Edgewater FRIA application status

[scottyorr]

I've read/seen in several instances (with AMA fields that were denied) that a common reason for denial is the boundaries on an application are too loosely (or inappropriately) drawn, and that resubmitting with appropriate boundaries is often successful. I suspect, maybe wrongly, that some of the Flite Test buildings and active roadways were included within the boundaries of the flying areas.

I currently fly at an AMA field that is very near a school. We are not allowed to fly over the school property or even during school hours. Our application was at first denied, but after correcting our application (following advice from AMA) and resubmission, we just received word that we have been approved.

Please try again on Edgewater. Don't give up.

 

[WillL84]

Edgewater's problem might have to do with the fact that it's still an active golf course

 

[Merv]

You would think the FAA would give us some guidance on what they are looking for.
The answer is NO, guess again.
Do you suppose they think we can read their mind.

 

[scottyorr]

Edgewater's problem might have to do with the fact that it's still an active golf course

Thanks for that info. That could certainly make a difference! Are the airpark and golf club open at the same times or do they restrict one or the other to certain times?

 

[bitogre]

Thanks for that info. That could certainly make a difference! Are the airpark and golf club open at the same times or do they restrict one or the other to certain times?

They are open at the same time but are on different parts of the property. From the videos I have seen, FliteTest did not try to get the entirety of EdgeWater to be a FRIA, only the part that currently is exclusively used for RC aircraft.

 

[Boxo53]

You would think the FAA would give us some guidance on what they are looking for.
The answer is NO, guess again.
Do you suppose they think we can read their mind.

Well, not to take the FAA side, but in the interest of factual information, the FAA did publish the guidelines.
Buried in the big document and written in FAA-ese.

14 CFR 89.215 Also known as Federal Air Regulation 89.215- which is , in fact, federal law.

I'm adding my Informal, Unofficial remarks in Italics. FWIW, My perspective is as a FAA licensed Commercial pilot and A&P mechanic for over 50 years- and somewhat familiar with FAA regulations.

§ 89.215 Approval of FAA-recognized identification areas.​

The Administrator will assess applications for FAA-recognized identification areas and may require additional information or documentation, as needed, to supplement an application. The Administrator will approve or deny an application, and may take into consideration matters such as, but not limited to:

(a) The existence of any FAA established flight or airspace restriction limiting the operation of unmanned aircraft systems, such as special use airspace designations under part 73 of this chapter, temporary flight restrictions issued under part 91 of this chapter, or any other special flight rule, restriction or regulation in this chapter limiting the operation of unmanned aircraft systems in the interest of safety, efficiency, national security and/or homeland security, which overlaps with the proposed FAA-recognized identification area. This means any airspace already designated for full size operations- Airport control zones, Prohibited areas, etc.

(b) The safe and efficient use of airspace by other aircraft. Can't be under the approach of Controlled or UNcontrolled full-size airports, near seaplane bases, etc,

(c) The safety and security of persons or property on the ground. The Catch-All. Essentially means can't be over a road, building, established walking trail, railroad tracks and such..

(d) The need for an FAA-recognized identification area in the proposed location and proximity of other FAA-recognized identification areas. Means that the FAA doesn't want too many FRIAs close together. Another club down the road has one already approved? Make a deal to use theirs.



I hope this helps understand the overall situation. And please don't shoot the messenger

 

[Merv]

Well, not to take the FAA side, but in the interest of factual information, the FAA did publish the guidelines.
Buried in the big document and written in FAA-ese....
...(c) The safety and security of persons or property on the ground. The Catch-All. Essentially means can't be over a road, building, established walking trail, railroad tracks and such....

You are obviously much more fluent in FAA-ese than I am.

Cause I don't see anything that remotely comes close to your explanation. But who knows, you may be correct

If they wanted to give some guidance, they could have made bullet points. Not buried it in a big document using oblique language.

 

[Mr NCT]

If they wanted to give some guidance, they could have made bullet points. Not buried it in a big document using oblique language.

Come on, Merv. You're old enough to know better.

 

[Boxo53]

You are obviously much more fluent in FAA-ese than I am.

Cause I don't see anything that remotely comes close to your explanation. But who knows, you may be correct

If they wanted to give some guidance, they could have made bullet points. Not buried it in a big document using oblique language.

Again, not siding with the FAA, but they are keyed to communicate with licenced pilots and mechanics, etc. Folks that have extensive training in FAA regulations and related aeronautical knowledge. Specifically to (c) above, every pilot from student on up knows that 500 ft AGL is the minimum altitude over any “person, vessel or structure” , so overflying with our “ drones” at 400’ or less would not be allowed.

The apparent FAA intent was that the CBO would provide the “ translation” and work with the applicant to bring their requested area into an approvable configuration. As we are all too aware now, that didn’t happen as well as it might have.

Enough rambling by an old flight instructor…. BTW, this is not theory at my end. I’m the FRIA guy in my non-AMA club and we worked through FTCA to get our FRIA approved a couple weeks ago.

