Drones and Fire Command

[batt2 145]

It's obvious that drones can be a great help on the Fire/Emergency ground. Here is a video from the other night:

http://youtu.be/aug74hi_eBc

[dwcfireman 656]

I saw this article, http://firehouse.com/12080980, and figured I'd come here to see if anything about drones popped up...And, voila!

The video from FireHouse's website reveals a drone being sprayed at by firefighters that is filming the fire in Coldenham (Orange County) the other day. So here's my two cents about drones filming fires.

A) Drones would be extremely helpful to an IC to get that birds eye view of the scene, especially during larger events like wide brush fires or around large warehouse-like buildings. The extra set of eyes in the hands of a skilled operator can help gather information from the scene, including all of the things that an IC would normally never see (like the topside of a flat roof or the rear of the building). The video can also be coupled with video and pictures taken from ground level to critique the incident and help plan for the next "big one."

Since the news media is going to have photographers/videographers there anyway, their use of drones for gather information for public press (See Constitutional Amendment I [Freedom of the Press]) is absolutely fine. HOWEVER, they would have to, and in my opinion MUST, adhere to all federal (FAA), state, and local regulations pertaining to drones. The drones should also be at a safe distance, just like all other non-emergency personnel. Think of this along the same lines of a news helicopter circling above.

C) Personally owned/private drones should be banned within 1,500 feet of a fire incident. Private operators are not using their video footage for sale to the press, nor are they making a statement of any of their rights. They're simply taking footage because it's fun to do, and the videos earn them silly internet points that don't mean anything in the real world. But, here's the real reason; as seen in the video from Coldenham, the drone becomes a distraction for the firefighters. It's something they did not expect, and it distracted them from their main focus. This is dangerous to everyone involved, including the public. Personally, I don't want to be scared $h!tless because a drone buzzed my head. With my luck, I'd slip off the roof and end up with a broken leg. Unfortunately, for now, private drone use falls on the old adage, "Just because you can doesn't mean you should."

To keep this thread on topic, please ignore my rant in paragraph C (it could be a lot longer). Drone technology has come a long way in the last few years, and it would be a great asset for any IC, especially at large scale events. I'm not advocating that every department go out and spend $500 for a drone, but if a few departments did end up with them (AND SHARED!), it would be a great tool for everyone to use and learn from.

[Dinosaur 844]

I was reading this story from another source and consulted someone who I consider a subject matter expert. He says that for commercial purposes a special FAA waiver is required and there are rules that must be followed when operating. For recreational purposes, there are other rules applicable to a "model aircraft" or "UAS" that have to be followed.

A government agency (including a fire department) has to apply for a special authorization to use them and very few are authorized by the FAA.

Some of the rules include: not operating within 5 miles of an airport (which I believe applies to Coldenham).

not operating over people or populated areas

operating at less than 400 feet (he states on his FB page that he was at 78 feet).

The person that I spoke to says that operating over private property at that height may be an issue but it's "uncharted territory" legal-wise.

I'm paraphrasing here but it does spark some interesting questions for continuing debate.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

A volunteer member of Branford, CT Fire used one about a year and a half ago during a fire at a quarry near some explosive magazines. Provided great recon for the IC. There was an article floating around about it, I'll try to find it.

[MESS11FOREVER 246]

As long as its kept at a certain height where it doesnt effect fire department operations and if your filming for the fire department or any kind of MOS then i dont see why a person cannot fly a drone especially if that video that was made possible from flying the drone is given to the fire company as training tool.. (my 2cents)

[Dinosaur 844]

As long as its kept at a certain height where it doesnt effect fire department operations and if your filming for the fire department or any kind of MOS then i dont see why a person cannot fly a drone especially if that video that was made possible from flying the drone is given to the fire company as training tool.. (my 2cents)

What height? Who determines if it is affecting FD operations (think about the drones interfering with air tanker operations out west a few months back)?

What if you're not filming for the agency and have no intentions of sharing it for training or any other purpose?

