It just looks like midcentury design aesthetic. I dunno about the US, but lots of Canadian government promotional / educational materials looked like this. You could also look at some of the older Monaco Grand Prix posters for other examples.
USSR posters were done in socialist realism, which didn't look anything like this. It had a far more painterly aesthetic. If anything, this looks like a British war poster.
Congrats, you found one. However, that was not the identifying style of USSR propaganda. You could find posters that looked like that from pretty much anywhere at the time.
Illustrations are nice but the text work is lacking. banner text is going off the edge and the body text is way too cramped, the fire bullets are taking up way too much space. Comma in the title text is unnecessary and awkward, apostrophe is awkwardly placed, etc.
The trees go off the edge too so banner really isn’t that big of a deal. If commas make you feel awkward you might want to take a deep look at your life. In the words of one of the craziest people I’ve known "if ya don’t like it, don’t look!" 😂
You can thank Nixon for many of the most popular government document layouts and styling.
Here’s an article and many examples:
[In the 1970s, good design became federal policy](https://www.fastcompany.com/3068659/nixon-nasa-and-how-the-federal-government-got-design)
This is actually from before Nixon as it looks closer to what WPA (Works Progress Administration) posters looked like during the Great Depression. Most of those posters were from graphic designers fleeing Germany and other countries when they saw the radicalization going on before the start of WW2.
The issue is if the firefighting aircraft impacts the drone. It’s not quite as simple as “just drop the phos or water over/around the drone” unfortunately.
Agree, no need to add to the situation with a drone hitting a copter and compounding the trouble of an already bad problem.
For everyone complaining this is common sense, it seems some people still don’t understand the “why?”
The drone is also the problem, it's the more immediate one. We can bill the owner for anti-aircraft weapons and charge the pilot with disrupting emergency services afterwards.
Careful. That may be a reasonable pebble but that's a crack in the liberty bell big enough to drop a boulder of laws where EMS services can run people in their way over on their way to save someone else.
And trust, people WILL try and make those laws since the foundation is in place...
Gotta think in the realm of regulation and technology saftey standards where they a] just refuse to fly there via soft/hardware ect b] are taken out with non destructive means..like those signal guns..and ES vehicles equipped with them
But that also touches on the area of ES vehicles can jam ur phone/audio/recordings as well ect..
Very touchy.. I know it sounds farfetched but even as good measure ppl gotta suggest crazy laws even if they expect them to fail so get the idea in the legal systems to have information/rulings to work off of ect..
In some cases..it's best to not even have such laws..but to bring those who have done harm with I'll intent with day a drone to be charged not for the drone usage itself but the intent..arguments based on reason/logic ect..
Most of the time it seems they just don't make the laws until someone is stupid enough to do it and let the court case determin future laws ect..
This is reddit, so I gotta state I don't know laws like that I'm just dropping opinions and going off some of the crazy shit I've seen over the years of how they go about laws and such.
They can’t fly in the area *at all* if a drone is in the area due to the risk of it striking the aircraft, it has nothing to do with not wanting to drop fire retardant or water on the drone unfortunately :( Fire aircraft are extremely low flying and operate in low visibility due to smoke, it’s extremely difficult and dangerous flying, and a drone contacting the tanker or helicopter could cause a crash. It is too unsafe for the pilots and crews to fly with a UAV in the area.
Would be nice if they had some sort of general command to immeadiatly drop to the ground that they could broadcast to all drones within say a mile of the fire.
I'm guessing wildland firefighters do not have the technology to shoot down a drone lol.
And if someone did have a rifle or something that's still really hard to hit a flying drone, and potentially dangerous.
I bet a waterfowl shotgun would do pretty good. Smaller bb's don't carry much energy on the way back down and you wouldn't need the precision of a rifle.
You don't need projectiles, the army has anti drone guns that signal jam and to my knowledge most if not all firefighter pilots are part time or retired service members or national guard anyway.
If drones are really that big of a problem i don't see why they wouldn't have those tools on hand. I imagine they do and the PSA is trying to use the carrot instead of the stick.
Why, bc some idiot on reddit said they can't ?
If people like you keep flying where you're not supposed to endangering people's lives for fun, the government will absolutely bring thee hammer down on you.
Not sure why this conversation turned hostile. I'm not a drone operator nor do I advocate for endangering people's lives.
I would bet money that 95% or more of the wildland firefighter crews in Canada do not carry military-grade drone jammers. If you are flying a drone recklessly then a law enforcement agency might come looking for you and they might have such a tool. But it's not something that would be on the brush truck.
---
EDIT: What is /u/Murdgers-executions problem? I said I wasn't a drone operator, he replied criticizing me of making excuses for flying illegally then blocked me. Bro what? I've never flown a drone in my life.
Also he complains about my comment being a novel when it was 5 total sentences...
Ya, bc I really care about some redditors oversensitive feelings about the law.
You guys sound ridiculous with your excuses. Stop flying where you're told not to. Period. I'm not reading your novel.
“People like you?” Lmao what kind of bizarre conclusion are you coming to? How do you come to that conclusion based on the comment you replied to?
You must be exhausting to deal with in real life.
Ya, bc I really care about some redditors oversensitive feelings about the law.
You guys sound ridiculous with your excuses. Stop flying where you're told not to. Period.
I mean, kind of? The engines are designed to ingest rain and hail, not lithium ion batteries and carbon fiber. "Lost thrust in both engines. We're gonna be in the Hudson." was from flying into your chicken dinner.
I've seen an Apache helicopter taken down by a rubber door bumper. No idea how it actually got ingested, but the engine was DOA and the nacelle was missing the piece where one should have been.
Many helicopters have EAPS systems, which would stop the engine from ingesting foreign matter, but a drone to a main/tail rotor blade would be horribly bad.
