Drone Ban Extends 30 Miles Around DC, Per FAA (wusa9.com) 410
DewDude writes: If you thought done registration was bad enough; it just got worse for anyone living in the nation's capital. On Christmas Day (of all days); the FAA put into effect a rule that bans the flying of drones/quadcopters within a 30-mile radius around DC. This more than doubles the initial 15 mile radius no-fly-zone. The ban includes the counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Prince William, and the independent cities in the vicinity on the Virginia side. On the Maryland side; it includes Montgomery, Prince Georges, Howard, Anne Arundel; and parts of Calvert, Baltimore, and the extreme north-western end of St. Marys Counties in Maryland.
Breakin' the law, breakin' the law (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And that is how a state becomes a tyranny. Forsaking liberty for security.
Re: (Score:2)
How soon before some 14 year old kid flying his $40 drone in the back yard, at the local park, etc. is shot by SWAT?
Re: (Score:3)
as soon as a Drone crashes in a jumbo jet and people die.
Re: (Score:3)
If there is a jumbo jet in my backyard, then they (and I) have more problems than a $40 drone.
Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law (Score:5, Insightful)
A supermarket drone is less than a pound (half a kilo) and has a ceiling far below cruise for an aircraft. An aircraft on takeoff or approach will be flying pretty slowly. A Canada goose is somewhere in the vicinity of 8 lbs. and will stop a jet-engine, but still won't destroy a jumbo jet.
You might as well worry about flocks of songbirds, which as you may know far outnumber and predate drones.
Re: (Score:2)
An aircraft on takeoff or approach will be flying pretty slowly.
If they restrict all high-flying drones to licensed drone pilots and low-flying within 5 miles of an airport, within 5 miles of low-flying firefighters or rescue copter/operations, and enforce it vigorously, that basically takes care of all current unreasonable dangers to aircraft from civillians' light drones. I'm more concerned about ISIS being able to modify drones for malicious use.
Re: (Score:3)
If jumbo jets can be taken out of the sky by 2oz drones (that's 99.9% of sold drones!), then we have waaaay bigger problems, dude.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Breakin' the law, breakin' the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Pssssst
We don't have to live through it. We've seen first hand how well it worked out for all the other countries who went through it over the years. Even had to send troops over to help deal with them. ( See: WWII )
Learning from your own mistakes is expected. Learning from the mistakes of others is what sets folks apart from the average ones.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't have to live through it. We've seen first hand
No, you haven't. You read it on a history book.
The process that led to the rise of the Third Reich could be, in part, attributed to a tired and fearful populace. At the time, they needed someone to tell them where to direct their frustration for the economic downturn following World War I. Hitler was that someone. He gave them a singular entity to fear. And you know what? People bought into the narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
Because that always solves problems. Do you not understand the meaning of the word "need"?
Re: (Score:3)
This entire argument is a just a red herring. Whether it's worse or not somewhere else is wholly without relevance.
Laws don't make us free. Few restrictions do. Being able to do anything we want that doesn't adversely impact someone else does.
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly, we have a positive correlation between the absence of drones and the Holocaust.
Re: (Score:2)
And that is how a state becomes a tyranny. Forsaking liberty for security.
And now, there will be more violations (Of the new anti-Drone rule), thus justifying more new stricter and broader laws to hit the offenders with ---- AKA a positive feedback loop.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's assume that in some critical area there are now 1000 people flying dangerous-looking drones. It's impossible to know whether any particular drone is being flown by someone dangerously ignorant or downright malicious
After the regulation becomes well known, maybe 10 people will be flying drones, and it's a much better bet that all those drones are flown by someone ignorant or malicious. Downing drones under the new conditions becomes easier for the police, safer for the general public, and more likely t
Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law (Score:5, Interesting)
So if I owned property within 30 miles, I can't fly my little RC plane or Quadcopter in my backyard?
Because....why? And how does doing that affect you or anyone else?
From TFA
"So, anyone who flies drones or RC airplanes or anything within 30 miles of DC is now officially grounded," said hobbyist Cyrus Phillips.. "That came out on Christmas Day."
He said the notice effectively closes the Capital Area Soaring Association and all other hobbyist parks within 30-miles.
Re: (Score:2)
So if I owned property within 30 miles, I can't fly my little RC plane or Quadcopter in my backyard?