If it's illegal or operated outside of established regulations is that OK?

Here's a great question: Can the media buy a 100' ladder truck park it at the yellow tape and extend the ladder 78' over your scene to put a camera up? Would you be OK with that?

(just my 3 cents)

[antiquefirelt 994]

If the drones don't affect our operations, then why would we care? If your firefighters are distracted from the actual firefighting effort, you've got real issues. It's 2015, we're all on camera at all times, get used to it and be a professional- At All Times! If the drone poses a true hazard, then it should be addressed. I can assure you that if our firefighters thought spraying a drone was more important than putting water on the fire, they'd be on their way to being unemployed very quickly.

[AFS1970 504]

This is a very new field. A while back I posted a video taken from a drone in Germany that was apparently used by an IC for recon purposes.

The news media is going to be intrusive no matter where we put our yellow tape. I am actually surprised they have not thought of buying their own ladder truck for this. However in today's internet driven media world, the lines between private citizen and news media become very blurry. Yesterday's fire buff may be today's reporter.

As for banning drones within a certain distance, this is very uncharted legal territory. Would anyone even stop to worry about someone with a model airplane near a fire scene? As for there being a difference between flying for enjoyment or making a statement on constitutional rights, that is a dangerous line of thinking. I do not need to be making a statement in order to have or maintain rights. I am not sure that freedom of speech pertains here but I am not a constitutional scholar. Free speech might apply to me showing the video I got, but maybe not to taking the video.

As for the firefighters trying to spray the drone? Well attacking distractions like that is no different that trying to spray a bird or anything else in the sky. Loosing site of tactics is not really the problem of the drone operator. That is like saying we should ban airplanes because someone on the ground might point a laser at the cockpit. It is clearly not the airplanes fault that a laser gets pointed and thus I would not blame the drone for a hose line being directed towards it.

I think the property issues here would biol down to how high air rights go. I saw a documentary on the building of Grand Central Terminal, where they talked about the railroad asserting the right to property on top of the railroad, which made them the owners of vast tracts of land in Manhattan. Now obviously airplanes are allowed to fly over these buildings without paying rent to the MTA, but I wonder if any court has ever actually set an upper limit of where the public space begins? If so this would seem to apply to drones also, even though they may not be capable of the same altitude that airplanes are.

[robert benz 344]

I am sure before too long, drones will be a part of the fire service. I can hear it now "urgent, urgent, or mayday, mayday, drone down drone down we need a mechanic and IT here now.

[10512 214]

So far, it appears most of these questions regarding drones are "hypothetical".

It appears not very much enforcement has gone into drone regulation.

There have been a few "near misses" regarding drones.

When, not if, a drone is involved in an incident, whether it be an accident or recklessness, and that time is coming soon, you will see a host of new regulations regarding their use.

As of right now, nothing major has happened.

Give it some time, and when that happens, there will be all kinds of rules and enforcement.

Edited June 7, 2015 by 10512

[AFS1970 504]

There was a case I read about where a freelance reporter used a drone to shoot video of an collision scene. As he did with ground based video, he was planning on shopping the footage around to various new outlets to see who would buy it from him. However the police investigating the collision took exception to the drone and set about finding the operator, who was not that far away and not hiding. I forget if he was arrested or just given some type of ticket, but he appealed and won, as he was not interfering and it was nominally a freedom of the press issue, even though he was not an employee of any of the news outlets he regularly sold footage to.

[Dinosaur 844]

There was a case I read about where a freelance reporter used a drone to shoot video of an collision scene. As he did with ground based video, he was planning on shopping the footage around to various new outlets to see who would buy it from him. However the police investigating the collision took exception to the drone and set about finding the operator, who was not that far away and not hiding. I forget if he was arrested or just given some type of ticket, but he appealed and won, as he was not interfering and it was nominally a freedom of the press issue, even though he was not an employee of any of the news outlets he regularly sold footage to.

And he could be subject to administrative charges from the FAA to the tune of 10,000 dollars for commercial use of a UAS without a certificate of authorization.

