Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/8326

Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

Didn't the pilot get permission from the owners to fly? What's NOTAM? Lol
 
Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

it says in the description he got permission from the church
 
Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

The temple is 10 miles from the White House. NOTAM 0/8326 restricts flight within 30 nautical miles from the white house from ground level to 18,000 ft. Not sure how he was able to film this. The NOTAM should restrict all RC fliers, right?
These guys are within 25 miles of zip code 20500 (white house) 
Explain that anyone?

NORTHERN VA CONTROL LINE ASSN 
Flying Site Details 4.29 miles
RICHARD HOUSER
1314 S OAKLAND ST 
ARLINGTON VA 22204 
Phone: 703/920-0683 

CAPITAL AREA ANTIQUE MODELERS ASSOC 
Flying Site Details 8.65 miles
JOHN FELTER
1915 MIRACLE LN 
FALLS CHURCH VA 22043 
Phone: 703/827-5944 

GODDARD MAC 
9.24 miles
CHARLES BUFFALANO
9613 HILLRIDGE DR 
KENSINGTON MD 20895 
Phone: 301/946-5439 

FLY AWAY RC CLUB 
Flying Site Details 10.52 miles
PETER CURTIS
5 PINECREST CT 
GREENBELT MD 20770 
Phone: 301-474-5068 

SKY LANCERS OF WASHINGTON 
12.79 miles
JOHN VLNA
13010 COLLINGWOOD TER 
SILVER SPRING MD 20904 
Phone: 301/989-0025 

DCRC CLUB 
Flying Site Details 14.26 miles
ANDREW KANE
305 NATICK CT 
SILVER SPRING MD 20905 
Phone: 301/785-3022 

NORTHERN VA RC CLUB INC 
Flying Site Details 15.27 miles
KENNETH BASSETT
9100 DE SOTO CT 
BURKE VA 22015 
Phone: 703-425-1392 

CHARLES COUNTY WINDRIFTERS 
Flying Site Details 20.54 miles
KENNETH STEVANUS
12255 POTOMAC VIEW RD 
NEWBURG MD 20601 
Phone: 301/893.0711 

CHARLES COUNTY RC 
Flying Site Details 22.46 miles
DAVID FULLER
4015 NIGHT HERON CT APT C 
WALDORF MD 20602 
Phone: 301-885.2130 

FREE STATE AEROMODELERS 
Flying Site Details 23.70 miles
KIRK ADAMS
PO BOX 2072 
COLUMBIA MD 21045 
Phone: 443-995-2962 

MARYLAND HELICOPTER ASSO 
24.07 miles
KEN DECKELMAN
1130 PINCH VALLEY RD 
WESTMINSTER MD 20121 
Phone: 410.751.7198
 
Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

BuzzBuzz, since you are referencing the DN, I assume you are either a Utahn or LDS. If you are interested in aerial temple shots, google Branden Bingham and look at his YouTube videos. Great videos.
 
Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

The underlying regulation (FAR 93.339) refers to "aircraft." As I'm sure many of you know, an NTSB Administrative Law Judge held in March 2014 that "model aircraft" are not "aircraft" under the federal definitions. Specifically he held, "Neither the Part 1, Section. 1.1, or the 49 U.S.C. Section 40102(a)(6) definitions of "aircraft" are applicable to, or include a model aircraft within their respective definition."

Thus, while NOTAM 0/8326 applies to "aircraft," it is widely questioned whether it would apply to "model aircraft." In any instance, the reasoning and holding of the judge in the first and only drone case indicates it would not apply. Not saying whether one should or should not voluntarily comply with the NOTAM, just expressing the current legal stance.
 
Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

OK to do or not, that is one fantastic structure. It goes to show you that.............on second thought, better not say. People get into trouble now days for speaking the truth.
 
Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

Peter, the NOTAM in question is one of the few times the FAA has been clear on the matter. Read the whole thing, they specifically mention "model aircraft" and "unmanned aerial systems" by name. It couldn't be clearer.
 
Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

GoodnNuff said:
BuzzBuzz, since you are referencing the DN, I assume you are either a Utahn or LDS. If you are interested in aerial temple shots, google Branden Bingham and look at his YouTube videos. Great videos.
Click to expand...

