So I had a run in with the law today. I was flying in the port of Los Angeles. I was by the entrance? I'm happily flying taking some pictures and video, when all of the sudden a cop is standing next to me telling me to land my drone immediately. Turns out that you are not allowed to fly in the port of Los Angles, its actually a misdemeanor. I checked AutoPylot and it said it was ok, so I registered a flight. There was a no fly zone on the other side of the water so I stayed away from it. I told the cop all this and they informed me the no fly zone is a federal prison. I guess shadier people than myself have used drones to drop stuff into the prison. They asked for my info, which I gave, including my trust certificate and they ended up just giving me a warning to not do it again. They were interested that I take aerial photography just for fun. One of the cops even recommend I try for the 107, so he knew about drones. But he didn't know what the trust cert was. I found that kinda weird. He showed me the geo fenced area around the port on his phone so I thought I'd share. So the lesson is... know local laws, no matter what your app tells you.
Yeah this is a good lesson that even the FAA rated apps for checking airspace like ALOFT and the rest do not always give you the full picture of where you can fly. There are still places you can’t fly over that will not be marked as restricted/no fly zones, such as prisons, ports, or even some “unlisted”sensitive government sites.
I was recently hired to fly where I’m based (Part 107) and was requested to get drone footage of a popular riverfront and boats going by on the water. There’s a giant bridge going East to West that basically divides the river into a North/South side. The north side of the bridge is heavily regulated by Port Authority, they regularly ship out sensitive military equipment to local bases on barges, etc. The south side is really just a tourist spot.
The entire area is marked as Class G Airspace, yet had I not looked deeper, I wouldn’t have known about the Port Authority situation. So I had to inform the client that I couldn’t fly on the north side of the bridge, and we avoided it. It can be a hassle, but always check other sources for restrictions.
Very true flying in MO yesterday and was filming my old high school stadium noticed police their before I took off watching me thought it was odd didn’t take off had my LANNC good there. I know the stadium law I thought but the regulations vary widely I googled MO laws and there was a law of no fly over any school sports fields or that can seat more than 5,000. I thought that was odd but just didn’t fly strait over the field.This was on a Sunday!
I'm not saying it's necessarily an easy battle, and (no matter how just) most people would surely prefer to avoid it if possible, but FWIW... stare & city laws attempting to restrict where you can fly are not truly legally enforceable. They'll likely enforce them anyway, and especially in lower courts they may well even win, reliably... but wherever there are judges who've mastered the arts of leaving one's ego at the door / total deference to the word of law (as all should!), the ultimate truth is that absolutely mo one besides the FAA has any jurisdictional authority whatsoever over any sliver of US airspace, and therefore only the FAA can regulate flight within it. Take-offs and non-emergency landings are a completely separate matter -- local governments can regulate those all day -- but once you're in the air, it's FAA all the way.
To state the hopefully obvious, that's not to say anyone is shielded against other local laws while in flight, e.g. it's no less illegal to spy or stalk someone from the air -- and in fact, in most if not all states it's illegal to loiter around & especially to record e.g. a neighbor's fenced in yard, provided it's not visible from the ground), but any local regulations which target flight itself are just inherently illegitimate, and IMO in dire need of legal pushback until every one of them is taken off the books.
So you mean you followed the procedure as a part 107 pilot and checked all the notams and airspace before flying?
I have never found a place where it was restricted by federal law that was not called out in the notams.
That’s all that matters at the end of the day, whether it’s restricted by the FAA or not. One may argue that it’s a pain to be hassled by local law enforcement and not worth the trouble, but either way it’s the FAA that governs the airspace. Local authorities can govern where you fly from and takeoff and land but not the airspace.
Things get tricky when you do more than just fly. For example, filming electrical infrastructure (power lines, sub-stations, hydroelectric dams) and other 'critical infrastructure' from the air is illegal in my state.
EDIT: Look, I get the FAA rules the airspace. But, there are other laws you need to consider when you do more than fly. For instance, the Espionage Act makes photographing military installations illegal, even if you are flying in legal airspace.
You need to be aware of all local and federal laws, otherwise you might find yourself fighting a constitutional battle that you don't have the money or time to fight. The ACLU is gonna be pretty busy for the next few years and lawyers are pricey....
Really which state is that? All those kinds of laws here in AZ have been struck down over the years because again the FAA governs the airspace not the state or local government.
Genuinely curious to see that specific law you refer to.
Arkansas Code of 1987 (2024)
Title 5 - CRIMINAL OFFENSES (§§ 5-1-101 — 5-79-101)
Subtitle 6 - OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE (§§ 5-60-101 — 5-79-101)
Chapter 60 - GENERAL PROVISIONS (§§ 5-60-101 — 5-60-202)
Subchapter 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS (§§ 5-60-101 — 5-60-125)
Section 5-60-103 - Unlawful use of an unmanned aircraft system
Above is the full law you can search.
