using the Drone around the railroads

[NotARubicon]

I'm following this thread because there is a great train-lookout area not far from my house that I was planning to visit to get some footage of the trains..
So if I understand right, IF they were right (I'm thinking they aren't) if you were to stay to one-side of the tracks, a few yards away, and not cross over the tracks, that would be ok?

 

[Fat Daddy]

If I get connected to the right person we can get an educated answer. I'm thinking the original contact with Railfan might have been based on ignorance. I'm a home brewer too and was once accused of illegally distilling alcohol because of ignorance.

 

[mnewxcv]

subbing...

 

[Imabiggles]

i know. i even tried telling the officers that i don't see anything about it. supposedly he, the BNSF officer, has documentation that says that but doesn't have it with me. how convenient. I think it's ridiculous. can't even fly it over the tracks to cross to the other side. not even over a public road.

After the attempt at being civil to them, tell them to go pound sand and get off your property. A sworn law enforcement officer has the obligation to know the laws s/he is attempting to enforce. If they dont know the citation, they can certainly call and find out while the encounter is occurring.

As far as I can tell, there is no reasonable right to privacy nor any laws regarding flying over railroads other than the generic legislation/guidelines for UAS. A tip off to me when someone tells me I cant fly is when they state is a "drone" specific law.

As long as you didnt take off or land on their property, you have as much right to do what you are doing.

 

[Imabiggles]

what's the lowest we can fly over private property without trespassing in most places? isn't it 100ft? on an email list i'm on i get lots of different answers. someone said private property goes up to 400ft.

private property can extend to 300 feet in case law. However, if you are not being a nuisance to livestock, and if your UAS is reasonably quite, stick to 200 feet and above. Also, many railroads are not private real property, they are public easements for specific use.

 

[BigAl07]

what's the lowest we can fly over private property without trespassing in most places? isn't it 100ft? on an email list i'm on i get lots of different answers. someone said private property goes up to 400ft.

In terms of "legality" they are able to "own" whatever property they can feasibly use. There is no "hard" number for that. If the person has a silo that is 75' high then they "own" up to 75'. As of this writing there is only a single case that has gone to court and unfortunately it was prior to UAS and it left almost as many questions (if not more) than answers.

Keep this in mind... even if there were a hard altitude in which you could fly legally you still have to consider if any portion of the flight could be considered unsafe/dangerous. Any flight that could be remotely considered unsafe would open you up to significant FAA issues which is their current basis for fines etc.

The FAA is adamant that they and ONLY they control airspace. In December of 2015 they sent out a memo to thousands of state and local government groups mandating they are the only ones who can control/regulate airspace. Here is the pertinent exert from that memo:

"Substantial air safety issues are raised when state or local governments attempt to regulate the
operation or flight of aircraft. If one or two municipalities enacted ordinances regulating UAS in
the navigable airspace and a significant number of municipalities followed suit, fractionalized
control of the navigable airspace could result. In turn, this ‘patchwork quilt’ of differing
restrictions could severely limit the flexibility of FAA in controlling the airspace and flight
patterns, and ensuring safety and an efficient air traffic flow. A navigable airspace free from
inconsistent state and local restrictions is essential to the maintenance of a safe and sound air
transportation system. See Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, 508 F.3d 464 (9th Cir. 2007), and French
v. Pan Am Express, Inc., 869 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1989); see also Arizona v. U.S., 567 U.S. ___, 132
S.Ct. 2492, 2502 (2012) (“Where Congress occupies an entire field . . . even complimentary state
regulation is impermissible. Field preemption reflects a congressional decision to foreclose any
state regulation in the area, even if it is parallel to federal standards.”), and Morales v. Trans
World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 386-87 (1992)."

Here is a direct link to the memo

Basically what you need to do it find the right person(s) and get a copy of this in their hands but offer it up in a diplomatic way. Otherwise you're playing in their sandbox and that will not end well for you in the long run. Unless you've got deep pockets and want to take this to court I'd be sure to not do anything that would give them merit to write tickets etc.

