I thought all of Manhattan was a no fly zone?
- Thread starter Rothgarr
- Start date
Possible? Just because he did it doesn't mean it's legal.
For the record I'd love to see how many "anonymous" reports that article creates for the FAA. I'd imagine Mr. Humza Deas is about to get to some undesirable attention from the FAA as people see this article and report him.
Absolutely!
One thing you sure don't want to do after you have( or are ) doing something illegal is draw attention to yourself.
Mr. Deas is going to find out pretty quickly what a FAA fine feels like.
His actions really underline the problem with drone operators who ignore federal regulations governing drone use.
The good thing is that these people generally operate the same way:
They do illegal things with their drones and then post their 'achievements' on the Internet.
"Hey, look what I did!"
Hopefully, the FAA zeros in on this guy shortly.
One thing you sure don't want to do after you have( or are ) doing something illegal is draw attention to yourself.
Mr. Deas is going to find out pretty quickly what a FAA fine feels like.
His actions really underline the problem with drone operators who ignore federal regulations governing drone use.
The good thing is that these people generally operate the same way:
They do illegal things with their drones and then post their 'achievements' on the Internet.
"Hey, look what I did!"
Hopefully, the FAA zeros in on this guy shortly.
As others have said - this is irresponsible and illegal. Having said that and re-reading your post, are you perhaps asking that if this is a NFZ (which it is) how are the motors even able to start? (making it possible to even take the flight)
Rules are rules.
Here, in Canada, the rules governing the use of drones is being reviewed by the federal government early next year, after there was much criticism of the rules put in place in March of this year.
Everybody understood the ' no drone zone ' surrounding airports and other federally administered areas.
Everybody understood the 150 foot minimum ceiling over buildings,vehicles,people,animals and ships.
Drone operators have asked Transport Canada to take a look at two rules which should be re-visited and, perhaps, adjusted.
These pertain to the 300 foot maximum operating ceiling and no flying after sunset.
I join with many other responsible drone pilots out there who feel the 300 foot maximum ceiling should be adjusted to allow for higher flights.
Also, the 'no flying after dark' rule should also be re-visited to allow for night time flights-while operating within all other rules.
The good news is the federal government is open to discussing some changes to the rules under which drone flights should occur.
Communication between the two sides is a welcome thing.
Here, in Canada, the rules governing the use of drones is being reviewed by the federal government early next year, after there was much criticism of the rules put in place in March of this year.
Everybody understood the ' no drone zone ' surrounding airports and other federally administered areas.
Everybody understood the 150 foot minimum ceiling over buildings,vehicles,people,animals and ships.
Drone operators have asked Transport Canada to take a look at two rules which should be re-visited and, perhaps, adjusted.
These pertain to the 300 foot maximum operating ceiling and no flying after sunset.
I join with many other responsible drone pilots out there who feel the 300 foot maximum ceiling should be adjusted to allow for higher flights.
Also, the 'no flying after dark' rule should also be re-visited to allow for night time flights-while operating within all other rules.
The good news is the federal government is open to discussing some changes to the rules under which drone flights should occur.
Communication between the two sides is a welcome thing.
That's a good idea.
DJI should program all of the drones they sell to have a program inside them that disables them if they are asked to start a flight within any NFZ.
As it stands now, if I wanted to fly my P4 within a 5 mile radius of an airport, my HUD would tell me that I was inside a NFZ;however, I would then be able to disregard this and continue with my flight.
Yes, DJI could install a safety feature on their drones that would disable them for flight if they were located within NFZs.
I've heard this before and I'm not doubting that some restrictions apply but why do people think it's all a NFZ?
Although I've had my 4Pro for about 8 months- I've just signed up to this forum so I'm not sure what other discussions are buried on this site.
Regarding NFZs- I'm thinking that too many opportunities are being missed due to "one size fits all" restrictions. The technology exists to put transponders in drones which would help them co-exist peacefully with aircraft. Further to that- some sort of operator licensing system which would educate drone pilots about airspace and the likelihood of conflicts would be another positive step.
As an airline pilot who started out flying Cessnas in the late 70s- I can see this from both sides. A drone pilot performing work such as aerial photography should have just as much right to the sky as joe piper-pilot who's just out for a joyride. There are ways to achieve this.
Regarding NFZs- I'm thinking that too many opportunities are being missed due to "one size fits all" restrictions. The technology exists to put transponders in drones which would help them co-exist peacefully with aircraft. Further to that- some sort of operator licensing system which would educate drone pilots about airspace and the likelihood of conflicts would be another positive step.
