The FAA's proposed rules [1] for small unmanned aircraft are quite reasonable. "Small" means < 25Kg. Max altitude 500' AGL. (Manned aircraft have a minimum altitude, usually 1000', so there's separation.) Visual line of sight to operator. Operation in class G airspace (not near airport, low level) OK. Operation in class A airspace (above 18,000') prohibited. Operation in class B,C,D airspace (near airports, etc.) requires coordination with air traffic control, and probably a transponder. (There are small UAV-sized transponders, which make drones clearly visible on radar and ID them.) A UAV license will be required, covering the regulations. The sky has rules of the road, and anyone controlling a UAV needs to know them.
There may be a "micro UAV" (< 2Kg) category for toy-sized drones, with fewer restrictions. That's still being discussed. A study on consequences of a drone collision indicate that large aircraft could probably survive collisions with 2Kg drones without serious risk to the aircraft.[2] That doesn't mean no damage, it means the aircraft can land safely. Any jet engine which takes a bird strike gets a major overhaul, which costs upwards of $100K.
This isn't really a counter-argument to anything you've said, but I'm curious if those regulations would have prevented the circumstance here?
Do you happen to know what altitude firefighting aircraft fly at when they drop? It would seem that 500' AGL would be on the high side if you expect the fire suppression material to hit anywhere near the target site in any reasonable level of concentration. I know nothing about the subject matter though, so that could be a bad assumption.
Air traffic control around major incidents is covered in [1]. The FAA issues a NOTAM (Notice to Airmen) which all Flight Service Stations receive, indicating an incident area, which is usually a lat/long point and a radius. There's a designated incident commander who has control of that airspace, and a way to contact them. Any aircraft not in contact with the incident commander must stay out of the area.
Pilots check NOTAMs before takeoff to see if there's anything going on they need to know about. There's an FAA search engine for NOTAMS [2], and it will accept lat/long coordinates. This is the sort of thing that the basic training and exam for drone operators must cover - check the NOTAMs before flight.
For the San Bernandio Mountains fire, there's a NOTAM:
ZLA LOS ANGELES (ARTCC)PALMDALE, CA.
!FDC 5/6263 ZLA CA..
AIRSPACE SAN BERNARDINO, CA..
TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS WITHIN AREA DEFINED AS 3 NM RADIUS
OF 340927N/1171437W (PARADISE VORTAC PDZ030020.2) SFC-6000FT. TO
PROVIDE A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR FIRE FIGHTING. PURSUANT TO 14 CFR
SECTION 91.137(A)(2) TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT.
USFS TELEPHONE 909-383-5651 OR FREQ 123.775/STERLING FIRE IS IN
CHARGE OF THE OPERATION.
LOS ANGELES /ZLA/ ARTCC TELEPHONE 661-265-8205 IS THE FAA
COORDINATION FACILITY.
EFFECTIVE 1506260700-1507010700
This is the aerial equivalent of traffic cones set out around a trouble spot.
For a pilot, "busting a TFR" (entering an area with restrictions like that) usually means a 30-90 day grounding. For something like actual interference with aerial firefighting, the penalties would be much higher.
There's an app for this.[3] Small drone operators might use a dumbed-down version which just gives you anything applicable to low-altitude operations near your current location.
The sky has many users and traffic rules. Drone operators have to be very aware of this.
As a drone builder and pilot I hate stories like this. A few really stupid people will eventually ruin this hobby for people like me. That being said, why not simply snipe the drone out of the air rather than abort the mission? I know that the drone going done could theoretically cause another potential fire. But It strikes me that that's something the department is well equipped to deal with as long as they can track where it crash lands. Just a thought.
As others have pointed out, that might be hard. On the other hand, I'd say just do the drop anyway and cover the damn thing with fire retardant. If any drone owners bitch about it, throw them in jail for having interfered with the firefighting effort in the first place.
There's no good way to do that. You'd be trying to hit a moving target from a couple hundred feet away in probably windy conditions and maybe limited visibility, and a bullet could pass between the quadcopter's arms without doing any damage to it.
I am guessing that it's an airplane rather than a quad, because they reported it to have a 4 foot wing span. I guess you have a point, I never shoot anything from more than 80 yards, so it might be impossible. Maybe they need attack drones of their own after all :)
Jamming a frequency would cause more of a problem, because now you have an /uncontrolled/ four foot across aircraft flying in restricted airspace. With a controlled craft, you could at least get on bullhorns and try to yell at the idiot flying the drone to stop.
