Why you shouldn't be using AirMap

[mrhinman]

AirMap is probably one of the more popular apps that many UAS pilots use to determine airspaces and obtain LAANC approvals.

Unfortunately, most folks don't know that AirMap is working against the drone industry (USA).

That's right, the people at AirMap are supporting harmful legislation that, if enacted, will be detrimental to both the hobby and commercial drone industry.

AirMap and their co-founders have been supporters of two things: 1) The "patchwork of laws" scenario, where municipalities will be able to control airspaces below 400 feet and 2) The Tort Law Relating to Drones (Uniform Law Commission).

The "patchwork of laws" basically would allow for a variety of airspaces that municipalities and other entities could create. Imagine living in an area like Dallas where little cities are all connected to each other, and every few miles having a completely different set of airspace rules and permits to go along with that.

The Tort Law Relating to Drones would allow for property owners to file civil litigation against any drone pilot who "trespasses" by air over their property. Again, an effort to basically take the NAS and give it to anyone they want. And, allowing someone to sue you for photography that includes their property in any shape or form.

These reasons are why I constantly preach against AirMap and their co-founders (especially Gregory McNeal). These people, despite their outward appearance of supporting drone operators, are working behind the scenes to control it much to detriment of drone pilots across the USA.

If you're seeking alternatives to LAANC and airspace information, some good alternatives include Kittyhawk and Skyward.io. It should be noted that Kittyhawk and DJI recently separated themselves from AirMap.

It's your choice if you wish to continue using AirMap. But just remember if you do, you are supporting a company who does not have your best interests in mind.

Links:

Backlash Against ULC Proposal to Ban Drones from Flying Below 200 Feet

ULC attempts to ban drones from flying below 200 feet above private property. Drone industry leaders pen letter in opposition to proposed law.

uavcoach.com

The biggest threat to drone innovation is a group you’ve never heard of | TechCrunch

A little-known but highly influential group of attorneys from across the country will soon meet in Detroit and could change our skies forever. They claim their draft model legislation concerning drones will help protect privacy. However, their actions could have far-reaching effects on...

techcrunch.com

A tussle over airspace. Could news drones be collateral damage? – RJI

www.rjionline.org

A new proposed law would turn drone journalism into a swarm of lawsuits and make it easy to sue over news photography

Imagine if a news photographer at a football game had to get permission from every single person in the stadium before taking a single shot — or else face hundreds of civil lawsuits. That's what new model legislation wants to bring to public airspace.

www.niemanlab.org

 

[Gryphon962]

Good info. I downloaded and read their memo on this subject and it seemed to be a bunch of lawyers dreaming up new ways for people to sue each other. I was somewhat relieved when I downloaded their legislative record - what the States have done with all the draft laws they produced - and noticed that its very rare for even 10 of the 50 states to enact legislation on any of their drafts. Even CA, where I live, and which loves new laws, has only acted on one of the hundreds of laws these people have drafted.

At the end of the day, if anyone did introduce tort legislation that required you to remain at 200' agl over others property then the burden of proof is on the landowner to prove you were below that; and non-pilots are not qualified to judge altitude. Your flight log will have all the evidence you need to defend yourself. The main impact of all this would be the fear of being sued even if you were in the right.

 

[PhantomFandom]

AirMap is probably one of the more popular apps that many UAS pilots use to determine airspaces and obtain LAANC approvals.

Unfortunately, most folks don't know that AirMap is working against the drone industry (USA).

That's right, the people at AirMap are supporting harmful legislation that, if enacted, will be detrimental to both the hobby and commercial drone industry.

AirMap and their co-founders have been supporters of two things: 1) The "patchwork of laws" scenario, where municipalities will be able to control airspaces below 400 feet and 2) The Tort Law Relating to Drones (Uniform Law Commission).

The "patchwork of laws" basically would allow for a variety of airspaces that municipalities and other entities could create. Imagine living in an area like Dallas where little cities are all connected to each other, and every few miles having a completely different set of airspace rules and permits to go along with that.

