What do you believe is flying over New Jersey?

[Klaus M]

There is Federal Aviation Regulations(FARs) (107) being broken and no one has been given a violation. There's many youtube videos showing Unmanned Aircraft Systems(UAS) operating over people.

107.39 Operation over human beings.​

No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft over a human being unless—

(a) That human being is directly participating in the operation of the small unmanned aircraft;

(b) That human being is located under a covered structure or inside a stationary vehicle that can provide reasonable protection from a falling small unmanned aircraft; or

(c) The operation meets the requirements of at least one of the operational categories specified in subpart D of this part.

107.43 Operation in the vicinity of airports.​

No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft in a manner that interferes with operations and traffic patterns at any airport, heliport, or seaplane base.

There's more FARs then these being broken and the FAA is no were to be found...

Federal Register :: Request Access

 

[midlifeflyer]

If you haven’t yet, go to your EFBs, turn on the TFR layer, and scroll up to NJ.

 

[DaleB]

Unless it was an editorial or a person stating their opinon in an interview, a journalist shouldn’t be stating their opinion. Their job is to present facts, so basically just read the telemprompter.

I'm guessing you don't watch much TV. It wasn't a news program, though it was on one of the numerous so-called "news network" channels. Doesn't matter which, they are equally slimy and virtually indistinguishable other than by their political leaning. It was one of the innumerable vacuous time fillers that seem to occupy most of them. Please, please don't get me started on the rise of 24 hour "news" channels and the decline of civilization.

There is Federal Aviation Regulations(FARs) (107) being broken and no one has been given a violation. There's many youtube videos showing Unmanned Aircraft Systems(UAS) operating over people.

There's more FARs then these being broken and the FAA is no were to be found...

Perhaps true, but there are plenty operating legally as well - and not under Part 107, but under something like 49 USC 44809. Most hobby drone flyers don't operate under Part 107. And how exactly would you propose that the FAA root out some guy flying his FPV drone in a manner that actually does violate regulations? They have neither the people nor the equipment. You see a drone flying around somewhere it's not supposed to be -- near an airport, hovering over a crowd, whatever. How exactly would you think the FAA would a.) know it's going on while it's still going on, and b.) determine who's operating the drone?

 

[Klaus M]

I'm guessing you don't watch much TV. It wasn't a news program, though it was on one of the numerous so-called "news network" channels. Doesn't matter which, they are equally slimy and virtually indistinguishable other than by their political leaning. It was one of the innumerable vacuous time fillers that seem to occupy most of them. Please, please don't get me started on the rise of 24 hour "news" channels and the decline of civilization.



Perhaps true, but there are plenty operating legally as well - and not under Part 107, but under something like 49 USC 44809. Most hobby drone flyers don't operate under Part 107. And how exactly would you propose that the FAA root out some guy flying his FPV drone in a manner that actually does violate regulations? They have neither the people nor the equipment. You see a drone flying around somewhere it's not supposed to be -- near an airport, hovering over a crowd, whatever. How exactly would you think the FAA would a.) know it's going on while it's still going on, and b.) determine who's operating the drone?

I'll post the link to FAR 107 again:
'https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-107

According to FAR 107 there's different "Categories" of UAS operations. If these drones that are causing all the hysteria are not flying under part 107 then the government is obligated to inform the tax paying public what they are doing over U.S. soil.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

If you haven’t yet, go to your EFBs, turn on the TFR layer, and scroll up to NJ.

A pock marked with little TFR bubbles from 0-400 agl. How in the hell is that going to be enforced?

 

[Daleandee]

A pock marked with little TFR bubbles from 0-400 agl. How in the hell is that going to be enforced?

From Skyvector:

 

[GaryM]

A pock marked with little TFR bubbles from 0-400 agl. How in the hell is that going to be enforced?

By drones?

 

[Albany Tom]

The last time the thing that the US media was talking about was actually what was the most important thing going on, part of NYC was on fire and there were zero aircraft flying over the sectional clip above.

You'll get a better picture of what's going on by walking into the most run down bar in your town, finding the old guy trying to bum beers from people, and asking HIM what the problems are than you will watching any network news program.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

If you haven’t yet, go to your EFBs, turn on the TFR layer, and scroll up to NJ.

From Skyvector:

View attachment 136352

So, after briefly looking at ALL of those -

* They all apply only to UAS operations and not to manned aircraft
* All but one are for PSE&G switching stations or substations, the other is for an arsenal and is larger and higher
* Almost all of them are 1nm and 400 AGL.

