Gizmodo: "The FAA's Drone Ban at the Super Bowl is Absurd"

The FAA's Drone Ban at the Super Bowl Is Absurd

From Gizmodo:

You may have heard about the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) quietly declaring that this year's Super Bowl will be a "no drone zone." You may not have heard just how big that no drone zone will be. It's 60 miles wide. The no drone zone is larger than the city of Phoenix. Seems a little bit absurd, huh?

That's because it's totally absurd.

The FAA is establishing what's called a temporary flight restriction that consists of several circles around the University of Phoenix stadium, where Sunday's big game is going down. The firsthas a 10-mile radius "in which general aviation aircraft, media, banner towers, blimps and unmanned aircraft will be prohibited." The second ring's radius extends 30 miles from the stadium and prohibits all aircraft that don't have a set flight plan, transponders on board, or two-way communication with air traffic control. Drones of any shape or size won't be allowed in either ring.

Just in case you were wondering what that 30-mile radius would look like in Phoenix:

By the way, there are already some no-fly zones in the Phoenix area, including two airports and an Air Force base. Those zones are teeny tiny compared to the Super Bowl's no drone zone, though:

The FAA's Drone Ban at the Super Bowl Is Absurd

And for context, this is what a 30-mile radius would look like in Washington DC, where DJI recently grounded its drones after a drunk government employee flew his Phantom onto the White House lawn. The zone would reach almost all the way to Baltimore:

The FAA's Drone Ban at the Super Bowl Is Absurd

Obviously, there are a lot of major safety concerns surrounding the Super Bowl. The FAA is not wrong for banning flying robots at such a high profile event, one that will be attended by tens of thousands and watched live by millions more. But imposing such a strict ban sends a message that the FAA is content to blow drone-related rules entirely out of proportion. This is disconcerting as the agency finalizes regulations on commercial drones, regulations that are reportedly pretty harsh and would require drone operators to get pilot licenses.

Nobody wants anything to go wrong at the Super Bowl. But if you really think about it, the FAA is setting a precedent that it will shut down the skies to even the smallest aircraft whenever it wants. Some Average Joe in Scottsdale—which is miles and miles away from the stadium—who decides to take his Parrot Bebop for a spin during Super Bowl stands to get in deep trouble for violating the FAA's absurdly large flight restriction.

The Super Bowl is a great American tradition. But this excessive ban doesn't sound very American at all. [FAA]

Views: 2033

Comment by Gary McCray on January 31, 2015 at 10:12pm

Once again the FAA flex's it's Draconian muscles, letting those crumby little American Citizens know just what it thinks of them.

Up the FAA!

Comment by Alex Moore on January 31, 2015 at 11:27pm

Probably money talking...NFL not wanting any unauthorized filming. BS!

Comment by John OBrien on February 1, 2015 at 1:29am

A UAV launched in Scottsdale would run out of power about 1/3 of the distance to the stadium in Glendale.  This rule is nutty.

Comment by james sowell on February 1, 2015 at 5:48am

and the air force thunderbirds can buzz the stadium when they sing in the land of the free and the home of the brave yea thats ok


Admin
Comment by Thomas J Coyle III on February 1, 2015 at 6:28am

Anyone remember the movie "Black Sunday"? It was the Good Year blimp, but it could have well as been a sUAS.

Regards,

TCIII AVD

Comment by Quadzimodo on February 1, 2015 at 6:37am

Would the FAA really have come up with this nonsense on their own?

Alex Moore - Money? Sounds reasonable! Unauthorized filming? Maybe not such a deal breaker considering the number of spectators able to film from a better vantage point.

Could be to do with concerns relating to promotion, advertising and sponsorship.

Maybe the FAA is simply doing what it deems necessary to prevent a deliberate harmful use of the technology as a flying bomb or similar... but that obviously ignores the fact that someone bent on conducting such a flight is unlikely to be influenced by a no fly zone.


Moderator
Comment by Nathaniel Caner on February 1, 2015 at 8:04am

The 30 mile radius is nothing new. The super bowl last year had similar flight restrictions.

Regards,

Nathaniel ~KD2DEY

Comment by Lockhart on February 1, 2015 at 8:25am

At first glance, it doesn't seem too unreasonable. It is a temporary restriction. If someone was planning on committing terrorism, 30 miles is fairly reasonable for a fixed wing aircraft. 

However, this restriction would only "work" if this 30 mile circle is actually patrolled with the capability to shoot down anything if need be (and I doubt this is the case). There already are laws against terrorism. A would-be terrorist isn't going to find a legal way to commit terrorism.

It just seems to be a typical government bureaucrat "because we can" approach without common sense. 

Comment by Quadzimodo on February 1, 2015 at 9:52am

My money is on marketing dollars.

Stadiums and their associated sporting codes draw billions in ads and sponsorship and a big part of that is being able to offer promotional deals that include things like category exclusivity.  Having something like the Goodyear blimp flying above your 80k seat stadium during half time is an enormous threat to the bottom line (especially if the naming rights sponsor or supporting partner of the team, venue or broadcast is a competing brand like Firestone). Anything with the potential to erode the captivity (is that the right terminology?) of the audience is going to be combated at all costs.

A threat to revenue is probably just as likely to put a roof on a stadium as any potential concern for people's safety.  I see little reason to think the same doesn't applies to keeping aircraft away.

Comment by hotelzululima on February 1, 2015 at 10:30am

somehow the @FAA actions seem to fly in the face of the public access to the sky,

they call it the NAS so they can keep us from access to same..

but its really the sky un ownable.

and as the song goes.. "YOU cant take the sky from me!"

as the base tech is SO easy to obtain/produce from open source designs and

the craft themselves merely bolt together and are sold as toys

the time has ceased when this explosion could be contained..

The FAA and the fascists in Washington are hoping against false hope that what they do will have ANY effect

As attempts to jam either GPS signals or the RC signals themselves would :

#1.GPS-Jamming - cause our modern society to essentially stop working at all or large segments of same.

#2 RC-Jamming -would result in out of control craft crashing in unintended places and in the case of RC failsafes with APM  and other FC(s) would simply cause the autopilot to execute flightplan if correctly set.

     anyone especially the FAA who thinks differently is essentially a fool and will cause the very actions they seek to prevent..

ie widespread use of RC aircraft, kites and balloons to defy this unlawful ban..people SIMPLY WONT CARE...

and a simply ignoring of further directives from the USG until a REAL air disaster has occurred.

Only a very direct and positive engagement with the present sUAS community  by the FAA NOT dominated by the AOPA/crop dusters or General Atomics et al will prevent the above results from occurring.

          I think the US gov is turning into a bunch of fascists and their present course will backfire very badly on them

          hzl

ps I will wager LOTS of folk are ignoring the 30  mile radius and flying in their schoolyards , backyards and streets  and simply ignoring this kind of crap from on high..

Comment

You need to be a member of DIY Drones to add comments!

Join DIY Drones

© 2017   Created by Chris Anderson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service