The Tort Law Relating to Drones would allow for property owners to file civil litigation against any drone pilot who "trespasses" by air over their property. Again, an effort to basically take the NAS and give it to anyone they want. And, allowing someone to sue you for photography that includes their property in any shape or form.

These reasons are why I constantly preach against AirMap and their co-founders (especially Gregory McNeal). These people, despite their outward appearance of supporting drone operators, are working behind the scenes to control it much to detriment of drone pilots across the USA.

If you're seeking alternatives to LAANC and airspace information, some good alternatives include Kittyhawk and Skyward.io. It should be noted that Kittyhawk and DJI recently separated themselves from AirMap.

It's your choice if you wish to continue using AirMap. But just remember if you do, you are supporting a company who does not have your best interests in mind.

Links:

Backlash Against ULC Proposal to Ban Drones from Flying Below 200 Feet

ULC attempts to ban drones from flying below 200 feet above private property. Drone industry leaders pen letter in opposition to proposed law.

uavcoach.com

The biggest threat to drone innovation is a group you’ve never heard of | TechCrunch

A little-known but highly influential group of attorneys from across the country will soon meet in Detroit and could change our skies forever. They claim their draft model legislation concerning drones will help protect privacy. However, their actions could have far-reaching effects on...

techcrunch.com

A tussle over airspace. Could news drones be collateral damage? – RJI

www.rjionline.org

A new proposed law would turn drone journalism into a swarm of lawsuits and make it easy to sue over news photography

Imagine if a news photographer at a football game had to get permission from every single person in the stadium before taking a single shot — or else face hundreds of civil lawsuits. That's what new model legislation wants to bring to public airspace.

www.niemanlab.org

If true, I would totally agree and support your stance on boycotting AirMap. However, there are many important facts you have left out:

• The articles you pointed to are all very old and the current proposed reform from ULC has changed since then.
• The ULC proposal for drone tort law reform has changed so that it is now trying to just deal with nuisance to the land owner since it quickly realized that only the FAA can regulate the NAS. Even in its current state, it is unlikely that the proposal will pass any legal challenges since it is overly aggressive in defining land owner rights to airspace above their property.
• The ULC annual meeting is in fact this week, and we will see what comes out of it as far as this proposal is concerned.
• Where is the documentation that verifies AirMap's support for the ULC drone tort reform? I have seen no mention of that support anywhere.

 

[mrhinman]

Gregory McNeal (AirMap's cofounder) is on the Tort Law committee for the ULC, and spoke at InterDrone outlining the patchwork of laws concept.

I haven't seen any significant changes in the Tort Law documents.

If true, I would totally agree and support your stance on boycotting AirMap. However, there are many important facts you have left out:

• The articles you pointed to are all very old and the current proposed reform from ULC has changed since then.
• The ULC proposal for drone tort law reform has changed so that it is now trying to just deal with nuisance to the land owner since it quickly realized that only the FAA can regulate the NAS. Even in its current state, it is unlikely that the proposal will pass any legal challenges since it is overly aggressive in defining land owner rights to airspace above their property.
• The ULC annual meeting is in fact this week, and we will see what comes out of it as far as this proposal is concerned.
• Where is the documentation that verifies AirMap's support for the ULC drone tort reform? I have seen no mention of that support anywhere.

 

[mrhinman]

Latest information and comments:

Community Home - Uniform Law Commission

www.uniformlaws.org

If true, I would totally agree and support your stance on boycotting AirMap. However, there are many important facts you have left out:

• The articles you pointed to are all very old and the current proposed reform from ULC has changed since then.
• The ULC proposal for drone tort law reform has changed so that it is now trying to just deal with nuisance to the land owner since it quickly realized that only the FAA can regulate the NAS. Even in its current state, it is unlikely that the proposal will pass any legal challenges since it is overly aggressive in defining land owner rights to airspace above their property.
• The ULC annual meeting is in fact this week, and we will see what comes out of it as far as this proposal is concerned.
• Where is the documentation that verifies AirMap's support for the ULC drone tort reform? I have seen no mention of that support anywhere.

