"No drones" works just fine in the sense of no takeoff/landing but, as has been pointed out many, many times, only the FAA regulates the airspace itself.
I was told to stop flying.
- Thread starter WV. Rootman
- Start date
"No drones" works just fine in the sense of no takeoff/landing but, as has been pointed out many, many times, only the FAA regulates the airspace itself.
I get that it’s fun to say stuff is illegal but let’s not just make things up. It is not illegal in Texas to fly over infrastructure, there are height restrictions.
Sec. 423.0045. OFFENSE: OPERATION OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT OVER CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY.
In this section:
“Critical infrastructure facility” means:
one of the following, if completely enclosed by a fence or other physical barrier that is obviously designed to exclude intruders, or if clearly marked with a sign or signs that are posted on the property, are reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, and indicate that entry is forbidden:
(i) a petroleum or alumina refinery;
(ii) an electrical power generating facility, substation, switching station, or electrical control center;
(iii) a chemical, polymer, or rubber manufacturing facility;
(iv) a water intake structure, water treatment facility, wastewater treatment plant, or pump station;
(v) a natural gas compressor station;
(vi) a liquid natural gas terminal or storage facility;
(vii) a telecommunications central switching office;
(viii) a port, railroad switching yard, trucking terminal, or other freight transportation facility;
(ix) a gas processing plant, including a plant used in the processing, treatment, or fractionation of natural gas;
(x) a transmission facility used by a federally licensed radio or television station;
(xi) a steelmaking facility that uses an electric arc furnace to make steel; or
(xii) a dam that is classified as a high hazard by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; or
(B) any portion of an aboveground oil, gas, or chemical pipeline that is enclosed by a fence or other physical barrier that is obviously designed to exclude intruders.
“Dam” means any barrier, including any appurtenant structures, that is constructed for the purpose of permanently or temporarily impounding water.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly:
operates an unmanned aircraft over a critical infrastructure facility and the unmanned aircraft is not higher than 400 feet above ground level;
allows an unmanned aircraft to make contact with a critical infrastructure facility, including any person or object on the premises of or within the facility; or
allows an unmanned aircraft to come within a distance of a critical infrastructure facility that is close enough to interfere with the operations of or cause a disturbance to the facility.
(c) This section does not apply to conduct described by Subsection (b) that is committed by:
the federal government, the state, or a governmental entity;
a person under contract with or otherwise acting under the direction or on behalf of the federal government, the state, or a governmental entity;
a law enforcement agency;
a person under contract with or otherwise acting under the direction or on behalf of a law enforcement agency;
an owner or operator of the critical infrastructure facility;
a person under contract with or otherwise acting under the direction or on behalf of an owner or operator of the critical infrastructure facility;
a person who has the prior written consent of the owner or operator of the critical infrastructure facility;
the owner or occupant of the property on which the critical infrastructure facility is located or a person who has the prior written consent of the owner or occupant of that property; or
an operator of an unmanned aircraft that is being used for a commercial purpose, if the operator is authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct operations over that airspace.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the actor has previously been convicted under this section.
Added by Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1033 (H.B. 1481), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2015.
Sec. 423.0045. OFFENSE: OPERATION OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT OVER CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY.
In this section:
“Critical infrastructure facility” means:
one of the following, if completely enclosed by a fence or other physical barrier that is obviously designed to exclude intruders, or if clearly marked with a sign or signs that are posted on the property, are reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, and indicate that entry is forbidden:
(i) a petroleum or alumina refinery;
(ii) an electrical power generating facility, substation, switching station, or electrical control center;
(iii) a chemical, polymer, or rubber manufacturing facility;
(iv) a water intake structure, water treatment facility, wastewater treatment plant, or pump station;
(v) a natural gas compressor station;
(vi) a liquid natural gas terminal or storage facility;
(vii) a telecommunications central switching office;
(viii) a port, railroad switching yard, trucking terminal, or other freight transportation facility;
(ix) a gas processing plant, including a plant used in the processing, treatment, or fractionation of natural gas;
(x) a transmission facility used by a federally licensed radio or television station;
(xi) a steelmaking facility that uses an electric arc furnace to make steel; or
(xii) a dam that is classified as a high hazard by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; or
(B) any portion of an aboveground oil, gas, or chemical pipeline that is enclosed by a fence or other physical barrier that is obviously designed to exclude intruders.
