FAA Rules --Cell , Radio and TV tower operation

[tacocat]

Recently i was contacted by a fellow surveyor to locate a long winding creek that was in a low swampy area. I was doing a planned flight grid with ground control points through out the grid as well as some located on his traverse points. a cell tower with no guy wires is located +/- 1500' / 2000' from some of my control points and a small part of the creek. As i was placing my targets when an adjoining property owner came up an said i would be violating FAA rules by flying within 2000' of the tower. I said i would check into it. he also said to "keep that ****”. thing away from my property" funny guy. the issue im having is finding any FAA rules that state you cant fly within 2000' of the tower. iv found where they recommend you not fly within 2000' of guy wires. is there , or was there a rule about this? it seems i remember something but i cant find anything.

 

[SanCap]

There is no such rule around cell towers or guy wires.

 

[Phaedrus]

In fact, Part 107 clearly states that you can fly up to 400 feet above the top of the tower when WITHIN 400 feet of said tower.

 

[tacocat]

In fact, Part 107 clearly states that you can fly up to 400 feet above the top of the tower when WITHIN 400 feet of said tower.

i had read the same thing and remember a question on the part 107 test about that very thing.

 

[rangemaster728]

The FAA recommends staying clear of a 2000’ tower as much as 2000’ horizontally at the base because of the presence of guy wires.

This is not a regulation, merely a recommendation... obviously on a free-standing tower that has no guy wires there is no concern.

107.51 (a)(2)....Phaedrus is correct.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Recently i was contacted by a fellow surveyor to locate a long winding creek that was in a low swampy area. I was doing a planned flight grid with ground control points through out the grid as well as some located on his traverse points. a cell tower with no guy wires is located +/- 1500' / 2000' from some of my control points and a small part of the creek. As i was placing my targets when an adjoining property owner came up an said i would be violating FAA rules by flying within 2000' of the tower. I said i would check into it. he also said to "keep that ****”. thing away from my property" funny guy. the issue im having is finding any FAA rules that state you cant fly within 2000' of the tower. iv found where they recommend you not fly within 2000' of guy wires. is there , or was there a rule about this? it seems i remember something but i cant find anything.

Balderdash, no such rule. I guess this is just my past LE experience, but if that happened to me I would immediately file a report with the sheriff or PD. He did threaten your personal property. In the case you have future troubles with this individual now the sheriff has a history on file.

 

[BigAl07]

...... an said i would be violating FAA rules by flying within 2000' of the tower......

I would have asked him to cite his source and let him know that I have an FAA Part 107 and other credentials. I remember some "Training" company has a "Pilot Packet" with informational literature to print and have ready to hand-out to someone questioning your flights. It might have been Drone-U. Not a bad idea.

Even though Part 107 isn't really that impressive it does show you have at least taken and passed a basic sUAS/Aeronautical Test. It gives some indication you have some skin in the game.

 

[jacob.c]

I have been helping out a surveyor who is FAA Part 107 licensed, and mainly locates potential sites for cell towers. He wears a bright neon yellow safety vest with the words "FAA LICENSED DRONE PILOT" "do not disturb" or something to that effect written on the back . He claims it has helped reduce the amount of altercations with adjacent property owners when he wears it. The funnier thing i noticed; is how quickly these angry owners change their tune and even give permission to fly over their land, when they realize he has the power to offer them monthly rent if he chooses a location on their land.

 

[tacocat]

I would have asked him to cite his source and let him know that I have an FAA Part 107 and other credentials. I remember some "Training" company has a "Pilot Packet" with informational literature to print and have ready to hand-out to someone questioning your flights. It might have been Drone-U. Not a bad idea.

Even though Part 107 isn't really that impressive it does show you have at least taken and passed a basic sUAS/Aeronautical Test. It gives some indication you have some skin in the game.

great idea.i'm going to look into that. thanks!!!

 

[tacocat]

Balderdash, no such rule. I guess this is just my past LE experience, but if that happened to me I would immediately file a report with the sheriff or PD. He did threaten your personal property. In the case you have future troubles with this individual now the sheriff has a history on file.

i didn't think of it that way, its always good to have a paper trail. Thanks

 

[dronecyclops]

I remember some "Training" company has a "Pilot Packet" with informational literature to print and have ready to hand-out to someone questioning your flights. It might have been Drone-U. Not a bad idea.

I did print it out to keep with me

https://www.faa.gov/uas/public_safety_gov/media/law_enforcement_drone_card.pdf

 

[R.Perry]

The 2000 foot advisory was written for aircraft and helicopters, reason is basic common sense. Most of these towers are less than a 1000 ft so most prudent pilots will stay clear of them. Crop dusters on the other hand need to stay keenly aware of their location. Many farms today have towers on the farms.

 

[BigAl07]

I did print it out to keep with me

https://www.faa.gov/uas/public_safety_gov/media/law_enforcement_drone_card.pdf

That's one devoted to Law Enforcement and how they deal with sUAS issues. I'll find the one I'm talking about and post it back here (assuming I can find it LOL).

 

[dronecyclops]

That's one devoted to Law Enforcement and how they deal with sUAS issues. I'll find the one I'm talking about and post it back here (assuming I can find it LOL).

Please do this was the only one I had

 

[BigAl07]

Please do this was the only one I had

I found the one I was looking for but it's pre-2018 so the rules have significantly changed. I've contacted the company who put this one out and let them know it's very out of date. Once I locate a CURRENT one (or they update this one to current regulations) I'll share it here as well.

 

[Kristina Fowler]

Section 107.51 Operating limitations for small unmanned aircraft.
Here is the actual text of the regulation:

“A remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system must comply with all of the following operating limitations when operating a small unmanned aircraft system:

(a) The ground speed of the small unmanned aircraft may not exceed 87 knots (100 miles per hour).

(b) The altitude of the small unmanned aircraft cannot be higher than 400 feet above ground level, unless the small unmanned aircraft:

(1) Is flown within a 400-foot radius of a structure; and

(2) Does not fly higher than 400 feet above the structure’s immediate uppermost limit.

Your conundrum is an inescapable part of this business. The landowner is threating you and daring you to prove him wrong, on his home court, in a limited time-span, with no witnesses. Advantage: landowner. Best bet (although extremely inconvenient) is to shut it down and contact L.E.O. - IN PERSON - and have a civil conversation with them. I find they will always default to the rule of law (be prepared to show credentials and cite Part 107) and they'll have no other choice than to contact the landowner in your behalf. The minute you introduce "sunlight" [a third party L.E.O.], the landowner's point become moot and he becomes powerless. However, it does not guarantee a peaceful resolution, since the landowner may become defiant. Also, consider contacting your local FAA field office and simply ask for suggestions.

 

[BigAl07]

Please do this was the only one I had

I spoke with the creators of the material I was mentioning yesterday... they are currently updating their packet and said they "hope" to have it completely up to date in under 2 weeks. Everything in the packet is already available from various sources "online" but this company compiles it all together into a single easy to download, print, and archive packet.

Once I see it's released and can review it, I'll share it here.

 

[dronecyclops]

I spoke with the creators of the material I was mentioning yesterday... they are currently updating their packet and said they "hope" to have it completely up to date in under 2 weeks. Everything in the packet is already available from various sources "online" but this company compiles it all together into a single easy to download, print, and archive packet.

Once I see it's released and can review it, I'll share it here.

Great lookin forward to its release Thanks

 

[BenMcCormick]

There is a cell tower 2400' from my house. I know this by right clicking mouse in google maps, then selecting "Measure Distance". Going west the flight path takes it 1400' next to the tower, I get a strong interference message, and the Mavic Air returns home. If I stay away from the tower, go east, south, or north, no problem. I'm guessing that the cell tower Tx signal is overloading the front end of the drone receiver, or if the receiver isn't shielded enough, the front end amplifiers get overloaded and the control signal is lost. Could be just a faulty shield on my drone, poor design, or the way the directional Tx pattern of the cell tower is situated. Your mileage will vary, functionality depends on many factors.

 

[Russ Still]

https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo/all_safos/media/2010/safo10015.pdf