The Statue of Liberty with my Mavic

[JROK]

Kinda wondering whats the definition of VLOS... assuming you can still see a tiny little dot, but no longer able to see the orientation without actually flying forward and seeing where it goes... is it still in VLOS?

Advisory Circular 107.2, Chapter 5, Part 107 Subpart B, 5.7, VLOS Aircraft Operation

The remote PIC and person manipulating the controls must be able to see the small UA at all times during flight. Therefore, the small UA must be operated closely enough to the CS to ensure visibility requirements are met during small UA operations. This requirement also applies to the VO, if used during the aircraft operation. However, the person maintaining VLOS may have brief moments in which he or she is not looking directly at or cannot see the small UA, but still retains the capability to see the UA or quickly maneuver it back to VLOS. These moments can be for the safety of the operation (e.g., looking at the controller to see battery life remaining) or for operational necessity. For operational necessity, the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls may intentionally maneuver the UA so that he or she loses sight of it for brief periods of time. Should the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls lose VLOS of the small UA, he or she must regain VLOS as soon as practicable. For example, a remote PIC stationed on the ground utilizing a small UA to inspect a rooftop may lose sight of the aircraft for brief periods while inspecting the farthest point of the roof. As another example, a remote PIC conducting a search operation around a fire scene with a small UA may briefly lose sight of the aircraft while it is temporarily behind a dense column of smoke. However, it must be emphasized that even though the remote PIC may briefly lose sight of the small UA, he or she always has the see-and-avoid responsibilities set out in part 107, §§ 107.31 and 107.37. The circumstances of what would prevent a
remote PIC from fulfilling those responsibilities will vary, depending on factors such as the type of UAS, the operational environment, and distance between the remote PIC and the UA. For this reason, there is no specific time interval that interruption of VLOS is permissible, as it would have the effect of potentially allowing a hazardous interruption or prohibiting a reasonable one. If VLOS cannot be regained, the remote PIC or person manipulating the controls should follow pre-determined procedures for a loss of VLOS. These procedures are determined by the capabilities of the sUAS and may include immediately landing the UA, entering hover mode, or returning to home sequence. Thus, the VLOS requirement would not prohibit actions such as scanning the airspace or briefly looking down at the small UA CS.

 

[kodiak1120]

Unfortunately the flight was not legal. Why? All drone "Overhead Flights" are banned in the NPS (from the floor up). However, there is a procedure that will allow the flight. First, you must be a Part 107 / 333 operator to show compantency (to the NPS). Second, you must apply for a "Special Use Permit" - This is a time consuming process and you must state your purpose ( and least show your a commercial operator for profit); also the date and time of the scheduled flight. Before asking for the permit, check the sectional charts and TAC - you may need a waver from the FAA. In this case, Lady Liberty is 315 ft/msl and the shelf for the class b airspace over her has a 500ft floor to 7000ft ceiling so are your safe there. But, there are 17 non expiry TFR's for the entire bay. Most are for medivac operations. So unless you have an agreement with all of them, you will also need to call everyone of them prior to the flight and, unless your a 107 operator, they will say no and hang up. The work-around is to install a ADS-b on your Mavic for ~$2k so they will know you are there in an event of a type 2 incident (in route to medivac someone) and you must practice SAA this will keep you out of trouble with the FAA. Please do your research before flying. Us remote pilots need to be diligent or the restrictions will become more binding making our jobs more difficult to be safe and in compliance. I specialize in flying in the NPS regulated under the Dept. Of Interior and fly in Congressional Wilderness Areas. There is strict protocol to do so and the NPS and NFS fine is $1000 - And that's before having to answer to a Part 65 judge.

Sorry but you're wrong. What's your support for "all drone 'Overhead Flights' are banned"? You put it in quotes, but then you don't cite to anything. I cited the language from the NPS earlier in this thread and it's clear that the prohibition is on operating "from or on lands and waters administered by the National Park Service." The NPS has no authority over the airspace.

