Jail time for drone violations

[Clayton Moore]

California firefighters report more drone encounters

Updated: 7:02 PM July 10, 2015

McCLELLAN, Calif. (KCRA)

View Large

Firefighting pilots in California said Friday they have had three recent close calls with unmanned drones.  

And a state lawmaker said he wants jail time for offending drone operators.  

Two of the recent encounters happened on June 24 and June 25 while firefighters were battling fires at the San Bernardino National Forest.  

Watch report here: Close calls between planes, drones could mean tighter rules 

The third took place June 29 while they were looking for lightning-sparked fires in the northern Sierra Nevada.  

"The threat of airspace intrusion is extremely sensitive right now," said Cal Fire Deputy Chief Dave Teter during a news conference at McClellan Air Park.  

None of the recent encounters led to a collision, but they did force firefighters to temporarily ground their aircraft.  

According to federal law, civilian drones can weigh up to 55 pounds, about twice the size of a full-grown goose.  

Dennis Brown, Cal Fire's chief of flight operators, said bird strikes have disabled aircraft engines.  

"Conceivably a drone made out of plastic or metal would do even more damage because it's not soft tissue," said Brown.  "So, potentially, it could be devastating."  

In some cases, firefighters request a formal flight ban over an active fire zone, but not always.  

The U.S. Forest Service said drone operators should stay away from all active fires but could not say how far that should be.  

"We don't have that defined right now. That's the problem. There's no definition. So (one of the) things we're working on is trying to get a definition for that," said Shawna Legarza of the U.S. Forest Service.  

State Sen. Ted Gaines, a Republican from Roseville, said he has proposed legislation that would define that distance.  

He said it would also increase the penalties for authorized drone operators.  

The current fine is $1,000.  

"I also feel that we also ought to be looking at incarceration. You could be putting someone's life at risk. If you had a death, how would you address that?" said Gaines. 

Enforcing drone rules has been difficult because firefighters cannot not always spot the operator on the ground.  

That might soon change if the federal government approves new rules that would require drones be marked with registration numbers.  

 

 

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

It's a shame I won't be able to capture the awesome fire bursts whilst flying my drone in the middle of the fighting aircrafts and firefighters.

[Xavier Plagaro Mussard]

Drones are not toys. To disturb firefighter planes with your drone you must be an asshole. 

[mercer]

If possible, they should implement an altitude governor for drones.

[agolex]

The Ministry of Aerial Muggle Affairs

[mercer]

The Ministry of Aerial Muggle Affairs

Haha, by "governor" I was referring to a device that keeps motors and mechanics from exceeding certain speeds or power. In this instance it would control altitude. 

[agolex]

I for one don't believe that this stuff is going on indefinitely, no matter how much thought and preparation you put into it. There's going to be harsh regulations or utter chaos.

[fuzzynormal]

As an American I can tell you we fret about many trivial things and are lax regarding the profound, but there are indeed idiots that fly these things without much consideration.  They are dangerous in a way, but I feel this is more newsworthy as an item of media paranoia than a serious peril to anything.

Keep in mind this sort of thing is a way for politicians to "get tough" on a perceived ambitious threat --that, oh by the way, just so happens to be an industry that doesn't have any lobbyist dollars to tell them otherwise...or any type of social traction.  It's a soft target.  That's the pragmatic political reason these quads are destined to be regulated drastically.

If for some reason the nomenclature for these things was "Remote Controlled Model Helicopters" or "RCMH's" rather than the loaded word "Drones" I doubt this would even be much of a public interest story, to be honest.  

[agolex]

Absolutely, fuzzy, that's one of the main reasons for what's going to happen. Wouldn't be surprised if it reaches the EU a bit later as well, though.

[richg101]

i hope drones get banned altogether.  will save us seeing any more tacky wannabe aerial footage.

 

[fuzzynormal]

i hope drones get banned altogether.  will save us seeing any more tacky wannabe aerial footage.

​Enamored with the aerial look three years ago.  Now, not so much.  Visual candy, yes, but once you get full up on the sweets it ain't so good...and everyone's got an ice cream cone these days.

I got a corporate client demanding the stuff upcoming in August.  Not particularly looking forward to wedging that type of visual into the production.

Oh well.  Technological progress.

[Cinegain]

Nah, it should just be regulated properly. But not in a sense that it would be exclusive to companies that have invested tens of thousands to become a legit aerial business, keep logs, have a company specific operator's manual, and so on.

Here's my take on it. I mean. Take roads. Is it exclusive to logistic companies and their trucks? Or public transport with bus drivers? Nope. There's your average Joe commuting to work with his own private car too. And Janine who goes out for some grocery shopping. Mark doesn't like cars, he does like nice weather and motorbikes, it happens to be nice weather and so he takes his Harley out for a spin. Regular folks in control of vehicles that are quite possibly killing machines!

But you know what? You can't just (atleast legally) decide from one day to the next 'you know what, I think I am capable of driving a car, how hard can it be?', then buy a piece of junk car for next to nothing and with zero skills and knowledge then wreck it, not only possibly hurting yourself, but others and also properties. That's what is the problem now. People think it's a toy and good fun. They're not capable, they're not being responsible. But we need them to be! So... people are going to have to prove themselves proficient. You're going to have to earn it. So I'm for a system where you could go and get your drone license, much like a driver's license. You need to take a test to prove you got the theory down, you have to know the rules. You have to get some hours of practice under supervision and pass a practical examination. You do all that and you might end up getting a drone license! Yay!

