Drones And Recent Incidents In Westchester County

[x635 4,066]

On Friday, there was a large brush fire in Katonah. WCPD Aviation was requested for the Bambi bucket, which was unavailable due to weather conditions, and for aerial reconnaissance to determine the best access to the fire.

 

If Westchester County had a drone, this brush fire could have been a perfect use. FLIR, the thermal imaging leader, and DJI, a leading drone company, are developing a thermal imaging drone. This new drone is capable of downlinking into the large screen monitors of the WCDES Fieldcom, and WCPD Mobile Command unit. It would make the aerial mast CCTV cameras they are equipped with obsolete. And for example of another incident, this drone could have been deployed at the tugboat incident to aid in the search for the missing victims.

 

In the law enforcement sector of the county, this is also perfect in a perp search, or a missing person search.

 

I personally feel that anything that gives an incident commander more situational awareness and real time size up data is a good thing. In deploying crews at brush fires and missing person searches, amongst others, a drone can be invaluable.

 

http://www.dji.com/product/zenmuse-xt

 

[SECTMB 612]

I have a friend who is a real estate agent who uses one these 'personal' drones to take aerial photos of his properties for sale to use in his sales brochures.

 

If he can justify the expense, couldn't the County Coordinators each have a drone that could be utilized at events such as mentioned? All the YouTube videos of drones at fires certainly show their benefit for command coordination.

[Dinosaur 844]

Not as simple as one may think to do it legally.  Attended a seminar in DC recently and they talked about the process to do it legally.  In Westchester it wouldn't be so simple due to all the airports and airspace and other obstacles.  It's all regulated by the FAA now. 

I don't think it's the expense. 

[dwcfireman 656]

51 minutes ago, Dinosaur said:

Not as simple as one may think to do it legally.  Attended a seminar in DC recently and they talked about the process to do it legally.  In Westchester it wouldn't be so simple due to all the airports and airspace and other obstacles.  It's all regulated by the FAA now. 

I don't think it's the expense. 

 

If the drone is registered, the "pilot" has taken the online course and done the proper paperwork, and the drone is flown at less than 400 feet above the ground greater than 5 miles of an airport, then yes, it's legal (and of course you're not spying/stalking, stealing, or shooting anything).  Thankfully, Westchester only has one airport and NYC airspace doesn't come into play, but the airport's location would suppress firematic drone use for quite a large area; specifically Armonk, North White Plains, West Harrison, Purchase, Rye Brook, Port Chester, Purchase, and areas of surrounding districts would be off limits.  Then, if the Medical Center is counted due to the helipads, then the entire mid-section of the county is off limits to drones (then imagine if every registered helipad is included...).  Will the FAA give fire departments leeway for firematic drone use?  Probably in a few years after some lobbying and argument, but I don't see this going anywhere any time soon.

[Dinosaur 844]

5 hours ago, dwcfireman said:

 

If the drone is registered, the "pilot" has taken the online course and done the proper paperwork, and the drone is flown at less than 400 feet above the ground greater than 5 miles of an airport, then yes, it's legal (and of course you're not spying/stalking, stealing, or shooting anything).  Thankfully, Westchester only has one airport and NYC airspace doesn't come into play, but the airport's location would suppress firematic drone use for quite a large area; specifically Armonk, North White Plains, West Harrison, Purchase, Rye Brook, Port Chester, Purchase, and areas of surrounding districts would be off limits.  Then, if the Medical Center is counted due to the helipads, then the entire mid-section of the county is off limits to drones (then imagine if every registered helipad is included...).  Will the FAA give fire departments leeway for firematic drone use?  Probably in a few years after some lobbying and argument, but I don't see this going anywhere any time soon.

 

If the FAA isn't giving DoD, federal agencies, law enforcement or commercial operators (read $$$) any leeway I doubt the FD will get any.  

I think you're talking about recreational users, not official users like FD.  FD's or other governmental entities need to have a COA - Certificate of Authorization.

