FAA steps in to help drone pilots

[Dbez1]

This may be old news to some, but others may find it helpful...A local flood control lake (park) is operated by the army corps of engineers and I was told, upon checking in at the office, that “flying drones on federal property is illegal”. After checking all my apps, I could find zero no-fly-zone indications so I got in touch with the FAA-UAS in Washington DC to see what was going on. A very helpful gentleman researched the issue for me and even called the park office and explained to them that they could prevent takeoff and landing on park property but had no jurisdiction over the airspace above the park and lake. (Please be aware that there are some federal properties that are legitimate no-fly-zones). He even emailed me the specifics so I could print it out to keep in my flight bag “just in case”. The point of this thread is to let our pilots know that the FAA has a UAS division and that they are there to clarify the laws and help us out whenever possible. The guy went on to tell me that most of the people in the office are drone pilots themselves. I won’t be flying from park property (I’m not one to create conflict), but I can still get the photos of the lake I want legally. Thank you UAS!!!

 

[sar104]

I have found the FAA sUAS office to be very helpful with official requests. Good to know that they are equally helpful to recreational users.

 

[FlyingHevy]

Thanks for posting this, it's good to know there are folks in the UAS division that are interested and engaged.

We should all be aware, though, that the FAA's position on this is their position, but it isn't shared by everyone, and it hasn't been firmly established either in legislation or in the courts (or even clearly in the FAA's own regulations, for that matter). This means that where a state has a law or a regulation that says you can't fly over their parks, and the FAA says you can, flying over their parks may drag you in to one of the cases that are needed to take up these issues and get solid answers. If you're ready to be in the driver's seat of the lawsuit (see the posts about Lapeert20's lawsuit in Michigan, for example), then great, but if not, then you need to decide whether to risk getting caught up in the jurisdictional mess between states/local governments and the FAA/Congress on airspace, aircraft and drone flights.

Some of these challenges are ongoing (see the National Press Photographer's Association suit against Austin, Texas, for one example; the complaint itself is linked here in pdf), but getting them sorted out will take some time, and regardless of what anyone or any agency tells you, be aware that if you follow the FAA's line, you could get dragged into one of these lawsuits.

 

[sar104]

Thanks for posting this, it's good to know there are folks in the UAS division that are interested and engaged.

We should all be aware, though, that the FAA's position on this is their position, but it isn't shared by everyone, and it hasn't been firmly established either in legislation or in the courts (or even clearly in the FAA's own regulations, for that matter). This means that where a state has a law or a regulation that says you can't fly over their parks, and the FAA says you can, flying over their parks may drag you in to one of the cases that are needed to take up these issues and get solid answers. If you're ready to be in the driver's seat of the lawsuit (see the posts about Lapeert20's lawsuit in Michigan, for example), then great, but if not, then you need to decide whether to risk getting caught up in the jurisdictional mess between states/local governments and the FAA/Congress on airspace, aircraft and drone flights.

Some of these challenges are ongoing (see the National Press Photographer's Association suit against Austin, Texas, for one example; the complaint itself is linked here in pdf), but getting them sorted out will take some time, and regardless of what anyone or any agency tells you, be aware that if you follow the FAA's line, you could get dragged into one of these lawsuits.

Over zealous and inappropriate attempts to enforce airspace authority are always a possibility, but this is not an unsupported FAA position - it's federal law. Are you aware of any instances where local jurisdictions have successfully asserted airspace authority?

 

[Paulf10]

Great post. Really nice to read something positive about FAA and Drones! Thanks for posting this. It brightened my day!

 

[FlyingHevy]

Over zealous and inappropriate attempts to enforce airspace authority are always a possibility, but this is not an unsupported FAA position - it's federal law. Are you aware of any instances where local jurisdictions have successfully asserted airspace authority?

I'm not trying to get into the legal debate here -- I have been thoroughly engaged in the legal debate in my day job and am not overly excited to reproduce those in-person, highly technical discussions on the forum. I'm simply pointing out that those battles are likely to be fought, and the choices we make as pilots means that we personally could be dragged into making them.