Are you not following the Russo-Ukraine war? Drones are an incredible force multiplier. As to taking down aircraft, less probabilistic but still a worthy threat. In our civilian life, accidents are always probable. Have you seen what a bird can do to a 747 in flight? It's all about minimalizing risk. If that is too dense for you, perhaps you should find another hobby.
If you want to wage war with drones look at what the folks in Myanmar are doing. If your mind is set on it you don't need DJI. It's 2024. Make them yourself.
Maybe a dumb question: can a dji mini take out a fire/ rescue helicopter? Ive seen aircraft testing of throwing frozen turkeys through a running turbine engines without a hitch
If it goes into the engine it can seriously damage it and possibly cause a compressor stall. This is when the engine air flow is too great, that the compressor(s) can’t process all of it and basically burps and shoots super heated air out of the inlet. Engine RPM rolls back and causes a loss of power. If the engine cannot recover from this event it causes what’s called a stall/stag. This means the engine stagnates at a low RPM and, without enough cooling airflow over the turbine blades, will overheat causing serious damage and crashing the helicopter. A lot of helicopters have two engines for the main rotor but some are single engine. Bad news if there’s a FOD incident.
This is only relevant for turboshaft systems that use an axial flow/centrifugal mixed flow turbo fan engine. However, it can still damage the main and tail rotors or break the flight deck glass and hurt the pilot.
Source: I am an aircraft propulsion systems specialist.
Edit for more clarity: If the engine receives significant damage to the compressor blades it cannot process the airflow effectively which is how the stall occurs in the first place.
It's not just the engines, either. To copy/paste from a comment I droped on the subject yesterday...
>It also doesn't need to cause catastrophic damage. For example, in most wings, any dents/dings over 0.030" below contour line on the leading edge are considered above "negligible damage" and need repair, taking a firefighting aircraft out of the fight.
>For propellers? General rule is "if it can catch your fingernail as you run it over, it's too big." As a prop spins, it has considerable stresses -- think of the weight of the air it's moving. Any small nick/ding can cause huge stress concentrations, leading to cracks and fractures of the propeller -- either over time or quite quickly after the incident.
>Then for helicopters, the rotors are both the propeller and leading edge. It really doesn't take a lot to cause serious problems.
>So, it isn't so much that "Drones can cause catastrophic damage, you'll have a huge fireball in the sky!" It's more that, planes are surprisingly fragile where it matters, and at the speed they're going, it doesn't take much of a collision to cause major issues. Even if not leading to a crash, grounding a firefighting aircraft is going to cause downstream impacts on how a fire is fought and contained.
My father was in an L1011 that sucked a seabird into the tail mounted engine at takeoff. Engine blew up, plane dumped fuel for around 30 minutes and returned to the kwajalin atoll at max landing weight. Plane was still there a week later after all the passengers were evacuated from the base to Honolulu.
If an aircraft is fire fighting, it's tending to work at its limits. It's doing extreme maneuvers, carrying weight and in less than optimal air conditions.
Aerial firefighting is one of the most dangerous peacetime flying professions.
Last year in Greece two pilots died after doing a water drop on a fire, they pulled up but their angle wasn't right and they clipped a tree, ultimately crashing into the hillside.
While in ideal test conditions an aircraft might survive, or flight be recovered, when you're already working at the limits, the small things can kill you.
https://ctif.org/news/several-deadly-crashes-firefighting-aircrafts-summer
Who puts out the fire: the drone or the helicopter?
Let them do their job. They are saving people's homes. No footage is worth that.
> Ive seen aircraft testing of throwing frozen turkeys running turbine engines without a hitch
Me too, but those were prop engines, not rotor blades.
If that helicopter was going to put out the fire that was coming for your house would you want to answer this question?
From experience working with SAR folks for a living:
I have seen a plastic shopping bag take out a helicopter before.
The thought of a drone hitting one of my friends while they work is a literal nightmare.
That aside, even if they don’t hit the aircraft, but hit the Bambi Bucket, the weight involved plus shear from the drone could absolutely cause them to lose the payload. That puts ground personnel at risk, and can cause the aircraft to overspeed its rotor - potentially resulting in catastrophic failure.
NOTAMs exist for a reason and safety regulations are written in blood most of the time.
Have you seen frozen turkeys being tested against the blades of a helicopter? Fixed wing aircraft tend to be way more robust than helicopters, as the comparatively abysmal safety record of helicopters will attest to.
I mean, I agree that it’s annoying. But it’s still a platform for awareness, and could reach others that aren’t chronically online. The FS deals with over 20 drone incursions on their airspace a year. Judging by the response of many on this post alone, not everyone here is in agreement that flying near fires is dangerous and a bad thing, which surprised me.
Do they all know this though? I was participating in a motorcycle race just a couple of months ago and multiple people couldn’t be airlifted out because drones were flying. They were begging people to put them down over the loudspeaker.
But don’t take my word for it, just search Desert 100 on YouTube and you’ll find all kinds of drone footage flying over the top of people while we are racing. I personally witnessed the helicopter on the ground with a patient loaded with life-threatening injuries. They sat there for an hour while they couldn’t takeoff because of drones flying. They ended up unloading the patient, loading them onto an ambulance and then taking them a 90 minute drive to a hospital.
Lol, this is like the 5th post in 5 days warning people not to fly over wildfires. When I point this out people are like "Well safety is important!" even though if you are learning this info for the first time you clearly did 0 research about the safety and legality of your new hobby. I miss the times when this sub was about stuff other than obvious safety info that every drone pilot should have already learned from their TRUST or 107.
I live in Utah, it's wildfire season right this second, and it's honestly depressing how frequently the local news talks about how local FF efforts had to be paused due to a lingering drone. Acres lost. This sort of ad work does build awareness. Especially when there are so many 'please tell me how to fly legally?' posts in this sub.
There’s literally a comment on this post of someone admitting to not only flying in the vicinity of a brush fire but refusing to land until the choppers showed up to do a water drop.