The FAA apparently feels it is entitled to make any law it wants by decree even though FAA modernization act specifically bans FAA from imposing regulations specifically targeting model aircraft. They obviously don't care they'll do it anyway as much as *WE* allow them to get away with it.
See also:
https://www.aclu.org/constitut... [aclu.org]
Re: (Score:2)
There have always been bans on flying RC planes in the Area. There area a number of parks designated specifically for RC planes, and tracks for RC cars.
What I would be more curious to know is if there is an exemption for the flying of drones at the RC airplane field as it falls within the no fly zone.
Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law (Score:4, Informative)
Usually, yes, but they've told the AMA to 'temporarily suspend' operations. The AMA thinks it's going to come to an agreement with the FAA in mid-January.
http://motherboard.vice.com/re... [vice.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Breakin' the law, breakin' the law (Score:2, Insightful)
RC operators were a microscopic minority.
I've seen drones for sale in fucking supermarkets. No, your average asshole American dumbass cannot be trusted to obey sane regulation. Congrats; your neighbors have ruined your hobby.
Re: (Score:2)
Birds are not a microscopic minority, though, and civil aviation has managed to live with bird strikes for decades.
I fear people like you accepting the government's word as they slowly pick away at freedoms more than I fear a half-pound drone hitting my plane on approach.
Re: Breakin' the law, breakin' the law (Score:4, Insightful)
Birds are not a microscopic minority, though, and civil aviation has managed to live with bird strikes for decades.
I keep seeing this nonsense and I just can't let it keep going on. Birds are living things that, for political and scientific reasons, we cannot simply eliminate as a way of reducing the risk they cause to aviation. We have to live with them because we've decided that they have a right to live. We do take steps to limit the problem when we can.
Drones, OTOH, are not living things, and they do not have a right to live. We can easily ban them from airspace where they pose a threat to other aircraft.
The fact that one threat to something exists and cannot be eliminated does not mean we must put up with all threats, especially ones that can be eliminated. Trying to argue that since birds are a threat we cannot do anything to limit any other kind of threat is just stupid. There are all kinds of hazards in daily life that we cannot prevent, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to mitigate all of them that we can.
Re: (Score:3)
My point was not made, then.
The point is that birds are not going away and they dwarf the threat to aircraft posed by drones. If you have a whole system in place which can accommodate birds, that same system can handle drones. Drones as a threat to aviation only exists in the imagination, or in a tiny number on a risk assessment spreadsheet.
Re: (Score:3)
The point is that birds are not going away and they dwarf the threat to aircraft posed by drones. If you have a whole system in place which can accommodate birds, that same system can handle drones. Drones as a threat to aviation only exists in the imagination, or in a tiny number on a risk assessment spreadsheet.
We cannot (as yet) teach birds to target aircraft, thus it is unlikely to get multiple bird strikes in a short span of time. It does happen though, and the result is planes landing in the Hudson river. Despite their smaller numbers, drones can be directed to target aircraft. The absolute numbers don't matter.
I'm not saying this ban is justified, merely saying that the almost-not-a-problem of bird strikes does not automatically imply that drones are likewise almost-not-a-problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know any cops do you?
They won't do anything that interferes with their on duty naps and donut eating.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, you think that it is less likely that a turtle will down an aircraft (after being kicked up by the wheels), than a drone which has the same characteristics (to a jet engine) as a goose?
Re: (Score:2)
for your next statistic, how about the number of airplane/satellite collisions compared to airplane/buggy collisions since 1865.
Re: (Score:2)
which puts them well out of harm's way when it comes to aircraft.
Unless the drone is carrying a malicious payload; hence the no-fly zone. What they really need to put on them is tamper-resistant measurement instrumentation and logic that will throw an error, and refuse to fully launch, if a "stowaway" is detected, such as an extra device strapped to the drone.
I am imaging some kind of "self test" occurring during launch, and after in the air, before responding to commands, where all instruments are
Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law (Score:4, Interesting)
30 miles from washington national airport covers the southern portion of Baltimore, including the inner harbor, as well as a significant portion of the state of Maryland.
Look at Google maps, the mile key is on the bottom right corner. I used a post-it to mark the distance. It covers the entirety of Anne Arundel County, which includes Annapolis. That is a pretty significant reach.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So the fact that I'm angry that my son can't fly his little toy drone inside our own backyard makes me a spoiled child?
