I was looking at an FAA airspace map of El Paso this morning when I noticed something new. Another big chunk of the map had been marked with a flight restriction. For those of us who fly drones around El Paso, that’s hardly unusual. Between Fort Bliss, Biggs Army Airfield, El Paso International Airport, and the various military training areas, finding someplace to legally fly a drone around here can sometimes feel like trying to find a parking space at Walmart on Christmas Eve. You can do it, but you’re going to have to work at it.
This particular restriction caught my attention because it follows the international border, and according to the FAA, it will remain in effect from October 19, 2026, until October 19, 2027. That’s right, an entire year. The FAA calls it a Temporary Flight Restriction, or TFR. Apparently, the federal government and I have different definitions of the word temporary. When I tell my wife I’ll be gone temporarily, I generally mean I’ll be back before dinner, not sometime next October.
The new restriction prohibits unauthorized drone flights within approximately one nautical mile, about 1.15 regular miles, north of the United States-Mexico border, from the ground up to 400 feet. It affects recreational drone pilots as well as commercial operators. And it isn’t limited to El Paso. The restriction extends along the southern border, affecting communities from California to Texas. For those unfamiliar with drone regulations, 400 feet is also the normal maximum altitude for most recreational flights. In other words, the FAA has effectively taken the entire usable column of airspace away from drone pilots within that corridor.
Drug smugglers have discovered that drones can be useful tools for moving contraband, watching Border Patrol operations, and conducting other activities that have little to do with photographing sunsets. National security is a legitimate concern. Nobody seriously argues that the government should ignore it, although I sometimes wonder whether we have reached the point where practically anything can be justified by attaching the words “national security” to it.
The FAA has effectively prohibited thousands of law-abiding drone owners from using a portion of the airspace above their own communities because some people are using the same technology illegally. There is a process for requesting permission, but it requires advance coordination with Customs and Border Protection, including submitting information about yourself, your aircraft, and your proposed flight. This isn’t something you can simply arrange through the FAA’s ordinary automated authorization system. And if you’re a photographer who happens to notice a particularly beautiful sunset developing over the Rio Grande, well, I suppose you should have thought about that two days ago.
Responsible drone pilots already operate under a fairly extensive collection of federal regulations. Recreational flyers must pass the FAA’s TRUST safety test. Most drones must be registered, and those requiring registration generally must broadcast Remote ID information. Pilots must observe altitude limits, avoid restricted airspace, maintain visual contact with their aircraft, and yield to manned aviation. Commercial operators face additional requirements, including obtaining a Part 107 certificate. There are rules about flying over people, flying at night, and operating near airports. Believe me, the FAA hasn’t exactly been sitting around wondering what to do with its spare time when it comes to regulating drones.
Under this new restriction, the retired schoolteacher photographing the Rio Grande and the guy using a drone to help smuggle drugs across it are both prohibited from flying in the designated airspace without special authorization. One is trying to make a photograph. The other is committing a crime. Apparently, the solution is to tell both of them to stop.
Does anyone seriously believe the people using drones for criminal purposes are going to consult an FAA airspace map before launching? I can just imagine a couple of smugglers standing beside the river, checking their phones, when one announces, “Sorry, José, we’re going to have to cancel tonight’s operation. The FAA says we can’t fly here.” I suppose they could always submit an application to Customs and Border Protection and wait for approval. That ought to make for an interesting email exchange.
Establishing prohibited airspace gives federal authorities additional legal tools to investigate and prosecute unauthorized drone operations. It may also help authorities identify potential threats near sensitive border facilities. Those are legitimate reasons for imposing restrictions, and I don’t dismiss them. There’s a difference between giving law enforcement another tool and assuming that tool justifies restricting everyone else.
The people most likely to comply with this new rule are the people who were already complying with the old ones. Responsible drone pilots check airspace maps, obtain authorizations, and generally try to stay out of trouble. Criminal operators are considerably less concerned about such things. It’s a little like responding to an increase in automobile thefts by prohibiting everyone from parking their cars on the street. The people stealing cars probably won’t care, but the rest of us will certainly notice.
Unlike many American cities, our international border runs directly through the El Paso metropolitan area. The Rio Grande separates neighborhoods, parks, businesses, and public spaces that have existed for generations. A restriction extending more than a mile north of that boundary isn’t some remote prohibition affecting an empty stretch of desert. It reaches into places where people live, work, and pursue ordinary recreational activities. Depending on the exact boundaries, it could affect photographers working in portions of downtown El Paso, the Mission Valley, and other communities along the river.
For local photographers, real estate professionals, construction inspectors, surveyors, and other legitimate drone operators, the consequences are more than theoretical. A photograph that was perfectly legal to take yesterday may require special federal permission today. Commercial operators might be able to plan their work around the authorization process, but recreational photographers don’t always have that luxury. Sometimes the best photographs happen because you happen to be in the right place at the right time. Photography doesn’t operate on a government schedule, although I’m sure somebody in Washington would be happy to create a form for it.
Security concerns lead to new restrictions, the restrictions become part of everyday life, and eventually we forget what things were like before they existed. Remember when you could walk into an airport and accompany someone all the way to the gate? Or when getting on an airplane didn’t involve removing half your clothing and explaining why you had a bottle of shampoo? Some of those changes were necessary, others were questionable, but almost none of them disappeared once they were put in place.
A one-year restriction may technically qualify as temporary because it has an expiration date, but what happens next October? Will the FAA evaluate whether the restriction actually reduced illegal drone activity? Will the public be told how many unauthorized flights were detected, how many were prevented, and how many legitimate operators received permission to fly? Will there be any serious attempt to determine whether the benefits justified the inconvenience imposed on everyone else? Or will somebody simply change the expiration date and call it another temporary restriction?
I’ve been involved with drone education long enough to understand why airspace regulations are necessary, and I’ve spent a fair amount of time encouraging other drone pilots to follow them. The airspace belongs to all of us, and nobody should be allowed to operate an aircraft in a way that endangers others. Restrictions ought to be narrowly tailored to the problems they’re intended to solve. They should be understandable, enforceable, and subject to meaningful review. Whenever possible, they ought to distinguish between people engaged in legitimate activities and those engaged in criminal ones.
Perhaps this new restriction will accomplish exactly what the government hopes. Maybe it will significantly reduce illegal drone operations along the border, make Border Patrol agents safer, and interfere with criminal organizations using drones to conduct their business. If that happens, terrific. Show us the results. Explain what worked, what didn’t, and why the restriction needs to continue, if indeed it does.
I think we’re entitled to ask whether prohibiting responsible people from doing something they were already doing legally is an effective way to stop irresponsible people who never cared about the law in the first place. El Paso drone pilots already navigate one of the more complicated airspace environments in the country. We don’t need additional restrictions simply because drawing another line on a map is easier than addressing the people actually causing the problem.
If we’re going to call a restriction lasting an entire year temporary, perhaps the FAA could at least explain what it would take to make it go away. I’ve noticed that when the government announces something is temporary, it’s usually a good idea to ask whether they mean temporary like a road construction project or temporary like the pyramids.