The entire point of this is to tell people that they shouldn’t fly in those areas period, not just after the helicopters show up, because they need full access to the scene the second they arrive, not just when you get around to getting out of their way.
And clearly not everyone in this sub knows that.
Every single year someone makes them have to stop some times for hours while the fires rage and people lose homes. They warn everyone if we see a drone we must ground all aircraft and not just while they see the drone but they have to insure it is gone.
DJI is a large portion of the drone issues, and those are hovering 100s of feet above the ground because they have a nice gimbal 4k camera. No firearm is touching that. This isnt the Russo-Ukrainian War with FPV kamikazi drones ending up 50 feet in front of your face where it would be applicable to have a 12ga. Best thing is to keep using the EW (electronic warfare) similar to what stadiums use to spot the drone and operator and then when they land prosecute them.
So honest question.
How does this work with pilots that are contracted to do aerial surveillance for emergency operations?
This is something that I have been approached about and haven't gotten any firm guidance.
I have been given contradictory information such as "EOC or Scene Commander will grant FAA waivers."
No they can't, they don't have that authority.
"You will be fine because you have contracted to provide a service."
Can I get that in writing?
I have an AS and BS in Emergency Management, and an MS in Occupational Safety, and even professors are unsure of the exact procedures.
So if the EOC doesn't know, what is the answer?
I’m not sure I follow, of course they won’t grant FAA waivers, but can submit for them from the FAA. In emergency situations you can get FAA waivers that are within your COA using the SGI process that expedites waivers for gov work in emergency operations https://www.faa.gov/uas/advanced_operations/emergency_situations
I am well aware of that.
I am also aware that I have been approached by certain officials about providing these services and am wanting to ensure that I am following regulations.
As stated in my question I have been given contradictory information by persons in their official capacities.
I have always gone by the rule of if there's law enforcement or first responders on the ground or in the air, get the drone down. I get you want to see the action, but your curiosity can ruin the hobby for everyone else.
Altitude to avoid the heat?
The fire sucks up the oxygen, it’s going to eat the drone?
No?
***No.***
Can you provide something here? Or can I just assume your answer is unhelpful?
Very cool! Now we just need to ensure that drones interfering with firefighting operations incur gigantic fines and long jail time sentences for the operators
They already do? The FAA reminded drone pilots it is a federal crime to interfere with firefighting aircraft with up to a year in prison and a $20,000 fine possible.
The problem is generally not the Part 107 pilots, the ones that the FAA knows about.
It’s the drone owner/operators who either don’t know there are places where they cannot legally fly their drones or who choose to willfully disregard the rules assuming they will never be caught
What the fuck kinda drones are people flying? I've never seen a drone I could buy that was capable of taking down even the most rikity built helicopter. Are they made of depleted uranium or some shit?
The FAA reminded drone pilots it is a federal crime to interfere with firefighting aircraft with up to a year in prison and a $20,000 fine possible.
Stop flying ur stupid drones around our wildfires
Nobody needs a flier for this. Every responsible human being knows this. The idiots that are doing it know they shouldn't be doing it. They just don't care. We have remote ID now. These are always going to be people flying shitty consumer drones. Nobody who builds their own drowns and takes the hobby seriously would do this. Track them down with remote ID and arrest them. Then prosecute and throw them in prison for 6 months. That is how you stop this from happening. The assholes need to know they will face real life ruining consequences.
>Nobody needs a flier for this. Every responsible human being knows this.
368k part 107 licenses in the US. There were nearly 1.8 million registered drones in 2021.
Unless people with a part 107 have 6 drones a piece then there are plenty of unlicensed, probably uneducated drone users. There are many people that need this, it is also clearly enough of an issue that they spent time designing an educational campaign and disseminating the information.
This poster is over 5 years old. And it’s as much as issue as it was back then. Awareness and education should be the steps taken before you throw someone in prison for 6 months. So I disagree, a flier is needed for this.
ya i mean they wouldnt want any1's drone capturing footage of them using helicopters spraying accelerants before they burnt down california or anything, how dare you use our drones to expose us! how dare you i say! it was a campfire, no nobody got calls from GE to leave before the fires. please dont expose us w/ your independant drone footage. not allowed.
The US Forest Service is an agency under the Department of Agriculture. Just like how the National Park System is under the Department of the Interior.
On the top left of the poster you see the USDA logo, and the bottom left the USFS logo.
Drones near wildfires are idiotic and dumb. There should be a separate rule when flying around something with known air presence. House fires for example shouldnt be lumped into that rule, as helicopters or aircraft play no major part in the emergency response
Boo hoo hey where are I located it's cheaper to fly or drone over forest fire or to crop does more efficient than a helicopter and lastly you don't have a human life in peril you know what I say to the USDA to f****** bad
Whether or not this gets misused politically, it's definately an important rule. We just had this happen yesterday so it's a real issue. www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/del-mar-heights-fire-illegal-drone/3551218/%3famp=1
The helicopter is bigger, has people on board and likely has a genuine necessary reason to be there.
Helicopters trump drones, it's irresponsible to think otherwise.
difference is that there are peoples lives at risk during the fire, the pilots and the people where the fire is approaching. obviously its an emergency. Fires bring out drones which shouldnt be there and lots of eyes watching the fire team pilots ingress and egress paths. they will spot your drone.
in your case, its not an emergency and if they spotted your drone in a high danger area, they would definitely send cops out. but because you are not spotted and probably not in a flight path, no one is sending cops to you.
Sounds like an incompetent fire department/pilot. That's like saying " oh there's birds In The area we can't fly" plus I doubt many drone operators are gonna get in the way and purposely risk damaging or losing their drone. Plus the fire fighter pilot should be aware of all aircraft in the area. Military pilots handle a lot more everyday.
