FAA condoned - City Airspace

[Cw4bray]

"City" designated airspace with a map and rules. This rule has been in place for four years. It mirrors closely the Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC) airspace. It's boundary was less than a half mile off. The LAANC airspace is more conservative, so if you go with the city rule you could violate federal airspace. I've pointed this out to the city before Christmas, then pointed it out to the FSDO who talked to the city attorney. The result was; nothing. Then the Washington D.C. FAA attorney talked to the city attorney, the result was nothing. I've concluded the FAA doesn't care if other entities "create airspace" of their own.

http://www.aberdeen.sd.us/DocumentCenter/View/9580/Drone-Ordinance-20-03-01

Apparently, "home rule power" carries more weight than FAA airspace, and their are no FAA employees with a backbone.

Video, Skip ahead in video to: 20:17
Attachments area

Preview YouTube video City Council Meeting December 16, 2019


City Council Meeting December 16, 2019
Video, Skip ahead in video to: 20:17

 

[RkyMtnHigh]

Granted, there is a lot of grey areas when it comes to drone use in particular matters. Personally I find it hard to believe the FAA wouldn't care about an entity creating their own airspace. A private citizen with their own plane and runway on their property can develop and establish their own approach procedures, but they need to be approved through the FAA. Atlanta airport is owned by the city. As soon as that nosewheel leaves the ground that aircraft is now in Federal airspace governed by the FAA. While I'm not saying that there isn't any ambiguities or what appears to be lackadaisical sentiment by the FAA and the attorneys, the ones that will have the most pull is FSDO. I can say with a great certainty that if any town says "sure, it's okay to fly over a prison", or "fly around the local nuclear plant and take pics and videos" or better yet, you can fly no closer than 1 mile from the airport, but that airport is a Class B, C or D airspace that the FAA/FSDO will have something to say about that. This is a large government entity and things do not happen fast, if at all. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist or doesn't happen, but I find it difficult to believe that a city/town ordinance would trump Federal guidelines/regulations.

 

[Cw4bray]

"Quote: I can say with a great certainty that if any town says "sure, it's okay to fly over a prison", or "fly around the local nuclear plant and take pics and videos" or better yet, you can fly no closer than 1 mile from the airport, but that airport is a Class B, C or D airspace that the FAA/FSDO will have something to say about that. "

Thanks for responding Rocky Mountain High, you're wrong....No prison or power plant but the city IS saying: IT'S okay to fly near the airport within "city airspace". Creating airspace is NOT okay because it lacks standardization. Unrelated to the city map, city was told it's in class "golf" uncontrolled airspace, in fact it's surface based class "echo" not that that fact would make much difference to the city.
The FAA knows right from wrong but the GS-14 / GM-15 manager with the FAA is afraid of his own shadow. He could be reprimanded for making political waves, so it's easier to not do his job.
Another part of the problem, the city attorney has never "really" practiced law in the private sector. I wouldn't be surprised if he never passed a bar exam, I'm not sure it's a prerequisite for a local government job in a small town.

 

[RkyMtnHigh]

"Quote: I can say with a great certainty that if any town says "sure, it's okay to fly over a prison", or "fly around the local nuclear plant and take pics and videos" or better yet, you can fly no closer than 1 mile from the airport, but that airport is a Class B, C or D airspace that the FAA/FSDO will have something to say about that. "
Thanks for responding Rocky Mountain High, you're wrong....No prison or power plant but the city IS saying: IT'S okay to fly near the airport within "city airspace". Creating airspace is NOT okay because it lacks standardization. Unrelated to the city map, city was told it's in class "golf" uncontrolled airspace, in fact it's surface based class "echo" not that that fact would make much difference to the city.
The FAA knows right from wrong but the GS-14 / GM-15 manager with the FAA is afraid of his own shadow. He could be reprimanded for making political waves so it's easier to not do his job. It's kind of like; speeding past a cop when his shift is just about over, or there's a doughnut shop just around the corner. Another part of the problem, the city attorney has never "really" practiced law. I wouldn't be surprised if he never pass a bar exam, I'm not sure it's a requirement for a local government job.

