Welcome Mavic Pilot!
Jump in and join our free DJI Mavic community today!
Sign up

FAA has agreed to answer questions

RBeaton

Active Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2018
Messages
41
Reaction score
25
Age
41
And the entire 18 miles is private property owned by the township? If so, you're out of luck.
Public property owned by the township with private residential property. Exception for real estate photography: you can take off and land from private property but must stay within the boundaries of the property and adjacent street/s with data collection limited to the property you are shooting.

And my point is that we shouldn't be out of luck. If that's the case, the FAA's Congressionally-issued power to be the sole controller of the airspace is a moot point and goes out the window in cases where the airspace is ultimately controlled by the towns beneath it via land use rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: frank candor

RBeaton

Active Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2018
Messages
41
Reaction score
25
Age
41
And the entire 18 miles is private property owned by the township? If so, you're out of luck.
By the way, just to be clear - I wasn't challenging your previous post, I was adding it as a question I would like the OP to ask the FAA. Just didn't want to make you think I was being obtuse. :)
 

sar104

Dic mihi solum facta, domina.
Premium Pilot
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
8,237
Reaction score
8,943
Location
Los Alamos, NM
Public property owned by the township with private residential property. Exception for real estate photography: you can take off and land from private property but must stay within the boundaries of the property and adjacent street/s with data collection limited to the property you are shooting.

And my point is that we shouldn't be out of luck. If that's the case, the FAA's Congressionally-issued power to be the sole controller of the airspace is a moot point and goes out the window in cases where the airspace is ultimately controlled by the towns beneath it via land use rules.
But one could argue that while the FAA has jurisdiction over the airspace and has declared it to be open, they are not responsible for ensuring that any and all users are physically able to access it. This is no different, in principle, to the situation with designated wilderness or NPS lands, where the airspace is open but cannot practically be accessed with VLOS flight or even BVLOS flight of limited range.
 

ac0j

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2017
Messages
2,809
Reaction score
2,256
Age
56
I dont think it was ever a thought for the FAA to have to regulate flying toys, balls, Frisbees, and pet birds and the like, when they were given control of airspace. I think the intent was aircraft. flying safely above man made structures and nature. Keep the real aircraft above 1000' when not landing or taking off, and let the toys have the 999' and below. Problem solved.
 

sar104

Dic mihi solum facta, domina.
Premium Pilot
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
8,237
Reaction score
8,943
Location
Los Alamos, NM
I dont think it was ever a thought for the FAA to have to regulate flying toys, balls, Frisbees, and pet birds and the like, when they were given control of airspace. I think the intent was aircraft. flying safely above man made structures and nature. Keep the real aircraft above 1000' when not landing or taking off, and let the toys have the 999' and below. Problem solved.
OK - devil's advocate - if they are just inessential toys, why should any special provisions be made for them? Why should "real" manned aviation be inconvenienced to any degree at all just to accommodate people playing with toys?
 

RBeaton

Active Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2018
Messages
41
Reaction score
25
Age
41
But one could argue that while the FAA has jurisdiction over the airspace and has declared it to be open, they are not responsible for ensuring that any and all users are physically able to access it. This is no different, in principle, to the situation with designated wilderness or NPS lands, where the airspace is open but cannot practically be accessed with VLOS flight or even BVLOS flight of limited range.
My thought comparison was more along the lines of coastal access here in NJ. Tidal waters are open for all to use and enjoy per the Public Trust Doctrine, but property owners, businesses, and municipalities block accessibility to those waters because they line the beaches. Towns and businesses (not private owners) have to provide straight line access to the coastline and cannot legally prohibit access. I know the Public Trust Doctrine doesn't apply per se, but I would argue that it is similar in principle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sar104

RBeaton

Active Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2018
Messages
41
Reaction score
25
Age
41
I dont think it was ever a thought for the FAA to have to regulate flying toys, balls, Frisbees, and pet birds and the like, when they were given control of airspace. I think the intent was aircraft. flying safely above man made structures and nature. Keep the real aircraft above 1000' when not landing or taking off, and let the toys have the 999' and below. Problem solved.
Of course the FAA wasn't designed with that in mind - the technology didn't exist when the FAA was created. Technology changes, and governing bodies need to roll with the punches. Someday they may have to find operating space for flying cars and hoverboards (Back to the Future II style, not like today's hoverboards.) There is an FAA document that I read during my 107 studies - I will revise and post when I find it - that states that they actually DO want sUAS to be able to operate and fit into the navigable airspace, which is why they carved out space for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sar104

msinger

DJI Drone Expert
Approved Vendor
Premium Pilot
Joined
Oct 12, 2016
Messages
20,687
Reaction score
11,157
Location
Harrisburg, PA (US)
you can take off and land from private property but must stay within the boundaries of the property and adjacent street/s with data collection limited to the property you are shooting
The press release I linked above from the FAA's site states this is not legal. After taking off from a property (whether you own it or the owner allows it), you can fly over other properties as long as you're not breaking US law (like flying beyond VLOS).
 
