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.
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?
...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..."
And don't forget, drone operators are the most important people in the world, and forests should burn so they can fly their toys anywhere they like!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
First of all, aircraft fire fighting is EXTREMELY dangerous. Whether it's a helicopter long lining a Bambi bucket, or being in a water tanker dropping water on a fire, it requires extremely skilled pilots. And this is without the distraction that a fire causes - smoke, turbulence caused by the flames (they are nothing like what you get at 30,000 feet), flying low to the ground, etc.
Most aircraft are under 500' above the ground. You need to be extremely skillful when flying this low, and you feel the flames - the rising hot air are shoving your aircraft around, so it's already hard enough keeping blue side up. Then as you release your load, your aircraft's balance shifts and you have to compensate as well as try to fly your lines Oh yeah, did I mention it was smoky so you can't always see clearly out? And there's no map accurate enough so your only protection against flying into terrain is well, the Mk. 1 Eyeball?
In fact, ti's so dangerous there's an aircraft always hanging around overhead - acting as air traffic control so they control and manage aircraft timing, spacing and noting where to attack the fire as well as keeping a general eye on everything in cas something flares up. Everyone is under control in the immediate area.
The problem with a drone is it's not under positive control - who knows where the operator may fly. It's not just damaging the aircraft, but also distracting the pilots who are just trying to keep things under control. If it lands in an engine and takes it out, that aircraft and its crew may land right in the middle of the flames (there's no where to go at 500' AGL). Or it might break through the windshield and seriously distract the pilots.
Perhaps a good way to make conditions relatable to IT workers is imagine trying to write code in the middle of a call center. You have to write your code, but phones are ringing off the hook, people are chatting loudly, and then some idiot starts banging on your keyboard.
It's already a difficult and risky working environment. Drones simply add a risk element that could turn a rescuer into a victim, and that's the last thing anyone needs. It's why SAR often suspend activity when it gets too dangerous, too - because the last thing in the world you want is to make things worse and increase the number of people needing rescue.
Oh, and a crash during a wildfire can spawn more wildfires.
Surveying the fires is generally done from high altitude fixed wing aircraft unless it's a small fire and one or two helos with buckets spotting and dumping on their own. Your post indicates that you don't know what the firefighting aircraft are doing-- most of them are not scouting the fire or looking for trapped people, they're carrying 500-1000 gallons (or more for the skycranes and fixed wings) of water and fire retardant and doing precision drops. I've watched a pumper truck park near my house with an inflatable pool and supply two helos with water to knock out a ~5 acre fire on a steep mountainside that would have taken hours to get handcrews to, and been impossible to get a truck to. They completely knocked out the fire with no people on the ground within a mile of it.
As for scouting for people - if you're in a wildland fire and aren't by a road, you're pretty much SOL. The best they'd be able to do is drop water on you (which they'd do) if they see you at all, but you're not getting picked up til it burns past unless you're well away from the fire. They get people out by filling the neighborhood with fire equipment and telling people to leave. The drones in the air don't stop the firefighters on the ground, but they do stop the air support they depend on. There are 28 helos and probably a half-dozen fixed wing aircraft assigned to the Sand fire right now - they do water and fire retardant drops to support the ground crews, especially in areas that are difficult or dangerous for the hand crews to get to, and might have restricted escape routes.
Considering that many forests have a burn/repopulate phase that's probably one of the best solutions. Otherwise you start seeing what we have now, uncontrollable wildfires that spring up and eat decades of dead matter that have been left collecting because there haven't been fires to burn it up. There's parts of forests in western Canada where pine needles and other materials are nearly 2' deep. All that's going to take is one good strike from lightening and it'll burn out of control, and of course be increased by the number of dead/dying trees due to pine beetle infestations.
Om, nomnomnom...
Because no one is going to let a DC-10 loaded down with water fly around on its own. Very large drones don't make sense for the task, as it introduces another point of failure and gains almost nothing in return.
Or two from darkening.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.