Banning Drone Flights

[B- Scene Films]

Can't read it if you're not a subscriber.

Lame web site heh. I am not a subscriber. Here is the text:

MCDONALD - There won't be any unauthorized drones flying around McDonald Village.

Expressing concerns if a drone were to unexpectedly lose power and accidentally injure someone in a crowd at an event, village officials took the first step Wednesday to restrict the use of the remote-controlled unmanned aerial vehicles.

McDonald Mayor Glenn Holmes said drones are becoming more common, and while officials understand their use by police, fire and business people who are certified to use them, they will not be allowed for recreational use in the village.

''Drones are becoming more in vogue. We want to make sure no one gets hurt if someone loses control or something unexpected happens to one. There is a safety concern if one loses power above a large crowd,'' Holmes said.

He said residents complained of a drone taking photos at the McDonald Volunteer Firefighters Festival held in July. The event is attended by hundreds of people daily.

Council gave first reading Wednesday on the drone regulation, with plans to give three readings of the legislation.

Bob Jadloski, a local photographer, was at the meeting and explained to village officials how he uses drones at events for his business, such as covering the Panerathon in Youngstown.

Holmes said they have no issue with professionally certified drone users, and the ordinance will require those using drones for business purposes to register at the village municipal building.

Area school districts, including Hubbard and Liberty, and Canfield Fair officials banned the use of drones this year.

 

[nickyb]

I have heard this in the UK also, my local village is also banning all drone flights in the park and surrounding areas. I have not brought a recreational UAV/Drone yet and all this is putting me off buying one.

Slowly but surely this hobby is being suffocated out of existence to non professional users, which is a great shame, all because of a few bad eggs's and lack of knowledge from politicians etc. I hate to think what laws will be in place in 2016, as, according to the press more drones will be sold this christmas than last year.

I need a new radio ham base station for my shack, and at the moment I might, just might be putting it on the new radio (its the same price as a P3P)

 

[apsphoto]

In response to those that think I have no knowledge. There is precedence in US courts. I suggest you read through the entire article below, especially the section on airspace rights.
Drones and Aerial Surveillance: Considerations for Legislators

Yes the article deals with aerial surveillance but there is background information about where the numbers come from and what rulings have set precedence. In determining legislation precedence will set the limits and is admittable in court and also is used to justify ordinances.

Alan

 

[tcope]

In response to those that think I have no knowledge. There is precedence in US courts. I suggest you read through the entire article below, especially the section on airspace rights.
Drones and Aerial Surveillance: Considerations for Legislators

Yes the article deals with aerial surveillance but there is background information about where the numbers come from and what rulings have set precedence. In determining legislation precedence will set the limits and is admittable in court and also is used to justify ordinances.

Alan

As you mention, your link has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

 

[B- Scene Films]

In response to those that think I have no knowledge. [snip]
Alan

No one here said that. The article that you linked by the Pepperdine lawyer and published on the Brookings Institute's web site is ambiguous at best, btw.

 

[Odiedog]

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.

How do prior court rulings that a property owner has certain rights to the immediate airspace over their property work in this case? I don't remember the exact wording but I recall it said something to the effect that a property owner has rights to control the airspace required for the enjoyment of their property. Maybe up to tree height or to prevent someone from hovering over a property (in the case of paparazzi) .

 

[tcope]

How do prior court rulings that a property owner has certain rights to the immediate airspace over their property work in this case? I don't remember the exact wording but I recall it said something to the effect that a property owner has rights to control the airspace required for the enjoyment of their property. Maybe up to tree height or to prevent someone from hovering over a property (in the case of paparazzi) .

You are correct in that first part, a court has ruled that a person has a right to use their property as it was intended. That court was reviewing flights that too place 83 above the property. The FAA has regulations starting at 500 feet. So we know that a person's right to use their property extends at least 82 feet above their property. So we don't have a court ruling from 83 feet up to 500 feet.

This is not saying we can't fly 80 feet over someone's property, it's only saying that we can't interfere with their use of that property while in the air.