Is it worth all the trouble just to get a picture from above?  Use a ladder, call a helicopter, or just figure it out.  Sometimes I think technology gets in the way of getting the job done.

 

 

[dwcfireman 656]

5 hours ago, Dinosaur said:

Sometimes I think technology gets in the way of getting the job done.

 

BAM!  Such a true statement.  I like where your head is.  We don't need fancy stuff to fight fires.  Technology doesn't fight fires.  We do!

[velcroMedic1987 330]

More toys when we can't properly staff apparatus or ambulances in most of the municipalities in Westchester.  I doubt it's better elsewhere in the region.

 

Seems like a colossal waste of time and money for little return on the investment.

 

[x635 4,066]

15 hours ago, Dinosaur said:

Is it worth all the trouble just to get a picture from above?  Use a ladder, call a helicopter, or just figure it out.  Sometimes I think technology gets in the way of getting the job done.

 

I think the opposite. I think technology and science helps us do our jobs better, and keeps us safe.

 

For example, MDT's (can) give us GPS information to respond to the scene utilizing the most efficient route, give us CIDS and other reference information, and can allow us to reduce radio traffic.

 

Another technology that is now standard is the thermal imaging camera. That's a piece of technology that's proved invaluable.=, but was initially called useless and a "toy" when first introduced.

 

Anything that can help us gather information to do our jobs better and safer should be considered. Calling an aerial truck to a brush or other fire for surveillances is a static thing. The truck can't always be moved to continuously follow the fire. Utilizing Aviation is an expensive resource that's not always available, or may not be not available for initial size up.  

 

Yes, Drones and the laws regulating are still emerging, as is the technology. Drones have interfered with wildfire operations. But, the usage of drones for emergency services is going to be in the cards.

 

 

[SECTMB 612]

10 hours ago, dwcfireman said:

 

BAM!  Such a true statement.  I like where your head is.  We don't need fancy stuff to fight fires.  Technology doesn't fight fires.  We do!

 

Didn't 'technology' give us air packs, foam, thermal imaging cameras, nomex, halon, etc, etc, etc, etc.? We've come a long way from bucket brigades and that's due to technology.  'WE' are only the means of utilizing and deploying the technology.

[dwcfireman 656]

10 hours ago, SECTMB said:

 

Didn't 'technology' give us air packs, foam, thermal imaging cameras, nomex, halon, etc, etc, etc, etc.? We've come a long way from bucket brigades and that's due to technology.  'WE' are only the means of utilizing and deploying the technology.

 

The technology I was referring to the is the fancy fancy stuff, like computers in pumps, TICs with Bluetooth to a command screen, remote control deluge cannons, and DRONES.  I won't disagree with you, the technology in the firematic world has evolved immensely to either keep us safer or make our jobs easier.  But you have to remember, our electronic technology is susceptible to failure (dead batteries, user error, formula error, etc.), and we should never allow ourselves to rely on our technological advances to do our jobs for us.  Using a TIC makes it easier to find victims or fire in the walls, but if the TIC fails you have to rely on the basics that we were all taught in the beginning of our careers.  The same goes for when you're at the pump panel and the auto-throttle goes berserk; You have to know the basics of the pump and go to manual throttling/pressure control.

 

Technology is awesome, and it's great if your department can afford all of the cool toys.  But, the toys should not be doing our job for us.

[LineCapt 134]

15 hours ago, dwcfireman said:

 

The technology I was referring to the is the fancy fancy stuff, like computers in pumps, TICs with Bluetooth to a command screen, remote control deluge cannons

 

So remote control deck guns are a bad thing? Especially with the limited manpower most departments operate with?

[LTNRFD 266]

On March 20, 2016 at 0:50 PM, dwcfireman said:

 

If the drone is registered, the "pilot" has taken the online course and done the proper paperwork, 

No online course is needed.  You just register your info and pay $5.

