Nearby school board wants to write a policy restricting their airspace

[BobP4]

QPS writing up drone policy - WGEM.com: Quincy News, Weather, Sports, and Radio
They are off to a good start with - "school district attorneys said the district owns the airspace up to five hundred feet above its properties".

This is an email I'm planning to send it to all of the board members.
I want this to be correct so please comment on this right away so I can make any necessary additions or corrections before sending. Thanks, Bob

I saw a story on WGEM regarding a proposed QPS drone policy. In the online version it says school district attorneys said "the district owns the airspace up to 500 feet above its properties”. I believe that you have been misinformed by your attorneys and that you should become educated before spending any more time or money on this pursuit.
I think you will find with a small bit of research that broadly, only the FAA regulates airspace.
There are currently restrictions for flying around stadiums that hold over 30,000 people, NASCAR, NFL and other major sports events, some national monuments such as the Statue of Liberty and over military bases. Very roughly, those are the only restrictions other than operator restrictions on a 400 foot maximum altitude, no night flying, and no flying over people. The flying over people part has been defined as being directly above a persons body which might be a 2 ft.² area if the person is standing or a 12 ft.² area if they were lying down such as on a beach.
There are local ordinances in some parts of the country restricting flight over beaches and similar areas. This might be an avenue for you should you wish to pursue this but precedent has been set with a federal court striking down a local ordinance -
Controversial drone law enacted by Massachusetts city struck down by federal court | masslive.com
Here are some links that will give you the the basic’s.

Airspace Restrictions

Getting Started

 

[anotherlab]

They have the right intentions, but they need to fix the language.

He said school district attorneys said the district owns the airspace up to five hundred feet above its properties, and the committee is now working to create a policy requiring drone pilots to get permission from administrators before they fly.

"We've heard of other school districts that had drones show up at graduation ceremonies, at their football games, and at other events." Webb said. "Sometimes it's not just one drone, but it could be two or three drones in the same area. So we're trying to head off a problem that might happen in the future."

Their concerns are valid, but they are covered by existing FAA rules and guidelines. What they should do is to have a policy where pilots that want to take off or land on school property get permission first. That's a reasonable request. You could even automate that with a simple web site form to let people notify the school during off hours.

 

[KentA]

This whole problem may have been initiated by their own students misbehaving with toy drones.

 

[Kcgunesq]

QPS writing up drone policy - WGEM.com: Quincy News, Weather, Sports, and Radio
They are off to a good start with - "school district attorneys said the district owns the airspace up to five hundred feet above its properties".

This is an email I'm planning to send it to all of the board members.
I want this to be correct so please comment on this right away so I can make any necessary additions or corrections before sending. Thanks, Bob

I saw a story on WGEM regarding a proposed QPS drone policy. In the online version it says school district attorneys said "the district owns the airspace up to 500 feet above its properties”. I believe that you have been misinformed by your attorneys and that you should become educated before spending any more time or money on this pursuit.
I think you will find with a small bit of research that broadly, only the FAA regulates airspace.
There are currently restrictions for flying around stadiums that hold over 30,000 people, NASCAR, NFL and other major sports events, some national monuments such as the Statue of Liberty and over military bases. Very roughly, those are the only restrictions other than operator restrictions on a 400 foot maximum altitude, no night flying, and no flying over people. The flying over people part has been defined as being directly above a persons body which might be a 2 ft.² area if the person is standing or a 12 ft.² area if they were lying down such as on a beach.
There are local ordinances in some parts of the country restricting flight over beaches and similar areas. This might be an avenue for you should you wish to pursue this but precedent has been set with a federal court striking down a local ordinance -
Controversial drone law enacted by Massachusetts city struck down by federal court | masslive.com
Here are some links that will give you the the basic’s.

Airspace Restrictions

Getting Started

They can pass any "policy" they want. It will almost certainly bind employees and students while on school grounds. It might even be a basis for a trespass claim if someone launched or intentionally landed on school owned property. But I suspect it will not have the force of law in any other respect.

School policy does not a criminal law make.

 

[anotherlab]

They can pass any "policy" they want. It will almost certainly bind employees and students while on school grounds. It might even be a basis for a trespass claim if someone launched or intentionally landed on school owned property. But I suspect it will not have the force of law in any other respect.

School policy does not a criminal law make.

It doesn't have to be a law to be effective. If they want to ban people from launching from the property, they can. There is an opportunity here to show that drone access rights can be managed in a fair an reasonable manner.

 

[N017RW]

I wouldn’t get involved unless cited for something.These efforts continue to be struck-down.
The island/town of Palm Beach, home to Mar-a-lago, has been told last month that their airspace ‘laws’ (ordinance) must be rescinded.
Once in air they have no authority.

 

[tcope]

Your 400' information is incorrect.

From the article:
Keith Kmieciak, a "drone advocate" has challenged similar local policies and rulings.
"I've challenged six cities and won all six," said Kmieciak.
Kmieciak said the school cannot prohibit flying a drone above their property.
"Once the drone gets one inch off the ground the school would no longer have jurisdiction," said Kmieciak. "The FAA is the only one that can regulate air traffic."
Kmieciak said the school could prohibit people from standing on the school property while they fly, but could not prohibit people from standing across the street and flying their drone over the school.

