Opinion: Drones can be deadly to firefighters
By Robert Westover
Imagine if a hostile country sent an Unmanned Aircraft System or UAS, otherwise known as a drone, to disturb the efforts of firefighters during a catastrophic wildfire. The confusion that might ensue could cause loss of life and property as flames jump fire lines simply because resources have been diverted or grounded to identify and remove the UAS.But these threats aren’t coming from an enemy state. They are being flown by our own citizens and impeding the job of our firefighters. This isn’t a script for a Hollywood film. It’s really happening.
Recently, unauthorized drones disrupted wildfire operations in southern California twice in one week. Because of these drones, air tanker operations were suspended on both the Sterling Fire and Lake Fire on the San Bernardino National Forest.
“If a UAS is detected flying over or near a wildfire, we will stop air tankers from dropping fire retardant, helicopters from dropping water and other aerial firefighting aircraft from performing wildfire suppression missions until we can confirm that the drone has left the area and we are confident it won’t return,” said Steve Gage, U.S. Forest Service representative on the National Multi-Agency Coordinating Group at the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho.
Firefighting aircraft, such as air tankers and helicopters, fly at very low altitudes, typically just a couple of hundred feet above the ground, the same as drones flown by members of the public. This creates the potential for a mid-air collision that could seriously injure or kill aerial or ground firefighters. In addition, if a drone loses its communication link it could fall from the sky, causing serious injuries or deaths of firefighters on the ground.
Temporary flight restrictions or TFRs are typically put in place during wildfires that require aircraft, manned or unmanned, that are not involved in wildfire suppression operations to obtain permission from fire managers to enter specified airspace.
The FAA, Forest Service, Department of the Interior and other wildland fire management agencies consider drones, including those used by members of the public for hobby and recreation purposes, to be aircraft and therefore subject to TFRs.
Members of the public should not fly drones over or near wildfires even if a TFR is not in place to prevent accidents and disruption of suppression operations. Those determined to have interfered with wildfire suppression efforts may be subject to civil penalties and potentially criminal prosecution. For guidance to those flying drones for hobby or recreation purposes, go online.
Robert Westover works in the office of communications for the U.S. Forest Service.
Why would members of the public fly drones they own over a wildfire? This disrupts firefighting aircraft and can cause the fire to spread. Maybe that’s the owner of the drones idea of a good time.
Lets help our firefighters, not hinder them. OLS
As usual, FAA is completely behind the 8 ball when it comes to protecting public safety by regulating drones. FAA’s mandate is NOT, as many believe, protecting, or even serving, the general public; FAA’s mandate is to protect and promote the aviation industry – NTSB has the job of making safety recommendations to FAA, most of which are rejected on economic grounds.
The reason FAA keeps dragging its feet on drone safety is that it hasn’t yet figured out its roll in protecting and promoting this new industry so has taken a wait and see attitude toward protecting the public. It’s going to take a major disaster to get FAA off its collective butts; interfering and endangering fire ground and air operations is not likely to get much FAA attention beyond a press release or two.
Copper-
You make some good points on an overall analysis of drones.
I took the Forest Service article to be basically aimed at the morons among us who forget the common sense rule that says “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should”.
On a personal basis, I believe that drone rules, no matter which agencies promulgate them will be consistently ignored by opportunists.
At the end of the day, my belief is that a significant number of the drones we hear about interfering with wild fire operations (and other public events) are flown by people hoping to get video to sell to news services. A money thing.
I do not believe laws and rules are very effective in controlling issues like this, but if news services were required to collect the commercial permit of the photographer selling video it might slow things down a bit.
In another part of my life, for several years I worked in airborne low level remote sensing from small aircraft. At the altitudes we worked, quite similar to fire fighting aircraft, it was almost routine to have a near miss with large birds about once a week. I remember two near misses with other, unreported airplanes. Our souped up Cessna could and occasionally did take a bird strike and fly on, but a drone might have been a different story.
I absolutely know the fright and terror these events cause, and the fire fighter pilots have my complete sympathy. Additionally, the pure jets that are common fire tankers now can indeed be taken down by a bird or a drone taken into the engine intake.
Remember the airliner downed by birds in NYC’s Hudson River a few years ago? A similar incident is almost inevitable with a proliferation of drones around urban areas.
Crank, I agree with you; by the time laws are in place protecting both the physical well being and the privacy of anyone exposed to drones, either professionally or casually, there’s going to be a huge push back by folks who believe they own the skies.
A few months ago at a beach in Southern California a drone operator was entertaining himself by buzzing folks on the beach. One beachcomber was not amused and when the drone buzzed to within arms reach threw his shirt over it causing it to crashed. Rather than view the shirt thrower as a victim of an assault with propeller, the cops arrested him.
In a thread on another internet forum the majority of posters supported the cop, many of them pointing out the large investment they had in their own drones and declaring their right to fly them wherever and however they wished.
As a former radar controller in the military with many friends who went on to be controllers for FAA as well as a former student pilot who actually got a few hours of solo in before financial reality took over, I’m not at all surprised that FAA dropped the ball and has made minimal effort to pick it back up. And it’s already obvious that there are now a lot of drone owners/operators who will push back hard against any suggestions that they should be subject to the same kinds of rules that maintain safety and order in all other forms of aviation.
Copper
The beach story is awful. If someone got a drone within arms length of me, I would be in jail too.
Control is not perfect.
Those things are as susceptible to a gust of wind as any light plane, and to get hit in the face with something spinning 2 to 4 propellers could easily cost your sight.
I think the cops judgement was not exactly good. I am wondering what a judge said if it got that far.
Buzzing people on a beach is no different than using said beach for a driving rang and firing golf balls into the crowd.
Oddly enough most hobby drones are remarkably tough, and a shirt might bring it down but my guess is it was not damaged much.
Thanks for sharing .