Drones and the Law

[tcope]

Dead Wrong.

Linkfor you: Wildlife and Recreational Area

Not sure why people think that FAA regulation on manned aircraft also apply to drones. This is simply not the case and it's obvious. Some will respond and say that it has ruled that UAVs are "aircraft". This only means that the FAA has jurisdiction over UAVs.

On the page you linked, where does it state that UAVs can't be flown over "sensitive wildlife areas"?

The only think that gets even close is the following:

Federal statutes prohibit certain types of flight activity and/or provide altitude restrictions over designated U.S. Wildlife Refuges, Parks, and Forest Service Areas

It's not the actual Federal statute and it's obvious that the information from the linked page applies to manned aircraft and not UAVs (unless everyone should not be flying their UAVs at 2000' over parks and forests and land in National Parks as long as its an "emergency" (I guess when my battery runs low).

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Thanks! Had gone to the eye doctor this morning and pupils were dilated .

What exactly does it mean when it says that aircraft are "requested" to maintain an altitude of 2,000 feet? Does that mean that instead of being under a specific FAA restricted airspace regulation, we would be violating a more general "disturbing wildlife" regulation by flying under 2,000 feet?

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC91-36d.pdf

 

[Just Mark]

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC91-36d.pdf

Thank you for the link.

I read through it and - like much of the information put out by the FAA - it is hard to get a solid takeaway.

So is it ILLEGAL to fly under 2,000 in a "noise-sensitive" area???

For example, on point 8 it says:

8. VOLUNTARY PRACTICES.

a. Avoidance of noise-sensitive areas, if practical, is preferable to overflight at relatively low altitudes.
​

It seems to me that what they are saying is, "Gee whiz, we would really like it if you would fly above 2,000' in some places, ok???"

Am I misinterpreting that???

And then in subsection d it states:

d. This advisory does not apply where it would conflict with Federal Aviation Regulations, air traffic control clearances or instructions, or where an altitude of less than 2,000 feet AGL is considered necessary by a pilot to operate safely.​

Obviously, if a sUAS is only allowed to fly to 400' AGL, flying at 2,000' would conflict with FAA Regulations, and I would also imagine that an RPIC would feel that operating an sUAS safely would require it being under 2,000' AGL

Am I just expecting to much from the FAA if I want something that is clear and relatively easy to understand???

 

[BigAl07]

For those of us new to the FAA... many of their "guidelines" and warnings are left vague very much on purpose. This leaves final interpretation wide open for them later.

 

[tcope]

Thank you for the link.

I read through it and - like much of the information put out by the FAA - it is hard to get a solid takeaway.

So is it ILLEGAL to fly under 2,000 in a "noise-sensitive" area???

Those recommendations are for manned aircraft, not UAVs.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Those recommendations are for manned aircraft, not UAVs.

It applies to ALL aircraft. Show me in the AC where it says "manned aircraft" only or an exemption for "unmanned aircraft."

CFR Title 14 FAR 1 DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.

The AC doesn't differentiate between "manned and unmanned."

FAR 1 does have a definition for "Unmanned Aircraft."

Unmanned aircraft means an aircraft operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft

There is no premise to assume that the AC (or any other) shown does not apply to unmanned aircraft, unless specifically indicated!

The Feds will use those recommendations if they decide to violate you considering you are operating "an aircraft" within the national airspace system. At that point the deciding factor will be a NTSB judge. I've been to violation hearings and most of the time the defendant doesn't come out on the winning end.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Not sure why people think that FAA regulation on manned aircraft also apply to drones. This is simply not the case and it's obvious. Some will respond and say that it has ruled that UAVs are "aircraft". This only means that the FAA has jurisdiction over UAVs.

On the page you linked, where does it state that UAVs can't be flown over "sensitive wildlife areas"?

The only think that gets even close is the following:

Federal statutes prohibit certain types of flight activity and/or provide altitude restrictions over designated U.S. Wildlife Refuges, Parks, and Forest Service Areas

It's not the actual Federal statute and it's obvious that the information from the linked page applies to manned aircraft and not UAVs (unless everyone should not be flying their UAVs at 2000' over parks and forests and land in National Parks as long as its an "emergency" (I guess when my battery runs low).

