UAV Provides Colorado Flooding Assistance Until FEMA Freaks Out | Hacker News Reader

UAV Provides Colorado Flooding Assistance Until FEMA Freaks Out

spectrum.ieee.org

182 pointseguizzo88 comments

What legal authority does FEMA have to control UAV's flying over public and/or private property?

EDIT: FEMA's own documentation on their legal authority. http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf-authorities.pdf I don't see aircraft in the list.

EDIT2: From FEMA's own documentation http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf-esf-01.pdf: "DOT/Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for the operation and regulation of the U.S. National Airspace System, including during emergencies. "

EDIT3: This is the part the blog left out: the FAA has restricted two airspaces in the flood area, starting this morning. No aircraft below ~13,000 ft http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_3_4481.html http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_3_4474.html Maybe FEMA requested the restrictions, but the FAA is the one that issued them.

Does declaring a state of emergency give FEMA martial law powers? They probably have their own tanks and swat teams just like everybody else.

Or, the flooding is due to aliens/mutants/cloverfields and they don't want visual evidence.

It may just be posturing or covering their asses.

Or they may be able to argue that, since they are operating their own aircraft as part of the recovery operations, the presence of UAVs in the air is a risk to their aircraft. And so, by flying a UAV, you're disrupting their activities.

Sigh.

This is the sort of stuff that makes me really irritated. Perhaps we can get enough netrage going to get FEMA to back down, but my experience with federal bureaucracies in the past (especially ones that have been shown to be poorly run in the past) they tend to go hyper-rule based. I'm sure some FEMA director type looked at his operations book and didn't see any situations that would require or allow for drones so he told them to stop that activity. I don't doubt he did that so that he wouldn't be seen as 'not following the plan' and perhaps later getting reprimanded or fired. Like everyone else I hope to see what is the rationale here, but guess they will mumble something about "fluid situation", "privacy concerns", and "emergency aircraft in the area" and call it a day.

"I'm sure some FEMA director type looked at his operations book and didn't see any situations that would require or allow for drones so he told them to stop that activity. "

Really!? That's how you think it went down? Not that some thoughtful FEMA rep was concerned about coordination of all aircraft and chose to ground them out of caution? Or maybe temporarily until they determine whether this private party is helping?

I know it's fun to imagine government as a bunch of "by the book" stumbling idiots, but the reality is far less entertaining.

The UAV in question flies much closer to the ground than your CAP or GA aircraft are going to fly, and it is extremely light.

There was almost zero risk by having it in the air. Typical federal government overreaction.

A bird strike can take down a GA aircraft. AFAIK UAVs weigh more than birds. And yes it does fly very close to the ground, but so do rotorcraft. I disagree with the zero risk statement.

^ rotorcraft are the key units operating right now.

I'm a GA pilot who is instrument rated, with several hundred hours logged as pilot in command. I did not make my comment in an uninformed manner.

I never said you were uniformed. Would you like to hit a UAV while flying in IFR conditions? Do you really think that hitting a solid object at 100+ kts will have zero impact on your aircraft? What if it goes right up the engine nacelle? Or through the windscreen? Or hits the control wire on your elevator?

Do you see my point? Not everyone with concerns about UAVs flying in close quarters with manned aircraft are fools. I'm not saying they can't coexist, I know they can. But we don't know the situation here. This is a one-sided argument from the UAV manufacturer.

Is the UAV flying in IFR conditions? (Serious question.) If the goal is photography, I don't imagine it would be very useful if so.

Looking at the craft in the pictures I doubt it. It looks like a fairly tiny UAV with visible spectrum imaging capabilities. But it may pass through IFR conditions in between the takeoff and target locations. It may also have sensors that can see through cloud layers, such as a small radar. Again, I doubt it based on the size but I might be wrong.

> I never said you were uniformed.

"Uninformed" and "uniformed" are (allegedly) different.

Oh man, another coffee out of nose moment. Touché sir.

Only if these UAVs are submersibles. The article states rescue helicopters are or at least should be working to pick stranded people up. Getting lower than people swinging in harnesses below a rescue chopper sounds a bit unsafe, and sort of useless.

The choppers aren't rescuing hundreds of people by attaching them to a longline.

That doesn't change the fact that helicopters are in the area working ground pick up. The only flying lower than the helicopters on or near the ground is to be "flying" below ground, or below flood waters.