So, has there been some sort of threat against the electrical power infrastructure in NJ, or are they merely trying to ensure the hysteria is somewhat controlled in sensitive locations and give them some teeth to bust people with?

 

[Sierra_Hotel]

Well that's new It was just the one over Picatinny and a smaller one south of there when I looked the other day.

 

[DaleB]

I'll post the link to FAR 107 again:
'https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-107

According to FAR 107 there's different "Categories" of UAS operations. If these drones that are causing all the hysteria are not flying under part 107 then the government is obligated to inform the tax paying public what they are doing over U.S. soil.

Since you've posted the link twice, maybe go there and read the whole thing. It's important to read from the beginning, including the part about "Applicability" right up there at the top. There are operations that are excluded from Part 107. Anyone can buy a small drone not covered under Part 107 and fly it with no requirement to notify or get permission from anyone. For bigger stuff, there's Part 91.

For drones that fall under Part 107, there's still no requirement to notify or get permission from the FAA or anyone else when operating. Someone seeing lights in the distance and panicking because they think it's a drone doesn't mean it actually IS a drone, and even if it is, it's hard to say it's operating illegally unless it's somewhere with an actual restriction - like an airspace restriction - and even then it could be legal. Lots of allowed exceptions there, too.

And let's say, just for the sake of argument, that I've got a "drone the size of an SUV" or "drone the size of a bus" as has been reported. We'll suspend disbelief over those nonsensical claims for a few minutes. It would either be operated under Part 91, or it would be military. If it's Part 91, there's again no requirement to get permission or notify anyone before flying - as long as you stay legal under part 91. If it's military, I struggle to think of a reason it would be buzzing around suburban NJ at all unless it's operating from a military base. If it's military and operating in or near a base... again, no requirement that the Army or AF tell anyone about it.

For the most part it doesn't seem to even be drones that are causing hysteria. So far all of the footage I've seen of people panicking over "drones" are clearly not drones. I'm mystified as to how anyone could post video of a help or airplane flying along at night and get worked up about nefarious spy drones unless they're either just not very bright, or intentionally trying to cause panic.

 

[Bob Noel]

um, within some airspace, FAA coordination is required, even for the little itsy-bitsy hobby drone I have, even below 200' agl. I'm within the lateral boundaries on a Class D. I do the coorindation . . every . . single . . time.

 

[Half Fast]

I'll post the link to FAR 107 again:
'https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-107

According to FAR 107 there's different "Categories" of UAS operations. If these drones that are causing all the hysteria are not flying under part 107 then the government is obligated to inform the tax paying public what they are doing over U.S. soil.

From part 107,

(b) This part does not apply to the following:​

​

​

(1) Air carrier operations;​

​

(2) Any aircraft subject to the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 44809;​

​

(3) Any operation that the holder of an exemption under section 333 of Public Law 112-95 or 49 U.S.C. 44807 elects to conduct pursuant to the exemption, unless otherwise specified in the exemption; or​

​

(4) Any operation that a person elects to conduct under part 91 of this chapter with a small unmanned aircraft system that has been issued an airworthiness certificate.​

Now, from 49 USC 44809,

§ 44809. Exception for limited recreational oper-​

ations of unmanned aircraft​

(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in sub-​

section (e), and notwithstanding chapter 447 of​

title 49, United States Code, a person may oper-​

ate a small unmanned aircraft without specific​

certification or operating authority from the​

Federal Aviation Administration if the oper-​

ation adheres to all of the following limitations:​

(1) The aircraft is flown strictly for rec-​

reational purposes.​

(2) The aircraft is operated in accordance​

with or within the programming of a commu-​

nity-based organization’s set of safety guide-​

lines that are developed in coordination with​

the Federal Aviation Administration.​

(3) The aircraft is flown within the visual​

line of sight of the person operating the air-​

craft or a visual observer co-located and in di-​

rect communication with the operator.​

(4) The aircraft is operated in a manner that​

does not interfere with and gives way to any​

manned aircraft.​

​

Now, given these exceptions, could you please explain why you wrote, "If these drones that are causing all the hysteria are not flying under part 107 then the government is obligated to inform the tax paying public what they are doing over U.S. soil?"

These drones, at least some of them, could be flying under any of these 107 exemptions. They're not obligated to inform the USG, so why is the USG "obligated to inform the tax paying public?"