Goodnnuff, I am not from Utah nor an LDS...but I DO live inside the NOTAM area and am frankly tired of driving 30 minutes to get out of it so as not to go to prison, while some rando hobbyist is flying drones in the metaphorical backyard of the white house, publishing it, having the news cover it!!!, and no repercussions happen.
 
Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

BuzzBuzzZoomZoom said:
Peter, the NOTAM in question is one of the few times the FAA has been clear on the matter. Read the whole thing, they specifically mention "model aircraft" and "unmanned aerial systems" by name. It couldn't be clearer.
Click to expand...
The specific mentions aren't necessarily relevant. A NOTAM cannot trump a statute. The FAA appears to be clear, (as it appears to be with a number of things) but there's very little the FAA is being truthful about with respect to drones. (There's a reason why we are challenging their June 25 "Interpretation" in the DC Court of Appeals.) The DC NOTAM remains the subject of questionable authority among those of us in the drone legal area. Not providing a conclusive statement here, (or legal advice), just stating that is has been questioned by the drone attorney community. The same is true with the stadium "ban." See this piece from a few days ago: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fa ... o-stand-on
 
Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

p fandango said:
it says in the description he got permission from the church
Click to expand...

That does not matter. He needed permission from the FAA. The temple is on the edge (just inside) the most restricted one and it is under the Class B airspace for Reagan National.

Here's the actual TFR:

http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_0_8326.html

THE FOLLOWING OPERATIONS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED WITHIN THE DC FRZ: FLIGHT TRAINING, AEROBATIC FLIGHT, PRACTICE INSTRUMENT APPROACHES, GLIDER OPERATIONS, PARACHUTE OPERATIONS, ULTRA LIGHT, HANG GLIDING, BALLOON OPERATIONS, TETHERED BALLOONS, AGRICULTURE/CROP DUSTING, ANIMAL POPULATION CONTROL FLIGHT OPERATIONS, BANNER TOWING OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE TEST FLIGHTS, MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS, MODEL ROCKETRY, FLOAT PLANE OPERATIONS, UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS) AND AIRCRAFT/HELICOPTERS OPERATING FROM A SHIP OR PRIVATE/CORPORATE YACHT.
Click to expand...

Yep, one more nail in the coffin
 
Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

He was absolutely inside the SFRA, no question. With regard to your list, keep in mind that the address listed for AMA chartered clubs is that of either the club officer in charge or its p.O.Box. It is rarely (almost never) the actual address of their flying site. Others have already coordinated with the FAA, like the DCRC club who fly very near the outer edge in Boyd Maryland, despite the address being shown as Silver Spring, MD. They can get waivers because they are flying from an established field, where the FAA knows there are and under what conditions they operate.

Now consider the flight that is the topic of this thread. Nobody knew he was there, he flew at night as well. THIS is the kind of idiot that the FAA has fits over.

Plus, the model aircraft that FAA refers to excludes both control line and free flight. So thos clubs can be scratched from your list.


GoodnNuff said:
The temple is 10 miles from the White House. NOTAM 0/8326 restricts flight within 30 nautical miles from the white house from ground level to 18,000 ft. Not sure how he was able to film this. The NOTAM should restrict all RC fliers, right?
These guys are within 25 miles of zip code 20500 (white house) 
Explain that anyone?

NORTHERN VA CONTROL LINE ASSN 
Flying Site Details 4.29 miles
RICHARD HOUSER
1314 S OAKLAND ST 
ARLINGTON VA 22204 
Phone: 703/920-0683 

CAPITAL AREA ANTIQUE MODELERS ASSOC 
Flying Site Details 8.65 miles
JOHN FELTER
1915 MIRACLE LN 
FALLS CHURCH VA 22043 
Phone: 703/827-5944 

GODDARD MAC 
9.24 miles
CHARLES BUFFALANO
9613 HILLRIDGE DR 
KENSINGTON MD 20895 
Phone: 301/946-5439 

FLY AWAY RC CLUB 
Flying Site Details 10.52 miles
PETER CURTIS
5 PINECREST CT 
GREENBELT MD 20770 
Phone: 301-474-5068 