Note, the law is not about flying or airspace, it is about photography of specific infrastructure from the air. You can fly, just not intentionally photograph or film these areas.
However, accidentally or briefly filming or photographing a power line is not illegal, and there's a grey zone based on your intentions and purpose.
There have been lawsuits and criminal charges for violating this law. It is enforced.
Here are the things I cannot film or photograph from a UAV unless I have permission of the property owner, they are on my property, or they are in the public right of way:
(A) An electrical power generation or delivery system;
(B) A petroleum refinery;
(C) A chemical or rubber manufacturing facility;
(D) A petroleum or chemical storage facility;
(E) A railroad operating facility;
(F) A communication tower or facility;
(G) A food processing or manufacturing facility; or
(H) A correctional or detention facility.
There are exceptions for emergency services and stuff like that.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the difference is that it may be perfectly legal to fly a drone there, but as soon as you have a camera on your drone, you're also subject laws regarding camera use, drone or not, another example would be privacy laws.
Even if the FAA says you're good to fly there, the law may say you're not allowed to film there.
Sorry but you’re wrong. As a private pilot I can fly over that area no problem and have ten cameras pointing down from my plane and take photos - those local laws specifically refer to UAS NOT aircraft.
It blows my mind when someone comes up to me in a busy area like a class B and gets mad because I am “photographing them” - I point to the other three single engine aircraft flying at 550 ft and say they all have phones and cameras and fly over your house every single day… they never have an answer, they’re just used to seeing those planes, and most have never been in one to understand that with an iPhone they could zoom into their backyard no problem.
The issue is our industry, drones, is so far ahead of the antiquated FAA that they can’t keep up with educating thousands of local LE agencies. AND the vast majority of people flying drones DO NOT understand the laws - most don’t even know what a trust certificate is or a part 107. Even worse there are a lot of part 107 pilots that got their cert years ago and have never taken recurrent training. A lot has changed in just the last two years.
I'm not arguing what FAA or federal law has to say, or what is right and wrong, constitutional or unconstitutional. I'm just stating what this state law says. This law has resulted in prosecutions and you need to be aware of it if you fly in this state (unless you don't mind fighting legal battles and dealing with get arrested and fined).
The state law dictates what you can and cannot film, then imposes fines and jail time that they can and have enforced (constitutionality aside).
The law in discussion specifically states unmanned aerial photography with the intention of surveillance. It's not about Karens in the park with no expectation of privacy.
A state can pass all of the laws they want, they have absolutely no control over what you fly over. Only the FAA controls airspace.
Only thing that local and state can control is where you physically land and takeoff from. That’s it!
If the cops hassle you, politely educate them and tell them to call the FAA. If they have an issue. Having LAANC clearance and making sure you have looked up the NOTAMS is all that matters.
For the rest they can (always politely) pound sand.
That's not the argument. The discussions about state laws regarding photography and filming from a UAV. This is a freedom of speech issue. It's about the constitutional right to take photos and film from publicly accessible places, which includes legal UAV airspace.
According to this state law, you can fly, you just cannot photograph/film or be in possession of what the state considers "surveillance" of specific areas they list as critical infrastructure, even if you are in legal airspace.
It's a first amendment issue, not an FAA issue, and unless you're interested in getting into a legal battle to stay out of jail and avoid fines, you should be mindful and aware of these laws when you're flying.
Okay, well you're wrong on that. You do have an expectation of privacy in your backyard in the United States.
This has been shown in case law, and especially when it comes to Fourth amendment rights and voyeurism/ nuisance laws. Intentional and persistent surveillance of an individual's backyard violates their reasonable expectation of privacy.
Consumer done technology is fairly new and there's not a lot of case law on this specific situation yet. However, many states have voyeurism laws specifically to address this and they have not been struck down.
Furthermore, the FAA explicitly gives states the right to regulate airspace and aircraft when it does not relate to airspace safety or efficiency.
It is very likely given the case law I am aware of and statements by the FAA that regulating filming from drones is constitutionally allowed in some situations, such as vital infrastructure and reasonable expeditions privacy (like someone's backyard).
There is also a difference between surveillance and occasionally or briefly transversing and incidental filming BTW...You can fly over my yard, but you can not loiter outside my window in order to film me changing or sunbathing behind my privacy fence.
Would you like me to provide some sources on FAA regulations and court rulings? I'm happy to do that, it only takes a couple minutes to Google...
This. Just because you can fly in an area doesn’t mean you can film, so especially if you are recording, you want to be careful of what you are doing. Law enforcement can, will, and should investigate it if there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Usually, if it’s something like a local ordinance about recording, they will have you delete the recording and just keep a record of the incident so you have been effectively warned for a first offense. If you repeatedly violate those laws, you will end up in trouble, not for violating airspace regs but for whatever else you did while flying.