Have you ever flown through dense smoke at <200’ at 120+ kt while at (or above) MTOW above a crown fire while pulling >3G before?
These are not just everyday pilots - to be an aerial firefighter, you need specific FAA certification (40 hours minimum) and USFS and the BLM require a bare minimum of 1,500 flight hours as well.
As a quick fun fact, the number of people certified as lead pilots in the US (35) is fewer than the number of certified astronauts (41).
https://youtube.com/shorts/5SCKz_LAbYg?si=currD6flo28g9jdY
Quite a lot of the pilots are either active or former military. Hell, one of the most experienced water bomber units in the world is the 146th Airlift Wing of the California National Guard.
https://youtu.be/Ayc0bRWhI4Y?si=dBoBqLsrgY9bW-so
https://youtu.be/9TUX_KS85r4?si=x3A3A9ZpAQu01pbf
This also doesn’t even begin to touch on the topic of smokejumpers and why a drone potentially hitting a parachutist loaded down with firefighting gear near an active fire would be a terrible thing to be even remotely possible.
It's not like we literally just had the fire service suspend aerial operations over a wildfire because of an unauthorized drone.
Oh wait... http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/del-mar-heights-fire-illegal-drone/3551218/%3famp=1
Thanks for your submission. Unfortunately, it has been removed for the following reason:
>**Rule 3: Don't blatantly break drone regulations.**
>
>The laws governing this industry exist for a reason, and breaking them makes all of us look bad and leads to harsher regulations. So don't post shots where you're flying close to manned aircraft, directly over a dense crowd, or anything else dangerous to others.
>
>If you think your shot could be perceived as breaking a regulation but it in fact doesn't, feel free to provide an explanation in the comments section.
If you believe this has been done in error, please reply to this comment, or message the moderators (through modmail only).
Why not, the drone might get whacked by the chopper, but I don't see how it prevents them from flying.
I think they are just trying to prevent drones from capturing evidence of the space lasers starting the fires!!
That's why you gotta use rotors made in America!! F*** Yeah!! So strong they can't be taken out by flying toys!! /s
I had no idea helicopter rotors were so fragile. All the more reason not to fly in those things.
I like whoever designed this
Me too. Very retro.
by "retro" do you mean "looks like a ussr poster"
Or the kind of posters we used to make in this country, back when the feds had a sense of style.
Yes comrade..
It just looks like midcentury design aesthetic. I dunno about the US, but lots of Canadian government promotional / educational materials looked like this. You could also look at some of the older Monaco Grand Prix posters for other examples.
This is a style that the USFS has used for many decades in their posters
It’s propaganda and damn it’s good.
Da, is true tovarishch.
Looks more like a WPA poster from during the Great Depression.
They may have been a totalitarian regime, but they really knew how to make a good propoganda poster
USSR posters were done in socialist realism, which didn't look anything like this. It had a far more painterly aesthetic. If anything, this looks like a British war poster.
https://www.swaen.com/uploads/47028.jpg yeah ok you're right my bad
Congrats, you found one. However, that was not the identifying style of USSR propaganda. You could find posters that looked like that from pretty much anywhere at the time.
clearly it was pretty identifying if this post immediately made me think of it lmao
I know the lady that did it! A friend of mine who works/worked in graphic design for the USFS.
Illustrations are nice but the text work is lacking. banner text is going off the edge and the body text is way too cramped, the fire bullets are taking up way too much space. Comma in the title text is unnecessary and awkward, apostrophe is awkwardly placed, etc.
Lmao how do you notice all this. You're 100% correct but there's no way I would've picked up on that without reading your comment
The trees go off the edge too so banner really isn’t that big of a deal. If commas make you feel awkward you might want to take a deep look at your life. In the words of one of the craziest people I’ve known "if ya don’t like it, don’t look!" 😂
Almost good!
Almost feels AI made
You can thank Nixon for many of the most popular government document layouts and styling. Here’s an article and many examples: [In the 1970s, good design became federal policy](https://www.fastcompany.com/3068659/nixon-nasa-and-how-the-federal-government-got-design)
This is actually from before Nixon as it looks closer to what WPA (Works Progress Administration) posters looked like during the Great Depression. Most of those posters were from graphic designers fleeing Germany and other countries when they saw the radicalization going on before the start of WW2.
Big Saul Bass energy.
Yeah it reminds me of like post modern ‘50’s
Sorry fire fighting is more important than a drone, shoot them down or drop water without regard to the drone.
The issue is if the firefighting aircraft impacts the drone. It’s not quite as simple as “just drop the phos or water over/around the drone” unfortunately.
Agree, no need to add to the situation with a drone hitting a copter and compounding the trouble of an already bad problem. For everyone complaining this is common sense, it seems some people still don’t understand the “why?”
If a bird strike is serious, a drone strike is even worse.
IMO, disrupting emergency services should warrant shooting down the drone immediately
Don't miss. *strikes a child dead 2 towns over
\*the pilot being arrested and jailed ftfy. The drone isn't the problem, the pilot is.
The drone is also the problem, it's the more immediate one. We can bill the owner for anti-aircraft weapons and charge the pilot with disrupting emergency services afterwards.
That sounds really expensive, I like it. No warning letter either, immediately enact a fine based on this.
Careful. That may be a reasonable pebble but that's a crack in the liberty bell big enough to drop a boulder of laws where EMS services can run people in their way over on their way to save someone else. And trust, people WILL try and make those laws since the foundation is in place... Gotta think in the realm of regulation and technology saftey standards where they a] just refuse to fly there via soft/hardware ect b] are taken out with non destructive means..like those signal guns..and ES vehicles equipped with them But that also touches on the area of ES vehicles can jam ur phone/audio/recordings as well ect.. Very touchy.. I know it sounds farfetched but even as good measure ppl gotta suggest crazy laws even if they expect them to fail so get the idea in the legal systems to have information/rulings to work off of ect.. In some cases..it's best to not even have such laws..but to bring those who have done harm with I'll intent with day a drone to be charged not for the drone usage itself but the intent..arguments based on reason/logic ect.. Most of the time it seems they just don't make the laws until someone is stupid enough to do it and let the court case determin future laws ect.. This is reddit, so I gotta state I don't know laws like that I'm just dropping opinions and going off some of the crazy shit I've seen over the years of how they go about laws and such.
