Firefighters try to drown drone

Two wrongs don’t make a right. The so called pilot shoulda stayed back (prop wash on fire is never a good idea) but firefighters should’ve acted more mature and left well enough alone.

Knocking a UAV out of control is much more dangerous to those on the ground than whatever risk the fly-over created in the first place.

Teachable moment for all, IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: claws
I will not be making any additional comments on this matter..........
Of course. Your view is the only correct view. So you won't listen to other viewpoints or discuss the issue in a civil manner. Gotcha!

And you're dreaming if you think we'll ever have to get a pilot's license to fly our quad copters.


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk Pro
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arvidj
I don't think the drone pilot's flight endangered lives, but once he was close enough to distract the firefighters, he was then too close and should have backed off.

We don't know the back story of this fire. Perhaps there was a reason the fire fighters felt they needed to protect the privacy of the homeowner? Was it a crime scene? Arson? Was it an accidental fire with fatalities involved? Were there children inside?
We are all assuming that this is just a simple house fire. Sometimes we simply need to respect people's privacy. Just because we have the ability to capture a bird's eye view on film and it is legal to do so, doesn't always mean it is "right".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 750r
My take is he was too close to guys risking their lives. He is just lucky they did not take him down. He had it coming.

Give the guys some room to work. Wasn't long ago someone lit a fire and started taking firefighters out with a rifle.

Just like all the news with cops. Back off, don't be so belligerent. They have to respond like everyone has a gun. If they don't they end up dead.

As GoodnNuff said, we dont know the whole story.
 
The guy operating the multirotor (say it with me everyone, multirotor) writes like an imbecile. My view is he got too close, and the firefighter was just giving him a clue to back off.

"Stopped at a structure fire in Coldenham fire district and 13 min in to shooting the video the fire company tryed to blow my drone out of the sky with the fire hose for filming the fire this is real miss conduct on there part and verry unprofessional on there part, My second take off the camera did not record so it look’s like they destroyed a $2,200.00 drone thank’s guy’s for the nice job thank’s guy’s for the nice job your doing for the community."
 
My take is he was too close to guys risking their lives. He is just lucky they did not take him down. He had it coming.

Give the guys some room to work. Wasn't long ago someone lit a fire and started taking firefighters out with a rifle.

Just like all the news with cops. Back off, don't be so belligerent. They have to respond like everyone has a gun. If they don't they end up dead.

As GoodnNuff said, we dont know the whole story.
Made me laugh a bit... you think he was interfering with the firefighters... why? Because the drone could have crashed into them? So knocking it out of the sky while it's above them is the appropriate response? So when people speed down my street I should just throw nails out and say, "he had it coming!".
 
He was way too close. It was an emergency situation.
 
It's called wanton damage by the fire fighters, you are not allowed to take your view of the law into your own hands.
They were wrong and very norty, the rest is a view point.

Really what was he thinking, he knew if he hit it with the water pressure he would most likely destroy it.
He had a dumb moment and it's ok.
:)
 
The guy operating the multirotor (say it with me everyone, multirotor) writes like an imbecile. My view is he got too close, and the firefighter was just giving him a clue to back off.

"Stopped at a structure fire in Coldenham fire district and 13 min in to shooting the video the fire company tryed to blow my drone out of the sky with the fire hose for filming the fire this is real miss conduct on there part and verry unprofessional on there part, My second take off the camera did not record so it look’s like they destroyed a $2,200.00 drone thank’s guy’s for the nice job thank’s guy’s for the nice job your doing for the community."
Ya a engwish teacher ? I be a hillbilly/redneck so I don't speak/write perfect ether:eek:
 
Ya a engwish teacher ? I be a hillbilly/redneck so I don't speak/write perfect ether:eek:
The sad thing is, the majority of kids graduating from our public school system speak and write the same way. Are they just not teaching proper English anymore? How are they graduating class after class that cannot even write properly?!


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk Pro
 
  • Like
Reactions: 750r
The Bull S@#$ is getting really deep in this thread.
I've heard it all now.... For example, "prop wash on fire is never a good idea." Come on, Really???
Lets bring this into perspective. We are talking about a 3lb UAS and structure fire without any exposed flame.

Then there is a comment about "distracting firefighters." If a drone is a distraction to a firefighter and it prevents him(or her) from doing their job, they need to find a new career path.

Then the comment referring to the scene being an emergency situation, what does that have to do with anything. I can't even begin to estimate how many people record me with their phones and ipads EVERYDAY while working at "emergency situations", its only an emergency to someone who does not put out fires for a living. Going to fires for a firefighter is like going to a board meeting for Donald Trump. Not to mention the news media rebroadcasts structure fires from a helicopters perspective LIVE almost every morning in the area I live and work; regardless of fatalities, arson, or kids.

