Wondering about interfering with EMS Air, police or fire

[Forby]

So I get that one should not interfere with a police, fire or EMS event especially when a helicopter is involved. I get it..

But what constitutes interference and when. Let me offer an example:

I come upon an auto accident with police and rescue there on site. I launch my drone from a safe distance and climb to say 100 feet AGL to record the event. Am I interfering? I'm sure the responders could say that it's distracting, but I see that as a personal issue. This excuse is often used by public service folks to "control" someone else. I have seen it while a young photog shooing freelance. It's a vague area and subject to interpretation. All one needs is a fire person on the ground to grab a cop and say "hey.... that drone shouldn't be here...... Thoughts about this example.


Let's take it further.... There are severe injuries in the accident example above and a cop wonders over and says " your under arrest because we are waiting for an helicopter that can't come in because your flying". NOBODY TOLD ME!!! would be my response. Obviously, if I saw or heard one I would land. Do you see where the personal on the ground can cause a problem by not advising the drone operator about an inbound flight.

Is a drone flying 200 feet above a structure fire interfering? I think not......

Thoughts? When is it interference?

 

[AMGPilot]

They don’t need to tell you. You should always assume that you are in the way.

 

[The Editor]

So I get that one should not interfere with a police, fire or EMS event especially when a helicopter is involved. I get it..

But what constitutes interference and when. Let me offer an example:

I come upon an auto accident with police and rescue there on site. I launch my drone from a safe distance and climb to say 100 feet AGL to record the event. Am I interfering? I'm sure the responders could say that it's distracting, but I see that as a personal issue. This excuse is often used by public service folks to "control" someone else. I have seen it while a young photog shooing freelance. It's a vague area and subject to interpretation. All one needs is a fire person on the ground to grab a cop and say "hey.... that drone shouldn't be here...... Thoughts about this example.


Let's take it further.... There are severe injuries in the accident example above and a cop wonders over and says " your under arrest because we are waiting for an helicopter that can't come in because your flying". NOBODY TOLD ME!!! would be my response. Obviously, if I saw or heard one I would land. Do you see where the personal on the ground can cause a problem by not advising the drone operator about an inbound flight.

Is a drone flying 200 feet above a structure fire interfering? I think not......

Thoughts? When is it interference?

My thoughts are - how would you feel if one of your family were critically injured in a house fire and the air ambulance couldn’t land because some unauthorized idiot was flying his/her UAV in the area?

Emergency situations are an emerging and moving situation which can escalate without warning.

Its not an emergency services job/responsibility to tell YOU they are bringing in air support, it’s YOUR responsibility not to interfere with them under life saving emergency situations.
They do not have to ask permission to operate at an emergency scene.


I will monitor this thread carefully, and at the slightest sign of it getting out of hand it will disappear!

 

[Forby]

My thoughts are - how would you feel if one of your family were critically injured in a house fire and the air ambulance couldn’t land because some unauthorized idiot was flying his/her UAV in the area?

I agree which is why I made the statement I did "I get it"... My question was more of the how do we know when to leave variety... If the implication is simply that we should not fly in these areas, I respect that opinion. I guess this is another reason that we should monitor the coms or announce ourselves to the authorities on scene although this might be an automatic NO"

 

[Paul7of8]

I agree which is why I made the statement I did "I get it"... My question was more of the how do we know when to leave variety... If the implication is simply that we should not fly in these areas, I respect that opinion. I guess this is another reason that we should monitor the coms or announce ourselves to the authorities on scene although this might be an automatic NO"

I suspect that this will evolve in the future as local news agencies acquire more drones and are on-scene with first responders. I also think that, in the future, what is considered safe and what is considered interference would likely be more clearly defined. As it stands today, you, as the operator, don’t get to decide what is considered “interfering” and what is not. As a result, you would most likely be considered to be “interfering” as there is no robust definition you could use to argue otherwise.

In today’s environment the answer is, as you suggested, “an automatic NO”. Unless you have been specifically asked by law enforcement to fly and/or have their approval then it is pretty simple to me — you don’t know what you don’t know about what is going on on-scene and you should not be in the air.

 

[Cat Eyes]

The rule/law is quite clear. Do not operate your drone at emergency scenes. If you're part of the supporting agencies to clear the casualty then you have the right to be there. As a hobby operator, keep it on the ground.

 

[jpalamaro]

Reading Forby's scenario a number of items appear outside the emergency situation parameters e.g. 100 feet altitude, 'safe distance', etc. etc. But, having 2.9 strikes against drone operators it appears to me a losing battle, not worth fighting for as any confrontation is immediately lost.
More interested in photography and the drone's ability to get a camera where I cannot on the ground, I decided to take some videos of a local hiking area with extensive trails; I wanted an aerial view of my own, not Google Earth's. I picked as unpopulated an area I could find to launch and was confronted by a hiker questioning my right to fly my drone. I engaged the party in a conversation, maintained friendly banter, and eventually asked why he questioned my actions, initially? He mumbled something about privacy, drones being illegal, and some other incoherent mumbo-jumbo that I decided to not contest, other than raise the almost rhetorical question, 'would you have confronted me were I taking pix with my 35mm?' Of which he answered in the negative. My point, regardless of the situation, we atart out with negative collateral in most cases, and all I see is it getting worse.