Do you have a link for the TFRs? I'm not aware of 17 TFRs. You can check this map by the FAA and see there are 0 TFRs for this area:

TFR Data Elements

 

[JROK]

Sorry but you're wrong. What's your support for "all drone 'Overhead Flights' are banned"? You put it in quotes, but then you don't cite to anything. I cited the language from the NPS earlier in this thread and it's clear that the prohibition is on operating "from or on lands and waters administered by the National Park Service." The NPS has no authority over the airspace.

Do you have a link for the TFRs? I'm not aware of 17 TFRs. You can check this map by the FAA and see there are 0 TFRs for this area:

TFR Data Elements

The quote given by kodiak1120, "from or on lands and waters administered by the National Park Service" was not referenced from the NPS Policy Memo, PM_14-05 which is still valid until the FAA develops the regulation (It's coming in Q3, 2017). His quote is missing vital wording contained in the memo: "Launching, landing, or operating unmanned aircraft may or may not be compatible within a park". "Operating" includes over-flight. You can read the Memorandum here: To:. What that means, and its within the language of the memo, is an operator (defines as a cert holder - not hobbyists) must apply for a Special Use Permit (SUP) and it is up to the administrator of the park in question to issue the SUP. The memo also states that "NPS cannot issue a permit for a unmanned aircraft activity unless the FAA has sanctioned the flight first. Thus, for the NPS to permit launching, landing, or operating commercial unmanned aircraft within a park, the operator must have FAA approval and provide that documentation in the form of a COA prior to issuance of an SUP". So with that little bit of info, no, an operator cannot fly in the NP system. Why? Because the FAA has not developed the regulation yet to allow the issuance of a COA over Special Conservation Areas (SCA's) for sUAV's and in this case, Lady Liberty resides in one. As specifically to 2.17(d) which adopts FAA regulations as part of the National Park Service's regulations, it states: "The use of aircraft shall be in accordance with regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration. Such regulations are adopted as a part of these regulations."

Now lets pretend that the regs mentioned so far does not exist or unknown to the operator or, we follow 2.17(d): So the Question now would be, what does the FAA say about SCA's? Well, just that it's "Recommended" to flight at >2000' but you must be equipped with a functioning two-way radio capable of communicating with controllers on the appropriate frequencies or UNICOM. The agency strongly recommends that pilots continuously monitor VHF frequency 121.5 or UHF frequency 243.0 for emergency instructions while flying in SCA's. Also the FAA strongly asks to call 866-225-7410 prior to the flight. I'd cite the NOTAM's but the links are broke

Anyways, The FAA TFR cited by kodiak1120 is for fast look-ups and is not for "Finalized Planing" so I thought to post a tutorial on the process to determine if a "Hobbyist" or "107/333" can fly over Lady Liberty. Also, from the FAA link provided by @kodiak1120:

"Pilots should not use the information on this website for flight planning purposes. For the latest information, call your local Flight Service Station at 1-800-WX-BRIEF"

The first bit of order is to look at your New York TAC chart: (Which I forgot to mention on my original posting :-|P ).

Note: DO NOT use Sectional Charts for reference to piloting your sUAV - They do not contain the vital information needed to determine if your intended POI is within compliance. Circling the statue is a good example to why. However not all areas have TAC's so then you would have no choice but to use a Sectional Chart but I would try to find if there is a Heli Chart first.

If Anyone needs info to what a "Thin Cyan-Line with Cyan-Dots" around the island means, It marks a "Special Conservation Area" (AKA: SCA):

For those who need to learn what the symbols mean (or a refresher) on Air Charts, it can be studied here: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/fli...aero_guide/media/Chart_Users_Guide_12thEd.pdf

Now lets look a little closer at our New York TAC. Notice the "Thick, Cyan-Line with Cyan-Boxes" surrounding our POI? It's called a "Special Flight Rules Area" (AKA: SFRA)

Now lets take a little better look since that our POI has a SFRA noted and has drawn our attention:

The SFRA note box calls out to see whats on the back of the TAC:

For those Rotor Pilots out there, a Heli chart ( I strongly recommend Drone Pilots look at these too because they contain more vital info pertaining to the airspace we fly in ):
Note: SFRA'a are bound by a Thin, Solid-Blue Line with Green boxes on Heli Charts.

