Is it legal to fly around a Nuclear Power Plant

[Cafguy]

Saying what, exactly? Enjoy your legal flight over the site? If you do it again we'll send you another letter threatening no consequences for lawful activity?

I understand the NOTAM, but if the airspace has not been restricted (which would be indicated on sectionals), this amounts to gubmint harassment. Don't fly over Joe's house... he doesn't like it.

That said, i do think airspace over and around nuke plants should be restricted. Perhaps a radius 1000ft beyond the site perimeter.

The first time you bust an FAA reg by mistake and if it gets reported by someone, The FAA will send you a very scary sounding letter telling you of the offense and that you need to be more careful etc...This was your one warning letter! The next letter will state that you have made your third strike and will include a fine that you must pay. I for one would not want to waste my one warning letter by flying next to a place that could be restricted. Best to save it for a true mistake. By the way if the FAA thinks that what you did was intentional or you caused damage to persons or property you will get an appointment date with your first letter.

 

[MS Coast]

The first time you bust an FAA reg by mistake and if it gets reported by someone, The FAA will send you a very scary sounding letter telling you of the offense and that you need to be more careful etc...This was your one warning letter! The next letter will state that you have made your third strike and will include a fine that you must pay. I for one would not want to waste my one warning letter by flying next to a place that could be restricted. Best to save it for a true mistake. By the way if the FAA thinks that what you did was intentional or you caused damage to persons or property you will get an appointment date with your first letter.

Is there a policy statement defining that? Anything official? Or is it a casual observation?

 

[Cafguy]

Or is it a casual observation?

this and our RC club has had attorneys and faa people speak at our safety meetings this is my take on everything they have told us. plus now with RID they know pretty quickly if you are a past violator.
I have never received a letter from the FAA for violations so there's that.

 

[dccraven]

Having worked at a nuclear plant for 27 years, I can tell you that they take their security very, very seriously. We've investigated kites flying over our 500-kv & 161-kv switchyards, so I know that a drone flying over the plant would attract attention that you wouldn't want to get.

 

[Droning on and on...]

The first time you bust an FAA reg by mistake and if it gets reported by someone, The FAA will send you a very scary sounding letter telling you of the offense and that you need to be more careful etc...This was your one warning letter!

I know all this, @Cafguy! That's only meaningful if you "bust an FAA reg". As linked by Al in post #11, it is not illegal, and my question was predicated on that.

So the question stands. If you are legal to fly somewhere, just exactly what is the FAA or any authority going to discuss with you?

Harassing you simply because they don't like it is illegal in and of itself.

As I said, I think it should be illegal. That doesn't give the fed the license to intimidate you.

 

[Droning on and on...]

this and our RC club has had attorneys and faa people speak at our safety meetings this is my take on everything they have told us. plus now with RID they know pretty quickly if you are a past violator.
I have never received a letter from the FAA for violations so there's that.

The key here is "violator". From what's been posted in this thread, it appears (confoundingly) that it is no violation to fly around a nuclear power vacility.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Having worked at a nuclear plant for 27 years, I can tell you that they take their security very, very seriously. We've investigated kites flying over our 500-kv & 161-kv switchyards, so I know that a drone flying over the plant would attract attention that you wouldn't want facility.

No, harassing and intimidating private citizens engaging in legal activities is illegal by either private or public authorities, and can attract unwanted legal and PR attention for them.

Nuclear facilities should, for the purposes airspace management, be treated like prisons. NFZ. in my view, even more sensitively than that: An NFZ that extends 1 mile out around the perimeter.

But that's not the way it is today, and no one has any business messing with a private citizen simply legally enjoying her hobby.

Unfortunately, this also protects the Iranian spy planning a catastrophic failure of the facility, which is why it should be illegal.

