New City Wide Drone Ban Law

I'd go to the public hearing if I were you. Can still sly at 400ft tho the way the law is written, but you just can't land anywhere other than where you took off with permission by the looks of it
 
  • Like
Reactions: nsheridan19
I'd go to the public hearing if I were you. Can still sly at 400ft tho the way the law is written, but you just can't land anywhere other than where you took off with permission by the looks of it

I can't make it but I do have a couple hobbyist friends that will attend. 401 ft it is !
 
Toms River moves to ban drones

Can someone please tell me how this is legal? The FAA has complete and sole jurisdiction over the skies...
Technically it's not legal as you know. The FAA is responsible for the safety of U.S. airspace from the ground up.
Unfortunately that fact has not kept many cities from trying to regulate airspace and also to charge registration fees. In your case, an alarmingly high $70 per year to register.
I suppose that cities are either ignorant of the facts or they know they have no jurisdiction over the airspace and they hope that by saying "ban" that it will scare people away. That way during the next election cycle they can say they did something for their peeps.

Note - this is not legal advice! ;)
 
Technically it's not legal as you know. The FAA is responsible for the safety of U.S. airspace from the ground up.
Unfortunately that fact has not kept many cities from trying to regulate airspace and also to charge registration fees. In your case, an alarmingly high $70 per year to register.
I suppose that cities are either ignorant of the facts or they know they have no jurisdiction over the airspace and they hope that by saying "ban" that it will scare people away. That way during the next election cycle they can say they did something for their peeps.

Good points. There is no way in **** I'm paying that registration.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Technically it's not legal as you know. The FAA is responsible for the safety of U.S. airspace from the ground up.
Unfortunately that fact has not kept many cities from trying to regulate airspace and also to charge registration fees. In your case, an alarmingly high $70 per year to register.
I suppose that cities are either ignorant of the facts or they know they have no jurisdiction over the airspace and they hope that by saying "ban" that it will scare people away. That way during the next election cycle they can say they did something for their peeps.

Although the FAA controls the airspace, other jurisdictions control the land, i.e., from where you may want to take off and land. I don't think their bid is a clean, legal issue, such as whether they could regulate taking off and landing from your own private property. I think it's wise to have a lot of representation at the hearing.
 
Can I hand launch and hand catch?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Squirrel!
Although the FAA controls the airspace
The proposal in this case is a ban on drones in any airspace below 400 feet. Violators would face fines of up to $2,000 and up to 90 days in jail.
As you noted, the FAA controls the airspace.

Of course, this wont keep cities from passing overreaching regulations. Whether or not those regulations would hold any water under a real legal challenge is another story and the topic of many threads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SkeyeSearch3r
I can't make it but I do have a couple hobbyist friends that will attend. 401 ft it is !
No no .. 400 feet. 399 would break the city rules, 401 would break FAA rules. They would need to prove you were flying at ine of these heights for you to be found guilty in court.
 
The proposal in this case is a ban on drones in any airspace below 400 feet. Violators would face fines of up to $2,000 and up to 90 days in jail..
Then what's the registration fee for?
 
No no .. 400 feet. 399 would break the city rules, 401 would break FAA rules. They would need to prove you were flying at ine of these heights for you to be found guilty in court.

"ine" ?
 
Can't comment on the actual "ban" as a link to the wording has never been provided. We only have a websites interpretation of what it might say.

However, I've seen the "400 foot" think time and time again for local entities attempting to regulate airspace. As knowledge on the issue has grown it's gotten less and less. When someone _still_ mentions this as something they think they can do it 1) tells me that they still don't have a clue and 2) that they are looking at older rules that other people have attempted and are simply thinking they can do the same. It's really a case of the blind following the blind.

What I'm _guess_ is that this town thinks there is a 400' regulation from the FAA stating that people can only fly under 400'. So the town thinks the FAA is only regulating 400' and above. So they are not trumping the FAA's regulations if they regulate under that altitude. Yeah.... just _REALLY_ stupid thinking at this point. Just goes to show you who they allow to make regulations in small towns and cities. People that don't have a clue. Scary (or perhaps I should say "Mayberry").
 
I wouldn't be surprised if the town bans them from taking off without a permit/permission to do so. They might argue control of the dirt within the city limits much like the National Park's dirt and leave the air to the FAA. Somehow I doubt if the FAA will step over Article 10 which has some state's rights that can supersede the feds. The FAA has stayed out of city and county park bans so far so the cities will continue to make the flying areas a lot smaller without some commercial aerial permit that can cost a fortune.

Flying areas have not increased with time, but are shrinking and will likely continue. Even China is starting to ban them in some city areas as well. I wrote and sent a large envelope to my supervisor this week on the subject with a lot of Facebook flying photos around town I find on the web, but I doubt if it will change public opinion to ban them further. One squeaky wheel at a council meeting can overshadow a 100 drone owners, and worse are the ones who sit at home too and say nothing. Will be interesting to see if he responds.

I've wondered if DJI makes these things so bloody cheap that every household has one that it will become impossible to police them. A high priced drone can be easier to blanket ban them all, but taking away Johnny's toy drone may be more difficult to do if there's one in every home much like a car.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SkeyeSearch3r
It really looks like they are targeting only one type of UAV user: the real estate agent. The article makes it sound like the neighborhood has been overrun by aggressive agents that are out collecting footage on homes that they're not representing and the locals are fed up.

From the article:
"There are exceptions: drones can be flown by law enforcement agencies and emergency services, at athletic events held at private and public schools or on township-owned property, and during daylight hours on private residential or commercial property, as long as the property owner consents to the use of unmanned aircraft over their land.

Any data collection by unmanned aircraft must be related only to the properties where owners provide consent for the drones to fly.

The ordinance also allows drones to be used for commercial, business, educational, scientific, research and environmental purposes, in accordance with FAA regulations."

It doesn't sound like they have it out for the hobby guy at the park or for kids playing in their backyards, this has a targeted use.
 
For hobby use, 401 or higher does not break any FAA regulations.
Hobbyist still are regulated under Part 107. 400 AGL feet is the limit regardless, though it would be difficult to prove you broke it by a foot.
 
Hobbyist still are regulated under Part 107. 400 AGL feet is the limit regardless, though it would be difficult to prove you broke it by a foot.

You are incorrect. Hobby use is under section 336 and as long as a person follows those requirements, they are not subject to Part 107.

"(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if
 
  • Like
Reactions: Up Sonder

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,354
Members
104,933
Latest member
mactechnic