No fly zone in United States question?

[kyles974]

Ok...I've been flying a walkera ladybug with a homemade 7" video screen goggle set up for a year. (Around my house)
External antenna so my distance is around 900'.
Anyhow.....been researching the phantom on/off for 1-2 yrs now. Thinking of purchasing.
BUT...I just noticed I live in an area of red. (Looked at map that is in another thread below)
There is a private airport down the road and I live within 5-7 miles from a Navy Base.
I never take my Ladybug higher than just above the trees because of this.

Now....I'm very concerned that maybe I shouldn't fly a Phantom here.

Kinda of a stupid question here....but the no fly zone mean no flying at all? ....or is there a limit of height of flight that can be flown?

There is a park down the road that I have seen many fly their 3-D helis there....so what is the difference here? Because of the "drone" and or the height of "drones" can go??

 

[moe3754]

Those Helicopters can fly as high or higher than your Phantom, the stigma of the so called Drone is the problem, I would keep the Phantom in a reasonable flight pattern and altitude not something as stupid as 500 feet and I would fly in the same area as the Helicopters, a good dose of common sense does go a long way, I live in the flight pattern of the U.S. Air Force Academy and fly no higher than my house and have had no problems at all. If you do not cause problems then no one will bother you. Simple as that. Just as a side note I do not use any cameras on my Phantom I just sport fly.

 

[chapsrlz]

dji manual:
http://download.dji-innovations.com/dow ... 1.4_en.pdf

page 31
no fly zone = motors will not start

and here is the map of limited areas and no fly zones
http://www.dji.com/fly-safe/category-mc

 

[moe3754]

My motors work just fine because I have the 1.1.1 and that is why I purchased it. None of this big brother crap on my Phantom.

Seems as though they have forgotten about the lowly 1.1.1 and that is just fine with me it suites my needs quite well.

 

[J.James]

I live just 3 blocks away from whats officially a no fly zone an a no photograph or video area. Because the area is a sensitive military facility that produces weapon systems and also has biological and conventional weapons laboratories there. Tho its not on the DJI no fly zone map. and has been a no fly zone before any one ever had drones. and mostly applied to air planes Tho I see air planes flying directly over it all the time. Tho when I fly near home I avoid flying any were near it. esp if I have my camera on. Which is what they really don't want is any one photographing any thing. and now DHS has taken over a big part of the facility and big brother don't want any one ever seeing what they are up to. and they think only us citizens are to be looked at and spied on 24/7 by them. Tho the funny thing is there is top secret stuff there thats not at all a secret and even reported on and public info if some one wanted to dig deep enough to find it and its even viewable from Google earth. They are one of the only places in the world that still have a live sample of yellow fever also have a ware house filled with old aging mustered gas shells from ww1 and even some were and all the government even knows is there are even 2 lost nike missile silos that they lost track of during the height of the old war. and dont even know for sure were they are other then just knowing they are some place with in a mile radius of the base and they still have nukes in them. There location was so secret and compartmentalize that the government even lost track of there location. all of this is smack dab in the middle of all residential areas. Tho I have no ideal how you can lose 2 loaded entire underground missile silos and not be able to even find them. lol

 

[Suwaneeguy]

If it is a no fly zone, then how come there are aircraft flying in and out of airports?
How can the FAA restrict airspace to hobby aircraft when the FAA has no legal jurisdiction over them?

 

[J.James]

if it is a no fly zone, then how come there are aircraft flying in and out of airports?

Because they are not real no fly zones other then dji designating them as such.

How can the FAA restrict airspace to hobby aircraft when the FAA has no legal jurisdiction over them?

The FAA dont have any legal jurisdiction to restrict hobby aircraft nore do they have any restrictions or regulations regarding hoby air craft. all there safty "suggestions and guidelines saying someone "should not fly near air ports or that you should stay under 400 feet or if you intend to fly higher they "suggest" you notify the local air traffic control and let them know you will be flying over 400 feet and the area you will be flying in so they can advise aircraft to stay clear or be on the look out.

But guide lines and suggestions are just that. Suggestions or advise. same as they don't require that someone notify air traffic control if they want to fly over 400 feet. Its just a suggestion to help keep things safe. Nore do you need to ask permission and all they ask is that some one inform them that they intend to. Which is not the same as asking being they cant say you cant with out valid reason for restricting you from flying in some place that for safely reasons cant allow it.

