Firefighters Shoot Hoses At Drone

Joined
Apr 23, 2005
Messages
783
Shouldn't the fire fighter with the hose be more concerned with the burning house (even though it looks like a total loss) than a flying camera?
 

cvinh

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
1,739
I wonder what kind of liability there would be if the drone had crashed on someone's head cause of the hose.
 

Kelby

Gawd
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
859
Shouldn't the fire fighter with the hose be more concerned with the burning house (even though it looks like a total loss) than a flying camera?

Yeah but who knows who is video tapping. Arsonists are prone to stick around to watch the fire. Maybe this guy flying the drone just needed video to jack off to.
 

hellokeith

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
240
Within the first minute, I am thinking "Wouldn't this be a great tool for the firefighters? A safe, quick look at the fire from above."
 

kuyaglen

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 15, 2002
Messages
9,259
Within the first minute, I am thinking "Wouldn't this be a great tool for the firefighters? A safe, quick look at the fire from above."

I was thinking pretty much the same thing. Especially with much taller building fires.
 

pxc

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
33,064
ha ha

YsPxKtp.jpg
 

Youn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
5,747
Is there a law against shooting drones if you see them over your property?
 

Old Paul

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
64
From the department of "what did you think was going to happen" comes this video. Damn, so close! :D

For most of this 15 minute Video, about twenty Fire Fighters just Stood around and watched the home Burn to the Ground, even with a half a dozen "Charged Hoses", before putting any water into the already burnt out home!

As soon a the Hose man, up on the second floor, despite the danger of the burnt out roof falling on him, or the floor collapsing under him, immediately aimed his water stream at the drone, attempting to stop the video coverage, as soon as he noticed the drone above him.

Only thing the video taker missed was to capture the Fire Department information from the doors of the vehicles parked in the street!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Grahamkracka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
1,052
For most of this 15 minute Video, about twenty Fire Fighters just Stood around and watched the home Burn to the Ground, even with a half a dozen "Charged Hoses", before putting any water into the already burnt out home!

As soon a the Hose man, up on the second floor, despite the danger of the burnt out roof falling on him, or the floor collapsing under him, immediately aimed his water stream at the drone, attempting to stop the video coverage, as soon as he noticed the drone above him.

Only thing the video taker missed was to capture the Fire Department information from the doors of the vehicles parked in the street!
The house was already totaled and in all likelihood they were there for at least half an hour before the drone took off. Once a house is that fucked up their purpose is to prevent the fire from spreading to the surrounding areas (after they ensure there are no more inhabitants in the house), not save as much of a totaled house as possible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pxc

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
33,064
The point of time when the drone launches is already when the fire was mostly knocked down. You can see the destroyed fence on one side, sprays of water coming out the side of the house in many parts of the video and the hose is passed up to one firefighter to knock out a small fire in the roof on the side he's on.

Outrage is pointless when you don't understand what's going on, regardless of how big the letters used.
 

SuicidalGoat

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
1,901
Don't worry, I am sure the FD will charge the homeowners for the water used to shoot at the drone (instead of the smoldering ruins of the house). I totally understand some of the hate on the drones, but I think most of the rage is unnecessary and pointless.
 

Gorankar

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
10,735
Rule #1: Do not point your camera at other peoples homes without permission.

I don't fly mine over other people homes, and would take offense at others flying theirs over my property.

Not sure the FD is who I want enforcing Rule #1, or that they should take the time to do so while my house is burning down around them though.
 

Sunin

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - August 2008
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
3,421
Let's face it he was too damn close! If he stayed at the original height they would not have cared! When you get too close you are interfering with the situation.
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
14,739
Always felt that people that go outside to watch a house burning down are being major dicks. Like oooh hey glad my house burning down was a suitable form of entertainment for you today. This just increases it by that much more.

