Drone Videographer Duncan Sinfield: 'Only a Matter of Time' Until Apple Park Shuts Down Drone Flights

[IJ Reilly]

Yeah, I read it and completely understand it. You are wrong in your take by picking out what fits your agenda. No pilot - drone or plane, has any right to "buzz" a property. Which is an extreme example of "enjoying the use of their land". You do have control up to a certain point. Reporting such actions to the FAA will cause them to take action. Same for drones. I guarantee it won't happen again as possible fines and jail time would be enjoyed but the operator. Above a certain altitude - say 500 to 1000 feet, could be arguable.

I don't have any agenda but accuracy. You on the other hand seem to have the agenda of misrepresenting what I said.

This is getting really tiresome. Please go back reread the very post you quoted back, where in the full second paragraph you will find a very much not "extreme" example of where a property owner (in this case, Apple) could prevent drones from flying over their campus. This example does not involve a violation of the FARs but of property rights. The FAA would almost certainly decline to be involved in an enforcement action where the flight was otherwise legal, because they would have nothing to enforce.
[doublepost=1524000571][/doublepost]

Most likely not a lawyer but probably a pilot. They drill that into you in ground school. You wanna screw around in controlled airspace State and Local law enforcement will be the least of your worries. Not to mention you are risking peoples life in the air and the ground.
To be honest I didn't believe "IJ Reilly" statements about it being Class C airspace but I looked it up and it makes sense considering you can see the ring on approach into SJC.

Private pilot. I don't own a drone but I do know how to read charts and know a bit about airspace (not any more than a drone pilot should). You should not have had to look anything up because I posted the VFR chart for SJC that clearly makes my point about the airspace over Apple Park being controlled. The magenta line on the chart is Class C. The notation 40/SFC within that area means surface to 4000 feet MSL (mean sea level). Whether it makes sense or not, it just is. Fly a drone anywhere within that area without prior authorization from the FAA and you are busting the regs. It's only a matter of whether you get caught at it.
[doublepost=1524000750][/doublepost]

Thank you for the clarification. I really appreciate it!

With regard to your last sentence... Only Part 107 drone pilots are required to know how to read the airspace charts. Yes, even Hobbyist drone pilots are supposed to know the regulations but they are not required to know how to read charts.

DJI isn't helping with its inaccurate no-fly zone maps.

Mark

I wonder how they are supposed to stay legal if they can't read a chart.

 

[greenmeanie]

So why is it ok to fly over the average joes house then?

Can you blame them? It's private property and can become a safety hazard to people walking on campus. There are also privacy concerns of course.

 

[rsierra54]

Can you blame them? It's private property and can become a safety hazard to people walking on campus. There are also privacy concerns of course.

What they are creating is on a computer screen. Duncan obviously knows what he is doing as a drone videographer.
[doublepost=1524008125][/doublepost]

They owe him a debt of gratitude for the gorgeous videos he made. Beautiful photography, music, and interspersed with Steve Jobs audio.

To be honest, Apple hasn't done a lot to really make me interested in them in a long time (in fact, I sometimes go to archive.org to revisit some exciting moments from Apple's past). But his videos were magical, to borrow an overused term from Tim Cook.

Agree!

 

[OriginalAppleGuy]

I don't have any agenda but accuracy. You on the other hand seem to have the agenda of misrepresenting what I said.

This is getting really tiresome. Please go back reread the very post you quoted back, where in the full second paragraph you will find a very much not "extreme" example of where a property owner (in this case, Apple) could prevent drones from flying over their campus. This example does not involve a violation of the FARs but of property rights. The FAA would almost certainly decline to be involved in an enforcement action where the flight was otherwise legal, because they would have nothing to enforce.

How about a lesson of Law instead since my original linked article seems confusing to some. This one is from a law journal that speaks to property owners rights to the airspace of their property. It gives the history and one that all can learn from. It will take a little effort to read but will provide the basis for any further discussion.

https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcon...e.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1915&context=jalc

I guess you were right, IJ, about the FAA declining to be involved. Seems it's more of a local or supreme court issue.

