Local City banning hobby drones to their own backyard.

[Duchunter]

Unless YOU and I mean everyone reading this thread takes the time to write their Senator this bill MAY have a chance to pass. I took the time the other day to email EVERY senator in the US to let them know that I oppose this bill and that it will kill the drone business. (They don't care about your hobby, but will respond to killing businesses)
So don't be lazy, start writing.

About the bill and it's text:
Drone Federalism Act of 2017 (Senate Bill 1272) - Drone Law Attorney Services - Rupprecht Law, PA

Find your Senator:
Elected Officials | USAGov

Get to work before you can't fly anywhere!

Im already on it!

 

[iflyhelis]

The city of Garfield banned flying drones under hobby rules to folks' own property - basically their own yards. I think more cities will continue down this path.

Here's the link to the article: City basically bans drones beyond backyard

For some reason the newspaper reported it was only ok to fly drones above 400' and not under.

I think more communities will go down this route and restrict flying under the hobby rules so it will not be allowed to fly over towns and cities.

They cannot do that at all it's up to the FAA

 

[andy_k]

And just what do you know about American law? Airspace starts where the grass ends. I'm sorry but I promise you what they are doing is illegal.

If you think it's illegal then rather than ranting about what you would do if you were just a bit closer why not put your money where your mouth is and challenge it?

The FAA has granted towns/cities/communities the rights to set their own rules for recreational (not commercial) flyers - the FAA regulations states recreational operators must abide by "a community-based set of safety guidelines" - laws can be set locally. It's not about overriding federal law because it's already in federal law.

Good luck with your legal challenge. Just as an aside...when you've finished with that court case - make sure there's some money left in the pot as you may need to take a look at Franklin Lakes as well

 

[Duchunter]

The FAA has granted towns/cities/communities the rights to set their own rules for recreational (not commercial) flyers - the FAA regulations states recreational operators must abide by "a community-based set of safety guidelines" - laws can be set locally. It's not about overriding federal law because it's already in federal law.

That's not what that means and those for the millionth time are SAFETY GUIDELINES! THEY ARE NOT LAWS! The FAA can not give authority to someone else to police airspace. Only congress can do that and they already have an organization that does that, ITS CALLED THE FAA! Are you speaking out you *** or are you a US attorney? Is this something you think you know or something you know you think?

 

[andy_k]

That's not what that means and those for the millionth time are SAFETY GUIDELINES! THEY ARE NOT LAWS! The FAA can not give authority to someone else to police airspace. Only congress can do that and they already have an organization that does that, ITS CALLED THE FAA! Are you speaking out you *** or are you a US attorney? Is this something you think you know or something you know you think?

as I said, if you are so confident that you are right, stop ranting on here and put your money where your mouth is - challenge these laws in the courts - let us all know how you get on

 

[N017RW]

If you search for it (Google) you'll find the FAA guidance on creation of local laws involving sUASs. There are four areas listed which generally do not require FAA consultation.

IIRC:
•Use by Law enforcement for surveillance
•Privacy/ Voyeurism/Trespass
•Attaching weapons/explosives
•Hunting/tracking or other interference with game animals.

 

[andy_k]

If you search for it (Google) you'll find the FAA guidance on creation of local laws involving sUASs. There are four areas listed which generally do not require FAA consultation.

IIRC:
•Use by Law enforcement for surveillance
•Privacy/ Voyeurism/Trespass
•Attaching weapons/explosives
•Hunting/tracking or other interference with game animals.

as you say.....

https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/uas_regulations_policy/media/uas_fact_sheet_final.pdf

which includes....
EXAMPLES OF STATE AND LOCAL LAWS WITHIN STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLICE POWER Laws traditionally related to state and local police power – including land use, zoning, privacy, trespass, and law enforcement operations – generally are not subject to federal regulation. Skysign International, Inc. v. City and County of Honolulu, 276 F.3d 1109, 1115 (9th Cir. 2002).
Examples include: • Requirement for police to obtain a warrant prior to using a UAS for surveillance.
• Specifying that UAS may not be used for voyeurism.
• Prohibitions on using UAS for hunting or fishing, or to interfere with or harass an individual who is hunting or fishing.
• Prohibitions on attaching firearms or similar weapons to UAS.

Which would suggest (I'm not sure whether I need to be a lawyer to have an opinion) that local/state councils have the power to make local laws as long as they focus on privacy/trespass.

As an aside (opinion seems divided on this even among lawyers - you'd probably need to refer to FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 section 336) how does the ruling regarding registration impact both the FAA or hobby flyers? If as the judgement says “may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft” then hobby flyers are not under the FAA's jurisdiction. Drones are no longer seen as 'aircraft' but 'model aircraft' and their regulation falls outside of the FAA's remit. The only authority they seem to have is the following paragraph saying the FAA can still “pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.”