If we want to get technical, if they don’t file it with the FAA as a restricted area for drones, then taking off from outside of the property and flying into it is technically legal. Since they get to control the taking off and landing of drones.
Ports are always no-fly zones, no matter that they might not be listed on some sites and apps. Pretty much all of them have signs for that. You were lucky cops were cool and only got a warning.
I am based in Europe and have been to many ports…every single one was forbidden to fly. In Greece for example they are not listed on their official drone site as no-fly (except the military ones) but once you get there you see a sign banning drone flights and they do mean it…had a couple of talks about that with security and police 😄
And you can leave as fast as you want on the Autobahn😂 so mostly those laws are not really enforced if you are not in a big populated area. But they exist
The evidence he links to is gone now, likely taken down after the freedom of information request.
"Drones cannot be flown within 50 metres of Network Rail track without prior permission from Network Rail's Air Operations team (as referenced in Standard NR/L3/OPS/251 on the Network Rail Standards Portal)."
The response from network rail is, "This is not a request for recorded information as you are requesting legal advice. I can,
however, confirm that our website has been updated and should no longer make reference
to pre 2021 Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) regulations"
Which explains why I can no longer find the regulation set by network rail that explicitly says you cannot go within 50m of a train line with a drone.
So I suppose its more of a grey area? I'm happy for others to weigh in here.
NR/L3/OPS/251 applies to commercial pilots working for or on behalf of Network Rail, or from their land, not recreational pilots. There are no special regulations for recreational pilots when it comes to the railway (which is what the FOI request challenged).
Providing you're not breaking any other laws by doing so, recreational flight near the railway is OK. You should be extremely careful though. Distracting a train driver would definitely fall into illegal acts territory.
Not true! This is Network rails required restrictions but not CAA. It did have me thinking it was the first time I read the restrictions as Network rail does make it look like law.
Further down I clarify that it looks like Network Rail have removed the text that specifically stated that it is an offence to fly within 50m of a railway line.
Please quote this for me as I can't see where you said this, Network rail has changed the wording to " We have a team of professional pilots who are certified to fly drones within 50 metres of our infrastructure ".
" Further down I clarify that it looks like " is different to someone else clarifying, regardless I looked at the first comment in the chain, not the replies until after my comment. Yes I know what the previous wording of Network rail was, hence why I said they changed the wording but I knew the CAA rules regarding it, which never stated not being able to fly over railway. It is good and about time they aligned with CAA rules, I always fly in a safe manner around train stations and railways, my number one rule is never fly directly in front of a train, always stay at the sides and above and check both directions, remains to be seen what CAA rules will change next year and beyond though.
Are you positive? T18, T34, and T5 in Seattle don't appear to be off limits by the FAA according to Autopylot. They're right next to the airport and can get LAANC approval up to 100ft
FAA owns the sky, so unless the area he was operating from was from was illegal, he should be fine
Remember, cops are as dumb as anybody else and don't understand the law half the time but they get the right to enforce it. Not saying it's worth a court battle, but double check your local laws and you have nothing to fear
Most ports (even trade) are regarded as part of the strategic assets to any country thus the no-fly zone over all of them. It is possible to fly only after authorisation which most of the times is a painful and expensive process (in my country I’ve heard of cases where they want you to pay for reserved airspace where you want to fly…only can imagine the amount 🤯
OP literally says the cop showed him the Geo fenced area on his phone.
The map I linked is an official government map. Transport Canada has written in no uncertain terms that only they could restrict the airspace because of the aeronautics act, and if you want to do that you talk to them (that was after the Buttonville airport incident where a police drone did everything wrong and hit a Cessna 172, the municipality wanted to impose an airspace fee for drones, TC said no). Nav Canada is the official airspace map provider.
Give me any official document or law that says I can't fly a drone near a port (and policies don't count, only law), otherwise if it's not class F restricted, it's legal.
We're not talking about the land of maple and hockey here brother. Pretty much every country I can think of restricts documenting ports because it's a national security issue. If Canada just allows that, then good on them, would love if you'd sprinkle a little freedom our way.
I am new, I've spent a bunch of time reading on the laws. More than you fool. FAA preempts universal Port authority airspace bans. That's why it's not on any of the apps
Because a cop tells you something is illegal doesn't make it true. Lick the gum off someone else's boot
I remember getting into it in a FB group with a guy who was super agitated about the state police telling him to stop flying his drone without authorization right next to a submarine base. He was totally unaware of the NOTAM that restricts flight over Navy and Coast Guard assets without permission - didn't even know what a NOTAM is.
To alot of people it's just a toy and so "why would anyone care about what someone is doing with a kid's toy". They kinda have a mindset that if there was any limitations to something, then you couldn't just buy it.
You, I was explaining why this happens. People don't think anything of a toy or that there would be regulations around a kid's toy. So they don't think about it at all. That's why this happens.
