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?
3 Likes
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.
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. 
You’ll explain it to the judge…
1 Like
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?
2 Likes
Do you have ANY idea what will be necessary to effect repairs on wing damage such as this? I didn’t think so.
1 Like
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.
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.
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
1 Like
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.
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
You get what you vote for…
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.
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.)
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.)
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.
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.
Hardie brand building siding board today is Portland cement and sand with wood fibres, originally used asbestos fibres as tension reinforcement.
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.
How is it known that the drone hit the airplane and that the airplane did not hit the drone?
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.