Flying Drones are becoming a life threatening problem here in California.

[Tbone76]

Almost correct. This goes way back before there was an FAA. As aviation started to prosper in the US, individual states to tried regulate aircraft in the same manor as states regulate automobiles today. They were even licensing and registering individual aircraft just like cars. The Feds then realized that aviation was good for interstate commerce and did not want states to mingle in such maters. So they decided to declare the nation's airspace as a Federal National Asset giving them full control. They also decided that all US aircraft must be registered and licensed only by the federal government, not states. This is the reason that even today all US aircraft tail numbers must start with the letter "N" meaning "National" registration. When the FAA was established in the 50's as the successor of the CAA, Civil Aviation Authority, these rules were already in effect. It is only when the Feds, (FAA) come out with new rules covering drones will we see changes. The are suppose to working on it but it has been under study for a couple years now with no results.

Thanks for the clarification, sir.

 

[David Jayne]

So it turns out the drone wasn't actually downed by the hose, but the camera was damaged. Oh, and it belongs to an ex-firefighter.

 

[Stewie26]

FARs says the minimum altitude for civilian flight in urban areas is 1000 feet AGL. They could have a GPS xponders fitted in the drones to limit their maximum altitude to, say 700 feet. That way, there would never be an issue of collision between civilian drones and civilian aircraft.

Of course, this significantly increases the cost of the drones, and reduce the drone's flight performance due to added weight. But 100% of that cost would be absorbed by the drone buyer.
.

Helicopters can legally fly at lower altitudes and generally cruise at 500 feet about ground level. As it sits now, drones, like RC aircraft, are not suppose to exceed 400 feet AGL ceiling. But they do all the time.

 

[bluesblaster]

Even if someone was buzzing my backyard with there RC plane does that not qualify as invasion of privacy or at the very least a nuisance much like continuous loud noise ( local garage band, you know........ damn kids) ) or someone shooting fireworks rockets over your property. A drone with a camera hovering over a residential area at low altitude would be very suspect IMO. What happened to privacy and tranquility in your own home or neighborhood ?

 

[bluesblaster]

maybe there should be a license and a flight path submitted to the proper authorities for flight inside city limits, in rural areas if you get shot down for being over someone's land without consent then to bad so sad. You should also have apply for a permit to fly over government land ie. user fee, they do it for practically everything else so why not

 

[Yango]

Let's just keep it on point, eh ? The fire crew was basically done, the house is likely gutted. The fireman willfully engaged in the destruction of private property. That was the point.

...And just what is the point of hovering a drone mounted with a camera over a burning house? It's voyeuristic, it's tasteless, and in some cases, it actually endangers lives and hampers emergency operations... The sooner that these moronic drone operators understand this the better—and I'm not saying that ALL drone operators are morons, the majority probably do operate their drones safely and in a non-privacy invading manner—I'm referring to the small group that don't give a crap about anything, as long as they can get some juicy footage.

 

[4Mal]

The thing is that none of that was happening in the video shown. That crew was done. Zero hustle on display. So a public employee - who has no, zero expectation of a right to privacy at that moment engaged in a willful destruction of private property. There is no difference between that drone shot and a cell phone video or the local news photog taking a pic.

I am in now way saying that an idiot flying a drone into an emergency is anything other than an idiot. That specific example did not show that. The context is quite different and that fireman acted like a complete jerk. Annoyed or not, that was a foolish act. And if the drone operator showed that footage to the local city manager and fire chief, then the town bought him a quad and the fireman earned an opportunity for counseling.

On another note, At current the FAA is licensing approved companies for a 200' ceiling.

 

[wraub]

If a drone operator wants to see me sunbathing, they can pay the online subscription fee.
That's why I have a website.

 

[bass12]

This planet is becoming an increasingly irritating place to live.

 

[David Jayne]

That particular drone was owned and operated by an ex-firefighter who says he intended to post the video on their (fire dept on scene) Facebook page. He intended it to serve as a training aid. He is pissed and may sue.