 

[Cat Eyes]

Reading Forby's scenario a number of items appear outside the emergency situation parameters e.g. 100 feet altitude, 'safe distance', etc. etc. But, having 2.9 strikes against drone operators it appears to me a losing battle, not worth fighting for as any confrontation is immediately lost.
More interested in photography and the drone's ability to get a camera where I cannot on the ground, I decided to take some videos of a local hiking area with extensive trails; I wanted an aerial view of my own, not Google Earth's. I picked as unpopulated an area I could find to launch and was confronted by a hiker questioning my right to fly my drone. I engaged the party in a conversation, maintained friendly banter, and eventually asked why he questioned my actions, initially? He mumbled something about privacy, drones being illegal, and some other incoherent mumbo-jumbo that I decided to not contest, other than raise the almost rhetorical question, 'would you have confronted me were I taking pix with my 35mm?' Of which he answered in the negative. My point, regardless of the situation, we atart out with negative collateral in most cases, and all I see is it getting worse.

Perhaps, but education through pleasant conversation (if possible) would be a good starting point. The argument with a 35mm is a good angle. I'll have to remember that.

 

[jpalamaro]

I sometimes wish I had a Mavic Pro/Zoom as my Inspires and Phantoms (esp. the Inspire 2) are big, make a fair amount of noise, and never ever look inconspicuous. I'm not a commercial pilot and likely will never be, tho' am encouraging a grandson. I've looked for a 'photographer vest' that I could have screen printed with the following, tho' while misleading is true, that has on its back: REGISTERED FAA DRONE PILOT, At 79 perhaps not too many more years of flying . . . LOL

 

[Cat Eyes]

I sometimes wish I had a Mavic Pro/Zoom as my Inspires and Phantoms (esp. the Inspire 2) are big, make a fair amount of noise, and never ever look inconspicuous. I'm not a commercial pilot and likely will never be, tho' am encouraging a grandson. I've looked for a 'photographer vest' that I could have screen printed with the following, tho' while misleading is true, that has on its back: REGISTERED FAA DRONE PILOT, At 79 perhaps not too many more years of flying . . . LOL

Hey, as long as you got good eyes, a sound mind, and good figure dexterity, don't let a silly little number ground you. Happy flying!

 

[jpalamaro]

Thanks, so far so good!

 

[phaser21999]

I suspect that this will evolve in the future as local news agencies acquire more drones and are on-scene with first responders. I also think that, in the future, what is considered safe and what is considered interference would likely be more clearly defined. As it stands today, you, as the operator, don’t get to decide what is considered “interfering” and what is not. As a result, you would most likely be considered to be “interfering” as there is no robust definition you could use to argue otherwise.

In today’s environment the answer is, as you suggested, “an automatic NO”. Unless you have been specifically asked by law enforcement to fly and/or have their approval then it is pretty simple to me — you don’t know what you don’t know about what is going on on-scene and you should not be in the air.

You should be thinking about what if your drone malfunctions at the scene? That's always a possibility. Stay back unless you have permission.

 

[Forby]

The rule/law is quite clear. Do not operate your drone at emergency scenes.

I thought the verbage was "not to interfere with EMS".... You are saying "Can't operate"?

 

[Donnie Frank]

So I get that one should not interfere with a police, fire or EMS event especially when a helicopter is involved. I get it..

But what constitutes interference and when. Let me offer an example:

I come upon an auto accident with police and rescue there on site. I launch my drone from a safe distance and climb to say 100 feet AGL to record the event. Am I interfering?

Funny...I've pondered this many times. From a strictly common sense point-of-view, the correct answer is "of course not." No helicopter is going to show up for an in-town auto accident, especially if there are no serious injuries. And if one DOES show up, it certainly only takes 5 seconds for us to clear the area. But I think you're going to find that the subject of "air space" is completely devoid of common sense, often replaced with procedure, protocol and a good dose of ego from piloting community. Remember, rules are always made for the lowest common denominator. So, regardless of your intelligence, diligence and knowledge, you will be treated as a first time Best Buy newbie pilot.

I have personally shot a couple car accidents without incident. I find shooting especially uneventful if I'm there ahead of first responders. At night, I turn off all the lights on my Mavic Pro, fly a safe distance from the accident, and personnel are none-the-wiser. BUT....like I said, these are common-sense arguments. I think you will find yourself flooded with a bevy of senseless "what if" arguments with zero data to support them. Maybe I'm wrong. We'll see.

I'm sure the responders could say that it's distracting, but I see that as a personal issue.

I have experimented with my Mavic Pro at night. With all the lights off, I can't see the thing a mere 20' away. Given the loud noise floor of a traffic accident situation, I seriously doubt anybody will hear it, either. I keep my distance, at least 100' away from the accident.

