bigredfish
Known around here
Oh hell yeah...
Dude! Long time no talk! I just bought a phantom 4 pro tonight. Flying it soon! Hope all is well.Where do I send my money!
Accepted. Please understand that we 107 operators went through a lot to fly commercially, always fly responsibly, and are as upset as you are about irresponsible people zipping their drones around. Even when I fly recreationally I do so responsibly. Drone manufacturers software is making strides to catch up with real time no fly zones. The faa is severely understaffed but will investigate all reported incidents. Responsible pilots out here are trying hard to educate on a daily basis. There is also a large measure of drone hysteria fostered by the media too, so it's an 'uphill' battle too. Just don't lump us all into one category, just as we who install cameras don't wish to be labeled peeping Tom's or privacy invaders. Most of us are out here for good.OK . I feel remorse for my emotional posting. But it was pretty frustrating to see the tankers and heli tankers grounded while looking at flames.
Certainly drones are wonderful technological devices that will do great things and already have. Especially as you point out in rescue situations.
Unregulated drones are a real problem. Because fire fighting aircraft will stop flying at the first sighting of one. And there are lots of dipshits out there with drones.
apology submitted.
Well you have no experience in aviation I would assume. So while an interesting curiosity, as is that attractive image you purvey, the fact is that fire fighting aircraft, both fixed wing and rotor craft will be grounded at a drone sighting. Sure I like technology too, but aren't we really talking about fucking toys? Toys that can cause a coordinated air assault by the USFS and whatever local fire fighting agencies are involved to leave dodge. And in many areas of the country, the only way you stop a brush fire is aircraft. Mainly retardant lines well coordinated and executed with rotor craft supporting ground efforts. And in many cases saving ground crews lives. That supersedes IMHO an ass hole in a bar. Kudos to Kawboy for that brilliance. Essentialy "idiots are bad". Prolific.I too am curious about how small hobbyist drones could bring down a large, manned airplane or helicopter. Seems to me that a "crash" with one would result in the drone being blown to shit and a million pieces of plastic raining down on the drone operator's head. Seems it can't be any more harmful than birds flying around, which is a daily encounter for pilots.
As Kawboy points out, you can't really blame the technology; it's the people that abuse and misuse the technology. If we banned drones because it could hinder emergency efforts, then we must ban cars because they can (and often do) block emergency vehicles; must ban computers because some use them to hack, create viruses and commit other crimes; etc...It's annoying when people misuse technology, but we can't let that prevent advancements. We just have to create fair use regulations and try to prevent as many incidents as possible.
True, I have no aviation experience...but I do have a physics background and having a difficult time imagining how a little, couple ounce piece of plastic would be any match against a several ton aircraft. Maybe if it were sucked into an engine or something?Well you have no experience in aviation I would assume. So while an interesting curiosity, as is that attractive image you purvey, the fact is that fire fighting aircraft, both fixed wing and rotor craft will be grounded at a drone sighting.
They can be toys, but they also can be scientific instruments, among other useful, professional things. We can't just do a national ban on drones because some assfuck may misuse it during a wild fire. There's a time, place and proper procedure for using any device and there's always going to be someone to misuse it. I would fully support localized bans during emergency situations like a wild fire and those laws need to be heavily enforced...Sure I like technology too, but aren't we really talking about fucking toys? Toys that can cause a coordinated air assault by the USFS and whatever local fire fighting agencies are involved to leave dodge.
Maybe a different level in the bar room, but if the drunk leaves the bar, gets in his car and drives the wrong way down the highway, that would put lives at risk.And in many areas of the country, the only way you stop a brush fire is aircraft. Mainly retardant lines well coordinated and executed with rotor craft supporting ground efforts. And in many cases saving ground crews lives. That supersedes IMHO an ass hole in a bar. Kudos to Kawboy for that brilliance. Essentialy "idiots are bad". Prolific.
Like I said, I have no aviation experience, so I can't say for sure that the threat is unrealistic. I'm just saying that it's hard for me to imagine a little drone being a threat to a manned aircraft. Maybe it is and I'm overlooking a physical process that would cause danger....and again, if that's the case, then I fully support temporary, localized bans during certain emergency situations.In the particular incident I am citing some 400 plus homes were threatened. It is not an oddity. Unfortunately it is becoming more and more common. And these guys who fly fire fighting aircraft, fly under extreme conditions you could not imagine. And have balls bigger than you can imagine or certainly have seen in a mirror. So if I am to read into your comment that you feel in some way they are being unrealistic about the threats involved, you are even more uninformed than I imagined.
I wasn't referring specifically to wild fires, rather the risk of bird encounters on daily aviation in general. If birds aren't a big concern for crashing the local news chopper while it monitors traffic each day, then I don't understand why a drone would...and likewise, I don't see how birds (if they were present in a fire) or drones would cause such concern for a chopper dropping water on a fire.And as to your "bird" observation, birds don't tend to fly around an area totally engulfed in flames. They split for survival. Not a factor.
Understandable! I'm sure if I were in a situation to where my home was threatened over some jerk with a drone, I would probably feel the same way. We all look at things differently based on our experiences. Being in a scientific field, I look at drones and see a world of possibility. Being in a fire zone, you look at drones and see a disaster waiting to happen. The diplomatic key to moving forward is to understand each other's point of view and work toward a reasonable solution that meets each other's needs and concerns. We can't let people misuse drones and put life and property at risk, yet it's also not reasonable to completely ban the technology. There has to be a compromise that allows drones to be used for the right reasons and in their right place, while severe punishment given to anyone who misuses them.Again forgive my emotional connection to this.