New FAA No-Fly Zones

[tcope]

Not that it mattes much to me but I don't see the "safety" issue.


https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=88811&omniRss=news_updatesAoc&cid=101_N_U

At the request of U.S. national security and law enforcement agencies, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is using its existing authority under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) § 99.7 – “Special Security Instructions” – to address concerns about unauthorized drone operations over 10 Department of the Interior (DOI) sites, including the Statue of Liberty and Mount Rushmore.

The FAA and DOI have agreed to restrict drone flights up to 400 feet within the lateral boundaries of these sites:

• Statue of Liberty National Monument, New York, NY
• Boston National Historical Park (U.S.S. Constitution), Boston, MA
• Independence National Historical Park, Philadelphia, PA
• Folsom Dam; Folsom, CA
• Glen Canyon Dam; Lake Powell, AZ
• Grand Coulee Dam; Grand Coulee, WA
• Hoover Dam; Boulder City, NV
• Jefferson National Expansion Memorial; St. Louis, MO
• Mount Rushmore National Memorial; Keystone, SD
• Shasta Dam; Shasta Lake, CA

 

[danman999]

The safety issue is an operator losing control of their drone and sending it tumbling down towards throngs of tourists. It is also an issue of people being able to enjoy these national treasures without dozens of drones buzzing around, ruining it for everybody.
To make everybody happy once a month or so they should open early or close late to allow drone operators their fun. Publish it ahead of time so foreign tourists and other travelers can take advantage of it as well. Example, third Thursday of every month 8:00AM-9:00 AM or 5:00 PM-6:00 PM.

 

[tcope]

The safety issue is an operator losing control of their drone and sending it tumbling down towards throngs of tourists.

As opposed to the hundreds of thousands of other locations with larger groups of people? Let's take Hoover Dam as an example. The largest group of people in one area is probably going to be 10-15 people. Compare that to a local even in park.

It is also an issue of people being able to enjoy these national treasures without dozens of drones buzzing around, ruining it for everybody.

It's not. I don't disagree with not allowing drones so that people can enjoy the area. That is not under the FAA's jurisdiction and the park is welcome to not allow take off and landing in the park. This is the FAA using it's authority as a _safety_ issue.

Edit: Keep in mind... this is the FAA. They are not above lying and taking illegal action when it comes to drones.

 

[sar104]

As opposed to the hundreds of thousands of other locations with larger groups of people? Let's take Hoover Dam as an example. The largest group of people in one area is probably going to be 10-15 people. Compare that to a local even in park.

It's not. I don't disagree with not allowing drones so that people can enjoy the area. That is not under the FAA's jurisdiction and the park is welcome to not allow take off and landing in the park. This is the FAA using it's authority as a _safety_ issue.

The FAA information release quite clearly states that it is a security issue, not a safety issue.

 

[tcope]

The FAA information release quite clearly states that it is a security issue, not a safety issue.

Sorry.. meant to say, _security_ (though, I suspect they are really one in the same)

A security concern of a drone at the Hoover Dam? A security issue of a drone at Mount Rushmore? A security issue of a drone at the Grand Canyon?

I can't say I'm 100% against this action but I certainly question if there is really a need. I wonder if it's really more like a "feel good" thing for the public. Also, I'm betting they won't vet anyone in anyway to allow a flight. Certainly that would address any real "security" concerns.

 

[sar104]

Sorry.. meant to say, _security_ (though, I suspect they are really one in the same)

A security concern of a drone at the Hoover Dam? A security issue of a drone at Mount Rushmore? A security issue of a drone at the Grand Canyon?

I can't say I'm 100% against this action but I certainly question if there is really a need. I wonder if it's really more like a "feel good" thing for the public. Also, I'm betting they won't vet anyone in anyway to allow a flight. Certainly that would address any real "security" concerns.

As you pointed out previously these do not seem like especially vulnerable targets themselves. Possibly their symbolic value might make them attractive as targets, but the operational range of almost any of the modern DJI drones makes the prohibition of limited value against anyone actually attempting an attack. More likely, I would guess, is that LE doesn't want the visitors at those sites being alarmed by tourist drones, since they all look like locations that would probably be very popular places to fly.

