Drone interference

Fire-related topics

Re: Drone interference

Postby fentazelb » Aug 28th, 2015, 11:07 pm

queenk the real estate business in ktown area alone is enough to keep several of my friends working as professional drone pilots. some are doing mapping as well. I have never ventured past the hobby part of things but there is definitely the demand. As stated many times its not the educated fliers that are the problem, its educating all the fliers of the rules thats the problem.
fentazelb
 
Posts: 60
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 8 posts
Joined: Oct 9th, 2009, 11:55 pm

Re: Drone interference

Postby skydawg » Aug 29th, 2015, 8:20 am

fentazelb wrote:queenk the real estate business in ktown area alone is enough to keep several of my friends working as professional drone pilots. some are doing mapping as well. I have never ventured past the hobby part of things but there is definitely the demand. As stated many times its not the educated fliers that are the problem, its educating all the fliers of the rules thats the problem.


Are they doing it legally? With proper permits? I saw a few guys doing some real estate video work a few weeks ago and I certainly didnt see any professionalism. Several rules being broken though.
skydawg
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3265
Likes: 67 posts
Liked in: 468 posts
Joined: Feb 6th, 2005, 4:05 pm

Re: Drone interference

Postby Captain Awesome » Aug 29th, 2015, 11:37 am

fentazelb wrote:queenk the real estate business in ktown area alone is enough to keep several of my friends working as professional drone pilots.


One of my friends shoots and sells footage through video banks. Not a full-time gig, but it already paid for all the equipment and then some. Shot some weddings too.
Sarcasm is like a good game of chess. Most people don't know how to play chess.
User avatar
Captain Awesome
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 24998
Likes: 30 posts
Liked in: 3123 posts
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2008, 5:06 pm
Location: The United Colonies of The Lizard People

Re: Drone interference

Postby GordonH » Sep 4th, 2015, 2:09 pm

http://www.castanet.net/news/BC/147178/ ... ones-boats

from the news link above wrote:Transport Canada regulates the use of drones, and Morris said those regulations prohibit their use near any wildfire.

"The restricted area is within a radius of five nautical miles around a fire and to an altitude of 3,000 feet above ground level.

"The current maximum fine for an infraction is $25,000 and violators could spend up to 18 months in jail.


It a shame these drone owners don't read the laws before going out and playing with there toys, well here they are. Boat owners/and or renters are just as stupid.
When you have to start compromising yourself and your morals for the people around you, it’s probably time to change the people around you.
User avatar
GordonH
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 22540
Likes: 2699 posts
Liked in: 8449 posts
Joined: Oct 4th, 2008, 7:21 pm
Location: Second star to the right and straight on 'til morning

Re: Drone interference

Postby skydawg » Sep 4th, 2015, 6:26 pm

The sad part is they never enforce this $25,000 fine or jail time. It could be a million dollar fine. They never charge anyone so the people flying these UAV's where they shouldn't be really don't care. Hand out a few $25,000 tickets then see how much interference they cause.

mtn living likes this post.
skydawg
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3265
Likes: 67 posts
Liked in: 468 posts
Joined: Feb 6th, 2005, 4:05 pm

Re: Drone interference

Postby Ken7 » Sep 7th, 2015, 5:16 pm

K.I.S.S. method.

Have the RCMP attend in the areas of forest fires. Have a long rifle there and down the drown. One shot from a high powered riffle will take that risk out of the equation, so simple it's sick!
User avatar
Ken7
Guru
 
Posts: 7007
Likes: 4188 posts
Liked in: 3031 posts
Joined: Sep 30th, 2007, 4:09 pm

Re: Drone interference

Postby Woodenhead » Sep 7th, 2015, 8:48 pm

And while all the cops are out manning the fire line with their rifles, the crooks and speeders will be running amok in town.

