Continue Discussion - visit the forum 49 replies
January 10

Tom_Waarne

The Fort McMurray wildfires demonstrated that folks who put sprinklers on their roofs had an excellent chance of preventing their houses from burning. A sprinkler won’t do much good when a fire ravages through your neighbourhood, but a good soaking 6 hours before makes a really big difference. If an entire neighbourhood is soggy then the fire really has an uphill battle to spread. A little prevention might just help a whole lot, together with building large concrete cisterns for water storage at higher elevations so that water can be supplied via gravity to the fire prone neighbourhoods. A decent sized flying boat can handle pop up fires if the area can be safe to operate in. Fire is a terrifying thing and all fire prone areas need to realistically plan for combatting this, not just reacting when it occurs.

4 replies
January 10 ▶ Tom_Waarne

Larry_S

Funny you bring this up, Tom. I was telling my wife yesterday that if we lived there (again), I’d proactively have permanent metal (disguised) pipe on the roof fed from a pump sucking water out of a swimming pool. Most high end houses have pools out there. I’d even consider a backup source of power for the pump. Preparing oneself is part of the equation here … not waiting or hoping for the Government to save the day.

January 10 ▶ Tom_Waarne

Tim_S1

There were water storage tanks in the hills in the Palisades area that were filled specifically for firefighting, but since air support on the fire was impossible for the first ~12 hours due to high winds, the fires simply spread so fast that the tanks ran empty after about five hours of water being drawn from them at something like 3-4x the normal rate, and the municipal water system in the area was never intended to be able to supply that kind of demand for the better part of a day, so refilling the tanks was difficult.

I was actually flying into LAX as the Palisades fire was starting to get bad, and even from several miles away in a moving airplane, it was possible to see the line of flames visibly moving because the wind was driving it that fast, so emergency crews never really had a chance against something like that.

January 10

Raf

The collision between the Canadian CL-415 and an unidentified drone over the Palisades wildfire in Los Angeles is a stark example of the recklessness that endangers lives. Flying a drone in restricted airspace during an emergency isn’t just irresponsible, it’s a blatant threat to firefighters, pilots, and the communities relying on their efforts. These actions jeopardize lives and delay critical firefighting operations when every second is vital.

Remote ID, mandatory since September 2023, is a key deterrent, broadcasting a drone’s location and operator information so authorities can quickly identify violators. If this drone was emitting its Remote ID, investigators could already be tracking the operator. If it wasn’t, it shows an even greater disregard for safety and the law.

Drone operators have no excuse. They must follow flight restrictions, avoid emergency zones, and ensure their drones comply with Remote ID rules. Flying a drone is not just a hobby or a means to capture footage, it is a serious responsibility. This incident is a harsh reminder of why compliance with Remote ID regulations should not be optional.

1 reply
January 10

Chuck-the-Wise

You are in an area rapidly being ravaged by wildfire, and you are frokin dipshit enough to be flying your drone. Now that, Jethro, is some kind of horse’s ass stoooooopid. I hope it was expensive.

January 10 ▶ Raf

Andrew_M

I used to fly a Cessna 185F scout plane on forest fires for a state agency. I recall one fire in the mountains where the incident commander told me that two drones had been seen flying around the fire when I arrived. It’s next to impossible to see these small aircraft when you are circling the fire at 80 - 90 kts so I stayed away from the fire at 1,500 AGL until I was told that they had located the operators and had them land their drones. Helicopters and tankers fly just above the trees so they are more vulnerable to low altitude drones. Imagine having one of these things come through your windshield at 90 kts. Remote ID will help but won’t completely prevent incidents like this collision. It wasn’t mandated when I flew the fire in 2016. I think we need technology like Ukraine is using to jam Russian drones.

I understand that later on the SBI and FAA had a nice chat with the drone operators.

1 reply
January 10 ▶ Tom_Waarne

johnbpatson

Yes to water on roofs, but even bigger yes to brush cutting, and removing the cut bushes, 50 metres from your property minimum, 100 metres better.
But because this takes a week of manual labour, and involves actually talking to the owners of the land, it is very seldom done.
As for the drone, what are the chances that it was a fire brigade or police one? Pretty high, I think.

January 10 ▶ Andrew_M

Raf

Andrew_M, I agree, we need solutions like the jamming technology Ukraine uses against drones. The problem is not just serious, it’s unacceptable. In 2024, 21 drones disrupted wildfire operations in California, Arizona, and Alaska, grounding firefighting aircraft almost half the time. Now, we’ve had a drone collide with a firefighting plane over the Palisades Fire in SoCal, forcing it out of action.

