Drone Pilot Arrested For Flying Over Wildfire In California

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
A Foresthill, California man was arrested for flying his drone over a fire, which forced firefighters to ground their airtankers and helicopters. Presumably, Mr. Wasser thought getting photos and video of the fire was more important than letting firefighters put it out.

“When a hobby drone flies in the path of our aircraft, we have no choice but to pull back our air tankers and helicopters until the drone is removed,” said Chief Dave Teter, Cal Fire deputy director of fire protection. “For hobby drone operators, it’s pretty simple: when you fly, we can’t! No hobby drones over fire zones.” The agency asks the public to never fly drones near firefighters.
 
what an asshole, fine him so high he becomes homeless. lots of people lost their homes.
 
DrLobotomy said:
The prop wash off of a helicopter would toss that drone around like it was a piece of toilet paper.
Click to expand...

This why didn't they just blast the drone out of the sky with water. Then leave him a note saying your need to takes pictures doesn't supersede us doing our job.

Signed the local fire department.
 
Last edited:
But that guy has rights...you destroyed his private property...blah blah fuckity blah.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fun
like this
So it seems he posted about it on social media and that is how they caught him?

Status: (ROFLMAO) So today I watched all these firefighting helicopters turn around because I wouldn't move out of my spot. Pussies!

(Status 24hrs later)

Status: (FML) Oops (Listening to Akon - Locked Up).
 
Darunion said:
So it seems he posted about it on social media and that is how they caught him?

Status: (ROFLMAO) So today I watched all these firefighting helicopters turn around because I wouldn't move out of my spot. Pussies!

(Status 24hrs later)

Status: (FML) Oops (Listening to Akon - Locked Up).
Click to expand...

LMAO social media letting people post to the world how stupid they are its great.
 
Makaveli@BETA said:
This why didn't they just blast the drone out of the sky with water. Then leave him a note saying your need to takes pictures doesn't supersede us doing our job.

Signed the local fire department.
Click to expand...


Because it would most likely miss the actual location he was supposed to drop that water, which probably costs $10k+ per drop (calculating fuel, plane/pilot time, repellent etc.)
 
Why did the emergency services have to turn around and return?
I would think emergency operations like that take precedence over... well... everything!
Disregard the silly drone and go about your business.

Its like an ambulance having to turn around because an RC car is in the way on the road. Run that bish over!
Silly laws....
 
Whoa... you're asking a lot of someone from California. Common sense and personal accountability? Not in that state!
 
virtualheretic said:
Why did the emergency services have to turn around and return?
I would think emergency operations like that take precedence over... well... everything!
Disregard the silly drone and go about your business.

Its like an ambulance having to turn around because an RC car is in the way on the road. Run that bish over!
Silly laws....
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was thinking..
 
virtualheretic said:
Why did the emergency services have to turn around and return?
I would think emergency operations like that take precedence over... well... everything!
Disregard the silly drone and go about your business.

Its like an ambulance having to turn around because an RC car is in the way on the road. Run that bish over!
Silly laws....
Click to expand...
If a ground vehicle gets damaged, worse case is it just won't run and can pull off the side of the road. The speeds of aircraft are much higher than ground vehicles thus items have much more inertia (and damage) if a collision were to take place. If an aircraft is damaged....it can't just pull over...
 
DrLobotomy said:
The prop wash off of a helicopter would toss that drone around like it was a piece of toilet paper.
Click to expand...
While true, the possibility exists for the drone or even part of it to get sucked into the engine intake.The other issue is the possibility that the drone or part of it could strike the cockpit canopy, causing some loss in visibility due to damage. In both cases, it would be much easier to do with a plane than a chopper. The only way I see it affecting a chopper is if the drone is above the chopper before contact.
 
virtualheretic said:
Why did the emergency services have to turn around and return?
I would think emergency operations like that take precedence over... well... everything!
Disregard the silly drone and go about your business.

Its like an ambulance having to turn around because an RC car is in the way on the road. Run that bish over!
Silly laws....
Click to expand...
I also question, how big was the drone? Most hobby drones are plastic and extremely light weight, and I have a hard time believing would cause a problem for say a giant water tanker flying by.

Even off the windshield, if it really was a tiny little hobby drone, it would just bounce off this beast.

A Phatom 3 weighs around the same as an owl.

So stupid and worth a fine for the RC pilot, but potentially an overreaction by the fire crew. Meanwhile, BLM protesters were blocking an active ambulance with lights on again, and no one is arrested.
 
Last edited:
Ducman69 said:
I also question, how big was the drone? Most hobby drones are plastic and extremely light weight, and I have a hard time believing would cause a problem for say a giant water tanker flying by.

Even off the windshield, if it really was a tiny little hobby drone, it would just bounce off this beast.

A Phatom 3 weighs around the same as an owl.

So stupid and worth a fine for the RC pilot, but potentially an overreaction by the fire crew. Meanwhile, BLM protesters were blocking an active ambulance with lights on again, and no one is arrested.
Click to expand...

Given the context of this story, I thought you were talking about Bureau of Land Management protesters at first--maybe people who see fire retardant as an environmental contaminant or some such. Then I got it.
 
