Hobbyist Drone use killed?

[sar104]

Above 500 feet, sure. Are you saying that my house, which stands in the public airspace below 500 feet, and my trees, which are over 80 feet into this public airspace, only are allowed to exist by the generosity of the FAA?

I get the need for a reasonable public airspace easement. But there is no reasonable need for the FAA to control airspace below 200 feet over residential property.

As for local airports, they don't want to be bothered. I now have three in my five mile range and only one would even return my calls. They told me to inform via email and not call. When these folks shirk their duties now, they will be harming me and preventing my safe and lawful use of my property.

My assertion is that notify and respect reasonable requests not to fly is the right way to go. The new standard is unreasonable.

The general assumption has always been that you have rights to the space above your property as far as you occupy or use it. It's also assumed that the useable airspace above that is public and under the control of the FAA. It's certainly arguable that you have rights below the height of your trees, but there could be traffic above them - especially helicopters - LE or emergency services for example.

Your assertion that you are being harmed by a non-responsive airport is incorrect - the current requirement is that you notify them, not that you get a response. The future system will be based on airspace class and will not involve talking to airports at all.

 

[BigAl07]

Above 500 feet, sure. Are you saying that my house, which stands in the public airspace below 500 feet, and my trees, which are over 80 feet into this public airspace, only are allowed to exist by the generosity of the FAA?

I get the need for a reasonable public airspace easement. But there is no reasonable need for the FAA to control airspace below 200 feet over residential property.

As for local airports, they don't want to be bothered. I now have three in my five mile range and only one would even return my calls. They told me to inform via email and not call. When these folks shirk their duties now, they will be harming me and preventing my safe and lawful use of my property.

My assertion is that notify and respect reasonable requests not to fly is the right way to go. The new standard is unreasonable.

What happens if you lose connection to your sUAS? What's your RTH altitude? Is that below 80' AGL? What happens if you have a malfunction and the aircraft ascends higher than the trees?

If your aircraft can fly autonomously using GPS and Gyros, can fly higher than 100' , and further than 100' away you SHOULD be regulated as to where you fly. It's not just your actions that matter.... what if worse case happens? Are you willing to put life on the line for your hobby and ignore regulations?

For the record, once things are in place it will be MUCH easier to get flight authorizations right from your phone/tablet.

 

[sar104]

What happens if you lose connection to your sUAS? What's your RTH altitude? Is that below 80' AGL? What happens if you have a malfunction and the aircraft ascends higher than the trees?

If your aircraft can fly autonomously using GPS and Gyros, can fly higher than 100' , and further than 100' away you SHOULD be regulated as to where you fly. It's not just your actions that matter.... what if worse case happens? Are you willing to put life on the line for your hobby and ignore regulations?

For the record, once things are in place it will be MUCH easier to get flight authorizations right from your phone/tablet.

Those are good points. One of the conditions of FAA authorizations to fly in proximity to traffic is the ability to notify ATC if there is a problem, such as loss of control.

 

[Buckdashe]

Doesn’t it seem possible, given am the software updates and communication capability of the DJI app, that anyone flying a DJI drone will be automatically documenting their infringement on closed airspace, if it happens?

 

[BigAl07]

Doesn’t it seem possible, given am the software updates and communication capability of the DJI app, that anyone flying a DJI drone will be automatically documenting their infringement on closed airspace, if it happens?

If there was an incident and an investigation then yes very much so.

 

[08Evo]

The general assumption has always been that you have rights to the space above your property as far as you occupy or use it. It's also assumed that the useable airspace above that is public and under the control of the FAA. It's certainly arguable that you have rights below the height of your trees, but there could be traffic above them - especially helicopters - LE or emergency services for example.

Your assertion that you are being harmed by a non-responsive airport is incorrect - the current requirement is that you notify them, not that you get a response. The future system will be based on airspace class and will not involve talking to airports at all.

With this logic, no one should be able to fly ever. LE or any other emergency service could spring up at any given time.

 

[BigAl07]

With this logic, no one should be able to fly ever. LE or any other emergency service could spring up at any given time.

That's why we need COORDINATION and such. It's not saying no one should fly but we all need to be operating from the same page. To think otherwise.... NVM.....

 

[paulatkin73]

Airspace is PUBLIC property. If you drive on a highway directly in front of your property you follow all those rules etc correct?

is air inside of your house a public property too? it is more complex than just a statement.

anyway, i agree that regulation of the air traffic is needed. and licensing is needed. but, i categorically against blunt refusal and federalization of all air rights, and it is exactly what fed and FAA is aiming for.
and there is no duality of rights issue here - you are either on your private property, according to a previous supreme court ruling i posted a reference for and own it, and are free to do all you want in/on/inside of it, or you are not.
any 3rd party power action that imposes its 'rights' or a desire to control your activity on your private property is the invasion of privacy. and it also extends to the rules of trespassing and actions toward trespassers. and so on.

 

[BigAl07]

is air inside of your house a public property too? it is more complex than just a statement.

Now you're just being silly. The FAA has, and doesn't want, any authority over ANY inside air. The National Airspace System (NAS) is what the FAA is tasked with making safe.

 

[sar104]

With this logic, no one should be able to fly ever. LE or any other emergency service could spring up at any given time.

That's a silly argument. All activities carry risk, and the purpose of regulation and planning is to reasonably minimize risk, not eliminate it entirely.

 

[paulatkin73]

Now you're just being silly. The FAA has, and doesn't want, any authority over ANY inside air. The National Airspace System (NAS) is what the FAA is tasked with making safe.

what you do fail to understand is that from the legal perspective the air above your front lawn or a backyard - the land you own - and air inside of your room is the exact same entity. it is not a silliness, it is only logic and law.