Our local government was going to restrict drone flights over county owned property and I got involved and was actually able to help draft the ordinances that went into effect last night. We were able to sit down, discuss actual FAA regulations and come up with a system of restrictions and notifications that would make flight possible without endangering safety or privacy. They were going to try and "restrict" flying which only the FAA can actually do.

 

[Imabiggles]

In terms of "legality" they are able to "own" whatever property they can feasibly use. There is no "hard" number for that. If the person has a silo that is 75' high then they "own" up to 75'. As of this writing there is only a single case that has gone to court and unfortunately it was prior to UAS and it left almost as many questions (if not more) than answers.

Keep this in mind... even if there were a hard altitude in which you could fly legally you still have to consider if any portion of the flight could be considered unsafe/dangerous. Any flight that could be remotely considered unsafe would open you up to significant FAA issues which is their current basis for fines etc.

The FAA is adamant that they and ONLY they control airspace. In December of 2015 they sent out a memo to thousands of state and local government groups mandating they are the only ones who can control/regulate airspace. Here is the pertinent exert from that memo:

"Substantial air safety issues are raised when state or local governments attempt to regulate the
operation or flight of aircraft. If one or two municipalities enacted ordinances regulating UAS in
the navigable airspace and a significant number of municipalities followed suit, fractionalized
control of the navigable airspace could result. In turn, this ‘patchwork quilt’ of differing
restrictions could severely limit the flexibility of FAA in controlling the airspace and flight
patterns, and ensuring safety and an efficient air traffic flow. A navigable airspace free from
inconsistent state and local restrictions is essential to the maintenance of a safe and sound air
transportation system. See Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, 508 F.3d 464 (9th Cir. 2007), and French
v. Pan Am Express, Inc., 869 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1989); see also Arizona v. U.S., 567 U.S. ___, 132
S.Ct. 2492, 2502 (2012) (“Where Congress occupies an entire field . . . even complimentary state
regulation is impermissible. Field preemption reflects a congressional decision to foreclose any
state regulation in the area, even if it is parallel to federal standards.”), and Morales v. Trans
World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 386-87 (1992)."

Here is a direct link to the memo

Basically what you need to do it find the right person(s) and get a copy of this in their hands but offer it up in a diplomatic way. Otherwise you're playing in their sandbox and that will not end well for you in the long run. Unless you've got deep pockets and want to take this to court I'd be sure to not do anything that would give them merit to write tickets etc.

Our local government was going to restrict drone flights over county owned property and I got involved and was actually able to help draft the ordinances that went into effect last night. We were able to sit down, discuss actual FAA regulations and come up with a system of restrictions and notifications that would make flight possible without endangering safety or privacy. They were going to try and "restrict" flying which only the FAA can actually do.

It really doesnt matter what local government does or attempts to do to regulate the NAS. What local municipalities can do is attempt to regulate the the Causby limit (United States v. Causby 328 U.S. 256 (1946)) to ground, but that regulation would have to be very specific as to what can and what can not use that space and why. If I want to fly at 390' over local government property that is not otherwise regulated by the FAA, the local government has no authority to make rules on the NAS UNLESS they have structures 390' AGL and I interfere with them.

I have a feeling that whatever law you help draft that restricts NAS over public lands isnt worth the paper its written on- unless its just a reiteration of the FAA regs, in which case its redundant.

 

[Fat Daddy]

I think I've been pretty patient but I'm beginning to think I won't get an answer. Just so you have the info I have:

My request for information was forwarded by Steven Wells to the BNSF Director of UAV program Todd Graetz. If we can find an email or phone number for him, maybe we can get something. Otherwise, I suspect the regulations about flying over railroads may be imaginary.

 

[MasterBlaster]

Hey Fat - send him a message on Linkedin
https://www.linkedin.com/in/toddgraetz

Or Twitter

Todd Graetz (@toddgraetz) on Twitter

I bet Twitter would be best and you would get a fast response from him


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[Fat Daddy]

Thanks. I'll try Twitter. Good idea.

 

[tcope]

It really doesnt matter what local government does or attempts to do to regulate the NAS. What local municipalities can do is attempt to regulate the the Causby limit (United States v. Causby 328 U.S. 256 (1946)) to ground, but that regulation would have to be very specific as to what can and what can not use that space and why.

Not really.

