Lake fire grew after private drone flights disrupted air drops | Hacker News Reader

Lake fire grew after private drone flights disrupted air drops

latimes.com

38 pointsnether45 comments

The FAA's proposed rules [1] for small unmanned aircraft are quite reasonable. "Small" means < 25Kg. Max altitude 500' AGL. (Manned aircraft have a minimum altitude, usually 1000', so there's separation.) Visual line of sight to operator. Operation in class G airspace (not near airport, low level) OK. Operation in class A airspace (above 18,000') prohibited. Operation in class B,C,D airspace (near airports, etc.) requires coordination with air traffic control, and probably a transponder. (There are small UAV-sized transponders, which make drones clearly visible on radar and ID them.) A UAV license will be required, covering the regulations. The sky has rules of the road, and anyone controlling a UAV needs to know them.

There may be a "micro UAV" (< 2Kg) category for toy-sized drones, with fewer restrictions. That's still being discussed. A study on consequences of a drone collision indicate that large aircraft could probably survive collisions with 2Kg drones without serious risk to the aircraft.[2] That doesn't mean no damage, it means the aircraft can land safely. Any jet engine which takes a bird strike gets a major overhaul, which costs upwards of $100K.

[1] https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/media/02... [2] http://www.uasamericafund.com/assets/micro-uav-safety-analys...

This isn't really a counter-argument to anything you've said, but I'm curious if those regulations would have prevented the circumstance here?

Do you happen to know what altitude firefighting aircraft fly at when they drop? It would seem that 500' AGL would be on the high side if you expect the fire suppression material to hit anywhere near the target site in any reasonable level of concentration. I know nothing about the subject matter though, so that could be a bad assumption.

Air traffic control around major incidents is covered in [1]. The FAA issues a NOTAM (Notice to Airmen) which all Flight Service Stations receive, indicating an incident area, which is usually a lat/long point and a radius. There's a designated incident commander who has control of that airspace, and a way to contact them. Any aircraft not in contact with the incident commander must stay out of the area.

Pilots check NOTAMs before takeoff to see if there's anything going on they need to know about. There's an FAA search engine for NOTAMS [2], and it will accept lat/long coordinates. This is the sort of thing that the basic training and exam for drone operators must cover - check the NOTAMs before flight.

For the San Bernandio Mountains fire, there's a NOTAM:

    ZLA   LOS ANGELES (ARTCC)PALMDALE, CA.
    !FDC 5/6263 ZLA CA..
    AIRSPACE SAN BERNARDINO, CA..
    TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS WITHIN AREA DEFINED AS 3 NM RADIUS 
    OF 340927N/1171437W (PARADISE VORTAC PDZ030020.2) SFC-6000FT. TO 
    PROVIDE A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR FIRE FIGHTING. PURSUANT TO 14 CFR 
    SECTION 91.137(A)(2) TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT. 
    USFS TELEPHONE 909-383-5651 OR FREQ 123.775/STERLING FIRE IS IN 
    CHARGE OF THE OPERATION. 
    LOS ANGELES /ZLA/ ARTCC TELEPHONE 661-265-8205 IS THE FAA 
    COORDINATION FACILITY. 
    EFFECTIVE 1506260700-1507010700

This is the aerial equivalent of traffic cones set out around a trouble spot.

For a pilot, "busting a TFR" (entering an area with restrictions like that) usually means a 30-90 day grounding. For something like actual interference with aerial firefighting, the penalties would be much higher.

There's an app for this.[3] Small drone operators might use a dumbed-down version which just gives you anything applicable to low-altitude operations near your current location.

The sky has many users and traffic rules. Drone operators have to be very aware of this.

[1] http://www.nifc.gov/nicc/logistics/references/Airspace_Guide... [2] https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/PilotWeb/ [3] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/notams/id354048843

As a drone builder and pilot I hate stories like this. A few really stupid people will eventually ruin this hobby for people like me. That being said, why not simply snipe the drone out of the air rather than abort the mission? I know that the drone going done could theoretically cause another potential fire. But It strikes me that that's something the department is well equipped to deal with as long as they can track where it crash lands. Just a thought.

There's no good way to do that. You'd be trying to hit a moving target from a couple hundred feet away in probably windy conditions and maybe limited visibility, and a bullet could pass between the quadcopter's arms without doing any damage to it.

I am guessing that it's an airplane rather than a quad, because they reported it to have a 4 foot wing span. I guess you have a point, I never shoot anything from more than 80 yards, so it might be impossible. Maybe they need attack drones of their own after all :)

Oh, right. I read that part and assumed it was a four-foot-across quad, but that's a bit on the big side.

I wonder if a directed frequency jammer would work? That's fairly straightforward.

Jamming a frequency would cause more of a problem, because now you have an /uncontrolled/ four foot across aircraft flying in restricted airspace. With a controlled craft, you could at least get on bullhorns and try to yell at the idiot flying the drone to stop.

The more advanced models -- the ones more likely to be flown by someone in that situation -- have an automatic return-to-home function that kicks in if it loses the connection to the radio.

On the cheaper models, I'd expect it to simply crash within a minute or two. But it would be interesting to test that.

> why not simply snipe the drone out of the air

Once this anti-drone laser is civilianized, that will be possible: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/us-navy-debuts-anti-drone-laser-wea...

As others have pointed out, that might be hard. On the other hand, I'd say just do the drop anyway and cover the damn thing with fire retardant. If any drone owners bitch about it, throw them in jail for having interfered with the firefighting effort in the first place.

The article says a hobby drown was spotted at 11000 ft. I didn't think such drones typically flew anywhere near that high or were even capable of it. Or is this happening in a high mountain area and the altitude above the local terrain was actually much less ?

