Why you shouldn't be using AirMap

[Gryphon962]

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.

Is that restriction on the Sectional chart?

 

[SoCalDude]

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...

Not so. Those areas show up in AirMap...

 

[johnmeyer]

Not so. Those areas show up in AirMap...

View attachment 77664

Your map actually shows exactly the opposite. I happen to live in this area, and the map does not show the Watsonville airport, nor does it show the Marina airport. Marina is a somewhat strange airport, but does have some operations. Watsonville is quite active. I also don't see the major Hollister airport: you should be able to see the edge of that airspace, just to the right of Prunedale.

So, it looks to me as though there are indeed many places missing, three in just this one map.

 

[brett8883]

Your map actually shows exactly the opposite. I happen to live in this area, and the map does not show the Watsonville airport, nor does it show the Marina airport. Marina is a somewhat strange airport, but does have some operations. Watsonville is quite active. I also don't see the major Hollister airport: you should be able to see the edge of that airspace, just to the right of Prunedale.

So, it looks to me as though there are indeed many places missing, three in just this one map.

So those are all non-towered airports and are not in controlled airspace 400 feet AGL and below so that’s why they don’t show up.

 

[johnmeyer]

So those are all non-towered airports and are not in controlled airspace 400 feet AGL and below so that’s why they don’t show up.

Interesting. I guess what you're saying is that, since those three are uncontrolled (no tower) airports, there is no one to contact about a pending drone flight. However, don't the same drone piloting rules apply about not flying within five miles? And, shouldn't there be some sort of indication on any mapping system designed to assist drone pilots?

 

[AMann]

Is that restriction on the Sectional chart?

Yup.

 

[brett8883]

Interesting. I guess what you're saying is that, since those three are uncontrolled (no tower) airports, there is no one to contact about a pending drone flight. However, don't the same drone piloting rules apply about not flying within five miles? And, shouldn't there be some sort of indication on any mapping system designed to assist drone pilots?

There’s no 5 mile rule any more and the FAA no longer accepts flight notices by telephone. You can call the airport to give them notice of the operation and if you are flying in the immediate vicinity then it’s a good idea but you aren’t required to.

 

[brett8883]

You could legally fly right over these airports without doing anything to get approval though you’d still need to adhere to the rules about avoiding manned aircraft and flying safely

 

[AMann]

Not so. Those areas show up in AirMap...

View attachment 77664View attachment 77665

Check again on the sectionals, it does not show the blue dot restricted polygon running along both sides of Hwy 101, only the offshore one is present:

 

[SoCalDude]

I happen to live in this area, and the map does not show the Watsonville airport, nor does it show the Marina airport. Marina is a somewhat strange airport, but does have some operations. Watsonville is quite active. I also don't see the major Hollister airport: you should be able to see the edge of that airspace, just to the right of Prunedale.

• Watsonville airport: It doesn't show because it is in a Class E airspace with the floor being 700' above the surface
• Marina airport: It doesn't show because is is considered a "small" airport (no official dedicated airspace). Although it is in the Class C airspace of MRY, it is beneath the floor of 1500'
• Hollister airport: It is in the same Class E airspace as Watsonville airport with the floor being 700' above the surface

 

[PhantomFandom]

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:

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

What I think you're missing is that there needs to be a happy medium. Yes we as drone pilots must be protected against frivolous civil suits just because some guy sitting in his back yard doesn't like you flying over his property. That is why the per se rule of flying below 200 feet was removed from the language of the ULC proposal. It was totally ridiculous to think that anyone flying below 200 feet could be sued at will by any property owner below the drone.

However, we must also look at the legitimate concerns of invasion of privacy and disturbances caused by some drone pilots. No one wants a drone flying 10 feet outside their bedroom window, taking video. A farmer doesn't want a drone flying at low enough altitudes over his livestock so as to spook them. I totally agree that we should not need any more laws specific to drones when those types of situations should already be covered by existing laws covering privacy, stalking, disturbing the peace, etc... However, there are people out there who don't understand that. If it makes those people feel better then fine; make new laws, as long as it does not unduly burden the operations of legitimate and legal drone operations. It's all about balance.

 

[brett8883]

Check again on the sectionals, it does not show the blue dot restricted polygon running along both sides of Hwy 101, only the offshore one is present:

View attachment 77674

Are you talking about the wilderness area? You just can’t take off or land there. You can fly over it.

But you might be correct in that AirMap should show that because AirMap does show other wilderness areas

 

[Bill combs]

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

i will delete the app if someone can direct me to another?

 

[dawgpilot]

The problem is, there isn't a good alternative to AirMap for Android users at the moment. Especially if you need mobile LAANC authorization ability.

 

[AMann]

i will delete the app if someone can direct me to another?

Don’t delete it, I use it still- just like I said in my original post, just dont rely on a single source of information to decide where you can fly.

 

[AMann]

Are you talking about the wilderness area? You just can’t take off or land there. You can fly over it.

But you might be correct in that AirMap should show that because AirMap does show other wilderness areas

Yes, if you are standing anywhere in those areas on either side of the roadway or think you are OK flying while standing on beach sand, you can be cited by Calif Fish and Wildlife officers or state park rangers. Airmap does not show this. That’s why I just don’t use it by itself without also checking other sources like the sectional maps or B4UFly too.

 

[Racin8de]

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

mrhinman- I think you're right as far as the individual you mentioned 'Gregory McNeal' goes. I'm pretty sure I seen this man on Foxnews bad mouthing ALL drone pilots when the Gatwick incident "supposedly" occured. This man Greg was telling the news anchor all kinds of ignorant laws the FAA should enforce for ALL remotely piloted aircraft.. I never knew he was partnered with Airmap. He's probably using all information we upload to his advantage becoming this Expert on the drone industry.. Son of a b****~

 

[tmtwomey]

The problem is, there isn't a good alternative to AirMap for Android users at the moment. Especially if you need mobile LAANC authorization ability.

KittyHawk has an Android app. SkywardIO only has a web app, but it actually works very well on my Note 9, almost as good as a dedicated app.

 

[dawgpilot]

KittyHawk has an Android app. SkywardIO only has a web app, but it actually works very well on my Note 9, almost as good as a dedicated app.

The last time I checked KittyHawk on Android doesn't have LAANC included, unfortunately.

I just checked and it looks like the last update (July 3rd, 2019) finally added LAANC to KittyHawk! I'll give it a try next time I'm in the field!

 

[jilliebean1018]

Full disclosure: I work at AirMap.

Not sure where you're getting the latest information, but it's totally outdated. AirMap hasn't been actively involved in ULC for over a year now. In March 2018, the company got a new CEO who shifted the company's focus away from policy and towards products like LAANC and projects like the UAS Integration Pilot Program and UTM Pilot Program to prove how collaboration between industry and government is the best way to get more drones in the sky. So far, it's working. Hopefully we can all agree that LAANC has been in the best interest of the drone industry. Still more work to be done, of course, but maybe this inside scoop helps you sleep better at night. Cheers!