DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Another incident of stupidity

I'm not so sure about that Sar. The blue area is much larger than the actual TFR or has been in my experience. I have Foreflight that shows the actual TFR and naturally I haven't actually ever dared to get really close to it because of all the warnings I get even though I'm flying with authorization which allowed me to take off. I think in the case of a fire TFR DJI makes the blue area so large because the TFR is probably going to move or expand. It has been my belief that if I accidently entered the the actual TFR my drone would land. ....I'm not about to try and find out ?
We have many TFRs pop up around here.,, Presidential, Forest Fires, Celebrity Helicopter crashes and ignorance is not an option with the Friendly FAA.
I am sure about it, and I was describing how it works. I fly DJI aircraft regularly in TFRs. For all the ones that I've worked in the Geo zone coincided with the TFR, but then I generally create circular TFRs for simplicity.

But they can be any shape, and for non-circular TFRs I would expect DJI to implement a circular authorization zone that covered the entire TFR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MARK (LI)
People don’t own TFRs. They’re put in place by the FAA.
They are put in place by the FAA at the request of another agency, with a POC, typically from that agency, listed in the NOTAM as in control of the TFR and authorized to clear traffic into it. By owner I was referring to the requesting agency and/or the POC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MARK (LI)
NorCal has fires going on - A couple of yutzes put up their drones at one.

Drones near a Wild-Fire

People need to get it right.
Two drones, close to wild fires, spotted, but not tracked. Why not tracked? As the incident commander, I would have assigned men to track the drones, monitor and radio the drone positions to the helitack crews if the drones posed any risk to the operation. We don't ground helitack just because a couple drones are spotted as the news suggests. It depends strickly on their location and the flight paths used by our aircraft. The news is just using fear as a means to their own ends. Take the article for what it is. Getting that fire controlled is significantly more important.untitled-07.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jam0ne and jaswalt
Two drones, close to wild fires, spotted, but not tracked. Why not tracked? As the incident commander, I would have assigned men to track the drones, monitor and radio the drone positions to the helitack crews if the drones posed any risk to the operation. We don't ground helitack just because a couple drones are spotted as the news suggests. It depends strickly on their location and the flight paths used by our aircraft. The news is just using fear as a means to their own ends. Take the article for what it is. Getting that fire controlled is significantly more important.View attachment 132260
The news report was quoting what the Sheriff announced at one of the official briefings. Are you recommending that they should have censored out that statement? And while you may choose not to ground aircraft due to unauthorized drones, many agencies do, so it was quite likely accurate.
 
The news report was quoting what the Sheriff announced at one of the official briefings. Are you recommending that they should have censored out that statement? And while you may choose not to ground aircraft due to unauthorized drones, many agencies do, so it was quite likely accurate.
No and no.
 
No and no.
I only asked one question - did you write "no" twice just for emphasis? And since that presumably means "no - you don't think that the news report should have omitted the Sheriff's statement", how is that consistent with your original assertion that it was simply the "news" using fear as a means to their own ends (whatever you imagine those ends to be)?
 
.....did you write "no" twice just for emphasis?
No.

"The news report was quoting what the Sheriff announced at one of the official briefings. Are you recommending that they should have censored out that statement?" No.

"And while you may choose not to ground aircraft due to unauthorized drones, many agencies do, so it was quite likely accurate." And no. = disagree
And since that presumably means "no - you don't think that the news report should have omitted the Sheriff's statement", how is that consistent with your original assertion that it was simply the "news" using fear as a means to their own ends -----Irrelevant to thread (parenthetical phrase also irrelevant)?
If I don't give you a satisfactory answer, I suspect this line of questioning will continue. It seems this thread is already losing the O.P.s original intent. I'm Out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jam0ne
No.

"The news report was quoting what the Sheriff announced at one of the official briefings. Are you recommending that they should have censored out that statement?" No.
So you agree that the news report accurately reflected the official statement.
"And while you may choose not to ground aircraft due to unauthorized drones, many agencies do, so it was quite likely accurate." And no. = disagree
Are you actually asserting that it is uncommon for firefighting aircraft to be grounded due to unauthorized drone activity? Despite the numerous official reports of exactly that happening over the last few years? Looks like a case of "alternative facts" here.
If I don't give you a satisfactory answer, I suspect this line of questioning will continue. It seems this thread is already losing the O.P.s original intent. I'm Out.
Yes, that's the problem with discussion forums. If you sign up and start posting nonsense then people will tend to call you on it. If you are looking for a venue to post monologues then I suggest starting a blog.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MARK (LI)
Let’s get back on track or the thread gets closed. Getting tired of the bickering in this forum. The warning points are going to start free flowing and will include those that incite further bickering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dirkclod
Mind you if that lithium ion battery catches fire you will only exacerbate a forest fire.
 