 

[BigAl07]

..... If you're ready to be in the driver's seat of the lawsuit (see the posts about Lapeert20's lawsuit in Michigan, for example), then great, but if not, then you need to decide whether to risk getting caught up in the jurisdictional mess between states/local governments and the FAA/Congress on airspace, aircraft and drone flights......

That's a case unique to Michigan and the only reason they won is because Michigan specifically legislated that none in Michigan can make such rules etc. I would be hesitant to use that as Case Law anywhere but Michigan or any other state with identical legislation.

It's always good to be familiar with what the laws actually say/state but as stated above, unless you're willing to make the investment to fight it sometimes it's best to find an alternate way to "Get that shot".

 

[sar104]

That's a case unique to Michigan and the only reason they won is because Michigan specifically legislated that none in Michigan can make such rules etc. I would be hesitant to use that as Case Law anywhere but Michigan or any other state with identical legislation.

It's always good to be familiar with what the laws actually say/state but as stated above, unless you're willing to make the investment to fight it sometimes it's best to find an alternate way to "Get that shot".

But note that was a dispute over a law restricting takeoff and landing, which the park would have been able to enforce had state law not forbidden it. It was not about airspace.

 

[sar104]

I'm not trying to get into the legal debate here -- I have been thoroughly engaged in the legal debate in my day job and am not overly excited to reproduce those in-person, highly technical discussions on the forum. I'm simply pointing out that those battles are likely to be fought, and the choices we make as pilots means that we personally could be dragged into making them.

I don't disagree, except for your original comment that federal authority over airspace is just an FAA position/opinion.

 

[Dbez1]

Thank you all for your addition to this thread and especially for your words of caution. I, for one, don’t think it’s worth it to me to wake the sleeping dragon and will only fly from private property adjacent to the park and on a very limited basis. In this case, the UAS seemed to peacefully convince the park people of their limited authority. ?

 

[FlyingHevy]

I don't disagree, except for your original comment that federal authority over airspace is just an FAA position/opinion.

The FAA position to which I was referring was that states/local governments/individual landowners have no rights in the airspace above their properties (down to the "blades of grass"). That position is just an FAA position and, in relation to UAS, is almost entirely untested in the courts.

 

[sar104]

The FAA position to which I was referring was that states/local governments/individual landowners have no rights in the airspace above their properties (down to the "blades of grass"). That position is just an FAA position and, in relation to UAS, is almost entirely untested in the courts.

I wasn't aware that the FAA had ever taken such an absolute stance. The right to unimpeded use of ones property, which naturally includes some height above ground, has always been accepted by the FAA as far as I'm aware. It's the blanket assertion of authority in navigable airspace that they control.

 

[FlyingHevy]

I wasn't aware that the FAA had ever taken such an absolute stance. The right to unimpeded use of ones property, which naturally includes some height above ground, has always been accepted by the FAA as far as I'm aware. It's the blanket assertion of authority in navigable airspace that they control.

This was a fairly consistent FAA position (from the UAS Integration Office) when Jim Williams was at its head. It's reported here, for example (on page 3 of the PDF):

"Jim Williams,the recently retired Director of the FAA UAS Integration Office,has stated many times that the FAA considers the airspace one millimeter above your lawn to be the national airspace subject to federal government regulation."

Sometimes Williams would use "from the blades of grass up." The FAA apparently takes this as authority to both preclude flight in that space and also to authorize flight in that space. It's the latter that would cause issues with the kind of thing we're discussing here.

But in any event, the extent to which landowners -- including states and local governments -- retain any authority over the airspace above their properties is, I think, unsettled enough that any one of us that pushes the edge might be drawn into litigation. It's a fine thing if it's something that you want to do (and I mean that earnestly), but if you'd rather avoid it, you need to at least be aware of the possibility and make appropriate choices.

 

[Chip]

Thanks for posting this, it's good to know there are folks in the UAS division that are interested and engaged.