There is one _big_ difference... Causby was about damages. Local governments _CANNOT_ (I'm not sure how clear I can be about that word) _regulate_ airspace. In the OP's case it's all about _regulation_ and _not_ damages. Causby was a _civil_ case about damages. It might be confusing as it was against the US but it was a civil case.

The OP's situation is that the RR feels that there has been a violation of regulations/laws by the OP, not that he's caused actual damages/loss.

Or allow me to explain in a different way... you are speeding and you hit my car. I can show that your violation of existing law created negligence and this led to my damages. _I'm_ not enforcing or creating any law against speeding. I'm using your violation of existing law to prove your negligence.

 

[CRCs Reality]

Interesting thread to stumble upon..
I'm not a railfan, but when I moved up to my P3P I started thinking of locations that would make for some great video. One that popped up was a railroad bridge not far from here that passes high above the Allegheny river, and I thought video of a train crossing that bridge would make a pretty cool shot. So I started scouting the location to see what I'd need to do to make it work.
A couple of times now I've run across railroad staff up there while flying my P3P, and they have always been very nice about it (the one was quite interested in the drone and thought it was really cool).
Their stance, when pressed for specifics of what I was, and was not allowed to do boiled down to this.

If anyone from the railroad was up there working (aka, track or train maintenance, etc, etc) I was not allowed on RR property as it was a liability and they'd be in trouble if I got hurt. I was also told in an "off the record" sort of way that as long as they were not up there working, nobody would bother me as long as I stayed clear of the tracks (active railroad and all) and didn't touch anything.

I was also told that even if they were working there, if I took off and landed from non RR property and didn't interfere with their work I could fly OVER the tracks and trains from a safe altitude.
http://i.imgur.com/pzofYc6.jpg
This was from a cold morning when they were doing maintenance on one of the engines.. Flew through 2 full batteries shooting video and stills, part of the time with a RR employee next to me enthusiastically checking the screen out.

Still waiting for my shot to get video of the train crossing the bridge

Now of course..
A: this was B&LE railroad, not BNSF.. B&LE is a MUCH smaller operation, so that may be a factor.
B: This wasn't exactly some "official" stance of the railroad, just the result of a few conversations with local staff working the tracks/trains.

Interesting how vastly different our experiences have been on it. There's a pretty heavily photographed railroad bend (Horse Shoe Curve) not too far away I've been meaning to go fly over, a quick google search returns many drone flights over those tracks and no mentions of anyone having any problems.

 

[Trackman1]

Be safe. Always cross at a crossing.

Seriously tho. Just cut out the crossing of the tracks part.
Here you are on one side. Then here you are on the other. You must have drove around.

 

[Hickeroar]

Has anyone contacted the FAA about this? The FAA should be able to tell you if they have any legal legs to stand on.

 

[Railfan-Eric]

Has anyone contacted the FAA about this? The FAA should be able to tell you if they have any legal legs to stand on.

That's what I'm wondering.

I contacted the ACLU and they emailed me back saying: " Unfortunately, the ACLU Foundation of Kansas will be unable to assist you with this matter. We are a private, non-profit organization with limited resources; therefore, we must be very selective in choosing our cases. Your case does not fit our criteria for assistance, and thus we cannot help you. " and went on to saying i should contact a lawyer. I"m poor and can't afford a lawyer. sheesh. i guess we get walked on all over by companies etc. that's why big companies such as the railroads win because they know people don't have money to fight it.

I guess the next thing is to contact the FAA. I'm hoping someone more experienced with the FAA then me will contact them

 

[Railfan-Eric]

Be safe. Always cross at a crossing.

Seriously tho. Just cut out the crossing of the tracks part.
Here you are on one side. Then here you are on the other. You must have drove around.

but the thing is i want to shoot video and photos of railroad yards and locomotive shops. and in order to see stuff with a wide angle lens i will have to fly over their property to get closer. most of these places are out of site from public roads or bridges. or too far away for decent pictures. Obviously i don't want to get in the way of their operations or worse crash in a area where it's real busy. good luck getting that back. I"m sure one of their employees would put them on the tracks and run over them.