What kind of reckless mentality leads someone to think flying a drone near a wildfire is excusable? These incursions put lives at risk, firefighters in the air, people on the ground, and entire communities in the path of destruction. Public awareness campaigns and fines, like Montana’s $1,500 penalty, are only a start. We need strict enforcement, advanced technology like geofencing, and far tougher penalties to eliminate this dangerous behavior.

Flying a drone near a wildfire is not curiosity, it’s sheer irresponsibility. Keep your drones grounded, or be ready to face the consequences. Firefighters don’t need this kind of interference when they’re risking their lives to save ours.

January 10

Moon

Sadly, Remote I.D. is a farse. I have one of the better major name brand versions on my drone and it will be readable about 1200 feet away most are 300-400 feet, now subtract 400 for altitude and you can’t track them very far at all. So unless the police (in this kind of emergency response) is around the corner and monitoring his drone app on his phone, this will never be tracked. Drones are so cheap and readily available that any 14 years old kid who got one for Christmas will be filming the fires to get the most views. What a world we live in.

1 reply
January 10

Bruce_S

That does not look at all like the damage that would be caused by a tanker drone. Anything large enough to haul water would have brought down the CL-415. Drones are a menace and should be kept completely away from our airspace. Any drone operator whose drone collides with or interferes with aircraft that are hauling humans should be prosecuted harshly.

I’m happy for the CL-415 crew’s safe return. The drone operator needs to publicly spanked as an example to other drone cowboys/cowgirls.

Off soapbox… but drones are difficult to see from an airplane and a midair with a drone in the pattern would be a bad day for my students and me… and we have had drones reported at pattern altitude and on downwind, so a strike isn’t completely out of the question.

January 10

Junebug

Drones are a growing nuisance. One followed me into my backyard a few weeks ago and hovered at eye level about 50’ away. Invasion of privacy and harassment. I wish there were legal countermeasures one could take. I called the non-emergency number when the thing would not leave and of course as soon as the operator saw me phone it in he/she recalled their drone.

January 10

derflieger

Fortunately this drone didn’t hit the cockpit or engine during a run in … What self involved jerks (droners).

January 10

RJM

I have been reading these comments for a long time and never had much to say. But the drone thing got to me.
I’m an inactive private, instrument rated pilot, 86 years in a few days. I am a CERTIFIED drone operator. I observe all the rules regarding drone flying. BUT, and here is where I totally agree with much that has been said in this forum, I have a few friends that have drones, fly as hobbyist and routinely bust the rules. One of them had a blast flying up to 4,000 feet agl, at night!! Wasn’t that a blast. He sure thought so. They don’t know the rules (laws) and don’t want to know them. Sad, very sad.

January 10 ▶ Moon

Raf

Moon, you’re absolutely right—Remote ID has a long way to go. Most drones only broadcast their location within 300–400 feet, with even the best models barely reaching 1200 feet. Add altitude and obstacles, and tracking them becomes nearly impossible for law enforcement. In critical situations like wildfires, this limitation isn’t just inconvenient—it’s risky.

The reality is clear: the system needs to be fixed before drones can be safely integrated into our airspace. Allowing them to fly without robust safeguards puts lives at unnecessary risk, both in the air and on the ground.

The FAA has made progress with Remote ID, treating it like a “digital license plate,” but its range and enforcement capabilities fall short. Efforts to improve detection systems by companies like Pierce Aerospace are promising, but they’re not moving fast enough. Local police have been provided a “toolkit” for managing drones, yet many lack the resources or training to make it effective.

Meanwhile, drones continue to flood the market, bought for recreation and commercial use without enough consideration for safety. As their swarm numbers grow, so do the risks—highlighted by incidents like the recent collision with the firefighting plane in L.A.

What’s needed is a stronger Remote ID system: a range of 1,500–3,000 feet, effective detection tools for authorities, permanent systems at critical sites, and cockpit alerts for pilots. Without these improvements, drones pose more challenges than benefits in shared airspace.

The FAA must act with greater urgency. Airspace safety isn’t optional, and this issue requires more than halfway solutions. Fix the system so drones can operate responsibly.

1 reply
January 10

jethro442

As a next step why not remote ID on automobiles and trucks? Letting the authorities know exactly who is obeying the laws and who is not. Or systems that prevent operations within certain locales or above certain speeds?

2 replies
January 10 ▶ jethro442

jethro442

Let us be careful what we wish for. We might just get it.