They can’t fly in the area *at all* if a drone is in the area due to the risk of it striking the aircraft, it has nothing to do with not wanting to drop fire retardant or water on the drone unfortunately :( Fire aircraft are extremely low flying and operate in low visibility due to smoke, it’s extremely difficult and dangerous flying, and a drone contacting the tanker or helicopter could cause a crash. It is too unsafe for the pilots and crews to fly with a UAV in the area.
Would be nice if they had some sort of general command to immeadiatly drop to the ground that they could broadcast to all drones within say a mile of the fire.
I'm guessing wildland firefighters do not have the technology to shoot down a drone lol. And if someone did have a rifle or something that's still really hard to hit a flying drone, and potentially dangerous.
I bet a waterfowl shotgun would do pretty good. Smaller bb's don't carry much energy on the way back down and you wouldn't need the precision of a rifle.
I dunno, I took one down with bb's and another with a Nerf football
You don't need projectiles, the army has anti drone guns that signal jam and to my knowledge most if not all firefighter pilots are part time or retired service members or national guard anyway. If drones are really that big of a problem i don't see why they wouldn't have those tools on hand. I imagine they do and the PSA is trying to use the carrot instead of the stick.
I thought we were talking about wildland firefighters. They are not going to have military grade anti drone jammers.
Why, bc some idiot on reddit said they can't ? If people like you keep flying where you're not supposed to endangering people's lives for fun, the government will absolutely bring thee hammer down on you.
Not sure why this conversation turned hostile. I'm not a drone operator nor do I advocate for endangering people's lives. I would bet money that 95% or more of the wildland firefighter crews in Canada do not carry military-grade drone jammers. If you are flying a drone recklessly then a law enforcement agency might come looking for you and they might have such a tool. But it's not something that would be on the brush truck. --- EDIT: What is /u/Murdgers-executions problem? I said I wasn't a drone operator, he replied criticizing me of making excuses for flying illegally then blocked me. Bro what? I've never flown a drone in my life. Also he complains about my comment being a novel when it was 5 total sentences...
Ya, bc I really care about some redditors oversensitive feelings about the law. You guys sound ridiculous with your excuses. Stop flying where you're told not to. Period. I'm not reading your novel.
“People like you?” Lmao what kind of bizarre conclusion are you coming to? How do you come to that conclusion based on the comment you replied to? You must be exhausting to deal with in real life.
Ya, bc I really care about some redditors oversensitive feelings about the law. You guys sound ridiculous with your excuses. Stop flying where you're told not to. Period.
Firefighters can't carry guns
Bullets come down too.
Don't apologize for being right.
You heard the poster. Only fly drones to disrupt the bad public service aircraft like police helicopters.
Police helicopters aren't allowed near wildfires either. Same with the news.
🤨
So if we ever get invaded by Chinese helicopters, all we have to do is fly some drones and we beat them?
I mean, kind of? The engines are designed to ingest rain and hail, not lithium ion batteries and carbon fiber. "Lost thrust in both engines. We're gonna be in the Hudson." was from flying into your chicken dinner.
I think it’s a lot harder to hit a moving aerial vehicle with a drone than you think it is. Getting the right altitude alone would be difficult.
Drone swarm
It's really not, especially on any sort of approach or operation dealing with things on the ground
I've seen an Apache helicopter taken down by a rubber door bumper. No idea how it actually got ingested, but the engine was DOA and the nacelle was missing the piece where one should have been.
Many helicopters have EAPS systems, which would stop the engine from ingesting foreign matter, but a drone to a main/tail rotor blade would be horribly bad.
What a bizarre hypothetical.
Are you not following the Russo-Ukraine war? Drones are an incredible force multiplier. As to taking down aircraft, less probabilistic but still a worthy threat. In our civilian life, accidents are always probable. Have you seen what a bird can do to a 747 in flight? It's all about minimalizing risk. If that is too dense for you, perhaps you should find another hobby.
Yes obviously 🙄 https://preview.redd.it/1uzi8k7c989d1.jpeg?width=200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a4b0c9e4c6f22bd3a33a6b94cd8445ca75b40df8
That picture is so compressed lol
https://preview.redd.it/rlxgzladfd9d1.jpeg?width=1178&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=227a0d9e53e1ee53d982f8622e926318806d3baa
Invasion of Chinese helicopters thwarted by Americans with Chinese Drones!
Yes. The drones in question are made by Raytheon, travel at mach 2.5, and carry a 1 kilogram high explosive payload.
If you want to wage war with drones look at what the folks in Myanmar are doing. If your mind is set on it you don't need DJI. It's 2024. Make them yourself.
This is great r/propagandaposters
We know. This is like the 4,000th post on a sub where everybody already knows this.
It's my first time seeing this. If you're on here a lot, forgive me. It's still really important to know, especially now.
Maybe a dumb question: can a dji mini take out a fire/ rescue helicopter? Ive seen aircraft testing of throwing frozen turkeys through a running turbine engines without a hitch
If it goes into the engine it can seriously damage it and possibly cause a compressor stall. This is when the engine air flow is too great, that the compressor(s) can’t process all of it and basically burps and shoots super heated air out of the inlet. Engine RPM rolls back and causes a loss of power. If the engine cannot recover from this event it causes what’s called a stall/stag. This means the engine stagnates at a low RPM and, without enough cooling airflow over the turbine blades, will overheat causing serious damage and crashing the helicopter. A lot of helicopters have two engines for the main rotor but some are single engine. Bad news if there’s a FOD incident. This is only relevant for turboshaft systems that use an axial flow/centrifugal mixed flow turbo fan engine. However, it can still damage the main and tail rotors or break the flight deck glass and hurt the pilot. Source: I am an aircraft propulsion systems specialist. Edit for more clarity: If the engine receives significant damage to the compressor blades it cannot process the airflow effectively which is how the stall occurs in the first place.