I'm not saying that I believe operating the UAVs around helis would be safe, just in reply to this:

Getting lower than people swinging in harnesses below a rescue chopper

Right, the reality is frankly often much worse. Do not pretend these government types are above the average enterprise company staffed with boomers.

I was going to say, if there are search and rescue or other aircraft operating in the same area it's probably not a good idea right now to have UAVs operating too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvcN-0PikEU

Especially if weather is bad, visibility is poor, and the UAVs are hard to see. Even light UAVs (or RC planes as in that video) can cause damage to aircraft in a collision.

Yeah, this is what crosses my mind too. Any choppers in the air right now are already flying in compromised conditions.

But the article suggests that they were the only aircraft in the air above the town.

Actually yes, I think that is exactly how it went down. And I think they were very thoughtful about it too. Remember that this data collection has been ongoing according to the article, it wasn't a proposal that was denied it was an ongoing activity which got shut down. Information available to the people on the ground included both results and the experience of running these mapping flights. So lets watch it play out and see where it goes.

My sadness is that I doubt the person on site, even if they think it is a good idea, has the authority to evaluate what the mapping drones were doing and re-authorize their use. And the process to change the SOP is going to take longer than this crisis, and a lot of useful data that first responders had been using won't be available.

Determining the safety of something flying around in the civil airspace is the role of the FAA, and they Do Not Fuck Around with it.

If the FAA says that the drone can fly in those conditions, they can fly in those conditions.

Although, recently, it looks like the FAA grounded the drone.

Regardless, it isn't the role of FEMA to tell airplanes that they can't fly. That's insane.

In an emergency I would hope that FEMA would have some say (or at least coordination with the FAA) over what aircraft is in the sky over the affected area.

Why? It's not their authority at all. FEMA does disaster response, not airspace management.

FEMA is supposed to coordinate to aid disaster preperation, response, and recovery. They have wide ranging powers to do so because there are a wide range of disasters out there.

Suppose you have 20,000+ stranded on a tiny island in the middle of a flood. Your air lifting in supplies but there are several news helicopters in the area slowing things down. You can't tell them to go pound sand directly but you can call the FAA and get the FAA to tell them to GTFO.

Exactly.

The smart manager delegates. Same in disaster response as in a dev shop.

I would rather the FAA, who do it day in and out and have response and contingency plans for every eventuality, be in control of the airspace than an agency with no regular practice.

Give unto agencies, that which is in the domain of those agencies. FEMA gives the directions for them to follow.

In an emergency I would hope that FEMA would have NO say. They are not trained for it and have no authority granted by legislation to do it.

They may have authority to coordinate, which is their main function regardless - coordinate smaller groups toward an effective response.

FEMA would ask the FAA, and the FAA would create a TFR* or similar as appropriate. Enforcement would be entirely up to the FAA, as it's their thing.

* Temporary Flight Restriction, a small area restricted for general flight in order to ensure clear airspace for disaster recovery, firefighting, or certain high-profile VIPs (e.g. Air Force One gets a TFR around it).

I'm just guessing here, but you haven't spent much time working with government folks.

You're right though, the reality actually is far less entertaining. While "by the book" really is the way it's done in the government industry, it is definitely not an exciting way to go about the day. It does, however, have high CYA value and helps ensure public employees don't misuse taxpayer dollars.

That last bit is the interesting part I wish more people believed -- almost every government employee I've known has been genuinely concerned that they use their budgets with extreme care, and that they get a high return for what they do spend.

The flip-side to all of this indignation is that the company that is working to extend our police state to local government is using a human tragedy as a marketing effort.

These guys are putting spy craft in to the sky and looking to hand the keys to the same corrupt local paramilitaries that thrive on civil forfeiture. They're hoping to scoop up all the Federal anti-terrorism dollars that they can.

If they weren't looking for attention, Spectrum wouldn't be writing about them.

Do you also think GMOs are evil because Monsanto is run by a bunch of scumbags? One doesn't destroy the viability of the other.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the responding agency would want to have control of the scene. Worse than crazy flooding would be crazy flooding combined w a plane crash. The light aircraft that the article mentions likely would not see a drone and could easily hit it. Perhaps FEMA should be incorporating this type if drone into their response plan and I'm sure they could be doing it faster but having civilians flying unannounced and practically invisible as high as 1500 ft seems like an opportunity for disaster.

FAA handles aircraft regulation, and if there were issues with UAV's in the area, FAA would be responsible for enforcing those regulations.

