Hey look, more idiot drone owners

[Mook]

I'm starting to agree w/ the FAA wanting strict regulations on these.

Firefighters Can't Save People In Burning Cars Because of a Stupid Drone

A giant wildfire currently spreading through Southern California’s Cajon Pass is burning cars on the freeway in what the San Bernardino County Fire Department is calling a “multi-casualty incident.” But the firefighters also issued a report that due to a drone seen flying in the area, they couldn’t get their helicopters to the scene right away.

Two drones actually gave chase to air units, and the incident delayed response by about 15 to 20 minutes, according to Battalion Chief Marc Peebles of San Bernardino County Fire Department.

When asked if the delay contributed to the fire jumping the 15 Freeway, Peebles said “It definitely contributed to it.”

What’s been named the North Fire has burned about 500 acres near the 15 freeway, which heads northeast to Vegas. Firefighters had closed traffic in both directions when suddenly the grass fire jumped into the freeway and set several cars aflame. Firefighters began mobilizing their aircraft, but due to a drone seen in the air, they were forced to ground their helicopters which were starting to drop water on the burning cars.

Click to read more...

 

[Flyn]

Stupidity by the drone owners but overreaction by the authorities.

Grounding rescue units because of drones? I think that's overkill. Ignore the drones. The owners, hopefully, aren't dumb enough to interfere with the choppers. I doubt a drone owner is going to risk losing his drone much less getting thrown in jail for crashing into a rescue vehicle.

I'm seeing a lot of paranoia here. Authorities have to realize there aren't terrorists behind every keyboard and joystick.

 

[rocket5979]

Stupidity by the drone owners but overreaction by the authorities.

Grounding rescue units because of drones? I think that's overkill. Ignore the drones. The owners, hopefully, aren't dumb enough to interfere with the choppers. I doubt a drone owner is going to risk losing his drone much less getting thrown in jail for crashing into a rescue vehicle.

I'm seeing a lot of paranoia here. Authorities have to realize there aren't terrorists behind every keyboard and joystick.

You are assuming a lot. If one of those drones hit a tail rotor there is a likelihood that enough damage could be caused to make things imbalanced enough where the rotor would tear itself apart. Once that happens it's bye bye helicopter; and probably the crew as well. If I were the pilot I wouldn't have chanced mine and my crew's lives on the assumption that some person already acting like a dumbass by flying a drone interfering with firefighting ops, would know what a reasonably safe stand off distance is. The risk is not whether the drone owners were terrorists or not, but rather if they were dumbass enough to potentially cause inadvertent harm to the helos.

 

[Flyn]

I get your point Robert but, based on that reasoning, shouldn't authorities stop their operations on roadways any time traffic is passing close to them? Horrors! a car could hit one of the rescuers. It's a question of risk vs. reward. Authorities aren't scared of hundreds of vehicles, some driven by drunk idiots or blind senior citizens, passing within 10 feet yet they are scared to death of one or two drones.

(Edited for clarity)

 

[wombat]

Based on that reasoning, shouldn't authorities stop their operations on roadways any time traffic is passing close to them. Horrors! a car could hit one of the rescuers. It's a question of risk vs. reward.

Apples to oranges much?

I agree with what was said above... I wouldn't risk my crew in a Helicopter when it can easily be disabled by a moron.

 

[rz79]

A bird falling out of the fucking sky into loaded vehicles because authorities didn't take every precaution would be a god damn field day for today's litigious society.. C'mon man. You said it yourself, risk little to save little..

 

[Flyn]

Apples to oranges much?

I agree with what was said above... I wouldn't risk my crew in a Helicopter when it can easily be disabled by a moron.