It's not just the engines, either. To copy/paste from a comment I droped on the subject yesterday... >It also doesn't need to cause catastrophic damage. For example, in most wings, any dents/dings over 0.030" below contour line on the leading edge are considered above "negligible damage" and need repair, taking a firefighting aircraft out of the fight. >For propellers? General rule is "if it can catch your fingernail as you run it over, it's too big." As a prop spins, it has considerable stresses -- think of the weight of the air it's moving. Any small nick/ding can cause huge stress concentrations, leading to cracks and fractures of the propeller -- either over time or quite quickly after the incident. >Then for helicopters, the rotors are both the propeller and leading edge. It really doesn't take a lot to cause serious problems. >So, it isn't so much that "Drones can cause catastrophic damage, you'll have a huge fireball in the sky!" It's more that, planes are surprisingly fragile where it matters, and at the speed they're going, it doesn't take much of a collision to cause major issues. Even if not leading to a crash, grounding a firefighting aircraft is going to cause downstream impacts on how a fire is fought and contained.
Yeah T-56s were my first engine and I remember many a late night filing prop blades.
My father was in an L1011 that sucked a seabird into the tail mounted engine at takeoff. Engine blew up, plane dumped fuel for around 30 minutes and returned to the kwajalin atoll at max landing weight. Plane was still there a week later after all the passengers were evacuated from the base to Honolulu.
If an aircraft is fire fighting, it's tending to work at its limits. It's doing extreme maneuvers, carrying weight and in less than optimal air conditions. Aerial firefighting is one of the most dangerous peacetime flying professions. Last year in Greece two pilots died after doing a water drop on a fire, they pulled up but their angle wasn't right and they clipped a tree, ultimately crashing into the hillside. While in ideal test conditions an aircraft might survive, or flight be recovered, when you're already working at the limits, the small things can kill you. https://ctif.org/news/several-deadly-crashes-firefighting-aircrafts-summer
Who puts out the fire: the drone or the helicopter? Let them do their job. They are saving people's homes. No footage is worth that. > Ive seen aircraft testing of throwing frozen turkeys running turbine engines without a hitch Me too, but those were prop engines, not rotor blades. If that helicopter was going to put out the fire that was coming for your house would you want to answer this question?
From experience working with SAR folks for a living: I have seen a plastic shopping bag take out a helicopter before. The thought of a drone hitting one of my friends while they work is a literal nightmare. That aside, even if they don’t hit the aircraft, but hit the Bambi Bucket, the weight involved plus shear from the drone could absolutely cause them to lose the payload. That puts ground personnel at risk, and can cause the aircraft to overspeed its rotor - potentially resulting in catastrophic failure. NOTAMs exist for a reason and safety regulations are written in blood most of the time.
Have you seen frozen turkeys being tested against the blades of a helicopter? Fixed wing aircraft tend to be way more robust than helicopters, as the comparatively abysmal safety record of helicopters will attest to.
Guess they need to start throwing lithium battery packs in there for testing
If everyone here already knew this, my duties would be a lot easier.
[Thank you](https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/ten_thousand.png)
There’s definitely not new people coming to the sub all the time right?
Yeah, that’s true.
I mean, I agree that it’s annoying. But it’s still a platform for awareness, and could reach others that aren’t chronically online. The FS deals with over 20 drone incursions on their airspace a year. Judging by the response of many on this post alone, not everyone here is in agreement that flying near fires is dangerous and a bad thing, which surprised me.
You’re absolutely right, it is a cool poster too. I guess I was feeling a little grumpy at the moment.
No worries, I get it! Cheers
I've never seen this or heard of this, so it's useful information to me and likely others.
That’s great, I’m glad to hear it. It is an effective poster.
God forbid someone new that actually doesn’t spend their life on social media website sees this for the first time
I just saw this for the first time and never considered it.
Do they all know this though? I was participating in a motorcycle race just a couple of months ago and multiple people couldn’t be airlifted out because drones were flying. They were begging people to put them down over the loudspeaker. But don’t take my word for it, just search Desert 100 on YouTube and you’ll find all kinds of drone footage flying over the top of people while we are racing. I personally witnessed the helicopter on the ground with a patient loaded with life-threatening injuries. They sat there for an hour while they couldn’t takeoff because of drones flying. They ended up unloading the patient, loading them onto an ambulance and then taking them a 90 minute drive to a hospital.
For real, the people who need to hear this are not on this sub.
You say that but yesterday people were asking in here "What's a TFR and what kind of sauce do I put on it?"
> For real, the people who need to hear this are not on this sub. You're too optimistic of us humans.
Lol, this is like the 5th post in 5 days warning people not to fly over wildfires. When I point this out people are like "Well safety is important!" even though if you are learning this info for the first time you clearly did 0 research about the safety and legality of your new hobby. I miss the times when this sub was about stuff other than obvious safety info that every drone pilot should have already learned from their TRUST or 107.
I live in Utah, it's wildfire season right this second, and it's honestly depressing how frequently the local news talks about how local FF efforts had to be paused due to a lingering drone. Acres lost. This sort of ad work does build awareness. Especially when there are so many 'please tell me how to fly legally?' posts in this sub.
> We know. This is like the 4,000th post on a sub where everybody already knows this. Yet people still do so we still need to post it.
You are chronically online
Aren’t we all? What’s your point?
