Here we go... stupid dronies flying over California fires hampering firefighter efforts.
- Thread starter notime
- Start date
Might be a bunch of people trying to get some fiery footage for themselves a bit selfish I might say.
v2kdj
Active Member
- Join
- Feb 6, 2018
- Messages
- 26
- Age
- 57
Hi all.
I'm a firefighter in the UK. I'm enjoying the glorious weather we've been having over the past few weeks which we all needed after the wet winter we've had.
We have had a lot of grass fires to deal with especially up north on the moors. Not on the scale though than other countries such as California and the tragedy in Greece.
I have seen a couple if drones out on jobs and I thought what a great idea to get some good shots and post the pics to show what we're up against.
If pilots want to risk their aircraft then that's up to them but they are hardly hampering the fire service. As long as they stay at a safe distance and me mindful of the conditions and rules according to the country they are in.
I have more of an issue with the idiots starting the fires. Careless discarding of smoking materials, barbeque left smouldering and deliberate ignition!
I'm a firefighter in the UK. I'm enjoying the glorious weather we've been having over the past few weeks which we all needed after the wet winter we've had.
We have had a lot of grass fires to deal with especially up north on the moors. Not on the scale though than other countries such as California and the tragedy in Greece.
I have seen a couple if drones out on jobs and I thought what a great idea to get some good shots and post the pics to show what we're up against.
If pilots want to risk their aircraft then that's up to them but they are hardly hampering the fire service. As long as they stay at a safe distance and me mindful of the conditions and rules according to the country they are in.
I have more of an issue with the idiots starting the fires. Careless discarding of smoking materials, barbeque left smouldering and deliberate ignition!
It's not the firefighters themselves that are endangered by the drones. The low flying helicopters and planes that drop flame retardant are at risk of a collision and must be grounded when a drone is reported.
Similar bad press from drones over Hawaii volcano and near miss with Emirates jumbo jet last week. These incidents can lead to unwanted attention and more government regulation
v2kdj
Active Member
- Join
- Feb 6, 2018
- Messages
- 26
- Age
- 57
Fair comment Andre.....I was forgetting about the firefighting aircraft....not used much here. Cheers and have a good day.
How many of those errant drones have been TV news reporters? They seem to be above the law. A couple of months ago there was an active shooter situation near where I live and the TV station drones got it all on video with their drones.
In Mati Greece, after the fire had killed decades of people, a TV reporter was arrested, because he was flying a drone over the ashes.
Police had the time for it, but they failed to protect people from the flames.
As for the "more regulations" conversation, I think that there are no regulations, because some disobey the regulations.
Police had the time for it, but they failed to protect people from the flames.
As for the "more regulations" conversation, I think that there are no regulations, because some disobey the regulations.
The air traffic issue is purely scaremongering. Drone operations in most crisis situations like bushfires, are an advantage. Since the invention of aerial remote imaging, so much more information about these events has become available.
The reason for the regulations is encroachment on the occupations of traditional pilots. We are experiencing a turf war.
Really, how much risk does a Spark constitute at 100m over a burnt out house or an entangled whale?
Soon, all our air space will belong to commercial interests and your Spark will be a band possession. You are falling for an age old political trick. Garbage dressed as cordon-bleu, as a means to an end.
The reason for the regulations is encroachment on the occupations of traditional pilots. We are experiencing a turf war.
Really, how much risk does a Spark constitute at 100m over a burnt out house or an entangled whale?
Soon, all our air space will belong to commercial interests and your Spark will be a band possession. You are falling for an age old political trick. Garbage dressed as cordon-bleu, as a means to an end.
Um, no. There is no concern about drones taking the place of water bombers. There is concern about them causing damage to those planes, as they fly in fast, low, and from whatever direction is best for hitting the fire line.
Commercial drones in the vicinity, working with the firefighters, are not a concern and are certainly beneficial. An idiot who feels some video for YouTube and enters the area without permission is.
Commercial drones in the vicinity, working with the firefighters, are not a concern and are certainly beneficial. An idiot who feels some video for YouTube and enters the area without permission is.
Um YES.
Water bombing is a very expensive business and hence it is only applied to large or inaccessible fire fronts. Bombing occurs directly on the fire front and the heat there is far to extreme to fly anything like a Spark or Phantom.
Most of the fire images I have seen, that were taken from UAVs, have been of already burnt out property. There is little or no reason this would be any different to flying in an average park or reserve.
Small UAVs like most people purchase to take aerial images and video constitute less risk to manned aircraft than do birds. While birds are not a minuscule risk, we rarely hear of them threatening aviation. Meanwhile UAVs are constantly under criticism for the threat they pose to all forms of manned aviation. Taking water from lakes, rivers and the ocean, water bombing aircraft are far more vulnerable to bird strike than us.