So, you would risk your crew to, IMO, more of a risk to perform rescue operations on a highway with a much higher chance of injury or death? I used to work in the tollway oases and saw first hand how impaired and stupid drivers can be. As the site manager, I was constantly watching out for my employees because cars would drive straight through our barricades without a second thought. They would drive the wrong way in a one way or back up at high speeds. One time, a woman pulled through our cones and tape and stopped at a pump in the middle of our work area. She gets out to start pumping gas and I go ask her why she drove into a construction area. She was wasted. Started yelling at me that she wasn't in a construction area. I pointed out our scattered cones and ripped tape. She said she didn't do that. I walked to the front of her car and pulled out a cone from under her bumper. She had the gall to tell me I put it there. From experiences like these, I know there is a high risk of danger from vehicles.

IMO, people are scared of drones because they are new and not understood yet. Cars have been around for so long that the risks are known and discounted.

 

[rocket5979]

I get your point Robert but, based on that reasoning, shouldn't authorities stop their operations on roadways any time traffic is passing close to them? Horrors! a car could hit one of the rescuers. It's a question of risk vs. reward. Authorities aren't scared of hundreds of vehicles, some driven by drunk idiots or blind senior citizens, passing within 10 feet yet they are scared to death of one or two drones.

(Edited for clarity)

The nature of the consequences of your example do not compare to the potential catastrophe that I mentioned. If another car hits a Fire truck/EMS vehicle then chances are likely it will sustain some damage, perhaps even a lot, but not fall out of the sky and burst into flames almost assuredly killing everyone on board as well as being a hazard to those on the ground underneath it. Also for a helo to be at scene there HAS to be crew in it so there's guaranteed fatalities whereas a parked EMS vehicle doesn't necessarily need anyone in it at all times while at the scene. As you said, it is a risk to benefits analysis, and there is more risk of greater loss to putting a helo in close proximity with an idiot-operated civilian craft than the risk involved in parking a FIRE/EMS vehicle in proximity of idiot-operated traffic. One has a much higher chance of fatalities happening if something does go wrong. Couple that with the fact that two of the five drones in that area apparently were actively pursuing the helos, probably to get cool video, and there is just too much risk that the potential benefits cannot mitigate.

 

[Flyn]

Many firefighters and police are injured/killed while at accident scenes. Google is full of incidents. https://www.google.com/webhp?source...e=UTF-8#q=firefighter+killed+at+traffic+scene

I agree drone use at disaster scenes will have to be legislated to get some rules in place. There has to be a middle ground between wanting to film the scenes and interfering with authority activity. That said, to date there have been 0 incidents of drones being responsible for any firefighter/policeman getting hurt or killed. Compare that to the hundreds/thousands? of injuries/deaths over the years at accident scenes. Numbers don't lie.

Authority figures accept risks everyday as they go about their duties. Drone risks will eventually be accepted the same way. It's because the drones are new and unknown that stories like this are covered so widely.

Maybe the answer is incorporating an override in every drone that lets authority personnel control a radius around the disaster scenes. If the authorities have a transponder that grounds any drone that gets too close, the owners will know they either stay out of interference range or their drone gets forced to land or confiscated. Make it a felony to remove the automatic grounding circuits. Integrate the circuits so, if they are removed, the drone is useless. The government would be able to use these transponders wherever they don't want drones flying. They could create clear areas around government buildings, schools, everywhere they are afraid a drone can cause harm. This won't stop terrorists from building their own non grounding drones but it will prevent the casual idiots from getting in the way.

 

[rocket5979]

I agree drone use at disaster scenes will have to be legislated to get some rules in place. There has to be a middle ground between wanting to film the scenes and interfering with authority activity. That said, to date there have been 0 incidents of drones being responsible for any firefighter/policeman getting hurt or killed. Compare that to the hundreds/thousands? of injuries/deaths over the years at accident scenes. Numbers don't lie..