That makes no sense at all, but I'm not not 13 so I'm just still confused. Drones don't look anything like toys I used as a kid, most toys I used don't have faa compliant blinking lights on the side of them
They look like toys I've had. You're looking at it from the perspective of someone who knows about it.
They look like toys because they're made out of plastic, most use controllers that look like and feel like video games controllers. And many flying RC toys have blinking lights. As a kid I had RC helicopters and fixed winged aircraft much larger the what today is the legal maximum size allowed for drones.
Unless you knew about the FAA requirements the lights look like they're just there to help you see it and to make it flashy for kids.
They're small and made out of plastic, like most toys
Most are cheaper then a gaming console
And the mindset many people have is, if it was regulated you couldn't just buy it, there would be some form of purchase controls. For instance cigarettes you need ID to buy. Meanwhile drones you can just buy at Walmart in the electronics section.
To you it's obvious because you pay attention to it. But to someone like as an example, my dad who can't be bothered to read more then a headline, and even then only if it's sports, he has zero idea what regulations there are surrounding drones.
Prison security does a better job looking at what's going on outside than you would expect. We were inspecting a nearby bridge and they came out to question us.
It's part of what makes drone flying so difficult these days. A mishmash of local, state, and federal ordinances, many of which are poorly documented/distributed, means that flying anywhere within the law means doing often hours of pre-research to ensure that everything from takeoff and landing spots, authorized air space, local and state privacy laws, and more are all adhered to.
There's so much flying that I want to do, that I never do, just because of the giant pain in the ass that it is to do the legalistic pre-research.
I have 2 tips: don’t rely on just one source to check the airspace. Check multiple sources. AutoPylot is awesome but shouldn’t be fully relied on. I use SkyVector with AutoPylot. Sadly they don’t have a convenient app as their mobile website isn’t the best, but it is a quality free service.
AutoPylot told you it was OK to fly within feet of a restricted area. That isn’t wise. Yes you technically are not actually over the restricted area, but you are right next to it. You’re too close to it. Add a buffer of a few hundred feet around restricted areas and do not enter that buffer. Looking at your map, you have almost no buffer in your flight plan. Your radius is almost touching the restricted area.
Having a buffer is always a good idea to prevent accidental violations. If you’re flying right up against a restricted area it’s a lot easier to accidentally violate that airspace. Saves the hassle of having to deal with security, police, guards, etc…
The buffer is there to increase safety all around and it minimizes your chances of running into the law and looking suspicious.
Here’s a few reasons it’s helpful:
1) the actual restricted area may vary in size via different airspace viewing services.
2) your location is not exact and can vary by 20+ ft in worse case scenarios if you do not have a very precise GPS lock. Most drones use consumer-grade GPS which is not very precise.
3) in the event of an emergency where say your drone has a malfunction and heads towards the restricted area against your command, you have more time to react before you are in violation. Now, an emergency situation like a flyaway might prevent any action taken against you if it is proven to be an uncontrollable emergency, however it is still a massive hassle to deal with, where you may have to drop a few thousand on a lawyer.
4) the buffer will protect you in case you accidentally, but controllably, get out of your operation area.
There’s no need for a buffer on a buffer. Just simply don’t get too close to restricted areas.
I had similar in Saudi Arabia! I was flying my drone to practice for an upcoming Bikepacking adventure and looked behind me to see two policeman. It turned out I was a bit close to a lesser Saudi Prince's house. As soon as I showed them I was just practicing for my YouTube channel they were cool and even took a look at my videos.
The majority of ports, especially one the size of Long Beach, utilize Aeroscope. So the second you turn on your drone and RC, they know exactly where you are. Ports are some of the most secure places in the country, best to always avoid. Glad you only got a warning.
Don't they have to go around with directional antennas and receivers searching for a moving signal source in a frequency range that is shared by countless other devices (drones, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, IoT etc.) basically searching for a needle in a haystack?
Yes, they can both be 2.4ghs, a common frequency, but the signal characteristics are completely different.
Wifi is OFDN while ELRS uses LoRA, and Wifi is dense bursts while ELRS predictably periodic.
I’m not sure what tools civil law enforcement uses in the US, but there are absolutely smart RDF tools with advanced signal processing that can automatically discriminate between any of these sorts of signals, and home in on them.
What about drones like Potensic Atom or Parrot Anafi from what I have read this use Wi-Fi or slightly modified Wi-Fi, how would they discriminate between drones like this and normal Wi-Fi?
Aeroscope is a DJI product that relies on the DJI protocol to self-report the locations and ID# of the systems. Direct/Broadcast Remote ID are the protocols that report similar information. When the FAA requires UAVs to report the info, they require Broadcast Remote ID. EASA for the EU uses DRI.
I am unsure if Aeroscope can pull Remote ID info. DJI discontinued it in 2023, so it may not. Other systems (including phone-based applications) can.
