Looking at the picture at the FAA link you can't even fly a drone in Walnut Creek.

A 32 mile radius has been created during the Super Bowl preventing any RC aircraft from flying - period. That means not in your back yard, not on your farm South of San Jose, and not at my RC club (SCCMAS.org) which is practically in Morgan Hill! Does anyone think this makes sense? I'm not a big football fan, so Super Bowl Sunday is a great day to go flying. But due to the knee jerk reaction to concerns about "drones", I am not allowed to enjoy my own sport.

The problem is the FAA lumps all aircraft, RC models and civilian aviation into one category and has issued a TFR (temporary flight restriction) for practically the entire South Bay as well as half way up the Peninsula and much of the East Bay. Maybe there are reasons for blocking full size civilian aircraft from a 32 mile radius due to their speed and the need to create a reasonable buffer. But blocking RC aircraft from anywhere except right over the stadium grounds is an encroachment beyond reason.

Terrorists are not about to obey an FAA regulation.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

You're not allowed to fly drones in Mountain View, anyway, unless you ask the control tower at Moffett Field.

@Michael Lohmeyer: Every time Obama is in town they also prohibit flying drones within 32 miles of him. Because terrorists 31 miles away can do way worse things if they can get a 10 pound object 100 feet in the air than if they can drive a car a couple blocks away.

14 years after 9/11 and we're still wetting our pants.

It's all theater. None of it actually prevents evil people from doing evil things.

Cam anybody focus on MORE than one issue these days? Is it all a world of absolutes? Seems that way with some people.
The drone law will keep people safer because every nimrod with a drone would be out there causing all sorts of issues if they didn't ban them. Does that mean the world has become absolutely anti-drone? Maybe to some.
Does that mean they fear above all terrorist attacks? Maybe to some.
In reality, its a rule simply put forth to keep the geeks from flying their toys into the fancy hair of the 1% wives.
That's all it is, protection from the unthinking geeks who would otherwise make a very bad decision by trying to do it unless someone said "Don't"

I'll premise these comments that I truly hate drones and the privacy and security threats they enable.

It's truly sad to say that this an empty FA threat. 32 miles radius is over 3000 square miles, and virtually all commercially-available drones fly well below radar detection limits. How does FAA possibly intend to enforce this ban? Answer? It can't, and these are just empty words from the wrong govt agency.

I hope and expect that more relevant US govt agencies, like our military and security agencies, have worked out a viable air attack security plan. Just speculating, but this plan might include orbiting AWACS coverage of the South Bay, armed F-18s from Moffett Field, and local defensive measures (anti-aircraft and jamming capability) at target zero Santa Clara.

We live in increasingly frightening times.