FAA bans....

[RC_G35x]

We live relatively near a nuclear plant . I had see in person the effects of radiation specially in childs when I lived in Cuba and Castro bring hundreds of kids from Chernobyl and give them a better life to what was left.

Broke my heart ;(

Any security applied to these facilities are small to the risk they implied. Forget the president of USA... (fly straight to his orange tan head) but Secure these places because every one depends on it . If one melts down will take everything, millions of life , pain , forget about the country economy for decades . North America will never be the same ...
not just humans entire ecosystem and with the size of these now days entire planet will get hurt ...

Fly the toys somewhere outs and let the security do it's job . Who know how many alarms we had triger with the toys .

Ug.. Nuclear power facilities are the *safest* form of power generation (per kwh) of almost any method we currently have. It's safer then hydroelectric, its safer then wind, its *way* safer then coal and natural gas, etc etc. If we used a fully closed generation cycle it would also be one of the cleanest (but its cheaper to store waste on site and ignore it, so that's what we do here). Nuclear power has only killed a handful of people during the entire time its been around (with Chernobyl being the grand king of the fatal accidents, and that place was a dangerous mess the day it was commissioned). Hydroelectric killed tens of thousands of people in a single accident a few decades ago, wind has killed a few, coal kills them all the time (from mining to generation to pollution).

I'd have to write a book to explain all of this and honestly most people who are terrified of nuclear power don't care to listen anyway, but we don't need less nuclear power in this world, we need more. Wind and Solar will never keep up with large growing populations and economies (which is why India has said their building many many new coal plants to provide their people power). Yet modern nuclear designs can run off fuel mostly useless for bombs and other designs can even run off the waste from other plants creating a near 99% closed cycle.

 

[AndrewCCM]

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.

Lots of valid points... I will disagree with one... Sure a ban isn’t going to stop anyone with bad intentions, but it will bring attention when there is one in the area. Without the law, drones could be flown around all the time without much notice.

All I am saying is it gives more merit to their security paying attention to something possibly nefarious with the law.

I do agree with the sentiment of your message overall though.

 

[Habanero]

I definitely agree with you and know a bit about the subject but what makes nuclear power so safe are all the safeguard around it and after seen with my own eyes what they can do any safeguard it's welcome. It's not like we don't have another place to fly...

I like solar power , it's coming from a gigant natural nuclear plant outside the planet. We waste way to much energy specially here in USA. But I know this it's a long off topic...

The worse one being coal it's what our current president likes and fuels .

No one it's thinking the little drone will blow up a nuclear plant but the security team will be better of not having to worry about UFOs all over they air space triggering false alarms for many reasons...

Ug.. Nuclear power facilities are the *safest* form of power generation (per kwh) of almost any method we currently have. It's safer then hydroelectric, its safer then wind, its *way* safer then coal and natural gas, etc etc. If we used a fully closed generation cycle it would also be one of the cleanest (but its cheaper to store waste on site and ignore it, so that's what we do here). Nuclear power has only killed a handful of people during the entire time its been around (with Chernobyl being the grand king of the fatal accidents, and that place was a dangerous mess the day it was commissioned). Hydroelectric killed tens of thousands of people in a single accident a few decades ago, wind has killed a few, coal kills them all the time (from mining to generation to pollution).

I'd have to write a book to explain all of this and honestly most people who are terrified of nuclear power don't care to listen anyway, but we don't need less nuclear power in this world, we need more. Wind and Solar will never keep up with large growing populations and economies (which is why India has said their building many many new coal plants to provide their people power). Yet modern nuclear designs can run off fuel mostly useless for bombs and other designs can even run off the waste from other plants creating a near 99% closed cycle.

 

[Bad Andy]

Being in NYC, I find myself surrounded by paranoia at every turn. I find some of it utterly amusing.

A few years before 9/11 I went to visit the top of the WTC and a security guard insisted on keeping my belt knife until I came back out. Only reason he saw it was, it was on my belt. There were no metal detectors. My jacket never opened and nobody asked. I could have had an Uzi on my back and a few extra 32-round magazines on my chest and nobody would have ever known.

An unassuming power substation near my office went for many decades without any real security but after 9/11 it got concrete barricades and snipers on our roof. I could tell you why but I'd have to kill us both. I think. Whatever.

