Drones Delay Efforts to Fight North Fire in Southern California - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/US/drones-delay-efforts-fight-california-wildfire/story?id=32534795)

What ashame

The misleading headline is the real shame. When the entire story is read, a different picture emerges.

I haven't been able to find the "different picture" and I did read the whole article. Could you elaborate?

The only picture I can come away with is that flying drones in or near an emergency area is stupid. I think the FAA has their head up their ... on this whole subject, but I also think anyone with common sense should use what's between their ears and not interfere or even potentially interfere with emergency crews.

They were flying in an area they commonly fly in and when they were told they needed to land, they did so. Nobody was arrested because they were not doing anything illegal. As other UAV operators who live in the area tell it, the terrain is such that they may not have been aware that there was a fire unless the smoke was visible. Apparently, they were in an area that the firefighting aircraft needed to transit through.

Just didn't read to me like total idiocy as has been the case in other incidents.

The really chilling part is reading the comments under the article linked above. Lots of people out there seem to hate these aircraft enough to want to shoot them out of the sky.

I know the area where that fire happened - no place anywhere close to "play" with anything - it's a long stretch of highway with a LONG distance between exits.... there is quite literally NOTHING anywhere near that stretch of highway!!! MAYBE the drones were flying near the place the firefighting aircraft needed to take off from, but that again would be one helluva dumb idea... "transit through"?!? Nope, again... the winds in that area can be brutal, that's one of the reasons the fire spread so quickly - no one was "playing with their toy", someone wanted 15 minutes of fame, and now has it, just not because they got some "kewl" footage.

Sorry, but as someone who has seen too many drone "disruptions" in these tinder dry California fires, I'd say "shoot 'em down" if they are in the emergency areas - there is no time to politely seek out the moron operator and say "pretty please could you land..." Shoot first, ask later, people could have died (early reports, thankfully erroneous, were that this was a "mass casualty incident") from any delay in firefighting, and there was enormous property damage and loss (people I know personally almost lost their home, their neighbors DID!! We have property in the path the fire was heading as well... so pardon me if I think very poorly of the bozos justifying playing with their toys!!!).

IF some "hobby drone" operator delayed emergency response as the firefighters are stating (and this is now happening at almost every "incident", supposedly 4 times THIS WEEK), they should find themselves liable for losses resulting from their "playing". If they are too STUPID to get out of the way of emergency responders, shoot their "toys" down, and arrest them. We have laws that you get the hell out of the way of oncoming emergency vehicles, there's absolutely NO difference here, "toys" or not!

I'm the first to say that drones have tremendous value and should be promoted with thoughtful use (including potential use by first responders in some cases), and with proper "pilots", they will become a valuable part of everyday life... but in the hands of some moron with a couple hundred bucks and no brains... well, think about it... they are endangering public safety, all so they can post some "kewl" video on YouTube!?!?

Yeah, as a tech guy who is normally pretty understanding, I was contemplating how hard it would be for LEO to simply blast these morons out of the sky...

5 years ago if you needed aerial photos/video, it cost (where I live) $1,400/hour to get it. Today, you can buy a quadcopter for $1,400 total and fly it for a thousand hours. IMHO, there are a lot of helicopter pilots who were living in big nice houses, owning luxury boats who have suddenly seen the bottom drop out of their income stream.

Helicopter pilots are a small group, often the same guy flies part time for the police department, part time giving coastal tours, couple times a year for the fire authority, and does some power pole scouting and aerial photo/video. This guy who is writing his congressperson to outlaw drones knows his voice will never be heard, but because in our country firefighters are "heroes", he knows if he sees a quadcopter and is then "forced to land", perhaps killing people and injuring property in the process, the international media will cover it (and it has). Further if he states he was "chased" by the drone.

Don't get me wrong, sometimes I swat at a fly, and sometimes I miss. But when I walk away and the fly follows me, I don't consider myself to be chased.

Fact of the matter is that neither me, nor this guy, nor any of you know what happens when a 2lb plastic quad hits a 2,000lb helicopter pulling 2,000lb of water. Most places on the helicopter (everywhere except the rotor), probably nothing. The prop wash would probably do away with that drone before it hit anything anyhow. But in the very unlikely instance that it hit the tail rotor... Would it be cut into a million pieces, or would it crack the rotor and the heli would see an untimely landing? I wouldn't want to be in the bird that found out. But I'd be interested in seeing some research (real-world demonstrations) to experiment.