 

[DaleB]

um, within some airspace, FAA coordination is required, even for the little itsy-bitsy hobby drone I have, even below 200' agl. I'm within the lateral boundaries on a Class D. I do the coorindation . . every . . single . . time.

Yes. All right there in the applicable regs, whether it's 91, 107, or 49.

These drones, at least some of them, could be flying under any of these 107 exemptions. They're not obligated to inform the USG, so why is the USG "obligated to inform the tax paying public?"

Well, to be fair... they kind of HAVE informed the public, via the applicable regulations, about what can be flying overhead. Answer: Anything covered by numerous parts of the regulations, legally. Anything else, maybe not legal... but it still happens, probably quite often, and there's really not much that can be done about it.

 

[Lindberg]

If these drones that are causing all the hysteria are not flying under part 107 then the government is obligated to inform the tax paying public what they are doing over U.S. soil.

It might surprise you that there's precious little the government is obligated to inform the tax-paying public about. (Not to mention those who don't pay taxes.)

 

[Lindberg]

...Or it flew as far as it could to get out of sight, and then re-approached the ship from a different direction to return to its owner.

Or just wanted to get a wide-angle shot of the full ship.

 

[Klaus M]

I'm not sure what is going on with many of you posting here. Why defend these rule breakers?

The Senate Majority Leader is even proposing new legislation (S. 1631) to help authorities to identify these UAS regulation breakers. If all of these drone sightings are just Venus, 737s or mind-your-own-business government operations then why is so many people in the know taking it to the next level?

 

[Bob Noel]

I'm not sure what is going on with many of you posting here. Why defend these rule breakers?

The Senate Majority Leader is even proposing new legislation (S. 1631) to help authorities to identify these UAS regulation breakers. If all of these drone sightings are just Venus, 737s or mind-your-own-business government operations then why is so many people in the know taking it to the next level?

perhaps because they aren't actually "in the know"?

or they are deliberately trying to distract us from something else

or they are looking for a power grab

or whatever other conspiracy theory someone might want to advance (paging Jerry Fletcher, paging Jerry Fletcher).

But I'll go with the simple answer, because they aren't actually "in the know"

 

[ateamer]

I'm not sure what is going on with many of you posting here. Why defend these rule breakers?

The Senate Majority Leader is even proposing new legislation (S. 1631) to help authorities to identify these UAS regulation breakers. If all of these drone sightings are just Venus, 737s or mind-your-own-business government operations then why is so many people in the know taking it to the next level?

First, that assumes that politicians are in the know. A lot of them think they’re in the know, but all they do is put two and two together and coming up with tater tots.

More than anything, this proposed legislation is just more “won’t anybody think of the children?” virtue signaling.

 

[DaleB]

I'm not sure what is going on with many of you posting here. Why defend these rule breakers?

The Senate Majority Leader is even proposing new legislation (S. 1631) to help authorities to identify these UAS regulation breakers. If all of these drone sightings are just Venus, 737s or mind-your-own-business government operations then why is so many people in the know taking it to the next level?

Who's defending rule breakers? I haven't seen anyone doing that. As for those "in the know"... you appear to have picked an exceptionally poor example of that term. And when have you ever known any government agency, employee, elected official, or body thereof to miss the opportunity for a press conference and a power grab? None spring immediately to mind.

 

[kyleb]

I'm not sure what is going on with many of you posting here. Why defend these rule breakers?

The Senate Majority Leader is even proposing new legislation (S. 1631) to help authorities to identify these UAS regulation breakers. If all of these drone sightings are just Venus, 737s or mind-your-own-business government operations then why is so many people in the know taking it to the next level?

Politicians who don't take action **** off the people who are complaining. So if you're a politician, it is much better to take symbolic (but wasteful and ineffective) action than to say "There's no problem here."

 

[Bob Noel]

Politicians who don't take action **** off the people who are complaining. So if you're a politician, it is much better to take symbolic (but wasteful and ineffective) action than to say "There's no problem here."

and the ultimate example of this gave us the TSA. ta-da!

 

[Ed Haywood]

Nobody likes the TSA, but it was a necessary reaction to a very real problem.

 

[Bob Noel]

Nobody likes the TSA, but it was a necessary reaction to a very real problem.

Well, it was definitely a reaction, but, unfortunately, not a solution.

 

[Ed Haywood]

Well, it was definitely a reaction, but, unfortunately, not a solution.

How many hijackings have there been on US flights since the TSA was formed?

