Arthur_Foyt
TFR’s and NOTAMS?
Sure, that will stop 'em.
TFR’s and NOTAMS?
Sure, that will stop 'em.
I guess this will stop the casual drone idiots flying drones with software that automatically checks for geofencing, but this still seems like more of a “see, we did something” approach than something that actually matters.
These new TFRs are surface-400AGL and specifically mention UAS. They don’t appear to apply to manned aircraft.
It does make it a little more difficult to see which TFRs actually apply to manned aircraft, though. I think the TFR system will need to be enhanced to be able to filter by type of aircraft, so UAS operators can see which ones apply to them, and all other aircraft can see which ones apply to them, without either group having to be overwhelmed by non-relevant TFRs.
2 replies
To illustrate just how poorly the news media is handling this story, I just saw a news segment announcing that the FAA has “grounded” drone operations in New Jersey. No mention of something called a TFR. And the video they showed along with the story had three different “objects”, all of which had red and green lights along with flashing strobes. Great reporting guys!
This Drone hysteria is an opportune time for every pilot to read the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 107.
These drone operators have been breaking the rules in wholesale style and no Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) operator has been given a violations. That’s so interesting…
https://drs.faa.gov/browse/cfrPart/externalWindow/8/Part 107 - SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS/current/default
Thanks for the additional information. It looks like a minefield.
Indeed, the 22 new drone NOTAMs of 12/18/2024 within the ZNY region establish a 400-foot AGL limit. However, exceptions exist. FAA approvals allow drones to exceed this limit in cases such as inspections, emergencies, military zones, BVLOS operations, or near tall structures (up to 400 feet above their height). Yup, they are everywhere! KlausM is correct.
“… more difficult to see which TFRs actually apply to manned aircraft, though. I think the TFR system will need to be enhanced to be able to filter by type of aircraft, so UAS operators can see which ones apply to them, and all other aircraft can see which ones apply to them, without either group having to be overwhelmed by non-relevant TFRs.”
Agreed, 100%
Currently, TFR display is a mess.
I am so glad I don’t live in that whacked out sick part of the U.S. You people who live there need psychiatric help.
This is “established evidence” that government is upside down, and has 250 foot arms replacing previous overreaching 18 foot arms of bureaucracy government, making no common sense in the first place. Your ass is mine! You can tell by my long answer that “airspace constraints” are not the “final solution.” Rather an order leave your weapons/guns a.k.a. drones with the local Sheriff before entering airspace in my county. Otherwise you Matt Dillon will tracked do and deal with you at hi discretion. Most Sheriff’s being short handed will authorize Vigilantes to stop you forthwith! “Don’t bring your guns/drones to town/controlled airspace brothers and sisters!” Your ass is mine!
Your ass is mine! County Sheriff’s of America!
Now there’s a new batch of them on Long Island and a few north of NYC too.
These new TFRs are 100% centered on electrical substations and they are 100% drone-only. So, even if you were flying your airplane (for some unexplained reason) below 400agl in these areas, you wouldn’t be busting a TFR. You’d probably be busting more than one FAR though. Bottom line, if you fly an airplane, you can effectively ignore them; they don’t pertain to you.
I agree with others that the current display of TFRs could use some help, maybe just color coding.
Regarding last weeks drone activity at Wright-Patt I heard that the USAF security forces have the capability of capturing drones. Also the capability of taking control of drones. Anyone know if this is true?