And yes this seems like an awesome tool for the FD to use, but for an individual who just wants a video to post on youtube, not so much. I wonder how close that thing was near the end, I mean at the beginning it was very obviously high enough that no one probably knew (or cared) it was there, at the end it looked 20 feet or so above the house. Also those things are noisy as all hell too, even at that altitude, could be all sorts of issues with it buzzing around the house "Speak up louder Captain I can't hear you over the sound of some fuckers technological jerkoff toy"

The way I think about it is they don't let news crews get that close to a fire, well a drone is the same way, except it could be a few pounds falling on your head from 30+ feet up.
 

evilsofa

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 1, 2007
Messages
10,078
I wonder what kind of liability there would be if the drone had crashed on someone's head cause of the hose.

Wonder, instead, what kind of liability there would be if the drone:

1. Malfunctioned while buzzing the firefighters and dropped on them or their equipment
2. Caught fire by catching sparks within the smoke cloud it flew through, then landed on somebody else's house and caught that on fire too.

Note the drone operator is several blocks away from the firefighters, giving them no other way to communicate with the drone operator to back off. If a bystander with a video camera got that close to the fire on the ground, they would probably be tackled and carted off to the local jail.
 

MoFoQ

Gawd
Joined
Sep 18, 2002
Messages
847
yea, it looked like the immediate danger was already over.

Also, according to the poster/pilot, he was standing next to a cop when flying this so...yea...there's that.

And if I recall, the DJH units have a "fly back to home" feature when batteries get low as well as a hover mode so one of the few ways for it to crash it would be to shoot it down with something...you know...like a fire hose.

Sure, perhaps he was too close; that's on him.
But that doesn't make what the obviously free and otherwise bored firefighters did right.

Also, didn't realize that the DJH were that resilient.
 

Gorankar

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
10,735
yea, it looked like the immediate danger was already over.

Also, according to the poster/pilot, he was standing next to a cop when flying this so...yea...there's that.

And if I recall, the DJH units have a "fly back to home" feature when batteries get low as well as a hover mode so one of the few ways for it to crash it would be to shoot it down with something...you know...like a fire hose.

Sure, perhaps he was too close; that's on him.
But that doesn't make what the obviously free and otherwise bored firefighters did right.

Also, didn't realize that the DJH were that resilient.

I have run my DJI phantom2 through a tree at 25mph and had it crash to the ground and the only damage was the landing gear, and the battery melted down next time I tried to charge it.
A lot of the newer camera platforms have a return to home function. But fly aways, unexplained crashes, signal losses leading to the craft hovering until power fails or it lands on it's own. They have made these things incredibly easy to fly. But the cost has been to make them a bit less reliable.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
Is there a law against shooting drones if you see them over your property?
Yes, destruction of private property, since you don't own the airspace.

There is also zero possibility that the fire department could say that they INCREASED safety by spraying a high pressure hose at a distant flying object causing it to crash in an uncontrolled fashion with lithium batteries onboard.

They need to buy a new drone and give the firefighter a reprimand/punishment for misuse of equipment, public endangerment, a intentional damage of private property.
 
Joined
Jun 11, 2008
Messages
645
Totally see the Captain give the order for the hose man to shoot water at it. I know that a cop couldn't just pull his gun out and shoot at it. Drone was a little close, but nothing to get all busted out of shape about to shoot at.
 

Semantics

2[H]4U
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
2,822
Yes, destruction of private property, since you don't own the airspace.

There is also zero possibility that the fire department could say that they INCREASED safety by spraying a high pressure hose at a distant flying object causing it to crash in an uncontrolled fashion with lithium batteries onboard.

They need to buy a new drone and give the firefighter a reprimand/punishment for misuse of equipment, public endangerment, a intentional damage of private property.
You actually do have a right to enjoy your airspace which is why low flying aircrafts can be considered trespassing. That height isn't a hard number though.
 

mi7chy

2[H]4U
Joined
May 22, 2013
Messages
3,985
Poor judgment flying so close to an emergency scene that it becomes an obvious distraction. At least hover above the trees where it can't be seen.
 

Fun

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
295
That drone wasn't hurting anyone. Very unprofessional.
 

Elios

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Messages
7,251
as and avid RC pilot
FUCK THESE PEOPLE FLYING QUADS LIKE THIS make the whole hobby look bad
 

Elios

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Messages
7,251
at this point the FAA just needs to make a license to fly RC im sick of this shit
 

PsyKo[H]

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 16, 2000
Messages
1,979
You actually do have a right to enjoy your airspace which is why low flying aircrafts can be considered trespassing. That height isn't a hard number though.