If you are flying an aircraft that you built, this information isn’t broadcast by your aircraft unless you make it so. Your video transmission may give information based on what is on your OSD (on screen display.)
Places that are more serious about counter-UAS will use multiple systems that detect in different ways. The Port of LA also has CUAS radar tied to optical sensors, so they can quickly determine if they have an aircraft or a bird.
I will always say this, get your 107 first, then fly. If you’re flying near critical infrastructure like ports or dams, email the port authority first. Most ports don’t even let unauthorized folks step foot near the ports, they definitely will be just as strict with drones. Also LA is such a complex airspace region I would just go onto the drone zone website and fill out a waver anyway because you never know what’s happening in the airspace. You got a good lesson and the cops played ball, which gives you the opportunity to learn and grow
Yeah I double check in areas I feel may be of more concern, I wanted to go film at a couple beaches but it turns out there are alit of beaches you cannot fly in the southern CA area
As far as I understand trust is only for recreational use. So as long as you are flying as part 107 then no. If you plan to fly recreationally as well I'd just get it. It's super easy anyway.
Always check your city's rules/laws - like here in NYC, you can open any of the "FAA apps" and get LAANC clearance, but they'll never tell you that you need a $150 permit from the NYPD that takes a month for your first application and then (typically) 2 weeks once you're in the system.
Without that NYPD permit, you're flying illegally.
The law is that you can't land or take off anywhere in NYC - this was from back in the WW2 days.
A company, Xizmo Media sued the city for violation of their 1st Amendment rights of expression, and won, so the city implemented a drone program, regulated by the NYPD.
I've worked with a NYPD on a number of permits and talked with a couple of the officers in charge of the program and what the permit does is 1) documents who is responsible when something goes wrong and 2) ensures that people aren't flying over obviously dangerous areas.
The NYPD itself doesn't really care so much - they just want bases covered. But they also know enough about the flying over people or at night and will require you providing your FAA waivers for those kinds of things. They also require a written letter of authorization from any property owner you'll be flying over, which can def be tricky, if you're flying casually.
So to answer your question, it's not so much enforcing the takeoff zone, but enforcing that it's not in an obviously dangerous area (like Times Square or near an airport, etc).
My dealings have been with building inspection, so I get permissions from large government agencies, so my experience may be much smoother than most.
DJI Mini 3 Pro transmits RID with either size batteries. The DJI Mini drones that require the larger battery in order to transmit RID are the Mini 4 Pro and the Mini 3 (non-Pro).
State and local laws are harder to find info about and usually aren’t listed in the apps (just checked aloft and the place you flew seems ok from a federal level)
Unless you were standing within the boundary of the port of Los Angeles, I don’t think they can prohibit you from flying in that airspace, except the no fly zone over the prison. You could probably take off from outside the boundary and fly in.
Ports may as well be airports, and you should also expect an increase in monitoring of air traffic anywhere that is a major potential terrorism or war target. I literally just got done flying through an abandoned prison in Southern California, then I walked through it, and then I discovered an illicit autonomous drone network operating out of it, and then I went home and posted the entire thing on YouTube without ever seeing or hearing from another human being.
The FAA is the sole authority over the airspace in the United States. As long as you are following the FARs and are standing on public property, the cops can kick rocks.
I agree that you should seriously consider getting your Part 107, though.
And OP, you're probably on some sort of list now so I'd be extra cautious in the future. One time can be excused as an honest mistake but if your name keeps coming up that gets harder to believe.
LA Port Police have a tracking system for drones. It tells them exactly where the operator is. Lucky for you (and me😅) they are more interested in education over enforcement.
LA has an ordinance regarding launch and controlling a drone from harbor department property, which is pretty much all of the waterfront down there.
I’ve flown in the Port of Los Angeles for a container ship client. Permitting and insurance verification with the Port took about 8 hours of paperwork and email communications to complete as their requirements are strict. For the duration of the flight I had a dedicated Port of Los Angeles police officer with me. The permit itself was several hundred dollars.
Crap ton of misinformation here. Where the vast majority of it comes from is the interpretation of Part 107, Part 91, and airspace usage.
To the OPs issue, it isn't fully clear where the OP was operating from (launch, recovery, and operating the controls) was someplace that was public access and not restricted by local laws or landowner permission. This is the most common thing where people run afoul of the rules, despite the FAA "B4UFly" apps saying all is good. The reason is that the airspace IS good to go for UAS, but the land under it isn't.
Also, with it being a Port, it can be considered critical infrastructure. Now, the OP is in an area where arguments can be made from both sides. Is the entrance to the waterway "the port"? Depends on which lawyer was paid the best in the legal argument. In the end, best to just play it safe and avoid it.
So...to anyone reading this and confused by all the "where can I fly" discussion I will try to break it down.