One side of me says - Overraction on government behalf to try and trigger public support for drone/copter/uav registration and monitoring. You know they want this to happen.

The other side, any possible impact to a plane or helo needs to be taken seriously. Yes drones are tiny in relation to those huge vehicles but they require very little damage in specific places to have severe impact. Any drone pilot should know that in a fire area with planes dive bombing with water should not be there.
 
nsJwU2H.png
Nrv2ZhJ.jpg


Manufacturer says according to their testing the ammo is also effective against dumb ass entitled drone pilots that like to run their mouths.
 
Ducman69 said:
I also question, how big was the drone? Most hobby drones are plastic and extremely light weight, and I have a hard time believing would cause a problem for say a giant water tanker flying by.

Even off the windshield, if it really was a tiny little hobby drone, it would just bounce off this beast.

A Phatom 3 weighs around the same as an owl.

So stupid and worth a fine for the RC pilot, but potentially an overreaction by the fire crew. Meanwhile, BLM protesters were blocking an active ambulance with lights on again, and no one is arrested.
Click to expand...
US Airways Flight 1549 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A fucking seagull downed a jet air liner which had to make an emergency landing in the water. I can understand how all you non-pilots completely ignorant of aircraft make wild assumptions about their structural stability, but please, just stfu already. There's a reason planes and obstacles dont mix in mid flight, pretty sure the industry knows something you dont, so if they say drones are a fucking problem, they are a fucking problem. Tired of all these "derp why dont they just run it over is only a drone herp!!!" responses every single goddamn time.
 
DrLobotomy said:
The prop wash off of a helicopter would toss that drone around like it was a piece of toilet paper.
Click to expand...

If the helicopters blades were above the drone yes. But if the drone was above the helicopter it could be sucked through the rotors and into the engine turbines.
 
virtualheretic said:
Why did the emergency services have to turn around and return?
I would think emergency operations like that take precedence over... well... everything!
Disregard the silly drone and go about your business.

Its like an ambulance having to turn around because an RC car is in the way on the road. Run that bish over!
Silly laws....
Click to expand...

Because the drone could get sucked into aircraft engines and damage them.
 
That_Sound_Guy said:
One side of me says - Overraction on government behalf to try and trigger public support for drone/copter/uav registration and monitoring. You know they want this to happen.

The other side, any possible impact to a plane or helo needs to be taken seriously. Yes drones are tiny in relation to those huge vehicles but they require very little damage in specific places to have severe impact. Any drone pilot should know that in a fire area with planes dive bombing with water should not be there.
Click to expand...


Drone registration is already happening, it's voluntary right now, but it's also being accepted by many operators. The FAA has no reason to try and force people into it yet. I am not saying that they aren't thinking of making it mandatory, just that it's already up and running and they say it's getting a lot of support.

But I also agree, they are a threat to the aircraft.
 
nysmo said:
US Airways Flight 1549 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A fucking seagull downed a jet air liner which had to make an emergency landing in the water. I can understand how all you non-pilots completely ignorant of aircraft make wild assumptions about their structural stability, but please, just stfu already.
Click to expand...
I am a pilot, and the example I showed is a slow flying prop aircraft, which has nothing to do with a delicate turbofan ingesting an entire flock of birds into its engines. You were saying?
 
Ducman69 said:
I am a pilot, and the example I showed is a slow flying prop aircraft, which has nothing to do with a delicate turbofan ingesting an entire flock of birds into its engines. You were saying?
Click to expand...
A quick google search shows props get damaged by bird strikes as well.
 
nysmo said:
US Airways Flight 1549 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A fucking seagull downed a jet air liner which had to make an emergency landing in the water. I can understand how all you non-pilots completely ignorant of aircraft make wild assumptions about their structural stability, but please, just stfu already. There's a reason planes and obstacles dont mix in mid flight, pretty sure the industry knows something you dont, so if they say drones are a fucking problem, they are a fucking problem. Tired of all these "derp why dont they just run it over is only a drone herp!!!" responses every single goddamn time.
Click to expand...

lol I feel you bro but calm down this is the internet half people leaving comes have no clue about the topic they comment on.

If you continue like this you will burst a blood vessel or have a stroke over someone's stupidity not worth it.
 
PrincessDie said:
If a ground vehicle gets damaged, worse case is it just won't run and can pull off the side of the road. The speeds of aircraft are much higher than ground vehicles thus items have much more inertia (and damage) if a collision were to take place. If an aircraft is damaged....it can't just pull over...
Click to expand...

I take issue with much drone alarmism for this very reason, though. "A drone was spotted by a pilot only a few hundred yards away from the runway as he was landing..." The difference in scale is incredible. The chances of a drone causing ANY damage, let alone dangerous damage, is infinitesimally small. It's simple physics.
 
I'm surprised the FAA hasn't made a requirement for civilian drones to have a broadcast channel they have to listen for a special emergency signal on. Signal detected, drone auto RTB's and won't take-off again until it's no longer there.