True. "Real" aircraft have to fly at least 500ft above the tallest structure within a certain radius... and the supreme court once ruled in favor of a chicken farmer who sued because military aircraft were flying close enough to his property that it literally scared his chickens to death.

In a 5-2 opinion authored by Justice William O. Douglas, the Court concluded that the ancient common law doctrine "has no place in the modern world." Justice Douglas noted that, were the Court to accept the doctrine as valid, "every transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless trespass suits. Common sense revolts at the idea." However, while the Court rejected the unlimited reach above and below the earth described in the common law doctrine, it also ruled that, "if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere." Without defining a specific limit, the Court stated that flights over the land could be considered a violation of the Takings Clause if they led to "a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land." Given the damage caused by the particularly low, frequent flights over his farm, the Court determined that the government had violated Causby's rights, and he was entitled to compensation...
 

flenser

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
324
Two things...

I don't think it was legal for the drone to be flying there. The FAA regs and legislation that would allow this aren't final yet and the current rule would likely make this not legal. Outside line of sight and over people are the two specific areas. Also, there are additional flight restrictions that come into effect whenever there is an emergency response, so this drone flight likely violated a temporary flight restriction.

Also, I wonder if the drone operator would be vulnerable to liability in a civil suit by the homeowner who could very likely make a strong argument that the drone distracted the firefighters and prevented them from doing their job properly. Certainly the homeowner's insurance company would just love to be able to transfer some of their payoff liability to the drone owner, with the argument that the drone distracted the firefighters and resulted in additional losses on the property.

Keeping the thing up high and away from people and within line of sight and not directly over the emergency response - probably no problem at all. Where he was though, it was obviously a severe distraction in addition to being very likely illegal for multiple reasons. I don't wish bad things on people usually but I would be surprised if the drone operator (if they can find him) isn't turned into an example of what not to do with a drone by the feds and either the insurance company or the homeowner.
 

rigurat

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
262
There's a possibility the video may prove useful in the future. Perhaps in analyzing the disaster or for evidence or training purposes.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
You actually do have a right to enjoy your airspace which is why low flying aircrafts can be considered trespassing. That height isn't a hard number though.
Wrong and wrong, and no they cannot be considered trespassing ever. Period. Ever. Even if it is flying one inch above your property, its not trespassing. What it can be doing is interfering with the function or usage of your property, and there is caselaw for that with aircraft. Regardless, the firefighter wasn't the property owner to even make that case, he was likely just one of the many that hate "drones" due to privacy concerns and decided to destroy private property based on his opinion.

Now there are PROPOSALS to allow low flying aircraft to be considered trespassing, but that has never passed, and the FAA merely has suggestions and no laws on the books.

And the thing that people generally seem to forget about the law is that how you FEEL about something means nothing. I don't FEEL that 60mph is a reasonably speed limit for HW59 in Houston, its much too low, but the law is the law. The law here is that the RC pilot did absolutely nothing illegal, but his private property was damaged.
flenser said:
I don't think it was legal for the drone to be flying there. The FAA regs and legislation that would allow this aren't final yet and the current rule would likely make this not legal.
That's not how the law works. Something isn't illegal until the government tells us otherwise, its the other way around. Its legal because there are no current laws that prohibit it. End of story.

1) Its not near an airport and most certainly not high enough to be covered by regulated airspace, and from the video its painfully obvious its in class G unregulated space.
2) There's no evidence the drone operator was doing this for commercial purposes, and in fact its extremely likely it was not. Non-commercial low altitude RC use is again unregulated.
3) Line of site to your RC aircraft is not a law, its a suggestion and carries no legal penalty.