I'd invite you to test your opinions.

 

[tcope]

It applies to ALL aircraft. Show me in the AC where it says "manned aircraft" only or an exemption for "unmanned aircraft."

8. VOLUNTARY PRACTICES.
a. Avoidance of noise-sensitive areas, if practical, is preferable to overflight at relatively low altitudes.
b. Pilots operating noise producing aircraft (fixed-wing, rotary-wing and hot air balloons) over noise sensitive areas should make every effort to fly not less than 2,000 feet above ground level (AGL), weather permitting. For the purpose of this AC, the ground level of noise-sensitive areas is defined to include the highest terrain within 2,000 feet AGL laterally of the route of flight, or the uppermost rim of a canyon or valley. The intent of the 2,000 feet AGL recommendation is to reduce potential interference with wildlife and complaints of noise disturbances caused by low flying aircraft over noise-sensitive areas.


You say that the above applies to UAVs. So the FAA is asking UAV's fliers to fly below 400' in order to be safe but here they are recommending that I fly _at least_ 2000' above noise sensitive areas. That might be a little difficult with any DJI product (read, impossible). Also, you really think the FAA is recommending UAV's fly at least 2000' to avoid excessive noise on the ground? The FAA is recommending that I fly my UAV at 2000' and higher.

c. Departure from or arrival to an airport, climb after take-off, and descent for landing should be made so as to avoid prolonged flight at low altitudes near noise-sensitive areas.

The FAA is stating when I take my UAV off from an airport.... wait.... the FAA expects me to be flying my UAV on an airport runway?

This advisory was issues in 2004. What drones were around in 2004 that the FAA needed to come up with recommendations for?

Do I think the FAA or even local law enforcement would look to cite a UAV flier for harassing wildlife (to include harassment by sound)? Yes. Do I think this advisory would be used? No. First, it's an advisory (recommendation) and two, I think it's obvious that it's not for UAVs. There are already national and local laws against harassing wildlife that can be used.

Edit: It does not need to specifically need to list what it does not apply to, it does not list paper airplanes either. Context rules out UAVs.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

8. VOLUNTARY PRACTICES.
a. Avoidance of noise-sensitive areas, if practical, is preferable to overflight at relatively low altitudes.
b. Pilots operating noise producing aircraft (fixed-wing, rotary-wing and hot air balloons) over noise sensitive areas should make every effort to fly not less than 2,000 feet above ground level (AGL), weather permitting. For the purpose of this AC, the ground level of noise-sensitive areas is defined to include the highest terrain within 2,000 feet AGL laterally of the route of flight, or the uppermost rim of a canyon or valley. The intent of the 2,000 feet AGL recommendation is to reduce potential interference with wildlife and complaints of noise disturbances caused by low flying aircraft over noise-sensitive areas.


You say that the above applies to UAVs. So the FAA is asking UAV's fliers to fly below 400' in order to be safe but here they are recommending that I fly _at least_ 2000' above noise sensitive areas. That might be a little difficult with any DJI product (read, impossible). Also, you really think the FAA is recommending UAV's fly at least 2000' to avoid excessive noise on the ground? The FAA is recommending that I fly my UAV at 2000' and higher.

You forget there are UAV operators and operations that do fly above 400' and into controlled airspace. Quadcopters are not the only type of drone flying! While this seems silly for the average hobbyist, it is their CURRENT recommendation. Yes, this should be addressed to deal with sUAV operations since you can legally fly your drone in a US National Forest.

c. Departure from or arrival to an airport, climb after take-off, and descent for landing should be made so as to avoid prolonged flight at low altitudes near noise-sensitive areas.

The FAA is stating when I take my UAV off from an airport.... wait.... the FAA expects me to be flying my UAV on an airport runway?

This advisory was issues in 2004. What drones were around in 2004 that the FAA needed to come up with recommendations for?

And you think that there are no fixed wing civilian UAVs that might use a runway?