FAA regulations on UAV's http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/uas_faq/

FEMA's own document on their legal authorities http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf-authorities.pdf does not include any authority over aircraft.

EDIT: From FEMA's own documentation http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf-esf-01.pdf: "DOT/Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for the operation and regulation of the U.S. National Airspace System, including during emergencies. "

I don't really see what that has to do with the parent comment's apparently reasonable concerns for safety.

So FEMA doesn't have authority and should go through the proper channels. I don't think anyone would dispute that if that's the case.

Obviously they don't want anyone outside their control to be able to see what a horrible job they're doing.

I certainly don't think that it is "obvious."

For example, I think "policy that hasn't kept up with new technology" is far more likely than "semi-malicious coverup." And "legitimate need to control access to the area" as well as "fear of a mid-air collision with small aircraft" is at least worth considering.

Following the rules is what malice looks like. It's not like the evil people of the world sit around twirling their Snidely Whiplash moustaches and congratulating themselves over how much harm they've done today.

This is the FAA's decision that FEMA seems to be (perhaps over-zealously) enforcing. The reason they give is "to provide a safe environment for larimer county flooding SAR" (search and rescue).

http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_3_4481.html

Essentially they're trying to clear the air for SAR vehicles; the idea is to allow SAR teams to coordinate efforts without risking collision with private jets.

We don't know what the motivation was behind the UAV response, nor do we know to what extent the story is true. Until we know, we can only speculate. Let's wait until someone does some fact checking to speculate.

And it should be noted that TFRs like this are extremely common around any sort of disaster where aircraft are involved, so this is nothing unusual.

Yeah, as usual it seems the internet is going off half-cocked about this. Looks like the FAA is grounding all aircraft below 3,000 feet at the request of the (state) national guard to conduct SAR with helicopters. Complaining about FEMA looks like its just shooting the messenger in this case. And the state (i.e. local) National Guard is just executing on their own emergency plans and they don't have the ability right now to coordinate air traffic control with anything other than their own helicopters in the air, so everyone else is grounded with no exceptions. That's actually pretty reasonable triage of resources in an emergency. The UAVs might be useful, but they're outside of the scope of the emergency plans right now. Best thing that Falcon could be doing would not be throwing FEMA under the bus, but lining up sales with the National Guard so that the next time this happens the Guard will have their own UAVs in the air under their own command and control structure (and civilians will again all be grounded, no matter how helpful they might want to be).

This story doesn't do a good job of explaining exactly how the drones are helping anyone in particular do anything in particular.

"So yeah, it seems like that would be kind of handy to have..." Well, yes, it does seem that way. Is it? Has it been?

It may be the case that gathering information is easier than putting that information to use, particularly if the organization that receives the information isn't designed, trained, or otherwise set up to act on (from the organization's point of view) random inputs like this.

It may also be the case that having lots of pictures of a raging river is actually a lot less useful than you'd at first suppose. You may be able to see that flooding has inundated a neighborhood, but it may be a lot harder to tell if the residents are safe or if they're in trouble, how many are in trouble, and what you could possibly do for them.

I think FEMA's threat that certain volunteer efforts would be met with arrest is unnecessary, mean-spirited, and tone-deaf. And according to the story, it didn't work, anyway.

But the vibe I'm seeing here - "OF COURSE the drones would be helpful" - seems to be more or less faith-based.

I'd guess a drone that would be super useful would be one that hauled a temporary cell site over a dead zone. People in trouble could just call for help directly. That would skip over quite a bit of slow photo interpretation, sticky judgement calls (where do we fly the surveillance drone next?) and other guesswork. That would create a network of human brains to tackle the problem together, using tools and techniques that are familiar to everyone.

FEMA probably has a set of protocols and procedures around this and it is unreasonable to expect them to change their entire workflow to accommodate a couple of drones. Especially in a time of emergency, the best thing to do would be to not do random things and actually follow a set of rules so that you don't miss anything.

Rule-based bureaucracies are clearly the best organisational model for dealing with stable, predictable situations such as rapidly unfolding natural disasters.

Oh wait...

Didn't patio11 write an entire article on how well Japan deals with earthquakes due to its "rule-based bureaucracy"?

http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/03/13/some-perspective-on-the-...

To be fair, that article also stated that: "Japanese does not have a word for excessive preparation."

