FAA bans....

Thanks lickitysplit11111. As it should have always been. Really seems like a no brainer.

Actually, there is little reason for this. If a drone carrying anything can damage a nuclear facility then we have bigger issues. Also, people who want to do harm don't usually follow FAA guidelines. You think a person intent on doing harm is going to see the area is a NFZ and decide that they can't bomb the place from a drone because of this restriction? Also, the ban is 400'. No one can have time to react in the amount of time a drone can cover that distance. This is simply another "feel good" law that makes people think that they are safe.
 
Actually, there is little reason for this. If a drone carrying anything can damage a nuclear facility then we have bigger issues. Also, people who want to do harm don't usually follow FAA guidelines. You think a person intent on doing harm is going to see the area is a NFZ and decide that they can't bomb the place from a drone because of this restriction? Also, the ban is 400'. No one can have time to react in the amount of time a drone can cover that distance. This is simply another "feel good" law that makes people think that they are safe.
ERR, me thinks that since the FAA says flying near them is a no-no DJI will simply add them to the list of places that DJI drones wont take off from so its pretty much case closed anyway but like reply #2 said this was long overdue anyways, certain places should be off limits there are a lot of idiots out there.
 
And I think people are missing the point here. I don't think the problem would be the drone carrying something to harm the facility, I think it would be more photo recon for an attack. You can get great pictures and video of the layout of a facility you are going to hit with an aerial platform. Info is everything.

With that said, I also agree that anyone who is dead set on flying somewhere they shouldn't be is going to use either an older platform (Phantom 2 vision plus) or build their own without the restrictions of a RTF craft.
 
Last edited:
And I think people are missing the point here. I don't think the problem would be the drone carrying something to harm the facility, I think it would be more photo recon for an attack. You can get great pictures and video of the layout of a facility you are going to hit with an aerial platform. Info is everything.
Yes, it's not like good, detailed photos of these places exist already. It's not like these photos have been available online already for years.

upload_2017-12-19_17-41-30.png


upload_2017-12-19_17-42-22.png


upload_2017-12-19_17-43-26.png


upload_2017-12-19_17-44-56.png



upload_2017-12-19_17-45-25.png
 
ERR, me thinks that since the FAA says flying near them is a no-no DJI will simply add them to the list of places that DJI drones wont take off from so its pretty much case closed anyway but like reply #2 said this was long overdue anyways, certain places should be off limits there are a lot of idiots out there.

I guess if people bent on harm can't use a DJI drone they will simply find a hobby to keep them occupied.
 
Yes, it's not like good, detailed photos of these places exist already. It's not like these photos have been available online already for years.

View attachment 92354

View attachment 92355

View attachment 92356

View attachment 92357


View attachment 92358

There is one thing none of those have, and that is up to date intel. Things may have changed in the weeks, months or years since those were taken. Real time recon or as close to it as possible would be invaluable when planning an attack. Not to mention the detail HD/4K video can pick up... But I have probably already said too much so I will leave it at that.
 
There is one thing none of those have, and that is up to date intel. Things may have changed in the weeks, months or years since those were taken. Real time recon or as close to it as possible would be invaluable when planning an attack. Not to mention the detail HD/4K video can pick up... But I have probably already said too much so I will leave it at that.

upload_2017-12-19_21-24-47.png


upload_2017-12-19_21-25-55.png


Not sure how much huge buildings change in less then a year. perhaps some trees are a difference size.Truth is, you don't need a drone to see the area. You can walk up to most of these places and use Google maps for everything else. The entire site in ID is next to a public highway, a public park and a bunch of farm land. you can drive right up to the front door.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RalfV
Terrorist number 1 talking to terrorist number 2 says,
"Did you get those drone pictures of the target?"
Terrorist number 2 answers,
"No I couldn't it was a no-fly zone".
In disappointment terrorist number 1 says,
"Drat foiled again".
 
View attachment 92361

View attachment 92362

Not sure how much huge buildings change in less then a year. perhaps some trees are a difference size.Truth is, you don't need a drone to see the area. You can walk up to most of these places and use Google maps for everything else. The entire site in ID is next to a public highway, a public park and a bunch of farm land. you can drive right up to the front door.

China and Russia can just turn their satellites LOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: JSKCKNIT
That's not the issue. Real-time imaging of security is an issue.

So security changes from days to day? It does not. Also, as I mentioned above, you can simply drive up to these places and look around. They are not Area 51. Anyone can easily either drive right up to the front door and/or stand on public land and see everything there is to see on the outside. Take a look at these places for yourself.
 
So security changes from days to day? It does not. Also, as I mentioned above, you can simply drive up to these places and look around. They are not Area 51. Anyone can easily either drive right up to the front door and/or stand on public land and see everything there is to see on the outside. Take a look at these places for yourself.

I work at one of them. Yes it does, and no, you can't.
 
Which one (or give me 2 choices)?

Sorry - too brief. Yes - security is deliberately varied, you cannot see everything relevant from outside the facilities, at least for the ones on that list that I'm familiar with, which admittedly is not all of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thatsanicepicture
Sorry - too brief. Yes - security is deliberately varied, you cannot see everything relevant from outside the facilities, at least for the ones on that list that I'm familiar with, which admittedly is not all of them.
Isn't that the only location where a drone would be able to see anyway? So the NFZ is 100% irrelivent and pointless when it comes to security inside the building.

We are only talking about the outside of the building. Would we agree that anyone can witness the security just like a drone would? If so, monitoring security is not a valid reason for the NFZ.

In my prior post I picked two of these facilities and showed that you could easily view the entire outside without a drone (and you'd get much better surveillance in person).
 
Isn't that the only location where a drone would be able to see anyway? So the NFZ is 100% irrelivent and pointless when it comes to security inside the building.

We are only talking about the outside of the building. Would we agree that anyone can witness the security just like a drone would? If so, monitoring security is not a valid reason for the NFZ.

In my prior post I picked two of these facilities and showed that you could easily view the entire outside without a drone (and you'd get much better surveillance in person).

I'm not going to argue with you about this, and I'm certainly not going to expand on security arrangements at National Labs and other DOE facilities beyond what is published. As I said, I'm not familiar with all of them, and some are certainly more visible than others. INL is probably the smallest. But LANL, just for example, covers around 30 square miles of land that is not open to the public, and so your comments are obviously incorrect here. The same applies to Pantex and Oak Ridge and Savannah River.
 

Recent Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,352
Members
104,933
Latest member
mactechnic