3 ms·

* Drones have interfered with firefighting activities in California before That's what you would think from reading the headlines. "Hobbyists Imperil Californi

* Drones have interfered with firefighting activities in California before That's what you would think from reading the headlines. "Hobbyists Imperil California Firefighters", "Firefighter-interrupting Drone Pilots...", "Drones Are Getting In The Way of Firefighters", "Drones impede air battle against Californian wildfires", etc. Here's a description of what actually happened: > On the evening of June 24, he recalls, they noticed a drone. The aerial attack was immediately called off, out of fear of a midair collision; the three air tankers attacking the Lake Fire were parked the rest of the day. And the fire grew as a result. A helicopter pilot saw a drone and grounded the helicopters. The papers took a judgment call and twisted it into a story of active interference between drone and helicopter. And even that makes the generous assumption that this was an honest judgment call and not an intentional (and highly successful) attempt to grandstand. While most reasonable people would agree that drones need to be regulated in some form, I'm afraid that they will be regulated with the goal of restricting their use rather than of ensuring people take reasonable precautions to reduce risk.

maxerickson 11y ago
I dunno, I think the people fighting a forest fire have a point when they say that they do not want to deal with some guy taking video (what better justification could the drone operator have?).
- jjoonathan 11y ago
  Imagine a hypothetical headline: "Black cat steps on mirror, firefighters let house burn for fear of upsetting spirits." This would probably upset you and your frustration would probably not be aimed at the cat. Let this be one end of a spectrum and put "drone interferes with firefighting helicopter" at the other end. I don't see one vested interest's hunch as strong evidence that reality lies near to one end or another of this spectrum.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    I don't understand what you are getting at. What's the equivalence between a random black cat on a mirror and an intentionally operated drone? If there was some meaningful need for random everybody to operate drones by forest fires, I might care that the pilots are serving some weird agenda, but I don't see any need for (especially private, unregistered, non-communicating) drones to operate near forest fires, so I don't even care if the pilots are just objecting for the lulz.
    - jjoonathan 11y ago
      > What's the equivalence between a random black cat on a mirror and an intentionally operated drone? It's possible that the drone was exactly as not-dangerous as the black cat in that it was far away from the helicoptor and would have backed off if the helicoptor had moved towards it. It's also possible that the operator was incompetent (incapable of remaining far from the helicoptor) or maliciously trying to run it into the helicopter. But I'm not going to jump to that assumption on some guy's hunch -- which is what everyone else seems to be doing. > I don't see any need for drones to operate near forest fires, You almost certainly have hobbies that I don't see any need for. That wouldn't be justification for banning them.
      - maxerickson 11y ago
        Feel free to ban carrying out any of my hobbies in the proximity of forest fire control operations. Let's make the silly analogy more accurate: Firefighters ask witches not to bring black cats and mirrors to active house fires. Witches outraged, no one else cares.
    - mcherm 11y ago
      f there was some meaningful need for black cats to step on mirrors, I might care that the firefighters are serving some weird agenda, but I don't see any need for (especially private, unregistered) cats to be allowed near mirrors, so I don't even care if the firefighters are just objecting for the lulz.
vacri 11y ago
If merely being present has stopped a course of action, then yes, merely being present is 'interfering' with things. Your quoted description matches the headlines you think are out of order - the drone did imperil the helicopters (or they wouldn't have been grounded), it did interrupt the firefighters, it did get in the way, and it did impede the battle against the fires. None of those headline need active malicious intent to 'work'. > and not an intentional (and highly successful) attempt to grandstand. Ah, right... the papers, they're being political about it and should be ignored as a result.... but labelling the judgement call 'grandstanding', that's not political at all...
- jjoonathan 11y ago
  > If merely being present has stopped a course of action, then yes, merely being present is 'interfering' with things. No, it really isn't. Hypothetical scenario time: "Black cat steps on mirror, firefighters let house burn for fear of upsetting spirits." Was the black cat interfering with things? Or were the firefighters' beliefs about black cats and spirits interfering with things? > the drone did imperil the helicopters (or they wouldn't have been grounded) Sure, it follows -- if you assume their judgment was infallible. > None of those headline need active malicious intent to 'work'. I never accused anyone of acting maliciously. > they're being political about it and should be ignored as a result.... but labelling the judgement call 'grandstanding', that's not political at all... It's highly political, of course. I never pretended otherwise.
  - vacri 11y ago
    > Was the black cat interfering with things? If you require intent for something to be considered interference, I guess you're not much of a wave physicist. > I never accused anyone of acting maliciously. No, my point was that that was what you were saying the papers were doing - you were saying that the papers were injecting malicious intent into the story. Okay, you didn't literally use the word 'malicious', but I think most people would not have a problem with it, given the context you were suggesting the papers were giving ("active interference" preventing firefighters from doing their work)
fucking_tragedy 11y ago
I wouldn't drive myself + passengers on the same freeway as amateurs trying to weave RC vehicles around my own. And I wouldn't be driving through the air hundreds of feet above the ground. The fact that professional pilots and helicopter operators _have_ to make that judgment call for safety reasons because there are no regulations ensuring a safe flight is a concern.
- jjoonathan 11y ago
  The sky is a bigger place than a road. 3D vs 1D. No comparison. My problem is not with the judgment call; my problem is with the fact that their judgment call is being used as evidence that they were in danger. As you yourself point out, nobody really knows how dangerous the situation was. Extreme uncertainty makes conservative action reasonable, but it doesn't make drones inherently dangerous. It would be nice to get some laws on the books to eliminate the uncertainty. My fear is that the laws will lean absurdly on the side of caution; an analogy would be putting a literal tin-foil-hatter in charge of the FCC.
  - darpa_escapee 11y ago
    I'd argue the safety threat is greater for a helicopter's passengers when both the operator and the amateurs are trying to reach the same target. I'd also argue that the ability to navigate that 3D space competently doesn't exist from a fixed point at a distance by an amateur. Especially in an emergency situation, especially if there is limited visibility due to smoke. They were in a dangerous situation. The uncertainty makes it an inherently dangerous situation. Drones are no inherently dangerous, no one is arguing that. Drones can create inherently dangerous situations, however. This was one.
  - 4v1SoundsFair 11y ago
    Roads are 2D...1D would be a point. You're point still stands though.
  - CaptainZapp 11y ago
    The sky is a bigger place than a road. 3D vs 1D. No comparison. While this is true, in theory, the various flight pathes are very, very tightly regulated and controlled. Here's an interesting (if rivetting) read what can go wrong when a plane deviates from it's assigned path and height http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2009/01/air_crash200901 http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2009/01/air_crash200901

