Disaster-gawping cam drones to be blasted out of the sky in California California politicians want emergency services to knock interfering drones out of the sky without fear of repercussion – after a gang of flying gizmos got in the way of firefighters tackling a terrifying blaze. Last Friday, a forest fire roared across Interstate 15 near Cajon Pass in southern California, forcing motorists to …
"Until maybe a bystander needs a Canon 700D prising out of their skull, perhaps, from a taken-out drone?"
And just how high up is it still in range for clay pigeon shooting anyway? The main problem seems to be the effect drones have on emergency services aircraft, which are not likely to be flying below 500'.
I'm certainly NOT defending drone operators, but I wonder just how emergency services are going to damage or down them safely anyway. Can anyone enlighten me?
They already do this with cars. An old friend of mine who's a firefighter has plenty of stories about people who park their cars in front of fire hydrants. Firefighters will ram them out of the way with their trucks (or, in one case where she responded to a fire and there was no way to clear a BMW from in front of a hydrant) simply smash the windows and run the hoses right through the car.
I guess that's true. Vehicles are specifically mentioned, as is forcing entry (section 44), but
'44(1) An employee of a fire and rescue authority who is authorised
in writing by the authority for the purposes of this section may do
anything he reasonably believes to be necessary.
(a) if he reasonably believes a fire to have broken out or to be about to
break out, for the purpose of extinguishing or preventing the fire or
protecting life or property;'
isn't a specific dispensation for repercussions if they knock down a house - although I can imagine it is likely to swing that way in court.
I can see the judge raising an eyebrow, Vetinary style, if an idiot like that does sue..
"Yes, sir, you do indeed have a right to sue for damages, and the footage you have shown us does indeed clearly show the county sherriff disabling your drone with a firearm. We will assume this case proven and move on to the next issue: Interfering during a declared emergency, endangering emergency personnel during said emergency by your actions, the cause of preventable collateral damage during said emergency, and assorted mopery and dopery, for which you have kindly provided us with evidence..."
"break your car windows and run the hoses straight through it."
Although I understand the sentiment and that in the US fire hydrants are protected areas in terms of parking, but does it really take so much effort to attach the hose and go around the car? Is that extra few feet of hose really that vital? Or do US fire hydrants only have a port on the kerb facing side? I really do want to know because I'm thinking the time it takes to smash a cars windows and run the hose through is just as, if not more, time consuming than just running the hose around the car.
"...but does it really take so much effort to attach the hose and go around the car?"
It wouldn't have taken much research to answer your own question. Yes.
This isn't a garden hose, its a very heavy hose with bulky (and heavy in their own right) metal attachments at each end, which is about to be straightened out (and made heavier) by the pressure of hundreds of gallons of water.
Plus, its a fire. Every second counts. The straight line is faster than threading a hose around a blockage.
Beyond that, this is something that every child in a country with fire hydrants has known since they were five years old. At this point, if you're stupid enough to block a fire hydrant, at the very least you deserve the ticket -- car damage is just a bonus.
Whenever I've seen fire hoses in action, they still curve around objects and are flexible enough for the firefighters to move them around and aim them. They don't appear to suddenly go rigid. Maybe US hoses are made of different materials from UK hoses.
As already mentioned in my OP, how long does it take to thread a "bulky" hose with "metal attachments" through a cars broken windows compared with simply running it around the obstruction?
Fire hydrants in the UK are very different to the form the US uses. Ours are underground, usually under the pavement, not the road, and the fire crews open the hatch in the ground and fit a stand-pipe arrangement. The location of the access is marked by a distinctive sign on a nearby wall indicating how far from the sign the hatch is and the depth of the valve. There are no laws about parking near these signs or access hatches.
You seem to be assuming I have the same background as yourself and should know why the US is different to the UK.