 

[Gryphon962]

Latest information and comments:

Community Home - Uniform Law Commission

www.uniformlaws.org

The letter here representing most of the drone industry says that the ULC seems to have backed off their original proposals and now has something that works.

 

[brett8883]

AirMap is probably one of the more popular apps that many UAS pilots use to determine airspaces and obtain LAANC approvals.

Unfortunately, most folks don't know that AirMap is working against the drone industry (USA).

That's right, the people at AirMap are supporting harmful legislation that, if enacted, will be detrimental to both the hobby and commercial drone industry.

AirMap and their co-founders have been supporters of two things: 1) The "patchwork of laws" scenario, where municipalities will be able to control airspaces below 400 feet and 2) The Tort Law Relating to Drones (Uniform Law Commission).

The "patchwork of laws" basically would allow for a variety of airspaces that municipalities and other entities could create. Imagine living in an area like Dallas where little cities are all connected to each other, and every few miles having a completely different set of airspace rules and permits to go along with that.

The Tort Law Relating to Drones would allow for property owners to file civil litigation against any drone pilot who "trespasses" by air over their property. Again, an effort to basically take the NAS and give it to anyone they want. And, allowing someone to sue you for photography that includes their property in any shape or form.

These reasons are why I constantly preach against AirMap and their co-founders (especially Gregory McNeal). These people, despite their outward appearance of supporting drone operators, are working behind the scenes to control it much to detriment of drone pilots across the USA.

If you're seeking alternatives to LAANC and airspace information, some good alternatives include Kittyhawk and Skyward.io. It should be noted that Kittyhawk and DJI recently separated themselves from AirMap.

It's your choice if you wish to continue using AirMap. But just remember if you do, you are supporting a company who does not have your best interests in mind.

Links:

Backlash Against ULC Proposal to Ban Drones from Flying Below 200 Feet

ULC attempts to ban drones from flying below 200 feet above private property. Drone industry leaders pen letter in opposition to proposed law.

uavcoach.com

The biggest threat to drone innovation is a group you’ve never heard of | TechCrunch

A little-known but highly influential group of attorneys from across the country will soon meet in Detroit and could change our skies forever. They claim their draft model legislation concerning drones will help protect privacy. However, their actions could have far-reaching effects on...

techcrunch.com

A tussle over airspace. Could news drones be collateral damage? – RJI

www.rjionline.org

A new proposed law would turn drone journalism into a swarm of lawsuits and make it easy to sue over news photography

Imagine if a news photographer at a football game had to get permission from every single person in the stadium before taking a single shot — or else face hundreds of civil lawsuits. That's what new model legislation wants to bring to public airspace.

www.niemanlab.org

Thanks, just deleted.

Anybody who ever even for a second supported that doesn’t get to have me, my business, or my advertising dollars. What a bunch of crooks

[Edit: After further research I temporary but my statement on hold because I am finding I will need to do more research on this subject]

 

[Gryphon962]

Thanks, just deleted.

Anybody who ever even for a second supported that doesn’t get to have me, my business, or my advertising dollars. What a bunch of crooks

They listened, and changed their approach. You might want to read the link I downloaded with the letter of support for current proposal from the drone industry. If it gets rid of the patchwork of laws it will be a good thing.

Text of industry letter as follows:

Spoiler: Drone Industry Letter to ULC

The undersigned organizations and stakeholders in the unmanned aircraft system (“UAS” or “drone”) industry are pleased to support the adoption of the final Tort Law Relating to Drones Committee draft by the full Uniform Law Commission at its annual meeting in Anchorage this year. While not perfect, the final draft represents a thoughtful, reasoned set of compromises on these critical issues. Adoption of this approach by the ULC (and, subsequently, by the States) will give courts the tools they need to protect landowners from careless, reckless, or improper operation of drones while, if implemented correctly, enabling the UAS industry to continue to grow. As you know, our organizations submitted letters last year expressing concern about the direction that the Committee was taking in its then-current draft uniform law proposal.

