Legally they cannot do this since they do not have jurisdiction of the airspace.
Out of curiosity, what city is this?
This is incorrect. US Code states that the US Government has "exclusive sovereignty of airspace". It also states that the FAA is in charge of that airspace. It further requires the FAA to create regulations for navigable airspace. The FAA has never given up their right to regulate airspace below 500 feet, they have stayed this and indeed, they are coming up with regulations for airspace below 500 feet. They have even gone to trial for flight below 500 feet. So there is no doubt that they are the only agency that can regulate any airspace.This is a misconception, the FAA only has jurisdiction over the "navigable" airspace which is generally considered to be above 500' AGL. So the city can do that without issues. I too would like to know what city.
Alan
I hate to admit it but that's not correct Alan. The FAA has absolute authority over airspace and it has been tried and proven in court.This is a misconception, the FAA only has jurisdiction over the "navigable" airspace which is generally considered to be above 500' AGL. So the city can do that without issues. I too would like to know what city.
Alan
I agree with @B- Scene Films. Your city (assuming you're in the US) has no authority to regulate the airspace that is under the jurisdiction of the FAA. However, it could be a massive pain in the *** to challenge for now.We have a local City that says all Drone flights are now illegal in the city limits even in your own backyard! Anyone ever heard of anything like this and how can they ban drone flights in free air or over your own property.
"apsphoto" makes the same mistake that a lot of local amateur legislators make, that "Navigable Airspace" is defined as starting at 500 ft. The FAA Act of 1958, which in Section 307(a) Use of Airspace says that "The administrator is authorized and directed to develop plans for and formulate policy with respect to the use of the navigable airspace; and assign by rule, regulation, or order the use of the navigable airspace under such terms, conditions, and limitations as he may deem necessary in order to insure the safety of aircraft and the efficient utilization of such airspace. He may modify or revoke such assignment when required in the public interest.". Navigable airspace is not defined anywhere in this act of Congress - it's left up to the FAA administrator.This is a misconception, the FAA only has jurisdiction over the "navigable" airspace which is generally considered to be above 500' AGL. So the city can do that without issues. I too would like to know what city.
Alan
I have watched town leaders enact illegal laws for decades. The logic goes like this - "I know that my proposed ordinance would probably not survive a court challenge, but by the time anyone with the means to challenge my ordinance steps up, I will be long gone from this office and I don't have to answer for it. In the meanwhile, I will appear to be 'doing something'."However, I feel that many of them know they cannot regulate airspace but do it anyway. They feel that the laws don't apply to them... only their laws apply to other people.
They could voice their opinion initially but I don't know that this would change anything. After that, they would need to fume suit to challenge the law (or wait for someone to be charged and then defend that person). The latter would be extremely costly and would need to be done thousands of times.Is it just me, or does anyone notice the absence of the AMA when such ordinances are on the docket? Do they not care unless one of their fields are impacted? Do they not see the camel's nose in the tent?
We have a local City that says all Drone flights are now illegal in the city limits even in your own backyard! Anyone ever heard of anything like this and how can they ban drone flights in free air or over your own property.
HI guys the city doing it is a small town called McDonald, Ohio. Its been all over the news and has a lot of people worried. Big government takes over!!Legally they cannot do this since they do not have jurisdiction of the airspace.
That being said, a city can basically do whatever it wants without regard to jurisdiction on something like this because they know that it's unlikely that the law will be challenged. In the meantime, they can confiscate your drone or toss you into the city jail or whatever they like...
So, be careful...
Out of curiosity, what city is this?
How hard would it be to send a letter to the city council outlining the laws for the city attorney to review? It may not change anything but it would greatly weaken any defense of the ordinance in later challenges because they were warned that the ordinance was probably not legal.They could voice their opinion initially but I don't know that this would change anything. After that, they would need to fume suit to challenge the law (or wait for someone to be charged and then defend that person). The latter would be extremely costly and would need to be done thousands of times.
I'll bet the AMA is taking the position that they don't want to be in the practice of challenging laws. They would rather have input on future direction. It's far cheaper and easier. Keeping your rights in the country (and it's probably true everywhere) can be very expensive. It's why we have Montana
I think that would be a great idea. The thing is its 1 city over from where I live and don't want all these small towns here getting any ideasHow hard would it be to send a letter to the city council outlining the laws for the city attorney to review? It may not change anything but it would greatly weaken any defense of the ordinance in later challenges because they were warned that the ordinance was probably not legal.
It would not weaken it legally as prior knowledge does not change anything. It only serves to show people what is really happening. The cities or counties will simply argue that their interpretation of the US Code was different. I don't disagree and would like to see the AMA be more active but I've seen many other organizations act the same way.How hard would it be to send a letter to the city council outlining the laws for the city attorney to review? It may not change anything but it would greatly weaken any defense of the ordinance in later challenges because they were warned that the ordinance was probably not legal.
Amateur Legislators.HI guys the city doing it is a small town called McDonald, Ohio. Its been all over the news and has a lot of people worried. Big government takes over!!
Can't read it if you're not a subscriber.
The law is pretty unambiguous:It would not weaken it legally as prior knowledge does not change anything. It only serves to show people what is really happening. The cities or counties will simply argue that their interpretation of the US Code was different. I don't disagree and would like to see the AMA be more active but I've seen many other organizations act the same way.