January 10

svanarts

I’m so tired of drones. I’d be willing to bet this was not being operated by a sanctioned agency such as fire or police but more likely it was a YouTube influencer trying to get a shot that will drive up their clicks and revenue. IF they ever find this drone operator (I refuse to call them pilots) he or she needs to be prosecuted harshly and this needs to happen each and every time. Sorry, not sorry.

January 10 ▶ jethro442

RtrdCtrl

Just stop. This has no place here. The drone issue is a serious one, as potential loss of life and property is way more important than aimlessly ranting about.

January 10

Spirit11

I’m with most of the group in thinking this wasn’t a sanctioned drone, but a rogue operator. So forget the drone regulations/laws. This person willfully put others in danger that could have resulted in their deaths. Am I wrong in thinking that this drone operator could/should be charged with voluntary attempted manslaughter?

January 10

KlausM

They need to adjust the regulations: The Beacon transmitting the operations of the drone should be at and on the operator. The Drone Operator that is not transmitting their ID the whole time the drone is in service should be fined and possible jailed. Legally operating within permissible airspace or not.

Every Drone operator including government agencies must transmit to a satellite and/or internet tracking site. Then the drone only needs to transmit back to the controller and also be seen on the website.

It’s the PERSON Operating the inanimate object that’s breaking the rules not the drone.

January 10

jjbaker

The issue is that any Schmuck with half a brain replaced by a wet loaf of bread can purchase and operate these things.

Its a push button get banana toy. No ban, law, regulation or advocacy effort by the countless groups representing law abiding, common sense- based operators will make a difference. Geofencing and surveillance as well as max altitude restrictions can be hacked and disabled (some claim not possible on DJI, but I once believed Elon Musk was a reasonable character, too). It is prohibited by law to operate these things in proximity to emergency scenes.

These are flying objects which can cause serious issues and damage to aircraft and subsequently people on the ground.

The time to act (sounds familiar?) was 10-15 years ago. I feel sad for all the people who wasted their time and money getting their Drone Operator Permit and trying to do the right thing by NOT purchasing from TEMU.

What happened to this CL415 is a federal crime and it needs to be punished to the fullest level possible. Not just that crew was put in grave danger - a loaded CL-415 falling into a local neighborhood will do some serious sh…

Quite a few lawsuits have questioned the validity of jamming and catching devices and some peeps have shot them down with rifles and guns.

If the local resident- pervert decides to watch your 14 year old daughter - you may or may not decide, that any measure to stop this nonsense is justifiable. :wink:

You’ll explain it to the judge…

1 reply
January 10

Mike_H1

Grounded indefinitely? Idk what’s behind there, or if any debris got inside the wing, but that looks like it could be temporarily patched up fairly quickly… This isn’t war, but sort of an emergency, eh?

1 reply
January 10 ▶ Mike_H1

RtrdCtrl

Do you have ANY idea what will be necessary to effect repairs on wing damage such as this? I didn’t think so.

2 replies
January 11 ▶ Tom_Waarne

RationalityKeith

Other tactics include keeping property clean (leaves/needles out of roof gutters, shrubs away from building), metal roofs, and even special siding.

Some tribal reservations in BC made fire breaks, bonus of stacks of firewood.

1 reply
January 11 ▶ RtrdCtrl

RationalityKeith

Does depend on what damage is inside, like to spar.
The leading edge skin hole is repairable.

Bigger risk to aircraft with leading edge slats, as most airliners have.

January 11 ▶ RationalityKeith

Tom_Waarne

Steel or stucco siding is a real good choice for fire protection. I’ve seen plastic siding adjacent to a fire and it just melts before burning. Removing fuel as well from buildings makes great sense. Forethought and consideration of risk is probably the most effective tool we have to minimise fire related losses. If we can keep insurance losses low it benefits all of us.

Concrete siding (Hardie board) and metal roof.
Russ

3 replies
January 11 ▶ RtrdCtrl

Tom_Waarne

If the spar is not impacted the repair could well be a riveted leading edge patch. This type of damage is probably seen “in the bush” weekly. A flat bottom Clarke Y airfoil like this is built stoutly just for this type of occurrence. It needs to be inspected properly and repaired as such. It’s not a high speed jet wing. Impact energy is a square of speed.

1 reply
January 11

Steve737

Love the headline. The 415 did not hit a drone, it was the other way round. Makes it sound like it was the plane or crew’s fault…… and a new part is on its way from DeHavilland Canada

I don’t think we confused anyone.
Russ

2 replies
January 11

MrMilkshake

You get what you vote for…

January 11 ▶ Raf

Andrew_M

I don’t think a stronger Remote ID system will work. Signal strength decreases as the square of distance for an omnidirectional antenna like a drone has. You would need a lot more power to make a significant improvement in distance and that means a much larger battery with more weight.

