Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

'Personal Drone' Crash Causes 335-Acre Wildfire In Coconino National Forest (azcentral.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the chain-reaction dept.

McGruber writes: A "personal drone" that crashed and burst into flames was the cause of the Kendrick Fire, a 335-acre fire in the Coconino National Forest in northern Arizona. Coconino National Forest spokesman George Jozens said that about 30 firefighters from the U.S. Forest Service and Summit Fire and Medical worked to quell the fire.

70 comments

  1. Kill the operator. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the only way to be sure. I'm serious.

  2. So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If I crash my car on the highway and the fire from it causes a wildfire, am I liable?

    1. Re:So what? by cogeek · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Um, Yes!

      If you crash your car and it's your fault, you are liable. We have people prosecuted for accidental wildfires regularly in Colorado.

    2. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I crash my car on the highway and the fire from it causes a wildfire, am I liable?

      There are flight restrictions in at least some parts of that National Forest, and if they were not followed, yes, the drone operator may be liable.

    3. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually yes. That's what your car insurance is for. In what alternate reality did you think you were not liable ?

    4. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The BLM is going to be knocking on this guy's door with a bill for services rendered regardless of whether or not he was allowed to fly in an area or not.

    5. Re:So what? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      I think my car insurance covers only $25k of property damage. And the minimum coverage for property damage in my state(CA) is $5k. So you might be in some serious financial trouble if you are at fault for causing a wildfire with your car.

      Drones may be difficult to cover. There is home owner insurance that can cover some things related to your personal property. And there is stuff like AMA (American Moderlers Association) which includes an insurance with the membership. But as far as I know they've never paid out an insurance claim in the many decades they've been around.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    6. Re:So what? by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Generally, the decision about holding you financially liable depends on if your actions were illegal, reckless, irresponsible, or if it was just a pure accident.

      You're responsible for any damage your vehicle does, but the government agencies who make the decisions about your responsibility don't even get the money; the money just goes back to some other part of the government to reimburse them, it doesn't go back to the fire budget.

      If you crashed because you were being an asshole, expect to pay for all those airplanes. If you crashed because Bambi ran across the street, it is unlikely you will get a bill. Unless you were also driving poorly.

      Here they are saying, if you are doing an activity like flying a drone you have to bring a fire extinguisher with you so you can put out any fire yourself. Otherwise don't bring battery powered toys into the National Forest. I doubt they'll get billed, since the thing did explode, they didn't just crash it.

    7. Re:So what? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      I doubt they'll get billed, since the thing did explode, they didn't just crash it.

      That's what will be the exculpatory fact if born out by the evidence. If a reasonable person would not normally expect or anticipate some device or appliance to behave in an extremely dangerous manner (i.e. sudden spontaneous battery explosion and fire) the prosecutors and courts will generally allow someone not otherwise criminally/legally entangled off the hook.

      A short time ago, if some poor slob's Galaxy Note 7 had spontaneously exploded and caused a fire in the same place I don't see authorities holding him liable. If the drone and battery etc are all the normal commercial variety and/or had not been dangerously and recklessly modified and the battery just spontaneously went thermal because RNG, I would expect the drone owner in this case would not be held liable. Oblig. IANADL and this is not legal drone advice.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    8. Re:So what? by Megol · · Score: 1

      Where's the "-1 Racist scumbag troll" option?

    9. Re:So what? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Here they are saying, if you are doing an activity like flying a drone you have to bring a fire extinguisher with you so you can put out any fire yourself. Otherwise don't bring battery powered toys into the National Forest.

      On one hand, I always do this. I have an extinguisher in every vehicle already, so it is no stretch to bring one with me when I fly something.

      On the other hand, it's probably a jerkoff waste of time. I've got two quads and a styrofoam trainer which has been modded into a drone. Styrofoam burns like a motherfucker so if that plane goes down anywhere but right next to me, and it burns, there's really nothing I can do about it. And lithium batteries also burn like mad bastards, and you can only put them out by cooling them down, with a lot of water. So the extinguisher is basically useless for a battery fire, too.

