Drone operator in McDougall Creek Wildfire zone caught, faces fines up to $100,000

[anotherlab]

A drone operator in Canada was caught interfering with efforts to fight a wildfire in British Columbia and now faces fines of up to $100k CA.

Conservation officers supporting firefighting efforts on the McDougall Creek Wildfire in and around West Kelowna seized a drone on Sunday while patrolling on Okanagan Lake.

“Conservation Officers spotted a drone interfering with a helicopter actively bucketing from the lake,” a posting on the BC Conservation Service’s Facebook page says. “The drone operator was identified by Conservation Officers, and the drone was seized. Charges are pending against one individual.”

Source:

https://infotel.ca/newsitem/drone-o...one-caught-faces-fines-up-to-100000/it100241/

 

[BigAl07]

I hope CAA makes an example out of him.

 

[mavic3usa]

CAD $100,000 and not a cent less would send a message and make an example of him. Otherwise, the problem will never be solved. He was interfering with an helicopter doing a job, that's a crime.

 

[YVRGUY]

Well, with more than enough awareness made here in BC regarding the danger posed to water bombing flight crews, the halting of ground operations due to the latter, and the penalties for flying drones in a restricted fire zone. Let’s see if the authorities really walk the talk. This forest fire season is far from over and with the loss of 3 firefighters already…3 more than we didn’t need, let’s NOT forget their heroics and bravery by taking this lightly. The fine or penalty? It’s up to the authorities to decide.

 

[GFields]

Columbia and now faces fines of up to $100k CA.

And should be!

 

[anotherlab]

Even a fine of 10% of the $100k would send enough of a message to end this nonsense.

 

[Aerophile]

Good. Throw the book at him. How about some jail time, too?

 

[anotherlab]

Good. Throw the book at him. How about some jail time, too?

The punishment should fit the crime. Jail time seems rather extreme. A four or five-digit fine and probation would be more appropriate.

Another way to look at this is how you are expected to drive when an emergency or LE vehicle comes up behind you on the road. Failure to yield is usually a misdemeanor, but the penalties can go up if the failure to yield interferes with the emergency responder's ability to respond. There is a difference between a first and repeat offender.

 

[EssenYVR]

My first thought is that $100,000 seems like an awfully steep fine, but of course the news article is quoting the maximum possible penalty. "Interfering with a helicopter actively bucketing from the lake" is pretty vague as to the impact and intent of the drone operator. I trust the court will apply a judgement commensurate to the offence.

I really hope it isn't $100K, because it seems to me that would imply that the operator did something so egregious as to contribute to the spread of the wildfire. If that's true, then he probably deserves it. Wildfires are existential threats for people in their path - their lives can be completely overturned or even ended. They're not to be trifled with.

At any rate, this is exactly the point I was making in the wildfire thread that drone operators have to not only be aware of wildfires themselves, but also lakes and other bodies of water where wildfire aircraft operations are taking place.

 

[EssenYVR]

Another thought on the posted article, which shows a photo of a boat with BC Conservation officers in it. It strikes me that boats could also interfere with aircraft operations - not helicopters so much perhaps but for fixed wing aircraft that need to take a straight run along the lake to scoop water. So are there boating restrictions in place as well, I wonder?

 

[anotherlab]

Another thought on the posted article, which shows a photo of a boat with BC Conservation officers in it. It strikes me that boats could also interfere with aircraft operations - not helicopters so much perhaps but for fixed wing aircraft that need to take a straight run along the lake to scoop water. So are there boating restrictions in place as well, I wonder?

The boat was being operated by conservation officers in support of the firefighting efforts.

There is an evacuation order in place for the McDougall Creek Wildfire. That means that the public is not allowed to be in the area at all.

 

[EssenYVR]

The boat was being operated by conservation officers in support of the firefighting efforts.

Of course, I wasn't questioning their right to be there. I'm just curious about whether there are boating restrictions for the general public akin to the flight restrictions for drone operators and pilots who are not involved in the operation.

 

[mavic3usa]

Of course, I wasn't questioning their right to be there. I'm just curious about whether there are boating restrictions for the general public akin to the flight restrictions for drone operators and pilots who are not involved in the operation.

I think you know the answer to that question.

 

[EssenYVR]

I think you know the answer to that question.

No, I don't.

 

[anotherlab]

No, I don't.

There is a mandatory evacuation order in place. While that order does not specifically call out boaters, a reasonable person would assume that they would be covered by that evacuation order as well.

 

[EssenYVR]

There is a mandatory evacuation order in place. While that order does not specifically call out boaters, a reasonable person would assume that they would be covered by that evacuation order as well.

Yeah, that seems like a pretty reasonable assumption.

I was wondering if there's something like a nautical equivalent to NOTAMS that boaters need to pay attention to where, for example, boating restrictions related to firefighting activities might be posted.

Nothing to do with us drone operators, of course, but I thought there might be some interesting parallels.

Edit: there does seem to be a "NOTMAR" (Notice to Mariners) published by the Canadian Coast Guard, although my glance at it suggests that it's a monthly publication which probably wouldn't be timely enough to deal with forest fire restrictions. NAVWARNs (Navigation Warnings) might be better. But I believe that the Canadian Coast Guard doesn't deal with inland waters, if I recall correctly that's a provincial jurisdiction. And I assume there are similar notices and division of responsibility in the US.

OK, getting too complicated for my idle wondering, I'm going to drop this now...