Yeah. San Bernadino has peaks up to 11,500 ft, so I'm guessing that's the case. 11,500 above the ground is crazy high for a hobby drone.

Looks like the area of the fire is 7500-9500ft. Nearby San Gorgonio Mountain is over 11400ft.

Quads and RC Planes can easily reach altitudes of 11k feet+. However, most Radio Systems and Video transmission systems can not throw a link that far. Some people can get as much as 17 miles with UHF radios, but those operate in the 400Mhz range, which, I would assume, would be very busy with all the radio traffic from fire fighters and other first responders around that area right now.

Of course it could be a fully autonomous system, which makes it all the more dangerous.

Overall, if I had to guess, I would say this is just bad reporting on LA times part. The drone was probably well over 1,000 feet in the air, but more than likely the hight reported was from sea level, not ground level.

What's the solution? Does the U.S. Forest Service create its own fleet of attack drones? Orbital laser platform? Hack the radio control frequency?

Edit: Oh they already did! The U.S. Forest Service requested a drone from the Department of Defense

Well if people keep doing this they'll just make drones harder and harder to acquire. If people stop doing this, maybe we can all enjoy a pretty cool hobby.

I'd imagine they'll start outfitting with some type of signal jammers? But I don't know how drones behave when they're not receiving signal.

Soon the US will have better drone control laws than it has gun control laws

That's because the US constitution says nothing about drones.

Is the simplest solution to just require transponders and a sales registry for drones above a certain weight class? 4' wingspan is a serious drone, and I think it's reasonable for all aircraft that big to have tail numbers and transponders.

Not saying I disagree, but model aircraft don't require tail numbers or transponders - in fact the FAA "may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft"[1] that meets certain criteria - so what makes drones special?

Larger drones could go over 55 pounds weight, and that might permit the FAA to require vehicle registration. But that's beyond the scope of my knowledge.

[1] https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Sec_331_336_UAS.pdf

I built an ArduPilot quadcopter a while back and had some fun with it, but now basic quads are available at Fry's for a hundred bucks or so and there are going to be more stories like this.

I think requiring a basic license of some form is a good idea, along with allowing FPV flight out-of-sight as long as you have an appropriate license, but beyond that law enforcement is probably gonna end up having to get some new tools to deal with this.

Maybe I'm ignorant here, but I picture a hobby drone hitting a DC-10 would be like a bug hitting a car's windshield.

That was my first thought too but the article says the drone in question had a 4 foot wing span which is pretty large. So it wasn't just some time quad copter in this case.

If it's not a quad copter (drone), then it's model airplane/glider. These are usually are made from balsa and can be broken with a finger.

"Drones" can be fixed-wing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21

Enough with stupid naming. Drone is autonomous, typically military assault aircraft.

Calling quad copters & model airplanes drones is silly.

Wiki redirects drone to UAV. We do not call toy cars vehicles, so why do we call toy planes vehicles?

I agree "drone" has a scary ring to it because we use drones to bomb people.

It's easy to image that a bird wouldn't do anything to a plane, but that doesn't mean that birdstrike can't bring down airliners.

You might only suffer minor damage but you could also lose an engine or a control surface.

They're more dangerous than you think. When doing my private pilot training, I had to be very aware of birds striking the windshield as they do have enough energy in them to cause serious damage. Even passenger jets have issues with them[0], and have been taken down as a result[1]

[0]: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Plane-Damage-0New-York-...

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549

The point is you don't have a flock of drones. There is usually one drone. I don't see how one drone can shut down two engines.

Only need to shut down (or just damage) one to be a problem. 2.5 lbs of carbon fiber, wires and motors at 100+ MPH would likely be more than enough to destroy a turbofan.

You do not shut down airport if there is bird in the sky.

Well, airports sometimes hire out hawks to keep birds out of the sky, and they intentionally limit the speed of aircraft at altitudes where birds fly. If a multirotor can fly higher than birds (they do), they could pose a significantly greater threat than a flock of birds.

Yes. Yes you do.

http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/2015/01/07/plane-strike...

Depending on the type of multi-engine aircraft and configuration, losing an engine can become a critical emergency, even if the other one is still running properly. In those instances, the pilot will shut down the other working engine to keep the plane heading straight, rather than veering the plane in one direction due to the power output on one side.

Not if it sucks the drone into the engine.

Your average FPV multirotor is 2.5 lbs of carbon fiber, electronics and motors, and a DC-10's "typical cruise speed" is over 500 mph. The laws of physics aren't on the side of the DC-10 in this case.

There are civil war cannons which fired projectiles with less kenetic energy than that.

A bird, which is nice and squishy and falls apart easily, can do serious damage to a plane. Just search on youtube for bird strike, and you'll see lots of smashed windshields, jets losing engines, damaged elevators, etc. Now, add more weight, more density, and more speed, and you can see how this can get to be a real problem.

Why was the DC10 manned?

Some prison time for these irresponsible man-children would be appropriate.

I feel this was really poor decision making on the pilot and or his commanders.

Imagine a building burning down, civilian car parked in front of said building... Whoops operation is ruined, better turn around and do nothing.

So the real issue is the aircraft dispatcher doesn't know how to handle emergency situations? This is horrible.

A parked car is easy to see and easy to predict what it will do next.

A drone is hard to keep track of and could move in any direction at any time, and if it collides with the plane could knock it out of the sky.

Are you joking? You're equating a stationary vehicle that workers have to inconveniently walk around to a toy that can knock an airplane, and all of its crew, out of the sky?

You've got to be kidding.

You can smash through the windows of a parked car to run the hoses through it, but a drone might move around, pose a threat to your aircraft, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com