I posted some of this information in the Photo Line Etiquette thread, but it occurred to me that since many rail photography enthusiasts are getting involved with "drones", it perhaps deserves its own thread:
The introduction of Remotely Piloted Aircraft (commonly, and somewhat incorrectly referred to as "drones") represents more than just a technology change. As others have pointed out, it's not just a camera any more, it's an aircraft. We're no longer just talking about state and local laws, we're talking about Federal Air Regulations (FARs). Unfortunately, a lot of folks don't understand that the Feds don't consider these things toys. They are aircraft....as are model airplanes, model rockets, etc....and are subject to many of the same regulations that I face when I fly a manned aircraft. The problem is that many, if not most "personal drone" operators are either oblivious to these rules, or they just don't think the rules apply to them....and at some point, that fact will likely bite them in the butt.
Remotely piloted aircraft in the hands of regular citizens are not new. When I was a kid, lots of people built and flew Remote Control (RC) model airplanes. Fortunately, those took a fair amount of skill to fly. Without instruction, most people just destroyed their investment in short order. So, they joined clubs, which owned established flying centers and had experienced instructors. Most clubs had safety rules and the sport policed itself nicely. The aircraft were always flown within line of sight. Recently however, technology has changed all of that. The modern "drone" has built-in stabilization and GPS technology. They don't take nearly the skill to fly, and they can be flown beyond line of sight. All of that basically means that a person with more money than common sense COULD buy one of these things and use it in a manner that is annoying, careless, reckless, and even dangerous. There are already videos on YouTube depicting flights to high altitudes, and even in the clouds. There have been incidents of these things crashing into crowded sporting events, and one even landed on the White House lawn. All of that is very much illegal, but it is likely that the folks undertaking that activity really didn't care. Well, FAA cares, and so does Home Land Security. One of these things could certainly be used maliciously to harm people, and if it were to hit an aircraft engine, windshield or rotor blade, could cause a mass casualty accident.
Unfortunately, FAA is currently behind the power curve in regulating these things, but I think events will force them to act sooner than later. I suspect that at some point, there will be a certification requirement to operate these things. Owners will likely be required to take a knowledge test (airspace, rules, weather, etc) not unlike all of the tests that I took when I acquired all of the aeronautical ratings that I currently hold. In addition, I think that FAA will begin to work with local law enforcement agencies, to bring enforcement actions against "drone" operators who operate in what FAA loves to call a "careless and reckless" manner. There can be heavy civil penalties for such operation. Folks who own these things owe it to themselves and their fellow owners to learn as much as they can about current FAA advisories on Unmanned Aerial Systems and to operate in the safest and most responsible manner possible. That includes staying within line of sight, below 400 ft. AGL, at least 5 miles from the nearest airport and away from "open-air" assemblies of people....and yes, a photo-line or sporting event most certainly qualifies.
And just in case anyone was entertaining the idea of shooting at one of these "drones" that they feel might be annoying, please remember that it is an "aircraft" in the eyes of FAA. Shooting at an aircraft is a Federal Offense and could get you an all-expense-paid vacation to a Federal Pen near you!
For those who chase the Cumbres & Toltec Scenic Railroad, there is indeed an airport across the street from the meadows outside Chama, called Eastside (FAA identifier is NM24). It is a private facility with a 3000 ft. RW 1-19. In the past, I have personally seen the airport used by a Pilatus PC-12 turbo-prop aircraft and yes, it would not be permissible to operate an RPA ("drone") within 5 miles of that airport without the permission of the airport owner, even below 400 ft. AGL. The reason is (of course) because arriving/departing aircraft would have to be below 400 AGL in order to land/take off from there. Needless to say, a collision with an RPA (windshield, prop, engine intake) could cause a pilot incapacitation or an engine failure. Even with the permission of the airport owner, there should be a Notice To Airmen (NOTAM) published, to indicate where and when the operation will take place, so that aviators will be aware of it. Essentially, that means it is unlikely that an airport owner can just grant "blanket" permission for someone to operate, unless there is a semi-permanent NOTAM for the airport, announcing such operations are regularly conducted there.
At a very minimum, "drone" owners should read this.
BTW, in addition to airports, there are areas called Special Flight Rules Areas (SFRA) such as the Washington, DC area, where the restriction area is much wider. There can also be Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) that spring up for things such as major public events (Super Bowl, Political Conventions, etc) and visits by VIPs such as the President. Get caught flying an RPA within 30 miles of the POTUS, and the US Secret Service will likely greet you with the guns out and the take-down might not be a gentle one. Those guys do not mess around.
Please fly safely!!!
/Kevin Madore
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2015 03:46PM by KevinM.