Now armed with all the needed info to determine if flying your drone around and over The Statue of Liberty is legal or not, I ask the community to comment to their findings:

e.g. Is it legal or not, why? and if you think it is, what are the requirements needed to be compliant to do so? I'd really like to see where this goes and after a few posts/replies, I'll post what I would do.

After posting your answer take a look at this - No cheating now! LOL
And for those who question if the NPS has authority to its airspace, look here

 

[borislip]

Any chance a hobbyist, an average Joe, someone like me, can have a way of taking a look on one single chart, or app, or website, whatever... thats sums it all up and tells one if a flight is legal, and if not, what needs to be done to make it legal, in simple steps, using simple English words, as opposed to lawyers lingo in a bible size tome? With those simple steps actually being doable, as opposed to seemingly being intended to wear you out and make you say ********* and either not fly at all or just break the law?

 

[JROK]

Any chance a hobbyist, an average Joe, someone like me, can have a way of taking a look on one single chart, or app, or website, whatever... thats sums it all up and tells one if a flight is legal, and if not, what needs to be done to make it legal, in simple steps, using simple English words, as opposed to lawyers lingo in a bible size tome? With those simple steps actually being doable, as opposed to seemingly being intended to wear you out and make you say ********* and either not fly at all or just break the law?

I completely understand what your saying. I don't want hobbyist to become more restricted as it is and I hope everyone learns to participate by abiding the current regulation so there isn't more restrictions imposed on all of us. This is repeated history: It's the same path for drone pilots are now going thru as to novice pilots went thru in the early 1920's. I'ts a fun and addictive sport and past-time but there are idiots who don't give a rats a** and do what they want without caring about the consequences and those are the ones who make things harder for everyone. Keep an eye on the thread and DON"T get discouraged

 

[borislip]

TBH, i am already discouraged and no longer sure i should have bought the mavic in the first place. All i knew before is the official FAA stuff (don't fly above 400' AGL, VLOS, dont fly in NFZs, don't fly over people, notify any airports closer than 5 miles, yield to manned aircraft), which seemed perfectly logical and manageable... but... suddenly i am with my Mavic outside, getting ready for the first flight (in the backyard of the condo complex i live in, Edgewater, NJ)... the B4UFLY app repprts i am on the edge of the Teterboro airport 5miles radius as well as at least a dozen of heliports, providing NO information about contacting any. Looking around and seeing a pilot coming to/from Teterboro in my general direction, flying at 400' AGL over my head, would be a kamikaze pilot going into the nearby cliff and/or high-raisers on or near it, and knowing how far away i usually hear the helicopters here, i take off... this is the first time i fly the Mavic. And the very first time i fly it, i break the law :-(

 

[kodiak1120]

TBH, i am already discouraged and no longer sure i should have bought the mavic in the first place. All i knew before is the official FAA stuff (don't fly above 400' AGL, VLOS, dont fly in NFZs, don't fly over people, notify any airports closer than 5 miles, yield to manned aircraft), which seemed perfectly logical and manageable... but... suddenly i am with my Mavic outside, getting ready for the first flight (in the backyard of the condo complex i live in, Edgewater, NJ)... the B4UFLY app repprts i am on the edge of the Teterboro airport 5miles radius as well as at least a dozen of heliports, providing NO information about contacting any. Looking around and seeing a pilot coming to/from Teterboro in my general direction, flying at 400' AGL over my head, would be a kamikaze pilot going into the nearby cliff and/or high-raisers on or near it, and knowing how far away i usually hear the helicopters here, i take off... this is the first time i fly the Mavic. And the very first time i fly it, i break the law :-(

You already know the rules for hobbyists. What JROK is talking about is for Part 107 Pilots. The hobbyiest rules are much simpler. Just abide by them. It sucks that you live in a highly-populated area where you probably can't fly due to all of the heliports, but just don't fly there. Honestly, it would probably get pretty boring flying outside your place anyway. Take your Mavic other places to fly. Usually, the less populated areas are the most fun to fly and the most picturesque.