The commercial version of the RQ-1 which was operated from an airport (several civilian airports to be exact). That's just one example. The RQ-2, Firescout, and RQ-4 come to mind. Although they eventually were used by the US military, they all were all first flown commercially by civilians and their operations were within the US National Airspace system, BEFORE 2004.

Do I think the FAA or even local law enforcement would look to cite a UAV flier for harassing wildlife (to include harassment by sound)? Yes. Do I think this advisory would be used? No. First, it's an advisory (recommendation) and two, I think it's obvious that it's not for UAVs. There are already national and local laws against harassing wildlife that can be used.

You are correct about an Advisory Circular being "Advisory" but the FEDS have and will use it's contents in a violation case. I've been in aviation for 40 years this fall, seen the FAA work and as stated, been to violation hearings, so I think I know a little something on how they work

Edit: It does not need to specifically need to list what it does not apply to, it does not list paper airplanes either. Context rules out UAVs.

If a "paper airplane" was capable to be operated in the national airspace system in the capacity as a sUAV it would apply!

And again, that's you're opinion. I've showed you the definitions and the FAA's own rules, if you think they don't apply to UAVs then go out and challenge them. All I could say is violation fines start at $500.

 

[Caballete007]

Can anyone tell me how I can have my drone in my line of sight at 2000 feet? How I can comply with UAS regulations not to fly over 400ft? Pls don’t tell me with waivers.

 

[Nowelly]

You did not break the law at all if you were under 400ft. The regulation they have in place would only be able to stop you from taking off on their property. But I would not continue over that area very long just to avoid any issues tbo. It's National Parks, Red Zones around airports that you want to be aware of for sure.

You will always get overzealous authoritarians trying to control what you can and cannot do. If there is no aviation authority restrictions in the airspace where you overflew then no. The KEY THING is where you take off and land from: if you take off and land from a public area, with no national airspace restrictions, you are technically fine and flying within the law, only the "drone code" will apply. They do not own the airspace above them: as much as they would love to claim. However, you will still be liable to ensure you keep the mandatory distances from buildings, people or large gatherings of people and below the upper limit height restrictions for UAVs of course. Obey all of that you should be safe

 

[anotherlab]

Can anyone tell me how I can have my drone in my line of sight at 2000 feet? How I can comply with UAS regulations not to fly over 400ft? Pls don’t tell me with waivers.

The short answer is that you can't. You are effectively blocked from flying in areas with a 2000 ft AGL minimum.

 

[Russ43Phantom]

National Parks NO, National Forests YES!

Unmanned Aircraft Systems | US Forest Service

"What is the U.S. Forest Service stance or regulations regarding hobbyist drones? Where is it OK to fly them? Where not? Why?

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has regulatory authority over ALL airspace, including recreational use of airspace by model aircraft, which is covered by FAA Advisory Circular 91-57. The U.S. Forest Service does not have the authority to establish any additional regulations regarding where a UAS can or can’t be flown. However, recreational UAS must abide by Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) in place by the FAA over disasters such as wildfires. The FAA also has an advisory (AIM Section 4, 7-4-6) with suggested limitations for flight over Wilderness areas. Unmanned Aircraft must abide with specifications identified through the FAA's Certificate of Authorization process which includes no flight over populated areas."

This reply is NOT quite the full story and therefore not correct. It’s VERY frustrating. While the FAA states flying in National Forests is acceptable, and while the National Forest Service admits it has no control over airspace, the NFS has found it can restrict you from taking off or landing on ground within the Nationl Forest boundary. As stated elsewhere, you can take off and land outside of the perimeter of the park and then fly in FAA controlled airspace over the forest. Of course, VLOS still is required if you are a commercial pilot and HIGHLY recommendedd if you are a recreational pilot.

 

[dangerd]

Looking at a sectional map of the area and also airmap, it looks like the LAND area of the park would be ok to fly over but NOT outside the park. From the park website:

Bedwell Bayfront Park is located at the east end of Menlo Park on San Francisco Bay at Highway 101 and Marsh Road. Parking is available along the entrance road and in two paved lots near the back of the park. Restrooms are near the first large paved parking lot. The park’s 160 acres are surrounded on three sides by the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge.

