Please select Into the mobile phone version | Continue to access the computer ver.
Confusion on where to fly....without it becoming an issue.
1969 17 2018-11-12
Uploading and Loding Picture ...(0/1)
o(^-^)o
Parisi2274
First Officer
Flight distance : 211043 ft
United States
Offline

Hi All..

So I have been flying since Feb 18, started with the Air and upgraded to the M2P, and during this time there has always been one thing about this hobby and thats where I am legally allowed to fly without causing any issues...

I live in NYC and so I know right off the bat that ALL of NYC is a no fly zone and rightfully so, but when I head out to the other boros, and I check the Geo Zone map in the DJi app I can see what is restricted, what is a no fly zone and what has no restrictions whatsoever, and then I read that each of the five boros has like one spot where are you legally allowed to fly...
The attached map is from the DJI Geo Zone site and the pin right in the middle of Staten Island is around where I live.  The legal spot to fly is right down the street from me, but I want to take it out other places... one of those places is Coney Island and I had always thought that that would've been a no fly zone, but when the M2P and M2Z came out Casey Neistat took the zoom out to Coney Island to fly it....during the day...when it was crowded and rides were in operation and he said that it was perfectly legal to fly it there....

So, I know my post is centered around the NYC area, but if anyone wants to chime in with their experiences in their area, please feel free to do so. I really would love to know how I can determine if I am flying in an unrestricted area or not...
Screen Shot 2018-11-12 at 11.23.39 AM.png
2018-11-12
Use props
DeuceDriv3r
First Officer
Flight distance : 4698533 ft
United States
Offline

just do like casey neistat does.. just jump in his helicopter and fly to JFK and catch a flight to the bahamas to fly.. or you can live someplace that isn't so socialist and rights robbing like the north east.. YMMV
2018-11-12
Use props
A CW
Captain
Flight distance : 13838848 ft
  • >>>
United Kingdom
Offline

Perth Amboy looks safe enough looking at that map You can fly (with added caution) in the green circles too - just keep well away from the yellow and red zones (in terms of geo fencing anyway).  
2018-11-12
Use props
Parisi2274
First Officer
Flight distance : 211043 ft
United States
Offline

DeuceDriv3r Posted at 11-12 08:40
just do like casey neistat does.. just jump in his helicopter and fly to JFK and catch a flight to the bahamas to fly.. or you can live someplace that isn't so socialist and rights robbing like the north east.. YMMV

Thank you for such a well thought out, helpful and productive reply.  
2018-11-12
Use props
Parisi2274
First Officer
Flight distance : 211043 ft
United States
Offline

A CW Posted at 11-12 08:50
Perth Amboy looks safe enough looking at that map  You can fly (with added caution) in the green circles too - just keep well away from the yellow and red zones (in terms of geo fencing anyway).

So like the other issue I have is that on the map that I posted, the upper section of Staten Island, where the Verrazano bridge is, there are no warning zones or restricted things like that, but its public knowledge that you do not fly near bridges... yet I see other drone photographers on the island posting video from around the bridge... just like not super close to it.
2018-11-12
Use props
DeuceDriv3r
First Officer
Flight distance : 4698533 ft
United States
Offline

Parisi2274 Posted at 11-12 08:59
Thank you for such a well thought out, helpful and productive reply.

you can lighten up just a bit and take a bit of humor.... right?  

if you want a definitive answer .. call your nearest FSDO
2018-11-12
Use props
DeuceDriv3r
First Officer
Flight distance : 4698533 ft
United States
Offline

A CW Posted at 11-12 08:50
Perth Amboy looks safe enough looking at that map  You can fly (with added caution) in the green circles too - just keep well away from the yellow and red zones (in terms of geo fencing anyway).

as for perth amboy... great neighborhood.. very scenic .. don't think the oil companies would mind much...