This 'classification' is interesting. If the FAA can't make the rules then it's down to local authorities and that should worry every single one of us - no matter where in the world we are.

 

[That Cicero Guy]

They posted this saying that'd this gives them the authority to regulate airspace:
AA regulations allow municipalities to set their own codes for recreational flyers or hobbyists. In the FAA regulations it states operators must abide by "a community-based set of safety guidelines" if set locally.

First off "community based safety guidlines" means the AMA or the the model aviation community. In no way does that mean some city in new jersey can ban hobby aviation. Second,From what I understand this is a proposed bill that has not and likely won't be passed. This has in no way gone into effect and even if it did all you gotta do is get a 107 license and any hobby laws won't apply to you.

I like your passion, my friend. Alot of us are tired of seeing this stuff happening, just as you!

But....

Even if you have Part 107 (which alot of us have here), you are still considered a hobbyist unless you are getting compensated to fly a commercial mission, so unfortunately, Part 107 doesn't protect you if you are just flying around your town taking pictures for fun. That's part of Part 107. It's commercial-only. These local municipalities can still enact their local laws to get you as a hobbyist, unfortunately.

BUT (again..) legally, if you are taking footage and posting it on YouTube, and using AdSense to get paid for ads running on your videos, that is considered "commercial" (no joke, it's talked about alot in the 107 community), so if you went to court and fought it, you would probably win, but you would probably need a really good attorney to argue that case! But, they can then get you on not having a photography permit, if they have those laws, because in Chicago, if you fly your drone and take pictures of anything in within the park system and you do not have a photography permit (which is almost $350 for two hours), they supposedly can ticket you for that.

DOH!

I'm pretty sure if you have your Part 107 certification and are flying a commercial job with permission from the land owner, their laws are invalid and void anyway, although there is a clause that says something to the effect of, local law enforcement can act on behalf of the FAA, but the problem is local law enforcement usually doesn't know the FAA regulations, so they would potentially be acting illegaly on their behalf if they were enforcing a local law to a commercial pilot that is not a FAA regulation.

When I was studying for the 107 exam, I kept coming across people saying that generally anything up to 250 ft is considered private property and anything over 250 feet is considered national airpsace, regardless of it being a hobbyist or commercial pilot, when it's not considered class B, C, D, or E, and that local governments have no authority to regulate airspace above that height.

I don't know if this is a national airspace regulation in general or what. It could have been some local or state laws I was reading about (probably). I'll have to ask the instructor I know about that. He's actually a FAA safety instructor. I'll post what he responds with!

 

[andy_k]

At least in the UK, the CAA allow monetised social media videos - they've even made that official so I guess we are lucky.

Wasn't the height above properties something that was contested in your courts years ago? Something to do with military jets and chickens? (I'll have to google that one )

edit....

US versus Causby

United States v. Causby 328 U.S. 256 (1946)

There seems to be a degree of confusion over there now, especially since the ruling about the FAA not having the authority to regulate the use of hobby drones and if that proves to be the case then it's going to get chaotic because once one state/town gets laws on the books which control the use you can bet others will follow.

 

[Duchunter]

Listen to this Law Professors definition of "community based" @1.30. Its an old video but the definition hasn't changed.

 

[dangerd]

They cannot do that at all it's up to the FAA

It's a Senate Bill. If they send it to the House of Reps and it gets passed then it's off the to the President's desk for his signature and after that the congress can tell the FAA whatever they want.

As explained here:

 

[Jthomp]

Here are some points we drone operators need to take into consideration. They may be useful to use if any of us want to pursue working with our local authorities in helping promulgate our hobby where we live.

1. The FAA does have the congressional mandate to make appropriate rules and regulations in order to provide safe and orderly use of the airspace above the continental United States. That includes all airspace - from the ground up, and it includes providing safe and orderly use for ALL users of that airspace - balloons, airplanes, rockets, drones, sailplanes, hang-gliders, etc. If man made the object it comes under the FAA's purview.

2 The FAA does not want to get involved with making "blanket" rules regarding if, when, and where drone hobbyist's fly their UAS' in, over, or around cities and municipalities. That is why they have issued the "recommendations" that they have issued - these are not laws. They do not have to have congressional authority to issue "recommendations".

3. The FAA exceeded it's authority by requiring specific types of hobby drones be registered, and especially to be done so with a fee involved. They do not require such registration (nor the payment of a fee for) other types of radio-controlled aerial craft such as model rockets, sailplanes, motorized planes, etc., yet these types of flying objects constitute the same dangers and, in many cases, the social dislike problems currently being voiced by the general populace.

