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:
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:
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]
Comments
The FAA are the terrorist here. They are the ones promoting fear. It's only a football game. If it's about videoing. Then a bunch of people with charged cell phones can put online realtime video better than a phantom with a 10 minute flight time. If anybody wanted to do real harm, just spike the beer kegs with a crap load of lsd. Next it will be hockey and oh no......maybe curling to get no fly zones.
@Pedals2Paddles,
Privacy is certainly another issue that drives public opinion with respect to the use of "Drones". However I don't think anyone attending a Nationally televised sporting event like the Super Bowl is thinking about their privacy. Nor is the FAA's decision based on public concern over privacy, it's safety oriented.
While I agree that the driving force behind most stories involving UAVs has little or nothing directly to do with terrorism. My point was that if not for the acts that took place on 9/11 I don't personally think that so much attention would have been placed on our small craft by the Media, which helped form public opinion, also I believe that without that media attention there would have been far less attention to the supposed privacy issue.
Regards,
Nathaniel ~KD2DEY
Privacy drives the fear of drones. Terrorism is hardly a thought in most people's minds, or the topic of what the media babbles about.
IMHO The problem isn't technology , it isn't the FAA, it isn't Government policy, it isn't Media, it isn't public opinion, it isn't even the irresponsible actions of a small number of individuals. The problem is fear. The terrorist acts that culminated on September 11, 2011 have forever altered the landscape here in the United States.
Never mind the fact that there are far easier, more effective, and less noticeable ways a terrorist might attack a venue like a sports arena; vis-a-vis "Black Sunday" or "The Sum of All Fears". It is the terrorist act people fear, not the way the act is perpetrated.
Because of the method used on 9/11, people have a fear of anything that flies being used in a terrorist act. If terrorists used model rockets, we would probably see a lot of attention being paid to these "Missiles" in the media, and therefore any model rocket enthusiast would be given extra scrutiny by the public at local parks and recreational areas instead of sUAS.
Terrorists ultimate goal isn't to take lives, it's to generate fear in our everyday lives and prevent us from living our lives with the FREEDOM we hold most dear.
Just my 2¢
Regards,
Nathaniel ~KD2DEY
The technology out pacing the regulation has been the problem for years. Probably always will be.
Hi Pedals,
Yes TFRs like this have existed for-ever pretty much.
The problem is that now that quadcopters in particular have extended small RC aerial vehicle use well beyond the traditional RC hobbyist boundaries.
And with really the only exception ever being the Washington no fly zone, RC airplanes, events, use in general were completely ignored (Until Now).
The FAA is now making a major point of "going after them" and this completely conflicts with normal use and common sense.
And this new overreaching and utterly restrictive attitude and approach is going to cause massive problems in the US.
Nothing the FAA has done reflects that they have the vaguest concept of the actual issues or how to handle them "reasonably" or in a fair and balanced manner.
So far rousing the media and using a big stick has been their approach, as far as I can see they are doing a better job of ensuring that every other country is able to advance and use UAS technology more quickly than ours.
Sure there are dangers, but there are dangers in everything, you just need to weigh the good against the bad, not act like "Big Brother" and make everything about terrorists.
Orwell wrote about the FAA.
f them =)
Oh relax. Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) have always prohibited model aircraft and UAVs. This is absolutely nothing new. And it is absolutely nothing the FAA just did to target UAVs. These rules were in place before multirotors even existed. It's been standard practice for at least over a decade. You're just now finding out about it.
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..
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.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next