Who controls airspace?

[cinclodes]

I'm sure that questions about airspace have been asked, but my question pertains to a particular airspace: above national wildlife refuges. I had a phone call with the manager of one (a very pleasant guy), and he told me that drone use is not allowed since they might bother wildlife and visitors. Funny thing is, the refuge does allow hunting, motorboats, and ATVs, which surely must be much more disruptive than a small battery powered drone. Such is politics. These places obviously cater to a certain demographic. Now for my question. Do they have any jurisdiction over the airspace above the refuge? How about if I launch the drone from just outside the refuge and either (a) fly it straight up or (b) fly it up and then over the refuge from maximum height. In the first case, neither I nor the drone would be on or over refuge property. So I would think that they would have no say. I'm not sure about the other case. If it were an airport, then of course it would not be permitted. Another possible option would be to launch from a boat on a river that runs through the refuge. I don't believe a refuge has jurisdiction over a waterway, but this may be a harder question to be sure about. Any information on this issue would be appreciated.

Mike Collins
Alexandria, Virginia

 

[tcope]

Your correct, this has been discussed many times.

Land owners control what is done specifically on their lane (operations of, take off and landing of). The FAA controls what specifically happens in the air. So land owners don't control the airspace above their land. They do have a right to use their land as it was intended and someone in the air can affect this.

 

[Phil56]

Perhaps! Example: My brother was flying in Chicago in his back yard but went above another homeowners property. Police arrive and told him to stay within his property lines.

 

[cinclodes]

I found the following statement about the airspace above national parks: “The closures do not apply to the flight of unmanned aircraft in the airspace above a park if the device is launched, landed, and operated from or on lands and waters that are not administered by the NPS.”

 

[Sagebrush]

Yep... the FAA regulates the airspace–but the USFWS can charge you for wildlife harassment with an aircraft.

It's a federal criminal offense.

SB

 

[sar104]

Perhaps! Example: My brother was flying in Chicago in his back yard but went above another homeowners property. Police arrive and told him to stay within his property lines.

If the police, in that case, were invoking any actual laws then they were not airspace laws, but could have been nuisance or privacy ordinances if he was flying unreasonably low. Otherwise, they were simply wrong.

 

[Bakersfield Quad]

The airspace above such a place is always controlled, entry into them is also controlled on the ground, meaning they say who goes on the land and waters.

There are many such places where even an aircraft must fly above a particular altitude, such as 3,500 feet AGL for instance, you may not fly lower. We are advised not to fly above with our drones, so we can't go high enough to fly over.

It is not that we are not allowed to fly there, no one us allowed, without special permits.

 

[cinclodes]

Yep... the FAA regulates the airspace–but the USFWS can charge you for wildlife harassment with an aircraft.

It's a federal criminal offense.

SB

How could they charge someone for wildlife harassment for flying a drone 400 feet above the ground while at the same time not make the same charge against people who are on the ground shooting rifles and speeding through the refuge on ATVs and motorboats?

 

[cinclodes]

If the police, in that case, were invoking any actual laws then they were not airspace laws, but could have been nuisance or privacy ordinances if he was flying unreasonably low. Otherwise, they were simply wrong.

It would be possible to violate someone's privacy even with a drone above your own property. So it would appear that this isn't clear cut.

 

[sar104]

It would be possible to violate someone's privacy even with a drone above your own property. So it would appear that this isn't clear cut.

Agreed - there is certainly ambiguity in that direction, but not on the issue of airspace regulation.

 

[sar104]

The airspace above such a place is always controlled, entry into them is also controlled on the ground, meaning they say who goes on the land and waters.

There are many such places where even an aircraft must fly above a particular altitude, such as 3,500 feet AGL for instance, you may not fly lower. We are advised not to fly above with our drones, so we can't go high enough to fly over.

It is not that we are not allowed to fly there, no one us allowed, without special permits.

The airspace over wildlife refuges is not, in general, controlled airspace, although some are protected by special-use airspace (restricted). More generally they fall into the category of noise-sensitive areas with voluntary controls (see AC No: 91-36D):

8. VOLUNTARY PRACTICES.

a. Avoidance of noise-sensitive areas, if practical, is preferable to overflight at relatively low altitudes.

b. Pilots operating noise producing aircraft (fixed-wing, rotary-wing and hot air balloons) over noise- sensitive areas should make every effort to fly not less than 2,000 feet above ground level (AGL), weather permitting. For the purpose of this AC, the ground level of noise-sensitive areas is defined to include the highest terrain within 2,000 feet AGL laterally of the route of flight, or the uppermost rim of a canyon or valley. The intent of the 2,000 feet AGL recommendation is to reduce potential interference with wildlife and complaints of noise disturbances caused by low flying aircraft over noise-sensitive areas.

c. Departure from or arrival to an airport, climb after take-off, and descent for landing should be made so as to avoid prolonged flight at low altitudes near noise-sensitive areas.

d. This advisory does not apply where it would conflict with Federal Aviation Regulations, air traffic control clearances or instructions, or where an altitude of less than 2,000 feet AGL is considered necessary by a pilot to operate safely. ​

 

[Sagebrush]

How could they charge someone for wildlife harassment for flying a drone 400 feet above the ground while at the same time not make the same charge against people who are on the ground shooting rifles and speeding through the refuge on ATVs and motorboats?

How? The USFW employee pulls out a citation book and issues the ticket for harassing with an aircraft with an appearance in federal court. Hunting and other activities are probably lawful. He warned you and if it were me, I'd comply with request.

SB

 

[cinclodes]

He warned you and if it were me, I'd comply with request.

SB

I'm a law abiding citizen, but I don't comply with unreasonable requests that go beyond the law. The purpose of my original post was to try to determine exactly what is the law in this case. If a USFWS employee is trying to go beyond his legal authority, then this might be an opportunity to challenge it in court.

 

[Sagebrush]

then this might be an opportunity to challenge it in court.

It'll be called, Cinclodes vs United States. I look forward to this battle. Take your checkbook.

Not sure how a USFWS employee, enforcing 16 USC 742j, is going beyond his authority? But I'll leave this discussion at that.

SB

 

[cinclodes]

It'll be called, Cinclodes vs United States. I look forward to this battle. Take your checkbook.

Not sure how a USFWS employee, enforcing 16 USC 742j, is going beyond his authority? But I'll leave this discussion at that.

SB

The proposed use is to obtain video footage of habitat from maximum altitude, which has nothing to do with "airborne hunting." I'm glad you will "leave this discussion at that" because your inputs aren't relevant.

 

[Sagebrush]

The proposed use is to obtain video footage of habitat from maximum altitude, which has nothing to do with "airborne hunting."

This law has nothing to do with your intent. Just 742j–1 (a)(2) of the act.

Prohibition; penalty Any person who—
(1) while airborne in an aircraft shoots or attempts to shoot for the purpose of capturing or killing any bird, fish, or other animal; or
(2) uses an aircraft to harass any bird, fish, or other animal; or

MY intent was not to start a pissing match.

SB

 

[BigAl07]

This law has nothing to do with your intent. Just 742j–1 (a)(2) of the act.

Prohibition; penalty Any person who—
(1) while airborne in an aircraft shoots or attempts to shoot for the purpose of capturing or killing any bird, fish, or other animal; or
(2) uses an aircraft to harass any bird, fish, or other animal; or

MY intent was not to start a pissing match.

SB

Well said. But let's not forget the one that's going to "leave a mark":

(3) knowingly participates in using an aircraft for any purpose referred to in paragraph (1) or (2);
shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.