https://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_8_3277.html to see the exact TFR the op is referring to. https://udds-faa.opendata.arcgis.com/pages/notam-8-3277 is a little easier to read. Historically, and I have had this issue in the past flying full-scale aircraft, local law enforcement has no jurisdiction in the air. You must be on the ground for it to be enforced. Hypothetically, if you were to fly into a no-fly zone and the FAA was unaware, local law enforcement was not able to get involved as it wasn't their neighborhood if you will. I would have to look up each and every title/CFR mentioned, but it sounds like this gives them the authority to enforce such things. These areas would contain buildings of priority. Schools, local government, prisons, courthouses, etc. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/40103 Pay attention to (B)(3), which addresses national security risks the administrator cannot identify. The NOTAM also mentions 49 U.S.C. SECTIONS 44709 AND 46301, which is penalties and enforcement. and 46307 is Violation of National Airspace Defense. 14 CFR PART 48 - REGISTRATION AND MARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT (§§ 48.1 - 48.205) and PART 49 - RECORDING OF AIRCRAFT TITLES AND SECURITY DOCUMENTS (§§ 49.1 - 49.63) I'm confused with the Title 48 and 49 mentioned above. Is this a 14 CFR? 48 and 49 USC? I'm guessing because we are operating an aircraft/vehicle and have an FAA license, we are subject to rules and enforcement from this chapter. I believe this just keeps them from having to rewrite the general rules penalties into every other title. Airspace is airspace and a violation is a violation. This, to me, doesn't change the way we fly. But it does address areas outside of airports that are of concern and need to be protected. Or maybe I've had too much coffee and am completely off target?
I can honestly say I see this from both sides. I have passed drones in flight, along with balloons and other hazards that could interfere with my aircraft. Its honestly tough to say at this point, unfortunately. We don't know exactly how and what the FAA plans to do with the drone/UAV sector. We can't know or guess because even the FAA doesn't know. We are currently installing ADS-B in our Part 135 charter fleet and being prepared for later this year? The exact date slips my mind currently. When RVSM (reduced verticle separation minimums) was established over 10 years ago, they pushed the date back a good number of times. I think this is going to be a hard wall for aircraft this time around. It would be difficult to give us the same requirement at this point. I think the FAA is more looking at the future, having the technology preinstalled from the factory and setting limits on what we are able and unable to modify, both hardware and software/firmware in the end. see https://uavcoach.com/remote-id-faa-rfi/ (I hope I can post their own links here? is that allowed? I will edit if necessary) I don't see anything happening soon. but at the very least, I do see newer professional and high-grade consumer drones coming with the hardware already installed. Maybe the Part 107 guys would be mandatory to have an external device attached to communicate with other aircraft surrounding them, even if it is only a one-way device. There are some very small devices now that would work, one for around $200 that would need an external power supply. Would current equipment be grandfathered or required to be changed? The issue that we can't deal, and the reason for all of this, is with is people not respecting the rules and safety of others. As I've always been told, you can't fix stupid. So even with ADS-B, even if it is being used, we know they are there but how does that stop or even limit them? That is the biggest issue the FAA has to figure out. Unfortunately, the 'safety through education' campaign the FAA ran did not accomplish what it needed to. Its a lack of caring that needs to be fixed.