 

[danman999]

As opposed to the hundreds of thousands of other locations with larger groups of people? Let's take Hoover Dam as an example. The largest group of people in one area is probably going to be 10-15 people. Compare that to a local even in park.

It's not. I don't disagree with not allowing drones so that people can enjoy the area. That is not under the FAA's jurisdiction and the park is welcome to not allow take off and landing in the park. This is the FAA using it's authority as a _safety_ issue.

Edit: Keep in mind... this is the FAA. They are not above lying and taking illegal action when it comes to drones.

I am licensed by the FAA as both an airplane pilot and instructor. I also flew in the military as aircrew. As far as competency, they are one of the few government agencies that is relatively functional. The examiners, inspectors and controllers are usually top-notch people. However, they are aviators not toy operators.

Drone Derangement Syndrome (DDS) - The psychological disorder of believing you know better and more than anybody else due to the aquisition and operation of a toy aircraft.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

I am licensed by the FAA as both an airplane pilot and instructor. I also flew in the military as aircrew. As far as competency, they are one of the few government agencies that is relatively functional. The examiners, inspectors and controllers are usually top-notch people. However, they are aviators not toy operators.

Drone Derangement Syndrome (DDS) - The psychological disorder of believing you know better and more than anybody else due to the aquisition and operation of a toy aircraft.

Yeah, I was wondering how long it would take Mr. Danman to insult us lousy toy jockeys. Not long lol!

 

[tcope]

As you pointed out previously these do not seem like especially vulnerable targets themselves. Possibly their symbolic value might make them attractive as targets, but the operational range of almost any of the modern DJI drones makes the prohibition of limited value against anyone actually attempting an attack. More likely, I would guess, is that LE doesn't want the visitors at those sites being alarmed by tourist drones, since they all look like locations that would probably be very popular places to fly.

I really agree with all of that, pretty much word for word. But then this still leads to the FAA's actually ability to create a No Fly zone. Again, the FAA is not above stepping beyond their means in order to create regulations against drones. The bigger issue is... where would it stop. You could pretty much apply this to every place there are structures and buildings. At least to the same extent people _think_ those places serve a purpose as being a target.

Look how successful the registration was. Never used to connect a drone to a flier.

I can better see this perhaps being done to prevent something with future tech from creating issues.

But think about it.... with this No Fly zone... what are the park rangers going to do. Right now there is no information to show that they have the means to stop a drone in a NFZ. To my knowledge only the military has the right to shoot a drone (which agree with).

 

[sar104]

I really agree with all of that, pretty much word for word. But then this still leads to the FAA's actually ability to create a No Fly zone. Again, the FAA is not above stepping beyond their means in order to create regulations against drones. The bigger issue is... where would it stop. You could pretty much apply this to every place there are structures and buildings. At least to the same extent people _think_ those places serve a purpose as being a target.

Look how successful the registration was. Never used to connect a drone to a flier.

I can better see this perhaps being done to prevent something with future tech from creating issues.

But think about it.... with this No Fly zone... what are the park rangers going to do. Right now there is no information to show that they have the means to stop a drone in a NFZ. To my knowledge only the military has the right to shoot a drone (which agree with).

If the intent is to greatly reduce the number of drones flying at those locations then this will probably work, because most people will obey the rules. How it might be enforced if someone does fly there is an interesting question, perhaps, but not necessarily an important one. There are plenty of laws that can be broken with only a limited likelihood of getting caught.

 

[tcope]

I am licensed by the FAA as both an airplane pilot and instructor. I also flew in the military as aircrew. As far as competency, they are one of the few government agencies that is relatively functional. The examiners, inspectors and controllers are usually top-notch people. However, they are aviators not toy operators.

Can't see how any of that applies here. If anything, it simply means that the FAA is not qualified to be regulating drones. I don't disagree with that.

