More bad press for "drone" owners

walker16 · Jul 21, 2015

I agree that interfering with any police or fire activity is extremely irresponsible. It just sucks that so few people are giving us all bad names!

"Two California legislators have proposed legislation that would allow firefighters to take down drones interfering with firefighting efforts in the wake of a blaze that burned across Interstate 15, scorching dozens of cars along the way."

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2015...owing-firefighters-to-take-down-rogue-drones/

ImJim · Jul 21, 2015

Pathetic. Pathetic. Pathetic reactions from the legislators how certainly misunderstood the concept of aerial photo/videography. Our drones are not predator drones. We're only here to record from new angles. Be patient guys, in a few years when drones will be as usual as cars, all that hype about drones will stop.

robinb · Jul 21, 2015

How would they "take down the drones" ?

Us the users need to educate other flyers and stay away from some incidents when helicopters appear.

damitjim01 · Jul 21, 2015

robinb said:
How would they "take down the drones" ?

Anti Aircraft guns mounted to the fire engine... DUH!

walker16 · Jul 21, 2015

There was comments from people saying they should all be shot down! I'm pretty sure bullets flying through the air is much more dangerous. And any kind of net gun or something to entangle the props doesn't sound very cost effective. Then again nothing the government does is very cost effective.

F6Rider · Jul 21, 2015

walker16 said:
There was comments from people saying they should all be shot down! I'm pretty sure bullets flying through the air is much more dangerous. And any kind of net gun or something to entangle the props doesn't sound very cost effective. Then again nothing the government does is very cost effective.

A high pressure water cannon can shoot a stream of water 200+ feet, and I am quite certain that would do for the quad no problem.

Josh Curtiss · Jul 22, 2015

Yeah this reminds me of another video someone in the forum posted where he was videoing a house fire, and firefighters stopped firefighting so they could shoot at the drone, pointing the water in the opposite direction of the house. Some may criticize this person from a technical perspective, but the bottom line IMHO is he wasn't flying directly over the house or firefighters and was more annoying than anything else serious.

So if a firefighter has a bug up his butt about drones, and takes out a drone just because he has immunity to do so even though it wasn't endangering anything.. Is this where we're going with this?

J.James · Jul 22, 2015

That story seemed more like negative press against the fire dept considering the fire men were in the wrong and if they damaged the guys quad they would of had to of paid for the damages .. also if the owner of the house wanted to say the fire dept was more concerned about having fun trying to put water on some ones drone that was not in any way shape or form interfering with them while letting the house fire burn. If a fire man is at a fire he should be trying to put out the fire period!. Its not different then if they were at a fire and Instead of fighting the fire were just standing around doing a circle jerk or deciding to stop to chat with some hot chic at the scene while the house is left to burn.