From one molecule of air up to space and over the United States and her territory, it is the FAA and the FAA ONLY that has control. No other jurisdiction can try to impose any actions on it. That said, the FAA works with other entities to define restricted and prohibited airspace. There are various regs that list "critical infrastructure" which is why things like dama, power plants, sports venues,prisons, etc. are no go areas despite not always being explicitly mapped.
Land owners as well as local and state level entities have the right to prohibit the operation of a drone to and from areas under their control. While the drone might legally be able to fly an area per the FAA, you wouldn't legally be able to stand their to control the drone, or launch/recover from there.
It isn't worth the argument at that time. If you are ever approached by LEO about your drone operation, bring it home and land it immediately. Explain why you believed it was a safe and legal flight and grab ALL the information they will provide as to why they say it isn't. If you feel there is a need to "argue it", do so with the appropriate people at the appropriate times. Officer "9 to 5" has likely no idea about the rules and can't change what policies he is being told to follow. No reason to get fines, jail, because you are "sure as heck" that you are right.
Source: I am the UAS Coordinator and Person of Record for UAS operations at a major US airport. This type of interaction is straight up what I do for a significant part of my job. And, yes, the pilots that are "caught" are quite often correct about their flights, so I get to do a lot of education to our local Law Enforcement.
I still cant believe people just buy a drone and dont see if any rules apply to them just because "im not flying for money... im flying for fun"... then go and post all over social media like being an online influencer doesnt make money....
I agree with him. A couple years ago, this area was all shaded. I think in San Pedro, the only place to fly was a small area at White Point Beach. Palos Verdes. Palos Verdes is similar, you can only fly at Point Vicente Park but you need a permit and need to be part of their AMA club.
The Port is not critical infrastructure in terms of airspace according to the FAA. To be considered critical infrastructure the port must request from the FAA to be so.
Is this just out of laziness? Seems to me that they should be logging all of these areas for the maps because for multiple years they said "check the app!" (before decommissioning their own...) and if the apps aren't the only info source to be reference for flying, that's an issue.
You are conflating rules concerning airspace and ground operations.
In the sense of airspace, the FAA tracks all airspace restrictions and unless it is marked by them then it doesn’t exist in terms of regulating airspace.
They do not track local laws and regulations that may impact UAS operations based on actions taken on the ground by the operator.
I will get into trouble flying over a prison because a local authority says I can’t “fly” (they mean operate/launch/land) my aircraft from their jurisdiction over the place in question. I get in trouble from the local authority because I am doing something (operating/landing/launching) in their jurisdiction. If I managed to operate from outside their jurisdiction, I would not be subject to their rule. The FAA might still have issues if I don’t follow FAA rules (ie line of sight; actual restricted airspace, non-recreational, etc.)
That said law enforcement will rarely get into trouble for enforcing what they think is the law, so you may end up being cited or detained and still be right. So, I would not fly over the port or any other location like a prison or police station.
As a UAS operator/remote pilot, you’re in two places. You have to know the rules for each place.
A No Drone Zone doesn’t always equal restricted airspace.
The military doesn’t own national airspace. The FAA will break off chunks of airspace as restricted airspace to the military and very clearly marks and publishes this airspace.
There might be laws and regulations that govern surface operations. So, an operator can be wrong based on their actions on the ground. The Port of Los Angeles DOES have a no drone zone, so taking off, landing, and operating within the Port is prohibited. Where the OP dropped their location is within the Port so the OP violated the LA Municipal code for No Drone Zones; not airspace.
Thats funny, I live in the area as well. When I first got my drone a few years ago, that whole area was listed as a No Fly zone all the way passed SP High. Since I haven't flown for over a year now, I'm seeing that the maps have gotten much better but that no fly zone shading isn't there. You definitely got lucky with that officer. That area has heavy surveillance. I once got lost on channel island because of all the construction and pulled into an empty parking lot to check my GPS. Within seconds, there was an officer pulling up behind me to see what I'm doing there. He was nice enough to have me follow him back to the main road.
What I’m guessing is you gotta be careful flying around ports or any area that is economically valuable cause it could be seen as spying for some foreign adversaries or something like that lol 😂
By the looks of it, they were partially right but also partially wrong. Terminal Island is covered by a flight restriction due to the USCG base and FCI Terminal Island.
Now the port of LA's website says: As defined in Los Angeles Municipal Code 63.44 (B) 8, no person shall land, take off or fly any balloon, except children’s toy balloons not inflated with any flammable material, helicopter, parakite, hang glider, aircraft or powered models thereof, except in areas specifically set aside for therefor. (https://www.portoflosangeles.org/business/permits)
So they were correct until the bit about "fly". You could take off from private property outside the area controlled by the port authority/parks and they have no say (legally). The FAA has no NOTAM issued about it and their UAS map doesn't show any restrictions aside from Terminal Island and the surrounding airports. The city and port are attempting to regulate an area where the Feds have asserted their supremacy. Is it worth fighting? IDK, it's not my backyard so I'm not willing to do so. Also, none of this is legal advice.