I haven't noticed that tendency in western cultures... so an organisational structure that works in an environment where everyone is super-committed for a whole bunch of reasons can (and does) fail spectacularly in one which is a bit looser, less structured, more self-focused, etc.

That said, I assume neither of us know anything about natural disaster management, so we're both really theorising on a deeply practical matter... Our thoughts on the topic are probably not worth the bits carrying them ;-)

I'd be surprised if the Japanese rules precluded or prevented the use of technology.

Supposedly the current disaster-response structure was implemented specifically because of shortcomings in the 9/11 disaster response (along with one other major natural disaster, I forget which)

Katrina, probably.

No, they don't have such policies. They provide disaster response on the ground and managing airspace is well beyond their authority.

Years ago we had a pretty big fire near where I live. I have a garage full of all kinds of high-end flying things. From gliders to heli's and multi-rotors. And yes, some of them are setup to carry cameras, GPS, etc.

Due to regulations I have never flown any of these rigs outside of local RC model aircraft fields (meaning AMA chartered clubs [0]).

I have a couple that are perfectly capable of autonomous extended-duration GPS-guided flight. I know the local fire department folks very well. During the fire I offered to put up one of my birds to get them more data. They could not fly full scale craft due to wind, smoke and other issues. The RC drones could handle this without a problem.

The bottom line was that these guys really wanted to do it but, ultimately opted against it. They have rules they have to go by and they literally did not have a way to get clearance to even attempt it. They made a few calls to local airspace control centers and either got "are you fucking kidding" or "no clue how to do this" as responses. Tragically this delayed them getting potentially valuable information on the fire for almost a full day.

This thing in Colorado could boil down to some such mechanism. In that well-known funny movie cliche where the FBI comes in, takes over an investigation and manages to fuck it up, FEMA could be going by the same playbook. Their mode of operation could very well be to take over. Anything the local FEMA guys don't understand is rejected auto-magically, regardless of the merits. You probably can't reach that guy at a high enough intellectual level to even have him consider the idea that this could be a very valuable tool during this disaster. "This is the way we've been doing it for years kid."

[0] http://www.modelaircraft.org/membership/clubs.aspx

I anxiously await any comment from FEMA on this, because as the article points out, we don't yet know the complete picture. However, I'm very glad they explicitly pointed out the irony of this in the context of the use of drones for killings.

FEMA uses drones to kill? Snark aside, that's a big leap to go from military use of drones overseas to FEMA trying to get a handle of an ongoing situation.

Not expecting FEMA to comment, let alone comment honestly, can anyone knowledgeable on the subject speculate as to what FEMA's objections might be?

From the article, "While we were up there we noticed that Civil Air Patrol and private aircraft were authorized to fly over the small town tucked into the base of Rockies." I'm guessing that FEMA didn't feel that they had capability or procedural rules in place to safely mix manned aircraft and UAVs into the same airspace.

As someone else noted though, FEMA itself says that's the FAA's responsibility, even during emergency situations.

That would be the FAA that dragged it's feet (or was being exceptionally careful) on setting rules for UAVs, causing Congress to mandate a deadline to come out with some policy regarding UAVs.

Be glad they're dragging their feet. Try getting the FAA to change a rule once they've made one is near impossible.

Because they're afraid that a uav will collide with a helicoptor or light aircraft and kill people, is my guess. It seems like a reasonable fear. They wouldn't be permitted to do the same thing near other high-traffic air corridors.

The FAA manages airspace, not FEMA, and the FAA was fine with the Falcon drones patrolling.

"It has public safety flight approvals from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to fly in some parts of Colorado." <- from the article. That is hardly the same as the FAA being okay with them patrolling the area FEMA was operating in. Is there another part of the article where I'm missing something?

My goal isn't to defend FEMA, per se, but this obviously a heavily one-sided article.

I live in Longmont, one of the more heavily affected areas. This makes me absolutely livid. Local officials have handled the situation extremely well, I don't even understand why FEMA was needed in this situation.

Because if they don't exhaust their budget they won't get as much funding next year. Got to put some boots on the ground and make it look like they're busy!

EDIT: Seriously, though. It occurs to me that I'm being a smart ass around a terrible situation (even if there is truth in what I said). I hope all is well with you and yours. If I was religious I would pray for you!

Thanks, I actually appreciate your initial comment. Luckily I live up on the highest hill in town!

