Slashdot Mirror

Considering the complexity of the FAR-AIM designating minimums it's adequate enough when discussing powered flight by real aircraft with the general public.

However for the curious:

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffi...

Chapter 3 is the section on 'airspace'

Combine that reading with real-time aircharts with NOTAMS and ATIS :

https://skyvector.com/

Aww, did I hurt someone's poor wittwe feewings? Probably a pilot, huh? As an AMA member in good standing who actually reads his copies of Model Aviation I know that one doesn't know what one is talking about when one claims that you have to ask permission to fly within five miles of an airport. The AMA requires members to notify an airport if they wish to operate a model above 400' AGL when within 3 miles of an airport. The law requires all UAS pilots (registered or not) to notify an airport when operating within five miles. The AMA also informed me that "most" airport addresses and contact information are available at Skyvector.com but that if you can't make contact, or if you want to establish a permanent flying location, you should contact the AMA for assistance.

If you think you may not operate a drone within five miles of an airport without permission, you are badly, sadly mistaken.

SkyVector 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.

Uh, as someone who *does* have a pilot's certificate, the GP is more right than you are.

First of all it's a certificate, not a license. Yes, the distinction matters. And there's lots of not-commercial aircraft - in any case the airspace rules are no different.

You don't own the air up to 500 feet by any means. The FAA's rules (mostly for fixed-wing aircraft) are in 14 CFR 91.119, paraphrased:
- Always where an emergency landing can be conducted without "undue hazard" (note, not "no hazard") to people or property on the surface
- Congested areas, like towns and other areas the FAA decides (naturally only after they come after you) are "too populated", like highways. 1000 feet above the highest obstacle within 2000 feet. At a minimum, includes the yellow areas on the World VFR chart here.
- "Other than congested areas", but not "sparsely populated" - that's your 500ft rule
- "Sparsely populated areas" can be operated arbitrarily low (subject to the first rule) as long as they're 500ft away from person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. This is why crop dusting is legal.

Of course this obviously doesn't apply to takeoffs and landings. It also doesn't apply for helicopters (they have a looser set of rules) and a few other kinds of aircraft.

The long and the short of it is I can fly over your field at 20 feet all day long if I want to. It's not very courteous, but it's quite legal. I can fly 501 lateral feet from your second-story bathroom window, even if it's over your property. And of course a helicopter can fly lower and closer than that, even over a congested area. Again, not courteous and not necessarily smart, but there's a whole lot of things in flying that are legal are not good ideas.

You have no special sovereignty over the air above your property. You can use it to the extent the use is reasonably connected to the property below. For instance you can put another level on your house without asking anybody, or even a tall radio tower (>200ft or near an airport you have to tell the FCC), but you can't put up a "spite pole" just to keep airplanes away. So basically you have a right to your airspace to the extent you don't try to exercise control over it by excluding airplanes.

Actually the FAA has something to say about it, since airspace starts at ground level. If you happen to live "in" B, C or D airspace, you would not be allowed to fly a drone in your back yard hovering at eye level. B, C or D airspace normally extends 4 nautical miles around a towered airport, from surface to 1500 above ground. You can check your airspace at http://skyvector.com/; everywhere where there is a blue or purple circle with SFC as the lower number, no drone flying.

The White House is prohibited airspace (P-56). There are no conditions in which a civilian would be allowed to operate there (otherwise it would merely be restricted airspace, and you could obtain permission). You pretty much have to be the President's helicopter to be allowed in (that is, convince the folks with the missiles to not shoot you down, which they will do if you don't comply with their fighter-jet intercept).

The rules for operating in the DC SFRA can not be complied with by any drone on the market today (they require radio communication and a discrete transponder code).

You're simply not correct. Minimum safe altitude over populated areas doesn't apply for the purposes of takeoff or landing, which "the surface area around the airport" most certainly is. And Class B airspace extends to the ground for several miles around an airport. Hell, Class D airspace (for a small towered airport) extends to the ground as well - and there's a *ton* of D airports in the country.

As far as the GP was talking about, you can check the surface area yourself: here. You'll see the 110/SFC areas - it goes from the surface to 11,000 feet MSL (not 10k, though it is about 10k AGL) anywhere in that border. You'll note that it includes much of Dallas. In general, Class B surface areas seem to have a radius of about 6 nautical miles, though it varies with the runway layout, altitude, and traffic patterns. Look at Chicago for instance - much of the city is within that border. I'm pretty sure it's not all owned by the airport. D airspace extends to the surface for a range of (generally) 4nm, again that's a huge chunk of land that I'm pretty sure the airport doesn't own. My landing approach at my home airport takes me about 300 feet over a large mall.