Unknown.jpeg
2018-11-12
Use props
A CW
Captain
Flight distance : 13838848 ft
  • >>>
United Kingdom
Offline

DeuceDriv3r Posted at 11-12 09:06
as for perth amboy... great neighborhood.. very scenic .. don't think the oil companies would mind much...

Hence why I stated "IN TERMS OF GEO FENCING"! I have never been there in my life but the OP is looking for places to at least fly and in terms of the geo fencing (air space restrictions driven by DJI in their app) that area appears fine to at least take off. Whether it is a boring area to fly or some oil men don't understand aviation laws is not my point.  
2018-11-12
Use props
A CW
Captain
Flight distance : 13838848 ft
  • >>>
United Kingdom
Offline

Parisi2274 Posted at 11-12 09:02
So like the other issue I have is that on the map that I posted, the upper section of Staten Island, where the Verrazano bridge is, there are no warning zones or restricted things like that, but its public knowledge that you do not fly near bridges... yet I see other drone photographers on the island posting video from around the bridge... just like not super close to it.

They may be using zoom lenses to make the bridge appear closer.
2018-11-12
Use props
DeuceDriv3r
First Officer
Flight distance : 4698533 ft
United States
Offline

A CW Posted at 11-12 10:09
Hence why I stated "IN TERMS OF GEO FENCING"! I have never been there in my life but the OP is looking for places to at least fly and in terms of the geo fencing (air space restrictions driven by DJI in their app) that area appears fine to at least take off. Whether it is a boring area to fly or some oil men don't understand aviation laws it not my point.

man.. everyone touchy around here can't anyone take a joke...

a guy that can't find place to fly in a country of 3.8 million square miles... thats pretty funny .... taking advice from someone that lives in a different country... priceless..also, airmap and others are not definitive sources at least not in this country... its a guidline map.. too many local municipalities making their own rules...

regulations .. not so funny but honestly the only way to get an answer to his question in NYC is to talk to the authorities.. the ... FSDO office for the federal rules and NYC and the outlying counties have their own regulations. so that takes more research..  and since the fines and jail time are getting stiff I would not trust some forum opinions I would call the authories and get definitive answers .. in writting better so that when the beat cop comes up to write you a citation you can pull out your certificates and emails and MAYBE he wont cite you and have to prove it in the courts..


2018-11-12
Use props
A CW
Captain
Flight distance : 13838848 ft
  • >>>
United Kingdom
Offline

DeuceDriv3r Posted at 11-12 10:17
man.. everyone touchy around here can't anyone take a joke...

a guy that can't find place to fly in a country of 3.8 million square miles... thats pretty funny ....

Same as London - you just need to know where to go. I guess that is why he has come onto the forum - to get help with knowing the best places. I don't live there but can lend a hand on the geo map keys. Hopefully someone closer to home can give him better insight into the best places to fly...
2018-11-12
Use props
Montfrooij
Captain
Flight distance : 2560453 ft
  • >>>
Netherlands
Offline

Always difficult to fly by 'the rules'
Here in NL it would not be possible at all to fly in such a place.
Hope you find somebody with good local knowledge.
2018-11-12
Use props
S.D. Pilot
Captain
Flight distance : 10278435 ft
  • >>>
United States
Offline

Hey Paris, there are several places you can fly close to you. I've flown several times at Ferris Park near the Whitestone bridge, Astoria park, Coney Island and Flushing Meadows park. I was able to fly without any problems at all; when near the airport, I placed a call to ATC. Provided them the heads up; location, flying a drone, how long you plan to fly and of course your AGL. That's it !

At Ferris Park, I've had planes fly near me but like I said, keep aware, stay at the AGL you said you'd fly and keep the craft within eyesight. There are other RC pilots flying there as well; a known RC, drones etc flying area.