I was just told by some railroad employee on my facebook railfan group, who is also railfan, that the RR crews don't like drones. Makes me wonder if he's the one that turned me in. he always gives me heck about the drone and plays drone police on facebook making me look stupid. The train crews are getting so bad and intimidating that they have called me in for being suspicious and other people i know, taking picture from public property. it's gotten real bad lately and around Kansas City. my friend got turned in twice in one week for taking videos of trains and usually it's from public property. if they can't get you for trespassing they say you're suspicious so the police comes and scares you away.

 

[Railfan-Eric]

Interesting thread to stumble upon..
I'm not a railfan, but when I moved up to my P3P I started thinking of locations that would make for some great video. One that popped up was a railroad bridge not far from here that passes high above the Allegheny river, and I thought video of a train crossing that bridge would make a pretty cool shot. So I started scouting the location to see what I'd need to do to make it work.
A couple of times now I've run across railroad staff up there while flying my P3P, and they have always been very nice about it (the one was quite interested in the drone and thought it was really cool).
Their stance, when pressed for specifics of what I was, and was not allowed to do boiled down to this.

If anyone from the railroad was up there working (aka, track or train maintenance, etc, etc) I was not allowed on RR property as it was a liability and they'd be in trouble if I got hurt. I was also told in an "off the record" sort of way that as long as they were not up there working, nobody would bother me as long as I stayed clear of the tracks (active railroad and all) and didn't touch anything.

I was also told that even if they were working there, if I took off and landed from non RR property and didn't interfere with their work I could fly OVER the tracks and trains from a safe altitude.
http://i.imgur.com/pzofYc6.jpg
This was from a cold morning when they were doing maintenance on one of the engines.. Flew through 2 full batteries shooting video and stills, part of the time with a RR employee next to me enthusiastically checking the screen out.

Still waiting for my shot to get video of the train crossing the bridge

Now of course..
A: this was B&LE railroad, not BNSF.. B&LE is a MUCH smaller operation, so that may be a factor.
B: This wasn't exactly some "official" stance of the railroad, just the result of a few conversations with local staff working the tracks/trains.

Interesting how vastly different our experiences have been on it. There's a pretty heavily photographed railroad bend (Horse Shoe Curve) not too far away I've been meaning to go fly over, a quick google search returns many drone flights over those tracks and no mentions of anyone having any problems.

I'm glad you had a better experience then me. hopefully you get a train on a bridge scene. I can't wait to do that but i don't live close to any large bridge but have visited the Sibley Bridge at Sibley MO. that is on the BNSF railroad. a drone would better display the mighty bridge in ways photographs can't. Or the mighty bridge over the Cimmerron River out in western KS on the UP RR. it's west of Liberal. not as many trains out there though.

 

[Seawolf]

BNSF probably regards rail yards and bridges as critical infrastructure post 9/11. Hazardous materials, key routes, expensive assets on the move. A drone mishap could have major implications to which they bare the responsibility. I get it. Unfortunately everyday we see more and more restrictions and actions to shut down responsible drone use. From national parks to small towns, huge FAA fines, threatening letters and the like. No one wants to work to reasonably accommodate. Much easier to ban it, say no, bring the police to your door than it is to actually work with people on productive solutions. Too bad we're not as focused on stopping gun violence which is killing thousands as we are in making sure you don't fly a drone over someone's property.

 

[Zeprider]

I can understand limiting flight around airports due to the obvious dangers. Our drones, however, pose NO risk or threat to Rail Operations of any kind. Virtually nothing survives an encounter.

 

[Railfan-Eric]

I can understand limiting flight around airports due to the obvious dangers. Our drones, however, pose NO risk or threat to Rail Operations of any kind. Virtually nothing survives an encounter.

Only thing i can think of is if one came down on a brakeman or conductor or other personnel working in the yards or along the tracks. but a responsible drone op wouldn't fly that close to them though. i like to give plenty of space to the workers in hopes someone doesn't come knocking on my door. but that wasn't enough and then the cops showed up anyways. i digress. the other thing i would see a problem is if a RR employee had to stop doing what he was doing to retrieve a crashed drone for someone. i doubt they would hand it back over to the owner being the way people are towards drones.