# Drones becoming a problem for aerial fire fighting efforts



## cupper (18 Jul 2015)

As if fire fighting wasn't difficult enough, now drone hobbyists are creating problems for efforts in fighting forest and brush fires fro the air.

*Drones continue to hurt Southern California fire-fighting efforts*

http://www.sbsun.com/general-news/20150717/drones-continue-to-hurt-southern-california-fire-fighting-efforts



> When a drone grounded aircraft that were trying to fight the North fire on Friday afternoon, it was only the latest in a series of recent incidents where a drone interfered with local firefighters — and, officials said, risked lives.
> 
> San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors Chairman James Ramos on Friday said enough was enough, and that the board will be discussing at its next meeting on July 28 what it can do to crack down on drone operators endangering the safety of county citizens and public safety officials.
> 
> ...


----------



## Harrigan (19 Jul 2015)

Interesting legal dilemma there, as any attempt to raise the jurisdiction of land-based organizations (such as municipal or regional governments or private property owners) into the airspace to a defined height will cause major changes in the way airspace is managed worldwide.

On the other hand, current airspace management was designed before the advent of personal drones, so times are a-changing.  

It's probably only a matter of time before someone gets killed by a drone-aircraft collision.  The web is full of links to news reports of near-misses.  Let's hope that these issues with the firefighters force a solution.

Harrigan


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Interesting legal dilemma there, as any attempt to raise the jurisdiction of land-based organizations (such as municipal or regional governments or private property owners) into the airspace to a defined height will cause major changes in the way airspace is managed worldwide.
> 
> On the other hand, current airspace management was designed before the advent of personal drones, so times are a-changing.
> 
> ...



The result being that law abiding RC Aircraft enthusiasts will be the ones to sufer under increasingly restrictive regulations.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Jul 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The result being that law abiding RC Aircraft enthusiasts will be the ones to sufer under increasingly restrictive regulations.



Unless, of course, someone takes the initiative to include clauses in the new legislation/regulations that would create designated airspace to RC Aircraft enthusiast's club sites and events.


----------



## cupper (19 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Interesting legal dilemma there, as any attempt to raise the jurisdiction of land-based organizations (such as municipal or regional governments or private property owners) into the airspace to a defined height will cause major changes in the way airspace is managed worldwide.



Not really. My understanding is that the airspace immediately over the fire site and surrounding area is deemed to be restricted airspace and temporary flight restrictions are imposed to allow fire fighting aircraft to operate unimpeded.


----------



## Harrigan (19 Jul 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> Not really. My understanding is that the airspace immediately over the fire site and surrounding area is deemed to be restricted airspace and temporary flight restrictions are imposed to allow fire fighting aircraft to operate unimpeded.



Yes, you are correct, but the default setting is "unrestricted".  So firefighters, police, etc have to make the airspace restricted if they want to operate in an area.  I suspect that these situations we've seen will increase pressure to make the default setting "restricted", and any personal users (drones, and RC operators) will have to request an area that they can operate in as an exemption (or, their own "restricted" area like RC operators have now)

Basically shifting the onus.

Harrigan


----------



## cupper (19 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Yes, you are correct, but the default setting is "unrestricted".  So firefighters, police, etc have to make the airspace restricted if they want to operate in an area.



From the FAA Website:

https://www.faa.gov/uas/



> *Which governs the airspace over my property – FAA regulations or local/state laws about unmanned aircraft systems (UAS)?*
> 
> Under 49 United States Code 40103, the United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States and the FAA has the authority to prescribe air traffic regulations on the flight of aircraft, including UAS. Whether Federal law preempts state or local requirements for UAS depends on the precise nature of those requirements. The Department of Transportation evaluates these laws or requirements on a case-by-case basis to make sure they don't conflict with FAA's authority to provide safe and efficient use of U.S. airspace.



As I pointed out, the FAA issues a TFR (temporary flight restriction) during a fire event. Only aircraft which serve the purpose of fighting the fire are permitted to fly within that airspace. This also includes UAS.




			
				Harrigan said:
			
		

> I suspect that these situations we've seen will increase pressure to make the default setting "restricted", and any personal users (drones, and RC operators) will have to request an area that they can operate in as an exemption (or, their own "restricted" area like RC operators have now)
> 
> Basically shifting the onus.



Again from the FAA website:



> *Is the FAA considering a special type of airspace for UAS?*
> 
> Currently there are no actions being taken to establish a "special UAS airspace". This "special UAS airspace" would be counter to the idea of integrating unmanned aircraft into the NAS because it would be segregating, not integrating.


----------



## Harrigan (19 Jul 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> From the FAA Website:
> 
> https://www.faa.gov/uas/
> 
> ...



I am not disagreeing with you at all.  My use of the word "unrestricted" was not the best phrase.  
What I meant was that any aircraft can fly in the airspace subject to federal regulations, but when specific events require a TFR, then organizations (police, fire, em.services, etc) need to request the added restriction.

As for the last quote from the FAA, that 'integration' of UAS into the NAS is exactly the problem, though, isn't it?  Large UAS (such as those operated by the military) are heavily regulated, and tend to operate in exclusive areas (TFRs), at least in Canada.  

I am not an advocate either way - but I don't want a UAS-Aircraft collision resulting in deaths to be the catalyst that regulates personal UAS activity.  Better to regulate it before it happens.

Harrigan


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Jul 2015)

Shoot 'em down and charge the owners the costs of the delays for firefighting equipment.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Jul 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Shoot 'em down and charge the owners the costs of the delays for firefighting equipment.



Develop armed anti drone drones. And I fully agree.


----------



## dimsum (19 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> As for the last quote from the FAA, that 'integration' of UAS into the NAS is exactly the problem, though, isn't it?  Large UAS (such as those operated by the military) are heavily regulated, *and tend to operate in exclusive areas (TFRs), at least in Canada*.



I wouldn't be surprised in the least if that changes.  The Royal Australian Air Force has just flown a Cessna-sized RPA (the Heron 1, same platform we had in Afghanistan with the Canadian Heron UAV Detachment) out of a medium-sized airport (regular 737 and Bombardier Dash-8 Q400 flights, able to take A380 and 777s) while fully integrated into the civilian air traffic system.  There was no special separation, flight corridors, etc. - they were just treated like another IFR aircraft for purposes of separation.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Jul 2015)

Even here you can try applying for an exemption, good luck getting it though, to few people, to risk adverse and far to many people applying. Beware blanket restrictions because they will be used to prevent people from filming something embarrassing to government.


----------