" are flexible enough for the firefighters to move them around and aim them. "
Sorry mate but you haven't got a clue have you. Once a fire hose is up to pressure its damned near impossible to move unless you've had the correct training. They go rigid - and I mean RIGID. You can also get some weird effects as well - if you don't grab the nozzle end properly the things will start whipping and writhing around like mad rigid snakes - and can easily cause serious damage to bodies. You literally have to brace your entire bodyweight against the power of the hose.
"You seem to be assuming I have the same background as yourself and should know why the US is different to the UK."
Erm, I did link to the Wikipedia article on fire hydrants, so... maybe not.
Furthermore, I question whether there are no laws about parking. It does appear to be an issue:
I don't know what the consequences of inconsiderate parking may be, but at the very least you might get a scratch in London.
How is that any difference from the fact that a firetruck speeding to the scene crashes into a car and injures or kills people once in a while? More lives will be saved by clearing the sky of drones so emergency responders can do their thing unimpeded than the one unlucky person that may die per decade from one falling on their head. If it is falls on your house or car, well, that's what insurance is for.
@ thx1138v2
If it was shot down by the emergency services, it would mean it had to be impeding those emergency services from doing their job. i.e. trying to put a fire out.
Anything underneath the drone would likely already be damaged, or potentially about to be if the fire spread further.
If you were stood underneath said drone, it must mean you were also in the middle of the declared emergency location, and so should have evacuated already.
If you were still there, long enough for some neighbour or local TV crew, to dig out their drone, get to the location, get it airborne, and fly it over the declared emergency area. Then you'd have to be a bit of an idiot, and this would mean that you too were likely also in the way of those same emergency services personal, trying to do their job.
If you did get killed by a falling drone in this circumstance, to me that's just another nomination for a Darwin award, as you shouldn't have been there in the first place!
Ok...you made your point. Now let's see where your priorities really are.... ready....
You've fallen into a ravine. There's a fire coming in your direction and it's about 1 mile away. Fire crews and rescue crews can't get to you with a rescue chopper or even suppress the fire because there's one or two of these things hovering around the ravine. Do they:
a) Think of the poor bystanders who are probably in the way anyhow? Think of the property? Thus, they don't knock the drone out of the air. Result: you die.
or....
b) Knock the thing out of the air and save your sorry ass....????
I'm betting you and anyone else who thinks knocking a drone out of the air in an emergency is a bad thing will still go for b) because in this case, you're (collectively) a bunch of self-centered buttheads.
Downvote away... as someone who has been there and understands risk and sacrifice for the greater good, I'll take the downvote hit.
"You've fallen into a ravine. There's a fire coming in your direction and it's about 1 mile away. Fire crews and rescue crews can't get to you with a rescue chopper or even suppress the fire because there's one or two of these things hovering around the ravine."
Did Lassie or Skippy tell you all that?
So how do you take down drones?
Actually, there is at least one company selling a device designed to net drones out of the air, but if they are low enough to interfere with firefighters, then my guess would be with a blast from a fire hose. That is unless they are equipped to fire back.
I think the main issue here is the drones flying in the way of the firefighters, i.e. their aircraft/helo can't drop the water, without risking taking out the drone at the same time.
This is more about making sure the fire-fighters don't get prosecuted for an inadvertent drone take-down, than someone purposely trying to take one out with a gun, other diver etc.
The .fed won't let us deploy it. Yet. It'll happen if the fuckheads continue putting highly trained pilots already in a dangerous situation into worse danger ... all for what? 15 minutes of fame on the fucking IntraWebTubes?
WOW! What heros. In their own mind, maybe ... to the rest of us? Fuckheads, every single one of them.
jake --retired VFD
As that will just get the owners of the drones to not fess up over their actions.
Let them try and launch a lawsuit against whomever shot it down, and once they have proclaimed their ownership and responsibility of said drone, nail them with the various criminal acts that already exist to deal with these twatnozzles.
Add insult to injury: Charge them for the amount of rounds that were required to bring the drone down as well. At usual govt contractor markup prices of course.