The quadcopter industry needs some regs. I think it'd be simple and cheap to build a general aviation radio into the whole kit, in fact I'm not convinced it couldn't be done with the phone/tablet you already have. (Certainly to RX the signal would be just a matter of having internet access.) It is NOT a requirement to have a radio to fly a GA plane, and while it might not be a requirement to fly a quadcopter, it would be a good idea for DJI and other smaller mfrs to build this into the app as an option.

If (as it appears) the 400' ceiling is going to be a thing, I can see only rare instance where hobbyist aircraft would interfere with manned aircraft anyhow.

Remember, they don't own the sky, they were just there first.

@ Mike - When things hit your aircraft some serious *stuff* can happen.

Fact of the matter is that neither me, nor this guy, nor any of you know what happens when a 2lb plastic quad hits a 2,000lb helicopter pulling 2,000lb of water. Most places on the helicopter (everywhere except the rotor), probably nothing. The prop wash would probably do away with that drone before it hit anything anyhow. But in the very unlikely instance that it hit the tail rotor... Would it be cut into a million pieces, or would it crack the rotor and the heli would see an untimely landing? I wouldn't want to be in the bird that found out. But I'd be interested in seeing some research (real-world demonstrations) to experiment.
.

If you would like to participate in a test, what about if you drive your car down the highway while stand on the overpass and drop a 2 pound rock and see what happens when it hits your shatterproof windshield?

Do you think we really need to do some "real-world" demonstrations to see what will happen?

Okay, now take for example, a Cessna 172 - a popular 4-seater plane. It has a windshield that is 3/16ths of an inch thick (0.187"). Cruise speed over 140 mph. How would you like to be flying that when your 2-pound rock or 'plastic' drone hits the windshield?

Considering that the Cessna 172 is one of the slower planes out there (the 152 is just a trainer), hopefully now you might see why drones are a concern to pilots.

As for other stuff hitting a plane, just small nicks in the prop will cause the whole engine to shake and if they aren't taken care of the little nick can even cause a failure of the prop. Aircraft that take off from dirt strips are prone to getting nicks in the prop and they have to be properly taken care of.

The problem with flying where there are drowns is you can't see them until a millisecond before they hit you. It can be difficult to even spot another aircraft because you're moving, they're moving, and the ground is constantly changing. Trying to spot a gnat while flying - and the pilot has to be constantly looking all around, including paying attention to the instruments and radio traffic in the cockpit, and doing real-time navigation at the same time, it can be really busy! Trying to spot that little gnat - forget it. there's really no time.

Don't get me wrong, sometimes I swat at a fly, and sometimes I miss. But when I walk away and the fly follows me, I don't consider myself to be chased.
What if it was a mosquito?

If the guy in the Cessna 172 owned the sky, well, we'd just outlaw drones, now wouldn't we?

If the guy in the Cessna goes down on your house because he got hit by an arrogant hobby drone owner who thinks his "right" to airspace supersedes public safety, you won't mind that at all now, right?

There is such a thing as PUBLIC safety and PUBLIC good. There are rules for a reason - as I stated, if you drive, and an emergency vehicle is coming at you, YOU GET OUT OF THE WAY, or perhaps end up with an expensive ticket (sadly not often enough). Just because there's lots of "airspace" doesn't make it a "free for all" now available for everyone and their trained monkey to fly around in... at the expense of potential crashes and loss of life or property.

Before the guy goes up in the Cessna, he has a training process, then there's a pre-flight check, probably a flight plan... he does things to ensure safety of himself and others, as well as compliance with rules and regs... just because a drone plot needs nothing more than a credit card and no brains or training whatsoever doesn't establish any "right" to fly...

It's wonderful you can get a little toy for $1400 to take video with... now let's see that toy do a water or retardant drop over a rapidly spreading fire... or take a critically injured patient to a hospital to save their life... evacuate a stranded hiker... and so on... someone so silly as to say a little "toy" is more important than saving life or limb (while pooh poohing the actual pilots that risk their lives to save others?!) is illustrative of the problem, and why drones are not being as well accepted as they could be - bad citizenship is just that, nothing more or less...

Having watched a life flight heli "grounded" over a cardboard box (just some random street debris!) blown into it by another fire heli coming in for an evac, I'll trust that no pilot would ever want to hit or be hit by a "2 pound" toy... even you admit you'd not "man up" to be in the test craft, shouldn't that tell you something???

