Drones and Common Sense Rant
- Thread starter A Life Aloft
- Start date
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
When hobby drones have some sort of use for society, I'll consider your analogy analogous. Until then, it's not.
A Life Aloft
Well-Known Member
Here's the latest from the Times:
As a hot wind shifted north and drove the flames toward Onyx Peak east of Big Bear Lake, fire crews deployed to save homes scattered among brittle-dry pines — waiting for help from a DC-10 laden with 10,800 gallons of retardant.
It never came. Shortly before 5 p.m. on Wednesday, an incident commander on the ground spotted a hobby drone buzzing near the drop site at 11,000 feet. The drone was also seen by the pilot of one of the tankers. The air tanker had to turn back, as did two smaller planes following it. All helicopters were grounded as well.
“These folks who are handling these drones, I have to assume they have no idea what they're doing,” Chon Bribiescas, a spokesman for the U.S. Forest Service, said Thursday. “They not only endangered the folks on the ground, but they endanger the pilots.”
Officials fighting the Lake fire in the San Bernardino Mountains scrambled to warn the public that it is illegal and dangerous to fly drones in restricted airspace around a fire. Unmanned aircraft are particularly hazardous because authorities have no idea who is controlling them or how they might maneuver.
The DC-10 had to divert and drop its retardant on a fire along the Nevada border, while the two smaller planes had to jettison theirs because they couldn't land with that much weight. Officials said the failed mission cost between $10,000 and $15,000.
As the planes returned to their base by Lake Arrowhead, pilots spotted another drone 1,200 feet above ground in the restricted fire zone, far above the 400-foot limit set by the FAA for unmanned aircraft.
“It's infuriating,” Bribiescas said. It was spotted flying between two fixed-wing aircraft battling the fire.
Authorities could not locate the operators of the drones. They described the aircraft that obstructed the retardant drops as an orange or red fixed-wing drone with a wingspan of 4 feet.
Mike Eaton, forest aviation officer with the U.S. Forest Service, said police would be patrolling mountain roads, looking for people flying drones in the temporarily restricted airspace set by the FAA.
Speaking at a news conference at the San Bernardino Airtanker Base, Eaton urged people to stay away from the fire. Red fliers were stapled around a fire map that read: “If You Fly, We Can't.”
Eaton said air drops had to be shut down three hours early on Wednesday because of the drone.
“The fire certainly grew because we weren't able to drop the retardant,” said. “We had to shut down subsequent missions that could have possibly contained the fire.”
By Thursday morning, the fire had grown to 23,199 acres and was 21% contained.Twenty-four hours earlier, 38% of the fire was contained. That was before the Drone incident, however. Later in the afternoon it had spread a mile north to Heartbreak Ridge.
As unmanned aerial system technology has become more prevalent, so have run-ins between civilians using it and government agencies that consider it a danger. The U.S. Forest Service issued a statement last year on civilian drone use, warning that it could interfere with firefighting efforts.
In July 2014, CalFire crews had law enforcement confront a drone operator near Plymouth in Northern California after he flew the aircraft near a 3,800-acre blaze as crews made water drops.
As a hot wind shifted north and drove the flames toward Onyx Peak east of Big Bear Lake, fire crews deployed to save homes scattered among brittle-dry pines — waiting for help from a DC-10 laden with 10,800 gallons of retardant.
It never came. Shortly before 5 p.m. on Wednesday, an incident commander on the ground spotted a hobby drone buzzing near the drop site at 11,000 feet. The drone was also seen by the pilot of one of the tankers. The air tanker had to turn back, as did two smaller planes following it. All helicopters were grounded as well.
“These folks who are handling these drones, I have to assume they have no idea what they're doing,” Chon Bribiescas, a spokesman for the U.S. Forest Service, said Thursday. “They not only endangered the folks on the ground, but they endanger the pilots.”
Officials fighting the Lake fire in the San Bernardino Mountains scrambled to warn the public that it is illegal and dangerous to fly drones in restricted airspace around a fire. Unmanned aircraft are particularly hazardous because authorities have no idea who is controlling them or how they might maneuver.
The DC-10 had to divert and drop its retardant on a fire along the Nevada border, while the two smaller planes had to jettison theirs because they couldn't land with that much weight. Officials said the failed mission cost between $10,000 and $15,000.
As the planes returned to their base by Lake Arrowhead, pilots spotted another drone 1,200 feet above ground in the restricted fire zone, far above the 400-foot limit set by the FAA for unmanned aircraft.
“It's infuriating,” Bribiescas said. It was spotted flying between two fixed-wing aircraft battling the fire.
Authorities could not locate the operators of the drones. They described the aircraft that obstructed the retardant drops as an orange or red fixed-wing drone with a wingspan of 4 feet.
Mike Eaton, forest aviation officer with the U.S. Forest Service, said police would be patrolling mountain roads, looking for people flying drones in the temporarily restricted airspace set by the FAA.
Speaking at a news conference at the San Bernardino Airtanker Base, Eaton urged people to stay away from the fire. Red fliers were stapled around a fire map that read: “If You Fly, We Can't.”
Eaton said air drops had to be shut down three hours early on Wednesday because of the drone.