Hope this helps.
2018-11-12
Use props
SPIKE_151
First Officer
Flight distance : 69767 ft
United Kingdom
Offline

State and Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
Fact Sheet
Federal Aviation Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
December 17, 2015
BACKGROUND
Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) are aircraft subject to regulation by the ... to ensure safety of flight, and safety of people and property on the ground. States and local jurisdictions are increasingly exploring regulation of UAS or proceeding to enact legislation relating to UAS operations. In 2015, approximately 45 states have considered restrictions on UAS. In addition, public comments on the Federal Aviation Administration’s (...) proposed rule, “Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems” (Docket No. ...-2015-0150), expressed concern about the possible impact of state and local laws on UAS operations.
Incidents involving unauthorized and unsafe use of small, remote-controlled aircraft have risen dramatically. Pilot reports of interactions with suspected unmanned aircraft have increased from 238 sightings in all of 2014 to 780 through August of this year. During this past summer, the presence of multiple UAS in the vicinity of wild fires in the western U.S. prompted firefighters to ground their aircraft on several occasions.
This fact sheet is intended to provide basic information about the federal regulatory framework for use by states and localities when considering laws affecting UAS. State and local restrictions affecting UAS operations should be consistent with the extensive federal statutory and regulatory framework pertaining to control of the airspace, flight management and efficiency, air traffic control, aviation safety, navigational facilities, and the regulation of aircraft noise at its source.
Presented below are general principles of federal law as they relate to aviation safety, and examples of state and local laws that should be carefully considered prior to any legislative action to ensure that they are consistent with applicable federal safety regulations. The ...’s Office of the Chief Counsel is available for consultation on specific questions.
WHY THE FEDERAL FRAMEWORK
Congress has vested the ... with authority to regulate the areas of airspace use, management and efficiency, air traffic control, safety, navigational facilities, and aircraft noise at its source. 49 U.S.C. §§ 40103, 44502, and 44701-44735. Congress has directed the ... to “develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace.” 49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(1). Congress has further directed the ... to “prescribe air traffic regulations on the flight of aircraft (including regulations on safe altitudes)” for navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft; protecting individuals and property on the ground; using the navigable
airspace efficiently; and preventing collision between aircraft, between aircraft and land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects. 49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(2).
A consistent regulatory system for aircraft and use of airspace has the broader effect of ensuring the highest level of safety for all aviation operations. To ensure the maintenance of a safe and sound air transportation system and of navigable airspace free from inconsistent restrictions, ... has regulatory authority over matters pertaining to aviation safety.

