Drone strike on helicopter during Texas emergency ops
 

https://www.newsweek.com/texas-flooding-drone-helicopter-collision-2095763

Just a brief clip from the article:

Emergency operations in flood-stricken Kerr County, Texas, suffered a setback on Monday when a privately operated drone collided with a helicopter involved in emergency operations, city officials said.

What To Know

In a post on Facebook Monday by Kerrville City Hall, officials reiterated that private drones need to be grounded following the collision.

"This afternoon, a private drone illegally operating in restricted airspace collided with a helicopter involved in emergency operations in Kerr County. The helicopter was forced to make an emergency landing, and a critical piece of response equipment is now out of service until further notice," the post read.

Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) are not suggestions. They are federal airspace rules designed to protect lives during emergency situations. When you fly a drone in restricted areas, you're not just breaking the law -- you're putting first responders, emergency crews, and the public at serious risk," Kerrville City Hall concluded.

On top of the Canadair 415 damaged by a drone while fire fighting in Southern California earlier this year...

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...-super-scooper

A relevant and legitimate question seems to be how can legally operated drones be incorporated into the Emergency Response System and play a role in improving response times, rapid response for SAR use locating survivors, etc.

It is a technology that has matured and been proven. useful in other uses.

What is the place for Drones in a response to a disaster like western North Carolina and the Hill Country of Texas following catastrophic flooding or tornado outbreaks?

The FAA and FCC could prevent this sort of collision, but they have other priorities.

In this instance, what damage was done?

As to serious risk - small remotely piloted aircraft (formerly known as R/C airplanes and helicopters) have about 70 years of being involved in 0 fatalities and negligible property damage.

Rather than using threats of legal violence, developing a collision avoidance system that would prevent helicopters from colliding with other aircraft should be a priority. I favor a shared solution; in this case requiring drones to have ADSB In and helicopters to have ADSB Out so that drones can automatically take evasive action.

Drones have already been incorporated into a number of public/volunteer first responder departments and groups for several years now. And from discussions in Texas, the TX National Guard is also operating MQ Reaper drones over the flooded areas for search missions.

Except there is already a shared solution: simply follow the rules. However, it seems the typical recreational drone aviator along with a few certified recreational airplane aviators can't read or comprehend a TFR.

"Follow the rules" fails. Someone checks for TFRs. There are none. Leaves their house and goes out. TFR is issued. When will the drone pilot get notification of the TFR?

Alternative. Drone and drone controller receive ADS-B signal with aircraft approaching. Drone reduces altitude and pilot gets warning that a plane or helicopter hidden by trees or hills is approaching. No need for a temporary rule that is issued through unavailable channels.

Not sure how relevant this is but a couple of days ago I listened to a representative of the Cajun Navy explaining how they are assisting and how they cooperate the & liaise with the rescue services, operating, where appropriate away from other agencies.

Lol yeah,...like finding enough people to staff control towers, and repairing their 1970's equipment.

Except it works good with the rest of the industry. So why should a private, recreational drone operator be treated any differently? Ignorance is not a defense. As to TFRs, it’s the operators regulatory responsibility to check for TFRs prior to each flight. A better alternative would be to mandate Remote ID for all drones before further flight effective yesterday which would allow the use of existing systems to monitor restricted airspace. And as an added caveat require the Remote ID to be active before the drone software will allow flight.

You have that bass ackwards: it's the drone that collided with the helicopter.
Most avoidance systems begin with the Mk I Mod 0 Eyeball down at the altitudes where helicopters typically operate.

Look up the definition of "colliding." Also, how soon other collisions are forgotten where the Mk I eyeball failed while following the rules.

No one has died from hitting a hobby drone.

Yet...

Amazon is working on it. No Mk I eyeball on that drone.

None needed. That drone operates on a completely different regulatory level than the one that hit the helicopter in TX. Now if all drones operated at that same level, like the search and rescue drones in the same areas, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. So perhaps all drones should operate at this same level. No?
And while there hasn’t been a death due to a recreational drone its more a matter of when and not if, and you have any understanding of how the relationship between close calls and accidents works in aviation.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....461468107.jpeg
When amateurs have the capacity to ignorantly interfere with HEMS/SAR/FIRE, the system has failed. Thank goodness nobody was hurt in the Chopper. For those arguing on behalf of drone freedom/interaction - put your dangerous toy away and take up the other drone like hobby, metal detecting.