maxerickson 11y ago

I dunno, I think the people fighting a forest fire have a point when they say that they do not want to deal with some guy taking video (what better justification could the drone operator have?).

jjoonathan 11y ago
Imagine a hypothetical headline: "Black cat steps on mirror, firefighters let house burn for fear of upsetting spirits." This would probably upset you and your frustration would probably not be aimed at the cat. Let this be one end of a spectrum and put "drone interferes with firefighting helicopter" at the other end. I don't see one vested interest's hunch as strong evidence that reality lies near to one end or another of this spectrum.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  I don't understand what you are getting at. What's the equivalence between a random black cat on a mirror and an intentionally operated drone? If there was some meaningful need for random everybody to operate drones by forest fires, I might care that the pilots are serving some weird agenda, but I don't see any need for (especially private, unregistered, non-communicating) drones to operate near forest fires, so I don't even care if the pilots are just objecting for the lulz.
  - jjoonathan 11y ago
    > What's the equivalence between a random black cat on a mirror and an intentionally operated drone? It's possible that the drone was exactly as not-dangerous as the black cat in that it was far away from the helicoptor and would have backed off if the helicoptor had moved towards it. It's also possible that the operator was incompetent (incapable of remaining far from the helicoptor) or maliciously trying to run it into the helicopter. But I'm not going to jump to that assumption on some guy's hunch -- which is what everyone else seems to be doing. > I don't see any need for drones to operate near forest fires, You almost certainly have hobbies that I don't see any need for. That wouldn't be justification for banning them.
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      Feel free to ban carrying out any of my hobbies in the proximity of forest fire control operations. Let's make the silly analogy more accurate: Firefighters ask witches not to bring black cats and mirrors to active house fires. Witches outraged, no one else cares.
  - mcherm 11y ago
    f there was some meaningful need for black cats to step on mirrors, I might care that the firefighters are serving some weird agenda, but I don't see any need for (especially private, unregistered) cats to be allowed near mirrors, so I don't even care if the firefighters are just objecting for the lulz.

