Evolving Law on Airport Implications by Unmanned Aerial Systems (2017) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 20-32
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 20... ...
20 infrastructure, such as energy production, transmission, and distribution facilities; (2) oil refineries and chemical facilities; (3)
|
From page 21... ...
21 Ascending in a balloon is not an unlawful act.
|
From page 22... ...
22 Causby did not answer this question definitely, leaving many low-altitude airspace ownership and control issues unresolved. At the time Causby was decided, regulators had not enacted air traffic rules placing the airspace needed for takeoff and landing within the public domain.
|
From page 23... ...
23 Amendment. But, on appeal, the Supreme Court allowed the aerial photography, distinguishing between the protected immediate surroundings of a private home ("curtilage")
|
From page 24... ...
24 exclusive sovereignty of the navigable airspace, stating in relevant part: Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.
|
From page 25... ...
25 sub-projects or focus areas, including: (1) assurance of safe separation of unmanned aircraft from manned aircraft when flying in the NAS, (2)
|
From page 26... ...
26 locations in Hawaii and Oregon. The research plan included the development of a set of standards for unmanned aircraft categories, state monitoring and navigation.
|
From page 27... ...
27 Hawaii; 165 in the proximity of presidential and other parties; 166 and in the proximity of space flight operations.167 Additionally, TFRs may be issued pursuant to emergency air traffic rules or special security instructions (e.g., national security) .168 Under 14 C.F.R.
|
From page 28... ...
28 people,178 Intel Corp. prerecorded its formation flying and then fed video into the game day broadcast -- fans in the stadium watched video just like home viewers.179 Although the drone portion of the show was not live, the FAA designated the Super Bowl as a "no drone zone." 180 2.
|
From page 29... ...
29 prohibited operation of sUAS in airspace restricted by NOTAMs unless authorized by ATC or a COA.190 Ultimately, the FAA issued regulations (14 C.F.R.
|
From page 30... ...
30 request is sent to the air traffic service center.214 The service center then works with the appropriate ATC facility to respond to the request.215 The newly enacted rule under Part 107 will streamline the process, such that equipage no longer needs to be reviewed by the FAA if the Part 107 requirements are met.216 Therefore, the only outstanding step in the COA process would be resolving requests to operate in controlled airspace.217 The rule also incorporates that step within the ATC-permission framework, making the COA process unnecessary for Part 107 operations.218 b. Operations in Class A Airspace The FAA's 2015 NPRM articulated a prohibition of sUAS operations in Class A airspace, which, pursuant to 14 C.F.R.
|
From page 31... ...
31 and § 99.7 ("special security instructions") ,232 as applicable.233 The FAA also declined to impose additional NOTAM requirements on sUAS operations.234 The NOTAM system is used to alert pilots of conditions or situations in the NAS that could present a hazard to aircraft.235 Historically, the FAA has used a NOTAM requirement in the COAs it issued for UAS operations.236 This was appropriate because sUAS operations were outside the regulatory structure that was then in place, and, while not inherently hazardous, sUAS flights required exemption or waiver from a number of FAA regulations.237 Because these operations deviated from existing FAA regulations, a NOTAM was an acceptable means to notify pilots of the activity, according to the FAA.238 However, with Part 107, the FAA contends that it is aiming to bring a subset of UAS operations within the FAA regulatory structure.239 Civil, public, and military pilots are expected to be familiar with regulations affecting their flight, including the possibility of encountering UAS activity below 400 feet; therefore, requiring a NOTAM would not be appropriate.240 d.
|
From page 32... ...
32 that interferes with operations and traffic patterns at airports, heliports, and seaplane bases.253 While a small unmanned aircraft must always yield right of way to a manned aircraft, a manned aircraft may alter its flight path or delay its landing or takeoff in order to avoid a sUAS that may present a potential conflict or otherwise affect the safe outcome of the flight, according to the FAA.254 For example, an unmanned aircraft hovering 200 feet above a runway may cause a manned aircraft holding short of the runway to delay take off, or a manned aircraft on the downwind leg of the pattern to delay landing.255 While the unmanned aircraft in this scenario would not pose an immediate traffic conflict to the aircraft on the downwind leg of the traffic pattern or to the aircraft intending to takeoff, nor would it violate the right-of-way provision of 14 C.F.R.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.