I wonder what it's going to be like with another 10 or 20 years of you stupid fucks ruining everything.
"Your freedom of speech doesn't extend to saying anything other people can hear."
"Your freedom of the press doesn't extend to printing anything that the public can get their hands on."
"Freedom to assemble is invalid because they might not be behaving peacably."
Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Your liberty doesn't extend to flying quadrocopters wherever the fuck you feel like it.
My liberty has nothing to do with flying or not flying quadcopters at all. That is the problem you're not realizing in your haste to critique Libertarians. You're logic is simple binary and thus incapable of judgement. Or as the good saying goes, only the Sith deal in absolutes.
No, the idea of liberty is fraught with messy dangerous things. If you want to live in a nice peaceful totalitarian state, where everything is mandated, regulated and bubble wraped for your protection, then fine, move to North Korea, where the state protects its people from the evils of Liberty. Because that is what you have advocated.
But lets take a look at what is REALLY happening. It is now, against the law to fly a drone within 30 Miles of DC. That means that I cannot fly my drone, over my backyard (acreage) because you're too fucking scared. Now, I am a criminal for not doing anything other than minding my own business, harming, threatening, or otherwise anyone else.
The real spoiled children are the ones crying for big government to protect them from scary imaginary boogiemen.
So yeah, be riduculously afraid of my quadcopter on my property, and make me a criminal simply because you're too fucking stupid to have any judgements and thus deal in the absolute binary world you're comfortable in.
Re: (Score:2)
It is to counter the lame "Somalia/Libertarian" crap logic that is often tossed about. Binary strawman logic is fun, until it gets reversed on those that use it.
Re: (Score:3)
North Korea = Authoritarian paradise.
Somalia = Libertarian paradise.
While I agree that this law is moronic and brought to you by the bed wetters of America the fact still remains, a land of little to no government will look like Somalia or Afghanistan.
Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law (Score:4, Insightful)
I am not opposed to government. I actually support a government that has a singular purpose, to protect the liberties of those that cannot protect themselves. This doesn't mean a "nanny state", but rather a government that serves to protect its citizens from tyrants, large and small. There are VERY few crimes that fall into this category.
I'm very much idealist in this regard. The purpose of the government, is the secure the blessings of liberty. Those blessings are being eroded in the name of safety and security all the time, by people who aren't really concerned about either, but rather using those concerns to control the masses.
Think of it this way, the citizens in general, are they afraid of their government or not? Personally, I do not trust the government a single bit. I don't trust those that have eroded liberties for everyone but themselves. I point to the current classic case, Hillary Clinton, who while trying to hide her public service email from everyone, including the public trust (government) is at the same time, wanting to back door Security on everyone's email (encryption) so the government can snoop. The government should not need to trust its citizens, but the citizens should be able to trust the government. Currently we are 100% backwards. And it is all done in the name of security and safety.
Or, take this example from the TSA, who won't let more than 5oz of liquids on a plane. Mind you, they wantonly toss those same "dangerous" larger capacity liquid containers into the same trash, right next to the high density choke point for travelers in airports. Further, the 5oz limit doesn't actually stop the dangerous combination chemical reactions, in a well coordinated terrorist plot. The only conclusion I have is that appearances are more important than reality.
And besides that, between 9-11 hijackings that will never happen again, and Paris Nightclub style attacks, it is much easier to go to high density population zones to mass kill people. Reality is not perception, and perception is not reality. Planes will still explode, rarely, on occasion (Egypt), and terrorists win with every tyrannical move to protect the people.
True liberty depends on eternal vigilance, and too many people want to abdicate their responsibilities as citizens and have someone in the government do their job for them. And I personally consider people like that a threat, more so than all the Jihadis in the world, because they seem so innocent as they give away their liberties.
Re: (Score:2)
You won't be happy until the government protects you from all the imaginary boogiemen in your life. You are why I am a FIERCE Libertarian. You embrace tyranny simply because it offers "safety".
Re: (Score:2)
" "Tyranny" " !
DRINK!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking of all the aircraft this bans
You can't launch a model rocket in most of Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia now. You can't fly any model aircraft.
I looked into the FAA site, and it just uses a nebulous Drone/Unmanned Aircraft term, it doesn't give specifics if weight in any way, so it is very broad on what it blocks.