This is a very new field and yes, there are many valuable applications of the technology but there also needs to be some regulation or we'll wind up with people getting hurt when they collide with stuff or fall out of the air.

I'm really surprised nobody thinks its an issue to be flying these things over a fire scene or other emergency. It's not about the cameras. It's about safety.

[dwcfireman 656]

As for banning drones within a certain distance, this is very uncharted legal territory. Would anyone even stop to worry about someone with a model airplane near a fire scene?

Here's my biggest beef with all the hub-bub around drones: Drones are just remote control HELICOPTERS! The only difference is that today's RC choppers are quad-rotor and have software pre-built into them to make them stable in flight. Technically, the FAA doesn't have to do anything about them (regulation wise) because drones are just RC aircraft.

However, because they're becoming popular and these RC aircraft are interrupting everything from air traffic and aircraft operations to sports events and emergency incidents, and they need to be regulated. Just a decade ago you would have never seen a quad-copter in the sky. Nowadays you don't have to look far. I see about 3 or 4 every week! Having worked at an airport for some time now, I've seen what happens when a bird hits a plane, especially a an 8lb goose! Imagine what a drone could do!?!

But, to stay on the fire service topic, I'll bring back my point from before. If I'm on the roof and a private drone buzzes my head, it's probably going to scare me, which may end in me losing my footing and falling. There's a place for these RC aircraft, and the fire scene is only one of those places IF everyone knows there is going to be a drone overhead. It's best, IMO, to keep the airspace clear of drones to protect the responders, victims, and the general public. Imagine if a news chopper and drone collided over a major incident....Do you want to be standing underneath that?

p.s. My apathy for private drones is from my years working in aviation. I actually had an RC airplane when I was in high school. Please do no think that my opinion is based on half the information available.

[velcroMedic1987 330]

https://www.faa.gov/uas/nprm/

The Department of Transportation's Federal Aviation Administration has proposed a framework of regulations that would allow routine use of certain small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in today's aviation system, while maintaining flexibility to accommodate future technological innovations. The FAA proposal offers safety rules for small UAS (under 55 pounds) conducting non-recreational operations. The rule would limit flights to daylight and visual-line-of-sight operations. It also addresses height restrictions, operator certification, optional use of a visual observer, aircraft registration and marking, and operational limits.

[MESS11FOREVER 246]

In the video link below it explains how a drone assisted firemen at a fire scene in Fairfield Ct

https://youtu.be/km0IDz6iIOc

[Dinosaur 844]

Here's my biggest beef with all the hub-bub around drones: Drones are just remote control HELICOPTERS! The only difference is that today's RC choppers are quad-rotor and have software pre-built into them to make them stable in flight. Technically, the FAA doesn't have to do anything about them (regulation wise) because drones are just RC aircraft.

However, because they're becoming popular and these RC aircraft are interrupting everything from air traffic and aircraft operations to sports events and emergency incidents, and they need to be regulated. Just a decade ago you would have never seen a quad-copter in the sky. Nowadays you don't have to look far. I see about 3 or 4 every week! Having worked at an airport for some time now, I've seen what happens when a bird hits a plane, especially a an 8lb goose! Imagine what a drone could do!?!

But, to stay on the fire service topic, I'll bring back my point from before. If I'm on the roof and a private drone buzzes my head, it's probably going to scare me, which may end in me losing my footing and falling. There's a place for these RC aircraft, and the fire scene is only one of those places IF everyone knows there is going to be a drone overhead. It's best, IMO, to keep the airspace clear of drones to protect the responders, victims, and the general public. Imagine if a news chopper and drone collided over a major incident....Do you want to be standing underneath that?

p.s. My apathy for private drones is from my years working in aviation. I actually had an RC airplane when I was in high school. Please do no think that my opinion is based on half the information available.

Problem is they're not limited to RC aircraft. "Drones" are an entirely new category of aircraft called UAS and there's a growing industry associated with them that totally eclipses the RC aircraft market.