 

On March 20, 2016 at 0:50 PM, dwcfireman said:

 

 and the drone is flown at less than 400 feet above the ground greater than 5 miles of an airport, 

You can fly the quadcopter AT THE AIRPORT, if you contact air traffic control and airport authorities ( and the both says yes).  You have to keep it under 400 feet.  Most good quadcopters have built in software that will not let you fly it more than 400 feet higher then the starting point elevation of the quadcopter's flight.

[dwcfireman 656]

11 hours ago, LineCapt said:

 

So remote control deck guns are a bad thing? Especially with the limited manpower most departments operate with?

 

I never said that the luxury items were a bad thing.  If your department can afford them and justify the cost for it's use, then buy it and use it.

 

On another note, to operate the drone (since this thread is about drones) you have to invest someone on the fireground to fly it.  This takes a person away from the fire fight that could make a difference elsewhere on the fireground, all just to put a miniature helicopter in the air.  We already have manpower issues (which you mentioned).  We don't have enough people on scene as it is, so why make one of them operate a drone.

 

8 hours ago, LTNRFD said:

No online course is needed.  You just register your info and pay $5.

 

You can fly the quadcopter AT THE AIRPORT, if you contact air traffic control and airport authorities ( and the both says yes).  You have to keep it under 400 feet.  Most good quadcopters have built in software that will not let you fly it more than 400 feet higher then the starting point elevation of the quadcopter's flight.

 

My bad about the course.  It's something the FAA has thrown around a few dozen times, but it hasn't grabbed yet.  I'm sure they'll require it soon (probably after an accident happens).

 

And, yes, you are correct, you can fly a registered drone at the airport.  Airport Operations and the Control Tower must agree, and if the Control Tower agrees you must have an aviation radio to remain in constant contact with the Tower (you must also obey ALL of their instructions).  But, I don't know of many airport operators and controllers that would allow you to fly a quadcopter or other R/C aerial device AT an airport....you could probably get away with it at a remote uncontrolled field upstate, or just go to a certified Radio Control "Airport."  I know for a fact that if you try to fly anything at Westchester (at least for recreational purposes) you're going to be told no.  We've already had a handful of incidents with drones.

[LTNRFD 266]

36 minutes ago, dwcfireman said:

 

 

And, yes, you are correct, you can fly a registered drone at the airport.  Airport Operations and the Control Tower must agree, and if the Control Tower agrees you must have an aviation radio to remain in constant contact with the Tower (you must also obey ALL of their instructions).  But, I don't know of many airport operators and controllers that would allow you to fly a quadcopter or other R/C aerial device AT an airport....you could probably get away with it at a remote uncontrolled field upstate, or just go to a certified Radio Control "Airport."  I know for a fact that if you try to fly anything at Westchester (at least for recreational purposes) you're going to be told no.  We've already had a handful of incidents with drones.

I know of a few other quadcopter operators that have notified towers when they are in the vicinity of an airport and the towers asked them are you flying over the airport or on the approach/departure path.  They were just in the area (about a mile away).  The tower said don't bother them unless the quadcopter is in the direct flight path of the airport.

 

Many people have the wrong impression of these small UAS.  I was told by a county sheriff that I couldn't fly mine over public property.  He could not tell why why just he didn't want me to.  I had another experience where the location said I couldn't fly because I was video taping my flight.  I would be violating peoples privacy.  This was a public place.  As I was told this, there were many parents taking pics of their kids.  How does my quadcopter video tapping up at 300-400 feet up in the air violate someone's privacy and the parents at ground level doesn't.

 

Most operators are responsible flyers.  They better be unless they are willing to waste $2,500-7,500.  That's what these things cost for the average operator.  Some are over $10,000.

 

Here is one of my short videos.  It was shot at about 100-125 feet up.  You will see at the half way mark 2 people on the pier.  You can't I.D. these people so there really isn't any privacy violation as people claim.  

 

As Seth mentioned it could be used for immediate water surveillance.  If the quadcopter went up to 400 feet you could see a body in shallow water that is on the bottom.  

 

IMG_0191.MOV

Edited March 23, 2016 by LTNRFD