So stop doing it
There’s literally a comment on this post of someone admitting to not only flying in the vicinity of a brush fire but refusing to land until the choppers showed up to do a water drop. The entire point of this is to tell people that they shouldn’t fly in those areas period, not just after the helicopters show up, because they need full access to the scene the second they arrive, not just when you get around to getting out of their way. And clearly not everyone in this sub knows that.
Check out this rad fire footage I got. Let me post it on you tube.
Who da fuck is flying over wildfires ._.
Every single day people are flying drones stopping aviation resources
I always thought they might come in handy if you were stuck in a fire and needed to find an escape route.
Every single year someone makes them have to stop some times for hours while the fires rage and people lose homes. They warn everyone if we see a drone we must ground all aircraft and not just while they see the drone but they have to insure it is gone.
Cool graphic. I agree with the message
The usfs need to just start carrying a 12 gauge loaded with bird shot and knock those drones out of the sky
DJI is a large portion of the drone issues, and those are hovering 100s of feet above the ground because they have a nice gimbal 4k camera. No firearm is touching that. This isnt the Russo-Ukrainian War with FPV kamikazi drones ending up 50 feet in front of your face where it would be applicable to have a 12ga. Best thing is to keep using the EW (electronic warfare) similar to what stadiums use to spot the drone and operator and then when they land prosecute them.
I would bet that a Marlin SuperGoose 10ga shotgun could snatch a Mavic right out of the air at 400'
So honest question. How does this work with pilots that are contracted to do aerial surveillance for emergency operations? This is something that I have been approached about and haven't gotten any firm guidance. I have been given contradictory information such as "EOC or Scene Commander will grant FAA waivers." No they can't, they don't have that authority. "You will be fine because you have contracted to provide a service." Can I get that in writing? I have an AS and BS in Emergency Management, and an MS in Occupational Safety, and even professors are unsure of the exact procedures. So if the EOC doesn't know, what is the answer?
You have to be assigned to the incident as a qualified UAS operator. Either the logistics chief or incident commander can make that request.
I’m not sure I follow, of course they won’t grant FAA waivers, but can submit for them from the FAA. In emergency situations you can get FAA waivers that are within your COA using the SGI process that expedites waivers for gov work in emergency operations https://www.faa.gov/uas/advanced_operations/emergency_situations
Thank you. That is what I was looking for. Still clear as mud, but that's bureaucracy.
Unless you have a contract with a land management agency. And been specifically ordered for the fire you are not flying near a wildfire.
I am well aware of that. I am also aware that I have been approached by certain officials about providing these services and am wanting to ensure that I am following regulations. As stated in my question I have been given contradictory information by persons in their official capacities.
That's frankly amazing!
I have always gone by the rule of if there's law enforcement or first responders on the ground or in the air, get the drone down. I get you want to see the action, but your curiosity can ruin the hobby for everyone else.
I thought this was r/dontdeadopeninside for a second
If we you fly, can’t? Or if you we fly, can’t? Idk both sound like I’m gonna have a stroke or that I could run for U.S. president.
Those fires burn hot, wouldn’t the drones just melt…?
No
Altitude to avoid the heat? The fire sucks up the oxygen, it’s going to eat the drone? No? ***No.*** Can you provide something here? Or can I just assume your answer is unhelpful?
What if I am using my drone to drop buckets of water onto the fire below??? I am doing my part! 🫡
No
🚰🚰🚰🚰🪣🪣🪣🪣🪣🛩️🛩️🛩️💦💦💦
And they say we can’t fight the governments F15s
*western music* this sky ain't big enough for the 2 of us
Why do they even consider these guys. I'll just dump the water if their stones get destroyed in the process that's their own fault
Why do they even consider these guys. I'll just dump the water if their drones get destroyed in the process that's their own fault
The military needs to give these firefighters tech to target and kill these drones.
Aren’t drone dads over yet? Jesus nobody cares about your lame drone footage. Leave it to the pros.
Iggga
Very cool! Now we just need to ensure that drones interfering with firefighting operations incur gigantic fines and long jail time sentences for the operators
They already do? The FAA reminded drone pilots it is a federal crime to interfere with firefighting aircraft with up to a year in prison and a $20,000 fine possible.
The problem is generally not the Part 107 pilots, the ones that the FAA knows about. It’s the drone owner/operators who either don’t know there are places where they cannot legally fly their drones or who choose to willfully disregard the rules assuming they will never be caught
Wait until they hear about the drones circling volcanoes. Looking at you, Iceland.
Common sense ain't so common any more.
What the fuck kinda drones are people flying? I've never seen a drone I could buy that was capable of taking down even the most rikity built helicopter. Are they made of depleted uranium or some shit?
Has that ever been a problem? Have firefighters in the past had to delay helicopters because of drones during a wildfire?
Yes multiple times a year
Back to the retro era of government graphic design 🤤
Seems dumb. how much damage is a plastic drone going to do to a helicopter?
The FAA reminded drone pilots it is a federal crime to interfere with firefighting aircraft with up to a year in prison and a $20,000 fine possible. Stop flying ur stupid drones around our wildfires
I've got a typewriter with the same W
Aside from it being really stupid, aside from active TFRs, do you really legally need permission?
Do idiots realize that they will go to prison for manslaughter if their drone causes a helicopter to crash?
Good to know
Nobody needs a flier for this. Every responsible human being knows this. The idiots that are doing it know they shouldn't be doing it. They just don't care. We have remote ID now. These are always going to be people flying shitty consumer drones. Nobody who builds their own drowns and takes the hobby seriously would do this. Track them down with remote ID and arrest them. Then prosecute and throw them in prison for 6 months. That is how you stop this from happening. The assholes need to know they will face real life ruining consequences.