So what if that UAS fell from the sky. Realistically what is the worst thing that would have happened. It would not have injured a firefighter in all his PPEs. It couldn't have hurt the house that just burnt. I saw a lot of trees and grass. Worse case scenario it may have hit someone else watching the action; but what are the odds of even that.

I'm a firefighter and initially found this thread intriguing but at this point I'm out. The Bull S@#$ is just too deep!!!
 
The sad thing is, the majority of kids graduating from our public school system speak and write the same way. Are they just not teaching proper English anymore? How are they graduating class after class that cannot even write properly?!


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk Pro
Right on ! The best part is the teachers think they deserve more money :eek:
When I talk to my nephew and his friends I am blown away at how they talk/speak . Don't get me wrong I am not perfect but oh my this is are future o_O
 
  • Like
Reactions: snerd
When you get your pilots license you will understand effects that thermal air has on aircraft. A toy helicopter or toy drone is very susceptible to thermal air currents. These up and downdrafts can cause the loss of control of the drone by the operator. The loss of control of the Drone can result in injury to people in the drones operational area, or possible damage to equipment. Super heated air at a fire scene has a direct impact on air currents around the fire scene. The thermal air activity at a fire scene, and the possible loss of control of a toy drone, can also affect general aviation aircraft. It is but another reason why a drone operator should be required to obtain at a minimum a pilots license, in my opinion.

If I am flying my general aviation aircraft in and I am struck by a drone, the consequences could be fatal. A drone hovering over a fire scene, that happens to get caught in a superheated updraft, resulting in the loss of control of the drone itself, could climb hundreds or thousands of feet in an up draft, there by placing the general aviation community at risk. If a drone operator is in communication with local air-traffic control, the operational area of the drone can be avoided by general Aviation aircraft.
With respect Dustoff ... when you buy a Phantom and get just a couple of hours experience with it, you'll understand what nonsense this is and that what you imagine just wouldn't happen.
The Phantom has 1000 times more control and ability than you think and is nowhere near the risk you think it is.
Your imagination has you all fired up but in this case it couldn't be more wrong.
If you lived anywhere near me I'd love to take you for a demonstration flight so you could try it out.

I suggest you read the a.m. a rules for drone operation as well as the proposed FAA rules for drone operation. This guy was in the wrong he did not have the proper authority nor did he have the proper permission to operate in a reckless manner. He is a recreational toy drone operator he is not a professional news reporter nor was he employed by any agency is to be there to capture the footage of the firefighters in action. In my opinion his lack of responsible drone operation put people at risk.

I will not be making any additional comments on this matter. When drone operators obtain a FAA pilots license, they will understand the effects that flying a drone encounters in this required for responsible operation. This is my opinion, whether you agree with me or not, is of no concern to me.
Again dusty, what you are imagining is very different from the real situation.
The FAA does not require authorisation to fly around at treetop height and there was nothing reckless in the situation that has you all fired up.
Whether or not he was employed by a news organisation is of no bearing and no-one was at risk.
This is all your opinion and whether or not it agrees with the facts doesn't seem to concern you at all.
 
750r, best you reread the words you typed

:)
 
Part of flying your drone is understanding the risks and elements. Flying over a house fire takes some "settabulse" as I like to say and it seems he didn't keep a safe distance. Nevermind whether they meant to hit him... the fact that he was close enough that they could? Was risky. You have to take into account what would happen if your drone crashes.. what's your defense? I actually think of that when flying... and I can't fathom trying to tell a judge that the firefighters were at fault with their waterspray. I would be laughed out of court...

...that being said I can't see any way he endangered anyone or interfered with them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gfredrone
Does anyone else wonder why, when about 30 firefighters and several engines were present, that everyone was just stood around while the house burned? I saw more water aimed at the quad than the fire... weird. Anyway, carry on your arguments :)
 
Adam I'm slightly confused with what you say, forgive me if I just don't "grasp" because I can't comprehend.

You say "it seems he didn't keep a safe distance" then say "I can't see any way he endangered anyone"

You say "Nevermind whether they meant to hit him"
It did look like he took a position then fired directly at the Quad but that could just be an opinion

"You have to take into account what would happen if your drone crashes."
I think we are more aware of our general surroundings than actively think this all the time we fly

"and I can't fathom trying to tell a judge that the firefighters were at fault with their waterspray"
This one I am not confused, the action was orchestrated and promptly delivered in my opinion, if he took action he would stand a chance

I feel if he took his video to the fire station the "chief" would see it his way and settle.
 

Recent Posts

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,357
Members
104,935
Latest member
Pauos31