Re: (Score:3)
The FAA has previously stated that they will regulate anything between .5 and 55 kg as a 'hobbyist UAV'. Above 55 kg it's treated as a 'real' aircraft and gets an N number. UAVs get an "FA" number in the registry.* So little toy drones like a Hubsan X4 aren't being regulated but anything much over that, including the wildly popular DJI Phantom series, is being regulated.
And for all of you firmware freaks, DJI has already implemented no fly zones where the craft will not start it's motors if it detects it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If I can't fly it in my own backyard, we have a problem.
If this prevents you from flying in your own backyard, then please do start a lawsuit. Although, you might be required to actually break their regulation, and get them to put you in jail, and until that happens, the courts will not even hear a case against this abuse.
Unfortunately, the way the legal system in the US works, nobody else can challenge the action of abuse that infringes a different person's fundamental liberties ---- in a perverse tw
Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, it's even better than that. There isn't any regulation. The FAA has several ways to make rules about the airspace. They can publish regulations in the Federal Register; this is the hard way. Or they can issue a NOTAM, a Notice to Airmen, containing restrictions in the airspace. This is the easy way. The NOTAM for the DC SFRA is here [faa.gov].
It talks about model aircraft once:
"THE FOLLOWING OPERATIONS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED WITHIN THE DC FRZ: [...] MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS"
Note "DC FRZ". The DC FRZ (Flight Restricted Zone) is a 15-mile radius area centered on Reagan National. The SFRA is a 30-mile radius area centered on the same point. So where's the restriction for the whole SFRA? Well, they've published it on their website, and also in something called AC 91-57A. Thing is, "AC" stands for "Advisory Circular". By definition, it doesn't set any rules; it's advisory.
So it's really tough to challenge the regulation, because _no such regulation exists_. The FAA has told the police to shut down fields, and told the (private) Academy for Model Aeronautics to shut down fields, or else. But they haven't bothered to make an actual regulation to back up their orders.
Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Special snowflakes are the people demanding government protect them from all the imaginary boogiemen they can dream up. I am asking nobody to protect me from anything other than governments making things illegal, simply because people like you can only make binary choices.
Re:Breakin' the law, breakin' the law (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
My inspected food is laced with E.Coli
My building is falling apart even after Architecture and reviews
My cars regularly fail spectacularly (see recalls)
And roads can be paved by Taxes on fuel (not siphoned off for progressive social programs).
Meanwhile natural foods and Non-GMOs need to be certified, but GMOs and foodlike products don't.
You can buy whole raw milk or various other things because they are "too dangerous".
In some places, it is illegal to grow your own food (and other "plants").
The fact that yo
Re: (Score:3)
"statist" !
DRINK!
OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify (Score:2)
We need something as simple a Google Maps where we can zoom in to determine where the no-fly zones are. If you don't make it simple it ain't gonna happen.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
No. People don't need fucking toy airplanes.
For the few who insist on getting one, they need to pony up and get one that carries a database of no-fly, downloaded from the Internet and described in terms a simple GPS can understand.
Scenario:
A wildfire breaks out. FAA temporarily invokes no-fly for drones in a particular area. My drone won't cross the perimeter and returns an error that translates into: "Sorry, but I'm not allowed to go there."
The no-fly applies to permanent areas, as well.
Re:OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify (Score:4, Interesting)
Great, then just program all of those dangerous birds flying around to obey the same zone.
This whole fucking discussion is predicated on the "fact" that these drones pose a danger. Yet, while we have drones enjoying unprecedented popularity, we do not have any incidences of an aircraft being in any real danger. Even if we did, how many more bird strikes are there each year?
This is yet another example of failure to do a cost-benefit analysis and simply accepting the government's default position of safety over freedom on something. Let's not allow the crippling CYA culture that dominates the public sector to invade our lives. Please?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes the nation needs toy airplanes if we want another generation of pilots and aerospace engineers.
Ask any military pilot where/when he got 'the flying bug'?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know what you're droning about, but what people normally buy is not planes, but toy drones, that weigh 2oz, have a ~100m control range, and 3 minutes flight time. That's 99.9% of the drones out there. It doesn't matter where you fly them, the most damage they'll do is to cut up someone's eye if you fly one into someone's face. My biggest worry was about what happens if one gets sucked into the turbine of a small helicopter. A friend who was doing some FOD ingestion testing on these small turbines te
Re: (Score:3)
SkyVector [skyvector.com] can help you there, though it's not authoritative.