I think a better way is to use handheld radio frequency direction finding equipment to locate and jam a drone. There are a few of these devices on the market now like the NQ Defense ND-BD003 but they are expensive. I expect to see more of them on the market with lower prices given the proliferation of drone incursions and the publicity of incidents such as the drone hubbub in New Jersey.

January 11 ▶ Tom_Waarne

RationalityKeith

But not aluminum siding as it melts easier.

A concern with any metal siding is heat transfer to combustible inner siding behind it. Insulation is normally behind the inner siding, between studs. Today there may be a layer of hard foam on the face of wall sheathing, to get extra insulation.

The Grenfell Tower fire in London England was a special case, complex siding installation with long vertical air path between outer siding and building. (Concrete building but a fire in one unit spread through seals around windows into the external cladding.)

1 reply
January 11 ▶ RationalityKeith

RationalityKeith

A type of siding that reacts to high heat was promoted by some fire agencies in BC, IIRC it foams up.

(In BC, municipal fire departments from areas away from forest fires often send a crew and rolling stock to protect structures. They are not trained to fight forest fires, but of course know structure fires and protection.(In their home town they often protect buildings adjacent to a building fire.)

January 11 ▶ Tom_Waarne

RationalityKeith

I was impressed that roof of a stately old building near me was being replaced by metal material.
But then they added solar panels. Hopefully will last as long as the new roof. :wink:

January 11

jbmcnamee

Advocating for longer range ID systems is not likely to help in these types of situations. In the chaos of wildfires in populated areas, the police and other first responders simply do not have the time or manpower to go searching for some stupid drone operator. Their first priority is for managing evacuation and rescue activities, not chasing idiots. Geofencing is also a challenge due to the rapid spread of fires caused by the high winds. I wish I had an effective answer to the problem, but there is often no good solution to a determined idiot’s actions.

As for the aftermath of this tragedy, one would hope that the state and insurance companies will get organized to draft effective building standards requiring fire resistive construction for fire prone areas. Exterior walls of brick, stucco or insulated metal, roofs of steel panels, slate tiles, etc. and metal window shutters. Trying to rely on water reservoirs for active protection will only work for short periods and relatively localized fires. After hurricane Andrew in Florida, Miami Dade County drafted strict new rules for wind resistant construction, and FEMA and insurance companies require elevated structures along the Gulf Coast for storm surge protection. California has effective building codes for earthquake resistance. It’s time they extended those to include fire exposure. The Santa Ana winds occur frequently in Southern California, so sadly, this won’t be the last tragedy they inflict.

1 reply
January 11 ▶ Tom_Waarne

RationalityKeith

Hardie brand building siding board today is Portland cement and sand with wood fibres, originally used asbestos fibres as tension reinforcement.

January 11 ▶ Tom_Waarne

RationalityKeith

Airfoil shape is not relevant, internal mechanisms are.
Wiring, hydraulic lines, … (Limited quantity in the CL I expect as no leading edge slats.)

I agree the surface damage is repairable, though I read that a new piece of leading edge is being shipped to the location.

January 11 ▶ Steve737

jethro442

How is it known that the drone hit the airplane and that the airplane did not hit the drone?

1 reply
January 11 ▶ jbmcnamee

Raf

As a former California resident, having lived there for more than half a century, I’ve witnessed the devastation wildfires bring to communities and the critical role firefighting aircraft play in battling these blazes. The recent Pacific Palisades incident, where a CL-415 collided with an assumed small drone, highlights an alarming new challenge. Drones in restricted airspace delay vital firefighting operations, compounding already staggering wildfire losses.

Between 2017 and 2021, California suffered $117 billion annually in wildfire-related losses. The Camp Fire (2018) resulted in 85 fatalities, destroyed over 18,800 structures, and caused $16.5 billion in damages. Over 45,000 structures were lost to wildfires from 2017–2022, along with severe environmental damage and an escalating insurance crisis. Incidents like the CL-415 drone collision only worsen these risks, threatening lives and slowing critical response efforts.

The many thoughtful suggestions shared here—ranging from fire prevention measures, fire-resistant building codes, expanded firefighting resources, and increased support for emergency personnel—should motivate policymakers to act swiftly. These ideas provide clear, actionable paths for protecting communities while addressing the growing threat of drones.

