Macinac Island Drone permit?

[DougAles]

Just asking a question.

Who owns and regulates the sky? Only the FAA, right?

Asked another way, if I launched, operated, and retrieved my quad from a boat as my quad flew over Macinac Island, would local laws or ordinances be violated?

I'm not saying I will do this. I'm seeking understanding after reading this article that I find concerning.

City Establishes Six-month Moratorium on Use of Drones | Mackinac Island Town Crier

 

[MapMaker53]

I assume you are referring to Macinac Island, Michigan. The FAA does control the airspace, and the problem you have in flying anywhere on Macinac Island (even if launching from and returning to a boat off shore) from what I see on the map is you would be flying well within 5 miles of the small Macinac Island Airport and would need to notify the airport of that if flying recreationally. The airport, in turn, could deny your flight if they deem it unsafe for their operations. The island at it's longest is only about 3 miles. But as far as local ordinances, as long as you weren't flying at an unsafe low altitude and did not run out of battery and have to land, I do not believe you would be in violation of the local law. But I'm not an attorney.

 

[Mr. Salty]

The article you linked to is from last summer. It says the temporary moratorium expired in January. I haven't bee able to find any updated information, so you might want to call the city or polce department to see what the current status is.

As to the airport question, for recreational flying isn't the requirement with respect to small airports only to notify the airport, not ask permission?

 

[MapMaker53]

The regs say you must notify the airport of your intended flight and are not worded that you are requesting "permission". However, the airport can disallow the flight for safety reasons. For example, no airport will allow you to put your quad into the air and hover just outside of their property at the end of an active runway, even if you notify them of your intended flight. So, while you are not asking them for permission, they do have the power and authority (based on safety concerns) to deny the airspace access to you. At least that's my understanding of it. I'm not sure why the regs don't just say you need to obtain permission from an airport, because in essence that is what you are doing by giving them notice, which they in turn can deny. I think the denial must be based on a real time and location safety concern, not just a blanket "No flying within 5-miles", such as you would be in conflict with the Runway 16 traffic pattern that day.

 

[DougAles]

I've been trying +1 (906) 847-3300 with no success at reaching anyone

 

[DougAles]

Finally got thru, then I was told they have a moratorium banning drones.

Reading the article linked above, it appears some people in power for the Maniac Island area are anti-drone. That is their choice.

So, this brings me to a legal theoretical question.

If operated off the island, such as from a boat, and after providing the local airport notification, and never touching land, say remaining above 80 feet in the air (80 feet due to a strory I read about noise) and under 400 feed (FAA) and within line of sight (again FAA) would a flight be at risk of any legal violation?

 

[Richard R]

When you say that you got through and were told that there was a moratorium on flights - who told you that, airport personnel or some city office worker? I don't think (need to do some research) that a local airport can blanket shut down sUAS flights in the vicinity. Your boat scenario is similar to flying over National Park Lands. In principle, they can only regulate their property. FAA controls the airspace. So if you are Kosher with the FAA (proper airport notification, registration, etc. all in order) you are good to go if you aren't taking off or landing on their property. IF you could get a local to give you permission launch land on their property, you don't even need to go off shore. Even the airport can't deny your flight. They can tell you that they don't want you to fly due to some specific circumstances and if you fly any way, the FAA may consider that to be reckless. And any LEO can still try to cite you for reckless activity, which is often a catch all that is used when they can't find anything else.

 

[Richard R]

The regs say you must notify the airport of your intended flight and are not worded that you are requesting "permission". However, the airport can disallow the flight for safety reasons. For example, no airport will allow you to put your quad into the air and hover just outside of their property at the end of an active runway, even if you notify them of your intended flight. So, while you are not asking them for permission, they do have the power and authority (based on safety concerns) to deny the airspace access to you. At least that's my understanding of it. I'm not sure why the regs don't just say you need to obtain permission from an airport, because in essence that is what you are doing by giving them notice, which they in turn can deny. I think the denial must be based on a real time and location safety concern, not just a blanket "No flying within 5-miles", such as you would be in conflict with the Runway 16 traffic pattern that day.

Agree, but remember, as a Part 107 pilot, i am not even required to notify an airport if Im flying nearby!

 

[MapMaker53]

Well true, as long as it is Class G Airspace you are flying in. But if a restricted airspace near an airport happens to extend down to the surface (like you find in many metro areas) you would have to obtain authorization as a Part 107 in order to fly within it.

(Sorry.. originally wrote "waiver" when I meant "authorization.")

 

[DougAles]

When you say that you got through and were told that there was a moratorium on flights - who told you that, airport personnel or some city office worker?

I called the number posted in a earlier post of mine in this thread and reached a person who said they were a police officer on Mackinac Island, in Michigan.

 

[Richard R]

Well true, as long as it is Class G Airspace you are flying in. But if a restricted airspace near an airport happens to extend down to the surface (like you find in many metro areas) you would have to obtain authorization as a Part 107 in order to fly within it.

(Sorry.. originally wrote "waiver" when I meant "authorization.")

And Mackinac is Glass G - they don't have a tower.

 

[Richard R]

I called the number posted in a earlier post of mine in this thread and reached a person who said they were a police officer on Mackinac Island, in Michigan.

Ok, then my comments in Post #7 should apply. Would try to talk to them again and ask them if they are trying to restrict flights in the airspace above them Which is controlled by the FAA or just where sUASs can take off and land. In the original article, Chief Riccinto admits that they don't really know what they are doing, I quote "We are out of the loop on drones". A little push back and friendly reminder about FAA preogatives might be in order. Hey, it can't hurt, since they already are trying to shut sUAS flights down on the island.

 

[MapMaker53]

And Mackinac is Glass G - they don't have a tower.

Yep, agreed. But your #8 post seemed to be speaking in general terms, hence my comment addressed flying nearby airports in general as a Part 107.

 

[DeathbyOstrich]

Just an update. I tried to launch my P3A yesterday on Mackinac Island and the software wouldn't let me do it. I had to log a specific special permit number. Which I did not have. I tried all 3 modes. No joy. It said the area was in a special yellow zone. I'm worried this is the new normal.

 

[DougAles]

Just an update. I tried to launch my P3A yesterday on Mackinac Island and the software wouldn't let me do it. I had to log a specific special permit number. Which I did not have. I tried all 3 modes. No joy. It said the area was in a special yellow zone. I'm worried this is the new normal.

How disappointing.

Could you try stepping a few feet out into the water and see if it works then?

 

[DeathbyOstrich]

It's an island. LOL. But later that week I drove to Banff National Park. And the rule is no drones. But I discovered an option in the DJI go app that allows me to turn off the NFZ options. I was able to launch. Although the park drone police were after me the whole time.

 

[DougAles]

It's an island. LOL. But later that week I drove to Banff National Park. And the rule is no drones. But I discovered an option in the DJI go app that allows me to turn off the NFZ options. I was able to launch. Although the park drone police were after me the whole time.

Could you please provide details about park drone police after you?

 

[DeathbyOstrich]

Could you please provide details about park drone police after you?

After my flight as I was packing up, a woman approached me and told me the park sheriff was aware of a drone and looking for me.

 

[DougAles]

After my flight as I was packing up, a woman approached me and told me the park sheriff was aware of a drone and looking for me.

Sounds like a good time to make like a Tree and leave.

 

[yukyuk]

All,
Thought I would comment on my research on this issue so far. (from a Hobbyist perspective)
In or around October of 2015 the Island (City and Park) Established a Six-month Moratorium on Use of Drones. ~That we know.~ Because the Airport is within the state park it would be within a notificaiton-operating radius.

I contacted the airport manager who referred me to the main state park number. I was then directed to the park manager. She informed me that there is a permit process (LINK) which needs to be submitted at least two weeks in advance and requires a $75 application fee. (as of July 31, 2017)

This is where my research takes a turn.

As of April 4, 2017 Michigan Public Act 436 of 2016 - LINK took effect. The law, (MCL 259.305 - LINK) includes the following:

Sec. 5. (1) Except as expressly authorized by statute, a political subdivision shall not enact or enforce an ordinance or resolution that regulates the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft or otherwise engage in the regulation of the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft.

Would this mean the City/park is now operating outside of the law?