TFRs (Temporary Flight Restriction areas, though some aren't all that temporary--Disneyland has had one since the 1990s) and SFRs (Special Flight Rules areas) are outlined in red, and while they don't always get sporting events, TFRs due to fires usually do go up.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for that link, it rams home what I thought, I have to go way north almost out of the county before I can fly anything. Luckily, that's pretty much where I was going to go anyway. I live within the SFR for Lampson Field...
No Fly Zones (Score:2)
There are a number of ways to look at "no-fly zones", principally NOTOMs. But for a good FREE visual, go to SkyVector. the maps will show all "TFRs" - Temporary Flying Restrictions, as well as permanent flying restrictions.
Re: OK FAA - I challenge you to simplify (Score:2)
Because sending a SWAT team is an appropriate response for flying a model aircraft. . . . :|
This country is a lost cause.
Re: (Score:2)
'Ignorance of the law is no excuse' is balanced by 'no cop, no law'.
FAA rules conflict with local laws (Score:3)
This has been a widely reported issue that the FAA rules override local laws. In the Boulder, CO area there is designated "open space". It would be a good place to fly because there is lots of space and few people. Boulder says drones are forbidden, FAA says it's ok. Who to believe.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more complicated than that. Your murder example doesn't fit here, because while there is no federal law against murder, there is also no federal law saying "states cannot make laws banning murder."
I agree with you that Boulder can ban the operation of drones from within their city limits--what they CANNOT do, is ban the flying of them over the city, because (and your opinion on whether or not this is constitutional may vary) the FAA has the exclusive power to regulate airspace.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the secret to ensuring that your favorite pastime won't be annexed by a bunch of rogue law-makers is to take up a pastime that *they* enjoy.
For example... many, many times more people are injured or die as a result of playing golf than as a result of playing with drones -- yet you *KNOW* that golf will never be banned or restricted in the way that drones are being -- simply because so many lawmakers are also keen golfers.
Remember... politicians and bureaucrats are primarily looking after their own
Go Fly a Kite! (Score:2)
You can still legally fly a kite (with pretty much any payload you like)
My 'tethered drone' remains legal for use in the National parks, as well. Since upgrading my kite to quad-engine status, it works well even with no wind...
As I was reminded by a federal judge, do not forget to hang on to your end of the string...
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously...if having a tether atta
Re: (Score:2)
Unless my info is out of date, tethered drones are classified as "moored balloons [ecfr.gov]" at the moment. Slightly more restricted than kites. Key points:
Amazon customers will be grumpy... (Score:2)
I wonder how long this will hold up once Amazon says they can no longer offer one-hour delivery in DC because the no-fly zone keeps them from operating delivery drones. Even if Amazon gets a regulatory exemption, rich and powerful hobbyists will be pointedly asking what makes Amazon so special.
Politician ban.... (Score:2)
Can I have a 30 mile Politician ban around my home? I cite public welfare and safety as the reasons.
Sounds like mistress photos got out of hand? (Score:2)
Hmmm...I wonder if some muckity-muck and their mistress got outed by some drone photography. The new ban ought to prevent that in the future.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Dey derker derns!
Now they can assume any drone is a threat and respond accordingly, and have the legal authority to take it out and arrest its pilot if they can find him.
If you don't understand how easy it is now to build a homemade cruise missile, well, you're probably the kind of stupid person who was shocked, shocked that passenger jets could be turned into weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
Definitions matter (Score:2)
So wtf do they call a "drone" this week?
Can I still fly my plain-old R/C plane? Because that's NOT A DRONE AND NEVER HAS BEEN (except for the ignorant).
What if it's unpowered (like an RC glider)?
If the language is sufficiently vague, how about model rockets? Bottle rockets? Fireworks?
Hey, maybe they could expand the definition, make it illegal to release a balloon?
Psychological projection, or blame shifting (Score:2)
I think it is a classic psychological projection in action. The authority in the D.C. feels a guilt for using drones in military combat wi
That's bullshit (Score:2)
It's threads like this one... (Score:2)
...that show us how many home-schooled constitutional lawyers there are on the Internet.
Re: (Score:3)
Man, I'll convert it to a strip club.
bill clinton already did that
And he provided complimentary cigars!
Government bureaucrat sucking all the joy (Score:2)
... out of life. If you have to get up and drive 30 miles to fly your drone, why bother getting out of bed in the morning?