The more advanced models -- the ones more likely to be flown by someone in that situation -- have an automatic return-to-home function that kicks in if it loses the connection to the radio.
On the cheaper models, I'd expect it to simply crash within a minute or two. But it would be interesting to test that.
The article says a hobby drown was spotted at 11000 ft. I didn't think such drones typically flew anywhere near that high or were even capable of it. Or is this happening in a high mountain area and the altitude above the local terrain was actually much less ?
Quads and RC Planes can easily reach altitudes of 11k feet+. However, most Radio Systems and Video transmission systems can not throw a link that far. Some people can get as much as 17 miles with UHF radios, but those operate in the 400Mhz range, which, I would assume, would be very busy with all the radio traffic from fire fighters and other first responders around that area right now.
Of course it could be a fully autonomous system, which makes it all the more dangerous.
Overall, if I had to guess, I would say this is just bad reporting on LA times part. The drone was probably well over 1,000 feet in the air, but more than likely the hight reported was from sea level, not ground level.
Well if people keep doing this they'll just make drones harder and harder to acquire. If people stop doing this, maybe we can all enjoy a pretty cool hobby.
I'd imagine they'll start outfitting with some type of signal jammers? But I don't know how drones behave when they're not receiving signal.
Is the simplest solution to just require transponders and a sales registry for drones above a certain weight class? 4' wingspan is a serious drone, and I think it's reasonable for all aircraft that big to have tail numbers and transponders.
Not saying I disagree, but model aircraft don't require tail numbers or transponders - in fact the FAA "may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft"[1] that meets certain criteria - so what makes drones special?
Larger drones could go over 55 pounds weight, and that might permit the FAA to require vehicle registration. But that's beyond the scope of my knowledge.
I built an ArduPilot quadcopter a while back and had some fun with it, but now basic quads are available at Fry's for a hundred bucks or so and there are going to be more stories like this.
I think requiring a basic license of some form is a good idea, along with allowing FPV flight out-of-sight as long as you have an appropriate license, but beyond that law enforcement is probably gonna end up having to get some new tools to deal with this.
They're more dangerous than you think. When doing my private pilot training, I had to be very aware of birds striking the windshield as they do have enough energy in them to cause serious damage. Even passenger jets have issues with them[0], and have been taken down as a result[1]
Only need to shut down (or just damage) one to be a problem. 2.5 lbs of carbon fiber, wires and motors at 100+ MPH would likely be more than enough to destroy a turbofan.
Well, airports sometimes hire out hawks to keep birds out of the sky, and they intentionally limit the speed of aircraft at altitudes where birds fly. If a multirotor can fly higher than birds (they do), they could pose a significantly greater threat than a flock of birds.
Depending on the type of multi-engine aircraft and configuration, losing an engine can become a critical emergency, even if the other one is still running properly. In those instances, the pilot will shut down the other working engine to keep the plane heading straight, rather than veering the plane in one direction due to the power output on one side.
That was my first thought too but the article says the drone in question had a 4 foot wing span which is pretty large. So it wasn't just some time quad copter in this case.
A bird, which is nice and squishy and falls apart easily, can do serious damage to a plane. Just search on youtube for bird strike, and you'll see lots of smashed windshields, jets losing engines, damaged elevators, etc. Now, add more weight, more density, and more speed, and you can see how this can get to be a real problem.
Your average FPV multirotor is 2.5 lbs of carbon fiber, electronics and motors, and a DC-10's "typical cruise speed" is over 500 mph. The laws of physics aren't on the side of the DC-10 in this case.
There are civil war cannons which fired projectiles with less kenetic energy than that.
Are you joking? You're equating a stationary vehicle that workers have to inconveniently walk around to a toy that can knock an airplane, and all of its crew, out of the sky?
You can smash through the windows of a parked car to run the hoses through it, but a drone might move around, pose a threat to your aircraft, and there's nothing you can do about it.
There may be a "micro UAV" (< 2Kg) category for toy-sized drones, with fewer restrictions. That's still being discussed. A study on consequences of a drone collision indicate that large aircraft could probably survive collisions with 2Kg drones without serious risk to the aircraft.[2] That doesn't mean no damage, it means the aircraft can land safely. Any jet engine which takes a bird strike gets a major overhaul, which costs upwards of $100K.
[1] https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/media/02... [2] http://www.uasamericafund.com/assets/micro-uav-safety-analys...