We should all be aware, though, that the FAA's position on this is their position, but it isn't shared by everyone, and it hasn't been firmly established either in legislation or in the courts (or even clearly in the FAA's own regulations, for that matter). This means that where a state has a law or a regulation that says you can't fly over their parks, and the FAA says you can, flying over their parks may drag you in to one of the cases that are needed to take up these issues and get solid answers. If you're ready to be in the driver's seat of the lawsuit (see the posts about Lapeert20's lawsuit in Michigan, for example), then great, but if not, then you need to decide whether to risk getting caught up in the jurisdictional mess between states/local governments and the FAA/Congress on airspace, aircraft and drone flights.

Some of these challenges are ongoing (see the National Press Photographer's Association suit against Austin, Texas, for one example; the complaint itself is linked here in pdf), but getting them sorted out will take some time, and regardless of what anyone or any agency tells you, be aware that if you follow the FAA's line, you could get dragged into one of these lawsuits.

Great find on the court challenge to Texas law. This argument that there is First Amendment right to gather news via drone is fascinating as is the particular attack on Texas law. I believe that several states use similar language to bar “surveillance” which is not specifically defined. From here on out I’m playing it safe and calling myself an aerial journalist just to preserve the argument for the record!

 

[crlmjohnson]

This may be old news to some, but others may find it helpful...A local flood control lake (park) is operated by the army corps of engineers and I was told, upon checking in at the office, that “flying drones on federal property is illegal”. After checking all my apps, I could find zero no-fly-zone indications so I got in touch with the FAA-UAS in Washington DC to see what was going on. A very helpful gentleman researched the issue for me and even called the park office and explained to them that they could prevent takeoff and landing on park property but had no jurisdiction over the airspace above the park and lake. (Please be aware that there are some federal properties that are legitimate no-fly-zones). He even emailed me the specifics so I could print it out to keep in my flight bag “just in case”. The point of this thread is to let our pilots know that the FAA has a UAS division and that they are there to clarify the laws and help us out whenever possible. The guy went on to tell me that most of the people in the office are drone pilots themselves. I won’t be flying from park property (I’m not one to create conflict), but I can still get the photos of the lake I want legally. Thank you UAS!!!

how did you get in touch with the FAA? Phone number? email?

 

[umanbean]

how did you get in touch with the FAA? Phone number? email?

Google:
FAA FSDO 'your state'... if you already know what district you're in you can substitute that for your state.

(FAA Flight Standards District Office)

I found the Atlanta FSDO to be very helpful.

 

[Pyelot]

As much as this IS federal law giving the FAA jurisdiction over all USA airspace one only has to look at New York City where the city claims final authority over its airspace and forbids any UAS flying. I would hope that this will be tested soon in court since it very much interferes with UAS use in film production as one example

 

[Dbez1]

how did you get in touch with the FAA? Phone number? email?

[email protected]
Telephone: 844-FLY-MY-UA

 

[W2EJ]

As much as this IS federal law giving the FAA jurisdiction over all USA airspace one only has to look at New York City where the city claims final authority over its airspace and forbids any UAS flying. I would hope that this will be tested soon in court since it very much interferes with UAS use in film production as one example

Great point, and I hope it does get to court and NYC loses big. In New York State everything is illegal, and in New York City it's even more illegal!

 

[Fiatlux]

This may be old news to some, but others may find it helpful...A local flood control lake (park) is operated by the army corps of engineers and I was told, upon checking in at the office, that “flying drones on federal property is illegal”. After checking all my apps, I could find zero no-fly-zone indications so I got in touch with the FAA-UAS in Washington DC to see what was going on. A very helpful gentleman researched the issue for me and even called the park office and explained to them that they could prevent takeoff and landing on park property but had no jurisdiction over the airspace above the park and lake. (Please be aware that there are some federal properties that are legitimate no-fly-zones). He even emailed me the specifics so I could print it out to keep in my flight bag “just in case”. The point of this thread is to let our pilots know that the FAA has a UAS division and that they are there to clarify the laws and help us out whenever possible. The guy went on to tell me that most of the people in the office are drone pilots themselves. I won’t be flying from park property (I’m not one to create conflict), but I can still get the photos of the lake I want legally. Thank you UAS!!!

Thank you. Dbez 1