Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Welcome DJI Spark Pilot!
Jump in and join our free Spark community today!
Sign up
Forums
DJI Spark Forums
Spark Discussions
Here we go... stupid dronies flying over California fires hampering firefighter efforts.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Hotwire" data-source="post: 58874" data-attributes="member: 505"><p>Um YES.</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Thank you suprPhreak for allowing me to debunk some common claims about this topic.</p><p>Recalcitrance should not be confused with stupidity!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hotwire, post: 58874, member: 505"] 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! [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
DJI Spark Forums
Spark Discussions
Here we go... stupid dronies flying over California fires hampering firefighter efforts.