It would be nice to have clarification that the drone was being operated by a private individual. Is it possible that this was an accident by another group trying to address the wildfires problem? I think the reason for that drone flying in the first place is relevant to gain some context.
This is the only speculation laid out in the article around the operator:
The drone operator has not been identified, but there has been speculation online, with many social media users pointing to photography accounts that have posted aerial images of the fires.
The Los Angeles Fire Department released photos of the plane, including one showing the damage. It said the plane was struck by "a civilian drone."
The Federal Aviation Administration has opened an investigation, and noted in a statement that it had not authorized anyone unaffiliated with firefighting operations to fly drones in the area.
I don't know about the states, but in the UK. A police force decided to operate a drone for their own use. The CAA tried to politely educate them on the rules, and were, effectively told to eff off. A £35,000 ($43,000) fine was quite an effective slap on the wrist.
Detailed fire tracking. From the ground, it's difficult to tell if the fires is wrapping around you etc. By getting a bit of altitude, you can see what's going on, and act accordingly.
The drone impacted and penetrated the leading edge of one of the wings. The leading edge is thin for weight but its shape is what makes wings work, also a hole in the leading edge allows pressure to be applied to the inside of the wing which is not one of the directions it's designed to withstand.
This is a serious bummer all around. But wow, does that article suck on its lack of detail. But I guess actually digging into the facts wouldn't make for clickable headlines. "Oooooh, DRONES!"
There are Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFR) in place for that region.
Was the drone part of monitoring/firefighting efforts? If it was, that is a terrible error on the part of the sUAS operator and observer. Then again, smoke and fire, which would make for a less interesting story.
"Drone participating in firefighting hits plane."
Editor: Boooring! Let's make it vague so we can cash in on some drone fears.
Lots of drones won't even fly in a TFR zone. More professional drones will warn the pilot AND provide a warning about planes in proximity.
All sUAS 250 grams and larger are required to have RemoteID. Plenty of drones won't even fly unless the RemoteID is functioning fully. And if it shits the bed during flight, lots of drones will just automatically land. Again, except for more professional models or for small cheapies. So one of two things are true: the FAA knows exactly who the responsible party is, or the operator is an utter douchecanoe
Based on this article, that makes you the asshole in this scenario. TFRs exist for a very good reason, it's not just big guberment trying to make your life harder.
Having working in the field for a few years, the amount of utterly irresponsible assholes would shock you. I was on a few hundred thousand hectare fire, and someone was flying their small personal aircraft over the area repeatedly. He was arrested when he landed at the nearest airport, but for a few hours all the helicopter support was grounded because of one jackass who wanted a better view.
My guess is it's an LAPD operator. The civilians stayed out of the restricted airspace. Some chud cop thinks the rules don't apply to him, so he flies a drone in an unauthorized zone. He manages to hit a firefighting plane. And the LAPD quickly sweeps the whole thing under the rug and blames it on a never-found civilian.