  • Like
Reactions: sar104

sar104

Dic mihi solum facta, domina.
Premium Pilot
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
8,237
Reaction score
8,943
Location
Los Alamos, NM
My thought comparison was more along the lines of coastal access here in NJ. Tidal waters are open for all to use and enjoy per the Public Trust Doctrine, but property owners, businesses, and municipalities block accessibility to those waters because they line the beaches. Towns and businesses (not private owners) have to provide straight line access to the coastline and cannot legally prohibit access. I know the Public Trust Doctrine doesn't apply per se, but I would argue that it is similar in principle.
That's a good analogy but, where it probably differs, as you point out, is that while the airspace is open for public use (subject to applicable regulations) there is no right to enjoy the airspace enshrined in law, and so no one is obligated to permit access to it from their land.
 

RBeaton

Active Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2018
Messages
41
Reaction score
25
Age
41
That's a good analogy but, where it probably differs, as you point out, is that while the airspace is open for public use (subject to applicable regulations) there is no right to enjoy the airspace enshrined in law, and so no one is obligated to permit access to it from their land.
Right! Though maybe it CAN change, just like it did for the ancient fishermen back when the Public Trust Doctrine became a thing. (We're the "fishermen" here.) And maybe having that as part of the dialogue with the FAA can make that happen. That is my point.
 

sar104

Dic mihi solum facta, domina.
Premium Pilot
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
8,237
Reaction score
8,943
Location
Los Alamos, NM
Right! Though maybe it CAN change, just like it did for the ancient fishermen back when the Public Trust Doctrine became a thing. (We're the "fishermen" here.) And maybe having that as part of the dialogue with the FAA can make that happen. That is my point.
That's a tricky one. Where does it end? Taken to its logical conclusion, any property owner would then have to permit flights from their land simply to guarantee access to the airspace above it.
 

RBeaton

Active Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2018
Messages
41
Reaction score
25
Age
41
That's a tricky one. Where does it end? Taken to its logical conclusion, any property owner would then have to permit flights from their land simply to guarantee access to the airspace above it.
If it played out like it does with coastal access here, every homeowner is NOT required to let people walk through their yard. The onus is on towns and sometimes businesses to have a spot dedicated for public access. (Not saying that is always the best idea, especially with business properties. Which is why I was thinking more finding public points to access airspace in areas where it was broadly prohibited.)
 

sar104

Dic mihi solum facta, domina.
Premium Pilot
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
8,237
Reaction score
8,943
Location
Los Alamos, NM
If it played out like it does with coastal access here, every homeowner is NOT required to let people walk through their yard. The onus is on towns and sometimes businesses to have a spot dedicated for public access. (Not saying that is always the best idea, especially with business properties. Which is why I was thinking more finding public points to access airspace in areas where it was broadly prohibited.)
Something like that might work.
 

Drone on

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
844
Reaction score
455
Yes - your understanding is not quite correct.

Under Part 107 your require an authorization or waiver to fly in controlled (other than Class G) airspace. The FAA has stated that you can only get that via the FAA portal - not directly from any local airports or towers, and there is no requirement to call the local airports.

Under Part 101/Section 336 the requirement is to notify any airports and towers within 5 miles, which is independent of the class of airspace. The FAA has tried to impose a requirement for permission and coordination in Class B airspace, but the basis in law seems tenuous to me.

And, just to clarify, you are entitled to fly under Part 107 at any time - it doesn't matter whether the flight is commercial or recreational. It's only Section 336 (Part 101) that restricts you to only recreational flights.
Well, I like that interpretation better. I think.

So, looking at the sectionals, I should see a column of airspace for the C and D airports/controlled air space that dictates the radius that requires waiver, and the airspace outside of that radius and below the first tier of the upside down wedding cake is fair game, which should be class G airspace up to the drone max altitude of 400 feet, and E beginning at 700' above that. Do you agree?

If so, that solves that problem.

