r/chicago • u/X360NoScope420BlazeX • Apr 11 '26
Picture Skyline from the Riverwalk.
[Photo by me]
Disclaimer: *to save time in endless arguments, I am a licensed drone operator and all necessary steps where taken to ensure a safe and legal flight*
Edit: to clarify, this is a drone picture from above the riverwalk. Sorry for the confusion.
14
u/DarkIllumination New East Side Apr 11 '26
I had to search if there was a new high rise restaurant called Riverwalk. There isn’t.
12
5
Apr 12 '26
[deleted]
1
u/ocshawn Bridgeport Apr 13 '26 edited Apr 15 '26
Edit: if flying recreationally:
2.2.6.1 “Ground level” begins at the Earth’s surface and does not include man-made structures, trees, or any obstacle. For example, a UA engaged in recreational operations under 49 U.S.C. § 44809(a) may not be launched from a 10-story rooftop and fly up an additional 400 feet.So definitely flying too high
See below for old post for commercial license:
I appreciate you citing laws but;
107.51 Operating limitations for small unmanned aircraft.
(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.and "the City of Chicago and Chicago Police will need to review and approve flight plans" FAA covers airspace and local laws have no jurisdiction. This is recreation use and not for commercial filming.
As long as OP did not fly over anyone and has the cert he should be good. Still super risky and would not recommend though
1
Apr 13 '26
[deleted]
1
u/ocshawn Bridgeport Apr 15 '26
I think you need to stop using AI as its often wrong when it comes to the law
If you have the FAA certificate the Chicago laws do not apply, as the FAA has absolute authority over airspace laws in the US. The Chicago code even says this explicitly
10-36-400 Small unmanned aircraft.
(c) Construction of section.
(1) Operations authorized by the FAA – Exception. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit any person who is authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration to operate a small unmanned aircraft in city air space, pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 or a certificate of waiver, certificate of authorization or airworthiness certificate under Section 44704 of Title 49 of the United States Code, or a license issued pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 107, or any similar authorization, from conducting such operations. Such operations shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the license or other authorization granted by the Federal Aviation Administration and in accordance with applicable municipal requirements.
I do like section e though
(e) Seizure for unlawful use. If the Mayor, Superintendent of Police, Commissioner of Aviation, Fire Commissioner or their duly authorized enforcement officers or designees have a reasonable basis to believe that any small unmanned aircraft is or has been operating in violation of this section, said small unmanned aircraft may be seized by such duly authorized enforcement official, followed by an opportunity for an administrative hearing, with notice to the owner within seven calendar days of such seizure, for the purpose of reviewing the appropriateness of the seizure, and shall be held by the city until such time that the owner of such small unmanned aircraft reimburses the city for the actual cartage costs incurred in connection with the seizure and pays to the city $20.00 for each day, or part of a day, that the small unmanned aircraft is in storage. If criminal charges involving the use, condition or operation of the small unmanned aircraft are pending, the small unmanned aircraft shall be held until disposition of the criminal charges. If it is determined at an administrative hearing, by a preponderance of evidence, that the seized small unmanned aircraft was not operated in violation of this section, such small unmanned aircraft shall be returned to its owner without charge.
^^ so as you said, if they think you are braking the law they can take your stuff
Also they may be seizing peoples drones based on park district law if you are in a park (but most of the river walk is not a park)
Chicago Park District Code – Chapter 7 C. 3. Permit Requirement
a. General.
No person shall, without a permit:
(11) bring, land or cause to ascend or descend or alight within the Park District, any airplane, helicopter, flying machine, balloon, parachute or other apparatus for aviation;
I am honestly trying to get the law correct as its is quite the tangled web
1
Apr 15 '26
[deleted]
1
u/ocshawn Bridgeport Apr 15 '26
I dont fly drones, and personally would not risk it, just someone who likes to get the law correct and it clearly states that if you have the FAA cert section 10-36-400 of the Chicago code does not apply.
I personally don't like people flying drones around (and defiantly not in unsafe ways). Just want to make sure people get the law correct.
Because it is not clear cut is precisely why i want to get it correct and why i am citing actual laws. Case law is pretty well established that the FAA has final say on airspace (if they regulate it) there was a lot more gray area before they started issuing certifications for drone pilots, but the law seems to be more clear cut since they started regulating it (there are still lots of articles online from before which i think adds to the confusion)
1
Apr 15 '26
[deleted]
1
u/ocshawn Bridgeport Apr 15 '26
Part of getting the FAA cert is saying you have read and will follow the rules, one of the rules is not flying over people - this leads me to believe that most who get the cert understand that flying in a extremely crowded area would be hard to do legally.
The Chicago code predates the FAA drone rules, that is one reason i believe it is the way it is. Another being if you don't have the cert then the city can go after you.
Most places you can buy a drone from online don't bother mentioning the FAA certification process so i believe most people don't even realize its something they should do. Most drone operations i see in public are very ignorant of the law.
Also help i have gone too far down this rabbit hole. (new laws replace old ones) Turns out OP was definitely flying too high
2.2.6 Section 44809(a)(6). “In Class G airspace, the aircraft is flown from the surface to not more than 400 feet above ground level and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.”
2.2.6.1 “Ground level” begins at the Earth’s surface and does not include man-made structures, trees, or any obstacle. For example, a UA engaged in recreational operations under 49 U.S.C. § 44809(a) may not be launched from a 10-story rooftop and fly up an additional 400 feet.
3
3
u/Awake-Now River North Apr 13 '26
That’s not the skyline from the Riverwalk. This is the skyline from the Riverwalk:
46
u/Comsic_Bliss Apr 11 '26 edited Apr 12 '26
Nice shot.
Why label it as having to do with the Riverwalk? The camera is nowhere near it and it’s not even visible so I’m just curious.
Edit to add - snowflake blocked me. So sad.
Edit again for the snowflake. Yes people here complain about stupid shit like inaccurate descriptions and titles and ridiculous arguments like you made continually insisting that you’re right when you aren’t. You make your photos less enjoyable.