 

[petrus61]

That particular drone was owned and operated by an ex-firefighter who says he intended to post the video on their (fire dept on scene) Facebook page. He intended it to serve as a training aid. He is pissed and may sue.

Sounds like an all around classy guy.

 

[FilterFunk]

So I would advise the nude sunbathing set that maybe they need to rethink their activity if privacy is a concern.

I didn't say anything about "nude;" you don't have to be doing anything particularly risqué for a creep to get his jollies, especially if kids are involved.

 

[4Mal]

Ah, well you are referring to a subset of folks I am so seriously not acquainted with. Frankly they sound like another good argument for living out in the sticks where I do... I would go back to a city in a minute... If someone was holding a gun to my head...

 

[Fiset]

The thing is that none of that was happening in the video shown. That crew was done. Zero hustle on display. So a public employee - who has no, zero expectation of a right to privacy at that moment engaged in a willful destruction of private property. There is no difference between that drone shot and a cell phone video or the local news photog taking a pic.

The drone didn't just show up at the end, it was there the whole time. Who knows what sort of nuisance it may have been during the time the firefighters were "hustling". Maybe it wasn't a nuisance. But maybe it was (for several possible reasons discussed in this thread and perhaps other reasons not mentioned here). Maybe the firefighter, rather than just deciding to "be a complete jerk" for no reason, had one or more good reasons and finally had a moment to do something about it.

You seem to want to give the benefit of the doubt to the drone operator....thats cool. I'm inclined to side with the guys on the ground risking their lives. I certainly do not have all the facts relating to what happened in this particular situation but there has been a significant uptick in emergency responders complaining about drones interfering with their efforts so I'm not automatically jumping on the "firefighter is a complete jerk for no reason" bandwagon.

 

[Bassamatic]

I can see net-shooting anti-drone cannons becoming a product soon.

 

[Stewie26]

Yep... if the drone was close enough to the firemen that it was within the range of a fire hose I would consider it a nuisance for the nose it makes alone. Kind of like a pesty mosquito flying around your head.

 

[Fiset]

I'm not a firefighter so the last thing I'm gonna do is second guess what may or may not be a nuisance or hindrance to those who do the job. I would think just having a drone in the vicinity is at the very least a distraction to those on the ground and any distraction in those types of situations could have disastrous consequences. I'm not above slinging insults but in this case, I think the "jerk" tag belongs to the drone operator.

 

[Lobster11]

One of my biggest concerns is one that I don't think has been discussed much yet: the inevitability of accidents and errors. Even in the hands of responsible users, mechanical and electronic systems are always subject to failure. Batteries die. Even responsible users following the rules make mistakes. Sometimes these things are gonna suddenly and unexpectedly fall out of the sky, and gravity is going to take over. Where will it fall? On a kid's head? In the middle of a freeway crowded with cars going 70 mph? And in the hands of less responsible users, the risks of a drone crashing into someone or something only increase. On top of that, consider irresponsible people on the ground -- vandals, mischievous teenagers, etc. -- who will always be around trying to find ways to knock low-flying drones out of the air for the fun of it, again with unpredictable and potentially disastrous results.

If I'm the firefighter in the previously discussed scenario -- or just a guy walking down the street or sitting in his yard -- I'd be concerned about all these possibilities. Privacy issues aside, I'd be worried about the fact that I have no idea if that thing is going to come crashing down at any moment because the batteries died, or will come zooming down and buzz my head when an overzealous (or mean-spirited) operator decides to get a super close-up or just cause some mischief. Even if noise weren't an issue, it would potentially be a major distraction given the unpredictability of what it will do next.

 

[socialleper]

Its all well and good until YOU ARM THEM!!!

 

[Biggbass]

My wife said just a couple of days ago, after seeing the news report on the California fires/drones story, that if a drone ever flies over our property at a low altitude, checking things out, she hopes I'll shoot it down with my bird gun. lol
we are in a rural area so that is very doable 12 ga vs drone = shotgun wins.