I think what through me off track is that the app Airmap (authorized participant of LAANC pilot) shows the whole 5 mile radius as being off limits. At least I'm interpreting their map that way. They super impose a grid over a google earth view, and the highlighted area extends five squares of the grid, which I then interpret to be the radius of NFZ

The next challenge is liability insurance. I know it can be obtained for $10/flight, or possibly through the AMA membership. I think I would prefer an semi-annual/annual policy over $10 per flight.

Do you fly with liability insurance? If so, what do you recommend?
 
Last edited:

sar104

Dic mihi solum facta, domina.
Premium Pilot
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
8,237
Reaction score
8,943
Location
Los Alamos, NM
Well, I like that interpretation better. I think.

So, looking at the sectionals, I should see a column of airspace for the C and D airports/controlled air space that dictates the radius that requires waiver, and the airspace outside of that radius and below the first tier of the upside down wedding cake is fair game, which should be class G airspace up to the drone max altitude of 400 feet. Do you agree?

If so, that solves that problem.

I think what through me off track is that the app Airmap (authorized participant of LAANC pilot) shows the whole 5 mile radius as being off limits. At least I'm interpreting their map that way. They super impose a grid over a google earth view, and the highlighted area extends five squares of the grid, which I then interpret to be the radius of NFZ

The next challenge is liability insurance. I know it can be obtained for $10/flight, or possibly through the AMA membership. I think I would prefer an semi-annual/annual policy over $10 per flight.

Do you fly with liability insurance? If so, what do you recommend?
It's not really an interpretation - it's clearly stated in 14 CFR Part 107. Anyway - yes - if you are under a shelf then you are in Class G and need no authorization to fly under Part 107. Liability insurance is not a requirement under law. But if you want it then you can either get an annual policy or a Verifly-type per-flight coverage. I went with an annual policy from Global Aerospace (~$800/yr) but since then the AMA annual policy has appeared that is both cheaper and covers all your aircraft, not just one aircraft, so I'll likely be switching to that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drone on

Drone on

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
844
Reaction score
455
So most of the airports and heliports in your vicinity have controlled airspace starting at the surface?
I reconciled Airmap mapping to that of an applicable VFR sectional. The two reconcile. Airmap is correct. Useless in this area for instant waiver authorization, but correct.
I live in northwest Arkansas (Walmart headquarters, Tyson Foods (poultry), JB Hunt (trucking). There is a business highway, and an intrastate highway that run parallel to each other separated by no more than 5 miles of space between them. Along that corridor, I have three class D airports with controlled airspace from the surface to roughly 4XXX' AGL. All three class D airports are in a row north to south. They cover 39 linear miles. Immediately to the west of these three is a class C airport with controlled airspace from the surface to 5300' AGL.
There are small gaps of class G airspace between each of the three class D airports, and the class C airport that otherwise effectively butts up against two of the three class D airport airspace.
Because the community has a nationally known retirement community (Bella Vista), there are a disproportionate number of heliports, for the competitive health care industry here...hospitals, and medical centers
Arkansas has a population of only three million plus people.
In northwest Arkansas, the majority of development is concentrated along the airport corridor I mentioned.
Therefore, without a waiver. I am in the boondocks.
Fortunately, there is a large by shoreline miles lake to the east of the corridor. It too is the boondocks, but at least it's not the otherwise endless forest and farmland of the Ozarks.
So, without a waiver, I'm either breaking the law, or I'm off to the boondocks. And that's ok because in the boondocks I am a lot less likely to have a potentially costly accident; therefore I can take a calculated risk, and skip the insurance.
Besides, I've seen enough commercial roof tops.
Even though Frank Lloyd Wright disciple Fay Jones called Northwest Arkansas home, the majority of the architecture here is commercial boxes.
Thanks for your help sorting this out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sar104

Drone on

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
844
Reaction score
455
I have been communicating with some one from the FAA. They are willing to answer questions on my live stream but only in email format not live. So if you have questions, please ask in this thread and see what we can get answers to.
If possible, ask the FAA representative what the FAA is doing to encourage airports to 'opt in' to LAANC. Is their approach passive, or active?

The FAA has incentive to have drone operators be granted instant authorization, that being less application through their overwhelmed offices, and the communities have incentive to promote licensed drone operators, safety and regulation for the community.
The dialogue should be to move the inevitable technology forward, and not to allow maverick obstinance. The latter seems like an oxymoron.
 

rcglider

Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2017
Messages
14
Reaction score
3
Age
57

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
70,694
Messages
818,690
Members
97,830
Latest member
lrdahlberg