On Wednesday, Nov. 28, we published our investigative piece into the supposed “no drone zone” that Sedona Oak Creek Airport Authority officials claim exists for 5 miles around the Sedona Airport.
In a nutshell, no such ban on drones exists. Drones are prohibited from taking off, landing or crashing in the Red Rock Secret Mountain and Munds Mountain wilderness areas, and from interfering in the flight operations of the airport, but no federal, state nor local law prohibits drones from legally flying on most Sedona area trails.
The signs at local trailheads were placed by the U.S. Forest Service at the request of the Sedona Oak Creek Airport Authority. The USFS erred in placing the signs without verifying the rules with the Federal Aviation Administration, which controls American airspace. But USFS staff presumably assumed Sedona Airport administrators were being truthful when they told rangers the signs were legal.
The signs misinform the public and they should be removed immediately.
Whether you are a drone pilot or hate drones, it is unconscionable that an authority with governmental oversight would mislead another government agency and the general public about their legal rights under federal law.
When we started researching this story, we assumed Sedona Airport administrators would point to a specifically-worded federal regulation that clearly permitted the 5-mile ban.
They did not. Instead, Sedona Airport Manager Deborah Abingdon vaguely referenced several federal regulations. Perhaps the airport assumed this alone would end our investigation.
It did not. We read the regulations. Thoroughly. And instead of finding the airport could impose a 5-mile ban, we discovered the airport has no authority to ban drones.
We also found the airport previously claimed, before a recent update to FAA regulations, that drone users had to contact it and obtain permission to fly. Drone pilots were never under this restriction. They only had to notify the airport they were flying, but “permission” was never required. The new rules remove even this requirement.
The misleading signs cite Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 107. We read that too, and found that the ban can only be imposed in Class B, C and D airspace and in surface areas around Class E airports. But Sedona is Class G airspace, so the supposed law does not apply here.
We also found it highly suspect that the a supposed collision between a drone and aircraft occurred in the skies above Sedona, as Abingdon alleges, and we were not notified about it back in February 2017, when it supposedly happened. Although the alleged drone strike occurred during the tenure of Abingdon’s predecessor, Amanda Shankland, surely such a collision would prompt someone at the airport, or on the ground, or another pilot to think, “Maybe we should tell the local newspaper. These drones are dangerous, and the paper could tell the public.”
Perhaps airport administrators did not contact this newspaper because reporting the incident to us would mean we would seek these details from our local sources, like responsible journalists do, and discover there was no such incident at all.
Instead, we only discovered it when Abingdon mentioned it in an email. However, the one news story about it, published by a Phoenix area television station, was devoid of any specifics, like the date of the alleged incident, the FAA incident report number, the name of the pilot and the type of aircraft involved and only quoted Shankland. The story did note that a FAA investigation found no evidence of any collision, but Abingdon neglected to mention this, instead repeating the same falsehood Shankland told the television station.
Abingdon said the pilot was never given an FAA report number, which is also suspect, considering the FAA is one of the most highly regulated agencies in the federal government.
Even if such a collision did occur, the drone pilot would be at fault, yet such a collision, even a catastrophic one, would not give the airport any new authority to ban drones. That still remains solely with the FAA, not local airport administrators, as FAA Pacific Division Communications Manager Ian Gregor and other FAA employees told us.
If you own a drone, feel free to fly. Obey FAA regulations and please, don’t be a jerk to fellow trail users. The USFS should remove these signs immediately. They mislead the public about their rights and will continue to do so until they are taken down.
Christopher Fox Graham
Managing Editor