SKY LANCERS OF WASHINGTON 
12.79 miles
JOHN VLNA
13010 COLLINGWOOD TER 
SILVER SPRING MD 20904 
Phone: 301/989-0025 

DCRC CLUB 
Flying Site Details 14.26 miles
ANDREW KANE
305 NATICK CT 
SILVER SPRING MD 20905 
Phone: 301/785-3022 

NORTHERN VA RC CLUB INC 
Flying Site Details 15.27 miles
KENNETH BASSETT
9100 DE SOTO CT 
BURKE VA 22015 
Phone: 703-425-1392 

CHARLES COUNTY WINDRIFTERS 
Flying Site Details 20.54 miles
KENNETH STEVANUS
12255 POTOMAC VIEW RD 
NEWBURG MD 20601 
Phone: 301/893.0711 

CHARLES COUNTY RC 
Flying Site Details 22.46 miles
DAVID FULLER
4015 NIGHT HERON CT APT C 
WALDORF MD 20602 
Phone: 301-885.2130 

FREE STATE AEROMODELERS 
Flying Site Details 23.70 miles
KIRK ADAMS
PO BOX 2072 
COLUMBIA MD 21045 
Phone: 443-995-2962 

MARYLAND HELICOPTER ASSO 
24.07 miles
KEN DECKELMAN
1130 PINCH VALLEY RD 
WESTMINSTER MD 20121 
Phone: 410.751.7198
Click to expand...
 
Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

petersachs said:
BuzzBuzzZoomZoom said:
Peter, the NOTAM in question is one of the few times the FAA has been clear on the matter. Read the whole thing, they specifically mention "model aircraft" and "unmanned aerial systems" by name. It couldn't be clearer.
Click to expand...
The specific mentions aren't necessarily relevant. A NOTAM cannot trump a statute. The FAA appears to be clear, (as it appears to be with a number of things) but there's very little the FAA is being truthful about with respect to drones. (There's a reason why we are challenging their June 25 "Interpretation" in the DC Court of Appeals.) The DC NOTAM remains the subject of questionable authority among those of us in the drone legal area. Not providing a conclusive statement here, (or legal advice), just stating that is has been questioned by the drone attorney community. The same is true with the stadium "ban." See this piece from a few days ago: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fa ... o-stand-on
Click to expand...

Great post Peter, thank you. While you're probably right, I'd certainly not like to be the crash test dummy for when the FAA ever decides to try and prosecute someone flying a quad in the NOTAM area. It IS ridiculous though...I work in the heart of DC, yet live 20 miles south...takes me 40 minutes to drive to work in the morning, yet I'm not "legally" allowed to fly a quad in my backyard even at eye level.

..and the rules on stadiums?! 3 miles radius ban, or 1 year in prison? Absolutely ridiculous. A .25 - .5 mile radius is much more realistic.
 
Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

Do you people know who Peter Sachs is? When you refer people to dronelawjorunal.com, he's the guy who wrote it.
When he says the law does not apply, you **** well better listen to him.
As far as I'm concerned, in my opinion, NOTAM's do not apply to hobby RCMA because they do not fall under the jurisdiction of the FAA. NOTAM's apply only to licensed aircraft and licensed pilots within the FAA jurisdiction.
 
Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

Suwaneeguy said:
Do you people know who Peter Sachs is? When you refer people to dronelawjorunal.com, he's the guy who wrote it.
When he says the law does not apply, you **** well better listen to him.
As far as I'm concerned, in my opinion, NOTAM's do not apply to hobby RCMA because they do not fall under the jurisdiction of the FAA. NOTAM's apply only to licensed aircraft and licensed pilots within the FAA jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
Although I appreciate your very kind words, Suwaneeguy, remember that I'm not providing legal advice. Nor am I saying anyone should or should not fly in TFRs, SFRAs, FRZs, etc. Even if the FAA lacks jurisdiction, it could still cost you (in legal fees) if they were to attempt to bring an enforcement action. Just use common sense and fly safely and responsibly at all times.
 
Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

SilentAV8R said:
He was absolutely inside the SFRA, no question. With regard to your list, keep in mind that the address listed for AMA chartered clubs is that of either the club officer in charge or its p.O.Box. It is rarely (almost never) the actual address of their flying site. Others have already coordinated with the FAA, like the DCRC club who fly very near the outer edge in Boyd Maryland, despite the address being shown as Silver Spring, MD. They can get waivers because they are flying from an established field, where the FAA knows there are and under what conditions they operate.

