FAA Expands No-Fly Zones

[tcope]

Not that it mattes much to me but I don't see the "safety" issue.


FAA Restricts Drones over Statue of Liberty, Other Landmarks

At the request of U.S. national security and law enforcement agencies, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is using its existing authority under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) § 99.7 – “Special Security Instructions” – to address concerns about unauthorized drone operations over 10 Department of the Interior (DOI) sites, including the Statue of Liberty and Mount Rushmore.

The FAA and DOI have agreed to restrict drone flights up to 400 feet within the lateral boundaries of these sites:

• Statue of Liberty National Monument, New York, NY
• Boston National Historical Park (U.S.S. Constitution), Boston, MA
• Independence National Historical Park, Philadelphia, PA
• Folsom Dam; Folsom, CA
• Glen Canyon Dam; Lake Powell, AZ
• Grand Coulee Dam; Grand Coulee, WA
• Hoover Dam; Boulder City, NV
• Jefferson National Expansion Memorial; St. Louis, MO
• Mount Rushmore National Memorial; Keystone, SD
• Shasta Dam; Shasta Lake, CA

 

[Newt59]

I fear this is a result of some of the recent headlines over vandalism of monuments and statues.

I hope that is it, as bad as I hate to say it. Because otherwise it would be possible that undisciplined drone operators are creating problems for all of us.

Such a shame. It may not be too far in the future when instead of a No Fly Area list, we will be left with a OK To Fly Area list.

 

[microlinux]

Infrastructure and national monuments, both excellent targets.

And sometimes, the information you don't know is the most important to understanding the "why" of something.

 

[Newt59]

Absolutely sir.

 

[tcope]

Infrastructure and national monuments, both excellent targets.

Targets for what? What is a drone going to do to the Hoover Dam or Rushmore and what would the purpose be?

 

[macoman]

Targets for what? What is a drone going to do to the Hoover Dam or Rushmore and what would the purpose be?

Drones are also use by ISIS to carry bombs in it... don’t ask me how they do it, but in the news, I saw it. I guess the government see drones as a tool that can be used in a bad way.

 

[GMack]

Targets for what? What is a drone going to do to the Hoover Dam or Rushmore and what would the purpose be?

I was wondering about Mt. Rushmore too. Maybe the Super there just doesn't like drones, or feels too many people in the area might be bad idea. They do seem to be taking it to an extreme, although Mt. Rushmore is a national monument controlled by the National Park Service so that probably why it's off the table.

I was listening to the LA morning radio and they went off about the FBI feeling that drones could be aerial crop-dusters loaded with toxic agents. They better fear the auto driving vehicles too.

 

[tcope]

Drones are also use by ISIS to carry bombs in it... don’t ask me how they do it, but in the news, I saw it. I guess the government see drones as a tool that can be used in a bad way.

Cars, truck, suitcases, etc. all can be "used in a bad way". They carry much larger bombs. We are not talking about bombing these places. A bomb from a drone would do nothing to those places. it could only be used against people. it would be _far_ easier and more effective use use a hundred other methods of delivery that are not restricted.

 

[pporozin]

Well, there is a huge difference between drones and cars. Car can be hit by any weapon the police and army or even you have, the 45mph flying drone somewhere in the sky is harder to hit and stop. Even if you jam the signal, the drone can have its planned mission and jaming the signal will not change the mission. The government is aware that there is currently no real widely available protection against drones. Of course there are weapons which are able to shoot the drones, but they cost money, they are not widely available to protect each possible target and they are not perfect. Any phantom 4 can carry enough explosives or enough acid to damage several people which compared to the car method has less damage, but the costs are as well lower. Therefore is the gov asking all commercial drone vendors to have the no fly zone list preloaded and the kill switch build in. If it is not in your drones documentation, that does not mean it does not exist.

 

[Phantom of the Gorge]

The new restrictions limit drones to 400 ft horizontally. Hardly enough time to ward off an attack should one be on a mission.

 

[Bad Andy]

When I first saw a few drone operators about two years ago in Forest Park NY, the guys I observed were behaving like douchebags, following female joggers around and being a general nuisance. It made me uncomfortable and made me feel like having nothing to do with drones. I'm sure that folks like that have done a lot to screw this up for everyone.

But I get the sensation that paranoid hysteria is getting the best of this country, too.

 

[daveisim]

The new restrictions limit drones to 400 ft horizontally. ...

It's actually surface to 400 ft AGL in the new restricted areas, not a 400' lateral distance. Many of the news outlets have dropped some of the wording and/or changed/ mangled it. If you go to the FAA map ArcGIS Web Application <<< should be the Hoover Dam and click on the restricted areaa the popup will show this. Also take a look at them and you'll see the lateral radius is much greater that 400'.

In regard to the Hoover Dam, being restricted to over 400' AGL, as a hobbyist, one could fly up the valley south / downstream of the dam (staying over the river) at 401' AGL , right up to the face of the dam and then fly up to any altitude. But cross the road and the 'surface' level resets to at least the upper lake level so be that level + 401' as you cross the road to the lake part until you reach the north end of the area - Hwy 93. For 107 flights, I do not see enough 'structures' around in the restricted area to fly at 401' AGL and still be within 400' lateral of the structures.

 

[anotherlab]

I would like to see the actual requests that tipped the FAA's hand for the new restrictions. If it's to prevent someone from attacking one of those sites, existing statutes would already cover that. If someone bad was going to damage the Statue of Liberty, they would just fly a Cessna into it. A drone the size of a Phantom would at best (or worst, depending on your viewpoint) could carry only enough explosives to damage one of those sites.

I think the reasoning will be based on not interfering with tourism. Which is a valid concern.