6 ms·

Don't Fly Drones Here

61 points by cyberviewer 12y ago

patcheudor 12y ago
Interesting but a bit silly, thus landing it in credibility buster territory for anyone who puts a moment of thought into it. Take Boise as an example. Within the five mile radius is downtown Boise. On any given day guess how many planes fly at a low altitude over the downtown corridor? That's right, zero. They all stick to a southerly route over mostly dessert.
- filoeleven 12y ago
  Yes, but isn't that just because the view outside the cabin windows is sweeter there?
chris_va 12y ago
I like the concept, but altitude matters. Airport control areas are like an inverted layer cake: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Airspace_classes_(United_States).gif http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Airspace_... It would be nice to add a feature to drone navigation software to prevent accidental entry into an exclusion zone.
- turshija 12y ago
  DJI software already has that implemented for Phantom 2: http://www.dji.com/fly-safe/category-mc http://www.dji.com/fly-safe/category-mc
- lnanek2 12y ago
  That's irrelevant because it is illegal to go above 400ft with a model aircraft, which is before the zones balloon out any anyway. It's like saying being illegal once over or twice over matters.
  - barefoot 12y ago
    It's not illegal, it's just not recommended per a previous FAA advisory. This is a common misunderstanding.
- commandar 12y ago
  The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 specifies a blanket five mile radius around airports as requiring prior approval from ATC for model aircraft. http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/HR658_020112.pdf http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/HR658_020112.pdf
jedmeyers 12y ago
I would not trust this map, since after doing a 10 seconds check of the airspace that I am personally familiar with I have noticed that restricted area R-2531 above Lawrence Livermore Lab is not marked. Who knows what else they have missed and what sources they are basing their data on.
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  Also Fermilab outside Chicago is not on here. Pretty sure you're not allowed to fly over it. Nor am I seeing no fly zones over Illinois's nuclear plants.
- colinbartlett 12y ago
  It's a crowd-sourced work in progress...
  - mikeash 12y ago
    Grabbing the restricted/prohibited areas out of the national airspace data and adding them in seems like a fairly obvious thing to do before putting the thing out for the public to see. I actually have a hard time figuring out how you could have the class B/C/D areas and TFRs without also grabbing the restricted/prohibited areas.
- LVB 12y ago
  Submit a pull request to fix it.
yial 12y ago
I just usually use http://vfrmap.com/ http://vfrmap.com/ but for those unfamiliar with the charts and even for those who are, this probably provides an interesting and easier breakdown.
reustle 12y ago
You can't fly drones in national parks? That's a shame
- radnor 12y ago
  When I visit a national park the last thing I want to see -- or hear -- is a drone flying around. Even worse when said drone is being flown by someone who has no idea what they're doing like this guy: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/06/us-usa-drones-yellowstone-idUSKBN0G62I620140806 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/06/us-usa-drones-yell...
- soneil 12y ago
  My (armchair) understanding is this isn't where you "can" and "cannot" fly - it should be viewed more as "where you don't need permission", and "where you do need permission". The later does not mean permission cannot be obtained, only that it is required.
hrasyid 12y ago
If only civilians in places like Pakistan could also say "don't fly drones here"
- ajcarpy2005 12y ago
  It's amazing how much our military seems to dehumanize innocent people. BTW, what's wrong with using police forces to stop terrorists?
  - fit2rule 12y ago
    Where's the trial? Where's the evidence?
  - zo1 12y ago
    I think they're referring to the collateral human damage. For the most part most will agree "using police forces to stop terrorists" is okay.
  - marvin 12y ago
    (1) It's a violation of the rule of law to execute suspected criminals without a trial (2) Even if this was not the case, international law on affiliation with terrorist groups is sketchy at best (3) A multitude of drone strike victims have been verified by independent entities to be innocent civilians (proper innocent civilians, not innocent civilians in HAMAS's interpretation of the term) (4) It is in fact violation of Pakistanian law for foreign powers to operate military aircraft in Pakistanian airspace. This was determined by the Pakistanian supreme court, which the Prime Minister of Pakistan has actually been held in contempt of the court over. Soooo... I think point 1 is the most salient, but there are plenty of other good arguments why the global CIA military campaign against suspected terrorists is morally and legally dubious.
    - tomjen3 12y ago
      You are never going to win that argument against the military, unless you are able to come up with a better way to deal with the terrorists that doesn't put US soldiers at risk. As for the civilian deaths - well there are always civilian deaths for military action.
mikeash 12y ago
What info does this give you that a VFR sectional chart doesn't? Or is the idea just to avoid having to learn how to interpret a chart?
- artmageddon 12y ago
  Probably more of the latter, and the fact that TFRs can be shown along with them.
dmxt 12y ago
Some guy in my neighbor occasionally play with motor helicopter in his backyard and it happens to be in no fly zone. Should I call polices to get him arrested?
- michaelvillar 12y ago
  Or should you ask him first if he's aware of it?...
rurban 12y ago
Are you actually allowed to fly drones over the nuclear power stations? They are also not marked in this map.
alimoeeny 12y ago
So I live in a no fly zone. good to know. Most of Maryland is.
omouse 12y ago
I'm so glad they're using Open Street Map for this :D
- maxerickson 12y ago
  Promoting their OpenStreetMap based data platform is probably part of the reason for Mapbox to have this up. https://www.mapbox.com/data-platform/#mapbox-streets https://www.mapbox.com/data-platform/#mapbox-streets (I'm trying to make that come across as not being particularly cynical, I think they have employees that are interested in making maps and post/host some of them, not that they slapped this together as a promotion)
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

