[bradleyland]

Where risk to human life is concerned, each individual's perception of the risk-reward trade-off involved in regulation will vary. Evidence of this can be found at every airport in the country. So I can see where you're coming from here.

However, the position you're taking puts you on the side of: people should be allowed to fly drones in an area where aircraft are responding to an emergency (a wildfire) that puts other lives at risk. Any drone not flying in coordinated effort to actually put out the fire is of a priority that is very, very distant to that of the firefighting aircraft. At least by my measure, and I'm in the camp that believes the TSA should be abolished.

Any statistical analysis of helicopter bird strikes won't negate the fact that having drones in the area of operation increases the chance that a pilot may lose their life to a collision with a drone that serves no purpose than to populate YouTube with riveting footage of a disaster. Is an increase of even 1 in a million worth that? Not by my account it isn't.