So if helicopters or tanker aircraft encounter a drone, are they in danger of being brought down from a collision with a drone, most of which are under 2 kg, or even 1 kg?

I'm not saying people who fly into these areas shouldn't be penalized.

Just trying to understand how a tiny drone would interfere with firefighting operations. Would a 2 kg drone cause the rotors of the helicopter to get damaged, making them fall out of the sky?

Or those larger tanker planes, would those props be broken?

Why wouldn't they face risks from bird strikes? There may not be too many birds which are 1 or 2 kg but there are a lot more of them.
 
I find I can see about as far as I want 75 feet above ground. NO fixed wing/helicopter should be or ever would be flying at that altitude unless they are crashing. I think we and the FAA need to use a little common sense. I’m not endangering any other aircraft by flying 75 feet above the ground.
Not so sure I agree with your police work there, Norm. 1627145265927.png
 
So if helicopters or tanker aircraft encounter a drone, are they in danger of being brought down from a collision with a drone, most of which are under 2 kg, or even 1 kg?

I'm not saying people who fly into these areas shouldn't be penalized.

Just trying to understand how a tiny drone would interfere with firefighting operations. Would a 2 kg drone cause the rotors of the helicopter to get damaged, making them fall out of the sky?

Or those larger tanker planes, would those props be broken?

Why wouldn't they face risks from bird strikes? There may not be too many birds which are 1 or 2 kg but there are a lot more of them.
Yes bird strikes can be very dangerous to large aircraft, just ask Sully Sullenberger.
 
It could be a matter of enforcement. It's far easier to determine if a drone is flying over a particular area than it is to determine how high it is flying .... depending upon the speed, of course.

By the way, I live where two major wildfires have happened in the last 20 years. I've had slurry bombers drop retardant right overhead and I've watched countless helicopter runs with water bags. A couple of the slurry bomber runs ended up with the plane no more than 100 feet above a ridgeline they had to cross as they dropped retardant into a canyon (they fly across canyons because flying up or down one that's on fire is suicide because of fire-driven air currents). And I guarantee that some helicopter water drops occur with the bag less than 100 feet above the terrain.

tldr ... you're wrong.
they could well be flying lower. in some cases recently the ambient temperature was so high as to evaporate the dropped water before it got to ground level; probably necessitating a lower drop height.

these pilots really do put their lives at risk!
 
  • Like
Reactions: AZDave
In the Sully case, was it one bird or a flock?
At 3:27:11 during climbout, the plane struck a flock of Canada geese at an altitude of 2,818 feet (859 m) about 4.5 miles (7.2 km) north-northwest of LaGuardia. The pilots' view was filled with the large birds;[18] passengers and crew heard very loud bangs and saw flames from the engines, followed by silence and an odor of fuel.[19][20]
 
So if helicopters or tanker aircraft encounter a drone, are they in danger of being brought down from a collision with a drone, most of which are under 2 kg, or even 1 kg?

I'm not saying people who fly into these areas shouldn't be penalized.

Just trying to understand how a tiny drone would interfere with firefighting operations. Would a 2 kg drone cause the rotors of the helicopter to get damaged, making them fall out of the sky?

Or those larger tanker planes, would those props be broken?

Why wouldn't they face risks from bird strikes? There may not be too many birds which are 1 or 2 kg but there are a lot more of them.
It doesn’t matter what can or can’t happen. It is interference with emergency services and should not be done. Most major fires soon have a TFR in effect and flights of any type must be cleared with the controlling authority (which in most cases is not the FAA, but the ones that requested the TFR be put into effect). The controlling entity will be listed in the NOTAM and are the ones to contact for permission.

What I can’t understand is with all the media attention over the last few years about this very thing we still have IDIOTS that go and fly in these areas anyway. The only thing that will end it is to catch and prosecute them to the full extent of the law and publish “that” in the media.
 
It doesn’t matter what can or can’t happen. It is interference with emergency services and should not be done. Most major fires soon have a TFR in effect and flights of any type must be cleared with the controlling authority (which in most cases is not the FAA, but the ones that requested the TFR be put into effect). The controlling entity will be listed in the NOTAM and are the ones to contact for permission.

What I can’t understand is with all the media attention over the last few years about this very thing we still have IDIOTS that go and fly in these areas anyway. The only thing that will end it is to catch and prosecute them to the full extent of the law and publish “that” in the media.

sure definitely prosecute.

but I’m saying those larger craft should fly through space occupied by the little drone, destroy it.

as opposed to flying back to base and not doing their mission.
 
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
130,587
Messages
1,554,122
Members
159,591
Latest member
Albrecht0803