In particular, we were alarmed that that draft endorsed a per se 200 foot “line in the sky,” below which property owners could exclude nearly all drone flights for any reason or no reason at all. As we said at the time, this division of the airspace and designation of each landowner as a de facto air traffic controller was unworkable from a practical standpoint, at variance with the way that aviation has been regulated in this country for nearly 80 years, and—perhaps most importantly—presented significant safety risks. Others wrote in and echoed our points, including the Department of Transportation (“DOT”) and the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”). In a joint letter, DOT and FAA noted that the per se rule then under consideration “would be in tension with decades of established precedent in the federal courts, which have rejected the notion of applying the traditional elements of basic trespass law to aircraft overflight of private property.”

Following this round of comments, we were pleased to see the Committee adopt a different approach. The meeting of the Committee in Detroit, Michigan in October of 2018 represented a productive, collaborative discussion, during which members of the Committee took seriously the issues raised with the proposed per se rule. At the same time, the industry stakeholders that participated as observers in that meeting recognized the legitimate concerns that property owners have with reckless or irresponsible use of UAS technology. We noted that while UAS are in the process of making an enormous positive contribution to society in fields like public safety, search and rescue, inspection, and logistics, the same technological innovations that allow drones to conduct these missions could also pose a real threat to the use and enjoyment of property if they are misused. The result of the Committee’s lengthy deliberations in Detroit was a compromise that reflected nuanced give and take on both sides of this issue. It expressly recognized that the “aerial trespass” framework (which has developed to apply to aviation generally) also applies to drones, while also laying out a series of factors that courts may consider in determining whether UAS operations have substantially interfered with the use and enjoyment of property. Critically, these factors acknowledge that because of drones’ unique capabilities, they may interfere with the use of property in ways that traditional aircraft do not. The intent of the Committee in adopting these factors was to ensure that serious and legitimate concerns with UAS overflights could be addressed by the courts on a case-by-case basis, in a way that avoided drawing artificial lines in the sky or unnecessarily hampering legitimate, beneficial drone flights that do not substantially interfere with the use of private property.

Since the Detroit meeting, the proposal has been refined, and additional issues have been worked through, both in telephonic meetings and at an additional, in-person meeting in Washington, D.C. Each of the Committee’s sessions has been characterized by an active, engaged discussion by Committee members and stakeholders representing a wide range of affected interests, from property owners to trial lawyers to photographers to aircraft operators and manufacturers. Notably, in the discussions since the Detroit meeting the Committee has addressed privacy issues by making clear that UAS can be the instrumentality of a privacy tort. Stated another way, the current draft appropriately recognizes that when an operator uses a drone to violate the privacy rights of another, the operator can be held liable for that violation. Thankfully, the draft avoids attempting to impose blanket restrictions on UAS operations in the name of privacy protection. Such state-level regulation of the use of the airspace would unduly restrict legitimate operations and likely would be preempted in any event. We urge the ULC to adopt the draft without change. As you know, at the final meeting there was a last-minute attempt to upend the careful compromise reached by the Committee by inserting a presumption that flying below the height of structures on the property constitutes a trespass. This significant proposed change was an attempt to reintroduce elements of the per se rule that was rejected in Detroit, and was voted down by the Committee by a substantial margin.

Nevertheless, we remain concerned that members of the ULC who were not present during the Committee’s lengthy deliberations may not fully grasp the hard work, give-and-take, and underlying rationale that went into adopting the present structure, and may seek to introduce changes along the lines of the one described above. As industry commenters have previously noted, attempts to revive or apply elements of the per se rule would make it impossible for industry and other stakeholders to support the draft.3 Any such attempts would also go against the will of the Committee, which has now considered and rejected a variety of per se and similar, altitudebased presumptions on a number of occasions — rejecting one of these proposals as recently as last month.

We would like to thank the Committee for its efforts in this area, and for its willingness to take the concerns voiced by the undersigned and others into account in reaching the final compromise. We look forward to supporting the adoption of the draft as-is in Anchorage, and to seeing States take up this important matter during their next legislative sessions.