 

[Dana]

How many hijackings have there been on US flights since the TSA was formed?

None, of course. The passengers on the fourth flight on 9/11 proved they won't stand for it any more.

 

[Daleandee]

or they are looking for a power grab

Politicians appear to me to be about money or power, so of the choices given this would be my guess ...

 

[Randomskylane]

FAA bans drones over parts of New Jersey, threatens ‘deadly force’ for ‘imminent security threat’

The government may use “deadly force” against the drones if they present an “imminent security threat,” the Federal Aviation Administration’s notice said.

nypost.com

If you believe the nypost…

 

[NoHeat]

If you believe the nypost…

Avweb version:

FAA Institutes Multiple TFRs In Response To NJ Drones

The FAA instituted a series of 22 new Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) late yesterday prohibiting flight of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS—aka drones)

www.avweb.com

 

[MikeNY]

Avweb version:

FAA Institutes Multiple TFRs In Response To NJ Drones

The FAA instituted a series of 22 new Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) late yesterday prohibiting flight of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS—aka drones)

www.avweb.com

@NoHeat Thanks for the information.
Looks like location/list may be ... expanding.




Beginning Date and Time : December 18, 2024 at 2130 UTC
Ending Date and Time : January 17, 2025 at 2130 UTC
Reason for NOTAM : Temporary flight restrictions for Special Security Reasons
Radius: 1 nautical miles
Altitude: From the surface up to and including 400 feet AGL
Operating Restrictions and Requirements
No UAS operations are authorized in the areas covered by this NOTAM (except as described).

 

[Lindberg]

How many hijackings have there been on US flights since the TSA was formed?

There were the same number of successful hijackings in the US in the ten years before 9/11 as there were in the ten years after 9/11: zero.

Making policy based on black swan events is foolish. Besides, TSA screening, which misses 90% of the weapons that go through airport checkpoints, isn't the reason we haven't had another 9/11 style attack.

 

[Lindberg]

I'm not sure what is going on with many of you posting here. Why defend these rule breakers?

Who's breaking the rules, and which rules are they breaking?

 

[Silvaire]

Nobody likes the TSA, but it was a necessary reaction to a very real problem.

Twenty three years ago in December 2001 a guy got on a plane with a firecracker in his shoe and to this day I still have to take my shoes off to get on a flight, at least until I'm 75 when I'll be allowed to keep them on.

 

[Sierra_Hotel]

FAA bans drones over parts of New Jersey, threatens ‘deadly force’ for ‘imminent security threat’

The government may use “deadly force” against the drones if they present an “imminent security threat,” the Federal Aviation Administration’s notice said.

nypost.com

If you believe the nypost…

Faa Tfr Drones New Jersey

For those who think it's easier to annoy you than to Google 'Faa tfr drones new jersey' themselves.

letmegooglethat.com

 

[donjohnston]

Twenty three years ago in December 2001 a guy got on a plane with a firecracker in his shoe and to this day I still have to take my shoes off to get on a flight, at least until I'm 75 when I'll be allowed to keep them on.

I haven't had to take my shoes off while going through TSA for about 15 years.

 

[Lindberg]

Twenty three years ago in December 2001 a guy got on a plane with a firecracker in his shoe and to this day I still have to take my shoes off to get on a flight, at least until I'm 75 when I'll be allowed to keep them on.

You can pay $80 to not have to take off your shoes. And 12-year-olds don't have to take off their shoes because, I guess, little bombs.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

I have learned a lot in this thread. Thank you all.

 

[Bob Noel]

You can pay $80 to not have to take off your shoes. And 12-year-olds don't have to take off their shoes because, I guess, little bombs.

I remember one time go through "security" where this little 2 year old girl was forced to take off her shoes. The look on her face was like "why are you taking my shoes" as only a 2 year old can do...

 

[Lindberg]

There's a decent article in the NYTimes, for those who subscribe. I don't want to ruin it for you, but in case you want a spoiler:

It's airplanes and helicopters with a very small number of legal drones mixed in.

 

[Bill]

Growing up our house was on 2mi final to a runway at a major class B hub. Our house was on a knoll, and on a clear night one could see the incoming flights lined up for a great distance, you could see at least 7-8 incoming, and the ones in the distance just appeared to hover and not move.

At night it’s very hard to discern distance, and depending on flight direction there may be little observable relative movement to a ground observer. Add heat shimmers, and there you have it. It’s gotta be a drone, UFO, or some other nefarious flying object.