This excuse is often used by public service folks to "control" someone else. I have seen it while a young photog shooing freelance. It's a vague area and subject to interpretation. All one needs is a fire person on the ground to grab a cop and say "hey.... that drone shouldn't be here...... Thoughts about this example.

If you're using an Inspire 1, you will definitely be seen and folks will probably be concerned...and with good cause...especially if you fly too close. They don't know the skill level of the pilot. So I could see where something as large as an Inspire 1 or 2 would make personnel "nervous." The exact opposite is true of a Mavic. With a high in-city noise floor, 100' out with all the lights off, you'd never know it was there.

Let's take it further.... There are severe injuries in the accident example above and a cop wonders over and says " your under arrest because we are waiting for an helicopter that can't come in because your flying". NOBODY TOLD ME!!! would be my response.

That wouldn't work. "Ignorance of the law..." yada, yada... To be super, perfectly clear, I would ONLY fly a Mavic and from far enough away as to remain unnoticed by emergency personnel. This is for night time operations. For daytime operations, I would remain even further from the accident...say 500'.

Obviously, if I saw or heard one I would land.

I can hear a helicopter long before I see it. Helicopters can be heard well over a mile out, which is plenty of time to get out of their way.

Do you see where the personal on the ground can cause a problem by not advising the drone operator about an inbound flight.

This is a losing argument. It is completely up to you 100% to stay out of the way. I don't launch AT the car accident. I'll launch 1,000' from the car accident. Launching FROM the car accident is just inviting trouble.

Is a drone flying 200 feet above a structure fire interfering? I think not......

Again, depends on the vehicle. Think of a worse case scenario of losing control and crashing. This isn't a big deal for the Mavic. The same can't be said for an Inspire.

Thoughts? When is it interference?

Do they know you're there? Is your bird detectable? If yes to either, then you are interfering.

Think of it this way...

Imagine you're diffusing a bomb or doing open heart surgery, and there's a guy in the room carrying a 15' ladder. Is he making you nervous? Interfering with your work? The number of "what ifs" is through the roof.

Now imagine the same guy carrying a small, plastic step stool. Chances are you MIGHT notice him, but he's not going to make you nervous because the list of "what ifs" is reduced an order of magnitude to almost nothing. You can continue your work unimpeded.

The secret is to be covert. If you're overt, regardless of HOW safe you are, people will say something. IMHO, technically, you ARE interfering.

D

 

[jpalamaro]

A 42mm prime or a zoom at a distant parking lot or area (way off from the object of interest) at 200+ feet gets some pretty spectacular shots. I've never done it at an accident or . . . but have simulated it many a time and nary a problem. Then again, an I1 or I2 is a pretty daunting sight if too close to anyone.

 

[licensed pilot]

My thoughts are - how would you feel if one of your family were critically injured in a house fire and the air ambulance couldn’t land because some unauthorized idiot was flying his/her UAV in the area?

Emergency situations are an emerging and moving situation which can escalate without warning.

Its not an emergency services job/responsibility to tell YOU they are bringing in air support, it’s YOUR responsibility not to interfere with them under life saving emergency situations.
They do not have to ask permission to operate at an emergency scene.


I will monitor this thread carefully, and at the slightest sign of it getting out of hand it will disappear!

Great reply, Editor. This is no different than the clowns sticking their Iphones in the cops faces while they are trying to do their jobs.

 

[Donnie Frank]

A 42mm prime or a zoom at a distant parking lot or area (way off from the object of interest) at 200+ feet gets some pretty spectacular shots. I've never done it at an accident or . . . but have simulated it many a time and nary a problem. Then again, an I1 or I2 is a pretty daunting sight if too close to anyone.

42mm from 200' away? Did you mean 420mm? I don't see how a wide-angle lens would be of any use from 200' away.

D

 

[SanCap]

42mm from 200' away? Did you mean 420mm? I don't see how a wide-angle lens would be of any use from 200' away.

D

A 42 or 45mm lens on an I1 or I2 would not be considered wide angle as its focal length is doubled on a M4/3rds camera such as the X5 or X5S. 84-90 mm does have some reach.

 

[Donnie Frank]

A 42 or 45mm lens on an I1 or I2 would not be considered wide angle as its focal length is doubled on a M4/3rds camera such as the X5 or X5S. 84-90 mm does have some reach.

Ahhhh....I thought you were talking about ground photography. Your argument being, "Why fly a drone when you can shoot from the ground?" It makes sense now.

D

 

[S White]

You should also check your state's laws. That is one area that the FAA has given the go-ahead to pass laws. Also, indeed when it comes to an accident with injuries there is a privacy issue. And incoming helis are always going to be an issue. I shot news for a major network and I always work with the first responders. Also I assist law enforcement on evidence from traffic accidents. Many states (this sounds crazy) require a search warrant be issued before the aerial footage would be legal in a court case. And finally, if you are shooting on USFS trails, etc for commercial purposes you need a film permit (video or still).