Drones becoming a problem for aerial fire fighting efforts

[cupper]

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.

“When you’re inhibiting the response of the first responders, then you infringe on the safety of the residents of San Bernardino County,” Ramos said.

The board will discuss its options regarding the enforcement of existing laws on illegal drone use, as well as the possibility of offering a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of illegal drone operators who disrupt firefighters and police during emergencies.

Existing law includes a $1,000 fine for misdemeanor interference with firefighting efforts.

Other recent efforts to strengthen drone regulations include a federal bill by Paul Cook, R-Apple Valley, and state legislation proposed by Assemblyman Mike Gatto (D-Glendale) and Senator Ted Gaines (R-El Dorado).

Efforts to fight recent wildfires have been repeatedly hampered by drones:

• Southern California’s first major wildfire of the season, the Lake fire in the San Bernardino Mountains, was interrupted on its first day by a drone.

It forced the air tanker pilots to jettison a total of about 2,000 gallons of retardant at a cost of roughly $15,000, U.S. Forest Service spokesman John Miller said. It also forced the grounding of three aircraft, including two air tankers preparing to drop retardant along the eastern flank of the fire.

“More importantly, it could’ve killed everybody in the air,” Miller said at a news conference the next day, which was held specifically to address the drone situation.

• Later the day of the news conference, a second drone interfered.

• Firefighters battling the Sterling fire in late June encountered two drones, one of which officials determined was flying legally. The other was over the fire, which is considered restricted airspace.

• During a 54-acre fire in the Yucaipa Ridge area last weekend, aerial firefighting had to be halted when fire officials spotted a private drone flying near the scene, authorities said.

 

[Harrigan]

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]

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

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

 

[George Wallace]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

From the FAA Website:

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

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.


Again from the FAA website:

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]

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

 

[OldSolduer]

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]

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]

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.