Cliff, I am trying to approach this discussion with you in a serious manner but comments like this make me really question your capacity for sound reasoning. Numbers don't lie? Actually yes they do all the time and it's called lack of context. Drones have only started to gain mainstream popularity for what like a year really? Not exactly a large dataset from which to analyze is it? Again, lack of context. It would be like me saying that tornados didn't kill anyone today so therefore tornados must not be dangerous. If you look at anything through a small enough viewfinder, the results will be askew. My "WTF?" reaction to you this evening has nothing to do with you disagreeing with my point of view but everything to do with the ludicrous types of examples that you are citing to support your case.

Authority figures accept risks everyday as they go about their duties. Drone risks will eventually be accepted the same way. It's because the drones are new and unknown that stories like this are covered so widely.

Maybe the answer is incorporating an override in every drone that lets authority personnel control a radius around the disaster scenes. If the authorities have a transponder that grounds any drone that gets too close, the owners will know they either stay out of interference range or their drone gets forced to land or confiscated. Make it a felony to remove the automatic grounding circuits. Integrate the circuits so, if they are removed, the drone is useless. The government would be able to use these transponders wherever they don't want drones flying. They could create clear areas around government buildings, schools, everywhere they are afraid a drone can cause harm. This won't stop terrorists from building their own non grounding drones but it will prevent the casual idiots from getting in the way.

The issue has nothing to do with drones being new and unknown but does deal with the greater potential for guaranteed fatalities if one were to strike the rotor of a helo. How in god's green Earth you cannot grasp that concept I do not know.... So far your comparisons for the sake of argument have been apples to potatoes in this thread. It's simple really, if a drone causes a helo crash then there WILL be fatalities, but if a moron car driver crashes into an EMS vehicle there is not necessarily a guarantee of fatalities; for a few reasons I already outlined above.

I say give the firefighter sBB guns and let them have a little target practicing fun with those asshole-operated drones.

 

[Flyn]

We will just have to agree to disagree. You are not getting my point. Maybe I'm not explaining it well.

You talk about vehicles hitting firetrucks. Did you look at my google link? That's deaths and injuries from vehicles hitting people, not firetrucks. Real deaths that have really happened. Many of them. Firefighters and police do not sit in their vehicles, they are on their feet and vulnerable at roadway scenes. Vehicles hit them and hurt or kill them. It's documented. the drone hitting a rotor and causing mass death is only hypothetical. Sure it could happen. A bird could fly into the rotor, too. With the amount of birds in the sky, it's probably more likely a bird would hit than a drone. After all, birds do cause aviation crashes. Again, that is documented Going to ground all birds?

A more valid argument would be to say the drones don't have to be there while the passing traffic does. I could see that point.

BTW, personal attacks usually mean you are running out of arguments. :smile:

As far as your BB gun comment... Really? Arm firefighters and have them shooting at drones rather than doing their jobs? I think that's a little bit unrealistic.

As far as the tornadoes comparison, if you are comparing tornado damage to drone damage, apples to apples is comparing the year you mention for drone flights to a year of tornadoes and, yes, tornadoes have killed people this year so tornadoes ARE dangerous. Drones, in the same year, have killed no one.

You can't legislate stupidity. All you can do is come up with laws and methods that minimize the possibility of stupid people doing stupid things while still allowing law abiding citizens to make use of the product (guns for example). My transponder idea is one method. Sounds feasible to me. At least it's an idea of how to protect authorities while they are doing their jobs without taking drones away from everyone.

Laws can be written that stop all drone flights but that's a case of trying to stop progress which is a really difficult thing to do. If you remember history, people were scared of and tried to stop automobiles by passing laws against their use. How did that work out? Drones are here and they are going to become more prevalent. It's in everyone's best interests to come up with laws that allow safe drone use without causing undue risks to authorities or other people.

 

[b00sted]

Stupidity by the drone owners but overreaction by the authorities.

Grounding rescue units because of drones? I think that's overkill. Ignore the drones. The owners, hopefully, aren't dumb enough to interfere with the choppers. I doubt a drone owner is going to risk losing his drone much less getting thrown in jail for crashing into a rescue vehicle.