      It probably makes a lot more sense to carry a McLeod. That's what I carried as a Trackwalker at Roaring Camp & Big Trees narrow gauge railroad... that and a radio. The train is effectively a big fire engine, in addition to pulling the train.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:So what? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      It doesn't need to be "borne out by evidence" because it is part of the initial report of the incident. Rather, you'd need evidence that something different happened before questioning it. It isn't actually clear that there was even a device malfunction, it might simply have heated up enough that when it landed on dry grass it ignited it.

      It also doesn't matter what prosecutors and courts think. The legal liability is there because he owned the drone. If the Forest Service chooses to bill him for the damage, then he has to pay it. The only thing the court would even be looking at is if the amount they charged him was accurate.

      What matters instead is just what the individual tasked with deciding that thinks; was it excessively reckless, or just a normal accident? Courts and prosecutors don't matter to that. Because, as I pointed out above, the money goes to a different part of the government, so there is no motive to just bill everybody they can. Billing people for accidents is unpopular. So they just make a "straight" decision based on if they think society expects you to be punished extra.

      The part that involves prosecutors though is the citation he did get; causing stuff to burn. If they let the prosecutors decide these things, every single time they issued the citation they would also be suing. Which would unfortunately lead the Forest rangers to write less tickets for it! The current system seems to work much better than other parts of government that deal with liability or civil takings.

    11. Re:So what? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Having a fire extinguisher in the car in this situation is unlikely to be good enough. It might just lead you to where this guy ended up, reporting a fire. Grass fires spread rapidly, and fire extinguishers have very limited volume. You need to have it with you in the field where you can access it rapidly.

      You don't need to put the fire out, you need to stop it from spreading to other fuels. That means you need to be spraying the grass around the drone. It doesn't matter very much if the drone sits there burning. A fire extinguisher will coat the surrounding fuels in a fire retardant, and so it can be effective. Water will rapidly evaporate and so will not be as effective. You would need a continuous water supply, as from a hose, and you'd only have a bucket.

      Actually in my Firefighter Training course they taught us that water does not put out fire effectively. Dirt does, though. Water cools a fire, which is weaker sauce. Dirt reduces access to oxygen. Water in wildland firefighting is mostly used to slow the spread of fire, rather than to try to put it out.

      The most effective thing in this situation is actually to use a shovel to cover it with dirt to restrict air flow. Then it can go ahead and be as exothermic as it wants and you can wait it out. The reason that they say to use a fire extinguisher is because (nearly) any idiot can operate it.

      A McLeod is not that useful here. You'd be better off with a garden spade or even a hazel hoe. But a Pulaski is the firefighting tool you'd want. A McLeod is useful in the forest; cutting fresh fireline you might have a Pulaski in the front breaking the ground open, some McLeods behind them clearing the thick duff, which can still burn, and then more Pulaskis following behind to cut roots. You don't do all that to cut fire line in grass, you just need to dig under the roots of the grass and you're already at pure dirt. There is no duff to clear. And the dirt is hard, you don't want a wide rake with tines for that. With a McLeod you'd be best off to turn it sideways and try to use the side of the edge as a hoe. A Pulaski you can just gouge out the clumps of grass really fast, even when the dirt is hard and dry.

      I was out for a walk and I saw a utility pole burning; actually it was just the paper advertisements on the bottom burning. So I put it out in about a minute by throwing (also flammable!) bark mulch at it from a nearby landscaping planter. Using water it would have taken multiple gallons, but using bark mulch it only took a few carefully-placed handfuls. The amount of time that the bark dust spends on the surface of the fire just for the momentum to be absorbed and for gravity to take over is enough time to stop the chemical reaction from being self-sustaining. When I was firefighting we would use shovels to throw dirt up into trees to put out spots that flared back up after the fire.

      The only reason they drop water out of airplanes instead of dirt is that it is easier to load.

    12. Re:So what? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I think my car insurance covers only $25k of property damage. And the minimum coverage for property damage in my state(CA) is $5k. So you might be in some serious financial trouble if you are at fault for causing a wildfire with your car.

      Yes, if you buy the legal minimum and it is a pittance, you may be in trouble if you cause damage to anything larger than a bicycle.

      Drones may be difficult to cover.

      No. Join AMA (not medical) and it lists $25,000 liability insurance as one of the benefits.

      But as far as I know they've never paid out an insurance claim in the many decades they've been around.

      Would they send you a registered letter telling you that they've paid any claims that you weren't personally involved in? Then how would you know? Why would what you know be any better information than what they advertise?

    13. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forest Service and any other emergency services involved will send you an official invoice and demand for payment with instructions on the form regarding how to appeal it to a judicial hearing if you believe you are not liable. Any criminal charges are handled separately in the normal way criminal matters are handled.

    14. Re:So what? by v1 · · Score: 1

      There's also a difference between "caused" and "triggered". If I store several leaky gas cans in my basement and one day the hot water heater clicks on and ignites the vapors and burns down my house, the hot water header did NOT "cause" the fire. My stupidity the gas cans was the cause, the HWH was just the trigger.

      Thousands of acres of very flammable woodlands are just begging for an ignition source to start a wildfire. Unless the pilot's intent was to cause a fire and was taking advantage of the tinderbox, he should not be responsible for the outcome. Lightning, static discharge, engine heat or spark from exhaust, overheating random electronics, all sorts of things could be the trigger.

      I see a distinction between say, falling onto a roof and catching the roof on fire, vs starting a wildfire. There's some liability for damage done, but when it's set up in a "chain reaction" manner, it's not reasonable to blindly assign responsibility for being the straw that breaks the camel's back.

      If you're going to say the pilot was negligent for flying over the area (assuming he was allowed), then you have to accept that ANYONE being in the area and doing ANYTHING that triggers a large fire should make them just as liable. Drive your car through the area, liable. Turn on your electronic gadget while in the area, liable. Heck, turn on your AC while in the area, liable. Basically, anyone in the area that triggers the fire for any reason, liable. It's not reasonable.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    15. Re:So what? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Sure, but the fire manager already knows you caused the fire.

      They're making that distinction already, as a technical matter, before they even start to ask if you should be held fully to account!

      It has more to do with emotional factors like, how much is the community freaked out by the fire? In Grandma crying on TV, or just some jerk complaining his insurance company is too slow? That makes a big difference. Were the firefighters really stressed and worried by it, or was it a routine fire? If the fire manager feels like you were more stupid than average stupid, and need to be made an example of, or do they instead want to hold up the mistake you made as a more technical lesson?

      In your example, it is a stupid type of mistake that average people make, even when they don't know they're being careless. If you lived next to the forest and your house burnt down from that it would be classed as an accidental house fire causing a forest fire; caused by humans, but you're unlikely to get a bill unless you look like you can pay for it! They don't to ruin your life over that, but they'll slap your wrist if appropriate.

      OTOH if you go camping and neglect to take basic steps that were even on a sign you drove past getting there, and you cause a fire that makes a lot of people mad because you impacted their favorite recreation sites, well now you're probably gonna get blamed to the full extent allowed.

      Also things like, if your cooking fire escapes did you make your own fire pit, and it wasn't good enough, or did you use one that was already there and it wasn't good enough? They're likely to treat one of those as more of an accident than the other. They know everybody is an idiot, they're only asking that people try to prevent fire, that they attempt to take preventative steps.

    16. Re:So what? by v1 · · Score: 1

      Should this go to court, we will hear the phrase, the lawyer for the defense will speak these words, probably very close to verbatim: "Would a reasonable person believe that flying their quad in this location created a significant risk starting a forrest fire?"

      Lets face it, anytime you fly a quad you risk starting a fire below where you are flying. Bizarre things can happen, totally unlikely things CAN happen. A seagull or hawk could tackle your quad without warning, sending it plummeting in the ground, puncturing a LIPO cell and igniting the quad, through absolutely no fault of your own and completely beyond your control or ability to mitigate. The odds are very low though, otherwise we'd all be forced to fly over water or concrete exclusively. (and nobody would be allowed to drive a car!)

      It's all going to come down to weighing the odds and the severity of the outcomes. "No-burn-orders" are posted when timber is dry, for example, because the odds have shifted and must be accompanied by a change in priorities. You can kill someone with your car pretty easily, yet we still let you drive your death-machine around on the roadways. You may tag some kid that walks out from behind a parked car, but we're not going to hold you liable unless you were especially negligent.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    17. Re:So what? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Nope, they have strict liability. Legally they can hammer as hard as they want.

      The reason they don't always do it is that the person deciding isn't really a cop, or a lawyer.