The FAA don't even have much jurisdiction over real air craft if they are home built hobby air craft and not for commercial flight. They don't even require that the pilot has a pilots license or even any safety inspections. They only require a placard of certain size be placed in front of the seats informing any passengers that the airplane is an experimental hobby air plane and basically saying that you are taking your own risk or own life in to your hands if you fly as a non paying passenger. and that its not been approved or inspected by the FAA for safely. Lots of people even die in home built air craft (think John Denver) and the FAA still has no jurisdiction over them or able to make any laws against them cause they are not commercial air craft or even commercial made.

Place were there are laws against flying are made by other government agency's or groups then the faa. Such as local or state laws or the national security act of 1951 that can restrict photographing military installations and such. Then there are also no fly zones that are set by the gestapo oops I mean the dept of homeland security. Cause they have reign to do what ever they want as long as they "say" there protecting the hinter land or protecting the Führer. opps I mean the dear leader.

 

[ProfessorStein]

Sorry... there is just so much wrong information in this post that I just had to respond

if it is a no fly zone, then how come there are aircraft flying in and out of airports?

Because they are not real no fly zones other then dji designating them as such.

BS. It's not DJI that is designating no-fly zones. As the OP even stated, the particular area that he mentions has been a no-fly zone "since before there were drones" (which would mean "before there was DJI"). DJI does not randomly make up this information. Locations of no-fly zones are collated from a national database, which DJI then uses to affect the firmware.

How can the FAA restrict airspace to hobby aircraft when the FAA has no legal jurisdiction over them?

The FAA dont have any legal jurisdiction to restrict hobby aircraft nore do they have any restrictions or regulations regarding hoby air craft. all there safty "suggestions and guidelines saying someone "should not fly near air ports or that you should stay under 400 feet or if you intend to fly higher they "suggest" you notify the local air traffic control and let them know you will be flying over 400 feet and the area you will be flying in so they can advise aircraft to stay clear or be on the look out.

This is also incorrect. The FAA does have jurisdiction. They just don't have the authority to make LAWS. The only difference between a "regulation/restriction" and a "law" is that, if you break a regulation, you are charged with a fine... whereas if you break a law, you can also be charged with jail time. The real rub is that, often, even while you're adhering to FAA regulations, you may be in violation of local laws (which are not enforced by the FAA, but by local law enforcement agencies).

The FAA don't even have much jurisdiction over real air craft if they are home built hobby air craft and not for commercial flight. They don't even require that the pilot has a pilots license or even any safety inspections. They only require a placard of certain size be placed in front of the seats informing any passengers that the airplane is an experimental hobby air plane and basically saying that you are taking your own risk or own life in to your hands if you fly as a non paying passenger. and that its not been approved or inspected by the FAA for safely. Lots of people even die in home built air craft (think John Denver) and the FAA still has no jurisdiction over them or able to make any laws against them cause they are not commercial air craft or even commercial made.

Also very much untrue. The only aircraft classification that you do not need a pilots license for, in the U.S., is the "Microlight Aircraft" category, which is largely comprised of the Ultra-light-type aircraft and hang-gliders. A single-seater, usually less 250lb empty weight on the airframe, and less than 5 gallons of fuel. You absolutely DO need a license (issued by the FAA) to fly homebuilt and experimental hobby aircraft that exceed those limits (a category referred to as "Sport Aircraft") or carry passengers. In fact, in most cases, you need an FAA certificate to even build one (you must document that you built at least 51% of the aircraft yourself, otherwise you can not get it certified as "experimental" and, likely, will not be able to fly it). Even homebuilt and experimental aircraft must be registered and have N-numbers (tail numbers). To fly a Sport Aircraft, while you do not have to prove medical eligibility like for a full private pilots license, you must still document time with an instructor and a set number of solo hours, as well as pass written and practical flight tests. And, yes, John Denver had a pilots license. A full Private Pilot, he was rated for single- and multi-engine aircraft, as well as his private jet. But his license was suspended a year or so before his crash... so he was, in fact, flying his Long-EZ illegally (the Long-EZ is a "sport" aircraft and does not fall into the Microlight category). Though, because his license was suspended due to medical reasons, and he already met all the other requirements of a Sport Aircraft license, he could've easily "picked up" a certificate to fly... but never did.