The only way it can be illegal, is if a police officer comes and decides that you are disturbing the peace or something more broad reaching, and that is then upheld in court. In Texas, its still not even illegal unless you disobey a request to cease said activity first, and are given a reasonable opportunity to do so. So if this guy were disturbing the peace (unlikely), an officer would have to ask him to stop, and he would have to disobey that request, but even then a third party would have no legal right to destroy private property anymore than you can walk into your neighbors house that is playing music too loud and destroy his stereo with a sledge hammer. You're liable for the damages, and have committed a criminal offense.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
PsyKo[H];1041656991 said:
True. "Real" aircraft have to fly at least 500ft above the tallest structure within a certain radius... and the supreme court once ruled in favor of a chicken farmer who sued because military aircraft were flying close enough to his property that it literally scared his chickens to death.
That had nothing to do with the airspace though, that only had to do with their interference with the usage of the land, and would have applied to say a gang of guys on Harley motorcycles without mufflers driving by everyday. The fact that they were in the air was completely irrelevant.

A "drone" like this also isn't a "real" aircraft, and falls under model aircraft since its surely not over 55lbs. The average "drone" weighs under a pound.
 

nusse

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
87
For most of this 15 minute Video, about twenty Fire Fighters just Stood around and watched the home Burn to the Ground, even with a half a dozen "Charged Hoses", before putting any water into the already burnt out home!

As soon a the Hose man, up on the second floor, despite the danger of the burnt out roof falling on him, or the floor collapsing under him, immediately aimed his water stream at the drone, attempting to stop the video coverage, as soon as he noticed the drone above him.

Only thing the video taker missed was to capture the Fire Department information from the doors of the vehicles parked in the street!

I love people that criticize something without having the first clue on what it takes to do the job or task they are getting their panties in a wad over. Your credibility is rock solid.. really! :rolleyes:
 

JohnnyGatt

GamingFace
Joined
Jul 26, 2010
Messages
106
Man as a firefighter this is a joke i guess the firefighters didn't want others to see how little respect they had for the home..Lets kick down a fence here just for the hell of it.. lets wast time shooting water as a drone.. lets stand round doing jack shit with all the time we saved kicking the fence in.. This might have been a good training video and still might be to show my guys at the station what not to do on the fire ground.
 

natos

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
442
Wrong and wrong, and no they cannot be considered trespassing ever. Period. Ever. Even if it is flying one inch above your property, its not trespassing. What it can be doing is interfering with the function or usage of your property, and there is caselaw for that with aircraft. Regardless, the firefighter wasn't the property owner to even make that case, he was likely just one of the many that hate "drones" due to privacy concerns and decided to destroy private property based on his opinion.

Now there are PROPOSALS to allow low flying aircraft to be considered trespassing, but that has never passed, and the FAA merely has suggestions and no laws on the books.

And the thing that people generally seem to forget about the law is that how you FEEL about something means nothing. I don't FEEL that 60mph is a reasonably speed limit for HW59 in Houston, its much too low, but the law is the law. The law here is that the RC pilot did absolutely nothing illegal, but his private property was damaged.

That's not how the law works. Something isn't illegal until the government tells us otherwise, its the other way around. Its legal because there are no current laws that prohibit it. End of story.

1) Its not near an airport and most certainly not high enough to be covered by regulated airspace, and from the video its painfully obvious its in class G unregulated space.
2) There's no evidence the drone operator was doing this for commercial purposes, and in fact its extremely likely it was not. Non-commercial low altitude RC use is again unregulated.
3) Line of site to your RC aircraft is not a law, its a suggestion and carries no legal penalty.

The only way it can be illegal, is if a police officer comes and decides that you are disturbing the peace or something more broad reaching, and that is then upheld in court. In Texas, its still not even illegal unless you disobey a request to cease said activity first, and are given a reasonable opportunity to do so. So if this guy were disturbing the peace (unlikely), an officer would have to ask him to stop, and he would have to disobey that request, but even then a third party would have no legal right to destroy private property anymore than you can walk into your neighbors house that is playing music too loud and destroy his stereo with a sledge hammer. You're liable for the damages, and have committed a criminal offense.

Actually you're forgetting breach of privacy. I saw this whole thing on southpark where people were getting their panties in a bunch because the drones were spying on them in their own homes. That is illegal. So you could claim that the drone was invading your privacy and 'spying' on you.

Of course it went the usual southpark way, and the police bought their own 'police enforcement' drones, and patrolled the neighborhood with them, and shot down other drones who were violating privacy, and of course there was a whole drone war between the police drones, and the regular drones. lol
 
Top