 

[JROK]

I doubt you would be breaking the law and here is why; If b4UFly shows your on the edge of being 5mi from an airport, most likely your farther away than that. B4UFly is still beta and its development is overseen by the FAA. I know that they are adding buffering/padding to the range (IK I'll get an ear full for saying that from some of my partners but it true) and it is not fair to the hobbyist! To get the true data you need, dump B4UFly and use Operators - AirMap.

Where I live, there is a large community park and two pre-teens are there regularly flying their Phantoms. I had seen them sending them strait up into the air hundreds of feet so one day I asked if they new about B4UFly and they did and commented that it shows they can't fly there because its within the 5mi airport limit but they didn't care because they would have no where to fly without someone driving them to where they can. Obviously this sucks for them so I told them about AirMap because I new the park was just within the 5mi limit on B4UFly but not on AirMap. This made them very happy and relieved. However, there is 2 non expirery TFR's so I explained that if they flew no higher than the trees, they won't get in trouble. They were OK with that.

So try the app and I bet you're good to go and what kodiac1120 is so totally true - go for a drive and have fun!

 

[kodiak1120]

The quote given by kodiak1120, "from or on lands and waters administered by the National Park Service" was not referenced from the NPS Policy Memo, PM_14-05 which is still valid until the FAA develops the regulation (It's coming in Q3, 2017). His quote is missing vital wording contained in the memo: "Launching, landing, or operating unmanned aircraft may or may not be compatible within a park". "Operating" includes over-flight. You can read the Memorandum here: To:. What that means, and its within the language of the memo, is an operator (defines as a cert holder - not hobbyists) must apply for a Special Use Permit (SUP) and it is up to the administrator of the park in question to issue the SUP. The memo also states that "NPS cannot issue a permit for a unmanned aircraft activity unless the FAA has sanctioned the flight first. Thus, for the NPS to permit launching, landing, or operating commercial unmanned aircraft within a park, the operator must have FAA approval and provide that documentation in the form of a COA prior to issuance of an SUP". So with that little bit of info, no, an operator cannot fly in the NP system. Why? Because the FAA has not developed the regulation yet to allow the issuance of a COA over Special Conservation Areas (SCA's) for sUAV's and in this case, Lady Liberty resides in one. As specifically to 2.17(d) which adopts FAA regulations as part of the National Park Service's regulations, it states: "The use of aircraft shall be in accordance with regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration. Such regulations are adopted as a part of these regulations."

Now lets pretend that the regs mentioned so far does not exist or unknown to the operator or, we follow 2.17(d): So the Question now would be, what does the FAA say about SCA's? Well, just that it's "Recommended" to flight at >2000' but you must be equipped with a functioning two-way radio capable of communicating with controllers on the appropriate frequencies or UNICOM. The agency strongly recommends that pilots continuously monitor VHF frequency 121.5 or UHF frequency 243.0 for emergency instructions while flying in SCA's. Also the FAA strongly asks to call 866-225-7410 prior to the flight. I'd cite the NOTAM's but the links are broke

Anyways, The FAA TFR cited by kodiak1120 is for fast look-ups and is not for "Finalized Planing" so I thought to post a tutorial on the process to determine if a "Hobbyist" or "107/333" can fly over Lady Liberty. Also, from the FAA link provided by @kodiak1120:

"Pilots should not use the information on this website for flight planning purposes. For the latest information, call your local Flight Service Station at 1-800-WX-BRIEF"

The first bit of order is to look at your New York TAC chart: (Which I forgot to mention on my original posting :-|P ).

Note: DO NOT use Sectional Charts for reference to piloting your sUAV - They do not contain the vital information needed to determine if your intended POI is within compliance. Circling the statue is a good example to why. However not all areas have TAC's so then you would have no choice but to use a Sectional Chart but I would try to find if there is a Heli Chart first.