I'm seeing a lot of paranoia here. Authorities have to realize there aren't terrorists behind every keyboard and joystick.

Paranoia?

I take it you haven't don't much flying in smaller aircraft?

 

[Ear Rak]

I get your point Robert but, based on that reasoning, shouldn't authorities stop their operations on roadways any time traffic is passing close to them? Horrors! a car could hit one of the rescuers. It's a question of risk vs. reward. Authorities aren't scared of hundreds of vehicles, some driven by drunk idiots or blind senior citizens, passing within 10 feet yet they are scared to death of one or two drones.

(Edited for clarity)

Cars don't drop a 1000 feet out of the sky if they clip a passing car.

 

[Bob Kazamakis]

Drone enthusiasts be all

 

[Xfirez51]

This is something like the jackasses flashing laser pointers into the path of jets on approach.

 

[Thirdgen89GTA]

You are assuming a lot. If one of those drones hit a tail rotor there is a likelihood that enough damage could be caused to make things imbalanced enough where the rotor would tear itself apart. Once that happens it's bye bye helicopter; and probably the crew as well. If I were the pilot I wouldn't have chanced mine and my crew's lives on the assumption that some person already acting like a dumbass by flying a drone interfering with firefighting ops, would know what a reasonably safe stand off distance is. The risk is not whether the drone owners were terrorists or not, but rather if they were dumbass enough to potentially cause inadvertent harm to the helos.

Well then, its time for some companies to make Mini-SAM to take the drones out.

I would have flown anyways.

 

[rocket5979]

We will just have to agree to disagree. You are not getting my point. Maybe I'm not explaining it well.

You talk about vehicles hitting firetrucks. Did you look at my google link? That's deaths and injuries from vehicles hitting people, not firetrucks. Real deaths that have really happened. Many of them. Firefighters and police do not sit in their vehicles, they are on their feet and vulnerable at roadway scenes. Vehicles hit them and hurt or kill them. It's documented. the drone hitting a rotor and causing mass death is only hypothetical. Sure it could happen. A bird could fly into the rotor, too. With the amount of birds in the sky, it's probably more likely a bird would hit than a drone. After all, birds do cause aviation crashes. Again, that is documented Going to ground all birds?

A more valid argument would be to say the drones don't have to be there while the passing traffic does. I could see that point.

BTW, personal attacks usually mean you are running out of arguments. :smile:

As far as your BB gun comment... Really? Arm firefighters and have them shooting at drones rather than doing their jobs? I think that's a little bit unrealistic.

As far as the tornadoes comparison, if you are comparing tornado damage to drone damage, apples to apples is comparing the year you mention for drone flights to a year of tornadoes and, yes, tornadoes have killed people this year so tornadoes ARE dangerous. Drones, in the same year, have killed no one.

You can't legislate stupidity. All you can do is come up with laws and methods that minimize the possibility of stupid people doing stupid things while still allowing law abiding citizens to make use of the product (guns for example). My transponder idea is one method. Sounds feasible to me. At least it's an idea of how to protect authorities while they are doing their jobs without taking drones away from everyone.

Laws can be written that stop all drone flights but that's a case of trying to stop progress which is a really difficult thing to do. If you remember history, people were scared of and tried to stop automobiles by passing laws against their use. How did that work out? Drones are here and they are going to become more prevalent. It's in everyone's best interests to come up with laws that allow safe drone use without causing undue risks to authorities or other people.

LOL, did you really take my obviously sarcastic comment about arming the firefighters with BB guns seriously? Come on man! I noticed that right away and couldn't even read the rest of your post because I am laughing too hard right now.

EDIT: Ok I read a bit more. LOL at comparing bird strikes to drone strikes. Last I checked most birds don't have metal and other hard/durable composites contained in them, but drones do. Again, your comparisons remain disconnected from reality. I get your points, I just think they are baseless and idiotic. <<<BTW, as I will explain below, that's not a personal attack either.