 

[wigby]

Property owners cannot assert any ownership of airspace. By definition, airspace is public and regulated by the federal government. The FAA promulgates all of the rules of aircraft operation and safety, including separations from buildings, the ground, and people. This does not mean that a property owner can't challenge specific aircraft operations that arguably interferes with their property rights. For example if a pilot persists in circling over a house and watching the owners sunbathe in the back yard, then the owner could file a civil action against that pilot, even if he is otherwise operating in perfectly legal fashion in terms of the airspace regulations. But even if the owner sues successfully to stop the activity, they still will not have asserted any ownership of the airspace over their house.

Critical infrastructure is another matter. These facilities are designated on navigational charges as "prohibited" or "restricted," with the rules for overflying them specified. To be clear, these rules are created by the FAA, not the owners of these facilities. A pilot busting this or any other airspace will be answerable to the federal authorities, not the property owner.

And again, in the case of Apple Park, the flight of drones over this area is not allowed without a special exemption from the FAA to the Class C airspace for San Jose Airport, which in this location extends from the surface to 4000 feet. The current special exemption will expire in June so whether drone operations can continue in this area will depend entirely on whether it is renewed. A drone pilot who continued to fly in this airspace without permission would be answerable to the FAA, not Apple.

You're right. I should've put "own" in quotes. The rules are created by FAA but they are reported by property owners and enforced by local authorities. The FAA has no agency to enforce any rules to my knowledge.

 

[IJ Reilly]

You're right. I should've put "own" in quotes. The rules are created by FAA but they are reported by property owners and enforced by local authorities. The FAA has no agency to enforce any rules to my knowledge.

The FAA absolutely enforces the Federal Aviation Regulations. Enforcement actions for violating the regs can include suspension or in more extreme cases voiding a license. They can also require that a pilot take additional training if they find that a violation was caused by lack of knowledge or skills.

Anyone can report a violation of the regulations, if they think they've seen one, but it should be brought to the attention of the local FAA Flight Services Directive Office, as they would be the ones to handle any investigation. FAA inspectors also show up at airports randomly to make certain that safety procedures are being followed, and they occasionally perform "ramp checks" of aircraft to determine that the paperwork to fly them legally is in order.

An issue that doesn't involve a violation of federal regulations could be theoretically handled by local law enforcement, but chances are they could do little unless some other law or ordinance was being violated (with the added qualification that only the federal government can regulate airspace). More likely, it would go the route of a civil action (lawsuit). This is the route Apple would be able to go if drone pilots were flying around their office windows and potentially stealing trade secrets. They'd get a restraining order on that one pretty quickly, I'd imagine.

 

[Mark Booth]

We have Class B airspace above our house. The section we are in is 3,000 feet to 10,000 feet for aircraft on approach to our international airport. I use the Flightradar 24 app on my phone to check on aircraft that seem closer than 3,000. Yep, every once in awhile one of them is just under 3,000. Big no-no, as I understand it.

But even if I fly my drone at 400 AGL, that's still more than 2,000 feet (we are at 490 MSL) between my drone and the bottom of Class B. They'd have to be REALLY below 3,000 before it would be an issue.

Mark

 

[IJ Reilly]

We have Class B airspace above our house. The section we are in is 3,000 feet to 10,000 feet for aircraft on approach to our international airport. I use the Flightradar 24 app on my phone to check on aircraft that seem closer than 3,000. Yep, every once in awhile one of them is just under 3,000. Big no-no, as I understand it.

But even if I fly my drone at 400 AGL, that's still more than 2,000 feet (we are at 490 MSL) between my drone and the bottom of Class B. They'd have to be REALLY below 3,000 before it would be an issue.

Mark

One thing useful to know is aircraft fly by barometric altimeters, so if you are looking at altitudes reported by GPS, the number could be quite different. Also aircraft flying on an IFR flight plan are expected to maintain altitudes plus or minus 50 feet from assigned, if I remember right (I’ve never been instrument rated). On a visual approach they get a little more leeway but I am not sure of the number.