Welcome to PhantomPilots.com

Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information

Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/8326

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by BuzzBuzzZoomZoom, Nov 2, 2014.

  1. BuzzBuzzZoomZoom

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    1
  2. PsychopathRC

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2014
    Messages:
    270
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    London, England
    Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

    Didn't the pilot get permission from the owners to fly? What's NOTAM? Lol
     
  3. p fandango

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2014
    Messages:
    600
    Likes Received:
    27
    Location:
    Coventry, UK
    Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

    it says in the description he got permission from the church
     
  4. GoodnNuff

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,909
    Likes Received:
    831
    Location:
    Washington State
    Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

    The temple is 10 miles from the White House. NOTAM 0/8326 restricts flight within 30 nautical miles from the white house from ground level to 18,000 ft. Not sure how he was able to film this. The NOTAM should restrict all RC fliers, right?
    These guys are within 25 miles of zip code 20500 (white house) 
    Explain that anyone?

    NORTHERN VA CONTROL LINE ASSN 
    Flying Site Details 4.29 miles
    RICHARD HOUSER
    1314 S OAKLAND ST 
    ARLINGTON VA 22204 
    Phone: 703/920-0683 

    CAPITAL AREA ANTIQUE MODELERS ASSOC 
    Flying Site Details 8.65 miles
    JOHN FELTER
    1915 MIRACLE LN 
    FALLS CHURCH VA 22043 
    Phone: 703/827-5944 

    GODDARD MAC 
    9.24 miles
    CHARLES BUFFALANO
    9613 HILLRIDGE DR 
    KENSINGTON MD 20895 
    Phone: 301/946-5439 

    FLY AWAY RC CLUB 
    Flying Site Details 10.52 miles
    PETER CURTIS
    5 PINECREST CT 
    GREENBELT MD 20770 
    Phone: 301-474-5068 

    SKY LANCERS OF WASHINGTON 
    12.79 miles
    JOHN VLNA
    13010 COLLINGWOOD TER 
    SILVER SPRING MD 20904 
    Phone: 301/989-0025 

    DCRC CLUB 
    Flying Site Details 14.26 miles
    ANDREW KANE
    305 NATICK CT 
    SILVER SPRING MD 20905 
    Phone: 301/785-3022 

    NORTHERN VA RC CLUB INC 
    Flying Site Details 15.27 miles
    KENNETH BASSETT
    9100 DE SOTO CT 
    BURKE VA 22015 
    Phone: 703-425-1392 

    CHARLES COUNTY WINDRIFTERS 
    Flying Site Details 20.54 miles
    KENNETH STEVANUS
    12255 POTOMAC VIEW RD 
    NEWBURG MD 20601 
    Phone: 301/893.0711 

    CHARLES COUNTY RC 
    Flying Site Details 22.46 miles
    DAVID FULLER
    4015 NIGHT HERON CT APT C 
    WALDORF MD 20602 
    Phone: 301-885.2130 

    FREE STATE AEROMODELERS 
    Flying Site Details 23.70 miles
    KIRK ADAMS
    PO BOX 2072 
    COLUMBIA MD 21045 
    Phone: 443-995-2962 

    MARYLAND HELICOPTER ASSO 
    24.07 miles
    KEN DECKELMAN
    1130 PINCH VALLEY RD 
    WESTMINSTER MD 20121 
    Phone: 410.751.7198
     
  5. GoodnNuff

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,909
    Likes Received:
    831
    Location:
    Washington State
    Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

    BuzzBuzz, since you are referencing the DN, I assume you are either a Utahn or LDS. If you are interested in aerial temple shots, google Branden Bingham and look at his YouTube videos. Great videos.
     
  6. petersachs

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2013
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Branford, CT
    Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

    The underlying regulation (FAR 93.339) refers to "aircraft." As I'm sure many of you know, an NTSB Administrative Law Judge held in March 2014 that "model aircraft" are not "aircraft" under the federal definitions. Specifically he held, "Neither the Part 1, Section. 1.1, or the 49 U.S.C. Section 40102(a)(6) definitions of "aircraft" are applicable to, or include a model aircraft within their respective definition."

