nimitmehra

Thank you for the feedback. I corrected it. I had built the project with desktop in mind and never checked how it looks on mobile ( my mistake). Now it asks for takeoff and landing points on the mobile screen by default. I would still suggest putting the pins on the map, since the address search uses OpenStreetMap's free service, which isn't very detailed or extensive.

TFRs come from the FAA's own TFR site, tfr.faa.gov. I have set up a scheduled job to get it. It runs every 4-7 hours.

Planned TFRs like the fleet week are handled like this. Short notice TFRs are a weak spot if one lands after the last job. For commercial applications, the schedule would need checks at shorter intervals.

Stadiums are different. There is a standing FAA rule ( mentioned in the post). So each time a route crosses Oracle Park, a check is made to see if a game is present on that particular day and its starting time. Since we do not know when the match will end, we have made the assumption of 3.5 hours from the first pitch/start.

Thank you. You are right. The 80ft buffer is our own buffer not FAA buffer. The message should say so, I will change it.

"Taller than drones may fly" is wrong for 164ft building. What tripped it is, at that spot the local LAANC facility map ceiling which is below 400ft and on top of that, we have kept 50ft clearance over buildings. I would change it so the full calculation is shown.

About the exception for §107.51(b) - I kept the stricter 400 feet AGL cap because of how data is collected. Currently, the building heights are based on OpenStreetMap (some are estimated from floor count from the ground) and Data SF 2010 LiDAR. If the height is wrong or approximated, it may say Go for a flight that is over the legal limit.

I will cite which regulation applies for each route. That is a good idea I will add it.

You've got an agentic request - this Christmas in theatres near you!

Youtube, docs down in India, Mail working

Youtube down in India, Docs Down, Mail working

We Work failure was more to do with bad corporate governance and that was the primary reason Wall street shunned it.

The core problem of VF was pushing companies for growth at all costs which led to companies not focussing on unit economics, not caring about profitability and becoming too big to ever take care of those things. Fixing your unit economics when you are so big is akin to repairing a rocket and changing direction which it is hurtling aggressively to crash. I hope now entrepreneurs will try to build sustainable business hoping for an IPO rather than growing fast to come in eye of VF and take softbank money