Personal attacks? I have never once attacked you in this thread Cliff, but you do make me question your capacity for sound judgment at times. I have held back a considerable amount of what would have been my natural reaction to your posts in here because I didn't want to be rude and was attempting to allow the discussion to continue in a semi-constructive manner. I really have to shake my head and continue on with my day because it's literally mind boggling some of the concepts that you aren't capable of comprehending. The cliffnotes to those are: drones are harder than birds, when helos crash the people inside tend to die more than in vehicle accidents, numbers do in fact lie when they aren't put into context, helo pilots cannot assume that drone operators are going to act with caution and wisdom and thus need to take reasonable precautions.

 

[Flyn]

Robert, You can't convince me by repeating the same arguments over and over.

What would you like to see happen with drones? Do you have suggestions or are you just bitching?

 

[boostedguy05]

Well this escalated quickly

 

[Marko]

The cops should shoot those damn drones down. If they're interfering with a fire and rescue

 

[Eagle]

BRB, developing self-aiming net system for taking drones down that can be fired from a heli.

TLDR to the rest of the thread.... but I can't see why a fire supression heli couldn't drop from over 400'.... sure its not ideal most likely, but I'm willing to bet any drop that was in the area would have taken down any drones that were in the way. Doesn't take much water to knock these things right out of the sky.

You are flying into FIRE and taking risk... granted you don't want additional risks... but seriously. What's next? Don't send soldiers into war cuz they might get shot? Don't have beat cops on the street cuz they might be hit by a car?

I get the concern... but its over hyped. Typical media BS.

 

[rocket5979]

Robert, You can't convince me by repeating the same arguments over and over.

What would you like to see happen with drones? Do you have suggestions or are you just bitching?

True, trying to instill reasoning into those who hold idiotic beliefs hardly progresses anywhere.

Lol @ you suggesting that I am bitching, considering it was you who originally started complaining about the decisions the fire authorities made. I see that someone's jimmies are rustled!

 

[Flyn]

True, trying to instill reasoning into those who hold idiotic beliefs hardly progresses anywhere.

That is so true. :smile:

 

[rocket5979]

BRB, developing self-aiming net system for taking drones down that can be fired from a heli.

TLDR to the rest of the thread.... but I can't see why a fire supression heli couldn't drop from over 400'.... sure its not ideal most likely, but I'm willing to bet any drop that was in the area would have taken down any drones that were in the way. Doesn't take much water to knock these things right out of the sky.

You are flying into FIRE and taking risk... granted you don't want additional risks... but seriously. What's next? Don't send soldiers into war cuz they might get shot? Don't have beat cops on the street cuz they might be hit by a car?

I get the concern... but its over hyped. Typical media BS.

The effectiveness of airborne fire suppression efforts decrease drastically with increased unnecessary elevation above the site. There is a sweet spot that needs to be achieved where the water hasn't dropped so far that it atomizes into the air into what would become an ineffectual sprinkle, but where the aircraft doesn't fly so low that it's systems are damaged by the heat. Dropping from that high an elevation probably wouldn't have been effective enough to make a difference.

The catch point isn't taking risk but rather taking unnecessary risk; as you alluded to already. As a person who has led troops into combat situations I understood that there were certain risks that could not be prevented, but that didn't mean that we simply threw caution to the wind and didn't attempt to mitigate other risks under our control. Just because you deal with inherently dangerous situations doesn't mean you should be haphazard about it. I have also been on SAR teams while stationed overseas and one of the biggest things that we make sure rescuers understand is to protect themselves first since a dead responder isn't helping anyone. As with anything, a balance needs to be achieved between taking unnecessary risks and becoming a wimp. Given what I know of the helo situation, I cannot fault the pilots for proceeding with caution.

 

[rocket5979]

That is so true. :smile:

You are literally too predictable! hahaha