You can unroll a thousand feet of string for a kite in Flushing Meadow Park in the pattern for LGA but G-d forbid you put a drone a couple hundred feet up. Signs are up at the river crossings forbidding photography, but any idiot passing by in a boat or kayak could take all they want, seeing every last bolt and crack in the paint with an 800mm prime and seriously, nobody's bothering folks walking across and taking cellphone pics. Not to mention postcards. The authorities finally put metal and concrete casings around part of suspension cables you could reach out and touch. I remarked that was a problem waiting to happen over twenty years before 9/11. Motorcyclists with helmet cams get harassed on the way into the tunnels now but nobody seems to think it's worth the extra hassle to bother the kajillion cars with HD/4K dual dash cams.

Ubiquitous satellite and street imaging tells you everything you need to know about most places these days short of the walking patterns and timing of security guards. I can see amazing details about places you'd think would be a great concern, yet if I look at satellite imaging for something like IBM's Watson Research Center, it's a big fuzzy blob, LOL. I guess that's where the Men in Black work on the alien technology.

I totally understand why major infrastructure wants to draw lines in the sand. Some idiot getting his toy caught up in wires or a cooling water inlet probably isn't a good thing.

Can't outlaw stupidity though, and none of that is gonna stop the determined.

 

[Russ43Phantom]

I woud like to see more energy focused on more valuable or creative endeavors than complaining about this type of topic. In today’s age the government must take every precaution they can. Go somewhere else with your drone.

 

[Bad Andy]

In today’s age the government must take every precaution they can. Go somewhere else with your drone.

The "precautions" don't stop with infrastructure or government.

"Somewhere else" is getting more and more elusive.

The frustration and resulting complaints is/are not unexpected.

Nobody forces you to read things you don't like to read. Or... do they?

 

[andy_k]

Nobody forces you to read things you don't like to read. Or... do they?

It depends on who's rules you decide you want to live by.

Ignore laws because you haven't read them - I have no real issue with that but don't complain if someone breaks into your house or steals your car - maybe they chose to ignore those laws, there's no difference, it's horses for courses

 

[jmccen]

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.

So they Think their products can't be flow in nfz's

 

[sar104]

I've said this before... what is a drone going to do against such a site? if a done could affect a nuclear waste site or nuclear power plant, then we have much bigger issues. Truth is, it won't do anything. Nuclear power plants are design to resist the impact of planes (jets) and the like. A drone is not going to do anything.

If a jet a 500mph won't do anything, what is a drone going to do.

As has been mentioned above, the NFZ is not because a done could be used to directly attack a nuclear facilities, it's for other reasons. I would agree that it's for security reasons. However, anyone could get the same information without using a drone. I suspect this was done because it was easy to do, not because drones were a big threat.

Why are you still pushing this argument? You must surely be aware that this is not about the physical threat that a small UAV represents. You vanished from the discussion after I pointed out that many of the sites on that list are not readily observed from publicly accessible locations, but now you are back with the same assertions? And you also must be aware that none of these sites are primarily nuclear waste sites or nuclear power plants. I had assumed that you at least knew the primary function of these facilities since that information is unclassified and extensively published in the public domain.

 

[tcope]

Why are you still pushing this argument? You must surely be aware that this is not about the physical threat that a small UAV represents. You vanished from the discussion after I pointed out that many of the sites on that list are not readily observed from publicly accessible locations, but now you are back with the same assertions? And you also must be aware that none of these sites are primarily nuclear waste sites or nuclear power plants. I had assumed that you at least knew the primary function of these facilities since that information is unclassified and extensively published in the public domain.

I'm not sure I vanished. I certainly did not see a reason to comment on every post. You stated that some security could not be seen from the outside and I pointed out that this was the only vantage point a drone would give. I thought that was enough said about that.

Not everyone is a power plant but some are both. For example the Hanford Site (first one listed) stores nuclear waste but is also a power plant. It's also been leaking waste for several years, thousands of gallons of nuclear waste. That is why I stated, "a nuclear waste site or nuclear power plant". Yes, I did look them all up initially.

 

[sar104]

I'm not sure I vanished. I certainly did not see a reason to comment on every post. You stated that some security could not be seen from the outside and I pointed out that this was the only vantage point a drone would give. I thought that was enough said about that.

Not everyone is a power plant but some are both. For example the Hanford Site (first one listed) stores nuclear waste but is also a power plant. It's also been leaking waste for several years, thousands of gallons of nuclear waste. That is why I stated, "a nuclear waste site or nuclear power plant". Yes, I did look them all up initially.