If Anyone needs info to what a "Thin Cyan-Line with Cyan-Dots" around the island means, It marks a "Special Conservation Area" (AKA: SCA):

For those who need to learn what the symbols mean (or a refresher) on Air Charts, it can be studied here: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/fli...aero_guide/media/Chart_Users_Guide_12thEd.pdf

Now lets look a little closer at our New York TAC. Notice the "Thick, Cyan-Line with Cyan-Boxes" surrounding our POI? It's called a "Special Flight Rules Area" (AKA: SFRA)

Now lets take a little better look since that our POI has a SFRA noted and has drawn our attention:

The SFRA note box calls out to see whats on the back of the TAC:

For those Rotor Pilots out there, a Heli chart ( I strongly recommend Drone Pilots look at these too because they contain more vital info pertaining to the airspace we fly in ):
Note: SFRA'a are bound by a Thin, Solid-Blue Line with Green boxes on Heli Charts.

Now armed with all the needed info to determine if flying your drone around and over The Statue of Liberty is legal or not, I ask the community to comment to their findings:

e.g. Is it legal or not, why? and if you think it is, what are the requirements needed to be compliant to do so? I'd really like to see where this goes and after a few posts/replies, I'll post what I would do.

After posting your answer take a look at this - No cheating now! LOL
And for those who question if the NPS has authority to its airspace, look here

Sorry, but I completely disagree with almost your entire analysis. Where do I even start? The part of the NPS Policy Memo that I quoted is the actual language the NPS directs the various parks to insert in the park compendium. This language is what actually controls and it reads:

"Launching, landing, or operating an unmanned aircraft from or on lands and waters administered by the National Park Service within the boundaries of [insert name of park] is prohibited except as approved in writing by the superintendent."

This is the applicable provision that applies to all National Parks. This means you cannot launch, land or operate your UAV from or on the lands of the National Park.

The language you quoted, doesn't even expressly contradict this, but is taken from a totally different part of the Policy Memorandum that is discussing the process for applying for a Special Use Permit. This language is under the heading:

"Decision Process – Whether to Request Approval for an SUP"

The actual language reads:

"Launching, landing, or operating unmanned aircraft may or may not be compatible within a park."

This is just saying that operating may or may not be permitted and if it's not permitted, you should request a SUP. This is not banning or even addressing the issue of whether you can fly over a NP and it certainly does not stand for the proposition that "overhead flights" are banned.

The SFRA you reference is expressly limited to the Class B airspace, which I was not flying in. It's pretty basic aeronautical knowledge that Class G airspace is "uncontrolled" and therefore, it would be completely illogical to have an SFRA that applies in "uncontrolled" airspace. If I were flying in Class B airspace, then you would be correct.

You say that sectional charts should not be consulted by Part 107 Pilots??? Are you serious? That's what they test you on, so at least according to the FAA, you are wrong on that as well.

The bottom line is the rules are simple as they apply to UAVs. Stay in Class G airspace unless you have permission from ATC. Unless you show me how I wasn't in Class G airspace, my flight was perfectly legal and you are wrong. The Policy Memo only applies to flying from withing a NP. It does not prohibit flights over NPs.

 

[Sarge]

Thanks for the video. Nice work

 

[borislip]

Well, i may not be very knowledgeable, but i can Google, and i can read charts, even if some Google's help is required first. I've looked at the sectional chart later on. I am, indeed, on the very edge of Teterboro class D. I know abour airmap now, and it show that as well, giving no phone number either, so the only way to contact and tell them would be getting a VHF radio and talking on the ATC frequency (sounds like a BAD IDEA). I have yet to find out if one really needs to notify the heliports or not, Google have a major issue of split perosnality here. There is absolutely no way to find a place without a heliport/pod in 5miles radius, unelss its a national park, which are forbidden to fly in (which, by itself was a boomer).

 

[gregw]

Nice video.

I was just looking at the link to the NPS rules linked here. On that page, if you scroll down to the FAQ, #9, it says this:

9. Does it matter where an unmanned aircraft is used for the required closures to apply?

Yes. The NPS has the authority to regulate or prohibit the use of unmanned aircraft from or on lands and waters administered by the NPS. As a result, the compendium closures required by the Policy Memorandum only apply to launching, landing, or operating unmanned aircraft from or on lands and waters administered by the NPS within the boundaries of the park. The closures do not apply to launching, landing, or operating unmanned aircraft from or on non-federally (e.g., private or state) owned lands located within the exterior boundaries of the park. The closures do not apply to the flight of unmanned aircraft in the airspace above a park if the device is launched, landed, and operated from or on lands and waters that are not administered by the NPS.