“Dam” means any barrier, including any appurtenant structures, that is constructed for the purpose of permanently or temporarily impounding water.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly:
operates an unmanned aircraft over a critical infrastructure facility and the unmanned aircraft is not higher than 400 feet above ground level;
allows an unmanned aircraft to make contact with a critical infrastructure facility, including any person or object on the premises of or within the facility; or
allows an unmanned aircraft to come within a distance of a critical infrastructure facility that is close enough to interfere with the operations of or cause a disturbance to the facility.
(c) This section does not apply to conduct described by Subsection (b) that is committed by:
the federal government, the state, or a governmental entity;
a person under contract with or otherwise acting under the direction or on behalf of the federal government, the state, or a governmental entity;
a law enforcement agency;
a person under contract with or otherwise acting under the direction or on behalf of a law enforcement agency;
an owner or operator of the critical infrastructure facility;
a person under contract with or otherwise acting under the direction or on behalf of an owner or operator of the critical infrastructure facility;
a person who has the prior written consent of the owner or operator of the critical infrastructure facility;
the owner or occupant of the property on which the critical infrastructure facility is located or a person who has the prior written consent of the owner or occupant of that property; or
an operator of an unmanned aircraft that is being used for a commercial purpose, if the operator is authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct operations over that airspace.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the actor has previously been convicted under this section.
Added by Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1033 (H.B. 1481), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2015.
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2017
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 6
- Age
- 43
"operates an unmanned aircraft over a critical infrastructure facility and the unmanned aircraft is not higher than 400 feet above ground level"
AKA: You can't fly a drone over those facilities. If you fly within the state law, you're in violation of federal law (ok...you're in violation of an FAA regulation). If you fly within federal law, you're in violation of state law.
I don’t understand what you are saying. It specifically says you can fly at 400 feet. How does that mean you can’t fly over it? You can also get a special exemption for the places that are regulated.
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
To ensure the public is aware of these restricted locations, the FAA has created an interactive map online. The link to these restrictions is also included in the FAA’s B4UFLY mobile app. The app will be updated within 60 days to reflect these airspace restrictions. Additional information, including frequently asked questions, is available on the FAA’s UAS website.
Operators who violate the airspace restrictions may be subject to enforcement action, including potential civil penalties and criminal charges.
This is the first time the agency has placed airspace restrictions for unmanned aircraft, or “drones,” over DOI landmarks. The FAA has placed similar airspace restrictions over military bases that currently remain in place.
The FAA is considering additional requests from other federal agencies for restrictions using the FAA’s § 99.7 authority as they are received.
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2017
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 6
- Age
- 43
Legaleese sucks. It can be confusing, probably intentionally in many cases.
Here's how it reads: "A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly operates an unmanned aircraft over a critical infrastructure facility and the unmanned aircraft is not higher than 400 feet above ground level"
In more simple terms: If you are flying over infrastructure, and you are NOT flying OVER 400 feet, you are in violation of this law.
It’s not confusing at all. The confusing part was when you posted AKA you can’t fly over those facilities - when clearly you can.
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2017
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 6
- Age
- 43
Yes you can. At 401 feet, which now puts you in violation of FAA regulations. The law was clearly written to keep hobbyists and 107s from flying over these facilities.
That would be in violation of Part 107 but, as the FAA has itself confirmed, there is no specific altitude restriction for Part 101 flights, so recreational flights over 400 ft AGL, provided they do not present an obvious hazard to the NAS, should be OK.