IF "drone people" continue to ignore the possible results of their actions, there will be more problems, and more calls to outlaw the use of an otherwise useful TOOL.

Seems you have your mind made up and aren't open to debate. In that case, I just wish you the best in the drive for regulation.

Here's a report of a jacket that blew out of a helicopter's cockpit and hit the tail rotor, resulting in a crash. How big and heavy does an item need to be in order to bring down a helicopter?
Kathryn's Report: MD/Hughes 500D, PJ Helicopters, N516PJ: Accident occurred September 02, 2014 in Willows, California (http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2014/09/former-butte-sheriffs-pilot-injured-in.html)

Seems you have your mind made up and aren't open to debate. In that case, I just wish you the best in the drive for regulation.

Debate ownership of airspace?

So, this guy goes out with his gun and shoots it toward the sky.

The drone guy found this guy with a smoking gun and says "Hey! Your bullet hit my drone and now it's ..... broken!" (or whatever)

Gun owner: "You don't own that airspace. And besides, I didn't even see that drone."
Or, "Prove that's my bullet. Can't find it, eh? Oh, that's too bad. I'm outa here. Let me know if you come up with any proof. And those injured people the drone fell on .... well, that's your problem."

Gun owner to self: Ummm.... maybe next time I'll take my scope off after I shoot. That could be incriminating.

P.S. Edit: The 172 windshield, 3/16" thick, it's only made of plastic. Not exactly the most robust material.

Sorry, but to me all the talk of the UAV pilots flying in their regular area and not being aware of a fire, just smacks of someone trying to rationalize their actions. Everyone in this forum knows fully well they were flying over the fire zone, trying to get great footage. Firefighting aircraft do not transit at or below 400 feet. They transit way above that. For one thing, there is little room for error, but in actual fact, the fuel burn goes WAY up and the turbulence can be enough to knock a pilot unconscious.

(Yes, a pipeline patrol aircraft once crashed because the pilot hit their head against the cockpit roof with the turbulence at low altitude.)

Pilots can not see radio-control aircraft, but the operators can surely see and hear full-size aircraft from a great distance. This means it is INCUMBENT upon the "drone" operator to land IMMEDIATELY, not to try for more dramatic footage. We all know why they were there; they can rationalize all they want, but they don't fool us. They were flying over and near an active fire zone.

I once had a bird strike shatter a new windshield on a brand new 172 that i was taking up for a test flight. It had less than 8 hours on the clock and the windshield blew into my face at 200 feet.

This is not a life-threatening situation because the aircraft is still airworthy. But I was blinded by the air blast, and I needed to get back on the ground RIGHT NOW. Thankfully, on day one of my flight training, I still remember my instructor telling me that, "The three most useless things in the world are runway behind you; altitude above you, and fuel back in the fuel truck." I never forgot that lesson. While taxiing out to the middle of a 12,000 foot runway, the tower offered, as usual, takeoff from the intersection. I would have 6000 glorious feet of runway, in an aircraft that could lift off in less than 800 feet.

I turned it down.

I always turned down intersection takeoffs, no matter what I was flying, how much it would create problems for the tower or how long I would have to wait to backtrack the active.

Just after rotation and climb out, my world disappeared into a haze of shattered plexi, blood and feathers. I chopped, the power, announced "Landing" and touched down with 1000 feet to spare.

That was a 2-pound bird.

To this day, when I am flying commercial, I still admire the pilots who swing wide to take the last 5 feet of runway, and who always straighten the nose wheel before powering on the power. Some days, you just might need that last 5 feet.

They were flying in an area they commonly fly in and when they were told they needed to land, they did so. Nobody was arrested because they were not doing anything illegal. As other UAV operators who live in the area tell it, the terrain is such that they may not have been aware that there was a fire unless the smoke was visible.
So - we're expected to believe FIVE drones "just happened" to be flying in an area "they commonly fly in" when a major fire was taking place, and "may not have been aware that there was a fire unless the smoke was visible"!!!?!

Errr, just look at the photos in that link. Look at the plumes of smoke. And with houses and cars being set alight, wouldn't there have been a lot of emergency service activity for miles around? Yet all five operators were unaware....?

Come on, pull the other one. Is it not far more likely they were simply trying to get the best footage they could, either for sale or simply because they thought it would be fun.

As for "who owns the sky anyway?" then ask what you'd think if it was your house that was threatened? Would anybody really think a drone filming the scene had as equal right to airspace as aircraft on emergency measures?

As for them "landing when told to do so", then they shouldn't need to have been told! And the very act of finding the operators and telling them to land must have caused at least some delay - surely not what's required when fire fighting?

As for whether a 2lb lump of plastic will cause any damage if hit by a plane..... I remember my car windscreen being hit by a small plastic object (I think it was a cigarette lighter) with a speed of about 50mph. If 2lbs hits a propeller or windscreen at several times that speed, expect damage!

I'd have zero tolerance in a case like this because few idiots with drones want to run and upload for free regardless of the consequences. More fire the better , if they die because the rescue is delayed then even better images to upload for free.

the other idiotic trend is the cell phones: you are at a concert and the moment they start performing you have a wall of cell phones and you can't see anything anymore.
Back to the drones : I'd give to the Judge more discretion : if the offender is an idiot then increase the sentence exponentially to scare the other idiots. It's the only way.

In the US, as I expect most participating in this thread already know:

>>
In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has the sole authority to control all public airspace, exclusively determining the rules and requirements for its use.<<

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights

I recommend flying at model plane club fields or your own property if you own some acreage. Otherwise you are probably a nuisance.

"There's an area not too far from where the fire started that's a pretty popular area for folks to come out and essentially play with their drones," Beyer said.

A crewmember in one of the firefighting planes noticed the drones and alerted ground crews, who tracked down the drone operators and forced them down.

"As soon as we see drones, we shut down all of our aircraft for the safety reasons," Beyer said. "If a drone got sucked into a wing or a propeller, that could have some serious impacts."

No arrests were made as it is only illegal to intentionally hinder firefighters or rescuers.

Gives me the impression that the operators weren't intentionally interfering.

"intent" could easily be inferred from being in an area where there was an emergency situation and shooting video... that argument doesn't hold water. "I was looking in the cookie jar for some loose change I misplaced"... NO, you were flying and shooting hoping for some YT hits, and maybe a media sale/notoriety, you caused potentially life and property threatening/damaging delays... a first year law student could win this one.

And particularly in the case of the North fire, there is NOTHING in that area, period - no where to fly drones, pull off the freeway for a couple miles in either direction (thus the particularly dangerous situation for vehicles)... NOTHING. And as the rapid fire spread illustrated, it is a VERY dangerous wind area that can act like a blowtorch under the "wrong" conditions... even point blank water drops were missing the mark due to the conditions!

I call BS on any drone pilot who tried to claim innocence while flying anywhere near that fire.

It's 100% understandable that safety comes first for the firefighters, unless you're more interested in scoring some "hot" footage over the safety of others - just 'cause the paparazzi have an air force now doesn't make bad behavior any more acceptable...

Let's put one of those "hobby drones" between a life flight heli and one of your loved ones in need of immediate evac... or a fire bearing down on your neighborhood... I'll bet you'll want some "regulation" enforcement too...

What amazes me, not sure if this has been mentioned or not but everyone seems to take it as fact that five, or any drones impeded the fire fighters in any way. Just because some reporter puts it in a newspaper article everyone jumps to the conclusion that it must have happened.

Maybe it did? I don't know, I wasn't there. But I did watch quite a bit of the live news footage during which there wasn't a single mention of a drone. I've traveled that pass often, its in the middle of no where, cars were stopped, and burned on the freeway so even if someone saw the smoke or the report on the news it would take hours, if at all possible to get the the scene.

This is way beyond the range of most, if not all, multirotors and I guess there's the possibility that some trapped in their cars might have had a drone with them. Probably not five. Of coarse if they did then they would be smart to launch their drones and figure a way out of their situation.

Like I said, after watching hours of live TV coverage from at least four media helicopters I did not see or hear of a drone in the area. Even if there was a drone in the area that doesn't prevent the fire department from doing their job either.

People need to get a grip and start to question a lot of this type of sensationalistic reporting. I also doubt that most of the people complaining about this have ever flown a drone, a helicopter or a plane.

What amazes me, not sure if this has been mentioned or not but everyone seems to take it as fact that five, or any drones impeded the fire fighters in any way. Just because some reporter puts it in a newspaper article everyone jumps to the conclusion that it must have happened.

Exactly. This is what I was more or less referring to in my original post in this thread. I have also recently seen input from someone who knows the RC folks who were the ones instructed to land. I am waiting on his permission to quote his post here on DVInfo because it pretty much corroborates the quote I posted from the ABC News story.

