If the operator was distracted with a drone, and a collision were to occur, fire or leakage of hazardous materials erupts, that's a big deal in a major switch yard which could disrupt service to thousands who can't get everything from food to fuel. Who bares that responsibility? BNSF does even though the drone operator may have been connected. They don't want the distraction or added risk as that relates to operating costs.
using the Drone around the railroads
- Thread starter Railfan-Eric
- Start date
Railfan. I can't find anyone locally that thinks there are actual regulations prohibiting flying around railroad property. Have you tried going to the PD or SO and asking if "someone can help me ensure I am flying in compliance with all regulations?" Going in friendly as a responsible citizen trying to be compliant can get you allies. I suspect the BNSF guy he could just tell you to stop and the local guy just figured the BNSF guy knew what he was talking about.
Years ago I had a neighbor I could not get along with and he called the SO saying I was making "moonshine" when I was brewing beer. The officer told me I couldn't make my own beer. I didn't argue, but went to the department Public Information Officer to see if I was missing a law that prohibited my hobby. I knew I wasn't but after he did the research, he put the info out to the department officers. No more problems.
Years ago I had a neighbor I could not get along with and he called the SO saying I was making "moonshine" when I was brewing beer. The officer told me I couldn't make my own beer. I didn't argue, but went to the department Public Information Officer to see if I was missing a law that prohibited my hobby. I knew I wasn't but after he did the research, he put the info out to the department officers. No more problems.
- Joined
- May 23, 2016
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 4
- Age
- 45
I haven't tried going to the PD or SO. the PD officers that were with the BNSF police didn't say much but let the BNSF Police do all the talking.
CRCs, That's pretty cool looking. I was scouting out a rail-port in my area today. There were signs saying trains may be controlled remotely and move without any occupants. I'm thinking I may test the waters myself. One can only try so hard to be compliant before going, F it.
On vacation I saw some saw some Union Pacific guys doing track maintenance. Asked about flying the tracks and they said they had be never heard of any rules. Said they've seen it before and never gave it a second thought. These guys do CO and UT. Consensus seemed to be that if a pilot of one of these little UAVs crashed into a train, nobody on the train would even know. Not exactly delicate machines.
So, I got a response from Todd Graetz who is the head of the UAS program for BNSF railroad. I know this is an old thread but....
Anyway, I asked if there were any special regulations that apply to flying UAS near the railroads.
This was his response:
"Simply stated, do not fly over private property without permission and be 500' from non participants. Hope this helps."
Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots
Anyway, I asked if there were any special regulations that apply to flying UAS near the railroads.
This was his response:
"Simply stated, do not fly over private property without permission and be 500' from non participants. Hope this helps."
Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots
So no, there are no special regulations that apply to flying UAS near railroads.
Don't forget to cover the lights on your drones so you don't blind the railmen when you're flying 500' away, and to put mufflers on your propellers so you don't disturb the conductors while you hover next to the tracks in the local public park.
He's full of crap. No law states I can't fly over private property (unless it's controlled airspace). And 500' from a non participant? BS also. He is the head of the UAS program for BNSF? we should look up if he has his Part 107 or 333. I bet a dollar he doesn't.
My state, NV, actually has legislation basically stating that you can fly a UAS over private property as long as you are over 250' high.
Anyway. The point is that the BNSF officers who originally confronted the OP don't have the backing of the law or the company it would seem.
Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots
Anyway. The point is that the BNSF officers who originally confronted the OP don't have the backing of the law or the company it would seem.
Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots
There is a FAA UAV fact sheet that states that state law can not preempt federal FAA rules. http://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/uas_regulations_policy/media/uas_fact_sheet_final.pdf
So not quite sure how a state can tell you how high you have to fly. Do you have the link to that law, I'm interested.
The way state and local governments are working around this IME is to say you can't take off from or land on specified property, such as a state or local park. The FAA seminar from last month covered this briefly as I recall, basically saying that yes, the FAA owns the air but local governments can enact restrictions on how you get into it, so to speak.