 

[Skyewalkr]

skyward.io, a verizon company. lol

 

[brett8883]

After further research I must conclude that I don’t really know what to make if this.

@mrhinman I followed the link you shared above and I am unable to find what their current proposal is. Do I need to make an account to see it? I was able to get the gist of it based on the public comments and it sounds fairly favorable to UAV pilots. I also took note of the fact that Jason Snead, Senior Policy Analyst and others from the Heritage Foundation "expressed their significant concerns" about the current draft. If ever I am unsure of my position on an issue the Heritage Foundation is my compass in that I should be fighting for exactly the opposite of whatever their position is and it sounds like this situation is no different.

I’ve researched this Gregory McNeal and I do see he was a Co-founder but he isn’t listed on AirMap’s list of board of directors. I also haven’t found any material related to what his views are exactly. I see where he has spoken about drones broadly as an emerging technology and he does seem at least in the little information I found mention the legal questions about drone harassment by drones but also harassment of drones by bystanders and other drones. DO you have any more information about how you came to the conclusion he isn't on our side? I'd like to be as informed as I can about these matters. Also, In the Active Roster for ULC he is listed as a "reporter" and his affiliation is conspicuously missing from the roster as if to make clear he doesn't have the same affiliation with the ULC as the other members which I thought was interesting.

The only organization I really trust to have my interests is the AMA so if they support this this draft I likely do as well. Thanks for bringing it up though its a good topic

 

[Mrmund]

If true, I would totally agree and support your stance on boycotting AirMap. However, there are many important facts you have left out:

• The articles you pointed to are all very old and the current proposed reform from ULC has changed since then.
• The ULC proposal for drone tort law reform has changed so that it is now trying to just deal with nuisance to the land owner since it quickly realized that only the FAA can regulate the NAS. Even in its current state, it is unlikely that the proposal will pass any legal challenges since it is overly aggressive in defining land owner rights to airspace above their property.
• The ULC annual meeting is in fact this week, and we will see what comes out of it as far as this proposal is concerned.
• Where is the documentation that verifies AirMap's support for the ULC drone tort reform? I have seen no mention of that support anywhere.

I'm sorry to say but it's true, he's right...
That said I almost always use airmap, first. Then I check other sources. Until another company creates an app that is as friendly and easy to use as Airmap lot's of pilots will keep using it

 

[AMann]

AirMap is probably one of the more popular apps that many UAS pilots use to determine airspaces and obtain LAANC approvals.

Unfortunately, most folks don't know that AirMap is working against the drone industry (USA).

That's right, the people at AirMap are supporting harmful legislation that, if enacted, will be detrimental to both the hobby and commercial drone industry.

AirMap and their co-founders have been supporters of two things: 1) The "patchwork of laws" scenario, where municipalities will be able to control airspaces below 400 feet and 2) The Tort Law Relating to Drones (Uniform Law Commission).

The "patchwork of laws" basically would allow for a variety of airspaces that municipalities and other entities could create. Imagine living in an area like Dallas where little cities are all connected to each other, and every few miles having a completely different set of airspace rules and permits to go along with that.

The Tort Law Relating to Drones would allow for property owners to file civil litigation against any drone pilot who "trespasses" by air over their property. Again, an effort to basically take the NAS and give it to anyone they want. And, allowing someone to sue you for photography that includes their property in any shape or form.

These reasons are why I constantly preach against AirMap and their co-founders (especially Gregory McNeal). These people, despite their outward appearance of supporting drone operators, are working behind the scenes to control it much to detriment of drone pilots across the USA.

If you're seeking alternatives to LAANC and airspace information, some good alternatives include Kittyhawk and Skyward.io. It should be noted that Kittyhawk and DJI recently separated themselves from AirMap.

It's your choice if you wish to continue using AirMap. But just remember if you do, you are supporting a company who does not have your best interests in mind.