 

[Flying Monkey fab]

Again, not siding with the FAA, but they are keyed to communicate with licenced pilots and mechanics, etc. Folks that have extensive training in FAA regulations and related aeronautical knowledge. Specifically to (c) above, every pilot from student on up knows that 500 ft AGL is the minimum altitude over any “person, vessel or structure” , so overflying with our “ drones” at 400’ or less would not be allowed.

The apparent FAA intent was that the CBO would provide the “ translation” and work with the applicant to bring their requested area into an approvable configuration. As we are all too aware now, that didn’t happen as well as it might have.

Enough rambling by an old flight instructor…. BTW, this is not theory at my end. I’m the FRIA guy in my non-AMA club and we worked through FTCA to get our FRIA approved a couple weeks ago.

I've been working the FAA world for 40 years now and this is the biggest cluster.... I have ever seen.
You are really miss representing as new pilots and mechanics are NOT just tossed FARS and expected to know. There are whole free training manuals and advisory circulars. And this is exactly what this should have been. AC such and such. The FAA has become either a bad actor or full on incompetent the last few years. My money is on the former.

 

[Boxo53]

A

I've been working the FAA world for 40 years now and this is the biggest cluster.... I have ever seen.
You are really miss representing as new pilots and mechanics are NOT just tossed FARS and expected to know. There are whole free training manuals and advisory circulars. And this is exactly what this should have been. AC such and such. The FAA has become either a bad actor or full on incompetent the last few years. My money is on the former.

Mr. Monkey, sir:

They did. AC 89-3. Free to download at FAA.gov

Guys, I’m NOT trying to defend or justify how the FAA handled this. I’m simply trying to bring some hard facts to all the speculation.

I’ll sign off now..

BC

 

[Flying Monkey fab]

A

Mr. Monkey, sir:

They did. AC 89-3. Free to download at FAA.gov

Guys, I’m NOT trying to defend or justify how the FAA handled this. I’m simply trying to bring some hard facts to all the speculation.

I’ll sign off now..

BC

Okay, you got me, twice in one short post.
I had to chuckle at Mr. Monkey and you are right ac 89-3 exists such as it is so I'm going to revise my statement to ac 89 needs major rework in - 4.

 

[tamuct01]

You would think the FAA would give us some guidance on what they are looking for.
The answer is NO, guess again.
Do you suppose they think we can read their mind.

Works the same with the IRS.

IRS: Pay your taxes
Us: How much?
IRS: Figure it out.
Us: Don't you know how much I owe?
IRS: Yes, but we won't tell you.
Us: So, if I screw up, you'll tell me?
IRS: Sure, along with some penalties and interest.

 

[tamuct01]

The FRIA for our club was denied due to "The request submitted encompasses areas where the public may gather or regularly transit such as public buildings, roads, athletic fields, and parking areas, and may pose a risk to persons and property on the ground."

Our club is sponsored and supported by the City which provides us with dedicated space in the City Park, restricted parking access, a pavilion, electricity, etc. The boundaries of this area are clearly marked with signage to notify other park patrons to not enter the area when flight operations are proceeding. We have successfully operated in the park for over a decade. All of this information (city sponsorship, signage, etc.) was all included in our application. So either the FAA doesn't read the applications, or they don't care about safety, community interaction, or aviation education.

I think the pretense that the FAA has been acting in good faith is completely broken now. I believe they are either acting maliciously or incompetently, if not both. Noncompliance will be the way forward. #donotcomply.

 

[Flying Monkey fab]

I think the pretense that the FAA has been acting in good faith is completely broken now. I believe they are either acting maliciously or incompetently, if not both.

I hated having to come to this conclusion as when I first started working within their world they were quite good for a government agency. 40 years and a complete turnover of personnel has changed that completely.

 

[luvmy40]

As with any tyrannical agency. They can only take what we freely give.

DO NOT COMPLY!!!!!

 

[tomlogan1]

This has never been about safety. It is about control AND money. The air space(s) are like the radio wave spectrum that the government auctions off for TV and Radio stations. There are companies who want the airspace for making deliveries that can be done by drones in a much more inexpensive operation than relying upon UPS, Fedex or even their own fleets. If you look at the issues surrounding driverless taxis, for example, this will, I believe, will get worse before it gets better.

 

[Mr NCT]

If you look at the issues surrounding driverless taxis, for example, this will, I believe, will get worse before it gets better.

I get the comparison. It would be like the DOT being paid enough that they severely restricted private cars so that the paying companies could operate more freely.

 

[ScottSteward]

Edgewater's problem might have to do with the fact that it's still an active golf course

Or maybe just due to the fact that Flite Test has been approaching this whole thing wrong the entire time. I, for one, am very disappointed in Flite Test's posturing on this whole thing.

 

[ScottSteward]

This has never been about safety. It is about control AND money. The air space(s) are like the radio wave spectrum that the government auctions off for TV and Radio stations. There are companies who want the airspace for making deliveries that can be done by drones in a much more inexpensive operation than relying upon UPS, Fedex or even their own fleets. If you look at the issues surrounding driverless taxis, for example, this will, I believe, will get worse before it gets better.

You're wrong. The delivery drone hogwash is nothing but a myth. It's all for safety. Is it going to solve the problem? Of course not. But this crap about Amazon needs to just go away. It's FALSE!