Re:FED (Score:5, Informative)
Re:FED (Score:5, Informative)
Do you believe every stupid thing you read? The House passed the Federal Reserve Act 298 to 60 and the Senate passed it 43 to 25. And President Wilson signed it.
Re: (Score:3)
The Federal Reserve Act was passed 287-85 by the House on September 18, 1913, and passed 54-34 by the Senate on December 18, 1913. President Wilson signed it on December 23, 1913.
Re:FED (Score:5, Informative)
Correction from info posted by bws111: The votes I posted were for the initial passage. The votes bws111 posted were for the reconciliation form of the Act. Those are more technically correct.
Re: (Score:2)
-1, lie
The Federal Reserve Act passed the Senate on Dec. 23, 1913 with 47 yeas, 25 nays, 27 not voting. The voting roll is listed here: http://www.llsdc.org/assets/FR... [llsdc.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Why? A Phantom without a camera can carry plenty of payload to do plenty of damage. Doesn't have to move fast, just get there.
30 miles is outside the range of your off the shelf DJI phantom, but I've got one thats flown 18 miles thats the same size roughly, of course all its payload capacity was consumed with the extra batteries ... but its a quad, the least efficient form of flying machine man has ever invented. A fixed wing aircraft has an order of magnitude more distance given the same inputs.
Remember
Re: (Score:2)
" They require full artificial stability 100% of the time or they won't fly. No human can sense or react quick enough to keep them in the air, "
That's the case with many biological flying critters as well, like swallows and house martins. Greater flight instability leads to higher maneuverability, but at the cost of higher sensitivity to tiny changes in wind conditions and flight surface configuration, which in turn requires constant and rapid readjustment.
Many creatures have been able to adapt to maneuvera
Re: (Score:2)
Same reason why that modified Silverado Suburban is called Hummer, even though it in no way resembles the HMMWV from which it got its namesake: Hipsters and wannabe veterans like to pretend they own military grade equipment when it is anything but.
Re: (Score:2)
It still remains a VW Thing body stuck to a truck frame. Never seen one on a trail. Only at malls.
Re: (Score:2)
The word, "drone," is a media-applied description.
The FAA does not use the word drone. It uses, "Unmanned Aircraft System."
You are correct in that it's simply any small airplane, regardless of configuration (fixed-wing, helicopter, quad-copter, whatever).
Here's a FAQ. [faa.gov]
Re: What is a "Drone?" (Score:2)
Re: Today I learned how to double (Score:2)
I think the 15 vs 30 miles is the thickness of an irregular ring, starting at the (non-circular) borders of DC. It's not as simple as pi*r*r.
Re: (Score:2)
It is that simple. The area described matches that of the DC SFR (Special Flight Rules area), which extends 30 nautical miles from the Washington (DCA) VOR (Latitude: 3851'34"N, Longitude: 7702'11"W). As complicated as the FAA can make things, they keep most things as simple as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
'To suit the whims of politicians, with no oversight or process'. FTFY
Re:Gotta love our overweening government! (Score:4, Informative)
I realize I lose the argument by starting it this way, but the above is just so clueless, that I feel I have no choice: "You're a fucking idiot."
Congress makes laws. The executive branch makes rules. The executive branch cannot make rules unless they have the delegated power to do so. Congress passed a LAW that said, in essence, that "the FAA's delegated power to make rules does not extend to model aircraft." The FAA made a rule that extended to model aircraft, which it specifically DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DO.
This has nothing to do with "laws being revised to account for future development." It is a department of the government (unelected bureaucrats, no less) ignoring its enabling legislation. This is actually rule by fiat, i.e. dictatorship, and not the democratic process.
Go back to fucking civics class.
Re: (Score:2)
The motorcade wouldn't stop or significantly slow down for that. It may change its path, but there are few reasons for a significant change in planned speeds because it could jeopardize the safety of the motorcade (slower targets are easier to hit).
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a restriction on piloted aircraft. Hence, it's not listed as a NOTAM as you pointed out.
Nor is it listed as a TFR at http://tfr.faa.gov/ [faa.gov]
I agree the FAA needs a MUCH BETTER MECHANISM so UAS pilots can check for such flight restrictions.
Ehud
CPL-H
Tucson AZ
Re: (Score:2)
The summary specifies radius, not area.