Drones getting in the way of emergency responders

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Drones getting in the way of emergency responders

Elliot Spagat, Associated Press

Updated 12:54 am, Monday, August 10, 2015

SAN DIEGO (AP) — As Jason Thrasher lowered his helicopter to a park with seven firefighters aboard, he saw what he thought was another firefighting chopper battling a blaze that was threatening homes.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pilot suddenly identified the object as a four-rotor drone only 10 feet from his windshield, forcing him to make a hard left to avoid a collision about 500 feet above ground, according to a report he filed the next day.

. . .

The near-miss last September in Nevada City, about 60 miles northeast of Sacramento, explains why drones have quickly become a serious nuisance and concern for firefighting pilots and other first responders, fueling calls for more oversight and self-policing in the skies.

The U.S. Forest Service has tallied 13 wildfires in which suspected drones interfered with firefighting aircraft this year — 11 since late June — up from four fires last year and only scattered incidents before. Last month, the sighting of five drones in a wildfire that closed Interstate 15 in Southern California and destroyed numerous vehicles grounded crews for 20 minutes as flames spread.


Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/science/article/Drones-getting-in-the-way-of-first-responders-6434633.php

[Hekate]

1. Those toys are a serious danger to life and property in emergency situations.

I hope the legislature acts quickly to regulate them and impose some licensing requirements on their owners.

[napi21]

2. Unfortunately there are lots of people who buy drones are very irresponsible.

My son has one as do several of his friends, but they KNOW better than to invade people's privacy or risk flying into an emergency area just to get a better look at what's going on. Now, they're all in their late 40's to early 50's and perhaps have more sense than much younger aviators, but that's no excuse. If these drone owners don't start behaving responsibly, all of them are going to be sorry when the FAA enacts regulations that will make their ability to have fun flying impossible.

[Sunlei]

4. its a felony to shine lasers at aircraft, should be the same felony to fly a toy when aircraft fly.

[Sunlei]

3. isn't it already against the law to place objects to obstruct emergency workers?

against the law for the press to fly a press helicopter on the front lines? against the law to chase an ambulance? against the law to shove a camera in the face of an emergency worker while they're actually working?

someone on the ground is holding a controller, is it the press? or just an idiot with a toy?. arrest them for obstructing emergency workers.

[DetlefK]

5. The problem is finding them.

You can see the guy chasing an ambulance, but you have to find the guy remote-controlling the drone.



My suggestion: Mandatory registration and serial-numbers for all RC-drones.

[Sunlei]

6. those toys aren't far from someone holding control. unfortunate but there are miles of wildfires

in some states, thousands of ground workers. It is a felony to shine a laser at aircraft, probably the same felony charge would apply to any idiot flying, shining laser or throwing anything in path of aircraft.

The person with a toy drone could even be one of the workers playing around on their time off.

[SwankyXomb]

11. Shouldn't be too hard

Every one of those nitwits was either streaming footage or tried to sell it to a TV station.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

14. Personally I think the solution is to shoot them out of the sky.

[dhill926]

15. if there's a safe way to do it...

I agree. and hit the owners with a large fine or maybe a little jail time. the problem is getting ridiculous...

[djean111]

7. This is why I think that emergency workers, at least, have some sort of way to disable the

things or get them out of the sky if they are in the way.
Drones will be another "free-dumb" thing, though, as far as I can tell. Saw a "gun attached to drone" clip here, a little while back. W. T. F.

[happyslug]

8. The problem is that if it is in the air, it is under FEDERAL LAW only...

In a 1946 case, the US Supreme Court ruled that if something is flying, it is under Federal Law. The court left open how low something could fly and still NOT be trespassing, but technically that may be inches.