This area is shown on the sectional, a blue line with dots.
The park is also between two D airports, so be careful, don't take off or control the aircraft from within the park boundary and make sure not to fly outside the land area of the park itself.

You can check the sectional here:
VFRMAP - Digital Aeronautical Charts

And make sure to check airmap for any notam etc.

 

[Mr.Gale]

I was flying down by the Alviso Marina County Park. There is a sign at the entrance to the park that says "No Drones". For that reason I did not take off from the park but I may have flown over it that is why I asked the question.
Thanks,
Mr.G

 

[FLYBOYJ]

This reply is NOT quite the full story and therefore not correct. It’s VERY frustrating. While the FAA states flying in National Forests is acceptable, and while the National Forest Service admits it has no control over airspace, the NFS has found it can restrict you from taking off or landing on ground within the Nationl Forest boundary. As stated elsewhere, you can take off and land outside of the perimeter of the park and then fly in FAA controlled airspace over the forest. Of course, VLOS still is required if you are a commercial pilot and HIGHLY recommendedd if you are a recreational pilot.

Please show us your reference for that!! I have recently flown in 2 national forests with NO issues and in full site of a park ranger on at least one occasion. Yes - they do have certain areas where they restrict sUAV operations but this seems to be more the exception than the rule, at least from what I have experienced and from what their publications state.

I think you're confusing a "National Park" with a "National Forest."

 

[dangerd]

Here are the URL's for the county park and the surrounding national nature refuge. Google is your friend.

Refuge Map - Don Edwards San Francisco Bay - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Alviso Marina County Park - Parks and Recreation - County of Santa Clara

Both are under airport airspace E2/ class C.
You should take the time to get airmap app, (android, apple App Store, or at Home - AirMap )

Also study up on how to use a sectional map.
Link to guide for reading sectional.
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/fli...aero_guide/media/Chart_Users_Guide_12thEd.pdf

Maps can be found at:
SkyVector: Flight Planning / Aeronautical Charts
VFRMAP - Digital Aeronautical Charts

There are many people here to help awnser questions but knowing for yourself is always best. Lots of interesting landscapes in that area but you will need to be careful where you fly due to nature areas run by different agencies and controlled airspace.

 

[KevMo Photog]

Please show us your reference for that!! I have recently flown in 2 national forests with NO issues and in full site of a park ranger on at least one occasion. Yes - they do have certain areas where they restrict sUAV operations but this seems to be more the exception than the rule, at least from what I have experienced and from what their publications state.

I think you're confusing a "National Park" with a "National Forest."

In Indiana where I'm at they just passed a stupid state park regulation on all parks controlled by DNR. I had a state policeman tell me the other day that if the DNR saw me flying at a local lake that is run by the state parks they would ticket me. So dumb! We have a huge National Forest close to me as well. I'm sure it's off limits too. I agree with bothering people in a quiet nice park. But totally disagree with just all out banning all park areas in entire state!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

In Indiana where I'm at they just passed a stupid state park regulation on all parks controlled by DNR. I had a state policeman tell me the other day that if the DNR saw me flying at a local lake that is run by the state parks they would ticket me. So dumb! We have a huge National Forest close to me as well. I'm sure it's off limits too. I agree with bothering people in a quiet nice park. But totally disagree with just all out banning all park areas in entire state!

If its a national forest, federal rangers manage and patrol it, at least in my state. Check with the rangers at your local national forest and see what their policy is for that specific forest.

 

[JamesT1950]

I ran into a similar problem at the campground we stay at. I fly my P3A at 130 feet just to make sure I am clear of everything in the area. People complain of the noise and think I am spying on them even though I don't hover in any one spot for more than a few seconds. So next years contract prohibits flying drones in the campground. They just want to be butt heads about the whole thing. There is a city park within 50 feet of the campground so I will be forced to go to the park to fly which is no biggie. I can play their game too.