Summary
A firefighting super scooper battling the Palisades Fire in Los Angeles collided with a privately-owned DJI drone, causing significant damage and delaying operations.
The FBI is investigating to identify the drone’s owner, as unauthorized drones near wildfires pose risks to firefighting efforts.
Temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) are in place, but violations can lead to prosecution, fines, and jail time.
The damaged aircraft, one of only two available, is out of service until Monday.
That is identical to mine. It’s wicked cool, but I wouldn’t even dream of flying it anywhere near an event like this. I enjoy zipping around my property for sure but that’s it.
Whoever this is is bigly fucked. They will move heaven and earth to hunt them down.
Owner of that drone :
Deservedly so. No-fly zones exist for a reason and many, many people just don’t care about that stuff. Where I live there’s a lot of them and I regularly see people fly drones there.
I wish they were more strict about fining people here as well, we have an ambulance chopper stationed close by and I don’t even want to imagine it colliding with a drone and crashing in a densely populated neighborhood.
Oh. its a DJI. that thing should have serials stamped all over it; one phone call and boom. they got a name.
DJI?
The drone manufacturer. There’s serial numbers and whatnot on all those parts.
The largest brand for commercial drones.
Oh, gotcha
Great week for drone dumbassery in California. This one also happened in our local paragliding community:
Updated link (looks like the first one was updated): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrbpRtxqlbM
Thanks! Luckily, drones aren’t really much of a threat to us, at least not consumer drones. Autonomous delivery drones though…yikes.
Watching this video is what caused me to come to the conclusion that those kinds of drones aren’t really a threat.
I saved this for later and just tried to watch it. The video is down. I’m curious what this incident is. I fly a paramotor myself.
Weird - wonder if they keep getting taken down. Here’s one that works (today at least):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzzcc6tM3UE
Drone operator hit a PG at Torrey Pines, PG landed safely (lucky), drone operator approached the pilot to exchange phone numbers but then ran away before info was exchanged. Later threatened the PG pilot with legal action if he didn’t take the video down.
I feel like any law enforcement official that says anything to the effect of ‘if you do X, you WILL be prosecuted’ is doing a disservice to the entire process.
Exaggerating or oversimplifying just makes your statements fall flat. When what they mean is ‘If you do X, and we catch you, and we have enough evidence, and the prosecutor decides it’s worth pursuing, and you can’t afford a good lawyer, we WILL (probably) try getting you thrown in jail’.
Say something simply like ‘We have a x% prosecution rate for this type of crime’ and it makes the risk more real instead of ‘if you do this you WILL be prosecuted’ while everyone who was actually considering doing the thing has either done it a dozen times already, or sees others doing it with apparent impunity.
“We have less than a 50% prosecution rate for murder.”
You sure that’s the argument you want to broadcast?
No, but it’s better than lying by implying a 100% percent conviction rate.
Emphasis on the C in Super Scooper. Terence Hill is fine.
Edit: Why am I getting downvoted for a Supersnooper joke?
The pearl clutchers are getting their dopamine hits.