Article Link - [WIKI]LAPD detains man they say was flying drone too close to police helicopter[/WIKI]
[WIKI]Drone Interferes With LAPD Helicopter in Hollywood[/WIKI]
I've flown in and around Los Angeles and each time I saw a LAPD helicopter I lowered my altitude immediately, and they usually fly low. I never had a issue, but if this guy was chasing the helicopter or not yielding the airspace thats on him and just makes the decision easier for law makers to enact some type of anti-UAS laws.
The part of the article that did surprise me was the proposed city/state laws.
Proposed State laws - [WIKI]Bill Text - SB-142 Civil law: unmanned aerial vehicles.[/WIKI]
"This bill would extend liability for wrongful occupation of real property and damages to a person who operates an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, as defined, less than 350 feet above ground level within the airspace overlaying the real property, without the express permission of the person or entity with the legal authority to grant access or without legal authority."
I guess if this passes and becomes a law would that mean anything under 350ft would be trespassing on private property? In my opinion a law of that nature should apply to all aircraft including helicopters.
News helicopters, Police helicopters, and Private helicopters fly at 200-400 feet in Los Angeles on a daily basis. If a dude with a phantom flies at that altitude after this law passes they are suddenly a criminal. I just feel the State/City is overeaching a bit, and should let the FAA handle the airspace. If someone hires a helicopter and circles around my house that is legal, but if a Drone just flies over my house that user is suddenly a criminal?
The wildfire law does make sense, but these other laws just make go "WTF".
[WIKI]Drone Interferes With LAPD Helicopter in Hollywood[/WIKI]
I've flown in and around Los Angeles and each time I saw a LAPD helicopter I lowered my altitude immediately, and they usually fly low. I never had a issue, but if this guy was chasing the helicopter or not yielding the airspace thats on him and just makes the decision easier for law makers to enact some type of anti-UAS laws.
The part of the article that did surprise me was the proposed city/state laws.
Proposed State laws - [WIKI]Bill Text - SB-142 Civil law: unmanned aerial vehicles.[/WIKI]
"This bill would extend liability for wrongful occupation of real property and damages to a person who operates an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, as defined, less than 350 feet above ground level within the airspace overlaying the real property, without the express permission of the person or entity with the legal authority to grant access or without legal authority."
I guess if this passes and becomes a law would that mean anything under 350ft would be trespassing on private property? In my opinion a law of that nature should apply to all aircraft including helicopters.
News helicopters, Police helicopters, and Private helicopters fly at 200-400 feet in Los Angeles on a daily basis. If a dude with a phantom flies at that altitude after this law passes they are suddenly a criminal. I just feel the State/City is overeaching a bit, and should let the FAA handle the airspace. If someone hires a helicopter and circles around my house that is legal, but if a Drone just flies over my house that user is suddenly a criminal?
The wildfire law does make sense, but these other laws just make go "WTF".
Last edited:
