New FAA drone rules restrict flying near 10 major US landmarks

... and it's still working. Just think about it :-)

In the US, driving is considered a privilege, not a right. You pretty much need a car in order to have a job (in most places); yet it's tightly regulated, with all sorts of rules for what constitutes a road-worthy vehicle, and if you screw up enough, you lose the privilege entirely. Yet for some reason with think the operation of a drones should be immune to similar rules, and is somehow emblematic of a Constitutionally protected "freedom."

I don't understand that logic.

I think the Ban is not (only) about protecting the monuments itself but also for the protection of the tourists. Remember, those are all pretty crowded places.

I get what you're saying. But I think using drones as an exemplifier of "Freedom" is dubious. If you made a Venn diagram, the people who are fervently pro-drone would be in the same segment as those who buy performance exhaust systems for their Camry, or support open-burning of lawn waste, or keep dogs tied to a post in their back yard.

I think adopting an easy iconography for "Freedom" is ultimately harmful to the concept itself. Witness the frothing at the mouth some people exhibit when someone else burns a flag.

Is not a problem of privacy, is a problem of safety.

Saw same near Audubon site in NE. And earlier this year out west. Am not sure why no one understands that we don't want to see another visual, noise pollutant when we look at the sky.

@rbach44

So you are okay if a SKILLED moron with shoulder marks and a security clearance does that?

Consumer level drones are already being used with alarming effect in middle east conflicts. For example, drones are routinely used to drop grenades and IED's on what was supposed to be the "safe" areas in Mosul, despite the no fly zones in operation. The Iraqi army have reported on daily efforts to shoot down (consumer level) drones and the seemingly endless supply their enemies have.

I am not sure why so many people still think that the only thing a drone can do is "scratch" something. They clearly have not been keeping up to date with the multiple uses that increasingly sophisticated and capable drones can be put to. Drones are now also a very cheap way to get into the air for surveillance or, as the aforementioned describes, attack.

These new no fly zone rules reflect a growing concern among law enforcement and national security analysts that the first major misuse of drones in the West is just around the corner.

Still.
Here is the main question.
How 410 feet are acceptable and 400 feet are not?
What can be done at 390 feet but can not be done from 410 feet away?
You see the point?

They have to set an limit of some value that restricts flying in very close proximity, or making contact with a structure or those working at or visiting that location.

Obtaining prior permission to fly in close proximity also helps control who is permitted, and how prepared officials are to respond to any possible issue, safety, security or other.

That exact distance would probably be increased following any incident that shows it to be ineffective.

I think that those no-fly restrictions will also increase as drones become easier to fly greater distances remotely without an operator being easily identified or apprehended at the scene, where that is deemed necessary.

A terrorist bent on sabotaging a dam or national monument with a drone would be hard to defend against. Perhaps if security were equipped with goose guns ....

I suspect the restrictions are related to use of drones to identify security measures not easily visible from unrestricted areas, and more important to prevent injuries to crowds of people in attendance. Drones have an annoying sound, like large mosquitos, which detract from visitors' enjoyment.

Recon for terrorism

Dams, by their nature, are both difficult and extremely important to protect. An attack that breaches a Dam can have widespread consequences for those in the path of the flooding as well as knocking out hydropower stations.

According to FEMA's executive summary "There are now over 10,000 dams in the United States that are classified as high-hazard potential, meaning that their failure from any means, including an attack, could result in loss of life, significant property damage, lifeline disruption, and environmental damage. "

Visiting Hoover Dam this spring, there is an auto security checkpoint a couple of miles from the dam; reasonable enough given the road. (The original two-lane US highway between Vegas and Phoenix runs right on top of the dam; there is the rather nasty possibility of truck bombs.)

At the dam itself, though, security theater was absent; I went there before dawn to catch the sunrise, and had no trouble wandering around any of the public areas. The visitors' center was closed, of course, but I could walk anywhere around the dam itself, the memorial right next to it, or any of the scenic outlooks in the surrounding area.

That said, I completely understand why they banned drones; the power generators are at a turbine house at the base of the dam, with lots and lots of high-voltage cables running from the turbine house to the transformers on the bluffs. (See https://flic.kr/p/TFTVk8 ). It would be pretty easy for a drone to drift in there and short out something.

I remember flying in a helicopter past the Hoover Dam, the pilot came in downstream and low and swooped up (and over) as we approached the dam. Of course if he'd got it wrong we'd just have been a greasy mark on the concrete. I suspect they don't get to go so close these days.