(just trying to keep up with the "oversimplify the solution" theme here)
Wealth without work. Pleasure without conscience. Knowledge without character. Commerce without morality. Science without humanity. Politics without principle. Your bias suits you.
User avatar
Woodenhead
Guru
 
Posts: 5184
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 964 posts
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 2:47 pm

Re: Drone interference

Postby GordonH » Sep 7th, 2015, 11:50 pm

Woodenhead wrote:And while all the cops are out manning the fire line with their rifles, the crooks and speeders will be running amok in town.

(just trying to keep up with the "oversimplify the solution" theme here)


What would you suggest as possible solution to this problem, if there even is one.
Or do they just let drone flyers disrupt & ground air support during a forest fire, even if that places homeowners property at higher risk of being burnt.
When you have to start compromising yourself and your morals for the people around you, it’s probably time to change the people around you.
User avatar
GordonH
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 22540
Likes: 2699 posts
Liked in: 8449 posts
Joined: Oct 4th, 2008, 7:21 pm
Location: Second star to the right and straight on 'til morning

Re: Drone interference

Postby Woodenhead » Sep 8th, 2015, 11:21 am

I don't have a perfect solution. That doesn't mean we should do nothing or that such a solution doesn't exist or is impossible. Your post there is "either or" and that is a logical fallacy.

If someone finds a flaw with a proposed solution, that doesn't mean they are on the opposite side of the fence. It only means (in my case, at least) that we need to dig deeper and work/think harder to find an actual tangible and working solution. Knee-jerk and over-simplified idealistic online quips are rarely workable actual solutions. (I'm not trying to poke a barb at anyone there)
Wealth without work. Pleasure without conscience. Knowledge without character. Commerce without morality. Science without humanity. Politics without principle. Your bias suits you.
User avatar
Woodenhead
Guru
 
Posts: 5184
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 964 posts
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 2:47 pm

Re: Drone interference

Postby GordonH » Sep 8th, 2015, 11:42 am

Woodenhead wrote:I don't have a perfect solution. That doesn't mean we should do nothing or that such a solution doesn't exist or is impossible. Your post there is "either or" and that is a logical fallacy.

If someone finds a flaw with a proposed solution, that doesn't mean they are on the opposite side of the fence. It only means (in my case, at least) that we need to dig deeper and work/think harder to find an actual tangible and working solution. Knee-jerk and over-simplified idealistic online quips are rarely workable actual solutions. (I'm not trying to poke a barb at anyone there)


It's catching them in the act, which is going to be one hell of job to do (means finding the drone & operator together).

Or just remove the problem that is grounding the fire fighting aircraft by blasting drone out of restricted air space.
When you have to start compromising yourself and your morals for the people around you, it’s probably time to change the people around you.
User avatar
GordonH
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 22540
Likes: 2699 posts
Liked in: 8449 posts
Joined: Oct 4th, 2008, 7:21 pm
Location: Second star to the right and straight on 'til morning

Re: Drone interference

Postby Woodenhead » Sep 8th, 2015, 11:59 am

GordonH wrote:It's catching them in the act, which is going to be one hell of job to do (means finding the drone & operator together).

I totally agree. I think the answer may lie in licensing and/or digital signing/tracing. Getting into some technical stuff there which I know little about. I'm sure it's at least plausible.

GordonH wrote:Or just remove the problem that is grounding the fire fighting aircraft by blasting drone out of restricted air space.

This doesn't seem realistically feasible; surely not very effective. You'd have to actually surround an entire fire with people holding weapons. Then take aim + range + weather considerations into account. Probably other factors. Sounds like a large and expensive undertaking with a low % chance of success. :/ Perhaps it can be done electronically (jamming) but as I understand it, they currently use the same frequency range as legit things do - including emergency services - and so isn't really currently feasible, either. I did post a neat drone weapon earlier - but again, it requires a close range & a person to be in the exact right place at the exact right time.

