We have seen a stupid (drunk) drone operator near the White House, and now we are seeing stupid drone operators hindering California wildfire operations.
This kind of behavior certainly helps FAA's cause when it comes to their efforts to severely limit drones. But it also prompts new laws as we are seeing in California(thanks Ed for the tip).
When I saw the news about drones and the California wildfires I kind of wondered what the real situation was. The way I read the stories as soon as the incident commanders saw drones in the area they downed the fire fighting aircraft. They located the drone operators and somehow convinced them that flying near the fire wasn't a good idea. Clearly drones flying in the same zone as firefighting aircraft is not a good idea. The last thing we need to see is a crash caused by irresponsible drone operation. So it seems they did the prudent and proper thing.
Overall it looks like the California legislation is a good thing. Still, I worry about overkill. About reducing the value of drones to assist by hyping the dangers. Not saying that is what is happening here. Only saying that there is a risk of that in legislative response to these issues. I think there is a gut-level response of a lot of emergency managers that this is our emergency, and nobody should interfere or get involved without our direction.
That is an understandable reaction, particularly given the risks that drones pose. But, too much of that and we lose something very valuable. As my friend Bill Boyd reminds us, it's not our emergency. We have to find ways to effective manage the collaboration with the resources, skills, technology and passion that non-professionals can bring us, especially when the event is massive and overwhelming. Drones are part of that. To say only official drones can help will be to miss important opportunities. But, reasonable and prudent methods need to be employed to make certain drones help, and not hurt the response.