Very true about the Class E and G airspaces. You have an aircraft in Class G airspace and the controller has no authority over him. The FAA, yes, ATC, no. In all of my years I've never heard of "city airspace", not that I don't doubt it exists, just that I've never heard of it. Yes, the FAA does know right from wrong, and also being a government entity many times the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. There's too many focus groups and committees to effectively accomplish anything. The GS-14 controller most of the time knows what's going before the MSS-2 Operations Supervisor and especially the MSS-3 Operations Manager on the ATC side of the house and is a better resource for information. FSDO is usually staffed with very knowledgeable people and is a great resource also. FAA HQ, including rules making, procedures and especially legal have no aviation background, thus creating confusion and more importantly ambiguity. Just another reason why I believe the FAA should go privatized, but that's another entire subject. My guess on the city stating it's okay to fly so close to the airport is due to it being an uncontrolled airfield. If my memory serves me right I believe that aircraft flying in and out of ABR is under the jurisdiction of Minneapolis Center. Obviously I don't know the particulars of the relationship between the town and FAA as far as drone usage goes, but if the airport is in fact in Class G airspace, which I'd bet to guess it is since ZMP has that jurisdiction, then I would venture to guess the FAA would be fine with the town setting it's own guidelines as long as it is published, and possibly listed in the "Remarks" section on the airport information guides.

 

[Cw4bray]

Very true about the Class E and G airspaces. You have an aircraft in Class G airspace and the controller has no authority over him. The FAA, yes, ATC, no. In all of my years I've never heard of "city airspace", not that I don't doubt it exists, just that I've never heard of it. Yes, the FAA does know right from wrong, and also being a government entity many times the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. There's too many focus groups and committees to effectively accomplish anything. The GS-14 controller most of the time knows what's going before the MSS-2 Operations Supervisor and especially the MSS-3 Operations Manager on the ATC side of the house and is a better resource for information. FSDO is usually staffed with very knowledgeable people and is a great resource also. FAA HQ, including rules making, procedures and especially legal have no aviation background, thus creating confusion and more importantly ambiguity. Just another reason why I believe the FAA should go privatized, but that's another entire subject. My guess on the city stating it's okay to fly so close to the airport is due to it being an uncontrolled airfield. If my memory serves me right I believe that aircraft flying in and out of ABR is under the jurisdiction of Minneapolis Center. Obviously I don't know the particulars of the relationship between the town and FAA as far as drone usage goes, but if the airport is in fact in Class G airspace, which I'd bet to guess it is since ZMP has that jurisdiction, then I would venture to guess the FAA would be fine with the town setting it's own guidelines as long as it is published, and possibly listed in the "Remarks" section on the airport information guides.

You are correct; Minneapolis center is the controling authority, when the surface-based class echo is in effect. Radar coverage is good down to about 4,000 MSL or about 3,000 AGL.

 

[RkyMtnHigh]

You are correct; Minneapolis center is the controling authority, when the surface-based class echo is in effect. Radar coverage is good down to about 4,000 MSL or about 3,000 AGL.

That's kind of what I remembered. It's been a few years since I retired. ? ? ?

 

[RkyMtnHigh]

Were you post strike FERS , I was flight service - teletype and pre-internet pre ASOS ?

FERS. Retired May 2013. I worked at four different centers, a tower and tracon. I know more 3-letter identifiers than anyone should be allowed...hahaha ? Which FSS did you work? They're all contracted out now.

 

[RkyMtnHigh]

I was at the MMAC as an A+P, then the OKC tracon as ATA , then an AK FSS before it was consolidated.

Very nice. You got around just as much as we did.

 

[dawgpilot]

I've also corresponded with the FAA's general counsel regarding another city's drone ordinance and got a reply that basically they are choosing to not get involved at this time. Pretty disappointing that localities can directly contravene federal aviation regulations and face no consequences.

 

[Cw4bray]

The phone call with the FAA's general counsel regarding this city's drone ordinance probably went like ; What law school did you go to, I went to xxx law School ? So the issue before us today is "preemption" and "home rule law", do you have any questions? So we're both good right? Good. Have a nice day.
The problem is, the FSDO wants general counsel to do all the dirty work. "They're choosing to not get involved at this time" - that's exactly what the FSDO told me.
The FAA is creating a real mess that other cities will copy, after that, it'll take an act of congress and an army of FAA to correct all the damage.