Right now, any negative rumor about 'drones' is guaranteed to get hyped, just as any negative rumor about Apple gets hyped in the financial press. Which is why I call the headline out as click bait in my first post above. From the headline, you'd have thought that there were 5 multirotors just hovering over the fire scene getting their images and causing the manned aircraft to sit on the ground.

-gb-

So I received permission from this person on Facebook to quote here. He is a participant in one of the UAV related groups there.

I happen be very close friends with RC pilots who were flying at Cajon Pass that day. I can also state that they ALL landed immediately after being asked to do so. 2 of them were near the end of an 8-hour flight needed to achieve the highest level in the soaring achievement program of the League of Silent Flight. One of them is also a full scale pilot and long time military program UAV pilot. He is also a well known model maker for the movies and has flown RC planes in numerous Hollywood blockbusters. So these are serious folks who are accomplished RC and full scale pilots and they abandoned their record attempts without question or hesitation. BTW, all the planes they were flying were larger than 4-foot spans and none of them interfered with any fire-fighting activities in the area.- Bill Malvey

Here's the webpage related to the site being referenced in this quote and the news story above...

Cajon Pass Flying Site (ISR) Club Flying Site | Flying SoCal (http://flyingsocal.com/flying-fields/san-bernardino-county/cajon-pass-flying-site-isr-club-flying-site/)

Just because some reporter puts it in a newspaper article everyone jumps to the conclusion that it must have happened.


There are many reports of this, at differing locations, supposedly originated by "US Forest Service" on the front lines. If it didn't happen, why would lawmakers get involved?
Assemblyman Gatto and Senator Gaines Announce Bill to Knock Drones Out Of Fire Zones - Assemblymember Mike Gatto Representing the 43rd California Assembly District (http://asmdc.org/members/a43/news-room/press-releases/assemblyman-gatto-and-senator-gaines-announce-bill-to-knock-drones-out-of-fire-zones)

Proposed California law would allow disabling or damaging of drones during fires - 10News.com KGTV ABC10 San Diego (http://www.10news.com/news/u-s-world/proposed-california-law-would-allow-disabling-or-damaging-of-drones-during-fires)

There are many reports of this, at differing locations, supposedly originated by "US Forest Service" on the front lines. If it didn't happen, why would lawmakers get involved?
Assemblyman Gatto and Senator Gaines Announce Bill to Knock Drones Out Of Fire Zones - Assemblymember Mike Gatto Representing the 43rd California Assembly District (http://asmdc.org/members/a43/news-room/press-releases/assemblyman-gatto-and-senator-gaines-announce-bill-to-knock-drones-out-of-fire-zones)

Proposed California law would allow disabling or damaging of drones during fires - 10News.com KGTV ABC10 San Diego (http://www.10news.com/news/u-s-world/proposed-california-law-would-allow-disabling-or-damaging-of-drones-during-fires)

This thread refers to a singular incident. Let's keep it that way.

I appologize for offending anyone, getting off topic, or anything else.

John, I am a licensed pilot. And we need to stop with the derogatory name calling. I'm going to start deleting and/or editing posts that are rants vs. rational discussion. The Flying Cameras forum is intended to be a discussion of the benefits and capabilities of such cameras. However, it seems that some just want to post threads that are the latest negative media headlines.

Rants, tirades, crusades, politics, religion and other such polarizing subjects are against DVInfo policy.

In reference to your earlier point about dropping a 2 pound rock onto a windshield, of course that will cause damage. I experienced that very thing at 2 am when some kids pushed rocks off a railroad overpass in front of my vehicle.

However, had they been dropping 2 pound chunks of styrofoam, I'm guessing the damage would have been much less severe. It's not the weight so much as how dense the object is. What would happen if I dropped a mattress off a bridge onto my windshield.

I have flown my share of C-172 aircraft and I just don't believe a lightweight plastic UAV is going to destroy that spinning aluminum Hartzell prop.

I for one, would like to see real testing done to determine how such impacts would affect the airworthiness of different classes of aircraft.

There are many reports of this, at differing locations, supposedly originated by "US Forest Service" on the front lines. If it didn't happen, why would lawmakers get involved?
Asking why lawmakers get involved in mediaworthy click-bait-y stories is a good question, but sadly unanswerable and having nothing to do with what actually happened that day.

As for preventing the fire department from doing their job - if there is a drone in the area and they’re using aircaraft, be they tankers, air drops, or spotter planes, they have to shut down the airspace for safety reasons. Drones and planes cannot safely fly in the same airspace.

