“Unlike traditional Temporary Flight Restrictions, the NOTAM does not provide geographic coordinates, activation times, or public notification when the restriction is in effect near a specific location. Instead, the restricted airspace moves with DHS assets, meaning the no-fly zone can appear wherever ICE or other DHS units operate.”
“In practical terms, a drone operator flying legally in a public area could unknowingly enter restricted airspace if an ICE convoy passes within the protected radius.”
I hope this gets tested in court and declared unconstitutional for being overly vague and arbitrary. For example, Montana used to have some maximum speed limits that were just "reasonable and prudent", but they were eventually rejected by courts as being too vague (what's prudent to you may not be prudent to someone else). This is similar, in that the FAA has a no fly zone but they don't actually publish what it is.
Catch-22 and 1984 weren't supposed to be instruction manuals.
The rule of law has left the building. The SC is willing to rubber-stamp nearly anything right now.
Waiting and hoping for common sense to prevail is what allows authoritarian regimes to bulldoze through existing laws and norms. Even if the courts were an avenue for redress, they are being overwhelmed by the daily barrage of new illegal and unconstitutional actions. Once the courts get around to addressing these cases, the damage has been done and the precedent has been set.
Also note, i.e. stuff like statutory rape has been upheld even in cases where the perpetrator in all good faith thought the victim was 18+, the victim initiated selling the services, and the victim provided fake ID showing they were 18+.
So there is not necessarily any need for mens rea in the US legal system.
So you take that the saccade speed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade) + speed of visual buffer reaction + reasonable time to break and you get a max speed for that.
Same goes when you have two points of attention, like traffic in front of you and merging traffic, the speed gets reduced to compensate.
Coincidentally, folks won't be able to live stream their encounters but I'm sure that's totally unrelated...
“For my friends everything, for my enemies the law.” ― Oscar R. Benavides (Peru)
This creates a chilling effect for normal people who don't want to become professional activists.
They can then after the fact come down on that person without having to get facial recognition, grab cellphone beacons, or other similar steps.
(Also, had this been in effect and if a drone had been a part of the project, which would not have been unreasonable [0], it would have been really annoying if I was carrying a portable do-not-fly zone and needed to get permission from the agency to take some photos of the equipment I was carrying.)
[0] To be fair, part of this project was in a location where operating a drone would have been inappropriate for reasons that have nothing to do with the FAA or national security.
> TO: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD), DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE), AND DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) FACILITIES AND MOBILE ASSETS, INCLUDING VESSELS AND GROUND VEHICLE CONVOYS AND THEIR ASSOCIATED ESCORTS, SUCH AS UNITED STATES COAST GUARD (USCG) OPERATED VESSELS
Much more restrictive than just ICE operations.
See Loper-Bright
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loper_Bright_Enterprises_v._Ra...
From what I understand their jurisdiction didn't begin until 500 feet into the air.
Not only is it overreach, it's encouraging impediments on what has been largely considered private property.
FAA has asserted jurisdiction below 500' for a long time: balloons and kites since 1963, ultralights since 1982.
FAA certainly asserts regulatory authority over aircraft below 500', everything does takeoffs and landings of some sort, but ground operations are also subject to regulation.
@FAA can you tell I am still annoyed by your poorly thought out highly spoofable clear text RemoteID implementation and lack of integration to ADS-B... Also, NOTAM != TFR unless all drone operators are using foreflight to consolidate all surrounding NOTAMS which hint, they are not.
This is probably not the case here, but IIRC there are criminal charges attached to violating NOTAMs, so there’s still some kind of deterrence.
And if they don't, there is no basis for enforcement, so we're done.
I'm not a libertarian anymore, but I can tell you, I was a genius fortune teller.
My assets performed really well ignoring economic orthodoxy about supposed 2% inflation.
I can confirm altitude restrictions can be turned off.
Edit: owner of matrice m100 and a few other DJI drones
i dont think the concern is drone weaponry, but the photography, and intelligence that may be derived.
i expect to see an attempt to work against any cameras that may cover activities
You can still fly drones in and around ICE agents, bases, etc. and literally their words cannot stop the drone.
Pilot here. This is not unprecedented. The same kind of thing applies to all major sporting events. They have no-fly zones but FAA provides NO official source for getting the info of when such events occur and why. It is left to the pilots to find out all major sporting events and stadiums around and when they have events, under serious penalties. It forces pilots to care about sportsball.
