New City Wide Drone Ban Law

[Up Sonder]

I am from one of those towns and have not had any issues flying. I have flown in the parks, over wooded areas, over the local beaches, and actually directly from the municipal parking lot after hours to fly over the woods nearby(without issue), and above my house below 400' without issue. I've actually had a cop stop and watch me once and ask about the quality of the photos I was getting. Showed him my FAA registration and we talked about the functionality of the drone - he was very friendly and probably totally unaware of this ordinance as was I. It's a very small town and unfortunately they were able to sneak this in without me being aware or I would have made my voice heard about their ridiculous regulations. Now they are being copied by other towns nearby. The FAA really needs to get control over the airspace laws.

@NJ_DroneGuy Glad you are not having any problems. If you do let us know. I am actually very curious how these local drone laws in New Jersey will be enforced...if at all. Do you think they aimed these laws at anyone in particular...like say drone pilots that take picture and video for real estate?

 

[macoman]

Does anyone know if these laws affected south Jersey? I am now not too sure about it. Anyone know the local laws of Woodbury / Deptford area?

 

[That Cicero Guy]

Here we go again! 400 ft law only applies to Part 107. for hobby flying, it is a recommendation both by the FAA and AMA (urgently the only national CBO mentioned by the FAA).

Hi Richard. Do you have a quote or FAA regulation you can reference for this only being a recommendation? Every piece of info the past 5 months I've studied with and flight instructors (2) I've talked to about this stated otherwise. I'd like to know if my info is incorrect all this time.

I've been told exactly what I stated, but I'd like to know if that info is incorrect.

Thanks! I appreciate it.

 

[sar104]

Hi Richard. Do you have a quote or FAA regulation you can reference for this only being a recommendation? Every piece of info the past 5 months I've studied with and flight instructors (2) I've talked to about this stated otherwise. I'd like to know if my info is incorrect all this time.

I've been told exactly what I stated, but I'd like to know if that info is incorrect.

Thanks! I appreciate it.

The FAA states it as a guideline. That's about as definitive as you are going to get:

Fly for Fun

 

[42FrankZ]

To which some people believe you have to follow it or you are instantly flying as 107 which means you have to follow it legally.


Of course that's not really how it works.

 

[sve]

This is unfortunately why we have such a litigious society. You have to continuously check the control that local, regional and federal governments have. Someone will need so file a lawsuit against one of these towns, and when they win, the rest of them will surely disintegrate as they don't want to spend money on litigation costs.

Hopefully Michael Singer wins this case,

Doctor: My hometown has basically banned drones entirely, so I’m suing

 

[FLYBOYJ]

This is unfortunately why we have such a litigious society. You have to continuously check the control that local, regional and federal governments have. Someone will need so file a lawsuit against one of these towns, and when they win, the rest of them will surely disintegrate as they don't want to spend money on litigation costs.

Hopefully Michael Singer wins this case,

Doctor: My hometown has basically banned drones entirely, so I’m suing

This is one to watch as the decision could be used in future cases IMO.

 

[sve]

This is one to watch as the decision could be used in future cases IMO.

I agree. Also, if he wins, other people who were on the fence about filing a lawsuit against another community will feel much more confident in their chances, and will more likely file, which is what we all need right now.

 

[Crack The Sky]

This is unfortunately why we have such a litigious society. You have to continuously check the control that local, regional and federal governments have. Someone will need so file a lawsuit against one of these towns, and when they win, the rest of them will surely disintegrate as they don't want to spend money on litigation costs.

Hopefully Michael Singer wins this case,

Doctor: My hometown has basically banned drones entirely, so I’m suing

While I side completely with the town in implementing a drone ban based on expectation of privacy & trespassing issues, we all know, (or should know), that so far, the FAA regulates "airspace". I believe that the very definition of airspace is going to be revisited in the courts soon. There always has, and continues to be, an expectation of privacy and protection from trespassers on private property. If you climbed over your neighbor's fence, into their yard, there would be no question that you were trespassing and you could/would be prosecuted. The appearance of drones has muddied these formally crystal clear waters.
I believe Mr. Singer will prevail, because the court will have to rule using the current law, meaning the FAA controls airspace and no other legal entity has jurisdiction, even though their actions were well meaning.
Having said that, what I find curious is Mr. Singer "representing himself", in the legal action. That, to me, appears to be a overconfidence, bordering on arrogance.
It was after all, Abraham Lincoln who said, "He who represents himself has a fool for a client".

