New City Wide Drone Ban Law

[SteveMann]

49 USC § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace
(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.—
(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.

Only the FAA may regulate flight.
Only the FAA may create a no-fly-zone

 

[Russ43Phantom]

For hobby use, 401 or higher does not break any FAA regulations.

Keep thinking this way and DJI will soon be required to put an invisible ceiling and wall on all of it's drones e.g. 50' high and 200' away. Only when you pass the FAA RPIC test will the restriction on your drone be removed. Hobby or commercial pilots should restrain themselves to the FAA rules.

 

[42FrankZ]

Keep thinking this way and DJI will soon be required to put an invisible ceiling and wall on all of it's drones e.g. 50' high and 200' away. Only when you pass the FAA RPIC test will the restriction on your drone be removed. Hobby or commercial pilots should restrain themselves to the FAA rules.

Is not a way of thinking it is reality.

If I fly at 401 feet AGL I am not violating part 107.

 

[davoud]

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...

Since I'm not an attorney I can't say that it's legal or not legal. I can tell you that in reality the FAA is not the only one that has jurisdiction over the airspace. Their concern is safety. Various jurisdictions have concerns over invasion of privacy, noise, and what-not. When people get aggressive with their UAVs and insist on their supposed rights all fliers suffer. The recreational drone fad will be over in a very few years and we'll move on to something else.

 

[hit-n-run]

It says that information collected from the drone registrations will be periodically delivered to the police and code enforcement officers. Why would they need to do this? Are they going to start informing law enforcement the firearms I possess?

Go to the town meeting on April 25 @ 6 PM.

Link to article with proposed ordinance included.

 

[sar104]

Is not a way of thinking it is reality.

If I fly at 401 feet AGL I am not violating part 107.

Assuming that you mean as a hobby flyer, actually you are, if the FAA chooses to enforce it. Section 336 (hobby flight) is an exemption to Part 107, but you only get the protection of that exemption if you follow the Part 101 codification of Section 336. If you fail to follow them, then you cease to be protected by Part 101 and you become subject to Part 107, under which the 400 ft AGL ceiling is not a guideline - it's the law. Additionally, if you are not Part 107 certified then you are also illegally flying uncertified in that scenario.

Does the new Small UAS Rule (part 107) apply to recreational UAS operations?

Part 107 does not apply to UAS flown strictly for fun (hobby or recreational purposes) as long as these unmanned aircraft are flown in accordance with the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Section 336 of P.L. 112-95). Visit our "Fly for Fun" webpage for safety rules and guidelines that apply to recreational UAS operations. The small UAS rule codifies the provisions of section 336 in part 101 of the FAA's regulations, which will prohibit operating a UAS in manner that endangers the safety of the National Airspace System.

 

[tcope]

Since I'm not an attorney I can't say that it's legal or not legal. I can tell you that in reality the FAA is not the only one that has jurisdiction over the airspace.

In reality, according to US Code, yes they are.

 

[X5GEE]

NJ with their draconian laws. Their not getting a cent from me on this.

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...

 

[nscaler2]

Sorry.. "one"

Phone hates me. My S8+ arrives on Monday [emoji23]

In this regard, the S8+ won't be any better. Typing on a phone is an exercise in futility at best. LOL

 

[nsheridan19]

***UPDATE***

After submitting a complaint to the FAA, this was the response:

"Thank you for advising the FAA of the proposed Toms River ordinance regulation unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). From the article you sent, it appears that the ordinance has been introduced by the township council and that a public hearing will be held on the proposal later this month. We are not able to comment on the proposal at this time but any such ordinance should be consistent with the Federal statutory and regulatory framework as set forth in the attached UAS Fact Sheet. Since the issuance of the Fact Sheet, the commercial/non-hobby operational rule has been finalized and is found at 14 CFR part 107. See also part 101.43. Thank you again."

See attached for the Fact Sheet

 

[sar104]

***UPDATE***

After submitting a complaint to the FAA, this was the response:

"Thank you for advising the FAA of the proposed Toms River ordinance regulation unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). From the article you sent, it appears that the ordinance has been introduced by the township council and that a public hearing will be held on the proposal later this month. We are not able to comment on the proposal at this time but any such ordinance should be consistent with the Federal statutory and regulatory framework as set forth in the attached UAS Fact Sheet. Since the issuance of the Fact Sheet, the commercial/non-hobby operational rule has been finalized and is found at 14 CFR part 107. See also part 101.43. Thank you again."

See attached for the Fact Sheet

That makes it pretty clear that the FAA takes a dim view of local government attempting to regulate overflight. Operational bans less so, but still recommended to invovle consultation with the FAA. That memo probably needs to be updated to be more specific about Part 107 vs. Part 101 and to be widely distributed to local government agencies.

 

[42FrankZ]

That makes it pretty clear that the FAA takes a dim view of local government attempting to regulate overflight. Operational bans less so, but still recommended to invovle consultation with the FAA. That memo probably needs to be updated to be more specific about Part 107 vs. Part 101 and to be widely distributed to local government agencies.

I see that as a punt.

 

[sar104]

I see that as a punt.

I read it as a bit more encouraging than that. I seems like a not too subtle hint to local governments that it they exceed their authority it is unlikely to stand up to a legal challenge.

 

[maxheadspace]

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 FAA claims it manages all airspace down to the surface, per 49 U.S. Code § 40103(b)(1). If they didn't manage airspace to the surface, most of Part 107 would be nullified. To my knowledge, this hasn't been successfully challenged in court. Key word being "successfully."

 

[lynck]

The FAA claims it manages all airspace down to the surface, per 49 U.S. Code § 40103(b)(1). If they didn't manage airspace to the surface, most of Part 107 would be nullified. To my knowledge, this hasn't been successfully challenged in court. Key word being "successfully."

So flying paper airplanes is illegal too right?

 

[That Cicero Guy]

Is not a way of thinking it is reality.

If I fly at 401 feet AGL I am not violating part 107.

You are violating FAA airspace regulations for sUAS (drones), period, Part 107 or not, if you fly above 400'. The ceiling is 400 feet for everybody, unless you are one of us who are Part 107-certified, then you are allowed to fly above that only within a 400' radius of a structure, in which case you can fly 400' above said structure.

 

[sar104]

So flying paper airplanes is illegal too right?

Are they remotely controlled?

 

[Richard R]

You are violating FAA airspace regulations for sUAS (drones), period, Part 107 or not, if you fly above 400'. The ceiling is 400 feet for everybody, unless you are one of us who are Part 107-certified, then you are allowed to fly above that only within a 400' radius of a structure, in which case you can fly 400' above said structure.

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).

 

[sar104]

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).

Yes - but remember the subtlety of this situation. The FAA has been quite clever here; if you breach the hobby "guidelines", then you cease to be covered by Part 101 and immediately fall back under Part 107, at which point you are breaching at least the 400 ft Part 107 requirement. And, if you are not Part 107 certified, you are also flying illegally.

So for hobby flight it is only a recommendation, but if you don't follow it you are not, in the eyes of the FAA, a hobby flier.

 

[THA]

Didn't AMA just release something saying that flying above 400' is approved in their guidelines under certain circumstances? FAA accepts their guidelines