Seymour Indiana- Read This. This guy in a town near me asked and --------
Officials fear flying drone could cause planes to crash
Officials fear flying drone could cause planes to crash
Airport Denied Drone Flight
- Thread starter Indiana_pyro
- Start date
I'm just a hobby flier, but have read a lot of threads here, and I am puzzled by a couple things.
I thought that we are advised to "advise the local airport" that we will be flying. Not "asking for permission".
(From the article linked above)"Those rules state people flying drones must keep them in sight at all times and cannot fly them higher than 400 feet or within five miles of an airport without permission. They also must have a remote pilot certification
WHAT?
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
I thought that we are advised to "advise the local airport" that we will be flying. Not "asking for permission".
(From the article linked above)"Those rules state people flying drones must keep them in sight at all times and cannot fly them higher than 400 feet or within five miles of an airport without permission. They also must have a remote pilot certification
WHAT?
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
If flying commercial?
"They also must have a remote pilot certification" Part #107
The article is wrong on numerous points, and it sounds like the airport authority may also have been confused. He was apparently asking to fly recreationally, not under Part 107, so he did not need a remote pilot certification. He did need to notify the airport operator (KSER appears to be untowered), but did not need to ask for permission.
Had he been flying under Part 107 then he would not need to request permission at all, since there is no surface-floor controlled airspace around that airport, only 700 ft Class E above it.
That guy doesn't know his job.
Thompson said he didn’t feel comfortable approving Duttlinger’s request at this time. “My concern is that we are overstepping FAA rules by saying it’s OK,” Thompson said. “I’m not sure how wise that is for us to do at this point. The FAA is working on tweaking these rules and making them maybe different for recreational use.”
He is not "overstepping" the FAA, the FAA says the hobby flyer just needs to notify. Sure they can deny it based on safety but his determination is not based in fact. I feel there was no reason for him to have been prevented from flying.
Thompson said he didn’t feel comfortable approving Duttlinger’s request at this time. “My concern is that we are overstepping FAA rules by saying it’s OK,” Thompson said. “I’m not sure how wise that is for us to do at this point. The FAA is working on tweaking these rules and making them maybe different for recreational use.”
He is not "overstepping" the FAA, the FAA says the hobby flyer just needs to notify. Sure they can deny it based on safety but his determination is not based in fact. I feel there was no reason for him to have been prevented from flying.
Section 336 of Public Law 112-95
SOURCE - https://www.faa.gov/airports/special_programs/uas_airports/model_airplane_faqs/
SOURCE - https://www.faa.gov/airports/special_programs/uas_airports/model_airplane_faqs/
- What rules apply to model aircraft use near an airport?
Section 336 of Public Law 112-95 established the following criteria for model aircraft operations:
- Flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
- Flown in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization (CBO);
- Flown with an aircraft not more than 55 pounds, unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a CBO;
- Flown in a manner that does not interfere with, and gives way to, any manned aircraft; and
- When flown within five statute miles of an airport, the operator of the model aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation. Model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within five statute miles of an airport should establish a mutually agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport).
As a hobbyist you are "notifying" but they CAN deny your request if it poses any type of threat or potential threat to safety.
It's my understanding the airport authority only controls if you're wanting to take-off/land on airport grounds or if the tower alert them of a safety issue on the ground they need to assist with.
This is clearly how it is being interpreted, but it is logically inconsistent with the FAA language, which only requires notification. A notification is not a request and, semantically, a notification cannot be denied. I don't understand why the FAA did not simply require a request to fly within 5 miles, since that is obviously what they want. Would that requirement have breached the model aircraft provisions?
But drone operator ALSO didn't know his job, or he wouldn't have put it as a request.
Showing them the drone is also a bad idea. Now they can link it to you.
Only request I can see is if you want to test your radar reflecting paint job.
"Showing them the drone is also a bad idea. Now they can link it to you" As they should if he went against their ruling, (as wrong as it is) and flew it anyway after being told no.
It's an interesting situation to me because I wasn't at the "meeting" and therefore only can go on what the media information says. The blanket policy insinuated in the article that no one can fly in that 5 mile area is ridiculous. I'm all about working with authorities, but I feel they need to understand that permission isn't needed. And yes the operator should know he doesn't need to ask for permission. I wonder what would happen if after 20 or so people are all denied if the FAA would eventually look into if notified. Furthermore, he was intending on fling about 2 miles north east off the end of one of the runways. The only safety concern might have been he would fly way to high and possible be in the way of aircraft. If all fling is denied in that 5 mile area and someone did go ahead and fly, I'm curious if the FAA would really see it as a safety concern or actually look at why no one can fly.
I'd call again, tell them that in accordance with FAA directives you were notifying them that you would be flying. Give them contact info, time, location and maximum altitude. Then ask the, if there is any unusual activity or conditions at or around the airport that you should be aware of during the period that you intend to fly. If they can't give you a good reason for not flying, I would fly whether they 'approved' or not. If there are no legitimate safety concerns about your flight, the FAA couldn't very well accuse you of flying carelessly. And document your conversation with them.
It's probably going under the national airspace section of Part 101, about not endangering it. The thinking is, the airport can't authorize a request, but they can ask you not to fly if it interferes with, for instance, the local traffic pattern or something.
Similar threads