Yeah - I was surprised to see FEMA and federal funding getting involved so quickly. As I recall, Longmont officials in particular and Boulder Country in general are extremely efficient when it comes to major blizzards, etc. and I expected that to transfer over well to flood relief. I've been hearing nothing but good things about efforts were being managed.

This disaster is well beyond the planning and action efforts of the state government, let alone local. Federal assistance in the form of FEMA ect was really the only way to keep things rolling.

You've seen the National Guard around right? They run ~$1 million a day to operate. Not really something the local government or even the state can afford to utilize for the time needed to help with evacuation and cleanup efforts.

I'm glad to see FEMA step in, if only for the funding.

I won't say we can't use the money but along with that money comes the requirement to do things the Feds' way which as this case points out isn't really ideal.

I'm as annoyed as anyone by this turn of events (FEMA intervention in utilizing UAVs). I've even passed along the article to some high level people at the state to rabble rouse.

Generally speaking, the local organizations have to do things the feds' way too. In the past 10 years or so a lot of rules & regulations have been established to try to improve disaster response & management, and this applies to local government just as it applies to FEMA.

Here's sort of the thing -- if I was say Boulder or Longmont or Lyons (or emergency crews) and someone gave me aerial maps and such but said "Their acquisition may be of questionable legality" I'd say "Great, I'm not going to question it. Keep the data coming."

In the past, FEMA has worked with robot teams. I hope this is a misunderstanding based in miscommunication. The other, more negative possibility is that the drones are interfering in communications. Interference happens quite often in disaster scenarios, so bandwidth is strictly controlled.

In the aftermath of Katrina, people from Walmart and other organizations tried to bring water to stranded people in New Orleans, and FEMA turned them away. What was the motivation there? Maintaining orderly road traffic?

In an ideal situation, these awesome volunteers would be able to deliver the water to those stranded with no issues. However the situation is never ideal, and the last thing FEMA wants is more people to rescue or create a difficult situation for rescue efforts.

Bringing in water is a rescue effort, and it saves more people from suffering or dying from dehydration. No, the last thing FEMA wants is for people to see how useless and counterproductive they are.

As someone on the ground in Colorado (Boulder) right now experiencing the flooding, this does nothing but dramatically irritate me.

As of Saturday there were over 3000 people estimated to be stranded and awaiting rescue. There is absolutely no reason that these drones can't be used to augment those rescue efforts. Especially during times when all other (manned) aircraft are grounded due to heavy rains.

Before we get too excited about all of this: it's very likely that FEMA already has access to bigger, better drones than these people were providing. While FEMA might not directly have access to these things, it isn't uncommon for federal agencies to coordinate resources, and other federal agencies (like DHS) does have access to drones.

I would imagine the internal dialog was something like: "We already have drones giving us mapping information for these areas. Yes it's great that this company is trying to help us, but we don't need the help, and we don't want to have to deal with the umpteen youtube videos that will try to demonstrate why FEMA is ushering in the New World Order."

etc. etc.

Some human made a somewhat logical, but largely emotional decision. Humans are emotional creatures.

Why is it UAV when it is politically palatable, and drone when it isn't?

In the wake of Glenn Beck, can you imagine the furor over "FEMA drones"? "FEMA surveillance drones"? "FEMA domestic surveillance drones"? "Obama's FEMA domestic surveillance drones"?

Glenn Beck's furor is hardly relevant ever, and it's definitely not relevant now.

It's spin. Next at 11, water is wet.

As a Boulder resident I'm incensed by this.

The drone imagery in question would have provided us with more real-time data during a period where overflights were not possible by conventional aircraft/helos. Had I known what was happening in Lyons a few hours earlier, some of my friends might not have lost their possessions.

While I appreciate everything FEMA does, the idea that they can restrict harmless data gathering by well intentioned and well qualified engineers is infuriating.

>Had I known what was happening in Lyons a few hours earlier, some of my friends might not have lost their homes.

How would you have prevented the loss of their homes?

What I meant was "lost their possessions". Many of my friends had cell service right up until the flash flooding hit. A warning to evacuate based on drone imagery would have gone a long way.

Just don't fly over Deer Trail, CO, as they want to shoot down UAVs. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/22/214453184/col...

Where can I learn more about UAVs, incl: what to look for when buying, how to fly, how to hook up a GoPRO, how to provide live FPS video? Also, what are the limitations re: flight time, weight carried, etc?

I live in a disaster-prone area (NOLA) and would love to have one of these, just in case—I just don't know where to start.

Maybe its feed was encrypted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com