REGULATING UAS OPERATIONS
In § 333 of the ... Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law No. 112-95), Congress directed the Secretary to determine whether UAS operations posing the least amount of public risk and no threat to national security could safely be operated in the national airspace system (NAS) and if so, to establish requirements for the safe operation of these systems in the NAS.
On February 15, 2015, the ... proposed a framework of regulations that would allow routine commercial use of certain small UAS in today’s aviation system, while maintaining flexibility to accommodate future technological innovations. The ...’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking offered safety rules for small UAS (under 55 pounds) conducting non-recreational or non-hobby operations. The proposed rule defines permissible hours of flight, line-of-sight observation, altitude, operator certification, optional use of visual observers, aircraft registration and marking, and operational limits.
Consistent with its statutory authority, the ... is requiring Federal registration of UAS in order to operate a UAS. Registering UAS will help protect public safety in the air and on the ground, aid the ... in the enforcement of safety-related requirements for the operation of UAS, and build a culture of accountability and responsibility among users operating in U.S. airspace. No state or local UAS registration law may relieve a UAS owner or operator from complying with the Federal UAS registration requirements. Because Federal registration is the exclusive means for registering UAS for purposes of operating an aircraft in navigable airspace, no state or local government may impose an additional registration requirement on the operation of UAS in navigable airspace without first obtaining ... approval.
Substantial air safety issues are raised when state or local governments attempt to regulate the operation or flight of aircraft. If one or two municipalities enacted ordinances regulating UAS in the navigable airspace and a significant number of municipalities followed suit, fractionalized control of the navigable airspace could result. In turn, this ‘patchwork quilt’ of differing restrictions could severely limit the flexibility of ... in controlling the airspace and flight patterns, and ensuring safety and an efficient air traffic flow. A navigable airspace free from inconsistent state and local restrictions is essential to the maintenance of a safe and sound air transportation system. See Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, 508 F.3d 464 (9th Cir. 2007), and French v. Pan Am Express, Inc., 869 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1989); see also Arizona v. U.S., 567 U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 2492, 2502 (2012) (“Where Congress occupies an entire field . . . even complimentary state regulation is impermissible. Field preemption reflects a congressional decision to foreclose any
3
state regulation in the area, even if it is parallel to federal standards.”), and Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 386-87 (1992).
EXAMPLES OF STATE AND LOCAL LAWS FOR WHICH CONSULTATION WITH THE ... IS RECOMMENDED
• Operational UAS restrictions on flight altitude, flight paths; operational bans; any regulation of the navigable airspace. For example – a city ordinance banning anyone from operating UAS within the city limits, within the airspace of the city, or within certain distances of landmarks. Federal courts strictly scrutinize state and local regulation of overflight. City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, 411 U.S. 624 (1973); Skysign International, Inc. v. City and County of Honolulu, 276 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2002); American Airlines v. Town of Hempstead, 398 F.2d 369 (2d Cir. 1968); American Airlines v. City of Audubon Park, 407 F.2d 1306 (6th Cir. 1969).
• Mandating equipment or training for UAS related to aviation safety such as geo-fencing would likely be preempted. Courts have found that state regulation pertaining to mandatory training and equipment requirements related to aviation safety is not consistent with the federal regulatory framework. Med-Trans Corp. v. Benton, 581 F. Supp. 2d 721, 740 (E.D.N.C. 2008); Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. Robinson, 486 F. Supp. 2d 713, 722 (M.D. Tenn. 2007).
EXAMPLES OF STATE AND LOCAL LAWS WITHIN STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLICE POWER
Laws traditionally related to state and local police power – including land use, zoning, privacy, trespass, and law enforcement operations – generally are not subject to federal regulation. Skysign International, Inc. v. City and County of Honolulu, 276 F.3d 1109, 1115 (9th Cir. 2002). Examples include:
• Requirement for police to obtain a warrant prior to using a UAS for surveillance.
• Specifying that UAS may not be used for voyeurism.
• Prohibitions on using UAS for hunting or fishing, or to interfere with or harass an individual who is hunting or fishing.
• Prohibitions on attaching firearms or similar weapons to UAS.
CONTACT INFORMATION FOR QUESTIONS
The ...’s Office of the Chief Counsel is available to answer questions about the principles set forth in this fact sheet and to consult with you about the intersection of federal, state, and local regulation of aviation, generally, and UAS operations, specifically. You may contact the Office of Chief Counsel in Washington, D.C. or any of the following Regional Counsels:
4
... Office of the Chief Counsel
Regulations Division (AGC-200)
800 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, DC 20591
(202) 267-3073
Alaskan Region
Office of the Regional Counsel
222 West 7th Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99513
(909) 271-5269
(AK)
Central Region
Office of the Regional Counsel
901 Locust St., Room 506
Kansas City, MO 61406-2641
(816) 329-3760
(IA, KS, MO, NE)
Eastern Region
Office of the Regional Counsel
1 Aviation Plaza, Room 561
Jamaica, NY 11434-4848
(718) 553-3285
(DC, DE, MD, NJ, NY, PA, VA, WV)
Great Lakes Region
Office of the Regional Counsel
O’Hare Lake Office Center
2300 East Devon Ave.
Des Plaines, IL 60018
(847) 294-7313
(IL, IN, MI, MN, ND, OH, SD, WI)
New England Region
Office of the Regional Counsel
12 New England Executive Park
Burlington, MA 01803 (781) 238-7040
(CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT)
Northwest Mountain Region
Office of the Regional Counsel
1601 Lind Ave. SW
Renton, WA 98055-4056
(425) 227-2007
(CO, ID, MT, OR, UT, WA, WY)
Sothern Region
Office of the Regional Counsel
1701 Columbia Ave., Suite 530
College Park, GA 30337
(404) 305-5200
(AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN)
Southwest Region
Office of the Regional Counsel, 6N-300
10101 Hillwood Parkway Dr.
Fort Worth, TX 76177
(817) 222-5099
(AR, LA, NM, OK, TX)
Western-Pacific Region
Office of the Regional Counsel
P.O. Box 92007
Los Angeles, CA 90009
(310) 725-7100