Drone Derangement Syndrome (DDS) - The psychological disorder of believing you know better and more than anybody else due to the aquisition and operation of a toy aircraft.

More then anyone else about reg and drones? I'd put myself up against most FAA agents on that challenge. They set up an illegal registration. They told the public that the problem was not getting the drone, it was matching it to the owner. They told people there was a regulation that stated hobby fliers could not fly over 400'. They lied to the news and said there were xxxx close calls with drones. They put out propaganda showing tens of drones flying around airplanes. It took them 2 years to come out with an app (no web support initially) with a map of airports for drone fliers.

Even your post here seems to agree that that they know manned aircraft, not drones.

I have no doubt that their staff is well versed in how to manage manned aircraft. We are talking how they handle drone use.

 

[Dw911]

Yeah, I was wondering how long it would take Mr. Danman to insult us lousy toy jockeys. Not long lol!

I dont think he was insulting anyone, likely just pointing out that whilst they are clever in their field, they have no clue when it comes to unmanned aerial vehicles and as such they should leave all decisions regarding there use and implementation to people who do know what they are talking about

 

[Robert Mitchell]

I dont think he was insulting anyone, likely just pointing out that whilst they are clever in their field, they have no clue when it comes to unmanned aerial vehicles and as such they should leave all decisions regarding there use and implementation to people who do know what they are talking about

Read the last line again.

In the past he has repeatedly referred to drone "pilots" as delusional and part 107 as not a "real" pilots license and needing to be abolished.

I'm pretty sure he will back me up on this.

 

[Dw911]

Read the last line again.

In the past he has repeatedly referred to drone "pilots" as delusional and part 107 as not a "real" pilots license and needing to be abolished.

I'm pretty sure he will back me up on this.

Yes i got what he was digging at.
Guess i should have used some more smiley faces in my reply

 

[TrayBoz]

Let's play a drinking game: Every time DanMan mentions that he is a real pilot, or insults drone "pilots", we have to take a drink. I would already be down a case of vodka.

 

[Mr. Salty]

Let's play a drinking game: Every time DanMan mentions that he is a real pilot, or insults drone "pilots", we have to take a drink. I would already be down a case of vodka.

Yep, it’s just not a DanMan post until he tells us he’s a licensed pilot, calls drones “toys” and insults everyone who flies them. He could practically copy and paste his posts at this point. Makes me wonder why he bothers being a member here.

 

[Kestrel]

Yep, it’s just not a DanMan post until he tells us he’s a licensed pilot, calls drones “toys” and insults everyone who flies them. He could practically copy and paste his posts at this point. Makes me wonder why he bothers being a member here.

He's a troll, that's all, there are a lot of airplane pilots here that don't act like him. He's just doing it because he knows he'll get a reaction. Just like every other keyboard commando.

 

[Big Fil]

The list of sites is rather odd. From a national security standpoint you could make a good argument for the major hydroelectric dams being NFZs. Sure you won't hurt the dam itself with any drone but a drone could easily fly into any of the exposed transformers or distribution points and possibly take out power to a large area. But then why not all hydroelectric dams in the US?

 

[QuadKid]

Yep, it’s just not a DanMan post until he tells us he’s a licensed pilot, calls drones “toys” and insults everyone who flies them. He could practically copy and paste his posts at this point. Makes me wonder why he bothers being a member here.

Yup I would like to see Danman perform an aerial photo/video inspection of exterior surfaces of a 18 story high rise complex when buildings are within 50' of each other with his manned AC, we all have to "Pilot" our drones. Even a 5mph wind getting between building like this will create 30mph vortices requiring a skill set worthy of the "Pilot" terminology! Paying $1,000 - $12,000 for a "toy" really! Drones have many more uses than recreational flying.

 

[Ron_Dog]

Drone Derangement Syndrome (DDS) ! I love it! And I have a current Drivers License! Hey! Just incase I forgot to mention it,I've got a current Driver's License! LOL! I can't stand those stupid,RC car/truck operators! Opps! TOY CAR/TRUCK OPERATORS!