 

[dccraven]

From the FAA webpage:
Drones are prohibited from flying over designated national security sensitive facilities. Operations are prohibited from the ground up to 400 feet above ground level, and apply to all types and purposes of UAS flight operations. Examples of these locations are:

Military bases designated as Department of Defense facilities
National landmarks, such as Statue of Liberty, Hoover Dam, Mt. Rushmore
Certain critical infrastructure, such as nuclear power plants

Emphasis mine

 

[BigAl07]

From the FAA webpage:
Drones are prohibited from flying over designated national security sensitive facilities. Operations are prohibited from the ground up to 400 feet above ground level, and apply to all types and purposes of UAS flight operations. Examples of these locations are:

Military bases designated as Department of Defense facilities
National landmarks, such as Statue of Liberty, Hoover Dam, Mt. Rushmore
Certain critical infrastructure, such as nuclear power plants

Emphasis mine

The problem is that unless I missed it, that NPP is NOT identified as a National Security Sensitive Facility (even though it SHOULD be as noted above).

Here's the current map and the area noted is clearly Not Restricted for some strange reason.

 

[dccraven]

I don't disagree with you. The nuclear plant where I worked is not either, but I would not dare take my drone and do an overflight.

 

[WShade]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

It appears that in Canada this pilot ran into a geofence at the 7:30 mark.

 

[tstr14]

I don't disagree with you. The nuclear plant where I worked is not either, but I would not dare take my drone and do an overflight.

If someone here is going to try, I hope they tell us in advance. I'd like to set up some chairs and bring some popcorn.

 

[mavic3usa]

If someone here is going to try, I hope they tell us in advance. I'd like to set up some chairs and bring some popcorn.

I wouldn't fly there myself but the problem is what happens when a huge water filtration plant or a chemical processing plant that someone believes rises to the level of importance. In Texas, literally everything is critical infrastructure and I believe there is a drone law for it. I get what Texas is trying to say but how will a drone flyer know for sure if there is no valid FAA restriction?

GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 423. USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT

 

[mavic3usa]

Started another thread because slightly off topic but this is probably similar to what may happen to you if you fly around a nuclear power plant.

Drone pilot detained and questioned (Canada)

What went wrong here....on both sides; comments? (Not me or my video)

mavicpilots.com

 

[Droning on and on...]

I don't disagree with you. The nuclear plant where I worked is not either, but I would not dare take my drone and do an overflight.

Again to be clear, I'm not in spirit disagreeing with the principle here.

But there's another principle that I, and I always hope all other Americans hold dear: The spirit of the 4th amendment.

No one should be "talked to" by government officials if they are simply enjoying themselves as they are free to do. No matter how gentle and friendly, anyone like this that shows up for a "conversation" is intimidating, and it's wrong.

There are behaviors and activities that I disagree with that are entirely legal. Not only would it be ethically wrong for me to knock on people's doors to have a "conversation" with them about it, it can quickly rise to a criminal level. Harassment and stalking are illegal, as they should be.

I hope those that agree with me that nuke plant overflights should be illegal also agree that harassing and intimidating people doing so legally is also wrong.

 

[Droning on and on...]

If someone here is going to try, I hope they tell us in advance. I'd like to set up some chairs and bring some popcorn.

Well, if it's one of those "auditors" that fly over police stations and such deliberately and only for the purpose of provoking the authorities, I'll be sitting right next to you. Hypocritically violating every principle I've been carping about here.

There are exceptions

 

[Droning on and on...]

The problem is that unless I missed it, that NPP is NOT identified as a National Security Sensitive Facility (even though it SHOULD be as noted above).

Disclaimer: I have lazily not looked deeper at that particular facility, so I have no idea if the following comments apply in this case, but if it's a power plant, not likely.

That said, it isn't necessarily the case that all nuclear facilities present a security risk. There are small research reactors, like the one operated by GE in Livermore, CA, that are not on the power grid, are too small to present any meaningful radiation issue to the surrounding area if compromised, and are off-line a lot.

Deeper analysis certainly could yield a potential risk, but at first glance there doesn't seem any more risk flying around one of these than a housing development.