(AZ, CA, HI, NV)
5
APPENDIX – LIST OF AUTHORITIES
Federal Statutes
• 49 U.S.C. §§ 40103, 44502, and 44701- 44735 (former Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended and recodified).
• ... Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law No. 112-95 (Feb. 14, 2012), Subtitle B, “Unmanned Aircraft Systems.”
Federal Regulations
• Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 1.
The U.S. Supreme Court
• “Congress has recognized the national responsibility for regulating air commerce. Federal control is intensive and exclusive. Planes do not wander about in the sky like vagrant clouds. They move only by federal permission, subject to federal inspection, in the hands of federally certified personnel and under an intricate system of federal commands. The moment a ship taxies onto a runway it is caught up in an elaborate and detailed system of controls. It takes off only by instruction from the control tower, it travels on prescribed beams, it may be diverted from its intended landing, and it obeys signals and orders. Its privileges, rights, and protection, so far as transit is concerned, it owes to the Federal Government alone and not to any state government.” Northwest Airlines v. State of Minnesota, 322 U.S. 292, 303 (1944)(Jackson, R., concurring).
• “If we were to uphold the Burbank ordinance [which placed an 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew on jet flights from the Burbank Airport] and a significant number of municipalities followed suit, it is obvious that fractionalized control of the timing of takeoffs and landings would severely limit the flexibility of ... in controlling air traffic flow. The difficulties of scheduling flights to avoid congestion and the concomitant decrease in safety would be compounded.” Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal Inc., 411 U.S. 624, 639 (1973).
• “The Federal Aviation Act requires a delicate balance between safety and efficiency, and the protection of persons on the ground … The interdependence of these factors requires a uniform and exclusive system of federal regulation if the congressional objectives underlying the Federal Aviation Act are to be fulfilled.” Burbank at 638-639.
• “The paramount substantive concerns of Congress [in enacting the ... Act] were to regulate federally all aspects of air safety … and, once aircraft were in ‘flight,’ airspace management…." Burbank at 644 (Rehnquist, J. dissenting).
6
U.S. Courts of Appeals
• “Air traffic must be regulated at the national level. Without uniform equipment specifications, takeoff and landing rules, and safety standards, it would be impossible to operate a national air transportation system.” Gustafson v. City of Lake Angeles, 76 F.3d 778, 792-793 (6th Cir. 1996)(Jones, N., concurring).
• “The purpose, history, and language of the ... [Act] lead us to conclude that Congress intended to have a single, uniform system for regulating aviation safety. The catalytic events leading to the enactment of the ... [Act] helped generate this intent. The ... [Act] was drafted in response to a series of fatal air crashes between civil and military aircraft operating under separate flight rules .… In discussing the impetus for the ... [Act], the Supreme Court has also noted that regulating the aviation industry requires a delicate balance between safety and efficiency. It is precisely because of ‘the interdependence of these factors’ that Congress enacted ‘a uniform and exclusive system of federal regulation.’” Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, 508 F.3d 464, 471 (9th Cir. 2007), citing City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal Inc., 411 U.S. 624, 638-39 (1973).
• “[W]hen we look to the historical impetus for the ..., its legislative history, and the language of the [...] Act, it is clear that Congress intended to invest the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration with the authority to enact exclusive air safety standards. Moreover, the Administrator has chosen to exercise this authority by issuing such pervasive regulations that we can infer a preemptive intent to displace all state law on the subject of air safety.” Montalvo at 472.
• “We similarly hold that federal law occupies the entire field of aviation safety. Congress' intent to displace state law is implicit in the pervasiveness of the federal regulations, the dominance of the federal interest in this area, and the legislative goal of establishing a single, uniform system of control over air safety. This holding is fully consistent with our decision in Skysign International, Inc. v. Honolulu, 276 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2002), where we considered whether federal law preempted state regulation of aerial advertising that was distracting and potentially dangerous to persons on the ground. In upholding the state regulations, we held that federal law has not ‘preempt[ed] altogether any state regulation purporting to reach into the navigable airspace.’ Skysign at 1116. While Congress may not have acted to occupy exclusively all of air commerce, it has clearly indicated its intent to be the sole regulator of aviation safety. The ..., together with federal air safety regulations, establish complete and thorough safety standards for interstate and international air transportation that are not subject to supplementation by, or variation among, states.” Montalvo at 473-474.
• “[W]e remark the Supreme Court's reasoning regarding the need for uniformity [concerning] the regulation of aviation noise, see City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, 411 U.S. 624 (1973), and suggest that the same rationale applies here. In Burbank, the Court struck down a municipal anti-noise ordinance placing a curfew on jet flights from a regional airport. Citing the ‘pervasive nature of the scheme of federal
7
regulation,’ the majority ruled that aircraft noise was wholly subject to federal hegemony, thereby preempting state or local enactments in the field. In our view, the pervasiveness of the federal web is as apparent in the matter of pilot qualification as in the matter of aircraft noise. If we upheld the Rhode Island statute as applied to airline pilots, ‘and a significant number of [states] followed suit, it is obvious that fractionalized control ... would severely limit the flexibility of the F.A.A ….’ [citing Burbank] Moreover, a patchwork of state laws in this airspace, some in conflict with each other, would create a crazyquilt effect… The regulation of interstate flight-and flyers-must of necessity be monolithic. Its very nature permits no other conclusion. In the area of pilot fitness as in the area of aviation noise, the [...] Act as we read it ‘leave no room for ... local controls.’ [citing Burbank]. French v. Pan Am Express, Inc., 869 F.2d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 1989).
2018-11-13
Use props
Marty Markoe
Captain
Flight distance : 15135 ft
  • >>>
United States
Offline

