Re:FAA bans flights below 3000 feet over Ferguson, MO
by DanielStraight on Tuesday August 12, 2014 @04:33PM
(#8169988)
Judging simply by the fact that another 10 no-flys have been issued today alone (per that website), I doubt this is really news.
Digging deeper, if you read the details provided, this was done to ensure law enforcement had access to that airspace, presumably so they can fly police helicopters in it. Given that reason, I would assume this is standard operating procedure during any ongoing law enforcement effort.
"Sounds like news but isn't" is a category we could use a lot less of on HN. Please do not post stuff like this. It sounds dramatic, it gets attention, but it ultimately means very little. It certainly doesn't affect anyone here personally (because it likely doesn't affect anyone at all... how many people are actually flying in this space anyway?). And it also provokes no intellectual discussion of any kind. What is there really to say about this aside from "yep, it's happening"?
Re:FAA bans flights below 3000 feet over Ferguson, MO
by bdamm on Tuesday August 12, 2014 @04:32PM
(#8169986)
The FAA puts up TFRs (temporary flight restrictions) all the time. Reasons can range from sports events, presidential visits, military exercises, etc. In this case, it could be that there were just too many news helicopters persisting in the area, creating an unsafe environment for each other or for law enforcement aircraft.
What's unusual about this one is that it's right off the runway for a Bravo class airport, and the language of the NOTAM does not provide a clause for regularly scheduled passenger aircraft or other aircraft with pre-filed flight plans under active ATC.
Re:FAA bans flights below 3000 feet over Ferguson, MO
by bri3d on Tuesday August 12, 2014 @04:35PM
(#8170005)
I'm not a lawyer, but I think this would depend on the eventual outcome of FAA v. Pirker.
The judge in that case found the following:
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.
Which means that NOTAMs would not apply to drone operators.
However, the FAA appealed and because of the procedure for transport courts, the appeal immediately stays that decision.
Re:FAA bans flights below 3000 feet over Ferguson, MO
by lifeisstillgood on Tuesday August 12, 2014 @04:31PM
(#8169981)
Im sorry is there any more context to this? It seems a Rodney King-a-like incident, cop shoots kid and riots ensue.
Is this to give the cops free air to fly in without worrying they might hit a private plane, or is this a bit more "we don't want any maniacs crashing into us"?
Seems a bit drastic - can you imagine banning of driving cars for this long or this far?
Digging deeper, if you read the details provided, this was done to ensure law enforcement had access to that airspace, presumably so they can fly police helicopters in it. Given that reason, I would assume this is standard operating procedure during any ongoing law enforcement effort.
"Sounds like news but isn't" is a category we could use a lot less of on HN. Please do not post stuff like this. It sounds dramatic, it gets attention, but it ultimately means very little. It certainly doesn't affect anyone here personally (because it likely doesn't affect anyone at all... how many people are actually flying in this space anyway?). And it also provokes no intellectual discussion of any kind. What is there really to say about this aside from "yep, it's happening"?
What's unusual about this one is that it's right off the runway for a Bravo class airport, and the language of the NOTAM does not provide a clause for regularly scheduled passenger aircraft or other aircraft with pre-filed flight plans under active ATC.
As a St. Louisan, the social dynamics are much too nuanced to even try to explain, so I'll just say, it has not been good the last couple of days.
https://twitter.com/MatthewKeysLive/status/49926643621314150...
This is a local alderman filming:
https://vine.co/v/MYZmwD9Dqhu
NOTAMs apply to all airmen. You can't fly a drone in any other no-fly zone, so this one wouldn't seem to be different.
The judge in that case found the following:
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.
Which means that NOTAMs would not apply to drone operators.
However, the FAA appealed and because of the procedure for transport courts, the appeal immediately stays that decision.
Is this to give the cops free air to fly in without worrying they might hit a private plane, or is this a bit more "we don't want any maniacs crashing into us"?
Seems a bit drastic - can you imagine banning of driving cars for this long or this far?