More bans, no fly zones
- Thread starter bhartwell
- Start date
Is flying straight up & down from public road
bordering banned parks-reserves a
legally safe "partial" solution to taking
aerial photos of the parks-reserves...?
(have wondered about shoulder of
Tamiami Trail US 41 thru Everglades)
bordering banned parks-reserves a
legally safe "partial" solution to taking
aerial photos of the parks-reserves...?
(have wondered about shoulder of
Tamiami Trail US 41 thru Everglades)
While you are correct about the requirement (or lack thereof) to carry insurance, there are DOZENS of areas and GA airports that are under continua local scrutiny and every time there's even the most minor accident reported, the anti-aviation locals demand closure. The poster child for this is currently Santa Monica Airport. There are many many more.
I just attended an FAA safety seminar and currently there are about 2 or 3 dozen incidents being reported to the FAA every month with regards to sUAV airspace incursions and near misses, this coming from all segments of civil aviation. These statistics are just adding fuel to the fire and makes any argument about flying drones in National Parks an almost unwinnable argument.
Before driving an hour to fly in a particular state park, I would be much inclined to call the park's district superintendent's office and inquire as to whether I could fly in that park.
I’m not sure the two issues are connected.
Drones and issues with aircraft interference is a major issue I agree. As drone use expands and a broader array of consumers start flying them, the risk of an incident between an airplane and a drone increases. Especially in the present situation in which there are multiple agencies, municipalities, public boards, and even private land owners, defining and implementing local ordinances, outright bans and access rules.
In the current environment, where confusion and uncertainty run rampant, the chances are that our ability to fly will be unreasonably restricted, or worse case, pilots will just ignore the rules due to lack of clarity and inconsistent enforcement. In the worse case scenario here, let’s some something bad did happen, an airplane is hit or someone’s property damaged. The knee jerk result will be unrealistic restrictions across the board and/or broad general bans.
It is essential then that reasonable guidelines are established and that we both help define them and push back on local entities trying to define and implement their own local regulations.
I believe they are...
We will see more restrictions if drone operators continue to do dumb things, like fly into controlled airspace. The thing to realize is airspace violations by drone operators is almost a daily occurrence. Compound this with the fact that there are many communities that are not aviation friendly (ie Santa Monica) and now drones are just another thorn in the side.
Fair enough, then what is the solution? Are you thinking some kind of licensing requirement, like you would have with a car or motorcycle? I wonder if that’s not such a bad idea. At least in that case you could enforce a minimum standard (i.e. min age, required to pass a basic laws and skills exam, etc). Today, anybody, at any age can buy a drone and fly it, including those that are to young, inexperienced, or just unable / unwilling to follow some basic safety guidelines. Would be interested in what others thought?
After seeing some of the dumb antics perpetrated by individuals who got their aviation education from the bottom of an empty Phantom box, and even reading some of the comments on these forms, my opinion?
1. EVERY sUAV over .55 pounds MUST be registered individually, regardless if you're a hobbyist or a commercial operator.
2. All operators are licensed, commercial pilots have to demonstrate some sought of proficiency. First time certificate holders must receive 1 hour of ground training before they take delivery of their drone. 14 is the minimum age for a sUAV certificate.
3. sUAVs manufactured and or sold in the US .55 pounds and under are limited to 100' altitude and 300' distance.
4. sUAVs over .55 manufactured and or sold in the US will be altitude locked to 399' altitude and 1000' distance. If the operator shows a legitimate need to exceed this, they can apply for a waiver.
5. I'd re-write FAR 101.41 to say they ALL sUAV hobby operators MUST remain out of controlled airspace to include E airspace unless authorized. This will remove the ambiguity of interpreting the FARs, especially for those who have no previous aviation experience. I'd do away with the requirement to contact airports that are operating in G airspace, but I would prohibit drone operations within 1/4 of such airports unless an agreement is made with the airport owner/ operator.
OK, that's just for starters, flame away!
EDITED! Learned the difference between G and E
Last edited:
Not sure I understand. Class A,B,C,D & E are controlled. Class G is uncontrolled. Where to fly if you ban operations in G? How would the thousands of R/C flyers be legal unless authorized?
However, 101.41 cannot be rewritten unless Congress re-writes 336.
Sorry I meant E,
And you are correct about 336, the DOT could actually petition this to be changed on the basis of public safety.
I did it again Al, I need to learn the difference between the letters E and G!!!!!
Edited my post, thanks for pointing that out!
Can't say I really disagree, you make valid points. A licensing approach of some sort would address some of the risk, and would provide an enforcement mechanism for those that cant seem to follow the rules, or deliberately ignore them. It would be interesting to see if the FAA would be willing to extend or create a licensing structure that would work with a large number of "consumer" level pilots, considering that it now manages a relatively small number of commercial entities and private pilots. The UAV pilot population is more akin to the automobile then aircraft as they typically do not require the expertise and training required of a private or commercial aircraft. .
I am in favor of a ban of all aircraft in such areas. People go there for the view and the quiet and to experience nature in a natural settings. Drone, jet skis, snowmobiles, off-road motorcycles, ATV's and the rest are all fun for the people using them but they destroy the experience of the area for everyone else.
To put your wants ahead of those of everyone else is not a civil attitude and shows a disdain for others and their right to enjoy the public commons. Clearly the drone hobby has expanded to fast for people to adjust and control their own behavior and so there is a need for government agencies to step into the void.
To put your wants ahead of those of everyone else is not a civil attitude and shows a disdain for others and their right to enjoy the public commons. Clearly the drone hobby has expanded to fast for people to adjust and control their own behavior and so there is a need for government agencies to step into the void.
Similar threads