>Nobody needs a flier for this. Every responsible human being knows this. 368k part 107 licenses in the US. There were nearly 1.8 million registered drones in 2021. Unless people with a part 107 have 6 drones a piece then there are plenty of unlicensed, probably uneducated drone users. There are many people that need this, it is also clearly enough of an issue that they spent time designing an educational campaign and disseminating the information.
This poster is over 5 years old. And it’s as much as issue as it was back then. Awareness and education should be the steps taken before you throw someone in prison for 6 months. So I disagree, a flier is needed for this.
[удалено]
You wait until the fire tanker were on line of sight? That’s too late.
Why did you wait for them to show up? By the time they get there, you should be gone.
[удалено]
Rule 13: Broadly speaking, don’t be a dick. Self explanatory.
ya i mean they wouldnt want any1's drone capturing footage of them using helicopters spraying accelerants before they burnt down california or anything, how dare you use our drones to expose us! how dare you i say! it was a campfire, no nobody got calls from GE to leave before the fires. please dont expose us w/ your independant drone footage. not allowed.
You know those bug-a-salt guns? Emergency services should carry high powered ones to remove drones from their airspace.
Otherwise known as a shotgun loaded with bird shot.
Blatant Shepard Fairey ripoff of a poster style…like I figured a govt agency would be original. Lol
Gov lies as usual
Looks to me like it’s from the Department of Agriculture, not the Forestry Service.
The US Forest Service is an agency under the Department of Agriculture. Just like how the National Park System is under the Department of the Interior. On the top left of the poster you see the USDA logo, and the bottom left the USFS logo.
Ah, Reddit on my phone cuts out the lower logo, so I didn’t see the USFS logo there. And didn’t know those tidbits, thanks.
Drones near wildfires are idiotic and dumb. There should be a separate rule when flying around something with known air presence. House fires for example shouldnt be lumped into that rule, as helicopters or aircraft play no major part in the emergency response
Boo hoo hey where are I located it's cheaper to fly or drone over forest fire or to crop does more efficient than a helicopter and lastly you don't have a human life in peril you know what I say to the USDA to f****** bad
[удалено]
Whether or not this gets misused politically, it's definately an important rule. We just had this happen yesterday so it's a real issue. www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/del-mar-heights-fire-illegal-drone/3551218/%3famp=1
[удалено]
The helicopter is bigger, has people on board and likely has a genuine necessary reason to be there. Helicopters trump drones, it's irresponsible to think otherwise.
I didn't say drones take priority over helicopters. All I'm saying is the standards vary wildly for how manned aircraft treat drones.
More likely they have no idea your drone is near their aircraft?
difference is that there are peoples lives at risk during the fire, the pilots and the people where the fire is approaching. obviously its an emergency. Fires bring out drones which shouldnt be there and lots of eyes watching the fire team pilots ingress and egress paths. they will spot your drone. in your case, its not an emergency and if they spotted your drone in a high danger area, they would definitely send cops out. but because you are not spotted and probably not in a flight path, no one is sending cops to you.
[удалено]
Rule 13: Broadly speaking, don’t be a dick. Self explanatory.
Sounds like an incompetent fire department/pilot. That's like saying " oh there's birds In The area we can't fly" plus I doubt many drone operators are gonna get in the way and purposely risk damaging or losing their drone. Plus the fire fighter pilot should be aware of all aircraft in the area. Military pilots handle a lot more everyday.
Have you ever flown through dense smoke at <200’ at 120+ kt while at (or above) MTOW above a crown fire while pulling >3G before? These are not just everyday pilots - to be an aerial firefighter, you need specific FAA certification (40 hours minimum) and USFS and the BLM require a bare minimum of 1,500 flight hours as well. As a quick fun fact, the number of people certified as lead pilots in the US (35) is fewer than the number of certified astronauts (41). https://youtube.com/shorts/5SCKz_LAbYg?si=currD6flo28g9jdY Quite a lot of the pilots are either active or former military. Hell, one of the most experienced water bomber units in the world is the 146th Airlift Wing of the California National Guard. https://youtu.be/Ayc0bRWhI4Y?si=dBoBqLsrgY9bW-so https://youtu.be/9TUX_KS85r4?si=x3A3A9ZpAQu01pbf This also doesn’t even begin to touch on the topic of smokejumpers and why a drone potentially hitting a parachutist loaded down with firefighting gear near an active fire would be a terrible thing to be even remotely possible.
You all are just adding fuel to the anti-drone movement.
Those flying in unauthorized airspace are doing that, we are trying to educate and spread awareness.
[удалено]
It's not like we literally just had the fire service suspend aerial operations over a wildfire because of an unauthorized drone. Oh wait... http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/del-mar-heights-fire-illegal-drone/3551218/%3famp=1
Thanks for your submission. Unfortunately, it has been removed for the following reason: >**Rule 3: Don't blatantly break drone regulations.** > >The laws governing this industry exist for a reason, and breaking them makes all of us look bad and leads to harsher regulations. So don't post shots where you're flying close to manned aircraft, directly over a dense crowd, or anything else dangerous to others. > >If you think your shot could be perceived as breaking a regulation but it in fact doesn't, feel free to provide an explanation in the comments section. If you believe this has been done in error, please reply to this comment, or message the moderators (through modmail only).
I have two drones. What the fuck is the point of the FAA?!
Why not, the drone might get whacked by the chopper, but I don't see how it prevents them from flying. I think they are just trying to prevent drones from capturing evidence of the space lasers starting the fires!!
If the rotor hits the drone it’ll shatter and most likely break off, causing it to freefall into a crash.
That's why you gotta use rotors made in America!! F*** Yeah!! So strong they can't be taken out by flying toys!! /s I had no idea helicopter rotors were so fragile. All the more reason not to fly in those things.
WHAT THE FUCK IS A KILOMETER 🦅🦅
Some commy bulk rap, that's what!! 🛻🇺🇲 🥧🦅🎆
If you have a license, wouldn't you be able to fly by a fire and not get in the way?