It occurs to me that a high-pressure hose is more aim-able than dropping water, and can be used without manoeuvring above the drone. Also safer than firearms, and I imagine the effective range is at least as good as a shotgun. Not to mention that it is normal equipment for firefighters, the ammunition does not explode when heated and there is plausible deniability in use.
Grikath,
Damn, I wish I had thought of that!!!
I wish I was strong and accurate enough to be able to lob a 7.62 (or similar) up at a moving target...
May I suggest you pop along to your local target (paper) shooting club for a complimentary lesson, btw the pipe with a hole in it should (ideally) be pointed away from you!
Have fun!
Jay
Although I don't agree with the "screaming" tone the RTH idea is one that occurred to me, return to home triggered by a special code would be safer that most other options. These devices are above people and places so any return to home should be in a swift and controlled manner, it would also allow "advice" to be given to the "grateful" owner.
Shooting holes in lipo batteries above fire prone areas seems somewhat flawed to me.
I do concede we probably need someone's expensive drone taken out of the sky by a concerned citizen and the resulting news story (pub dicussion) for some people to get the idea it may not be a good idea to fly some places.
Look, it's well and nice to say shoot them down, but we need to know what the hell will constitute an "emergency situation". Say filming the police during a demonstration? This is the sort of law that would need really careful wording, but we all know it'll be worded such that "only a terrorist would video emergency services or police response to make their attack plans!". I'm all for stopping people getting in the way or endangering other lives through nonsense, but I think we need to consider seriously hastily crafted and loosely worded legislation.
Also, I see no reason they can't shoot shotguns, I mean you'd want to use a number 6 bird load. All you'd be aiming to damage are the propellers, they seem fairly fragile and numerous. Personally, while waterfowl hunting I've been "peppered" with returning pellets from my own shot, it's like a medium rain at the hardest.
The issue at hand is firefighting and interfering with rescue operations.
A demonstration does not come anywhere near these terms and there is no way to confuse the two.
Now, it may be that those hovertoys are used in watching a demonstration as well. It may happen that things get out of hand, people start getting unruly, cops start getting shovy and everything goes suddenly very wrong with people running and screaming, cops beating and shooting, and one or more of them deciding that the toys have nothing to do there and start blasting them out of the sky - if they can.
In such a situation the fallout will be nasty anyway, and the toy owners will most likely have TV video to back up their declarations that the police were shooting their property willy-nilly out of the sky. Freedom of speech and all that jazz. I'm pretty sure that a judge will declare that the hoverthingies should not be shot out and the police will have to pay reparations to the toy owners.
One situation is a risk to life and one simply cannot accept that rescue people be stalled or impeded in their honorable job by some nitwit that really wants something spectacular on his feed.
The other situation is a social event that is already largely covered by existing laws and bringing hovertoys (I just can't bring myself to call them drones) into the mix doesn't really change anything significantly.
That said, I am not a lawyer, much less an American one, so I may be wrong. We shall see in the long run.
The issue at hand is firefighting and interfering with rescue operations. A demonstration does not come anywhere near these terms and there is no way to confuse the two.
You've clearly not been following how police powers and public order legislation has been used in the UK in recent years. Powers granted to public officials under anti-terrorist legislation are routinely used to monitor individuals suspected of (among many other trivial offences) fly-tipping or failing to clear up after their dog.
Not that I'm against this, you understand - I think inconsiderate dog-owners should be shipped off to Gitmo without trial - but the point remains that "to confuse the two" is extremely easy if you're suitably empowered at your own discretion, and it serves your purpose to do so.
And of course the areas of real concern are where this gets entangled with freedom of speech or assembly. In London at least, the situation with regard to the use of discretionary police powers is very scary, and the local force is considered by many who live there to be out of control.
Note - I'm not anti-police either, I live in a rural part of England well away from London, and the police here are absolutely brilliant. But the Met (the London force) scares the crap out of me.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