I hope you fly better than you reason.

Well, good thing it's not you judging, right?

I'm sorry, I'm not usually so harsh, but this is all completely wrong. I'm choosing to believe that you are just completely ignorant of aviation (most people are, I don't hold it against you). But please know the limitations of your knowledge especially when it comes to highly specialized fields with its own rules, customs, language, procedures, etc.

1) 1/2 mile line of sight is no problem for virtually any radio, not even for you cheap-ass blister pack FRS radios. Hell WiFi would probably work alright.
2) Nobody said the GWB was 2000 feet in the air. Listen to the radio recording, the guy was cleared for an altitude of 2000 feet (well, at or above, but for his purposes he wanted to be low). The GWB is how he's identifying his position to ATC - it's a VFR waypoint and mandatory reporting point for that part of the river. You're interpreting the "near" thing in the strangest way possible, at least in an aviation sense. Later on he mentions being at 800-1000 feet but that was much later.
3) They said nothing about Mach numbers. The guy thought he was looking at some military aircraft that was rather further away (and larger) than a tiny drone within tens of feet. The perspective information told him that the thing was basically coming from the ground, but it was probably just a few hundred feet below his altitude or less. Such a climb would certainly appear to be extremely fast if you were interpreting it as being some distance away. You know that commercial jets are going like 500 knots at 30,000 feet but they don't look that fast from the ground? Same phenomenon. This is one of a number of sensory illusions in aviation, most of which are more prevalent at night (this was midnight local time). People just aren't very good at dealing with large expanses of 3D in which things can be (almost) arbitrarily positioned - we do better with 2D and ballistics, which makes sense given our background, but isn't particularly useful for flight.
4) His "measurements" don't seem to be relevant to the arrest so I don't know why them being suspect matters very much. Knowing something is above, below, or at the horizon isn't a measurement - it's looking out the window. And if you're at 2000 feet, that's how you decide something is at 2000 feet. I'll admit that his relative measures are more suspect, as I'd expect them to be at night - but again they don't seem relevant. It's certainly far from evidence that they're deliberately trying to lie to arrest this guy. People fly into mountains because of these kinds of sensory illusions, you think they're just screwing with people when they do so? People really are eviscerating this pilot assuming he's their worst impression of a corrupt cop - if he's even a sworn officer, it's probably name only. I'd be surprised if he'd ever cuffed someone in his life.
5) Everyone seems to be repeating that the police approached the drone. Sorry, where is this coming from? That terrible Vice "article"? It has no citation for this, aside from the accused, and the transcript doesn't support it. Sorry to call you out specifically, since everybody's doing it, but I've seen no evidence of this particular statement. (Aside: it's pretty sad when the NY Post is far more informative than something at least trying to be legitimate.)
6) Every pilot knows everything is recorded, always. Everything. Always. The radios are recorded. All radar everywhere is recorded. The phones are recorded. If I call to get a damn weather briefing, it's recorded. The idea that they'd be surprised that there's a recording is beyond laughable.

I agree that this is more a FAA matter than a police matter. The police have no jurisdiction in the air, but that said the perpetrators were not in the air. This is, funnily enough, an area that the FAA is working on clarifying. That said, these guys should be happy that the city cops are the ones they're dealing with - the FAA would be substantially more unpleasant.

Skyvector is your friend.

I agree one million percent.

How am I supposed to drive to Heathrow using this pile of crap

Another interesting thing about Groom Lake is its status as restricted airspace. If you find R-4808N on the FAA's Las Vegas sectional map (e.g., at http://skyvector.com/ ), you'll see that it covers two things: a large area over the old Nevada Testing Site, where the Department of Energy used to test nuclear weapons, and a big conspicuously square area with a large dry lake bed called Groom Lake smack dab in the center. The fairly large airport that's been built next to and extending onto the lake bed is also not labeled on those maps, despite the fact that various other land features and manmade structures just a few miles away (including in the Nevada Testing Site) are labeled to serve as landmarks to pilots.

Restricted airspace listings (the text versions, to be used in conjunction with various airspace maps, e.g., http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/SUA.pdf ) tell you a few things that provide a mechanism for legally accessing them. For instance, they tell you what hours they are restricted (such as a fixed pattern of hours each week, or by specifically issued FAA notice, etc.), what elevations are restricted, the using agency (the agency for the benefit of which the airspace is restricted), and the controlling agency (whom you would contact to try to get clearance to enter the airspace) in the case of "joint use" airspace.