Things should change in the future. Right now, it's largely unregulated (I'm talking not just about laws regarding actual flying, but manufacturing standards and requirements and such things) but thankfully it's still a relatively rare occurrence. Now is the time for regulatory bodies to get ahead of the curve.
Wealth without work. Pleasure without conscience. Knowledge without character. Commerce without morality. Science without humanity. Politics without principle. Your bias suits you.
User avatar
Woodenhead
Guru
 
Posts: 5184
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 964 posts
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 2:47 pm

Re: Drone interference

Postby GordonH » Sep 8th, 2015, 12:09 pm

GordonH wrote:It's catching them in the act, which is going to be one hell of job to do (means finding the drone & operator together).

Woodenhead wrote:I totally agree. I think the answer may lie in licensing and/or digital signing/tracing. Getting into some technical stuff there which I know little about. I'm sure it's at least plausible.

That would work with new models coming from manufactures under those possible new laws regarding Drones, still have older pre-new law drones to deal with.

GordonH wrote:Or just remove the problem that is grounding the fire fighting aircraft by blasting drone out of restricted air space.

Woodenhead wrote:This doesn't seem realistically feasible; surely not very effective. You'd have to actually surround an entire fire with people holding weapons. Then take aim + range + weather considerations into account. Probably other factors. Sounds like a large and expensive undertaking with a low % chance of success. :/ Perhaps it can be done electronically (jamming) but as I understand it, they currently use the same frequency range as legit things do - including emergency services - and so isn't really currently feasible, either.

Things should change in the future. Right now, it's largely unregulated (I'm talking not just about laws regarding actual flying, but manufacturing standards and requirements and such things) but thankfully it's still a relatively rare occurrence. Now is the time for regulatory bodies to get ahead of the curve.


Chances are just have RCMP helicopter patrolling the area of sightings, with the threat of them shooting them down maybe enough until the technical part you mention earlier fully takes hold.

No matter something needs to be done, its shame common sense would not be enough (meaning people could be losing there biggest investment insured or not, because of drone has halted part of fire fight machine)
When you have to start compromising yourself and your morals for the people around you, it’s probably time to change the people around you.
User avatar
GordonH
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 22540
Likes: 2699 posts
Liked in: 8449 posts
Joined: Oct 4th, 2008, 7:21 pm
Location: Second star to the right and straight on 'til morning

Re: Drone interference

Postby Woodenhead » Sep 8th, 2015, 12:48 pm

Yep, something needs to be done. I just don't see any solutions offered yet that would currently be very reliable and inexpensive. (both $ and manpower)
Wealth without work. Pleasure without conscience. Knowledge without character. Commerce without morality. Science without humanity. Politics without principle. Your bias suits you.
User avatar
Woodenhead
Guru
 
Posts: 5184
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 964 posts
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 2:47 pm

Re: Drone interference

Postby gman313 » Sep 8th, 2015, 3:20 pm

Woodenhead wrote:Yep, something needs to be done. I just don't see any solutions offered yet that would currently be very reliable and inexpensive. (both $ and manpower)


DJI, which sells a significant amount of the drones currently in use now programs there drones not to be able to fly in restricted areas. So if you go set up next to an airport or the White House the thing will not even start.

Also, Transport Canada is currently collecting comments on proposed drone regulations to take effect next year so please, give your feedback to them. Registration is definitely an important piece of the puzzle.

The problem with drone regulations is similar to gun regulations. the vast majority of people will not be stupid with their equipment. The problem lies with the idiots who aren't going to follow the rules no matter what.
gman313
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3063
Likes: 1374 posts
Liked in: 1560 posts
Joined: Sep 15th, 2008, 8:03 pm

Re: Drone interference

Postby Captain Awesome » Sep 8th, 2015, 3:50 pm

Also, buying a firearm is only possible through a specific store which won't sell it to you unless you're licensed. Drones can be bought online overseas no problem. You can buy parts and build your own. Heck, none of the part are really that special.
Sarcasm is like a good game of chess. Most people don't know how to play chess.
User avatar
Captain Awesome
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 24998
Likes: 30 posts
Liked in: 3123 posts
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2008, 5:06 pm
Location: The United Colonies of The Lizard People

PreviousNext

Return to Fire Watch 2015

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests