Factory in Warsaw visit - photos and my interview with guard (June 4, 2025)

[E90400K]

From google maps it looks to be about 100 acres which is the equivalent of about 76 football fields. That said, the old site had huge printing presses, and all assets were contained indoors. Not a huge theft risk, lol.

Now there will be highly desirable ev's on the property, with a lot of inventory staged outdoors. You can be certain that Slate Auto will invest in enhanced perimeter fencing, motorized gates, etc. along with surveillance cameras. Security will be a top priority for the new plant manager. Speaking from experience, the security team will not be particularly happy with seeing drone flyovers as these are considered threats for possible intrusions into the factory.

SA has been fairly transparent with their product release, and I doubt that any "spy photos" from drone footage will add anything new. Except that we will be able to roughly gage how production is going based on product staged outdoors. Would not be surprised if Slate installs large tents to keep their vehicles protected from the elements (and drones) at some point.

Some of us Bronco early resetvationists will remember Dirt Mountain. Ford had Broncos stolen from their storage lots once COVID stalled deliveries.

Just because flying cameras exist and Tesla let coverage of its giga factory get posted to the internet doesn't mean it is legal or will be allowed by Slate Auto. 10 years ago Musk opened some of his patents as basically open source (I'm not sure if that is still true), so allowing giga footage is not surprising. Slate may have a different business perspective.

 

[atx_ev]

drone flyovers are marketing for slate. They should encourage them.

 

[1yeliab_sufur1]

Some of us Bronco early resetvationists will remember Dirt Mountain. Ford had Broncos stolen from their storage lots once COVID stalled deliveries.

Just because flying cameras exist and Tesla let coverage of its giga factory get posted to the internet doesn't mean it is legal or will be allowed by Slate Auto. 10 years ago Musk opened some of his patents as basically open source (I'm not sure if that is still true), so allowing giga footage is not surprising. Slate may have a different business perspective.

Hmmm true but it is a massive factory so who knows since it is a two building design one could be for mass storage and the other production like caravan style droppers and racks idk but I know factory renovations and upgrades should be done in October so maybe a electric fence or walls is in order

 

[SichuanHot]

I'd bet somewhere in the Indiana code there is a section on prohibition of surveillance of private property.

If it's private property, the decision is usually between the property owners and the drone operators. Of course, the drone operator has to have their FAA 107 and follow airspace regulations assuming the video will be used in a commercial manner. Airspace is federally managed so Indiana doesn't have a say in how it's used

 

[Swinefuzz]

Leave Slate Auto Alone!!

 

[1yeliab_sufur1]

Leave Slate Auto Alone!!

We will once we get our trucks/suv muahahahahaaaaaas

 

[E90400K]

If it's private property, the decision is usually between the property owners and the drone operators. Of course, the drone operator has to have their FAA 107 and follow airspace regulations assuming the video will be used in a commercial manner. Airspace is federally managed so Indiana doesn't have a say in how it's used

Thanks. In 2012, I was in meetings with the FAA on how to integrate drones into the national air space surveillance system. Years before the FAA issued Part 107. I know the regs, well.

However, I was actually discussing the legality of unauthorized surveillance of private property. The flying of a drone in compliance with FAA regs is immaterial to the discussion.

See next post.

 

[E90400K]

Indiana Code Title 35. Criminal Law and Procedure § 35-46-8.5-1 relates to "Unlawful Photography and Surveillance on Private Property." This statute generally makes it a Class A misdemeanor to knowingly and intentionally conduct electronic surveillance of another person's private property without their permission.

For drones specifically:

Indiana Code IC 35-31.5-2-123.5 includes specific provisions regarding unauthorized drone use and privacy. It states that pilots cannot use drones to photograph or record individuals on private property without permission. Violating this law can lead to criminal charges or fines.

 

[ucfknights123]

What is anyone expecting to see if they fly a drone over or get access? It's just going to look like any other manufacturing facility.

 

[SichuanHot]

Thanks. In 2012, I was in meetings with the FAA on how to integrate drones into the national air space surveillance system. Years before the FAA issued Part 107. I know the regs, well.

However, I was actually discussing the legality of unauthorized surveillance of private property. The flying of a drone in compliance with FAA regs is immaterial to the discussion.

See next post.

Indiana Code Title 35. Criminal Law and Procedure § 35-46-8.5-1 relates to "Unlawful Photography and Surveillance on Private Property." This statute generally makes it a Class A misdemeanor to knowingly and intentionally conduct electronic surveillance of another person's private property without their permission.

For drones specifically:

Indiana Code IC 35-31.5-2-123.5 includes specific provisions regarding unauthorized drone use and privacy. It states that pilots cannot use drones to photograph or record individuals on private property without permission. Violating this law can lead to criminal charges or fines.

That's pretty cool. From what I gather the 107 regulations are really mostly for drones for commercial use eg power line inspections, real estate, farming, movie production, and other big money endeavors. They still apply for hobbyists, but it's not really enforced. Basically just be smart about how you fly and don't be a DJIdiot.

What @evtruth was specifically talking about was explicitly asking Slate permission before flying, so Slate as the private property owner/lessee would give @evtruth permission to fly, and thus everything would be legally sound. Sure, Indiana has rules for drone use on private property, but the actual airspace above said private property is still federally governed. In any case that's irrelevant because there's no desire to fly over private property without the property owners' explicit permission.

 

[E90400K]

That's pretty cool. From what I gather the 107 regulations are really mostly for drones for commercial use eg power line inspections, real estate, farming, movie production, and other big money endeavors. They still apply for hobbyists, but it's not really enforced. Basically just be smart about how you fly and don't be a DJIdiot.

What @evtruth was specifically talking about was explicitly asking Slate permission before flying, so Slate as the private property owner/lessee would give @evtruth permission to fly, and thus everything would be legally sound. Sure, Indiana has rules for drone use on private property, but the actual airspace above said private property is still federally governed. In any case that's irrelevant because there's no desire to fly over private property without the property owners' explicit permission.

It depends on the class of air space but below 400 feet is not Federal. Around airports is a different story.

 

[SichuanHot]

It depends on the class of air space but below 400 feet is not Federal. Around airports is a different story.

All airspace up to 60000ft MSL in the USA is regulated by the FAA, even the unregulated class G airspace. It's just called that because there's no need for ATC clearance to fly drones there. The 400 ft AGL legal restriction is only for UAS operators. Any drone pilot can fly in any airspace, even ROZ and MOAs as long as they have the right permissions.