Exactly - you did not comment on my previous post - instead you ignored it and then reposted your orignal assertions several days later. My point was not that some security could not be seen from the outside - it was that it could not be seen from the publicly accessible perimeter of the sites. That's not the same thing at all.

Hanford has, or had, both reactors and waste storage, but neither was its primary purpose. The same is true of all those sites. The larger and more significant sites have a quite different mission, in the context of which the purpose of enhanced security should be entirely obvious. But, more importantly, I was taking issue with the main thrust of your argument which was predicated on the main threat being a physical attack by a UAV. That's not the threat at all.

 

[GadgetGuy]

The FAA and DOE have agreed to restrict drone flights up to 400 feet within the lateral boundaries. That's altitude, not distance away from them.

See FAA Restricts Drone Operations Over DOE Facilities

You have until December 29th to complete all your surveillance activities!
"These UAS National Security restrictions are pending until they become effective on December 29, 2017."

 

[sar104]

You have until December 29th to complete all your surveillance activities!
"These UAS National Security restrictions are pending until they become effective on December 29, 2017."

Some of these sites have had special use airspace for many years. For example, LANL is under R-5101 surface - 12,000 MSL restricted, and Pantex is under P-47 surface - 4,800 MSL prohibited.

 

[borschelrh]

I think it is the typical over-reaction. Anyone who wants to can fly a kite or launch a small tethered balloon with cameras attached to get real time intel and they would be perfectly legal. Plus, as usual, bad guys don't follow laws so this is another dumb idea which is more meant to pacify anyone who would criticize them about not trying to control a problem which really doesn't exist.

 

[lickitysplit11111]

I think it is the typical over-reaction. Anyone who wants to can fly a kite or launch a small tethered balloon with cameras attached to get real time intel and they would be perfectly legal. Plus, as usual, bad guys don't follow laws so this is another dumb idea which is more meant to pacify anyone who would criticize them about not trying to control a problem which really doesn't exist.

Tethered balloons with cameras ? LOL sounds a little/lot like something from Gilligan's Island

 

[John Tarvin]

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.

Good, because I think tcope is obsessed with this....

 

[GadgetGuy]

Some of these sites have had special use airspace for many years. For example, LANL is under R-5101 surface - 12,000 MSL restricted, and Pantex is under P-47 surface - 4,800 MSL prohibited.

Darn! Now what am I to do?? I just know China wants my footage!

 

[daveisim]

For example, LANL is under R-5101 surface - 12,000 MSL restricted

Restricted areas may be flow into if you are VFR (not including VFR on Top when flying on an IFR clearance) and when the controlling agency has declared the area is "cold'. Then no permission is need. So adding R-5101 to the list sUAS / Hobby aircraft restrictions is not a duplicate of effort.

Here's a letter to/from the FAA that clarifies that sort of thing. http://www.safepilots.org/documents/SAFE_Training_Aid_MOAs.pdf

Prohibited areas on the other hand, as we all should know, are quite explicit in needing permission to fly into.

 

[sar104]

Restricted areas may be flow into if you are VFR (not including VFR on Top when flying on an IFR clearance) and when the controlling agency has declared the area is "cold'. Then no permission is need. So adding R-5101 to the list sUAS / Hobby aircraft restrictions is not a duplicate of effort.

Here's a letter to/from the FAA that clarifies that sort of thing. http://www.safepilots.org/documents/SAFE_Training_Aid_MOAs.pdf

Prohibited areas on the other hand, as we all should know, are quite explicit in needing permission to fly into.

Agreed, and I wasn't suggesting that it was necessarily duplicate effort - just noting that flight is already restricted. That, said, in the case of R-5101 it effectively is a duplicate, since that restricted area is never declared "cold" and controlling agency permission is always required.

 

[daveisim]

Agreed, and I wasn't suggesting that it was necessarily duplicate effort - just noting that flight is already restricted. That, said, in the case of R-5101 it effectively is a duplicate, since that restricted area is never declared "cold" and controlling agency permission is always required.

Right. We both know this but there are many others that might not, so that's why I included the link to the explanation. Too many people think all Restricted Areas (and/or MOA's) are 100% non-usable.

I kinda figured that R-5101 is never declared 'cold'