Place were there are laws against flying are made by other government agency's or groups then the faa. Such as local or state laws or the national security act of 1951 that can restrict photographing military installations and such. Then there are also no fly zones that are set by the gestapo oops I mean the dept of homeland security. Cause they have reign to do what ever they want as long as they "say" there protecting the hinter land or protecting the Führer. opps I mean the dear leader.

Now this is true. The no-fly zones are designated by agencies other than the FAA. But the FAA is the governing body tasked with enforcement and jurisdiction.

 

[J.James]

BS. It's not DJI that is designating no-fly zones. As the OP even stated, the particular area that he mentions has been a no-fly zone "since before there were drones" (which would mean "before there was DJI"). DJI does not randomly make up this information. Locations of no-fly zones are collated from a national database, which DJI then uses to affect the firmware.

Not trying to say that dji made up there no fly zones but no one forced or required dji to put the no fly zones in the soft ware and they did it to help comply with safety and they don't have every no fly zone there is in it. The one right by my house which is a no fly zone for aircraft is not in DJIs map at all. Yet the one they do have for the Albany county air port is on there map and its not a real no fly zone as far as any laws or regulations go.


ANd as far as the faa havering jurisdiction over hobby air craft the recent court ruling that says they have NONE is enough for me to know they do not.Even the people still about the guy the FAA TRIED to fine $10k for taking commercial film with a UAV was shut down by the courts when the judge ruled they dont have jurisdiction.

This is also incorrect. The FAA does have jurisdiction. They just don't have the authority to make LAWS. The only difference between a "regulation/restriction" and a "law" is that, if you break a regulation, you are charged with a fine... whereas if you break a law, you can also be charged with jail time. The real rub is that, often, even while you're adhering to FAA regulations, you may be in violation of local laws (which are not enforced by the FAA, but by local law enforcement agencies).

Yo are right they cant make laws there are not who makes laws. They can make guide lines and suggestions tho. and yes one could very well be flying by all there suggesting, guide lines and what not but still be flying in some place were there are local laws or ordnance against it. Lie ny city for instance. Or even parks were they don't even need to make a law and can just be arbitrarily imposed by who ever is in control of making policy for the park and stuff it under public safety call which trumps any ones rights when they say its for safety. Just like how a few weeks ago the cape cod national sea shore banned Quaracopters from being flown FROM any cape cod natinal sea shore lands by the head ranger. they didn't even need to make or pass a law cause they already under the law are allowed to set policy's if it involves public safety or protecting protected lands and wild life. Tho some one can still fly a much more dangerous rc air plane or helo there if it dont have a camera. Tho i don't see how a camera in any way or some thing being a quad in any way effects any ones safety or any wild life any differently then if its a rc airplane or helicopter. With or with out a camera. With or with out a camera an rc air plane can still crash and disturb wild life. and

 

[ProfessorStein]

BS. It's not DJI that is designating no-fly zones. As the OP even stated, the particular area that he mentions has been a no-fly zone "since before there were drones" (which would mean "before there was DJI"). DJI does not randomly make up this information. Locations of no-fly zones are collated from a national database, which DJI then uses to affect the firmware.

Not trying to say that dji made up there no fly zones but no one forced or required dji to put the no fly zones in the soft ware and they did it to help comply with safety and they don't have every no fly zone there is in it. The one right by my house which is a no fly zone for aircraft is not in DJIs map at all. Yet the one they do have for the Albany county air port is on there map and its not a real no fly zone as far as any laws or regulations go.

Absolutely. Of course no one "forced or required" you to buy a DJI product, either. It's their product, and it's their call whether they implement no fly zones into their product.

ANd as far as the faa havering jurisdiction over hobby air craft the recent court ruling that says they have NONE is enough for me to know they do not.Even the people still about the guy the FAA TRIED to fine $10k for taking commercial film with a UAV was shut down by the courts when the judge ruled they dont have jurisdiction.

Again, total agreement there. Hobby aircraft are a conundrum in and of themselves. And, as it stands now, the FAA does not have jurisdiction over them. But... careful... that doesn't necessarily mean that a) they never will, and b) there aren't other local regulations that do apply to hobby aircraft. And... even though you may be in the right... it doesn't mean that it's not a painful process to go through. As I mentioned I think in another thread, the FAA was successful in shutting down a couple of drone flight schools in Florida and the south. Doesn't necessarily mean that the FAA had a leg to stand on... just that these particular flight schools looked at the daunting task of fighting it, and thought the more prudent course of action was to close and move on with their lives.

Just like how a few weeks ago the cape cod national sea shore banned Quaracopters from being flown FROM any cape cod natinal sea shore lands by the head ranger. they didn't even need to make or pass a law cause they already under the law are allowed to set policy's if it involves public safety or protecting protected lands and wild life. Tho some one can still fly a much more dangerous rc air plane or helo there if it dont have a camera. Tho i don't see how a camera in any way or some thing being a quad in any way effects any ones safety or any wild life any differently then if its a rc airplane or helicopter. With or with out a camera. With or with out a camera an rc air plane can still crash and disturb wild life.

You do realize that it's not just Cape Cod... but the entire national parkland, right? And, in point of fact, the ban is on "all unmanned aircraft"... not just specifically drones. It applies to other RC aircraft as well; planes, helicopters, with or without cameras. Which is kind of interesting... since one of the national parks by me is the very place that has an RC airfield.

 

[J.James]

You do realize that it's not just Cape Cod... but the entire national parkland, right? And, in point of fact, the ban is on "all unmanned aircraft"... not just specifically drones. It applies to other RC aircraft as well; planes, helicopters, with or without cameras. Which is kind of interesting... since one of the national parks by me is the very place that has an RC airfield.

I know some other federal lands had bans on them. But I did not know all of them did and even the cape cod thing I only happened to by chance see an artical in a cape cod news while trying to see what the extended weath forecast was going to be for that week while sort of complicating taking a trip to cape cod to get some good video which is one of the very things I wanted to get a quad for. But seen the artical saying that on july 24th the head ranger had decided to ban drones any were in the cape code national sea shore and saying they will only be allowed with written permission from the head of the forest service. Tho it did say that regular rc air craft would still be allowed as long as they had no cameras on them and as long as some one dont harass the wild life with them and to stay away from seals. Which is sort of silly considering its already a federal offense to harass any wild life and also not to interfere with seals cause they are a protected species. They also had some bs about wanting to protect the sand dunes which is a big load of guff being they are sand duns and they are constantly changing all the time even by nature and they never seem to fine the animals or the wind when ever they disturb the ever changing dunes and they also take steps to try and preserve the dunes. Which to me is interfering with nature in its self. But I really can not get my head around how a camera could interfere with any thing or any one. Being there is not any thing someone can legally do on the beach that they should ever feel threatened by a camera in the air seeing. Or not any thing that would stop any one else from seeing with the 2 cameras most people have attacked to there head in there eye sockets. Which is why I think its beyond ridiculous ay time any one ever says they feel a drone is violating there privacy when they are in public and not havering a care in there world if any one can see them do what ever things they seem so ashamed or afraid of some one seeing from the air that they could much easier see from 5 feet away with there own eyes or even a cell phone video if they are right on the beach. If people are so concerned some one will see them they should not be in public doing what ever shady stuff they don't want any on to see them doing in public in the first place. Yet at the same time they don't care one bit that the goverment illegally spys on every thing they do 24/7 even when in the privacy of there own homes.

 

[ProfessorStein]

Wow. Quite the rant.

First, the Federal policy prohibits all unmanned aircraft in "lands and waters administered by the National Park Service". All RC planes, helicopters, quads, etc, would fall under "unmanned aircraft"... whether they have cameras or not. Now, obviously, with local rangers overseeing each of the unique properties in the Federal system, you're probably going to have a lot of discrepancy in how that policy is implemented. Some rangers might decide to allow certain types of craft, or might draw the line just at whether there's a camera or not. I'm not in the mind of the head ranger of the Cape Cod National Seashore, so I don't know. But, I can tell you that in other National Parks, the full policy is in effect. No RC flying of any kind.

http://home.nps.gov/news/release.htm?id=1601

You may think it's silly to ban UAS's to discourage harassment of the wildlife, since, as you say, there are already laws to protect these species. But this is exactly why this ban first came into being. Some idiots were harassing wildlife in Yosemite (or Yellowstone?), and the rangers couldn't catch the pilots because they couldn't find them. So now they don't have to wait until they see a drone buzzing a mountain goat to know that the pilot is in violation... they know the second they see the drone in the air. Not really silly at all. If you want to blame someone, blame the original idiots in the parks, not the rangers or the FAA.

And that's the thing. You have to understand that laws and regulations are implemented based, not necessarily on what's right or what's logical, but on the public's perception of what's right and logical. And if you polled the average citizenry of the U.S. (and possibly the world), I'm betting the vast majority would equate "drones" with "spying". Period. End of discussion. And it's this perception that the FAA and other authorities need to cater to.

 

[Suwaneeguy]

Get it right people. Twice now the FAA has been told, NO!, sorry, you do not have jurisdiction and you MAY NOT cite under laws that DO NOT exist!
I think the only reason the FAA is cracking down is because now, drones are not restricted to approved flying fields.
Oh and mister attorney sir, can you please point out in your law where it states specifically that flying within 20 feet of a statue is illegal?
Hell, if it were that illegal, Osh Kosh would be out of business in a heartbeat along with any other air show in the country.
Manned aircraft fly low over crowds all the time.

 

[dmagnus]

Get it right people. Twice now the FAA has been told, NO!, sorry, you do not have jurisdiction and you MAY NOT cite under laws that DO NOT exist!
I think the only reason the FAA is cracking down is because now, drones are not restricted to approved flying fields.
Oh and mister attorney sir, can you please point out in your law where it states specifically that flying within 20 feet of a statue is illegal?
Hell, if it were that illegal, Osh Kosh would be out of business in a heartbeat along with any other air show in the country.
Manned aircraft fly low over crowds all the time.

Wrong. Airshow aircraft DO NOT FLY OVER CROWDS! They aren't that stupid and the regs prohibit it. Those pilots have to have special endorsements to fly low. They stay over the runways and open areas. Get your facts right before making statements like that.
It doesn't do us any good for arguments to be made using absolutely inaccurate data...

 

[ProfessorStein]

Get it right people. Twice now the FAA has been told, NO!, sorry, you do not have jurisdiction and you MAY NOT cite under laws that DO NOT exist!
I think the only reason the FAA is cracking down is because now, drones are not restricted to approved flying fields.
Oh and mister attorney sir, can you please point out in your law where it states specifically that flying within 20 feet of a statue is illegal?
Hell, if it were that illegal, Osh Kosh would be out of business in a heartbeat along with any other air show in the country.
Manned aircraft fly low over crowds all the time.

Feels like everyone is talking about 4 or 5 different things, and it's all getting mushed together in a jumble.

First, the FAA has jurisdiction of the airspace over the U.S. and has established different types of aircraft classifications that dictate what each of those types of aircraft can do in designated areas of airspace.

Second, the FAA does not (yet) have jurisdiction over RC models and/or drones because they do not fit into any of the pre-described classifications of aircraft. That will likely change.

Third, the FAA still is tasked with keeping the airspace safe for the aircraft that it does have jurisdiction over. That means that if it perceives drone flight in an area to be in conflict with the ordinary operation of heavier craft, they would certainly have the authority to prevent UAV/UAS flight in that area (ie - no-fly zones around airports, military installations, et al). And DJI did not arbitrarily establish no-fly zones, they simply implemented existing no-fly zones in the firmware of their product(s).

Forth, it is not an FAA regulation that has banned UAVs in National Parks, that is a National Park policy. The two have nothing to do with one another.

And lastly, manned aircraft certainly do not "fly low over crowds all the time". At airshows, the crowd is kept several hundred yards away from any action. And, in fact, as accidents have occurred, that "buffer zone" has been increased. Not only that but when I used to go to Osh Kosh, the aerobatic teams used to be able to fly toward the crowd to perform manuevers. No longer. They must always fly perpendicular to the flight deck, unless they are in "standard flight" to set up for the next maneuver. In addition, all airports have buffer zones at either end of their runways to guarantee that planes are at least a set height above the ground before they're flying over anybody... let alone "crowds". Not sure where the "statue" thing is coming from. Never saw anything about flying close to a statue anywhere. Though, there was, indeed, a no-fly zone 1 mile in radius around the Statue of Liberty at one time. Haven't checked, lately, whether that has since been lifted.

 

[J.James]

You may think it's silly to ban UAS's to discourage harassment of the wildlife, since, as you say, there are already laws to protect these species. But this is exactly why this ban first came into being. Some idiots were harassing wildlife in Yosemite (or Yellowstone?), and the rangers couldn't catch the pilots because they couldn't find them. So now they don't have to wait until they see a drone buzzing a mountain goat to know that the pilot is in violation... they know the second they see the drone in the air. Not really silly at all. If you want to blame someone, blame the original idiots in the parks, not the rangers or the FAA.

Ya I can definitely blame the ones that caused them to make the rules more then the ones that made the rules. They also are very strict when it comes to any one messing with the seals there. Some times people are not even aware they are harassing the seals. If a mother seal has been swimming a long distance and needs to come one to land to rest some times just some one or some thing on the land that has them too freaked out to come ashore will cause them to stay in the water and drown.

And that's the thing. You have to understand that laws and regulations are implemented based, not necessarily on what's right or what's logical, but on the public's perception of what's right and logical. And if you polled the average citizenry of the U.S. (and possibly the world), I'm betting the vast majority would equate "drones" with "spying". Period. End of discussion. And it's this perception that the FAA and other authorities need to cater to.

Ya I'm never seem many laws that are completely just enough with out being to much. and they always try to cut the cloth wider then is needed rather then not enough most of the time when it comes to most things.

 

[kyles974]

Wow!
First...I've been busy working...finally got a day off since asking the question.
I didn't mean to stir up something lol

I'm not sure if I got what I was looking for but nevertheless. ....learned a bit more lol

My biggest concern is causing an accident. (I get so mad when I read about some idiot buying one of these....taking it up then crashing it into a city building or similar! !!) I hope I learn and can afford to step up my gear before to many idiots ruin the hobby for all of us.

(I live where the home of the Blue Angles are based. They fly over my house a few times a month. My wife said she could see the piolit inside clear as day ..one time. ....she said it was crazy how low they were. (If I had to guess...I'd say 300-400ft?)
They practice on certain days.....so I assume the private airport down my road (1/2-3/4 of mile down) but I guess they don't fly on scheduled Blue Angles days??

Anyhow. ....I value my freedom and can't afford major fines so if I do end up getting a phantom for Christmas. ...I probably keep under a 100ft here at my house. .....and go elsewhere for my high flights. (Like the beach!!!)

Thanks for all the replys.....I will be around.

 

[ianwood]

...I probably keep under a 100ft here at my house. .....and go elsewhere for my high flights. (Like the beach!!!)

Sounds like a good common sense approach. Laws or not, most issues are resolved if we all just think it through.

 

[moe3754]

(I live where the home of the Blue Angles are based. They fly over my house a few times a month. My wife said she could see the piolit inside clear as day ..one time. ....she said it was crazy how low they were. (If I had to guess...I'd say 300-400ft?)
They practice on certain days.....so I assume the private airport down my road (1/2-3/4 of mile down) but I guess they don't fly on scheduled Blue Angles days??

Every May the Air Force Thunderbirds fly at the AFA Graduation and where I live is a landmark for them because for the two days before graduation and the day of they fly right over my house and I have pictures of them that are so clear that you can not only see the pilot but the mask on his face, and they have been doing this for the last 10 to 15 years. They are usually around three hundred to four hundred feet when they go over my house and they usually have afterburners on because I can see the flame out the exhaust of the jet.

 

[Wedeliver]

I live just 3 blocks away from whats officially a no fly zone an a no photograph or video area. Because the area is a sensitive military facility that produces weapon systems and also has biological and conventional weapons laboratories there. Tho its not on the DJI no fly zone map. and has been a no fly zone before any one ever had drones. and mostly applied to air planes Tho I see air planes flying directly over it all the time. Tho when I fly near home I avoid flying any were near it. esp if I have my camera on. Which is what they really don't want is any one photographing any thing. and now DHS has taken over a big part of the facility and big brother don't want any one ever seeing what they are up to. and they think only us citizens are to be looked at and spied on 24/7 by them. Tho the funny thing is there is top secret stuff there thats not at all a secret and even reported on and public info if some one wanted to dig deep enough to find it and its even viewable from Google earth. They are one of the only places in the world that still have a live sample of yellow fever also have a ware house filled with old aging mustered gas shells from ww1 and even some were and all the government even knows is there are even 2 lost nike missile silos that they lost track of during the height of the old war. and dont even know for sure were they are other then just knowing they are some place with in a mile radius of the base and they still have nukes in them. There location was so secret and compartmentalize that the government even lost track of there location. all of this is smack dab in the middle of all residential areas. Tho I have no ideal how you can lose 2 loaded entire underground missile silos and not be able to even find them. lol

I doubt thar the army lost track of any nike/hercules missles, much less the sites. especially with nukes in them. Although the nike/hercules also carried coventional warhead also. ARADCOM had units and as they were decommissioned evérything was cleaned up. trust me.
(American Regional Air Defense Command)