Will the Governor Sign It? Legislature Passes Bill to Protect Firefighting Efforts From Drones

A bill to increase fines for drone operators who interfere with firefighters and other emergency responders made it through the Legislature Tuesday and is headed to the governor’s desk.

SB 168 also seeks to grant civil immunity to any emergency responder who damages an unmanned aircraft in the course of firefighting, air ambulance, or search-and-rescue operations.

Co-authored by Assemblyman Mike Gatto, D-Glendale, and Sen. Ted Gaines, R-El Dorado, the bill’s passage comes a week after Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed legislation to prevent drones from invading people’s privacy by flying over backyards.

SB 168 “will put the safety of Californians first, and will punish criminals who ignore the safety of our emergency-response professionals and the people they are trying to protect,” said Gatto, chair of the Assembly Consumer Protection and Privacy Committee.

“A flying piece of plastic with a camera attached is the last thing a pilot needs to worry about before making a difficult maneuver to make a water drop,” he said.

Over the summer, there were multiple reports that planes were forced to reroute or land, in some cases having to discharge their critical, flame- retardant loads in areas not affected by fire because a drone had interfered with their drop.

Forest Service officials have also voiced concerns that drones could interfere with the deployment and safety of “smokejumper” crews who parachute into remote wildfire areas.

Violators could be fined up to $5,000 and jailed for up to six months under SB 168. The measure contains an urgency clause, meaning that it would take effect immediately if Brown signs it.

“When automobile use became widespread, California had to update its laws, too,” Gatto said. “This legislation is the equivalent of the ‘no parking in front of a fire hydrant’ rule for the age of democratized aviation. It’s time to update our laws as technology keeps advancing.”

Brown vetoed the previous bill, SB 167, saying it “could expose the occasional hobbyist and the FAA-approved commercial user alike to burdensome litigation and new causes of action.”

--City News Service; Image via Morgue File