I've highlighted the relevant section in red, which I think means that this flight is legal..

 

[kodiak1120]

Nice video.

I was just looking at the link to the NPS rules linked here. On that page, if you scroll down to the FAQ, #9, it says this:

9. Does it matter where an unmanned aircraft is used for the required closures to apply?

Yes. The NPS has the authority to regulate or prohibit the use of unmanned aircraft from or on lands and waters administered by the NPS. As a result, the compendium closures required by the Policy Memorandum only apply to launching, landing, or operating unmanned aircraft from or on lands and waters administered by the NPS within the boundaries of the park. The closures do not apply to launching, landing, or operating unmanned aircraft from or on non-federally (e.g., private or state) owned lands located within the exterior boundaries of the park. The closures do not apply to the flight of unmanned aircraft in the airspace above a park if the device is launched, landed, and operated from or on lands and waters that are not administered by the NPS.

I've highlighted the relevant section in red, which I think means that this flight is legal..

Thank you. I agree 110%.

 

[Stuart Wood]

Thank you. I agree 110%.

 

[Stuart Wood]

All the other techy stuff aside, that part appears to be very clear! Thank you.

 

[JROK]

I'm sorry to see you guys are taking the bait. I'll give a hint to the problem: The answer has nothing to do with the NPS Memo and yes, I have the authority to give the answer. Cheers.

 

[Brice LeCarre]

This a gorgeous video. First it is very unique, only one in the world in this city and second it is well shot.
Well done man!

 

[Brice LeCarre]

Thanks.. I noticed that too. My horizon was always rock solid, but somewhere along the line after one of the firmware updates, I started having isses.

The Mavic was in awe of Lady Liberty, hence the lean.

 

[Brice LeCarre]

Nice, but not worth the risk.

Yes it is! Speaking for myself only.
I always run a risk/reward analysis if the flight is "dicey" and the lure of getting the shot is always very strong. He planned his flight and set himself up for success and he got the shot.
Nothing wrong with your line of thinking. It is a personal thing.
While flying a drone is fun for some of us it is a mean to an end.

 

[Brice LeCarre]

Unfortunately the flight was not legal. Why? All drone "Overhead Flights" are banned in the NPS (from the floor up). However, there is a procedure that will allow the flight. First, you must be a Part 107 / 333 operator to show compantency (to the NPS). Second, you must apply for a "Special Use Permit" - This is a time consuming process and you must state your purpose ( and least show your a commercial operator for profit); also the date and time of the scheduled flight. Before asking for the permit, check the sectional charts and TAC - you may need a waver from the FAA. In this case, Lady Liberty is 315 ft/msl and the shelf for the class b airspace over her has a 500ft floor to 7000ft ceiling so are your safe there. But, there are 17 non expiry TFR's for the entire bay. Most are for medivac operations. So unless you have an agreement with all of them, you will also need to call everyone of them prior to the flight and, unless your a 107 operator, they will say no and hang up. The work-around is to install a ADS-b on your Mavic for ~$2k so they will know you are there in an event of a type 2 incident (in route to medivac someone) and you must practice SAA this will keep you out of trouble with the FAA. Please do your research before flying. Us remote pilots need to be diligent or the restrictions will become more binding making our jobs more difficult to be safe and in compliance. I specialize in flying in the NPS regulated under the Dept. Of Interior and fly in Congressional Wilderness Areas. There is strict protocol to do so and the NPS and NFS fine is $1000 - And that's before having to answer to a Part 65 judge.

I think it is as complex and screwed up as it is ever gonna get. There is a time where the regulation is well just too much. He flew a perfect flight got great shots and did not endanger anyone. The risk was his to loose a drone and $1400. The list of regulatory agency you mentioned having a say is absolutely asinine. It does not make it safer by a long stretch. I am not saying we don't need regulation, we need sensible regulation that respect the freedom of a competent drone pilot to enjoy a public landmark.