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.
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.
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.
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.
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)?
No.
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.
So you agree that the news report accurately reflected the official statement.
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.
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.
Not so sure I agree with your police work there, Norm.
Yes bird strikes can be very dangerous to large aircraft, just ask Sully Sullenberger.
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.
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]
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.