Spotter planes are needed to track the progress of the fire and determine if there are any spots where it is jumping to. Reconiscense is needed to insure the safety of personnel on the ground so if the spotter planes can’t fly it impacts the safety of ground crews. If the ground crews have to retreat becasue if insufficient information then obviously the fire can grow which in turn will make matters even worse. And all this as a result of some idiot with a drone.
Spotter aircraft and fire recon is exactly the kind of flight that will be done by quadcopter in 5 years, which is why it's a terrible idea to enact overreaching drone legislation today.

Any such drone spotters will be under the control of the forest/fire fighting authorities, these current ones could be positioned anywhere in the flightpath of the manned aircraft.

They won't exist at all if we regulate them out of existence. The innovation is important.

I don't think having sensible rules is the same as regulating out of existence, Unfortunately, some users seem to lack sense.

Drone pilots warned after close call with passenger jet - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-33612631)

I can't buy the claim that there are that many near misses near airports. I am not sure why someone would fabricate a story like that (although I can see how someone would be mistaken about seeing a quadcopter that's 18" in diameter from a 737 that has a 100ft wingspan that's moving at 600mph), but I just can't buy it. All the major mfr's have no-fly zones that close to airports, the DIY guys have enough good sense (and about a million hours invested in a drone, too many to risk it), there is no way to see yourself flying the thing when it's at 2,000 feet, and even if you were up there, there's nothing to see - everything looks the same. I'm not saying it couldn't ever happen, but every week we get a handful of this "drone near miss" stuff, never a photo or video to support it, and each claim more outlandish than the last.

Actually did see some shots of a drone during one of the other (Nor) CA fires - I believe that one turned out to be a property owner trying to get a look at what was heading his way... arguably a "legit" use, but it caused temporary delay to firefighting aircraft operation - not sure if the guy gained or lost by his use of his drone...

CDF has reported "drones" near several fires that have impeded firefighting aircraft - maybe over-reacting, or maybe not - a plane doing a low level run has no "height" to make up for a strike by ANYTHING, so even a drone at 400 ft. might well represent a unique hazard if you think about it.



@ Greg - Thanks for the links to the site which appears not to be primarily drones/MR, but rather sailplanes - those would do well at the top of that slope! If these were the "drones" reported, that's indeed some ignorant "reporting", which does definitely happen. There's a "funny" link on that site to a little article/rant about "do you think we were born yesterday" that is a good read if one wants to understand the "cowboy" mentality that seems to go with "some" MR/drone operators...


There are plenty of good and for the most part SAFE uses for "drones", but at the moment, the dialog is being controlled by the few stupid people who have zero idea of the potential problems presented by their playing with their "toys" - they ruin it for the responsible users and potential users. They remind me of the kids who "hot rod" their cars and crotch rockets and "drive" like lunatics... sometimes I suspect they are the same fools! The typical justification is that they have some undefinable right to "do their thing", until someone is killed from their "fun"... as I said earlier, bad citizenship is just that.

I am NO fan of "rules and regulations", and a believer in "common sense", but since that is so terribly lacking nowadays...

I There is no way to see yourself flying the thing when it's at 2,000 feet, and even if you were up there, there's nothing to see - everything looks the same.

It's unlikely an airliner will be doing 600mph at 2000 ft, although a drone would need to be pretty close to spot it at possibly 200/250 mph in the plane. However, an object you're about to hit stays pretty static in the field of view from the cockpit.

There;s a lot to see at 2000 ft, although more city wide or landscape, but the reason could be finding out how high you can go

I'm very new to drones, but anyone who would fly anywhere near such a dangerous situation is an idiot. Use common sense.

I think there's another side to this issue and that's all the idiots that believe the reports about drones impeding firefighters ability to do their jobs in the first place.

Most of the people carping for "sensible regulations" take the reports of these incidents at face value and in my mind that makes them the idiots. I'm tired of this stupid debate.

I have been flying Multirotors for seven years and in that time there has not been one mid air collision with a full sized aircraft, a single death attributed to a multirotor, or any sort of terrorist plot to blow anything up. More people have died in the same amount of time playing beach volleyball!

I get accused of being an anarchist, that some how I don't support reasonable legislation, that's just BS. I just don't want a bunch of pinheads who've never personally seen a drone fly in real life let alone actually flown one making the determination what reasonable is.

You can't legislate stupidity and people who try are the bigger idiots.