Now. Having a license is one thing. Being allowed to put it to use is a second. Since you've studied the rules, you know you can't just fly anywhere. So this is where stuff needs to get regulated and a punitive system has to be put in place much like participating in road traffic... mild fines for speeding, going through red, that kinda thing. Then there's getting your license revoked, or even your vehicle impounded if you pull off some really stupid and irresponsible shit. Yeah, depending on severity even jailtime! Don't want that? Follow the friggin' rules. Avoid temporary no-drone zones, stay out of restricted areas, regard safety, privacy and all that. Then you need to inform local authorities on short (but not that short) notice about your activities and how they can get in contact with you. Just like a car, you need to be insured. All that stuff!

Hey, like that, it's still for everybody... but not for everybody. Anyways. That's my take on things.

[enny]

I really don't want to be thinking if some idiot is flying drone while i am in the air taking off

 

 

[Nick Hughes]

I really don't want to be thinking if some idiot is flying drone while i am in the air taking off

For anyone wondering, this is fake. The video is posted by "BranitFX and LucaMax Pictures".

[Jonesy Jones]

I hate bureaucracy. If some idiot's drone is in the way of a firefighter, let em shoot it down. Simple. No lame laws please.

[fuzzynormal]

​

I really don't want to be thinking if some idiot is flying drone while i am in the air taking off

Yup.  That's sensationalist media that people get wound up about... it's almost completely irrelevant that it's not reality.  It's a fear being stoked simply because it's the kind of ridiculousness they keep hearing on local news broadcasts and online.

The same thing happens every damn year in regard to sharks.  Nothing new ever happens regarding sharks and humans that hasn't happened for eons, but because it sells advertising via page views and paper sales, publishers print the stuff every August.

Again, I don't even think any of this even hits the media radar if "drones" were called something by any other name.

At least that's how it happens here in the U.S.  What sort of recurring sensationalism do you Brits have to endure? 

BTW, if BranitFX really wanted to make that video look incredibly authentic, they really needed to rotate the screen vertically.

[Damphousse]

As an American I can tell you we fret about many trivial things and are lax regarding the profound, but there are indeed idiots that fly these things without much consideration.  They are dangerous in a way, but I feel this is more newsworthy as an item of media paranoia than a serious peril to anything.

Keep in mind this sort of thing is a way for politicians to "get tough" on a perceived ambitious threat --that, oh by the way, just so happens to be an industry that doesn't have any lobbyist dollars to tell them otherwise...or any type of social traction.  It's a soft target.  That's the pragmatic political reason these quads are destined to be regulated drastically.

If for some reason the nomenclature for these things was "Remote Controlled Model Helicopters" or "RCMH's" rather than the loaded word "Drones" I doubt this would even be much of a public interest story, to be honest.  

​I agree. The best kind of government is the kind that waits until someone dies before doing anything and just regulates nonscary sounding things.

Who cares what the motivation is?  We all know this needs to be regulated.  Engage with your lawmakers now BEFORE someone dies, because once a little blonde girl dies because of a drone there is going to be a draconian blanket ban.  Digging in your heels and saying how silly the government is is precisely the wrong reaction.  When someone dies then you will see the real meaning of silly.

[fuzzynormal]

The best kind of government is the kind that waits until someone dies before doing anything and just regulates nonscary sounding things...We all know this needs to be regulated.

​Well, all I'm saying is regulation exists or not because of political clout.  Lots of things influence that clout.  Money, words, symbols, media metaphors, whatever.  FWIW, I personally don't mind if drones get regulated.  

Let's also consider this:  someone's going to die today because alcohol is a legal drug.  Another person is going to die today because of a legally permissive gun culture.   I'm not saying the way American govermnment works is right or wrong, just how I think it is. 

If you believe that you can organize a group of drone operators to influence, positively, future legislation then go for it.  That is how it's supposed to work, but I'm certainly more cynical and believe that would, realistically, be a lost cause for the reason stated above.

[Damphousse]

​

Let's also consider this:  someone's going to die today because alcohol is a legal drug.  Another person is going to die today because of a legally permissive gun culture.  

 

​Yeah but half of homes don't have drones in them the way half of homes in the US had guns in the 80s.  And I doubt 86.8% of people have used a drone... unlike the 86.8% of adults who have used alcohol.  It's awfully hard to ban something that 86.8% of adults have used at one point in time or another... we learned that the hard way during a little thing called prohibition.  Banning drones for 99% of the population would be a chip shot at this stage.  If guns were as rare as drones, trust me, they would be banned by now.

My advice is get ahead of the problem.  Get common sense regulations on the books before a crazy blanket ban gets introduced.  People are doing really dumb stuff with these drones and they will ruin it for everyone.

[fuzzynormal]

People are doing really dumb stuff with these drones and they will ruin it for everyone.

​I'll concur.  People will do stupid stuff.  American legislation will move on that stupidity and "ruin it" because they can without upsetting too many voters.  We are in full agreement with this concept.

My extended point is that there's an absence of rules for numerous other stupid things because those other things have strong political influence.  As you say, you can't take them away without troubling the electorate; things like drinking volumes amounts of alcohol legally or owning a weapons arsenal.  

Keep in mind there would absolutely be an absence of rules for drones if there was a "drone lobby" working K Street with the power of the AARP, or NRA.

I'm just saying that's what it's gonna take to stop the inevitability of harsh legislation.  And that is not realistic for numerous reasons.  It's already "ruined" is what I'm getting at.