Castanet Under Fire for Flying Drone Near One

[jimsenchuk]

hope the idiot gets fired for this stupidity

[dconzatti]

hope the idiot gets fired for this stupidity

Seeing as Castanet operates on the "has to be first at all costs" ideology, I would hate for the employee to be fired for being told "Get the drone and go get pictures, NOW!"

That said I really want Castanet to be fined over the situation, as it's the kick they need to start following the rules.

[Captain Awesome]

Wow, people are bloodthirsty today. Must be all the heat.

[Atomoa]

The drone served no other purpose other than "paparazzi" type "for profit" pictures.

No information. No lives saved. No community service. People put at risk.

Why?

So more people go to the website so the sales team can quote "such and such pairs of eyes will see your banner every day and maybe even click on it if they don't have adblock".

Not journalism, boo.

[PDT]

Big freaking deal… it's just a silly RC quad-copter… not some military drone. If it's not against the law for joe-public to fly one of these in a situation like this, then what's the big deal if a reporter uses one for a few seconds to capture a video or photo. I trust someone doing such a thing for work than I would some "kid" playing around with their toy. Haters gonna hate and the little "local" media wars continue.

[Bsuds]

The drone served no other purpose other than "paparazzi" type "for profit" pictures.

No information. No lives saved. No community service. People put at risk.

Why?

So more people go to the website so the sales team can quote "such and such pairs of eyes will see your banner every day and maybe even click on it if they don't have adblock".

Not journalism, boo.

Well that is what pays the bills and gives you the opportunity to come onto their website and *bleep* about them.

[GenesisGT]

If it's not against the law for joe-public to fly one of these in a situation like this, then what's the big deal if a reporter uses one for a few seconds to capture a video or photo.

Actually it is against the law for anyone to fly a drone or anything else over a forest fire area. Note definition of aircraft is anything that fly's. Canadian Aviation Regulations.

Forest Fire Aircraft Operating Restrictions

601.15 No person shall operate an aircraft

(a) over a forest fire area, or over any area that is located within five nautical miles of a forest fire area, at an altitude of less than 3,000 feet AGL; or

(b) in any airspace that is described in a NOTAM issued pursuant to section 601.16.

[Wally]

I dont about the rules and I dont know much about drones, but it does sound like a really dumb thing to do. Lack of common sense should be a fineable offense.

[StraitTalk]

Probably completely overblown. What a headline. The drone was likely hovering just above tree tips from very safe distances. You'd have to be a dunce to put it any closer and I really have to question how a competitor tells their version. Either way, clearly rules need to be 1. put in place and 2. made openly available. There is still very little education and rule developed by federal organizations to govern these crafts and people are doing exactly what you'd expect, pushing the boundaries.

I've owned one for about half a year now and I have to say it's an amazing experience to be able to confidently fly one of these around, but living within 10km of the airport (and roughly that distance) I've had people call the police on me three times. At this point I've had to deal with some investigation (not by the RCMP) twice and I don't feel harassed, I just feel like there could be clearer boundaries put in place. My drone has a pretty short flight radius because the radio isn't that advanced, and I keep it pretty low because I like to watch it, only ever flying it in one of Kelownas largest soccer fields - even then, people have phoned.

I recently watched a video of some woman physically attacking a boy for flying his drone over a beach, after she suddenly suspected him of filming people. The boy was barely old enough to defend himself.

Amazon recently and only slightly sarcastically announced they'd one day utilize a fully robotic warehouse distribution system as well as a drone-operated shipping system. It didn't take long for the FAA to strike any possibility of this down indefinitely.

Perhaps all the concern is warranted but where is the regulation? The repercussions of a user-controlled mobile task-bot are serious.

[skydawg]

Probably completely overblown. What a headline. The drone was likely hovering just above tree tips from very safe distances. You'd have to be a dunce to put it any closer and I really have to question how a competitor tells their version. Either way, clearly rules need to be 1. put in place and 2. made openly available. There is still very little education and rule developed by federal organizations to govern these crafts and people are doing exactly what you'd expect, pushing the boundaries.