Safety is always the argument taken to declare the moral high-ground in these disputes. It’s a cheap trick to avoid the real arguments and objectives. The term SAFETY is really used to scare monger the public, with respect to UAVs. Their safety record has been amazing, in the absence of any significant regulations but that is all changing now, thanks to effectiveness of scare mongering.
Thank you suprPhreak for allowing me to debunk some common claims about this topic.
Recalcitrance should not be confused with stupidity!
I do appreciate your response. It is thoughtful, but I still disagree.
There have been studies conducted which found that drones are more of a threat than birds because birds are squishy. They break, compress, and force gets distributed over a large area on impact, less likely to break windscreens, and are easily sliced by props or turbine blades. Drones however have solid, not so compressible parts like motors and batteries which cause alarm. Ie: would you rather be hit by a 1kg brick, or a 1kg bag of feathers? I believe it was Transport Canada who did this analysis.
Regardless of that, I simply think an active fire area should be left alone until the fire is declared out. Fire crews, aircraft, are travelling the area watching for hot spots, and I think keeping back is the best answer.
When the fire is declared out, the area will still be charred and black, and you can get all the Instagram/YouTube likes you want. Just be patient.
There have been studies conducted which found that drones are more of a threat than birds because birds are squishy. They break, compress, and force gets distributed over a large area on impact, less likely to break windscreens, and are easily sliced by props or turbine blades. Drones however have solid, not so compressible parts like motors and batteries which cause alarm. Ie: would you rather be hit by a 1kg brick, or a 1kg bag of feathers? I believe it was Transport Canada who did this analysis.
Regardless of that, I simply think an active fire area should be left alone until the fire is declared out. Fire crews, aircraft, are travelling the area watching for hot spots, and I think keeping back is the best answer.
When the fire is declared out, the area will still be charred and black, and you can get all the Instagram/YouTube likes you want. Just be patient.
Hundreds, if not thousands of people have died in aircraft accidents caused by bird strikes. How many have died as a result of hobby RC models?
The FAA have been the major opponent in this argument from almost the beginning. They don't qualify as a credible or unbiased reference.
The areas now restricted from flying RC models and aerial imaging UAVs, have grown many fold sinse the media drew attentions to this changing technology. Most of that attention was due to the images collected by these aircraft. RC models aren't new to the skies of the world, just more obvious. Even their prevellence is not much different to the past 30 years but their presence is more known.
The spin-off from this is VTOL passenger drones that will emerge in the next 10 years and beyond. Not only do the traditional interests in our air space want us gone, the emerging passenger technologies will also make their bids. Demonising photographers with a harmless interest in getting a different perspective for their images or the benign RC modeller, represents phase 1. This is not a conspiracy theory, it's SOP for this kind of acquisition and it's motivated by money.
Don't be drawn in by the demonising strategy. The more times you hear it the more it sounds plausible.
Ask yourself , how often do you look in the sky and see a manned aircraft. (every day!) How often do you see a drone ? The number of people out taking images or video with their Spark or Phantom is unlikely to change much, if past trends are to go by. Even less if all our air space is taken away.
Thanks for discussion. I very much respect your opinion but concur to disagree. Please feel free to have the last say...
Cheers.
Nothing to say except thanks for a good internet discussion that didn't devolve into name calling! Have a splendid day!
Jeplane
Well-Known Member
I was talking to a pilot who flies a single engine over fires. He has a device inside helping him to drop down to 80 feet over the flames for precision. That's insane! (Yes, he has A/C in the cockpit!)
If a drone is spotted, the whole thing comes to a stop for an hour, that's the protocol.
The water drops, the helicopters, the spotters, everyone come back to land and wait for the drone operator to leave.
In the meantime, the fire keeps burning...
So yes, let's be smart about this...
If a drone is spotted, the whole thing comes to a stop for an hour, that's the protocol.
The water drops, the helicopters, the spotters, everyone come back to land and wait for the drone operator to leave.
In the meantime, the fire keeps burning...
So yes, let's be smart about this...
That makes sense. It was the news media that started a lot of the anti drone frenzy with stories of drone operators using them to peek in bathroom windows or sunbathers in the backyard.
Now they're using them for breaking news coverage.
Since the rest of your comments have been debunked except this one, I'll take it...
Who said the drone mission had to be successful and return to be a hazard?
I am sure there are lots of idiots fly into the face of the fire never to return.
But if the drone is spotted before it falls...again, the water bombing stops.
There is no reason to be out there...PERIOD!
Very well said. I am a licensed (fixed wing) pilot and a drone pilot. And I can tell you that a drone ingested into the engine of a jet or turboprop engine on an air tanker would seriously compound the catastrophe. Why put those who are working hard to bring a catastrophic situation under control at such risk?
There are part 107 test prep questions around news stations and their macho attitude around getting "the shot" with drones, and that the station must have a safety policy in place. However, they are just test questions, and "the shot" is "the shot" above the competition. Add to that the fact that local news is the most watched TV programming, and here we are.
Similar threads