Scary that these "attorneys" don't really know the law, huh. I've seen this time and time again. Most likely they are looking at US Air Rights but not understand them correctly:

Air rights - Wikipedia

(what someone added about a 400' limit on the wiki page is incorrect. They reference Part 107 for their supports)

Honestly, they are not even close with their opinion. However, I doubt it will matter. They will make the rule as they want any way. It still should only apply to people on their property, which would be within their rights (more or less). But with the way the mention that they own airspace, it appears that they think they can apply it to people off their property.

Personally, I'd limit the letter to supports that they don't own any airspace. You can also point to Causby v US.

 

[tcope]

I wouldn’t get involved unless cited for something.These efforts continue to be struck-down.
The island/town of Palm Beach, home to Mar-a-lago, has been told last month that their airspace ‘laws’ (ordinance) must be rescinded.
Once in air they have no authority.

The problem is that in allowing them to make regulations governing airspace is that they will use their assigned law enforcement to bully people into doing stopping a legal flight. They will tell people that they cannot fly because of this "regulation". Most people then won't fly because it a "regulation". You would then either need to sue the school board in court or get into trouble in order to challenge the ruling in court.

 

[tcope]

School policy does not a criminal law make.

But in mentioning that they "own" the airspace, it appears they might think that they can. Other groups (including counties and cities) _have_ made laws regulating airspace and not the people on the ground. Heck, one county attempted to make a law restricting photos being taken of public things (protected by the 1st Amendment).

 

[Kcgunesq]

It doesn't have to be a law to be effective. If they want to ban people from launching from the property, they can. There is an opportunity here to show that drone access rights can be managed in a fair an reasonable manner.

Please read my post again. I specifically note that it likely can be used to prevent people from launching and intentionally landing on school grounds.

 

[Kcgunesq]

But in mentioning that they "own" the airspace, it appears they might think that they can. Other groups (including counties and cities) _have_ made laws regulating airspace and not the people on the ground. Heck, one county attempted to make a law restricting photos being taken of public things (protected by the 1st Amendment).

I understand they think they can regulate this behavior. But I believe they are mistaken.

 

[BobP4]

Update
It sounds as though they heard from other dronies with basically the same information and it seems like they have decided to stick with their arrogance and ignorance and will continue to feed the lawyers. Always a bad idea especially when that money could/should have been used for education.
Drone expert responds to QPS drone regulation plans - WGEM.com: Quincy News, Weather, Sports, and Radio

 

[Kcgunesq]

The key to not getting bit when you poke the bear is to arm yourself with a good bear poking stick and to pick a suitable bear.

Sounds like someone is fixin to poke this bear. Poor cub.

 

[anotherlab]

Update
It sounds as though they heard from other dronies with basically the same information and it seems like they have decided to stick with their arrogance and ignorance and will continue to feed the lawyers. Always a bad idea especially when that money could/should have been used for education.
Drone expert responds to QPS drone regulation plans - WGEM.com: Quincy News, Weather, Sports, and Radio

I think it's a little more nuanced that than. From that article, it sounds like the Superintendent is attempting to restrict the usage of drones at school events. Which makes sense. And is completely unnecessary as existing FAA rules and guidelines would cover that usage.

 

[Kcgunesq]

I think it's a little more nuanced that than. From that article, it sounds like the Superintendent is attempting to restrict the usage of drones at school events. Which makes sense. And is completely unnecessary as existing FAA rules and guidelines would cover that usage.

Which rules and guidelines exactly?

 

[YogiFlyer]

I think it's a little more nuanced that than. From that article, it sounds like the Superintendent is attempting to restrict the usage of drones at school events. Which makes sense. And is completely unnecessary as existing FAA rules and guidelines would cover that usage.

Not unless it is a professional sport, motor speedway, or division 1 football field with greater than 30K seats. That's the only time there is a TFR in place. No existing FAA rules prohibit flying over a school. Just over people.

 

[tcope]

It sounds as though they heard from other dronies with basically the same information and it seems like they have decided to stick with their arrogance and ignorance and will continue to feed the lawyers. Always a bad idea especially when that money could/should have been used for education.
Drone expert responds to QPS drone regulation plans - WGEM.com: Quincy News, Weather, Sports, and Radio

As is usual, they don't care if it's legal or not. They will pass the illegal law and then just use it to harass people into not flying. They will post signs stating flying will result in a fine, they will use the police to tell people that they cannot fly because of the law, etc. 99.99% of people will just go along with that and not exercise their rights. If they do cite someone the person would probably pay the fine. If the person challenges it in court, they will probably just drop the case in order to keep a judge from ruling on the law. As I said, it's simply harassment.

 

[YogiFlyer]

As is usual, they don't care if it's legal or not. They will pass the illegal law and then just use it to harass people into not flying. They will post signs stating flying will result in a fine, they will use the police to tell people that they cannot fly because of the law, etc. 99.99% of people will just go along with that and not exercise their rights. If they do cite someone the person would probably pay the fine. If the person challenges it in court, they will probably just drop the case in order to keep a judge from ruling on the law. As I said, it's simply harassment.

Yep...but it sounds like an attorney is already watching them, so hopefully it will get challenged quickly. These laws never stick, but you are right that they are not challenged very often. The sheep just follow along.