 

[BigAl07]

what you do fail to understand is that from the legal perspective the air above your front lawn or a backyard - the land you own - and air inside of your room is the exact same entity. it is not a silliness, it is only logic and law.

Well then by all means take it to task and get it into a court room. Until it's tested it's all Guestimate. Until then we will have to agree to disagree.... period.

 

[paulatkin73]

also, as much as they want, FAA has no authority to declare what constitutes a private property and what does not. at least, not yet.

 

[paulatkin73]

Well then by all means take it to task and get it into a court room. Until it's tested it's all Guestimate. Until then we will have to agree to disagree.... period.

that was already done. and rulings were set. there is no need to do it again, but, it may happen, who knows.

 

[sar104]

what you do fail to understand is that from the legal perspective the air above your front lawn or a backyard - the land you own - and air inside of your room is the exact same entity. it is not a silliness, it is only logic and law.

Actually you are wrong on this. The FAA regulates the National Airspace System, which explicitly does not include the interior of buildings. No FAA regulations apply indoors.

Indoor sUAS flight

 

[paulatkin73]

Actually you are wrong on this. The FAA regulates the National Airspace System, which explicitly does not include the interior of buildings. No FAA regulations apply indoors.

Indoor sUAS flight

guys, you are wrong in the core topic here - there is no duality of the ownership over the public/private property. this is the core statement here.

your private property, according to the supreme court decision, extends up to XX ft from the ground up - see the previous post with references to legal cases, i am too bored to read it all over again.
and, when it is private - then no FAAs can make it public 'from the top grass up'. it is an utter non-sense.

but, i agree on that, it probably is waiting for a new grand case to go into supreme court to decide the fate of it, i guess, and it will happen as soon as amazon will start landing their stuff on your roof, braking into your windows and buzzing over your backyard at 15ft altitude delivering stuff to your neighbor. then it will get big, but, for now, it is all only an empty silly-talk.

anyway, need get back to work now, life will tell, anyway, how will all that end.

 

[sar104]

guys, you are wrong in the core topic here - there is no duality of the ownership over the public/private property. this is the core statement here.

your private property, according to the supreme court decision, extends up to XX ft from the ground up - see the previous post with references to legal cases, i am too bored to read it all over again.
and, when it is private - then no FAAs can make it public 'from the top grass up'. it is an utter non-sense.

but, i agree on that, it probably is waiting for a new grand case to go into supreme court to decide the fate of it, i guess, and it will happen as soon as amazon will start landing their stuff on your roof, braking into your windows and buzzing over your backyard at 15ft altitude delivering stuff to your neighbor. then it will get big, but, for now, it is all only an empty silly-talk.

anyway, need get back to work now, life will tell, anyway, how will all that end.

I've lost track of what you are trying to argue here. The fact that property is private does not mean that Federal Law ceases to apply. Is that what you are asserting?

 

[Rackminster]

As a brand new rookie that only got a drone last week, I had no idea any of this was coming. I don't actually know what to do with it. When I look at the AirMap app on my phone, I see a small airport near where I fly, but it has a diameter of about 3 miles (1.5 mile radius) of "Notify Control" airspace along with their phone number. This airport is probably 5 miles away from where I'd fly.

Assuming it's impossible for any single person to know every airport and every rule they each have, will apps like AirMap be all I really need to continue to fly safely as a recreational user? I mean - unlike some people, I don't mind making a single phone call or whipping off an email as needed - and will assume leaving a voice mail or hanging up on an unresponsive line is "good enough" unless notified by the app that I need to do something else.

Looking at the map difference between "Part 107" licensed and "Fly for Fun" on the app actually seems like motivation to get licensed. There's no warning at all for that airport if I'm Part 107. Notify areas around me all but disappear except for the larger airports.

 

[Jim Padgett]

1) Does anyone know what the new regulations will be? Or is everything total speculation at this point?

It will be draconian. I spent the last 40 years answering to the Federal Railroad Administration FRA. For the last eight years, we have been installing Positive Train Control PTC. It is a third layer added to the "Fail to Safe" trackside signal system. It overrides the operator in any event of non-compliance, including blowing the whistle. (The end game being driverless trains.) The single biggest barrier to getting PTC up and running has been the FCC and FAA government OVER regulation. Several years ago the FCC regulation regarding antenna towers over 60 feet high was quietly changed to 20 feet. Plus the FAA now co-monitors every FCC application for “aviation safety reasons”. I knew about the five mile rule because it applies in this arena as well. Most natural ground cover (trees) extends 35 feet or more into the air, so why 20 feet? Also the term ‘tower’ was replaced with a rambling description ‘any structural part of the contiguous system at the site of a transmitter'. There are trackside train signals every two or three miles. With PTC you now need a radio at every trackside signal so it can comm with the trains, the adjoining signals and central command. So a six inch antenna perched 8 feet above the ground on top of the control bungalow (an otherwise simple retro fit) now has to be individually licensed and approved (an unbelievably draconian process as you might guess) by both the FCC and the FAA at every single site. BECAUSE the trackside signal on its pole adjacent to the bungalow (which is wired to said bungalow) is itself about 28 feet tall thus bringing EVERY ONE of our transmitter sites under federal regulation of THREE agencies, -regardless of the fact that the antenna IS NOT mounted on the signal pole, it's on the bungalow, only 8 feet above the ground. That alone has literally added years of delay and millions of dollars to this project.

 

[BigAl07]

@Jim Padgett that's a pinch off topic there bud. Let's reel this one back in and keep it related to sUAS operations.