  3. Well consider the source by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Funny

    A "personal drone" that crashed and burst into flames

    Man, that's the last time I buy a used drone from a Hollywood special effects studio!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Well consider the source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is the burnt out evidence of this, and are they certain that this wasn't a lost "drone" that just happened to be destroyed by the fire?

    2. Re:Well consider the source by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 5, Informative

      The owner reported it :

      "The operator reported the fire and was later cited for causing timber, trees, slash, brush, or grass to burn."

      http://fireaviation.com/tag/ke...

    3. Re:Well consider the source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? I was paid to take one from the military, and it didnt crash, or cause a fire.

    4. Re:Well consider the source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awesome. Thank you. That should be in the summary.

    5. Re:Well consider the source by slickwillie · · Score: 1

      The story says the operator landed it and it caught fire. Maybe the manufacturer is at fault. (Good luck tracking down the Chinese company and making them pay.)

    6. Re:Well consider the source by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

      Well, that's the last time an owner will report one of these occurrences...

    7. Re:Well consider the source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that's the last time an owner will report one of these occurrences...

      If the person is an a$$ (like you), then yes. However, it seems that the person is ethical and did the right thing. So the person only got a citation. This incident should give the person what to be more careful next time.

  4. 335 acres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just for the record, 335 acres is about 1/2 square mile. Not quite as big as it sounds. I'm not saying that makes it no big deal...just clarifying context.

    1. Re:335 acres by quenda · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Just for the record, 335 acres is about 1/2 square mile.

      or 1.3x10^34 barns. Whats that in square rods? Cubits?

      When are you folks going to get with the 20th century and use metres, sorry, meters, like God intended?

    2. Re:335 acres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, how many football fields is that?

    3. Re:335 acres by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      That's the 0th century, dude. The French Revolutionaries who spun up the Metric System also reset the calendar.

      It was just as arbitrary an idea, but didn't really take hold.

    4. Re:335 acres by quenda · · Score: 1

      The French really screwed up by not switching to a metric second (1/100,000 of a day) along with the kg and metre.
      So we are a bit stuck with non-decimal calendar/clocks, but that's no excuse for persisting with hour-based non-SI units such as km/hr and kWhrs.

    5. Re:335 acres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the SI prefix for 1/100,000th of a thing? Anybody?

    6. Re:335 acres by quenda · · Score: 1

      They could have gone with milli-day as the standard unit, call it the chron. Then a metric second would be an informal name for the centi-chron.

    7. Re:335 acres by chmod+a+x+mojo · · Score: 1

      It's also only roughly 1.86x10^-2 percent of the park.

      That being said, it really depends on what sort of biome was destroyed. If it was normal forest and brush, not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things ( not that it was a GOOD thing, but...). If it was a rare soil biome or some other rare desert biome then that would be worse.

      --
      To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
    8. Re:335 acres by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The photo in the story shows unburnt second growth conifers standing over burnt grassland, with cabins. So not a sensitive area.

    9. Re: 335 acres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .1 Rhode Islands

    10. Re:335 acres by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

      Taken out of context, it's not that big but when you consider that Arizona is in drought conditions and that Type 1 Wild Fire teams have been brought in two months ahead of schedule, this is a much bigger deal. We got very lucky that there wasn't much wind and that it had snowed recently. If this happens this summer, we're going to have a big problem.

  5. MadeOfExplodium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A drone crash-landed and burst into flames? That's a thing now?? (the second part, not the first)

    Are these things really being built like Pintos nowadays?

    1. Re:MadeOfExplodium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some of the cheaper batteries are!

  6. Send to operator the bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Drone operators should take insurance for this.

    1. Re:Send to operator the bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His mem should take responsibility for his brane?

    2. Re:Send to operator the bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They really should. For anyone flying a model airplane or model helicopter the public liability insurance forms the majority of their annual MAAA fees.

    3. Re:Send to operator the bill by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      a) they did,
      b) a bill doesn't automatically mean someone needs insurance.

      Speaking of I think I need to take out hunger insurance in case I need to go buy some lunch.

  7. Re:That's where you want to go to get away frm it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Coconino county - that's where Krazy Kat is from! You can tell from the surreal landscapes in the background.

