Castanet Under Fire for Flying Drone Near One

[vinnied]

Funny how no one could have cared less about castanet capturing that photo, and even starting a thread on the fire. Then days later someone sees the news story on a competitors site, and figures here's an even better thread. Always 2 sides to every story. Good to hear castanets side.

[Always Sunny]

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.

Having seen first hand what a bird can do to the windshield of a water bomber, purposely flying a drone in their air space is simply selfish. Can't always help what nature throws at you some times, but human interaction, sure.

Our helipads had to be checked constantly for debris. One empty grocery bag is enough to do a hundreds of thousands of dollars damage. And that's just on the ground.

Safety is nothing to mess with, especially when sharing the low air space. We all know what a forest fire looks like unfortunately, so go play with your toys else where.

[PDT]

Stop being so sensationalist. The aircraft were done for the day so it was impossible for this RC toy to have collided with any of them. The reporter realizes their mistake and won't do it again. No harm done.

[Always Sunny]

Stop being so sensationalist. The aircraft were done for the day so it was impossible for this RC toy to have collided with any of them. The reporter realizes their mistake and won't do it again. No harm done.

I'll stop when people like you stop making excuses for the entitled folk who think the rules don't apply to them.

And how did they know aircraft were done for the day, because they called the proper channels for clearance. Oh, that's right...

No different than the looky loos who need to cram streets watching apartment buildings burn being in the way of the people actually trying to do their jobs.

Try providing an excuse as to why they NEED to be there instead of telling everyone to get over it. Sorry, but I've seen key pieces of forest fire fighting equipment put out of commission for stupid reasons. I don't see why we need to allow for even a small chance of that happening here.

[Jx3]

Stop being so sensationalist.

How incredibly ironic! Defending Castanet by telling a poster to stop being "so sensationalist"! Have you read any of the "news" stories posted on Castanet?

[Dizzy1]

Stop being so sensationalist. The aircraft were done for the day so it was impossible for this RC toy to have collided with any of them. The reporter realizes their mistake and won't do it again. No harm done.

The point is that the airspace around a forest fire is restricted airspace, that means no unauthorized flying devices are permitted in that airspace until the restriction is lifted ... period. It doesn't mean that if you don't see any planes or helicopters or if its night time they must be done for the day, restricted applies 24/7.

The problem is that people who fly these little gizmos require no formal training in aviation related rules and regulations, if one is to operate one of these, especially for a news agency where it will be deployed in some questionable situations (from an aviation point of view), formal training should be mandatory in at least airmanship and rules and regs of the skies.

Its dangerous enough driving to the airport with yahoo's on the road just making up or disregarding rules as they go, don't need the skies filled with that same problem.

[skydawg]

So the question remains, does Trevor have the appropriate UAV ground training for the commercial use of said drone? And was an SFOC issued?

[Jx3]

Have to wonder how many of these things there are around here now. There are two new shots of the Mt Boucherie fire in the Castanet story that look like they were taken from a drone. Photo's were credited to Blair Savage.

We watched what had to be a quite high-end drone flying over Kelowna on Canada Day before and during the fireworks display. Judging by the distances it travelled and the amount of area it covered it was no toy that's for sure.

[dreamon]

Forest fires are typically covered by a NOTAM.
UAV's are supposed to follow CARs.

If a drone/UAV operator does not understand the above acronyms, let alone know what is in then, they should not be operating a drone/UAV.

[Jo]

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... htm#119217

[Dizzy1]

Forest fires are typically covered by a NOTAM.

A NOTAM doesn't have to be issued though, as per CARS, airspace around a forest fire is restricted to 3000' AGL and 5 NM ... anything larger, a NOTAM is usually issued.

If a drone/UAV operator does understand the above acronyms, let alone know what is in then, they should not be operating a drone/UAV.

Absolutely agreed!

[Jim Dixon]

............ Always 2 sides to every story...

I feel there is 3 sides to every story, His, Hers, and the Truth.

The trouble with "sides" when it involves the news medium, is finding the truth.

j

[Dizzy1]

I feel there is 3 sides to every story, His, Hers, and the Truth.

The trouble with "sides" when it involves the news medium, is finding the truth.

j

In some cases there are only 2 sides, as an example ... What are the regulations regarding flying an object in a restricted air zone as per the CARS and was something flown in that restricted zone. Seeing that we've seen the video from the drone, we know it was flown in the restricted zone, and seeing that the CARS specify a forest fire area as a restricted zone ... this one doesn't need a 3rd side.

[fentazelb]

One of the things I hate the most is how much misinformation is out there on the regulations and use of R/C aircraft. Were the shots obtained dangerously, no, against regulations is a big yes. Everyone keeps saying these things need rules and that there are no rules, Canada actually has some of the best rules there are for the hobby and for anyone wanting to use R/C aircraft commercially. Canada is one of the leaders in the field, the US is scrambling to catch up to us and has been using our rules as some of the basis for their new rules. Anyone that uses ignorance of the rules as an excuse should still be punished, especially when they are supposed to be professionals in their field of work. I think the Castanet reporter and all other users of R/C aircraft should do more research before they use their equipment, joining or asking a local R/C club would be a good place to start. I know for a fact there havent been to many requests put out that way in a while since I run the local club here in Kelowna.