I've owned one for about half a year now and I have to say it's an amazing experience to be able to confidently fly one of these around, but living within 10km of the airport (and roughly that distance) I've had people call the police on me three times. At this point I've had to deal with some investigation (not by the RCMP) twice and I don't feel harassed, I just feel like there could be clearer boundaries put in place. My drone has a pretty short flight radius because the radio isn't that advanced, and I keep it pretty low because I like to watch it, only ever flying it in one of Kelownas largest soccer fields - even then, people have phoned.

I recently watched a video of some woman physically attacking a boy for flying his drone over a beach, after she suddenly suspected him of filming people. The boy was barely old enough to defend himself.

Amazon recently and only slightly sarcastically announced they'd one day utilize a fully robotic warehouse distribution system as well as a drone-operated shipping system. It didn't take long for the FAA to strike any possibility of this down indefinitely.

Perhaps all the concern is warranted but where is the regulation? The repercussions of a user-controlled mobile task-bot are serious.

Take the UAV ground school that is available for training of where to fly and not to fly.

[samsquench07]

I heard Kelly Hayes was actually in the drone, flying it like the Great Gazoo

[Swoop]

*snip* Either way, clearly rules need to be 1. put in place and 2. made openly available.

*snip*

...the rules are already in place - and very clear...
"unauthorized aircrafts are prohibited within five aeronautical miles around the perimeter of any wildfire"
...one would think someone flying one of these for commercial purposes would know these rules...begs the question - is Castanets licensed in accordance with the guidleines for commercial use?...

[cuba108]

The drones flying into Arizona from Sonora also do not have commercial licences, but they are quite profitable.Sure would be nice to get some military ones with a bit more range and cargo capability. Just sayin.

[Dizzy1]

Big freaking deal… it's just a silly RC quad-copter… not some military drone. If it's not against the law for joe-public to fly one of these in a situation like this, then what's the big deal if a reporter uses one for a few seconds to capture a video or photo. I trust someone doing such a thing for work than I would some "kid" playing around with their toy. Haters gonna hate and the little "local" media wars continue.

True, big freaking deal - just a silly RC quad-copter. Who cares if its playing around in an active fire zone? Who cares if some yutz trying to get some cool shots flies it into the path of a water bomber and hits the prop? Big freaking deal.

Drones are awesome little tools bit they have no business being anywhere where there is air traffic especially critical areas such as airports and fire zones. Pilots have more important things to concentrate on the have something like that go through their engine

[daria]

Castanet news website drone stopped near wildfire in Okanagan

A drone belonging to Okanagan news website Castanet.net was stopped by fire officials on Sunday, after the operator tried to get closer to a wildfire near Peachland, B.C.

Fire information officer Kayla Pepper says the technology can be dangerous.

"If a drone was flying in the area and came into contact with our helicopters, that could be potentially fatal, and it can distract crews on the ground with the complex situations they are dealing with,' said Pepper.

"For a number of reasons these devices are prohibited...it's not just wildfire management policy but also the policy of Transport Canada."

Castanet News Editor, Trevor Rockcliff was flying the drone and said he only had it in the air for a minute or two, before he brought down the drone, saying he thought he was in the clear, since no helicopters were in the air.

"I said, 'The helicopter was done for the night', he said 'Yes, but we still have a no fly zone'...and I said 'Okay', and then I brought it down," said Rockcliff.

Rockcliff ​says the technology is new, and so are the rules, but insists it is the last time he will fly his drone near wildfires.

The use of drones is controlled by Transport Canada, which issues Special Flight Operating Certificates for approved operations.

The number of drone permits issued in B.C. annually has risen from just six in 2007 to 178 in 2013.
_____________________________________

A little more info....