  8. Chevy Nova by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Additional details about the type of drone were not immediately available.

    Well, hell, the only piece of info I wanted from TFS. That'll teach me...

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Chevy Nova by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 2

      So you're saying that they should have named it the "Fuego"?

    2. Re:Chevy Nova by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot.

      https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dont-go-here/

    3. Re:Chevy Nova by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      If only it were true, it might have been the first truth in advertising from GM.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    4. Re:Chevy Nova by tquasar · · Score: 1

      Si, mon.

  9. bashing of measurement standards is booooring by OrangeTide · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is nothing inhernetly superior with the metric system over the US customary system. It's just numbers and names and you can standardize and be equally accurate with either. And while there are anachronism to this system, much of the obscure parts are considered obsolete and not normally used by people (including scientists and engineers who do still use the US system in industry). NOTE: UK / Imperial system is a related but not identical system.

    What was a tremendous problem was when Europe had a different system in each country and sometimes different systems in different parts of the same country, and those systems are often using the same names to mean slightly different standards of measurements. Total freaking nightmare, and thank the gods (or Frenchmen) for its wide adoption.

    That said, we could do much better than the metric system. Celcius is a particularly unfortunate unit.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:bashing of measurement standards is booooring by quenda · · Score: 1

      There is nothing inhernetly superior with the metric system over the US customary system.

      You've clearly never done any science or engineering. Even social scientists can appreciate the benefits of the decimal system, and avoiding conversion factors.
      Not to mention the ongoing problems in the US with two standards running at once. [cough] Mars Climate Orbiter [/cough]

    2. Re:bashing of measurement standards is booooring by johannesg · · Score: 2

      Even social scientists can appreciate the benefits of the decimal system, and avoiding conversion factors.

      _Especially_ social scientists, I'd say...

    3. Re:bashing of measurement standards is booooring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Celcius is not part of the metric system.

    4. Re:bashing of measurement standards is booooring by Megol · · Score: 1

      Either I'm missing some joke or you two are competing in stupidity...

    5. Re: bashing of measurement standards is booooring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two standards misusedin the same project doesn't invalidate either system.

  10. Real context about Arizona fires by az-saguaro · · Score: 4, Informative

    Above, Anonymous Coward wrote "Just for the record, 335 acres is about 1/2 square mile. Not quite as big as it sounds. I'm not saying that makes it no big deal...just clarifying context."

    So, as someone who lives in Arizona, allow me to clarify context.

    This is a hot and dry State, and 15 years of drought has created a lot of dry brush, aka "fuel" in our forests and chaparral and grasslands and deserts. This is also an outdoor activities State, and people camping and hiking can do dangerous things with campfires and other tools and toys. Also, as suburban settlement pushes farther into rural areas, not only does ignition risk go up, but risks of injury, death, and lost property also increase. You might have seen last year's movie "Only the Brave" about the Yarnell Hill fire in 2013. That was a relatively small fire, only 8500 acres, in which 19 firefighters were killed.

    Here are some numbers:

    Year _ Number of fires _ Acres Burnt
    2004 _ 2,602 _ 219,900
    2005 _ 4,027 _ 975,456
    2006 _ 3,274 _ 177,427
    2007 _ 2,240 _ 101,381
    2008 _ 1,850 _ 85,496
    2009 _ 2,371 _ 263,358
    2010 _ 1,517 _ 74,445
    2011 _ 1,969 _ 1,036,935
    2012 _ 1,684 _ 216,090
    2013 _ 1,449 _ 100,836

    Fire Name _ Year _ County _ Acres Burnt _ Structures Lost _ Human Deaths _ Cause

    Dude _ 1990 _ Coconino _ 28,000 _ 63 _ 6 _ lightning
    Rattlesnake _ 1994 _ Cochise _ 25,000 _ 0 _ 0 _ lightning
    Rio _ 1995 _ Maricopa _ 23,000 _ 0 _ 0 _ lightning
    Lone _ 1996 _ Maricopa _ 61,300 _ 0 _ 0 _ human
    Pumpkin _ 2000 _ Coconino _ 14,760 _ 0 _ 0 _ lightning
    Rodeo–Chediski _ 2002 _ Coconino _ 468,638 _ 426 _ 0 _ human
    Aspen _ 2003 _ Pima-Pinal _ 84,750 _ >325 _ 0 _ human
    Willow _ 2004 _ Gila _ 119,500 _ 0 _ 0 _ lightning
    Nuttall-Gibson _ 2004 _ Graham _ 30,000 _ 0 _ 0 _ lightning
    Cave Creek _ 2005 _ Maricopa-Yavapai _ 243,950 _ 11+ _ 0 _ lightning
    Florida _ 2005 _ Santa Cruz _ 23,183 _ 0 _ 0 _ lightning
    Schultz _ 2005 _ Coconino _ 15,075 _ 0 _ 0 _ human
    Horseshoe 2011 _ Cochise _ 222,954 _ 23 0 _ 0 _ human
    Monument _ 2011 _ Cochise _ 30,526 _ 64 _ 0 _ human
    Wallow _ 2011 _ Apache-Graham-Greenlee-Navajo _ 538,049 _ 72 _ 0 _ human
    Gladiator _ 2012 _ Yavapai _ 16,240 _ 6 _ 0 _ human
    Yarnell Hill _ 2013 _ Yavapai _ 8,500 _ 129 _ 19 _ lightning
    Slide _ 2014 _ Coconino _ 21,227 _ 0 _ 0 _ human

    [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ]

    Many fires are small, but they cost time, effort, risk, and dollars to prevent growing into huge conflagrations. Fire prevention and containment is serious business here in Arizona. Counties regularly issue prohibitions about not only campfires, but even about burning wood in urban fireplaces. Human caused fires are on the increase, and latest numbers from the State are that ninety percent, 90%, of Arizona wildfires are man made, some deliberately, but mostly inadvertent, some honest accidents, and many just plain stupid acts by idiots. Penalties vary but can be costly in terms of dollars and time in jail. In other areas that are more temperate, rainy, and wetland, wildfire risk may not be so severe, but here in Arizona, playing with motorized ignitable toys in forested areas is a genuine threat, even for just "small" fires.

    1. Re:Real context about Arizona fires by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we really need to sue the God of the bible for making Arizona so hot. Also we need to sue the Greek God Zeuss for causing all those lightening bolts. Or we would sue evil white people, I repeat myself, for causing global warming and making Arizona so hot.

    2. Re:Real context about Arizona fires by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fire is natural. You can't stop it, other than by moving to a tropical rain forest.
      The longer you put it off, the more fuel there will be in the future.

  11. A different kind of bashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forget about the Imperial vs Metric for the moment.

    I'd like to whine about the whole 'square (units)' idea. The ONLY reason to use this kind of figure is marketing - to inflate the number so it sounds big.

    For me, the point of giving a figure about size is to allow me to understand how big the thing is. 'Square (units)' doesn't do that. 'Units (square)" does - in other words, if you say a thing covers an area equivalent to ten miles square, I can safely imagine a square where each side is ten miles. Easy and done. On the other hand, by golly, that's a hundred square miles! Look how enormous it is! It's a HUNDRED!!! No, it's still ten miles on a side, and ten miles square tells me that, and a hundred square miles does not.

    Am I alone in feeling this way? Every time I hear an area figure, it makes me want to scream.

    1. Re: A different kind of bashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thatâ(TM)s ok if the area really is square. But what if itâ(TM)s not? What if itâ(TM)s 5 x 20?

    2. Re: A different kind of bashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Giving the measurement in square units doesn't tell you the shape of the thing either. What shape is the fire mentioned in the summary? You have no idea. The point is for you to be able to imagine the area affected, in terms that you can understand. For example, if an iceberg calves off of Antarctica, and the area is given in square miles, I understand nothing except perhaps that the number has a lot of digits. If the area were given in miles square, I can immediately overlay that size on my local area in my head or on a map, and understand _exactly_ how big the area is.

  12. Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The operator who's drone accidentally exploded was a muslim

  13. sh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shit happens

  14. Depends on which "metric system" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Celsius is part of International System of Units (SI). The metric systems composes the portion of SI that has to do with mass and length (and therefor volume). But on its own the metric system is incomplete. You won't find any current standards for a "metric system", MKS and CGS are are no longer actively mantained as international standards. Your only practical choice for a metric standard is SI, and that includes Celsius.