Links:

Backlash Against ULC Proposal to Ban Drones from Flying Below 200 Feet

ULC attempts to ban drones from flying below 200 feet above private property. Drone industry leaders pen letter in opposition to proposed law.

uavcoach.com

The biggest threat to drone innovation is a group you’ve never heard of | TechCrunch

A little-known but highly influential group of attorneys from across the country will soon meet in Detroit and could change our skies forever. They claim their draft model legislation concerning drones will help protect privacy. However, their actions could have far-reaching effects on...

techcrunch.com

A tussle over airspace. Could news drones be collateral damage? – RJI

www.rjionline.org

A new proposed law would turn drone journalism into a swarm of lawsuits and make it easy to sue over news photography

Imagine if a news photographer at a football game had to get permission from every single person in the stadium before taking a single shot — or else face hundreds of civil lawsuits. That's what new model legislation wants to bring to public airspace.

www.niemanlab.org

Airmap also has some glaring errors in it such as failing to correctly show NFZ’s along a hundred mile or so section of the central California coastline which could lead drone pilots to getting some hefty fines.

I recommend not to use it as your sole source of information for finding legal places to fly.

 

[Radpuppy]

I did not know any of this, thank you for making us aware of it?

 

[mtb.arizona]

I'm admittedy very new to the entire drone/airspace world, but given my other experiences with federal agencies and rulemaking, about the LAST thing I would expect the FAA to do is relinquish exclusive control of ANY airspace to any other entity, even another government (locality/municipality) entity. There's one thing the fed is very consistent at... never giving up power once it is obtained. And the FAA currently holds exclusive control of all levels of US airspace.

 

[mrhinman]

I think the point that most people are missing is that despite and changes in the language that the ULC is working on, it still has the overarching purpose of making it possible for a civil suit defense against a drone operator. That purpose has not changed, hence the name "Tort Law Relating to Drones".

@brett8883 said that "Gregory McNeal is not a board member". He is an active participant in the committee, and he has been vocal about the patchwork of laws. You can listen to his drivel from InterDrone 2018 here:

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

This guy needs to get it together and start protecting drone operators, not looking for ways to penalize them.

 

[Thomas B]

I'm admittedy very new to the entire drone/airspace world, but given my other experiences with federal agencies and rulemaking, about the LAST thing I would expect the FAA to do is relinquish exclusive control of ANY airspace to any other entity, even another government (locality/municipality) entity. There's one thing the fed is very consistent at... never giving up power once it is obtained. And the FAA currently holds exclusive control of all levels of US airspace.

FAA administers the airspace through LAANC for drones and lists several different approved apps a drone pilot can use for clearance.
The list is near the bottom of this page current as of 17 July 2019. It also has General LAANC info.

UAS Data Exchange (LAANC)

www.faa.gov

 

[Agis]

During my recent European road trip AirMap failed to warn me of a major nearby airport in North Italy. I appreciate all apps have pros and cons but I one would expect highest standards from AirMap, especially when it comes down to aviation safety.

 

[mtb.arizona]

FAA administers the airspace through LAANC for drones and lists several different approved apps a drone pilot can use for clearance.
The list is near the bottom of this page current as of 17 July 2019. It also has General LAANC info.

UAS Data Exchange (LAANC)

www.faa.gov

Eh, no value to me as I'm just one among the peasantry of recreational operators. At least until the next Tuesday if the big laanc/recreational thing kicks off as planned. I just hope the various apps that interface with laanc will be able to quickly implement the recreational pilot into the process. Boy will it be nice to finally be able to fly at my own **** home =)

 

[jag32266]

I didn't know this as well,.. any of it so thanks for the heads up. As to the confusion; could we perhaps contact RupprechtLaw, a drone specialist lawyer & pilot to see if he would have any input? Seems he might be an expert or at least have a legal insight to this and we could avoid any misdirecting opinions/misinformation (no disrespect intended). Not meant as a plug, either. Drone Law and Drone Attorney Assistance -

 

[GFields]

I use the KittyHawk app for LAANC approvals and much more.