I am late to the game with this post but at least I kept it in 2016...
I have been discussing this matter with Mr. Graetz on Twitter and he stated that drones are not allowed to fly over BNSF property due to "critical infrastructure protection, worker safety, private property, etc..." I asked him to point me to the FAA regulations regarding these issues (minus worker safety, I assume he means rules regarding flying over a non-participant) and he pointed me to Part 107 and the FAA Reauthorization bill. Now, Part 107 does not prohibit flights over private property, so his argument is no good there; Section 2209 in the Reauthorization bill does allow entities to petition to have their fixed site facilities designated as critical infrastructure no-fly zones. I have not found evidence that BNSF has done so and I have asked Mr. Graetz to provide me with a list of any BNSF sites so I may avoid flying over them. Further, you may read this excerpt from Sec. 2209 below:
In addition, nothing in the Reauthorization bill expressly prohibits flight over all critical infrastructure, unless an applicant has applied for and been designated as a site that prohibits over-flight. Even if a site is designated, the FAA can still grant a remote pilot permission to fly over such a site.
There are a number of state laws that create no-fly zones over critical infrastructure; Texas and Oklahoma come to mind. I think there may be nine or so states total with laws regarding this. Each state law differs in its strictness and in what is considered critical infrastructure. I understand state law cannot preempt federal regulations but until it is tested in court or the FAA adopts more straight forward rules regarding drones and critical infrastructure I don't think I would want to test my luck.
I think my interpretation is pretty sound but remember I am not a lawyer and this should not be taken as legal advice. Know what state laws are on the books and ask permission before flying over a rail yard. Also, remember that flying over a non-participant that is not in a parked car or a building IS illegal; just follow the law and conduct drone flights safely so we can all continue to enjoy it and run our businesses.
I have been discussing this matter with Mr. Graetz on Twitter and he stated that drones are not allowed to fly over BNSF property due to "critical infrastructure protection, worker safety, private property, etc..." I asked him to point me to the FAA regulations regarding these issues (minus worker safety, I assume he means rules regarding flying over a non-participant) and he pointed me to Part 107 and the FAA Reauthorization bill. Now, Part 107 does not prohibit flights over private property, so his argument is no good there; Section 2209 in the Reauthorization bill does allow entities to petition to have their fixed site facilities designated as critical infrastructure no-fly zones. I have not found evidence that BNSF has done so and I have asked Mr. Graetz to provide me with a list of any BNSF sites so I may avoid flying over them. Further, you may read this excerpt from Sec. 2209 below:
(d) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section may be construed as
prohibiting the Administrator from authorizing operation of an aircraft,
including an unmanned aircraft system, over, under, or within a
specified distance from that fixed site facility designated under
subsection (b).
prohibiting the Administrator from authorizing operation of an aircraft,
including an unmanned aircraft system, over, under, or within a
specified distance from that fixed site facility designated under
subsection (b).
In addition, nothing in the Reauthorization bill expressly prohibits flight over all critical infrastructure, unless an applicant has applied for and been designated as a site that prohibits over-flight. Even if a site is designated, the FAA can still grant a remote pilot permission to fly over such a site.
There are a number of state laws that create no-fly zones over critical infrastructure; Texas and Oklahoma come to mind. I think there may be nine or so states total with laws regarding this. Each state law differs in its strictness and in what is considered critical infrastructure. I understand state law cannot preempt federal regulations but until it is tested in court or the FAA adopts more straight forward rules regarding drones and critical infrastructure I don't think I would want to test my luck.
I think my interpretation is pretty sound but remember I am not a lawyer and this should not be taken as legal advice. Know what state laws are on the books and ask permission before flying over a rail yard. Also, remember that flying over a non-participant that is not in a parked car or a building IS illegal; just follow the law and conduct drone flights safely so we can all continue to enjoy it and run our businesses.
Similar threads