They already have no-flyzone maps built in. Why not go the extra mile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: -PK-
like this
Commander Suzdal said:
I take issue with much drone alarmism for this very reason, though. "A drone was spotted by a pilot only a few hundred yards away from the runway as he was landing..." The difference in scale is incredible. The chances of a drone causing ANY damage, let alone dangerous damage, is infinitesimally small. It's simple physics.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that;

1. No drone should be within a few hundred yards of a runway period.

2. You seemingly have no idea how small an object can be and still take out a turbine engine.

Time for you to go read up on FOD.

Foreign object damage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jet engine design and FOD
Modern jet engines can suffer major damage from even small objects being sucked into the engine. The FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) requires that all engine types pass a test which includes firing a fresh chicken (dead, but not frozen) into a running jet engine from a small cannon. The engine does not have to remain functional after the test, but it must not cause significant damage to the rest of the aircraft. Thus, if the bird strike causes it to "throw a blade" (break apart in a way where parts fly off at high speed), doing so must not cause loss of the aircraft.
Click to expand...

And this is great, as long as your aircraft still has enough engine/engine power to keep it in the air. Now load the aircraft with a capacity load of flame retardant chemicals, have that aircraft making a run on a drop target, and then loose an engine.


This is a typical "FOD Walk" on an Aircraft Carrier looking for debris that could be sucked into an engine and damage it. Someone takes FOD seriously.

1024px-thumbnail.jpg



These are examples of FOD collected of a Military runway in Japan, Kadena.

Some of these objects are easily representative of what some components on a drone might be like. Some are much larger, but some are not.


FOD_Kadena_Air_Base.jpg
 
Spidey329 said:
I'm surprised the FAA hasn't made a requirement for civilian drones to have a broadcast channel they have to listen for a special emergency signal on. Signal detected, drone auto RTB's and won't take-off again until it's no longer there.

They already have no-flyzone maps built in. Why not go the extra mile.
Click to expand...

Radio signals can travel great distances. I would think you would need some more data in the signal, like defined regions that are effected so that a fire and radio broadcast in Pasadena isn't bringing down drones in Pennsylvania just because the signal "skipped".
 
Ducman69 said:
I am a pilot, and the example I showed is a slow flying prop aircraft, which has nothing to do with a delicate turbofan ingesting an entire flock of birds into its engines. You were saying?
Click to expand...
huh? I am a student pilot nearing completion of my PPL and when we see a buzzard or any other bird even remotely nearby we fly the fuck away and fast. My rental cessna 172 cruises at around 100 mph, pretty sure I dont want to hit a stationary object the size of a basketball in mid flight as it would go right through the windscreen. Even if it didnt it would certainly smash the shit out of it rendering visibility nearly useless and triggering an emergency. Possible prop damage too causing imbalance further exacerbating my ability to maintain controlled flight.

The fact that you would even play devil's advocate for drone operators really makes me suspect your flight background. If drones had a 5 ft altitude limit and were flying all around freeways with cars I'm pretty sure there would be an uproar.
 
Commander Suzdal said:
I take issue with much drone alarmism for this very reason, though. "A drone was spotted by a pilot only a few hundred yards away from the runway as he was landing..." The difference in scale is incredible. The chances of a drone causing ANY damage, let alone dangerous damage, is infinitesimally small. It's simple physics.
Click to expand...

Yep. Like small bullets versus humans. The difference in scale is incredible. Shouldn't cause any damage.
 
nysmo said:
huh? I am a student pilot nearing completion of my PPL and when we see a buzzard or any other bird even remotely nearby we fly the fuck away and fast. My rental cessna 172 cruises at around 100 mph, pretty sure I dont want to hit a stationary object the size of a basketball in mid flight as it would go right through the windscreen. Even if it didnt it would certainly smash the shit out of it rendering visibility nearly useless and triggering an emergency. Possible prop damage too causing imbalance further exacerbating my ability to maintain controlled flight.

The fact that you would even play devil's advocate for drone operators really makes me suspect your flight background. If drones had a 5 ft altitude limit and were flying all around freeways with cars I'm pretty sure there would be an uproar.
Click to expand...

I personally never understand these type of arguments. Not yours, but the "I do this, so I must be an expert in this." Like me saying, " I'm a race car driver, I know exactly how the F1 car is built." Ya, like any of those drivers have a clue how the thing was built. I'd like to see a pilot fix a plane. I bet it's an extremely low percentage of them can actually maintain a plane.

I agree with you though and am kind of wondering about this flight background.
 
robothunter said:
Ignorantia juris non excusat
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
Click to expand...

When various countries employ something around 200k statutes, that old latin saying looses quite a bit of credibility. Even the barristers dont remember them all.
 
Is it only me that react on the man's name? Mr Water (in German)
He should be able to help controlling the fire rather than documenting it...

lcpiper said:
... This is a typical "FOD Walk" on an Aircraft Carrier looking for debris...
Click to expand...
That's something rarely seen in Russia.

Problem: Debris on the runway can damage the motor(s) if sucked in.
NATO solution: Make sure the runway is free from debris. Takes a lot of manual labour!
Russian solution: Design the (military) planes so that they don't suck air from the ground. (Air intakes on top of the aircraft for use during take off and landing.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top