FAA bans flights below 3000 feet over Ferguson, MO | Hacker News Reader

FAA bans flights below 3000 feet over Ferguson, MO

tfr.faa.gov

28 pointszorpner11 comments

This post was killed by user flags.

Judging simply by the fact that another 10 no-flys have been issued today alone (per that website), I doubt this is really news.

Digging deeper, if you read the details provided, this was done to ensure law enforcement had access to that airspace, presumably so they can fly police helicopters in it. Given that reason, I would assume this is standard operating procedure during any ongoing law enforcement effort.

"Sounds like news but isn't" is a category we could use a lot less of on HN. Please do not post stuff like this. It sounds dramatic, it gets attention, but it ultimately means very little. It certainly doesn't affect anyone here personally (because it likely doesn't affect anyone at all... how many people are actually flying in this space anyway?). And it also provokes no intellectual discussion of any kind. What is there really to say about this aside from "yep, it's happening"?

Don't police and other low-flying aircraft (e.g. news helicopters) tend to coexist without issue, for example during televised car chases?

Context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown

The FAA puts up TFRs (temporary flight restrictions) all the time. Reasons can range from sports events, presidential visits, military exercises, etc. In this case, it could be that there were just too many news helicopters persisting in the area, creating an unsafe environment for each other or for law enforcement aircraft.

What's unusual about this one is that it's right off the runway for a Bravo class airport, and the language of the NOTAM does not provide a clause for regularly scheduled passenger aircraft or other aircraft with pre-filed flight plans under active ATC.

They put this ban up, due to people taking potshots with sidearms at helicopters last night, during the protests.

As a St. Louisan, the social dynamics are much too nuanced to even try to explain, so I'll just say, it has not been good the last couple of days.

https://twitter.com/MatthewKeysLive/status/49926643621314150...

This is a local alderman filming:

https://vine.co/v/MYZmwD9Dqhu

I wonder what prompted it, and if this means they could potentially fine anyone flying RC/Drone aircraft in that area during the NOTAM.

The cynical interpretation is that the police don't want TV helicopters covering their riot control tactics.

NOTAMs apply to all airmen. You can't fly a drone in any other no-fly zone, so this one wouldn't seem to be different.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think this would depend on the eventual outcome of FAA v. Pirker.

The judge in that case found the following:

Neither the Part 1, Section. 1.1, or the 49 U.S.C. Section 40102(a)(6) definitions of "aircraft" are applicable to, or include a model aircraft within their respective definition.

Which means that NOTAMs would not apply to drone operators.

However, the FAA appealed and because of the procedure for transport courts, the appeal immediately stays that decision.

Probably the fact that some people were shooting firearms at the police helicopters during the riot.

Im sorry is there any more context to this? It seems a Rodney King-a-like incident, cop shoots kid and riots ensue.

Is this to give the cops free air to fly in without worrying they might hit a private plane, or is this a bit more "we don't want any maniacs crashing into us"?

Seems a bit drastic - can you imagine banning of driving cars for this long or this far?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com