Additionally, that law includes an apparent loophole for Part 107 flights, since one exemption listed is:
an operator of an unmanned aircraft that is being used for a commercial purpose, if the operator is authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct operations over that airspace.
from which one could argue that if the infrastructure is in Class G airspace then a Part 107 operator is authorized to fly.
I recently travelled to the US from Australia. I have a Phantom 3 standard and was keen to fly it there and successfully obtained my FAADroneZone sUAS Registration so I could fly. Having avidly read all the posts on this site and then downloaded and checked the locations I wanted to fly on the B4U Fly app, I decided it was all too difficult and left my drone at home.
So my question is. How many people have been hurt or killed by adverse consequences of flying drones in the US? Compared to how many people have been maimed or kill by abuse of the 2nd amendments right to bear arms laws in the US?
In Australia we have more relaxed laws on flying drones and much more stringent laws on carrying weapons.
Gun laws in Australia - Wikipedia.
So my point is I believe the priorities adopted in the US to minimize harm from flying drones are misplaced when the main culprit of crime and accidental death in the US is misuse of too readily available fire arms.
So my question is. How many people have been hurt or killed by adverse consequences of flying drones in the US? Compared to how many people have been maimed or kill by abuse of the 2nd amendments right to bear arms laws in the US?
In Australia we have more relaxed laws on flying drones and much more stringent laws on carrying weapons.
Gun laws in Australia - Wikipedia.
So my point is I believe the priorities adopted in the US to minimize harm from flying drones are misplaced when the main culprit of crime and accidental death in the US is misuse of too readily available fire arms.
You can fly over 400 feet though..
FAA Acknowledges AMA as a CBO and our Safety Program | AMA Government Relations Blog
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2017
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 6
- Age
- 43
And this right is why we have so many lawyers and so much litigation in the US.
I'm not arguing the law is solid, I'm arguing the intent of the law as written. Arguing is the wrong word.... Anyway, laws generally aren't "settled" until they've been litigated, and even then..... Wonder if there's been any cases of people being charged under this and if it's been challenged in court?
I think automobiles cause more accidental deaths.
And this right is why we have so many lawyers and so much litigation in the US.
I'm not arguing the law is solid, I'm arguing the intent of the law as written. Arguing is the wrong word.... Anyway, laws generally aren't "settled" until they've been litigated, and even then..... Wonder if there's been any cases of people being charged under this and if it's been challenged in court?
The law is pretty straight forward. I don’t see anything contradicting the laws I posted. Beyond that if there is any concern one can pursue an exemption.
Either way the whole point is - it is not illegal to fly a drone over a dam in Texas, assuming you are above 400 ft.
N017RW
Premium Pilot
I think automobiles cause more accidental deaths.
Yup, and cats kill more birds than dogs.
The main cause of accidental death in the US is drug overdoses. Then car wrecks.
Good point!
I did hire a car in California and was interested to note the average speed of drivers around me on the freeways appeared to be 10-15 miles an hour faster than I was going... I.e. the speed limit.I think automobiles cause more accidental deaths.
Last edited:
And this right is why we have so many lawyers and so much litigation in the US.
I'm not arguing the law is solid, I'm arguing the intent of the law as written. Arguing is the wrong word.... Anyway, laws generally aren't "settled" until they've been litigated, and even then..... Wonder if there's been any cases of people being charged under this and if it's been challenged in court?
Agreed, although I can't really figure out the intent. Was it to prevent UAV flights over those facilities, either Part 101 or Part 107 or both, and the two loopholes were unintentional and due to ignorance of the applicable parts of 14 CFR? Or did the legislators understand 14 CFR and craft it intentionally with those possibilities?
The law specifically writes in the ability to have an exemption. So even if you don’t believe you can fly over 400 feet as a hobbyist, you can pursue an exemption.
Thanks for the data. Also fascinating to note that marijuana has just been legalized in California!
Similar threads
Recent Posts
-
-
-
-
-
FS: iPad Mini 4 tablet kit $150 (MAKE AN OFFER! I'M MOTIVATED TO SELL!)
- Latest: davewilliams
Members online
No members online now.