vacri 11y ago

If merely being present has stopped a course of action, then yes, merely being present is 'interfering' with things. Your quoted description matches the headlines you think are out of order - the drone did imperil the helicopters (or they wouldn't have been grounded), it did interrupt the firefighters, it did get in the way, and it did impede the battle against the fires. None of those headline need active malicious intent to 'work'. > and not an intentional (and highly successful) attempt to grandstand. Ah, right... the papers, they're being political about it and should be ignored as a result.... but labelling the judgement call 'grandstanding', that's not political at all...

jjoonathan 11y ago
> If merely being present has stopped a course of action, then yes, merely being present is 'interfering' with things. No, it really isn't. Hypothetical scenario time: "Black cat steps on mirror, firefighters let house burn for fear of upsetting spirits." Was the black cat interfering with things? Or were the firefighters' beliefs about black cats and spirits interfering with things? > the drone did imperil the helicopters (or they wouldn't have been grounded) Sure, it follows -- if you assume their judgment was infallible. > None of those headline need active malicious intent to 'work'. I never accused anyone of acting maliciously. > they're being political about it and should be ignored as a result.... but labelling the judgement call 'grandstanding', that's not political at all... It's highly political, of course. I never pretended otherwise.
- vacri 11y ago
  > Was the black cat interfering with things? If you require intent for something to be considered interference, I guess you're not much of a wave physicist. > I never accused anyone of acting maliciously. No, my point was that that was what you were saying the papers were doing - you were saying that the papers were injecting malicious intent into the story. Okay, you didn't literally use the word 'malicious', but I think most people would not have a problem with it, given the context you were suggesting the papers were giving ("active interference" preventing firefighters from doing their work)

fucking_tragedy 11y ago

I wouldn't drive myself + passengers on the same freeway as amateurs trying to weave RC vehicles around my own. And I wouldn't be driving through the air hundreds of feet above the ground. The fact that professional pilots and helicopter operators _have_ to make that judgment call for safety reasons because there are no regulations ensuring a safe flight is a concern.

jjoonathan 11y ago
The sky is a bigger place than a road. 3D vs 1D. No comparison. My problem is not with the judgment call; my problem is with the fact that their judgment call is being used as evidence that they were in danger. As you yourself point out, nobody really knows how dangerous the situation was. Extreme uncertainty makes conservative action reasonable, but it doesn't make drones inherently dangerous. It would be nice to get some laws on the books to eliminate the uncertainty. My fear is that the laws will lean absurdly on the side of caution; an analogy would be putting a literal tin-foil-hatter in charge of the FCC.
- darpa_escapee 11y ago
  I'd argue the safety threat is greater for a helicopter's passengers when both the operator and the amateurs are trying to reach the same target. I'd also argue that the ability to navigate that 3D space competently doesn't exist from a fixed point at a distance by an amateur. Especially in an emergency situation, especially if there is limited visibility due to smoke. They were in a dangerous situation. The uncertainty makes it an inherently dangerous situation. Drones are no inherently dangerous, no one is arguing that. Drones can create inherently dangerous situations, however. This was one.
- 4v1SoundsFair 11y ago
  Roads are 2D...1D would be a point. You're point still stands though.
- CaptainZapp 11y ago
  The sky is a bigger place than a road. 3D vs 1D. No comparison. While this is true, in theory, the various flight pathes are very, very tightly regulated and controlled. Here's an interesting (if rivetting) read what can go wrong when a plane deviates from it's assigned path and height http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2009/01/air_crash200901 http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2009/01/air_crash200901