
UAV Provides Colorado Flooding Assistance Until FEMA Freaks Out - eguizzo
http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/aerial-robots/falcon-uav-provides-colorado-flooding-assistance-until-fema-freaks-out#.Ujcb6Jpx1P4.hackernews
======
asn0
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](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](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_4481.html)
[http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_3_4474.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.

~~~
a-priori
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.

------
ChuckMcM
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.

~~~
josefresco
"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.

~~~
toomuchtodo
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.

~~~
ianstallings
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.

~~~
toomuchtodo
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.

~~~
ianstallings
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.

~~~
phaemon
> I never said you were uniformed.

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

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

------
alrs
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.

~~~
ihsw
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.

------
oroup
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.

~~~
asn0
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/](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](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](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. "

~~~
ssmoot
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.

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

~~~
eli
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.

~~~
bcoates
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.

------
ignostic
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](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.

~~~
lamontcg
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).

------
Lagged2Death
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.

------
soupboy
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.

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

Oh wait...

~~~
teej
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-...](http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/03/13/some-perspective-on-the-japan-
earthquake/)

~~~
swombat
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 ;-)

------
robomartin
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](http://www.modelaircraft.org/membership/clubs.aspx)

------
TallGuyShort
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.

~~~
josefresco
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.

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

~~~
3am
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.

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

~~~
3am
"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.

------
macinjosh
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.

~~~
tankbot
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!

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

------
blackaspen
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."

------
Qworg
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.

------
fexl
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?

~~~
josefresco
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.

~~~
fexl
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.

------
knappe
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.

------
blhack
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.

------
pekk
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"?

~~~
ihsw
Glenn Beck's furor is hardly relevant _ever_ , and it's definitely not
relevant now.

------
gabrtv
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.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
>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?

~~~
gabrtv
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.

------
coin
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...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-
way/2013/08/22/214453184/colorado-town-may-issue-licenses-to-shoot-down-
drones)

------
sjs382
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.

------
forgotAgain
Maybe its feed was encrypted.