 

[sve]

While I side completely with the town in implementing a drone ban based on expectation of privacy & trespassing issues, we all know, (or should know), that so far, the FAA regulates "airspace". I believe that the very definition of airspace is going to be revisited in the courts soon. There always has, and continues to be, an expectation of privacy and protection from trespassers on private property. If you climbed over your neighbor's fence, into their yard, there would be no question that you were trespassing and you could/would be prosecuted. The appearance of drones has muddied these formally crystal clear waters.
I believe Mr. Singer will prevail, because the court will have to rule using the current law, meaning the FAA controls airspace and no other legal entity has jurisdiction, even though their actions were well meaning.
Having said that, what I find curious is Mr. Singer "representing himself", in the legal action. That, to me, appears to be a overconfidence, bordering on arrogance.
It was after all, Abraham Lincoln who said, "He who represents himself has a fool for a client".

My only issue is that the courts have already found that you don't have the expectation of privacy while you are in your own backyard. Current case law (and I'd have to dig out the cases again) supports the thought that you can be video taped, while in your own backyard. You only have the expectation of privacy while indoors.

 

[Crack The Sky]

Hi Richard. Do you have a quote or FAA regulation you can reference for this only being a recommendation? Every piece of info the past 5 months I've studied with and flight instructors (2) I've talked to about this stated otherwise. I'd like to know if my info is incorrect all this time.

I've been told exactly what I stated, but I'd like to know if that info is incorrect.

Thanks! I appreciate it.

sar104 is correct, (as always).

 

[Crack The Sky]

My only issue is that the courts have already found that you don't have the expectation of privacy while you are in your own backyard. Current case law (and I'd have to dig out the cases again) supports the thought that you can be video taped, while in your own backyard. You only have the expectation of privacy while indoors.

Maybe "current case law", for the state you must live in, (if that's true, leave immediately). Try that in my state and you are going to get a very nasty wake up call. After the home owner or his neighbors beat you senseless, Law Enforcement will be taking you to jail. If you decide to get feisty and push your belief of your "right to video tape someone in their own backyard", you WILL be going to the State Mental Hospital for a 30 day court ordered mental health evaluation. Get feisty while you are there, and that will be your new mailing address.
Oh, by the way; our Castle Doctrine allows a home owner, (or neighbor), to shoot you to death if they felt you were behaving in a "threatening manner". You will also be going to jail here for "creating apprehension". We have several more rabbits to pull out of our legal hat too, for someone that wants to get cute.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

This was taken from the latest AOPA online news letter "Drone Pilot."

A Weird Time for Drone Operators

May 16, 2017, issue of 'AOPA Drone Pilot' - AOPA

 

[sve]

Maybe "current case law", for the state you must live in, (if that's true, leave immediately). Try that in my state and you are going to get a very nasty wake up call. After the home owner or his neighbors beat you senseless, Law Enforcement will be taking you to jail. If you decide to get feisty and push your belief of your "right to video tape someone in their own backyard", you WILL be going to the State Mental Hospital for a 30 day court ordered mental health evaluation. Get feisty while you are there, and that will be your new mailing address.
Oh, by the way; our Castle Doctrine allows a home owner, (or neighbor), to shoot you to death if they felt you were behaving in a "threatening manner". You will also be going to jail here for "creating apprehension". We have several more rabbits to pull out of our hat too, for someone that wants to get cute.

Haha, sure dude, you are funny.

 

[That Cicero Guy]

I'm assuming the Michael Singer in this lawsuit is the admin of this forum, msinger, or is that just a crazy coincidence?

And thanks for clarifying the guidelines vs. regulations. It's very interesting. I always took guidelines as law since most people I've talked to says you should always follow the FAA rules and regulations, but guidelines aren't regulations. It seems this will be an interesting debate for a long time to come.

 

[Crack The Sky]

Haha, sure dude, you are funny.

Well Dude, you have a lot to learn.

 

[sve]

Well Dude, you have a lot to learn.

Lol. Im still laughing. Basically everything you said was melodramatic and well, wrong. You may want to do more research before you get yourself into trouble.

By the way, you may also want to keep your political inclinations to yourself. (I.e. Get out of a state that doesnt mesh with some random intermet guys political leanings). Not everyone cares to live like you.

 

[Crack The Sky]

This was taken from the latest AOPA online news letter "Drone Pilot."

A Weird Time for Drone Operators

May 16, 2017, issue of 'AOPA Drone Pilot' - AOPA

Thanks for posting that. I actually read it earlier this morning, but did not get time to post it myself.

 

[sve]

I'm assuming the Michael Singer in this lawsuit is the admin of this forum, msinger, or is that just a crazy coincidence?

And thanks for clarifying the guidelines vs. regulations. It's very interesting. I always took guidelines as law since most people I've talked to says you should always follow the FAA rules and regulations, but guidelines aren't regulations. It seems this will be an interesting debate for a long time to come.

That is interesting, it would be quite the coincidence!

 

[Crack The Sky]

Lol. Im still laughing. Basically everything you said was melodramatic and well, wrong. You may want to do more research before you get yourself into trouble.

By the way, you may also want to keep your political inclinations to yourself. (I.e. Get out of a state that doesnt mesh with some random intermet guys political leanings). Not everyone cares to live like you.

Wow. Good luck to you.