If you look up R-4808N in the restricted airspace listings, it tells you (a) that the restricted airspace is in continuous operation, i.e., it's restricted 24 hours a day every day; (b) it's restricted at all elevations from the ground up; (c) there is no "controlling agency" listed, meaning the airspace is not joint use; and (d) the using agency is the Department of Energy, meaning that the block of restricted airspace is lumped in with the Nevada Test Site even though the Air Force actually runs the Groom Lake facility. All of these characteristics are fairly unusual as restricted airspace goes, and I've only found one other bit of restricted airspace in the listings that doesn't list a controlling facility (a tiny bit of airspace at the Tooele Army Depot in Utah).

Nellis AFB near Las Vegas manages almost all of the restricted and military operation airspace in that area, and they're the ones who will angrily contact you via radio if you even approach the restricted airspace in that area. The restricted airspace is more of a legal mechanism to deal with pilots who encroach on the airspace after they land, and Nellis AFB will send fighters out to strongly dissuade anyone who comes too close to the airspace even if they don't enter it.

One other thing to note is that the runways at Groom Lake are actually quite busy. There is a restricted access terminal at McCarran (Las Vegas) Airport where some thousand or so people board planes that make trips to and from Groom Lake throughout the day. The flights use the name "Janet" when talking to the tower at McCarran (similar to how a United Airlines flight would be referred to as, e.g., "United 123").

Chewing, chewing, chewing

W537 is way north and west of Catalina island. W537 extends west southwest of Santa Barbara, so it’s not really in this area anyway.

Check out http://www.skyvector.com, search for KLAX, and look for “Warning W537 in blue text out over the ocean on the left side of the chart.

W537 wouldn’t have affected the flight in the video or US Airways 808. Both were south of W537.

–NoJoe

Ok, W537 is the next Warning north of the Catalinas. But CAE 1316 and CAE 1318 are definitely right in the area of the event.

And, I hadn't looked at skyvector before. Awesome.

Never mind - someone did post a location of W-537, and it doesn't match the location stated by the news reports.

http://skyvector.com/?ll=34.03656120385772,-121.69918142437554&chart=24&zoom=5

Sure it may not be a problem for your airplane, but what about for the tens of thousands of flying cars that will be filling the sky over the major cities?

Flying cars will be regulated by the FAA. You have to be an FAA-licensed pilot to fly one. That's why the guys actually making these a reality don't call it a "flying car" but rather a "roadable airplane".

And when flying over a big city, you are almost 100% in heavily controlled airspace. For example, take a look at the online aviation map and punch in KBOS at the right. You'll see a pilot's map of the Boston area.

Now, see all those circles made by thick, blue lines? Those are the lines of demarcation for class B(ravo) airspace - under RADAR control, you must have permission to enter, and your plane MUST be equipped with the appropriate equipment - or they come after you with guns, if necessary. As you can see, almost all of Boston is underneath this heavily controlled airspace - most cities are.

So don't think that just any old Tom, Dick, and Harry can get in a plane and start buzzing around without hard time afterwards.

In case you are curious, controlled airspace looks like an upside-down layer-cake, starting from the airport. For (usually) 5 miles away from the airport, the control is from the top of the "cake" down to the surface. You'll see something like 70/SFC within the inner circle, meaning that the ceiling is 7,000 feet, the floor is the ground. Then, further out, you'll see so mething like 70/15, meaning ceiling 7,000, floor 1500 feet.

Bigger airports go higher (Ex: KSFO ceiling is 10,000 ft) and further out. And the entire area is under the control of "approach control", called class E(cho) airspace, which is still RADAR controlled, but you don't need permission to enter. It's more advisory.

And basically every pilot I've flown with going virtually anywhere takes advantage of these advisories, called "flight following".

this plane was in restricted airspace

First, you clearly don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about. New York city is covered by class bravo airspace at the altitude the 747 was flying in. This is, by no means, restricted airspace. If I understand the FAR correctly, any 2 place Cessna 150 meeting the navigation/radio equipment requirements, obtaining ATC permission, and maintaining radio contact with the controller(s) can fly in this airspace. There is (at least last time I checked) even a VFR corridor directly next to downtown Manhattan!

Here is a good description of airspace classification system in the united states from wikipedia.

Specifically, here a quote from the above article that best describes restricted airspace:

Entry into restricted areas is prohibited under certain conditions without a special clearance obtained from the controlling agency obtained directly or via ATC. Examples of restricted areas include test firing ranges and other military areas with special hazards or containing sensitive zones.

If you are interested here is the New York TAC

Sorry if it seems rude for pulling out a clue-bat and swinging it in your direction.

Oops, I haven't checked replies in a while, so I don't mean to resurrect a dead thread. But to answer your question, all airspace is depicted on aeronautical charts and airport facility directories. You can find aeronautical charts on-line at skyvector.com.