4. Local laws, rules, and regulations, if it is determined by the local elected officials that it be necessary to adopt such, should be written so as to provide for safety, reasonable access to the airspace above the geopolitical entity involved, and reasonable consideration given to rights of privacy of the residents thereof. "Reasonable", in this case, meaning well-thought-out conclusions made by well-informed adults who understand that this world is made up of situations where nobody gets everything they want.

 

[andy_k]

Listen to this Law Professors definition of "community based" @1.30. Its an old video but the definition hasn't changed.

Pretty much everything in that has changed though hasn't it? The FAA have been told they don't have the mandate they claimed and have no right to regulate model aircraft

 

[N017RW]

Here are some points we drone operators need to take into consideration. They may be useful to use if any of us want to pursue working with our local authorities in helping promulgate our hobby where we live.

1. The FAA does have the congressional mandate to make appropriate rules and regulations in order to provide safe and orderly use of the airspace above the continental United States. That includes all airspace - from the ground up, and it includes providing safe and orderly use for ALL users of that airspace - balloons, airplanes, rockets, drones, sailplanes, hang-gliders, etc. If man made the object it comes under the FAA's purview.

2 The FAA does not want to get involved with making "blanket" rules regarding if, when, and where drone hobbyist's fly their UAS' in, over, or around cities and municipalities. That is why they have issued the "recommendations" that they have issued - these are not laws. They do not have to have congressional authority to issue "recommendations".

3. The FAA exceeded it's authority by requiring specific types of hobby drones be registered, and especially to be done so with a fee involved. They do not require such registration (nor the payment of a fee for) other types of radio-controlled aerial craft such as model rockets, sailplanes, motorized planes, etc., yet these types of flying objects constitute the same dangers and, in many cases, the social dislike problems currently being voiced by the general populace.

4. Local laws, rules, and regulations, if it is determined by the local elected officials that it be necessary to adopt such, should be written so as to provide for safety, reasonable access to the airspace above the geopolitical entity involved, and reasonable consideration given to rights of privacy of the residents thereof. "Reasonable", in this case, meaning well-thought-out conclusions made by well-informed adults who understand that this world is made up of situations where nobody gets everything they want.

Here are some points we drone operators need to take into consideration. They may be useful to use if any of us want to pursue working with our local authorities in helping promulgate our hobby where we live.

1. The FAA does have the congressional mandate to make appropriate rules and regulations in order to provide safe and orderly use of the airspace above the continental United States. That includes all airspace - from the ground up, and it includes providing safe and orderly use for ALL users of that airspace - balloons, airplanes, rockets, drones, sailplanes, hang-gliders, etc. If man made the object it comes under the FAA's purview.

2 The FAA does not want to get involved with making "blanket" rules regarding if, when, and where drone hobbyist's fly their UAS' in, over, or around cities and municipalities. That is why they have issued the "recommendations" that they have issued - these are not laws. They do not have to have congressional authority to issue "recommendations".

3. The FAA exceeded it's authority by requiring specific types of hobby drones be registered, and especially to be done so with a fee involved. They do not require such registration (nor the payment of a fee for) other types of radio-controlled aerial craft such as model rockets, sailplanes, motorized planes, etc., yet these types of flying objects constitute the same dangers and, in many cases, the social dislike problems currently being voiced by the general populace.

4. Local laws, rules, and regulations, if it is determined by the local elected officials that it be necessary to adopt such, should be written so as to provide for safety, reasonable access to the airspace above the geopolitical entity involved, and reasonable consideration given to rights of privacy of the residents thereof. "Reasonable", in this case, meaning well-thought-out conclusions made by well-informed adults who understand that this world is made up of situations where nobody gets everything they want.

#3: All SUAs were required to register at time if initial implementation. Not just multirotors.

#4: The general populace is responsible for vetting before electing the well-informed adults.

 

[Duchunter]

Pretty much everything in that has changed though hasn't it? The FAA have been told they don't have the mandate they claimed and have no right to regulate model aircraft

Exactly, but they do still govern airspace and they will go after you if you endanger manned aircraft or people. Everybody keeps saying that "community based" as described in the faa 101 guidelines means local governments, police, ect when that's not at all what it means. It means exactly what the above lawyer said it means. It basically means to follow the safety guidelines set forth by whatever hobbyist organization that is prevalent in your area like, but not limited to, the AMA.