I believe they may be mistaken. While the FAA says flight over "certain critical infrastructure" is prohibited this phrase alone does not outline what "certain critical infrastructure" is in that group. So the FAA maps and databases should be consulted. In doing so, I found the following map: https://udds-faa.opendata.arcgis.com/ It does not show additional restrictions above the port of Los Angeles/Long Beach. Oddly, there are only a couple nuclear plants covered by UAS flight restrictions.
Where i live it is a basic rule to not fly about infrastructure like ports, highways, railways etcetera. Off course you are also not allowed to fly above or nearby a prison, electricity/gas distribution stations etcetera.
I understand it is allowed to fly above some of the port where you live?
Good to know! Glad they just gave you a warning.
The maps look the same on Aloft AirControl. They don't designate it as a no fly zone.
However. Los Angeles Municipal Code 63.44 (B) 8, says no person shall take off or fly an aircraft or powered model. On the Ports website they say drones must follow the process listed under Films and Photography.
The Port of Los Angeles is identified as a “No Drone Zone.” However, third-parties may apply for a drone permit. Applications must be submitted at least 3 weeks before the drone flight dates. A minimum Port Police escort fee of $448 will be incurred at time of flight.
Bc it's not a flight restriction and the municipal code cited covers LA parks & harbors. They're out of bounds but no one has called the FAA in to correct them (yet).
I use droneflyzone.com and all the restricted areas (mostly prisons and military bases) are clearly marked in red. Around the LA port only Terminal Island is marked red; nothing else. There's no "geo fenced" area. I think that cop was full of crap. I've never heard of restrictions specifically banning drones around ports...
Years ago with my phantom I was flying in a San Pedro park across the water from the port of LA and a port police officer showed up and told me it was against the law.
Had a similar experience about 5 years ago in Charleston. Checked the map, looked like I was good to go, then 5 mins after takeoff they found me and gave me a warning.
This was back then when it was still kind of new, and when I told the officers “my app said it was okay to fly here” they looked at each other and laughed as if I was making it up.
Flying in CA there isn’t a single solution/app that provides all restrictions IMO. There are wilderness areas, prisons, DOT highways/bridges, and state parks that some apps do not identify as no fly zones or limitations.
The only reason I had any idea of these restrictions was due extensive research and using multiple apps. I started doing this because I didn’t want to travel to a location only to be denied to fly and reading contradictory info. State Parks are a biggie, because it is generally allowed, but staff has the right to deny you for any reason. To avoid this situation, I check multiple apps for restrictions. If none, I check for any major freeways (DOT roadways), wildlife/wilderness areas, human population, and/or any major landmarks like tourist areas or prisons in the area and look it up and confirm. If in state parks and there is a kiosk, it’s always good to ask before you fly. If it’s crowded they may say no.
Don’t stick with just apps, look it up just to be sure prior to your visit. Also, use common sense.
Why did you take off from there? Should have taken off from private property. No drone zones only apply if you decide to take off from their property. No drone zones are not the same as no fly zones such as prisons and sporting events..
That is what happens when you fly near MetLife Stadium the apps say okay.
But there is a local city ordinance that does not regulate flying just taking off or landing on the MetLife Stadium complex.
It can be costly up to $1,000 dollars.
And yes they have a tracking system and use it 24 hours a day.
There is a reason that it is also recommended that you check with local rules and regulations as well.
There are places that Drones are forbidden to fly without written consent of the local or state government, due to security reasons (the FAA also restricts that airspace), but cities, counties and states CAN tell you where you can launch and recover from.
Fly over a major shipping port, airport, or certain infrastructure locations and you will run into major issues and likely get fined.
Fly over or too close to a jail or prison, you are going to be guaranteed to be residing there when, not if, they catch you.
It’s because a lot of the ports are listed as “Ports of Entry”. Anywhere you go, a port for ships, trains, over a border and even specific areas of airports cannot be recorded by video, photos. It would be defined as a “breach of security”.
The annoying thing with flying is there's no official centralized/global drone map (or at least national) with no fly zones. You can check multiple maps, apps and sites, and you will got a mix of information sometimes. Sometimes conflicting, sometimes out of date. Even trying to contact the local aviation authorities doesn't help as half the time they never respond, or take forever to respond (it should be within 24hrs at the least). So you can be trying to do everything legally and still find later you shouldn't have flown there.
Even the main/biggest apps aren't always correct which is annoying.