61 points by cyberviewer 12y ago

Interesting but a bit silly, thus landing it in credibility buster territory for anyone who puts a moment of thought into it. Take Boise as an example. Within the five mile radius is downtown Boise. On any given day guess how many planes fly at a low altitude over the downtown corridor? That's right, zero. They all stick to a southerly route over mostly dessert.

filoeleven 12y ago
Yes, but isn't that just because the view outside the cabin windows is sweeter there?

chris_va 12y ago

I like the concept, but altitude matters. Airport control areas are like an inverted layer cake: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Airspace_classes_(United_States).gif http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Airspace_... It would be nice to add a feature to drone navigation software to prevent accidental entry into an exclusion zone.

turshija 12y ago
DJI software already has that implemented for Phantom 2: http://www.dji.com/fly-safe/category-mc http://www.dji.com/fly-safe/category-mc
lnanek2 12y ago
That's irrelevant because it is illegal to go above 400ft with a model aircraft, which is before the zones balloon out any anyway. It's like saying being illegal once over or twice over matters.
- barefoot 12y ago
  It's not illegal, it's just not recommended per a previous FAA advisory. This is a common misunderstanding.
commandar 12y ago
The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 specifies a blanket five mile radius around airports as requiring prior approval from ATC for model aircraft. http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/HR658_020112.pdf http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/HR658_020112.pdf

jedmeyers 12y ago

I would not trust this map, since after doing a 10 seconds check of the airspace that I am personally familiar with I have noticed that restricted area R-2531 above Lawrence Livermore Lab is not marked. Who knows what else they have missed and what sources they are basing their data on.

drzaiusapelord 12y ago
Also Fermilab outside Chicago is not on here. Pretty sure you're not allowed to fly over it. Nor am I seeing no fly zones over Illinois's nuclear plants.
colinbartlett 12y ago
It's a crowd-sourced work in progress...
- mikeash 12y ago
  Grabbing the restricted/prohibited areas out of the national airspace data and adding them in seems like a fairly obvious thing to do before putting the thing out for the public to see. I actually have a hard time figuring out how you could have the class B/C/D areas and TFRs without also grabbing the restricted/prohibited areas.
LVB 12y ago
Submit a pull request to fix it.

yial 12y ago

I just usually use http://vfrmap.com/ http://vfrmap.com/ but for those unfamiliar with the charts and even for those who are, this probably provides an interesting and easier breakdown.

reustle 12y ago

You can't fly drones in national parks? That's a shame

radnor 12y ago
When I visit a national park the last thing I want to see -- or hear -- is a drone flying around. Even worse when said drone is being flown by someone who has no idea what they're doing like this guy: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/06/us-usa-drones-yellowstone-idUSKBN0G62I620140806 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/06/us-usa-drones-yell...
soneil 12y ago
My (armchair) understanding is this isn't where you "can" and "cannot" fly - it should be viewed more as "where you don't need permission", and "where you do need permission". The later does not mean permission cannot be obtained, only that it is required.

hrasyid 12y ago

If only civilians in places like Pakistan could also say "don't fly drones here"

ajcarpy2005 12y ago
It's amazing how much our military seems to dehumanize innocent people. BTW, what's wrong with using police forces to stop terrorists?
- fit2rule 12y ago
  Where's the trial? Where's the evidence?
- zo1 12y ago
  I think they're referring to the collateral human damage. For the most part most will agree "using police forces to stop terrorists" is okay.
- marvin 12y ago
  (1) It's a violation of the rule of law to execute suspected criminals without a trial (2) Even if this was not the case, international law on affiliation with terrorist groups is sketchy at best (3) A multitude of drone strike victims have been verified by independent entities to be innocent civilians (proper innocent civilians, not innocent civilians in HAMAS's interpretation of the term) (4) It is in fact violation of Pakistanian law for foreign powers to operate military aircraft in Pakistanian airspace. This was determined by the Pakistanian supreme court, which the Prime Minister of Pakistan has actually been held in contempt of the court over. Soooo... I think point 1 is the most salient, but there are plenty of other good arguments why the global CIA military campaign against suspected terrorists is morally and legally dubious.
  - tomjen3 12y ago
    You are never going to win that argument against the military, unless you are able to come up with a better way to deal with the terrorists that doesn't put US soldiers at risk. As for the civilian deaths - well there are always civilian deaths for military action.

mikeash 12y ago

What info does this give you that a VFR sectional chart doesn't? Or is the idea just to avoid having to learn how to interpret a chart?

artmageddon 12y ago
Probably more of the latter, and the fact that TFRs can be shown along with them.

dmxt 12y ago

Some guy in my neighbor occasionally play with motor helicopter in his backyard and it happens to be in no fly zone. Should I call polices to get him arrested?

michaelvillar 12y ago
Or should you ask him first if he's aware of it?...

rurban 12y ago

Are you actually allowed to fly drones over the nuclear power stations? They are also not marked in this map.

alimoeeny 12y ago

So I live in a no fly zone. good to know. Most of Maryland is.

omouse 12y ago

I'm so glad they're using Open Street Map for this :D

maxerickson 12y ago
Promoting their OpenStreetMap based data platform is probably part of the reason for Mapbox to have this up. https://www.mapbox.com/data-platform/#mapbox-streets https://www.mapbox.com/data-platform/#mapbox-streets (I'm trying to make that come across as not being particularly cynical, I think they have employees that are interested in making maps and post/host some of them, not that they slapped this together as a promotion)

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]