Hello Fellow Yuneec Pilot!
Join our free Yuneec community and remove this annoying banner!
Sign up

Educate Me

T

TomC9000

Guest
#1
OK, so I went to fly today to a reservoir that I have flown before (36 24'24.80 N 118 59'47.80 W) called Lake Kaweah in CA. I checked my AirMap and I was OK by their info, but before I got off the ground a Sheriff stopped and told me that I could not fly over the lake. So I said OK and asked if he new why, told me to check the posted letter at the ranger station. So went back, took a picture of the letter, which I have posted. I can't find to much on the net about this so I thought I would ask you guys that have been doing this way longer than me. Also the lake is built by the Army Engineer Corps. Can you educate me.
IMG_20180507_134853372.jpg
map.jpg
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2016
Messages
412
Likes
110
Age
58
#2
Its considered Critical Infrastructure, the Army Engineer Corps look after it and it is out of bounds to fly. Not worth fighting it in court. It will cost you more than its worth.
 
Likes: TomC9000
Joined
Feb 24, 2017
Messages
1,070
Likes
653
Location
Central Florida
#3
Hmmm, might take a little more digging to find the right answer but, I suspect if you call your local FAA Field office they may be able to provide answers. I checked The charts for that area which is FootHill 2 MOA (Military Operations Area) and saw a MTR (Military Training Route) designated as an IFR Training route that literally seems to stop at the reservoir - its IR203 so it has segments of the route at or above 1500 feet. I see that notice has a nearly four year old date so I would probably call the FAA to get the most up-to-date info. Sometimes the apps we use may or may not include some of the latest information.

Map1.jpg
 
Likes: TomC9000
T

TomC9000

Guest
#4
Its considered Critical Infrastructure, the Army Engineer Corps look after it and it is out of bounds to fly. Not worth fighting it in court. It will cost you more than its worth.
Had no plans to fight in court, just trying to learn.
 
Likes: WiteTigr
Joined
Nov 8, 2016
Messages
412
Likes
110
Age
58
#5
Had no plans to fight in court, just trying to learn.
Ya I kind of figured you would not but anything to do with the Army Engineer Corps looking after the area you are pretty much out of luck flying there.
 
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
25
Likes
4
Age
61
#6
In all my studying I never saw a thing that gave the army corps any rites to air space
I would call the FAA officer, if it aint on the official maps there is room for debate.
Just depends on how much you really want to fly there
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2016
Messages
412
Likes
110
Age
58
#7
Its called "Critical Infrastructure" look that up on the FAA site, you might be surprised at what you read.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2016
Messages
412
Likes
110
Age
58
#9
Look up federally managed dams and lakes. PatR made a post about this some months ago and he has a lake near him that he cannot fly over becuase of this very reason.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2016
Messages
412
Likes
110
Age
58
#10
Yup said helicopters, planes and frizbees can fly over it but he can't with his UAV
 
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
25
Likes
4
Age
61
#12
as usual the government being vague as hell
I would imagine if there were some dire need to shoot there some permits or approval could be obtained, but is it worth it for casual flying, most likely not
 
T

TomC9000

Guest
#13
I could call my old commanding officer from Vietnam, but it's not worth the favor! LOL :p
 

DoomMeister

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 25, 2017
Messages
1,282
Likes
275
#14
I would say to contact the District Commander for the Army Corp of Engineers. According to CFR 36 that is the ruling authority in this instance.

Do manned aircraft fly over the property, or seaplanes land there? I don’t quite understand why it would be a security problem when Google Earth can provide basically the same view as an UAS.

Here is the paragraph referred to and it comes direct from the Government Publishing Office eCFR site.
§327.4 Aircraft.
(a) This section pertains to all aircraft including, but not limited to, airplanes, seaplanes, helicopters, ultra-light aircraft, motorized hang gliders, hot air balloons, any non-powered flight devices or any other such equipment.

(b) The operation of aircraft on project lands at locations other than those designated by the District Commander is prohibited. This provision shall not be applicable to aircraft engaged on official business of Federal, state or local governments or law enforcement agencies, aircraft used in emergency rescue in accordance with the directions of the District Commander or aircraft forced to land due to circumstances beyond the control of the operator.

(c) No person shall operate any aircraft while on or above project waters or project lands in a careless, negligent or reckless manner so as to endanger any person, property or environmental feature.

(d) Nothing in this section bestows authority to deviate from rules and regulations or prescribed standards of the appropriate State Aeronautical Agency, or the Federal Aviation Administration, including, but not limited to, regulations and standards concerning pilot certifications or ratings, and airspace requirements.

(e) Except in extreme emergencies threatening human life or serious property loss, the air delivery or retrieval of any person, material or equipment by parachute, balloon, helicopter or other means onto or from project lands or waters without written permission of the District Commander is prohibited.

(f) In addition to the provisions in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section, seaplanes are subject to the following restrictions:

(1) Such use is limited to aircraft utilized for water landings and takeoff, in this part called seaplanes, at the risk of owner, operator and passenger(s).

(2) Seaplane operations contrary to the prohibitions or restrictions established by the District Commander (pursuant to part 328 of this title) are prohibited. The responsibility to ascertain whether seaplane operations are prohibited or restricted is incumbent upon the person(s) contemplating the use of, or using, such waters.

(3) All operations of seaplanes while upon project waters shall be in accordance with U.S. Coast Guard navigation rules for powerboats or vessels and §327.3.

(4) Seaplanes on project waters and lands in excess of 24 hours shall be securely moored at mooring facilities and at locations permitted by the District Commander. Seaplanes may be temporarily moored on project waters and lands, except in areas prohibited by the District Commander, for periods less than 24 hours providing:

(i) The mooring is safe, secure, and accomplished so as not to damage the rights of the Government or members of the public, and

(ii) The operator remains in the vicinity of the seaplane and reasonably available to relocate the seaplane if necessary.

(5) Commercial operation of seaplanes from project waters is prohibited without written approval of the District Commander following consultation with and necessary clearance from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and other appropriate public authorities and affected interests.

(6) Seaplanes may not be operated at Corps projects between sunset and sunrise unless approved by the District Commander.
 
Joined
May 1, 2016
Messages
6,701
Likes
2,638
Location
N. California
#15
Look up federally managed dams and lakes. PatR made a post about this some months ago and he has a lake near him that he cannot fly over becuase of this very reason.
There are actually several lakes near me, with surrounding areas that qualify as municipal watershed that are forbidden flight areas for drones and RC aircraft. You can overfly them but at altitudes normally reserved for full scale aircraft, meaning not below 500’ AGL. You cannot take off or land from those areas. Folsom Lake in CA has also recently been awarded these restrictions. It all falls under agreements between the municipal water districts, Army Corps of Engineers, Dept of Homeland Security, and the FAA and is legal under “special rules to protect infrastructure”. If you spend some time on the phone with the water agencies you can obtain full copies of the regulatory agreement.

They are not marked on aerial navigation charts. If you elect to attempt obtaining permission I hope you have better luck than I have had.
 
Joined
Jun 8, 2017
Messages
82
Likes
13
Age
25
#16
Ya I kind of figured you would not but anything to do with the Army Engineer Corps looking after the area you are pretty much out of luck flying there.
I had to fly some USACE property for work, and getting ahold of the right person to get permission took forever. Once I did getting permission was easy, but it is not easy to know what number to call and who to email was not easy.

edit- and finding that it would have been an issue to fly without permission was even more difficult. I don't mind that I needed permission as much as I did how unclear it was. I had to dig deep in their website to find anything about that. If stuff like this could make its way onto the FAA GIS map that would make it so much easier for people that want to fly to make sure they're not breaking rules.
 
Joined
May 1, 2016
Messages
6,701
Likes
2,638
Location
N. California
#18
MM1992,

You encountered the same issues I did, locating the right people. Those holding day to day control of a facility are typically not the people in charge of decision making and those with that authority seem to like a long and involved process of multiple meetings with distant superiors to develop a secondary set of stipulations before a consensus can be arrived at to establish a single use permission set. While all that is taking place low level employees of the agency will be flying their personal stuff in the area without restriction.
 
Joined
Apr 29, 2018
Messages
47
Likes
4
Age
50
#19
Guys, If you think about it, the restrictions make sense. High-resolution photography done at low altitudes can reveal weaknesses in security systems that could give individuals who wish to cause damage for political reasons intelligence that may enable them to wreak havoc on critical infrastructure.
 
T

TomC9000

Guest
#20
Guys, If you think about it, the restrictions make sense. High-resolution photography done at low altitudes can reveal weaknesses in security systems that could give individuals who wish to cause damage for political reasons intelligence that may enable them to wreak havoc on critical infrastructure.
I don't have a problem with the restrictions, most of the dams have no fly zone over them anyway, I just wish that Homeland and the FAA could get together to make it more clear on maps. Also if it's a recreational lake, that has boats, jetski's, fisherman, backpackers, RV's, all that can carry and use high-res camera's that can get closer to the dam than a drone is allowed to, then it doesn't seem right in the call.
 

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
12,437
Messages
141,329
Members
15,003
Latest member
qiandu