
Flying in a firestorm is plenty dangerous already. Saying "oh but we don't want to kill anybody" is a fib for having failed already: If you want safety, you do not fly near any fire. Instead, you control not the fire, but the biomass sitting around waiting to become a big fire, by starting controlled burns, small fires, when there's still only little biomass around, well before the stuff combusts without your preparations to keep it all well in hand.
The problem with the big fires is always because too much biomass, and the solution has been known and practiced for ages, before people calling themselves "Americans[tm]" came along. But for them the problem with this tried-and-tested solution is that you can't "heroically" do the "look ma I'm saving the day by doing stupidly dangerous things, like a superhero!" only with a plane full of water strapped on.
So yes, cry wolf. Complain about pesky Joe Randoms enroaching your turf. Wave rules and regulations around that do exactly nothing to fix the real problem, only make the officially sanctioned heroes "safer" from... a threat curiously small compared to the big honking fire that's the real issue at hand.
And to answer your question, as cool as flying around in aeroplanes really is, even more with the dramatic battlefield backdrop of smoke and fire, I would decline that job controlling such operations, certainly for the second time. Instead I'd do the burn-small-before-burning-big thing. That neatly sidesteps any and all drama, conundrums, dillemmas and is actually much more reliable for keeping people safe.
Let me reiterate, since you missed it the first time over: If the goal is safety, you don't go near big uncontrolled fires. You control the biomass so there are no big uncontrolled fires.
Anything else is marginal and therefore obviously cannot be about the thing that's being bickered and argued over. It's about something else, and with the feds that's typically politics. As it is here.
Only a matter of time in fantasy land. Tech nutters are worse than space nutters.
Here in Canada, we have one law, coast to coast. No aircraft, I repeat, NO AIRCRAFT of any type shall fly withing 5 nautical miles of any forest fire. The only exception are those aircraft that are directly involved with the fire control / fire fighting. In that category, yes, drones here in Canada have been involved in the use of fighting fires. Mostly mapping and monitoring the spread of the fire, away from the water bombers.
However, back to the original point, near a forest fire - NOTHING flies. No drones, no CF-18 fighter aircraft, no passenger jets, not even Air Fore One. Nada. Zilcho. It is very, very clear. However, in the USA, your laws and regulations are clear as mud. :(
I was talking last year to some USDA officials at the UAV show in Las Vegas, and they lamented the fact that there is no equivalent law in the USA. It is often decided state by state, and this leads to much confusion. If you Americans had the same law we had here in Canada, then the moment any drone took off, any of your officials - could be local police, park rangers, FBI - anyone could step in and say "stop now."
One more thing, in case you don't know, you really do not want to be withing 5 nm of any forest fire to begin with. Flying or on the ground. Ever hear the old phrase "moves like wildfire?" Well, it's true, and people die. Smoke inhalation, getting lost, somebody has a propane tank in thier back yard that explodes and takes you out - the list of things that can and do go wrong is miles long. Just don't do it unless you have a really good reason to be there.
LOL @ glider hobbyist talking like they understand what it's like to fly a light aircraft / helicopter above a smoky wildfire.
This is like someone who's been on an afternoon First Aid course telling first responders they aren't using proper technique.
People like you are an embarrassment to civilisation.
And yes, I am an amateur pilot, mostly gliders. Keeping good lookout is essential and normal. I have also been attacked by an eagle, which was concerning but in my glider I am much bigger than it.
I'm not a pilot, but I would imagine flying a glider for pleasure is a bit different than what fire fighting pilots are doing. How many birds would be flying over wild fires? Plus visibility could be diminished if there's smoke in the air. It seems to be a stupid risk just so someone can post a video on YouTube.
Sounds like a pretty sure way to make anything want to commit suicide by falling from great height.
I'm a glider pilot too, and I think the FAA & DoI are being completely reasonable. The margin of error for these fire fighting aircraft is very small; they do their drops at 140kts and 300' (source). How much time do you think the pilots have to see and avoid something the size of a drone at those speeds? Even if they decided to hit it, it's still an unnecessary distraction from them doing their job.
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
And if the pilots are looking out the window they should see it in any case, so a collision is very unlikely in the first place.
Are you joking? A drone is often small and quite hard to see, and unless you know which way it is going to fly, not easy to avoid. Not to mention a firefighting pilot may have other things to keep their attention.
What is it about this drone-love that causes some to not even acknowledge that they can be an interference? And why assume all drones are tiny and can't cause damage?