To prevent incidents like the CL-415 collision, we need proactive measures such as geofencing to block drones from restricted areas, enhanced Remote ID systems to identify violators, and equipping law enforcement with effective detection tools. California’s wildfire history proves preparation is critical. Without immediate action, the unchecked growth of drones will further endanger lives, firefighting efforts, and public safety.

1 reply
January 11 ▶ jethro442

Steve737

Unauthorized drone - what else do you figure? Somebody where they shouldn’t be…

1 reply
January 11 ▶ Steve737

Steve737

Hi Russ, wasn’t talking about your headline, it was the article by Amelia Walsh… “CL-415 Hits Drone” that caught my eye…

January 13 ▶ Steve737

jethro442

If I am standing in the middle of railroad tracks when the train comes by, the train hits me. I don’t hit the train.

But yes, the train had the right of way. I was stupid and wrong for being there.

1 reply
January 13 ▶ jethro442

Steve737

A hell of a lot easier for you to move than stop a train. But hey, if you want to stand at the end of my driveway and not get out of the way, I will be happy to run you over. And the drone was not likely or did not have to be stationary, and someone was operating it and hit the plane. Wasn’t a freakin weather balloon…

1 reply
January 13 ▶ Raf

Arthur_Foyt

First off, model airplanes and toys are not “drones”; we need precise language.
As far as more rules, we’re talking CA here; they cannot even control the unchecked growth of terrestrial law infractions.

January 13 ▶ jjbaker

skane1014

There should be a mandatory prison sentence for anyone caught operating a drone in the vicinity of an emergency on the ground, or, in or near the flight paths at an airport. This reckless conduct indicates that the drone operator is willing to kill people in order to have some “fun.”

January 14 ▶ Steve737

jethro442

Drone is heading due north at 30 knots.

Air tanker is south of the drone and heading due north at 130 knots.

Air tanker comes up on the drone and the two make contact.

Did the air tanker hit the drone or did the drone hit the air tanker?

1 reply
January 14 ▶ jethro442

Steve737

Stall speed of CL-415 68 kn…hmmm - if they had been able to see the drone, they could have tried to match its speed, and would have quickly lost altitude, so that might have worked. But the drone’s impact was 3/4 of the way down the leading edge of the wing, a “very visible” area of the plane from the cockpit, especially when the have their trailering mirrors on .NOT. The point is, who’s at fault? The drone. The emphasis should have been the the drone hit the 415, not the other way around. The headline makes it sound, esp to lay people, that the pilots could have done something about it but instead they willfully beat up on that poor little unauthorised drone. They don’t call a Bird Strike a “Plane Engine Gobbled the Geese Event”. The damn birds hit the plane… like the drone did.

2 replies
January 14 ▶ Steve737

jethro442

OK. Got it.

Japanese Coast Guard airplane taxi’d onto an active runway without clearance. The Coast Guard airplane hit a JAL airliner attempting to land.

Jeju Air landed long with gear up and flaps up. Causing a berm to hit the Jeju Air airliner.

1 reply
January 14 ▶ Steve737

jethro442

FAA defines a bird strike as a collision between between a bird and an aircraft while it is flying, taking off or landing. “It” presumably being the aircraft. Blame to one or the other is not assigned. No mention of one or the other hitting the other.

The bird has every legal right to be where it is. No laws (that I know of anyway) that prevent the bird from being where the bird is. Doing what birds do. The bird could very well fly into and “hit” the airplane or the airplane could fly into and “hit” the bird. No ones fault. An act of God they say.

January 14 ▶ jethro442

Steve737

You are right on the first one - the person responsible for the accident hit the party who could do nothing about it. Speed, size, etc. has nothing to do with it. Do you have car insurance? Check out what happens when something hits you as opposed to you hitting it, and what Fault is. And a berm is inanimate, and was not in the wrong for being there, and with gear and flaps up one would expect long, but the only thing that was moving was the 737-800, unfortunately (terrible crash, seriously) so it hit. There are situations where the fault is mechanical, which is not a living thing, but is has an operation or a movement, not like a berm. You and I are sitting is a big bucket of Semantics and Pedantic - not really worth the time it takes to type, but I type fast so no bother to me. We’ve only got another couple of days before this closes, if admins don’t consider this too ridiculous to begin with and shut the conversation down. What is important here is the perceived reputation of the person/company operating the thing that was hit. “Plane hitting a drone” implies pilot error, “Drone hitting a plane” points more clearly to the guilty party. Perception, public opinion and the clarity to the lay person are what are important here, and with truth, accuracy and objectivity they all from the basis of good news reporting. I already knew about the incident, but when I saw it put that way I thought “What??” … be clear folks, and use the nuances of any language you are communicating in appropriately.