Basically, Class A airspace is all airspace over the U.S. between 18,000 and 60,000 feet. Class B airspace surrounds the largest, busiest airports in the country (Seattle/Tacoma, Chicago-O'Hare, DFW, etc.). Class C airspace surrounds selected other air carrier airports that aren't quite busy enough for Class B designation (Anchorage, Alaska is the only one I know off-hand, although there are many, many others -- I just live and fly in Anchorage). Class D airspace is around any airport that has a control tower (and there are far more airports without control towers than with). In Alaska, Class D airspace exists in Anchorage (Merrill Field), Juneau, Kodiak, Iliamna, Fairbanks, Bethel, Kenai...and I can't remember the 8th one.

HTH!

>A flight out of one of the (few) unregulated airspace locations in the US (Black Rock desert, for example)

There's a *lot* of uncontrolled (class G) airspace in the western US. Take a look at a sectional chart on skyvector and look for wide blue or purple banding that fades along one side. Everything on the hard-edged side is class G. In Colorado it's most of the western half of the state. On the Salt Lake City sectional, it looks like 70% of the chart is G. Likewise the Las Vegas chart.

So, there I am... flying along in my rented Cessna 172, with a couple kids in the back, touring a local mountain range and making the kids squeal by stalling the plane every so often so that it suddenly drops a few hundred feet...

How am I supposed to know that there's a UAV nearby? It's not like a UAV will announce, in a friendly tone: "Orland Traffic, UAV N301A 4 thousand feet, 3 miles southeast, heading 140, Cessna in sight, no factor.". (Note: UAV == "Unmanned Air Vehicle") For those who don't know, this call means:

Orland Traffic = the airport in question. Click here if you are curious.

UAV N301A = the type of aircraft, and the registration number.

4 thousand feet = the altitude of the aircraft at the time of call.

3 miles southwest = where the airplane is relative to the airport in question (Orland)

Heading 140 = what direction the plane is travelling. In this case, East of due south. (it's heading away from Orland airport, but crossing due south)

Cessna in sight = I see the plane that was just mentioned on the airwaves.

No factor = I couldn't hit it if I wanted to.

A UAV is controlled by a COMPUTER which has no concept of instruction like what I just gave. It could announce itself in some fashion digitally, which would mean that planes that have digital "situational awareness" systems with RADAR and XM Satellite weather might display them just fine - but many planes don't even have a RADIO! (planes with no radio do not fly over major cities - you'd be shocked at how much airspace this still allows)

How could this possibly work? Until there's a consistent, legally defined way for civil aircraft to know that there's a UAV nearby, this is a non-starter. But no way has been declared, and (as of last summer) it has not even been announced to pilots as a possibility. I don't even have the OPTION of knowing where these UAVs might be.

So when I hit a UAV, am I supposed to sue the Federal Govt? (assuming I live to tell about it)

I sense severe stupidity at work, here, and this is not my sig line. UAVs are not a problem, but they have NOT been incorporated into the existing (human/pilot based) aviation system. This is a slow disaster in the making. When an unannounced UAV hits a private plane filled with a happy, loving family, who is to blame for their deaths?

You want some kind of bridge from one to the other - lots of aircraft can show a whole range of flight data to passengers ("ooh, we've got a headwind over Greenland today! Guess we won't be early after all.") - but that should be strictly one-way. Which is probably the problem; there shouldn't be any way for anyone in the passenger cabin to issue instructions to the plane contrary to those from the flight deck, but I bet they found they couldn't prove it...

An interesting point I hadn't considered. My first thought was to use some kind of "bridge device" which allows for the transfer of this information in some locked-down, fundamentally incompatible protocol, such as RS-232 Serial (which can be one-way only) to transfer this data.

However, there's another consideration: What are the security concerns of this data? How much data would be made available to the passengers in real-time, and how useful would this information be in light of potential security concerns?

Could it cause a breach of security if the "bad guy" (terrorist/criminal/psychopath) knew what transponder code was being broadcast by the plane? (yes: what if a missile could be programmed to hone in on a transponder radio beacon?)

Could it cause a breach of security if the "bad guy" knew the exact status of pilot communications? What if "bad guy" knew the exact location, altitude, direction of travel, etc?

Yes, yes, and YES!

One-way communication is minimally a requirement, but I don't think that it's a good idea to even provide the information you mention. It offers NO advantage to the passengers other than for its ability to help in a breach of security - the passenger will arrive at the same time whether or not they know about the 15-knot headwind, or the fact that the pilots have (or have not) established communication with New York approach control.