Now consider the flight that is the topic of this thread. Nobody knew he was there, he flew at night as well. THIS is the kind of idiot that the FAA has fits over.

Plus, the model aircraft that FAA refers to excludes both control line and free flight. So thos clubs can be scratched from your list.
Click to expand...
[/quote]

Reasonable explanation. I thought I'd provided the link for the list. I found it on RCGroups from a discussion much like this. The distances listed right below each club name is supposedly the distance of the field from the White House.

I belong to two flying fields here in the Seattle area and whenever the President is in town, we have NOTAMs enforced at our flying clubs. We fly at established fields where the FAA knows we are there and under what conditions, but there is no waiver for our model planes or our fields.
 
Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

Suwaneeguy said:
Do you people know who Peter Sachs is? When you refer people to dronelawjorunal.com, he's the guy who wrote it.
When he says the law does not apply, you **** well better listen to him.
As far as I'm concerned, in my opinion, NOTAM's do not apply to hobby RCMA because they do not fall under the jurisdiction of the FAA. NOTAM's apply only to licensed aircraft and licensed pilots within the FAA jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Great, Suwaneeguy! Perhaps you should help the entire community then...go stand in the parking lot of the Eastern Region FAA Headquarters that is within the NOTAM, and take your RC out for a few laps around the lot. When someone comes to arrest you, be sure to tell them their NOTAM doesn't apply to you. When you win your case in Federal Court, we'll all buy you a beer for getting the precedent set to allow us to ignore the NOTAM.
 
Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

This Mormon temple is definitely located within the DC FRZ (Flight Restricted Zone) --- and NOTAM 0/8326 does prohibit any model aircraft from operating in the DC FRZ zone as stated in Section D:


THE FOLLOWING OPERATIONS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED WITHIN THE DC FRZ: FLIGHT TRAINING, AEROBATIC FLIGHT, PRACTICE INSTRUMENT APPROACHES, GLIDER OPERATIONS, PARACHUTE OPERATIONS, ULTRA LIGHT, HANG GLIDING, BALLOON OPERATIONS, TETHERED BALLOONS, AGRICULTURE/CROP DUSTING, ANIMAL POPULATION CONTROL FLIGHT OPERATIONS, BANNER TOWING OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE TEST FLIGHTS, MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS, MODEL ROCKETRY, FLOAT PLANE OPERATIONS, UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS) AND AIRCRAFT/HELICOPTERS OPERATING FROM A SHIP OR PRIVATE/CORPORATE YACHT.


However, it appears you can only be charged criminally if you are a licensed pilot flying a real certified "aircraft" without prior authorization inside the FRZ. However, you'd need to have a huge sack of brass to test the authority of the FAA and DOD and fly your Phantom inside the FRZ without clear prior authorization from authorities. I wouldnt be surprised if this dude gets a little visit from the Feds soon!


Here's an image of the DC FRZ ---- I put a red dot where the Mormon temple is located --- I saw that thing when I drove on the Beltway last month and it's really creepy --- looks like the castle of an evil witch king:


DC_FRZ.jpg
 
Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

Said NOTAM is yet another great example of how the FAA's one size fits all approach is a complete and utter failure.
 
Re: Why is this not a blatant & public violation of NOTAM 0/

Well buzz, I just may do that. I always get a kick out of the videos on youtube I see where the Federal Reserve Bank police come out and tell people it is illegal "to film a federal building".If it is, why hasn't anyone been charged with the crime?
Because there have already been two court rulings AGAINST the FAA. that would weigh heavily in the decision of a case where an RCMA operator flies in a NOTAM FRZ area.
Take a look in youtube and you will find dozens of videos taken on the Las Vegas strip.
Now look at a map and you will find a major airport within a mile of it.
So why aren't these pilots being charged with having committed a crime?
DSLR pros has one out and they even slap their name on the video.
 

Similar threads

M
UAV laws and regulations; repository of citations?
Replies
3
Views
3K
General Discussion
TickTock
T

Recent Posts

Members online

Total: 673 (members: 3, guests: 670)

Forum statistics

Threads
143,086
Messages
1,467,528
Members
104,965
Latest member
Fimaj