 

[andy_k]

but you are ignoring the stuff posted above that local laws can be made if they meet certain criteria

You are also ignoring that 'community based' got hi-jacked by the AMA - assuming you have more access to the statutes than I do (no, I'm not a lawyer but I might just be married to one ) show me exactly where it says in your laws that the 'community guidelines' are the ones set out by the AMA - no other answer, no waffle, just that one

In many people's opinions, the AMA are shamelessly self promoting and interpreting the law to boost their membership and strengthen their position - what if they decide that you can only fly from their club sites in a future set of rules?

The judgment by the courts against the FAA was a real curve ball and nobody seems to really understand the ramifications and the deeper you look at it the more unwise it seems.

Yes, the FAA is responsible for the ultimate safety but they cannot pass any laws regarding the use of model aircraft by hobby flyers - that has now been confirmed in court.

Anyone operating a model aircraft commercially falls under FAA regulation but not model flyers - without registration (key point here) it's NOT an aircraft it's a model aircraft or a toy. It would be illegal to shoot down an FAA registered aircraft that was flying over your land but what about an unregistered, unrestricted toy? Criminal damage maybe but you've already had a precedent set in the case of William Meredith so it will be interesting to see where this goes in future.

Precedent is worth considering in any legal challenge because courts don't like to go against previous judgments like the case mentioned above (US v Causby) as that was in your supreme court

If the FAA can't pass laws then local town/state laws will start to pop up everywhere - as long as they quote privacy/trespass etc which are not subject to federal law they can pretty much do what they like - local groups will have to fight each one as they arise and without the backing of the FAA that isn't going to be easy.

Maybe (with your legal knowledge) you'll be able to say all this is wrong but from the looks of it John Taylor has stirred up a hornet's nest that even the manufacturers think is a bad idea

 

[Jthomp]

#4: The general populace is responsible for vetting before electing the well-informed adults.

Understood. And how do people become "well-informed"? That would be by people who actually know what they are talking about. In the case of drones that would be those of us who actually fly them. WE need to do a better job of that than what we are doing now. Some avenues might be newspaper articles, radio or TV exposure, organizing groups who have the same interests we do, and maybe even putting on a public display of our hobby.

 

[N017RW]

It's entertains me to watch and listen to all these Nuevo r/c aviation enthusiasts so worried about their hobby. By virtue of my birth year I've been doing it since the 70's without fear. The problem is not the public but the Nuevo 'enthusiasts' who have no respect for others and fly these Chinese toys in ways and places certain to incite disdain. Focus on the practitioners 'ruining' things for you as opposed to those responding to their constituents call for restrictions.

 

[dangerd]

It's entertains me to watch and listen to all these Nuevo r/c aviation enthusiasts so worried about their hobby. By virtue of my birth year I've been doing it since the 70's without fear. The problem is not the public but the Nuevo 'enthusiasts' who have no respect for others and fly these Chinese toys in ways and places certain to incite disdain. Focus on the practitioners 'ruining' things for you as opposed to those responding to their constituents call for restrictions.

While I agree with you N107RW that some people with quads "fly stupid" (it drives me crazy when I see it), there is also the problem that our city officials are misinformed and biased against RC aircraft. We need to help them understand that the responsible pilot should not be punished because of a few stupid operators.
Senator Dianne Feinstein's bill will kill the whole drone industry AND hurt enthusiast fliers if passed.
As American people (if you are one) it is our duty to make sure that our representatives actually represent US.
So have respect for others when you fly, AND make your voice heard.

 

[andy_k]

It's entertains me to watch and listen to all these Nuevo r/c aviation enthusiasts so worried about their hobby. By virtue of my birth year I've been doing it since the 70's without fear. The problem is not the public but the Nuevo 'enthusiasts' who have no respect for others and fly these Chinese toys in ways and places certain to incite disdain. Focus on the practitioners 'ruining' things for you as opposed to those responding to their constituents call for restrictions.

Like a lot of people, i've been flying R/C planes/helis and quads for the best part of 30 years. Like you without fear and with very little legislation that wasn't drawn up with the co-operation of organisations like the AMA in the USA and the BMFA in the UK - in other words, we made our own rules. Over here, you learned to fly in a club and you learned the rules from club members and the experienced flyers who were happy to pass on their knowledge. Now we have drones that can be bought over the counter at a supermarket and operated (not flown) with no instruction or requirement to learn. Factor social media into the mix where it becomes a race to the bottom to do the most stupid thing and then publish it so that next person can go higher, faster, in a more dangerous location, have a bigger crash etc etc. do these morons not realise that the law makers and 'well informed' can see these examples of stupidity as well as their friends?

The weird thing is that a lot of the 'old school' flyers have been saying for many months that something will have to give - usually we get shouted down and called 'the drone police' - well guys, wake up and smell the coffee - it isn't going to last much longer.

Hobby flying is a privilege not a right - if too many people are seen to be abusing it then of course it will be heavily restricted.