“The fire certainly grew because we weren't able to drop the retardant,” said. “We had to shut down subsequent missions that could have possibly contained the fire.”
By Thursday morning, the fire had grown to 23,199 acres and was 21% contained.Twenty-four hours earlier, 38% of the fire was contained. That was before the Drone incident, however. Later in the afternoon it had spread a mile north to Heartbreak Ridge.
As unmanned aerial system technology has become more prevalent, so have run-ins between civilians using it and government agencies that consider it a danger. The U.S. Forest Service issued a statement last year on civilian drone use, warning that it could interfere with firefighting efforts.
In July 2014, CalFire crews had law enforcement confront a drone operator near Plymouth in Northern California after he flew the aircraft near a 3,800-acre blaze as crews made water drops.
Last edited:
esa17
Well-Known Member
This is where people run off into the weeds.
Just because you're not in the aircraft doesn't mean you don't have a vested interest in the safe completion of a flight. I can tell you first hand as a manned pilot and an unmanned pilot your brain makes ZERO distinction when you encounter an IFE. You react as trained and psychologically your body experiences the same stressors it does when your butt is in the plane.
Beyond that you have a tremendous responsibility to successfully complete the flight because if you screw up your @$$ is grass. Take a look at what the U.S. Government did to those Blackwater PMCs who were defending themselves in Iraq. If I put one of my aircraft through the windscreen of a dustoff or a 130 I'd be locked up and buried under the prison regardless if I was at fault or not.
RDoug
Well-Known Member
Oh, sure it is. You just don't have an answer to it.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
RDoug said:
I just did answer it. You're just evidently too dense to realize it.
esa17
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure if you're drunk or just incoherent.
Since it's thirsty Thursday I'll give you the benefit of the doubt unless you wear Velcro shoes.
Itchy
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
scoobs said:
Impossible to enforce.
A Life Aloft
Well-Known Member
Unfreaking believable!!! That was the fire up North that is just now in the mop up stages, which will continue for a while. I believe it was only contained like a day or so ago. The Corrine fire up there is almost contained now.
Last edited:
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
The cats out of the bag.
There are tens of thousands of high-end quadcopters in the United States. If the FAA overshoots the mark like they've done in commercial RPV operations, we'll see the same result, non-compliance, with only the largest operators being interested in legal operations.
I think that 95% of operators want to operate safely and only lack education and resources to achieve that result.
Compliance and enforcement will always be difficult, but other hobbies have been tamed by reasonable efforts. High-powered rocketry comes to mind as does HAM radio. Come up with something like the HAM technician license for non-commercial operations and you've addressed the most common case, the operator that wants to operate safely.
If the FAA overshoots the mark with regulation, we will see something like what has happened to ultralight aviation. When the FAA eliminated the instructor exemption for two-place ultralights they just created an underground community, replacing certified instructors with rogue actors. Now, new ultralight pilots are less educated than they have been in 40 years. Think about that risk.
In the case of the quad operators that interrupted fire fighting operations, something as simple as a smartphone app for operators could have warned of airspace restrictions.
There are tens of thousands of high-end quadcopters in the United States. If the FAA overshoots the mark like they've done in commercial RPV operations, we'll see the same result, non-compliance, with only the largest operators being interested in legal operations.
I think that 95% of operators want to operate safely and only lack education and resources to achieve that result.
Compliance and enforcement will always be difficult, but other hobbies have been tamed by reasonable efforts. High-powered rocketry comes to mind as does HAM radio. Come up with something like the HAM technician license for non-commercial operations and you've addressed the most common case, the operator that wants to operate safely.
If the FAA overshoots the mark with regulation, we will see something like what has happened to ultralight aviation. When the FAA eliminated the instructor exemption for two-place ultralights they just created an underground community, replacing certified instructors with rogue actors. Now, new ultralight pilots are less educated than they have been in 40 years. Think about that risk.
In the case of the quad operators that interrupted fire fighting operations, something as simple as a smartphone app for operators could have warned of airspace restrictions.
sweeps
Undercarriage Actuator
If the Forrest circus wanted that fire out wouldn't they be using most of the S-2s that are parked right now? Seems odd that they have trigger points for these evacuations and that the fire has been getting worse while available fixed wing are parked within eye sight of the fire. Especially when they talk about how much worse it is with their planes grounded from the drones. I would think they would fly everything when it's available. Must be more BS and politics. Don't get me wrong, these drone guys are idiots but they could have more aircraft on the fire when it is safe to do so.
Forest Service doesn't own the S-2s, those are State of California assets. They can request them, but they might not get them, especially if they might be working other fires. And if any of those planes are on their off day, they aren't moving.
sweeps
Undercarriage Actuator
Except they've been sitting for the majority of the time this fire has been burning. A few fires that have been in the area that they flew on for a couple hours here and there. Also, those airplanes don't have days off, they have relief pilots that ensure that they are available 7 days a week.
Are they assigned to this fire? If not and they're on standby for other areas, then they'll appear to be sitting. And again, if it's a Forest Service fire, and those are State of California airplanes and aren't assigned to that fire, then they won't necessarily be participating.