FSDO are known socialists* looking to block all those righteous NATIONALISTS.
Marty
* Like your president says, "Fake News."
2018-11-13
Use props
rwynant V1
Captain
Flight distance : 4842277 ft
  • >>>
United States
Offline

You can also review the ... sUAS Facility Maps.

You can zoom down to your area......NO BOX means fly, max AGL 400ft

A box with a 0 or a number is the MAX AGL you are allowed to fly in that area.

https://....maps.arcgis.com/apps ... 8e19806ebf6a06754ad

Randy
2018-11-13
Use props
Parisi2274
First Officer
Flight distance : 211043 ft
United States
Offline

rwynant V1 Posted at 11-13 10:19
You can also review the ... sUAS Facility Maps.

You can zoom down to your area......NO BOX means fly, max AGL 400ft

Oh, this site is super helpful.  Thanks so much!


So on the attached pic, the black dot is my location, and then the north shore of the island are all red boxes with Zero which means its a no fly zone I assume because its within the 5mi range of Newark?  Is this accurate?
Screen Shot 2018-11-13 at 4.03.44 PM.png
2018-11-13
Use props
rwynant V1
Captain
Flight distance : 4842277 ft
  • >>>
United States
Offline

There is quite a bit of infrastructure in there.  Rail Yards and Marine terminals......I am not entirely sure why that's all zero'd out.

YES,  now that I take a closer look..... EWR is most of that......

Randy
2018-11-13
Use props
Advanced
You need to log in before you can reply Login | Register now

Credit Rules