    Thus, while NOTAM 0/8326 applies to "aircraft," it is widely questioned whether it would apply to "model aircraft." In any instance, the reasoning and holding of the judge in the first and only drone case indicates it would not apply. Not saying whether one should or should not voluntarily comply with the NOTAM, just expressing the current legal stance.
     
  7. Happyflyer

    Joined:
    May 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,805
    Likes Received:
    98
    Location:
    Cold, Cold, Michigan
    Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

    OK to do or not, that is one fantastic structure. It goes to show you that.............on second thought, better not say. People get into trouble now days for speaking the truth.
     
  8. BuzzBuzzZoomZoom

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    1
    Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

    Peter, the NOTAM in question is one of the few times the FAA has been clear on the matter. Read the whole thing, they specifically mention "model aircraft" and "unmanned aerial systems" by name. It couldn't be clearer.
     
  9. BuzzBuzzZoomZoom

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    1
    Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

    Goodnnuff, I am not from Utah nor an LDS...but I DO live inside the NOTAM area and am frankly tired of driving 30 minutes to get out of it so as not to go to prison, while some rando hobbyist is flying drones in the metaphorical backyard of the white house, publishing it, having the news cover it!!!, and no repercussions happen.
     
  10. petersachs

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2013
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Branford, CT
    Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

    The specific mentions aren't necessarily relevant. A NOTAM cannot trump a statute. The FAA appears to be clear, (as it appears to be with a number of things) but there's very little the FAA is being truthful about with respect to drones. (There's a reason why we are challenging their June 25 "Interpretation" in the DC Court of Appeals.) The DC NOTAM remains the subject of questionable authority among those of us in the drone legal area. Not providing a conclusive statement here, (or legal advice), just stating that is has been questioned by the drone attorney community. The same is true with the stadium "ban." See this piece from a few days ago: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fa ... o-stand-on
     
  11. SilentAV8R

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2014
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    Orange County, CA - USA
    Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

    That does not matter. He needed permission from the FAA. The temple is on the edge (just inside) the most restricted one and it is under the Class B airspace for Reagan National.

    Here's the actual TFR:

    http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_0_8326.html

    Yep, one more nail in the coffin
     
  12. SilentAV8R

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2014
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    Orange County, CA - USA
    Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

    He was absolutely inside the SFRA, no question. With regard to your list, keep in mind that the address listed for AMA chartered clubs is that of either the club officer in charge or its p.O.Box. It is rarely (almost never) the actual address of their flying site. Others have already coordinated with the FAA, like the DCRC club who fly very near the outer edge in Boyd Maryland, despite the address being shown as Silver Spring, MD. They can get waivers because they are flying from an established field, where the FAA knows there are and under what conditions they operate.

    Now consider the flight that is the topic of this thread. Nobody knew he was there, he flew at night as well. THIS is the kind of idiot that the FAA has fits over.

    Plus, the model aircraft that FAA refers to excludes both control line and free flight. So thos clubs can be scratched from your list.


     
  13. BuzzBuzzZoomZoom

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    1
    Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

    Great post Peter, thank you. While you're probably right, I'd certainly not like to be the crash test dummy for when the FAA ever decides to try and prosecute someone flying a quad in the NOTAM area. It IS ridiculous though...I work in the heart of DC, yet live 20 miles south...takes me 40 minutes to drive to work in the morning, yet I'm not "legally" allowed to fly a quad in my backyard even at eye level.

    ..and the rules on stadiums?! 3 miles radius ban, or 1 year in prison? Absolutely ridiculous. A .25 - .5 mile radius is much more realistic.
     
  14. Suwaneeguy

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2014
    Messages:
    701
    Likes Received:
    22
    Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

    Do you people know who Peter Sachs is? When you refer people to dronelawjorunal.com, he's the guy who wrote it.
    When he says the law does not apply, you **** well better listen to him.
    As far as I'm concerned, in my opinion, NOTAM's do not apply to hobby RCMA because they do not fall under the jurisdiction of the FAA. NOTAM's apply only to licensed aircraft and licensed pilots within the FAA jurisdiction.
     