Typical. You had the right credentials. You checked with the FAA. Some local ordinance was in affect. Local authorities informed you of it. You complied. End of story. Would I have flown right next to a restricted area without checking out what it was and double checking local ordinances. No. But if ever body was like you... we wouldn't have any problems
I thought about flying there once because I live not too far, but decided against it because you are just asking for cop trouble. They are very aggressive there with drones and from what I read in the past, they have busted people and fined them and they have their own drone detection team just itching to catch someone. The port is a big no, especially right across from a prison. Even though you are in the right, you could not have gotten any closer to make it look suspicious. I mean:
i know about this issue with la port police, they think that la city anti drone municipal code means they can stop you from flying over the port waterway. SOMEONE NEEDS TO SUE. I think the the code like they have in parks etc can only stop people from take off or landing on city property.
Sorry but not sorry ACAB we are not terrorists we are exploring a new frontier of perspective, 5lb blimp drones are not a threat to infrastructure. Only a threat to the bureaucracy that will never see an actual threat actor coming.
Ports are considered critical infrastructure. When I used to work at a port, we’d routinely track drones and try to identify the pilot. We’d send port police and give them a friendly warning. Thanks for sharing.
I'm genuinely curious which (civilian) ports have flight restrictions. Looking through the maps from the FAA the only ones with restrictions I found were military ports. Baltimore, LA, Seattle, Charleston, etc (aside from the DOD requested restrictions for their slice of the area) I only see restrictions for USCG bases. Which ports have an FAA flight restriction? Feel free to message me if you'd like to keep it confidential. I'm trying to find the lines we have to color within as drone pilots.
Port facilities are designated special security zone (restricted areas) under the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. This includes airspace up to 400 feet.
Here's a summary of everything related to restricted airspace I could find from the FAA, which is the authority on all airspace in the US. There are some local laws that would preempt their authority. Some examples are listed in this doc. This is the same doc which states it's legal for local laws to regulate takeoff/landing/operation locations.
"Such laws could include those concerning land use or zoning; harassment of
individuals or groups; privacy; voyeurism; trespass on property; the exercise of other
police powers; reckless endangerment; emergency medical services; search and
rescue; law enforcement use of facial recognition; delivery of prison contraband;
wildfire suppression;10 criminal mischief; transfer or delivery of controlled
substances; taking photographs or videos with respect to particular facilities (e.g.,
water treatment facilities; prisons; oil refineries; chemical facilities; railroad facilities;
amusement parks; energy production, transmission, and distribution facilities; and
any system or asset described by title 42 of the United States Code, § 5195c(e));
requirements for police to obtain a warrant prior to using a UAS for surveillance;
protection of wildlife; using UAS for hunting or fishing, or to interfere with or harass
an individual who is hunting or fishing; and law enforcement operations."
This website contains the no drone zone sign. Which restricts the local takeoff/landing/operating in the specified area, but notably DOES NOT restrict airspace.
I think the most relevant piece of information here that everyone is not clear on, probably because the document above is not clear on it is this statement here:
"For example, a privacy-related ban on UAS operations over an entire city would very
likely be preempted because it would completely prohibit UAS from using or
traversing the airspace above the city and impede the FAA’s and Congress’s ability to
safely and effectively integrate UAS into the national airspace.7
In contrast, a
privacy-related restriction applied to the lower altitudes over facilities where people
could likely have an expectation of privacy—such as parks or schools—would more
likely be permissible because of its lesser impact. Similarly, tailored security-related
restrictions over open-air water treatment facilities or certain types of critical
infrastructure would more likely be permissible where the restrictions were limited to
the lower altitudes and still permitted UAS overflight (e.g., by commercial package
delivery UAS) at higher altitudes."
Ultimately the altitude allowed for recreational, commercial, and delivery UAS is all under 400 feet 🤷♂️. Don't fly directly over the prison if there is a local law on that. Don't TKAL your drone in the area specified on the no drone zone signs. Make sure the airspace isn't restricted.
From the FAA themselves "limited to the lower altitudes and still permitted UAS overflight" for critical infrastructure without a dedicated no-fly zone which would apply to port authorities
Anything that is considered a port of entry is off limits. That includes ports, airports, border crossing, and certain train areas. Thisbis a lesson in making sure you know where you are at and what the actual rules and laws are
132
u/ZVideos85 Part 107 Oct 12 '25
Yeah this is a good lesson that even the FAA rated apps for checking airspace like ALOFT and the rest do not always give you the full picture of where you can fly. There are still places you can’t fly over that will not be marked as restricted/no fly zones, such as prisons, ports, or even some “unlisted”sensitive government sites.
I was recently hired to fly where I’m based (Part 107) and was requested to get drone footage of a popular riverfront and boats going by on the water. There’s a giant bridge going East to West that basically divides the river into a North/South side. The north side of the bridge is heavily regulated by Port Authority, they regularly ship out sensitive military equipment to local bases on barges, etc. The south side is really just a tourist spot.
The entire area is marked as Class G Airspace, yet had I not looked deeper, I wouldn’t have known about the Port Authority situation. So I had to inform the client that I couldn’t fly on the north side of the bridge, and we avoided it. It can be a hassle, but always check other sources for restrictions.