“The drone industry – in 2014 – delivered enough units to more than double the entire number of aircraft in the United States,” says NoFlyZone.org founder Ben Marcus. “And that, for many people, is a privacy issue.”
With that, Marcus – an ATP-rated pilot, flight instructor and co-founder of aircraft brokerage firm jetAVIVA, launched NoFlyZone.org. “Most of the major drone manufacturers are including a no-fly database of airports in their software. We are adding other types of sites to the no-fly database, including individually opted-out properties.”
NoFlyZone
Anyone interested in creating a “No Fly Zone” over their home can go to NoFlyZone.org, provide their name, address and email. That information will be entered into a database remotely-piloted aircraft (RPA) makers are baking into their controller software.
Once built out, RPA that include NoFlyZone data will not be able to takeoff within or if already airborne not be able to penetrate the airspace over individually opted-out properties.
Self-Regulation
“The RPA industry has safety in mind and is taking a leadership role to integrate into the National Airspace System (NAS),” noted Marcus. “We are not dependent on regulators. We are willing – in fact, need – to self-regulate.”
Self-regulation has worked in the radio-controlled model industry for decades. But as the RPA industry has taken off in recent years, the mainstream media – doing what it does best – highlights the negative rather than the positives and potential of RPA.
Significance
“I had a great time at jetAVIVA. We had a great team and lots of fun. Flying single-pilot jets all over the world was an honor and pleasure,” continued Marcus. “But seeing the explosive growth of the drones, I yearned for something truly significant in my career.”
Personally, Marcus has owned a Yuneec Q500 quadcopter for awhile. He’s enjoyed teaching lots of people how to fly it.
“Invariably, the first thing they ask after a short flight is, ‘what about privacy?'”
Whether a person’s privacy concern is real or perceived, Marcus desires to “create a solution.”
Players
From a TechCrunch story on NoFlyZone’s launch, “Among the partners in this effort are EHANG (the company behind the Ghost drone), Horizon Hobby, DroneDeploy, YUNEEC, HEXO+, PixiePath and RCFlyMaps.”
And they won’t be the only ones. As NoFlyZone gains more momentum, others will no doubt sign on.
Trusted Provider
The data needs of the RPA industry are different than full-scale aviation. Once airborne, full-scale aircraft are – typically – far above sensitive airspace. NoFlyZone has built up a “highly accurate database of civil and military airspace, as well as schools, industrial sites, power plants and more,” according to Marcus. Ultimately, he said he would like to see NoFlyZone to become the Jeppesen of RPA data.
Want a NoFlyZone over your home? Point your web browser to NoFlyZone.org.
Wondering why the same 1000′ above populated and 500′ over sparsely populated
limits that we have in aircraft wouldn’t apply to these 21st century versions of slot cars?
Some of them are pretty large and would do damage if falling on people or property.
I wonder if those cameras are sharp enough to see the approaching shotgun pellets?
The 1000/500 ft altitudes were established to provide the pilot an opportunity to find an adequate spot to make a hopefully, safe off-airport landing.
You first call them Slot Cars, then you say that they are pretty large. Pick one. My emphasis is on the small UAV: less than 3 pounds gross weight. Anything larger should be regulated more appropriate to the risk of a crash causing personal injury or property damage.
But the small UAV has no accident record. Well, it does – zero. Even after hundreds of hours of flight with these “slot cars”, there is not one verifiable report of an accident that caused serious injuries to someone not associated with the flight. Not one.
I won’t say it can’t or won’t happen. From: http://fortune.com/2014/10/08/drone-nation-air-droid/
“Hong Kong–based DJI claims to own a full 50% of the recreational market, selling 30,000 or more of its now ubiquitous Phantom quadrotor drones every month.” With that many small UAVs flying, a serious accident is inevitable. But that small UAVs have an accident record that other segments of aviation would be jealous to have, kind of makes the concerns over small UAV’s basically ridiculous over-reaction, driven by paranoia borne of ignorance. Mostly ignorance.
“RPA-free airspace coming soon above your home”
LOL!!!
In the 1946 case U.S. vs. Causby, the Supreme Court said landowners have exclusive right of airspace surrounding their property. In part, the decision says “The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as the can occupy or use in connection with the land”.
In other words, you do not own all the airspace over your property.
“Dangerous” and “invasion of privacy” concerns over small UAV’s are ridiculous, driven by paranoia borne of ignorance. Mostly ignorance.
It’s obvious that Ben Marcus knows little about small UAV’s. Not all of them have a GPS receiver and one of the larger manufacturers (3DR) uses open-source software where the builder decides what features are installed. Further, few, if any small UAVs have enough memory to contain no-fly zones for all the Class B or Class C airports, let alone all the paranoid people who would join his no-fly list.
It sounds like a scam, not unlike the deeds for buying lunar property (http://www.lunarregistry.com/info/deed.shtml).
A sane voice among the clutter. Yes I own and fly a UAV and am a commercial pilot!