  15. petersachs

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2013
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Branford, CT
    Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

    Although I appreciate your very kind words, Suwaneeguy, remember that I'm not providing legal advice. Nor am I saying anyone should or should not fly in TFRs, SFRAs, FRZs, etc. Even if the FAA lacks jurisdiction, it could still cost you (in legal fees) if they were to attempt to bring an enforcement action. Just use common sense and fly safely and responsibly at all times.
     
  16. GoodnNuff

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2013
    Messages:
    1,909
    Likes Received:
    831
    Location:
    Washington State
    Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

    [/quote]

    Reasonable explanation. I thought I'd provided the link for the list. I found it on RCGroups from a discussion much like this. The distances listed right below each club name is supposedly the distance of the field from the White House.

    I belong to two flying fields here in the Seattle area and whenever the President is in town, we have NOTAMs enforced at our flying clubs. We fly at established fields where the FAA knows we are there and under what conditions, but there is no waiver for our model planes or our fields.
     
  17. BuzzBuzzZoomZoom

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    1
    Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

    Great, Suwaneeguy! Perhaps you should help the entire community then...go stand in the parking lot of the Eastern Region FAA Headquarters that is within the NOTAM, and take your RC out for a few laps around the lot. When someone comes to arrest you, be sure to tell them their NOTAM doesn't apply to you. When you win your case in Federal Court, we'll all buy you a beer for getting the precedent set to allow us to ignore the NOTAM.
     
  18. MadMitch88

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2014
    Messages:
    539
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Cleveland, OH
    Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

    This Mormon temple is definitely located within the DC FRZ (Flight Restricted Zone) --- and NOTAM 0/8326 does prohibit any model aircraft from operating in the DC FRZ zone as stated in Section D:


    THE FOLLOWING OPERATIONS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED WITHIN THE DC FRZ: FLIGHT TRAINING, AEROBATIC FLIGHT, PRACTICE INSTRUMENT APPROACHES, GLIDER OPERATIONS, PARACHUTE OPERATIONS, ULTRA LIGHT, HANG GLIDING, BALLOON OPERATIONS, TETHERED BALLOONS, AGRICULTURE/CROP DUSTING, ANIMAL POPULATION CONTROL FLIGHT OPERATIONS, BANNER TOWING OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE TEST FLIGHTS, MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS, MODEL ROCKETRY, FLOAT PLANE OPERATIONS, UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS) AND AIRCRAFT/HELICOPTERS OPERATING FROM A SHIP OR PRIVATE/CORPORATE YACHT.


    However, it appears you can only be charged criminally if you are a licensed pilot flying a real certified "aircraft" without prior authorization inside the FRZ. However, you'd need to have a huge sack of brass to test the authority of the FAA and DOD and fly your Phantom inside the FRZ without clear prior authorization from authorities. I wouldnt be surprised if this dude gets a little visit from the Feds soon!


    Here's an image of the DC FRZ ---- I put a red dot where the Mormon temple is located --- I saw that thing when I drove on the Beltway last month and it's really creepy --- looks like the castle of an evil witch king:


    [​IMG]
     
  19. ianwood

    ianwood Taco Wrangler
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2014
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    1,799
    Location:
    Lost Angeles
    Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

    Said NOTAM is yet another great example of how the FAA's one size fits all approach is a complete and utter failure.
     
  20. Suwaneeguy

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2014
    Messages:
    701
    Likes Received:
    22
    Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

    Well buzz, I just may do that. I always get a kick out of the videos on youtube I see where the Federal Reserve Bank police come out and tell people it is illegal "to film a federal building".If it is, why hasn't anyone been charged with the crime?
    Because there have already been two court rulings AGAINST the FAA. that would weigh heavily in the decision of a case where an RCMA operator flies in a NOTAM FRZ area.
    Take a look in youtube and you will find dozens of videos taken on the Las Vegas strip.
    Now look at a map and you will find a major airport within a mile of it.
    So why aren't these pilots being charged with having committed a crime?
    DSLR pros has one out and they even slap their name on the video.