Drones, aka radio controlled aircraft, communicate with the operator over radio waves. Those signals carry commands, video, and other stuff. My understanding is that these are point-to-point communications.
How then does "software" get in the middle of this point-to-point communication and inform the pilot to go away? Are they setting up hardware with antennas & software that transmits on some common frequency & protocol that drones use?
I hope you meant EMP.
Don't build a "fence" to keep the curious drones away, build a vacuum that sucks them into the fire. That's a much better lesson for nosey drone operators.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Okay, I get this, your brain only functions at a basic level, but I'm so effing sick and tired of idiots like you spewing shit like this. It works like this. No, a drone likely won't crash an aircraft. What it is likely to do is disable one of the jet engines. Now, the aircraft likely won't crash but it will have to immediately abandon the mission and land at the nearest airport. Does your tiny brain understand this? And guess what has to happen next? Yeah it has to be repaired. So now the aircraft used to fight a fire is grounded for several weeks while its repaired and it's going to cost a fair bit of cash to fix it. And it's not like if an aircraft is grounded that they can just pull out one of the reserve ones because they don't have any reserve ones.
I work with birds and no, there aren't any birds up there. Birds tend to only be a risk during take off and landing because birds don't actually fly very high. And if you were actually an amateur pilot you'd know that birds are a MASSIVE problem at airports and they spend huge amounts trying to keep birds away for airports. Also, when the planes have to come down low to dump their retardant, birds tend to not be there either because they'd prefer not to turn themselves into roast raptor. Fortunately birds are somewhat intelligent living things and have a thing called self preservation and as such can be scared away, unlike drones. If you can't understand this please, stop flying, your too stupid and you're going to kill somebody. Also, while we're at it, please turn in your drivers license because again, you're too stupid and you're going to kill somebody.
> "The authorities" instead cry wolf.
Nah, I doubt its really them. More likely scenario is this is a solution looking for a problem and a government contract.
As a bonus, once they have tested it on wildfires, it can be used to suppress information gathering by non-approved entities elsewhere.
This is a sales pitch to despots everywhere.
"Your news organizations will buy commercial drones, with this, you can direct them away from whatever atrocity you want to hide"
Much like the sales of tools for mass surveillance are selling like hotcakes to despotic "allies" around the world, so will this. Sure, it wont stop a dedicated hobbiest who ignores it....but lets be honest.... most news orgs will buy off the shelf and compliant.
They will be most easily controlled around the globe if this sees widespread adoption.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
That's just it though. These dumb asses saying drones are no different than birds. I work with birds. Birds + aircraft = big problem. Airports are constantly looking at bird mitigation because birds do take out aircraft. Regularly. It doesn't crash them, but it grounds them. These dumb shits should seriously spend a few minutes reading up on airports and bird mitigation if they think that birds aren't a problem and therefor drones aren't a problem.
To the dumb shit drone operators, realize you've probably had a flight delayed because of birds gathered on the airport premise and takeoffs and landings were suspended until the airport staff could chase them away. When you claim your drone is no more dangerous than a bird you're claiming that your drone is capable of suspending airport operations for an hour while they try to get rid of them.
The no-fly list, being deemed mentally deranged, and being deemed mentally incompetent, are all wide open doors for abusing human rights.
No, I meant EMO. The conversation was clearly about EMO guns.
Ezekiel 23:20
This blanket restriction kills a use-case for UAVs in firefighting. That happens to be fire behavior observation. Having field observers watching the progress of the fire from a nearby and safe location is essential for the safety of the firefighters and anyone else who might be in the path. Using a UAV and perhaps a tethered UAV with it's extended air time, is very useful for this. Even a tethered unit could be placed 150 feet off the ground to give the observers a better view. But if the manufacturers blindly bend over for the FAA who consistently doesn't see these use-cases, then we've lost a valuable tool.
Open source will be the only way to go. One reason I won't by DJI products. But I fear that the air frame manufacturers will hard code these restrictions into the hardware.
