Overhead Video of Last Night’s Fire Before Fire Crews Arrive on Scene

About 4:45 yesterday, a structure on Youngs Lane between Manila and Arcata exploded and burst into fire. Several burn victims were rushed to nearby hospitals. Reportedly, butane, a main fuel used to convert marijuana to hash oil, was found on the scene.

The effects were intense. The explosion was reportedly heard a mile away. The walls of the structure were blown outward before the structure was engulfed in flames and the smoke was seen as far as Eureka.

The video above by Phillip Nicklas shows the scene from the air prior to fire crews or law enforcement arriving.

Firefighters were on the scene for hours dealing with burning structure.

Firefighters using pikes to kill hot spots.

Crews used pikes to get at a hot spot. [By Mark McKenna]

You can see more of Mark McKenna’s up close ground views of firefighters in the smoke and flames by clicking here.

A firefighter leans in to his crewman’s back to help with the pressure from the hose. [Photo by Mark McKenna]

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestmail

29 comments

  • Fascinating what you can do these days. Nice work Phillip Nicklas. And nice work Kym Kemp. Your site is the first that i check in the morning, and the last in the evening.

  • Wow! This video is taken from a hobby-drone?

  • These fires (hash lab explosions) should be charged as attempt murder of firefighters

  • Just a reminder to the drone fans out there for future fires.. operating a drone near a wildfire scene, or in a manner that interferes with emergency crews in any capacity, is illegal in Calif.

    Not applicable here, but no one should think that it’s remotely okay to do this near a CalFire incident during fire season.

    Tip: an incident commander might actually allow you to film a scene like this closer in if you ask politely before launching, and agree to follow his/her directions to the fullest, and if the video you get is valuable to them for the active firefighting operation or training. But if they say no, don’t launch.

    • Thank you Firefighter for pointing this out!

    • It is also illegal to fly a drone over private proprty without prior permission.

      • Honeydew Bridge Chump

        No it’s not.

      • You sure of that, Scooter? If so, what’s the height / elevation restriction? (There must be a heights within which or after which it is legal or illegal, right?). Any difference between commercial or residential? Or how the property is zoned? And, I assume your reference to what is “illegal” applies only to the general public, not the government, eh?

        • Property owners rights usually extend 500 feet above your property. I am describing a private drone owner vs private property owner. There are discussions that there shoud be a new class for drones allowing them different rules but that is not now. I do know that I have shot at drones over my land before.

          • Also scoot 500 ft applies to helicopters and airplanes only.

          • A FAA licensed Pilot.(drone, aircraft and RotaryWing)

            unfortunately Scooter you know neither FAA regulations NOR federl criminal/civil law in this matter.. I can fly a drone or an airplane all over and property rights specifically do NOT extend in the airspace over ones property and BTW shoot at any drone or air vehicle I fly(I fly for local, state and federal agencies) and you will find yourself under federal arrest for “air terrorism charges”..
            (the FAA doesnt allow shooting into the National airspace at ANY air vehicle including drones)
            the NAS(national airspace) is from ground level to space.. ALL Federalized.. the BEST that be hoped for in civil court is the tort of “Intrusion on seclusion” which has been upheld intermittently in courts in Santa Rosa…

            this is the state of the law in these united states and more specifically in the State of California BTW the recent laws passed in California and other states that purport to control the usage of the NAS unfortunately WONT be upheld as the legal jurisdiction simply does NOT exist for an individual state ..

            ps I suggest you consult with a good Federal criminal Attorney when you admit to having committed federal felonies(ait terrorism) in a public forum such as this..

            • http://www.droneguru.net/can-drones-fly-over-private-property-and-how-to-stop-them/

              September 2, 2016

              “…Thomas Gemmell on the matter. Thomas is a former U.S Air Force fighter pilot. He is also a co-leader of Huch Blackwell’s drone team.

              Thomas also affirmed that it’s not clear as of the moment whether one is allowed to fly a drone over private property. He, however, emphasized that FAA owns the aerospace individuals cannot claim ownership.

              This means that one cannot deny or grant permission over their aerospace. All is not lost, though, he confirmed that one could base their complaints on grounds that;

              > The drones are causing a nuisance
              > They are being flown recklessly
              > They are violating the state privacy law

              He further explained that if the plane lands or takes off from the property without operation, the operator can be sued for trespass. He concluded by confirming that there are local laws that prohibit the operation of UAVs over cities. He, therefore, urged drone operators and aggrieved parties to familiarize themselves with the laws governing their area.”

      • Sorry to inform your POOTER that your 100 percent wrong.

      • https://www.law360.com/articles/767445/drones-in-california-the-laws-the-proposals

        “California is a bellweather state for not only developing cutting-edge technology but developing legislation regulating new technology, particularly in the area of privacy…

        Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.8(a). AB 856 was enacted to close a loophole that was exposed when paparazzi began to use UAS to fly over celebrities’ property, including over fences and locked gates, to capture intimate details of their private lives or otherwise spy. AB 856 changed the definition of “physical invasion of privacy” to include the “airspace” above someone else’s property. A person who is found to have physically invaded the “airspace above the land of another person” is liable under the newly amended § 1708.8(a) for up to three times the amount of any general and special damages caused by the invasion, as well as a civil fine of $5,000 to $50,000.

        Notably, § 1708.8(j) makes clear that “[i]t is not a defense to a violation of this section that no image, recording, or physical impression was captured or sold.”

  • Prayers for the burn victims & rescue teams. Prayers that good jobs will once again become common place so that citizens can make better choices again.

    • Let’s be real here. There will always be hash makers out there. Maybe they can get and use the proper equipment, and follow proper safety protocol.

  • “Unable to play this video at this time. The number of allowed playbacks has been exceeded.”

  • Pingback: Butane Hash Oil Fires Grow with Legalization

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *