Where does the sky become FAA?

[dmcgrew]

Airspace starts 1mm above the ground. My guess is the event is a temp restricted airspace (NFZ?).

Yep.. any NASCAR race is considered a no fly zone. Same with most other top professional motorsports such as IndyCar and F1.

7/4319 NOTAM Details

 

[Bigbird48]

Thats interesting dastardly cardassians

 

[Bigbird48]

Yep.. any NASCAR race is considered a no fly zone. Same with most other top professional motorsports such as IndyCar and F1.

7/4319 NOTAM Details

That was never in question

 

[Meta4]

NHMS told me they owned the airspace over the track and they had a NFZ in place 365 days a year.

Even if some of their people think that, it's not true.
There may be a NFZ declared but no-one "owns" airspace.

 

[Bryce steiner]

whe

Yep.. any NASCAR race is considered a no fly zone. Same with most other top professional motorsports such as IndyCar and F1.

7/4319 NOTAM Details

How far does the NFZ extend around the area when it's entertainment? Are we talking 5 miles, 30 miles (secret service)? what?

 

[dmcgrew]

whe

How far does the NFZ extend around the area when it's entertainment? Are we talking 5 miles, 30 miles (secret service)? what?

The NOTAM says 3 nautical miles.

 

[Watash48]

I don't think this has even been hammered out yet in the courts, but where does the sky come under the jurisdiction of the FAA?

I asked because there is an interesting story over here:
NASCAR teams up with DroneShield to bring down unwanted drones at racing events

Basically NASCAR has contracted DroneShield to take down any drones around the area of a race.

Details are scant but if I can take pictures from public property that overlooks a NASCAR area does the FAA give them free rein to take it down? Or what if a drone is flying at 400' over the area by a FAA 107 licensed pilot. Is that height still NASCAR's that they can demand this? Does the FAA even have say anymore to these corporations?

The FAA owns the sky

 

[tcope]

That was never in question

Sure it was. The OP asked how DroneShield had the authority to take drones out of the sky around NASCAR event. The answer is, because it is a NFZ. If I own property and don't want people trespassing on it, I'm allowed to keep them put with a fence.

 

[Paulwhite626]

Airspace starts 1mm above the ground. My guess is the event is a temp restricted airspace (NFZ?).

TFR..Temporary Flight Restriction

 

[Soledamcer]

Crikey! You guys in The States seem to have more bullies on your back than we do in The previously United Kingdom.

 

[Bigbird48]

Sure it was. The OP asked how DroneShield had the authority to take drones out of the sky around NASCAR event. The answer is, because it is a NFZ. If I own property and don't want people trespassing on it, I'm allowed to keep them put with a fence.

but not in the sky NHMS has no authority to tell anyone they can't fly over the speedway. The FAA will put out a TFR on race weekends.
You have no authority to tell anyone they can't fly over your property

 

[Maviac]

Sure it was. The OP asked how DroneShield had the authority to take drones out of the sky around NASCAR event. The answer is, because it is a NFZ. If I own property and don't want people trespassing on it, I'm allowed to keep them put with a fence.

An NFZ/TFR is not a property right. It is a federal power to protect the public and has nothing whatsoever to do with ownership of the underlying property owner's right to use of the airspace unless the FAA specifically gives them some right.

To the specific question of where your property rights end, it's frankly an unclear question. "Curtilage" is the legal term for the area of your property you control and have a right to. If someone wants to come hover a drone 3 feet off the ground on the porch by my front door, I can certainly object because that's clearly within my control. But where does it end? 10 feet up? 50? 100? 400? If I decide to build a transmitter 400 feet up (assuming I have proper authority to do so, which is a whole other subject) then that's my property too. And then there's the issue of federal vs. state sovereignty: if someone keeps hovering a drone 400 feet above my house, can I do anything about it? State law probably says yes, the FAA says the airspace is theirs. Do the laws conflict? There are lawyers who own jets paid for from the fees they make figuring out preemption issues like this, because it's exceptionally complicated and unclear.

To reiterate, it's very, very, unclear. Thus far, aside from isolated cases involving low flying airplanes near airports, it hasn't really come up very often (then you get into issues of easements, which adds a further wrinkle to the legal question).

 

[Milo187]

Large professional sports events usually have TFRs so that would be restricted airspace at any altitude.

 

[BigAl07]

An NFZ/TFR is not a property right. It is a federal power to protect the public and has nothing whatsoever to do with ownership of the underlying property owner's right to use of the airspace unless the FAA specifically gives them some right.

There are "Exceptions" to this statement or at least more inclusions.

When an "entity" requests for a TFR (Nascar, Forest Service, etc) part of the process of defining the TFR includes assigning a "Responsible Party" for the TFR. This responsible party is the agency requesting the TFR and they can and DO give allowances to fly within their TFR. For instance last summer we were hired to shoot some aerials at an Air Show. This Air Show was under a 5nm (I believe) TFR. We were hired by the media group hired by the airshow and you wouldn't believe the red-tape and hurdles it took to get approval but we DID get the approval. We were granted flight access by the Airshow and not the FAA.

Same goes for a flight in a TFR requested by the National Forest Service. They are the ones who "can" authorize flights within their TFR. We've done that for a forest fine in the Pisgah National Forest last year and the NFR is who gave permission and defined how/when/where we could fly.

Allen

 

[lakeflyer]

This is all old school stuff anyways, the next generation of drones do not have to use outside radio signals for navigation, they can already do dead recogning based on computer vision of terrain and are independent of any outside commands... scarry stuff - if you are a Treky, recall the Dreadnought episode?

Skynet !!!

 

[jacquespa]

Shields up Mr Worf

Jamming Prohibition

The use of "cell jammers" or similar devices designed to intentionally block, jam, or interfere with authorized radio communications (signal blockers, GPS jammers, or text stoppers, etc.) is a violation of federal law. Also, it is unlawful to advertise, sell, distribute, or otherwise market these devices to consumers in the United States. These devices pose serious risks to critical public safety communications, and can prevent you and others from making 9-1-1 and other emergency calls. Jammers can also interfere with law enforcement communications. Operation of a jammer in the United States may subject you to substantial monetary penalties, seizure of the unlawful equipment, and criminal sanctions including imprisonment.

Unless you are with the Secret Service

 

[Maviac]

There are "Exceptions" to this statement or at least more inclusions.

When an "entity" requests for a TFR (Nascar, Forest Service, etc) part of the process of defining the TFR includes assigning a "Responsible Party" for the TFR. This responsible party is the agency requesting the TFR and they can and DO give allowances to fly within their TFR. For instance last summer we were hired to shoot some aerials at an Air Show. This Air Show was under a 5nm (I believe) TFR. We were hired by the media group hired by the airshow and you wouldn't believe the red-tape and hurdles it took to get approval but we DID get the approval. We were granted flight access by the Airshow and not the FAA.

Same goes for a flight in a TFR requested by the National Forest Service. They are the ones who "can" authorize flights within their TFR. We've done that for a forest fine in the Pisgah National Forest last year and the NFR is who gave permission and defined how/when/where we could fly.

Allen

Nothing you said is inconsistent with what I said. A TFR has nothing to do with airspace ownership, which is a far more complex and undecided issue.

For what it’s worth, I (a lawyer) have no problem flying over other people’s property at a reasonable height (minimum 200 ft. usually, but I could probably go lower, at least if I’m just traversing). But there are some legal issues we’re going to have to deal with eventually. And every state has different laws, which may apply until a court says the FAA’s claims are wrong, in which case the Supreme Court will have to decide.

 

[BigAl07]

Nothing you said is inconsistent with what I said. A TFR has nothing to do with airspace ownership.

I merely added some Real-World experience to your statement (which I again quoted below).

has nothing whatsoever to do with ownership of the underlying property owner's right to use of the airspace unless the FAA specifically gives them some right.

I wasn't arguing or trying to dismiss your point at all. I was TRYING to add to the conversation and help demonstrate that the entity requesting the TFR can have some say-so in who flies within it or NOT.

 

[tcope]

An NFZ/TFR is not a property right. It is a federal power to protect the public and has nothing whatsoever to do with ownership of the underlying property owner's right to use of the airspace unless the FAA specifically gives them some right.

It is called an analogy. A comparison between two things. They don't need to be identical. It is used to show a point.

To the specific question of where your property rights end, it's frankly an unclear question. "Curtilage" is the legal term for the area of your property you control and have a right to. If someone wants to come hover a drone 3 feet off the ground on the porch by my front door, I can certainly object because that's clearly within my control. But where does it end? 10 feet up? 50? 100? 400?

No one is discussing ownership of property. Perhaps this is why are are not following the information correctly. We are talking about free use of the airspace _above_ owned property.

If I decide to build a transmitter 400 feet up (assuming I have proper authority to do so, which is a whole other subject) then that's my property too.

Again, nothing to do with this thread and something completely different.

And then there's the issue of federal vs. state sovereignty: if someone keeps hovering a drone 400 feet above my house, can I do anything about it? State law probably says yes, the FAA says the airspace is theirs.

No it does not state that. Not even close. US Code states that the FAA governs _all_ airspace in the US. Going back to my analogy, someone is not allowed to prevent me from using my land as it was intended (you can review Causby vs the US as this specifically applies to aircraft). As that person would be breaking the law, I am allowed to stop them from doing so. DroneShield is simply stopping someone from a current violation of the law. We all have that power, especially when it impacts us directly.

Let me put this into perspective. You are in a plane flying to Florida. Someone hijacks that plane (perhaps just to land it in Florida themselves, you don't know). You think you can't do anything about this because the FAA governs airspace?

 

[sar104]

There are "Exceptions" to this statement or at least more inclusions.

When an "entity" requests for a TFR (Nascar, Forest Service, etc) part of the process of defining the TFR includes assigning a "Responsible Party" for the TFR. This responsible party is the agency requesting the TFR and they can and DO give allowances to fly within their TFR. For instance last summer we were hired to shoot some aerials at an Air Show. This Air Show was under a 5nm (I believe) TFR. We were hired by the media group hired by the airshow and you wouldn't believe the red-tape and hurdles it took to get approval but we DID get the approval. We were granted flight access by the Airshow and not the FAA.

Same goes for a flight in a TFR requested by the National Forest Service. They are the ones who "can" authorize flights within their TFR. We've done that for a forest fine in the Pisgah National Forest last year and the NFR is who gave permission and defined how/when/where we could fly.

Allen

To expand slightly on that, the TFR and its controlling agency are often unrelated to the owner of the land that it covers. For example, I've put TFRs in place that overlay private property. The land owner has no say in that process, and is not able to grant permission to enter that airspace. That's purely the prerogative of the controlling agency. The FAA is involved to the extent that they administer the TFR, and so they need to be notified of any aircraft that the controlling agency has granted entry to.