Yet more hardware you can buy but not own. Won't be long before a drone filming a protest gets geofenced away even though there's no aircraft excuse.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
I spent some time fighting wildfires, and would like to note the following: 1) fire suppression is an incredibly risky job, on the ground or in the air. The added distraction, and risks, of having unexpected and uncontrolled (by the fire suppression management team) of operating equipment of any kind within the fire zone should not be trivialized or ignored. You don't want outside drones for the same reasons you don't want unauthorized outsiders wandering the site. 2) the risk from drones at fire sites is much greater than from birds. All woodland creatures flee fire sites, exhibiting wiser behavior than many people. 3) As noted elsewhere, fire suppression aircraft operate in very unique, highly dangerous conditions. Only military air combat is consistently more dangerous. Adding random drones to a wildfire airspace is criminal stupidity. I personally hope geofence avoidance gets built into every drone, and becomes mandatory for all existing drone and RC equipment. Hopefully, geofence technology becomes available to the public. Adding a geofence to private, and some types of public property like airports, would go a long way to addressing both safety and privacy concerns arising from the idiotic way some drone operators operate. Just because you have the toy, and the ability, to hover over any home, yard or property, shooting video, does not mean you should be doing so.
Sounds good to me, and I have quadcopters. BTW: what about my quads that don't have GPS?
Are they grounding planes when an eagle flies by? Last time I checked there were more birds than drones and can do quite a bit of damage to an aircraft. I don't see any effort to shoot all the birds out of the sky.
BS. There are birds flying all over the place and I don't hear calls to kill all the birds or how they make it completely unsafe. People are making the value judgement that drones have less value than birds. If drones are providing timely media coverage of fires then that serves the public interest far more than a flock of birds does.
Unlike birds with fragile bird bones, those things are flying hunks of metal caging and lithium batteries...
Reminds me of when some group was testing aircraft windshields against bird impacts, and were mortified by how badly the windshields stood up against bird impacts, until someone told them to stop using frozen birds.
So yeah, a drone hitting an aircraft I imagine would be a significant risk, as drones are probably more like a frozen bird than a thawed bird.
Birds that would be getting in the way of planes would be larger and heavier than your average drone (up to 2 lbs or so). Geese and ducks can easily make it to 15 and 5 lbs respectively. Crows can get pretty big too.
We can fly a drone remotely that is half-way around the world. Every time there has been a firrefighting pilot/crew injury/death I've asked our Government representatives why are there still people in those aircraft if the situation is so dangerous? Why not have them remote controlled? I think it may be pride/thrill/ego of the pilots just like the resistance in the military to drones.
1 kg birds have brought down airliners.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
some of these forest fires are caused by the government setting tax dollars on fire.
the fires could also be stopped by creating bronze statues of Keynes forming a wall.
which is kind of what Washington DC is.
Terrible post. I am a pilot. See and avoid is a cardinal rule. Drones double that burden. And in this situation, attention is already split between other operational aircraft and terrain avoidance. Serious injury or death is most certainly a serious concern. So your hand wave dismissal is as shocking as it is dismissive.
Basically there's nothing in your post which is sustained by facts. Well, aside from the fact that glider pilots normally operate at slower speeds and have less risk from impact. Perhaps you're biased based on the type of aircraft you fly.
Asshole shoots down drone! Hatters praise him!
Govt build electronic fence to keep drones out! Hatters curse the government.
Funny how the symbol for /. is quite similar to ass-wipe.
Have you ever had a drone damaged near a wildfire? Like oh, see the smoke lets drone it?
They are trying to justify another control apparatus to be used against the population. FBI are spies. Spies are lies.
Never trust a fucking piece of shit from their mouths.
If you go to the original security milspec descriptions, you'll find it's an app that all drone users must use if they are operating in or near wildfire warning areas, whenever the fire threat level is above a certain threshold.
Not checking the app means you will be fined or jailed.
It's up to you of course.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
If 1 kilogram bird can down a plane, then it seems to me a 1 kilogram drone can do that, too. Of course, I spend a lot of time in the real world.
The Anti-Drone Drone! To be followed, of course, by the Anti-Anti-Drone Drone.
I could continue but I'd just be droning on and on...
Granted that we've mismanaged some of our forests badly, we still don't have a time machine to go back and burn some of that biomass as it built up. We're pretty much stuck with the solutions we've got now until we can get more of that burned off safely.
Has it struck you that, when someone is doing something hazardous, it might be a good idea to reduce additional hazards to make it as safe as it inherently can be? We could fire random rifle shots into fires that are being fought, also, but I don't see anyone advocating that.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If you want to weaponize a drone and call it an exercise of Second Amendment rights, go right ahead. You do realize that there are places where you can't bring your lawfully owned guns, don't you?
As far as criminal behavior goes, I'd suspect that we're dealing primarily with assholes rather than criminals, and assholes can often be stopped by regulations being enforced. I doubt that many criminals will benefit from chasing firefighting aircraft away.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes