I think it’s totally ridiculous a drone can’t fly over the Kileaua eruption on the big island. Stay below 400 feet. No damage would result if it crashed. The helicopters have to stay above 500. It make no sense. I think they just don’t want photos taken from individuals. They want to be the only ones getting the shots. But then of course, if a drone was to fall in the lava it could just devastate the ecosystem. Might even cause the eruption to become more aggressive. They are going way above any common sense why we can’t fly. Makes NO sense. Just more government control. But it does prove according to the FAA that drones ARE aircraft. Take one down’ and it’s jail time! I would make an example out of someone taking mine down!
TFR’s
- Thread starter jenix57
- Start date
There is a TFR in place - surface to 30,000 ft. Are you saying that you want your drone to be exempt from TFRs?
FDC 8/8835 (PHZH A0353/18) ZHN HI..AIRSPACE KILAUEA, HAWAII..TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS WI AN AREA DEFINED AS 5 NM RADIUS OF 192419N/1551652W (HILO VORTAC ITO208024.3) SFC-30000FT VOLCANIC ACT. PURSUANT TO 14 CFR SECTION 91.138 TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT TO PREVENT OVERHEAD HAZARD. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE TELEPHONE 808-985-6170 IS IN CHARGE OF ON SCENE EMERG RESPONSE ACT. HONOLULU /ZHN/ ARTCC TELEPHONE 808-840-6201 IS THE FAA CDN FACILITY. 1805171730-1805310800
FDC 8/8835 (PHZH A0353/18) ZHN HI..AIRSPACE KILAUEA, HAWAII..TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS WI AN AREA DEFINED AS 5 NM RADIUS OF 192419N/1551652W (HILO VORTAC ITO208024.3) SFC-30000FT VOLCANIC ACT. PURSUANT TO 14 CFR SECTION 91.138 TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT TO PREVENT OVERHEAD HAZARD. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE TELEPHONE 808-985-6170 IS IN CHARGE OF ON SCENE EMERG RESPONSE ACT. HONOLULU /ZHN/ ARTCC TELEPHONE 808-840-6201 IS THE FAA CDN FACILITY. 1805171730-1805310800
Your argument is empty and just doesn't work. Let's break this down a bit further, shall we?
1) Helicopters can (and often DO) fly well below 500' AGL and they are allowed to do so per the FARs. Here is the exact exert from the FARs just in case there is any question about it:
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
a. Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
b. Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
c. Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
d. Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph B or C of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator
I added the "Colors" above to help emphasize my points better . . .
2) The "Aircraft Restriction" isn't there to protect the volcano or the environment. It keeps aircraft, ALL AIRCRAFT, out of the area and to some degree safe. If you go in there and have an incident then OTHER people are now tasked with going into the Red Zone to try and save YOUR life.
3) Have you seen any final court rulings upholding the premise of "Take one down’ and it’s jail time!" ? Keep in mind that IF an sUAS is shot down the FAA will open a case and then if it's enough to warrant an investigation the DOJ will get involved. How much do you think needs to happen to justify that expense and time consumption for your hobby/toy sUAS?
4) Your comment "I would make an example out of someone taking mine down!" is comical. You'd be the first in the country to accomplish this task.
It's ironic you don't want to follow AVIATION rules but then at the end get some "satisfaction" from Congress calling our sUAS Aircraft. Kind of talking out of both sides of your mouth in essence isn't' it? You want to brag about "Aircraft Protection" but in the same breath don't feel like you should be following Federal Aviation Rules . . . You can't have it both ways I'm afraid.
Similar threads