In the case, a farmer claimed that flying planes 63 feet over his chicken coup and 18 feet over the tallest trees on his property was a taking, the court agreed with him but then said that it was a taking ONLY do to his direct loss caused by the air-flights NOT the air-flights themselves. i.e. his chickens stopped laying eggs do to the frequent overflights and that was a result of the overflights and as such was taking under the US Constitution.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/328/256/case.html

The United States relies on the Air Commerce Act of 1926, 44 Stat. 568, 49 U.S.C. § 171 et seq., as amended by the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 973, 49 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. Under those statutes, the United States has "complete and exclusive national sovereignty in the air space" over this country. 49 U.S.C. § 176(a). They grant any citizen of the United States "a public right of freedom of transit in air commerce [Footnote 4] through the navigable air space of the United States." 49 U.S.C. § 403. And "navigable air space" is defined as "airspace above the minimum safe altitudes of flight prescribed by the Civil Aeronautics Authority." 49 U.S.C. § 180. ....

It is ancient doctrine that at common law ownership of the land extended to the periphery of the universe -- cujus est solum ejus est usque and coelum. [Footnote 5] But that doctrine has no place in the modern world. The air is a public highway, as Congress has declared. Were that not true, every transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless trespass suits. Common sense revolts at the idea. To recognize such private claims to the airspace would clog these highways, seriously interfere with their control and development in the public interest, and transfer into private ownership that to which only the public has a just claim.....

The airplane is part of the modern environment of life, and the inconveniences which it causes are normally not compensable under the Fifth Amendment. The airspace, apart from the immediate reaches above the land, is part of the public domain. We need not determine at this time what those precise limits are. Flights over private land are not a taking, unless they are so low and so frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land. We need not speculate on that phase of the present case

Present Regulations on Air Space:

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=bfdd417c8b61b54fed464cffef71eaaa&node=se14.2.91_1119&rgn=div8

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/pilot_handbook/media/PHAK%20-%20Chapter%2014.pdf

Ultralights regulations, which are the best "Fit" for drones at the present time:

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=bfdd417c8b61b54fed464cffef71eaaa&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14cfr103_main_02.tpl

[candelista]

9. Gotta put some guns on those drones.

Keep the emergency responders from getting in the way.

[maindawg]

10. Commercial purposes

I read an article a few weeks ago about the Ny Giants using a drone to record its players from overhead. I think the Cards were doing it too. They got into some kind of discussion with the FAA over the legality of using the airspace . Here is the article.
Corey Sipkin/New York Daily News
The Giants used a drone at a recent minicamp practice to get a bird's eye view of the workout.

The Giants did not obtain the proper clearance for their recent use of a drone during minicamp, which raised the eyebrows of the Federal Aviation Administration.

According to a Bloomberg News report, the FAA is looking into the use of drones by the Giants, as well as the Cowboys and Patriots. It’s illegal to fly an unmanned aircraft for commercial purposes without getting an FAA waiver unless it is being used indoors or is operated by a contractor with FAA authorization. None of the three teams received such a waiver, the report said.

So for commercial purposes you have to get permission from the FAA. Wow , thats not a big loophole. As long as you are not using your drone for any commercial purpose you can fly it anywhere you want ?

[whopis01]

13. That's close to accurate

You can fly it most places as long as you stay within line of sight and under 400 foot. You can't fly near airports or any other area with flight restrictions (Washington DC for example). You also have to observe all temporary flight restrictions - which would be in place for an emergency response area.

[kracer20]

12. Can't argue with drones causing issues

but it seems there is some embellishment with regards to how close he was to the drone.

There is no way in the world that a drone would still be in the air within 50 feet of a copter with the amount of turbulence caused by the rotor.

Yes, 50 feet is still WAY too close, and there certainly needs to be something done with regards to getting this drone business under control.

[Oneironaut]

16. They want drones to be banned, apparently.

If you're a drone enthusiast and don't want your hobby to be banned, stop doing stupid things and putting people in danger. I suspect, though, that some of these people are trying to record videos to sell to the media.

[cstanleytech]

17. "forcing him to make a hard left to avoid a collision about 500 feet above ground" Isnt the legal

ceiling limit for drones 400 feet? If so then it would seem that the drone operator needs to be fined, heavily.