As an airline pilot who started out flying Cessnas in the late 70s- I can see this from both sides. A drone pilot performing work such as aerial photography should have just as much right to the sky as joe piper-pilot who's just out for a joyride. There are ways to achieve this.
My guess is maybe just MAYBE he got permission to make that flight?
Maybe I read wrong? I thought it said he did the pictures in 2014. They didn’t implement a NFZ in 2014 did they? This was a repost from then
Really beautiful shots. I wish I took them. Lol
Really beautiful shots. I wish I took them. Lol
Nah it says he gave them some shots in 2014 and then they asked him to take these which I believe were done in 2017.
Well, an article like this, gives glory to someone who did some great video, like anyone of us would like to do. It teaches a bad lesson. If you want the glory, then you have to break the law sometimes. No guts, no glory!
That seems to be a lesson that resounds in our society today.
That seems to be a lesson that resounds in our society today.
It is possible that he applied for an exception and was given permission to use the airspace.
Yes, I thought of that. Most of the time, a video like this it is done illegally. That has proven itself by the many videos we see on you tube and even this site. It would be nice for the droning community if a note was made telling of permission given to do such a video. So other won’t think they can just do as they like without permission.
While it's possible they obtained the proper Airspace Authorization/Waiver they would have also had to have gotten this waiver: Flying directly over a person or people (§ 107.39). Only 10 of those have been granted or at least that's the # listed in the FAA Database. It's been known to be out of date by a few months but I seriously doubt many more have been granted that aren't listed.
He could also be operating under a Section 333 Exemption but that's a LOT of work (head ache) and requires a PPL or higher to be at hand. I seriously doubt he's gone to that extreme. Even that doesn't allow flights over "Random People" but it does over people on a "Closed Set" such as a motion picture/TV set which Part 107 does not allow for as of yet.
Interesting.
I see that you've been granted exceptions for commercial work. Is it at all possible to do low-level flight inside class C or D airspace with prior permission?
All Part 107 (Civil Operations) required ATC Approval per flying session. But there's more mud for the water....
Technically.... NO! In fact there is a heated debate going on right now on FB where someone reached out to the FAA specifically about this in writing and he got a very stern reply (in writing). He asked specifically if it as "Legal" to still call and ask the facility directly and was told in writing NEGATIVE! I don't fully think that if this were to go to court it would stand up because ultimately the local ATC facility is who gives the Authorization/Waiver anyway so why can they not give phone authorization? But I digress . . .
The reason is because we've always been able to "Try" and contact ATC on the phone to get authorization and it's worked for us very well. Last year FAA mandated that ATC no longer give Part 107 "phone authorizations" and instead refer all requests to the online web portal. Even after the FAA Memo many of us were still able to pick up the phone and get verbal approval to fly in the airspace. Fewer and fewer would give a verbal and most would refer to the web portal but a few would still give verbal approval.
Rumor on the street is that if you get "Ramp Checked" flying inside B, C, D, Surface E and you don't have the written authorization on you then you get a big fat FAIL from the FAA. This hasn't' been tried and proven yet so take it as just internet rumor.
The irony is Airspace Authorization that I have for KAVL (Charlie airspace) requires a phone call to ATC 30 min prior to starting my flying session. So even though I have my Airspace Authorization I still have to make the phone call.
Also to add some details... our Authorizations come with an Airspace Grid that tells us what altitude we are allowed to fly in each quadrant. Everything from ZERO to 400' and lots in between.
I think you might be referring to my Section 333 Exemption status in my signature. This is what was required (that's a whole other debate so just glass over that aspect) to fly UAS commercially before Part 107 was active. My Exemption is still "Live" but only for a few more weeks and I'm letting it expire off into the sunset because with today's framework of rules etc I no longer need it and in fact it probably wouldn't even be renewed if I applied for it. Everything I do falls well withing Part 107 rules and regulations.
Although I've flown into places like LGA or EWR many times, that's all been IFR and I'm not familiar with the US regs as they pertain to drones. I live in Canada and all the drone flying I've done here until now has been in uncontrolled airspace.
However, I've been asked by friends to snap photos of their homes inside a Class D airport control zone and have wondered if it's worth the effort to apply for an exemption with Transport Canada. The reality of the situation is that any small aircraft finding himself that close to the ground in those neighbourhoods has bigger problems than sharing airspace with a drone. However, bureaucracy being what it is...
The technology and regulations need to progress hand in hand. Transponders and some sort of CPDLC system between ATC and drone operator needs to happen. There are just too many opportunities out there to slap blanket restrictions on the future of aerial photography.
Hey this may have a silver lining in that it may start a new trend. Maybe bank robbers and car jackers ect. Will start posting their achievments.
Similar threads
