Firefighting planes tend to be the older large flyers, meaning 1930s-1950s tech. Fitting autonomous instrumentation would require all new sensors, gauges, wiring, etc.
They don’t because it would cost as much as a new plane. The new plane is also better because then they still get to fly the old one.
EDIT: words
Old planes were rebuilt into remote controlled drones for many decades, dating back to WW2. Usually for target practice, sometimes as remote controlled guided bombs.
True enough. But it would still probably cost a lot more than it’s worth.
I’d also think that unstable conditions in close proximity to wildfires make it difficult to fly by wire. A sudden updraft, downdraft or other variable might mean loss of control if not immediately and properly corrected for, easier with eyes in place.
Means a larger part of the control loops have to be done onboard, with the external commands only advising about the desired flight path instead of “micromanaging”.
Whether the one who is compesating for the instabilities is a human or a machine does not matter in principle. My bet is that a well-designed machine could handle the airplane in rough conditions better than human could ever do (200+ milliseconds added to control loop reaction time is only one of the arguments; limits in ability to take in data from sensors make for a heap of other arguments).
Seriously?
Seriously: I ask. I ask because I’m ignorant. I’m not familiar with aircraft, or even drones/quadcopters. The conversation seems takes the position for granted that should an aircraft and drone collide the risk of serious damage or injury is very high. The responses so far have been fairly educational. Some very good points of view and dangers that I wouldn’t have come to very quickly on my own. Thanks to those who responded with information.
So, yes. Seriously I ask. 
While I do think shotguns are the answer I don’t think someone riding shotgun is–hitting the drone from a moving aircraft is not going to be easy. Instead, they should be shot down from the ground–stationary shooter vs roughly stationary aircraft. Furthermore, any pellets that miss will be heading up–they’ll run out of energy and fall back without lethal force. An air-to-air shot, however, means shot coming down with a lot more energy.
Give the fire crews shotguns and authorization to shoot down anything they didn’t launch and they won’t have to do it much at all.
I guess I’m a bit suspicious because even if someone has never flown in an airplane, I assume that they have a basic understanding of how planes (both prop and jet) helicopters operate and how easily something can go wrong. Even a cursory reading of aviation mishaps in the news should suffice.
I had thought that aside from some rare direct hits, most modern aircraft were designed to withstand incidental impacts from bird sized objects without much effect.
I was wrong.
Sorry, then. I just assumed that everyone remembers “the miracle on the Hudson” and Sully Sullenberger (sp?). Bird strike.
I remember going from Long Beach to Catalina with a friend who was taking flying lessons and her instructor (and commercial airline mechanic) said that when things go wrong with your car you pull over. When things go wrong with aircraft, you fall out the sky.
Nope, wasn’t in my memory. Wikipedia article is interesting though. Thanks 
[quote=“RyeNCode, post:30, topic:62802, full:true”]
I had thought that aside from some rare direct hits, most modern aircraft were designed to withstand incidental impacts from bird sized objects without much effect.[/quote]
Back in 1987 we lost a $270 million B-1B Supersonic 4-engine strategic bomber, not to enemy action, but to a bird strike.
The laws of physics pretty well dictate that airplanes will be delicate. Fire planes are heavily loaded, so they are sluggish, they are low to the ground, 'cause that’s where the job is, you already have a high pilot workload 'cause bad drops are a waste of time and money, add in not a soft squishy bird, but a hard crunchy drone and you have the distinct chance of ruining someones day.
If the owners of those three drones are smart, they will take them down to the shore, and fly them out over the Pacific as far as they will go, throw in the remotes, and go find new hobbies…
This isn’t directly applicable here, but it’s worth adding: Drone + Jet Engine = horrible air crash accident.
At the risk of concern-trolling here: while I’m all for legislation that puts the squeeze on drone pilots for interfering with fire fighting operations, isn’t it likely than any legislation is going to end up putting the squeeze on drone pilots for interfering with fire, police and other emergency personnel with “interfering” being far, far broader than risking the loss of an airplane but, instead, being “might mildly inconvenience” the powers that be.
The tankers are also flying in extremely dangerous and unpredictable conditions. Smoke, haze, unpredictable updrafts from flares in the fire. They are also heavy things with limited maneuverability.
This kind of thing is only going to get worse. I read several stories after the fourth of July about people outfitting their drones with fireworks. Drones fly through all kinds of crime scenes because news outlets are hungry for the footage. A drone landed on the White House lawn.
“Pranks” that become tragedies are overdue at this point.
From what I’m reading here it seems drones pose the same risk as birds only less often. Do they ground planes for birds or is this just the fire fighters being reactionary?
Birds are unlikely to directly fly right up to the planes and be next to them, I imagine, like the drones in the story were doing.
But that doesn’t seem to fit the facts available. We have pics and stories of bird strikes easily found with a search but nothing on damaged aircraft due to drone activity.
It seems the facts are that birds are more likely to fly in to planes rather than drones.
