Orange Beach Alabama Drone Ordinance

Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Age
31
I am on vacation in Orange Beach AL.I was out flying my drone on the public access of the beach at 8:30 Pm.There was no one else on the beach except my wife.I have bright Led's on my drone so you can fly it at night.All of a sudden 3 police cars drive onto the beach with there head lights glaring down on me.An officer gets out the car and tells me you cannot fly any drone in the city of Orange Beach without a permit from the city counsel.I ask him what law was i breaking and he said it was a city ordinance.He said i would have to get a permit from the city if i wanted to fly.I informed him that this was not an FAA rule so how could it be the law in Orange beach.I also told him i come here every year and i have always flown my drone without any problem.He said the ordinance was just passed this year.What kind of nonsense is this?Anyone ever heard of something like this?
 
I was not in a no fly zone.There are no condos there either.This was just open space.The officer claimed no one can fly a drone anywhere in the City of Orange Beach including your own property without a permit from the city.I am am AMA member and also have registered my crafts.I follow the FAA guidelines when flying.
 
Local ordinances are popping up all over. I was stopped two weeks ago at Rincon Beach in Ventura Calif. Ranger said I couldn't fly. I went online and found that they had just enacted the ordinance two months prior. Los Angels has had an ordinance for a year. Pasadena just enacted an ordinance. The FAA has its set of rules which are non enforceable but a city can enact and restrict drone flight. Many have not been challenged yet.
 
The FAA has taken the stance to provide "advisory" information to cities and states, but does not really get involved. Their position is a city/state can indeed dictate where you can take off and land from (land use laws), which are well within their jurisdiction. The FAA still owns the skies. (Even that is challenged by cities at times) But if you can't take off from a certain location by ordinance, then it doesn't matter. It is similar for national parks. There is nothing that says you can't fly over them, but you can't take off or land within the national park boundaries. States are starting to do the same thing for their parks, and sometimes beaches.

All we can hope for is for Congress to preempt local laws of this type and take jurisdiction regarding sUAV use. However, until that happens, land use laws are being passed at a fast pace to stop flights. All of this is so new to everyone it will be quite awhile before a sUAV organization with enough beef to it can challenge laws. Otherwise, you are pretty much on your own. But I don't anticipate land use laws being overturned as that jurisdiction has always remained with cities/towns/states.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SeabeeEO3
The FAA has taken the stance to provide "advisory" information to cities and states, but does not really get involved. Their position is a city/state can indeed dictate where you can take off and land from (land use laws), which are well within their jurisdiction. The FAA still owns the skies. (Even that is challenged by cities at times) But if you can't take off from a certain location by ordinance, then it doesn't matter.
Effect is the same but that is not exactly correct. The FAA has nothing to say about local areas making laws against people standing on the ground. They don't state anything about the ability or validity of those laws. I say this, as many of those laws are still illegal.
 
I am on vacation in Orange Beach AL.I was out flying my drone on the public access of the beach at 8:30 Pm.There was no one else on the beach except my wife.I have bright Led's on my drone so you can fly it at night.All of a sudden 3 police cars drive onto the beach with there head lights glaring down on me.An officer gets out the car and tells me you cannot fly any drone in the city of Orange Beach without a permit from the city counsel.I ask him what law was i breaking and he said it was a city ordinance.He said i would have to get a permit from the city if i wanted to fly.I informed him that this was not an FAA rule so how could it be the law in Orange beach.I also told him i come here every year and i have always flown my drone without any problem.He said the ordinance was just passed this year.What kind of nonsense is this?Anyone ever heard of something like this?


They explained it VERY clearly. It's a City Ordinance and they are fully withing their rights to create and enforce such. They can't control the air but they can (and do) control the ground within the city.
 
Effect is the same but that is not exactly correct. The FAA has nothing to say about local areas making laws against people standing on the ground. They don't state anything about the ability or validity of those laws. I say this, as many of those laws are still illegal.


Actually, that is incorrect. The FAA has a very long standing policy and position of supporting local land use laws, which is what we are talking about here. Just because it is now being applied to sUAVs is irrelevant. Think airports....the FAA yields to cities on where to put airports, land use and zoning requirements, etc. The FAA is charged with keeping airspace safe and does discourage local laws regarding overflight using sUAVs. Local ordinances that dictate what altitude you can fly at where have been scrutinized as it infringes on the FAA's responsibility.

Please review the following FAA fact sheet for UAS:

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

Make special note of the section containing "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."

So, yes...the FAA has long recognized local power to dictate land use, which would include where you can land and take off from with a sUAV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TontoFAC
I'm also a AMA member and have a 107 too, but the local AMA field got into trouble with the Los Angeles Parks Dept. as they hold the lease on the AMA field and had drone pilots chasing water skiers and boaters around a nearby lake once they legally launched from the AMA field. That led to complaints and the club president of the field banned drones else they'd lose their field lease so it's back to RC planes, helicopters, and sailplanes - no drones.

I asked "How come sailplanes and gliders can launch towards and over the lake without complaints?" The answer was, "Because they don't have cameras and chase people who complain."

Welcome to "We hate drones." Even in LA you'll get hassled by the police over not having a permit if you have a decent looking (expensive) camera where they assume you are doing something commercially. Better get used to it, and look up shooting guerilla style, or shoot with your cellphone.
 
Last edited:
The FAA has taken the stance to provide "advisory" information to cities and states, but does not really get involved. Their position is a city/state can indeed dictate where you can take off and land from (land use laws), which are well within their jurisdiction. The FAA still owns the skies. (Even that is challenged by cities at times) But if you can't take off from a certain location by ordinance, then it doesn't matter. It is similar for national parks. There is nothing that says you can't fly over them, but you can't take off or land within the national park boundaries. States are starting to do the same thing for their parks, and sometimes beaches.

All we can hope for is for Congress to preempt local laws of this type and take jurisdiction regarding sUAV use. However, until that happens, land use laws are being passed at a fast pace to stop flights. All of this is so new to everyone it will be quite awhile before a sUAV organization with enough beef to it can challenge laws. Otherwise, you are pretty much on your own. But I don't anticipate land use laws being overturned as that jurisdiction has always remained with cities/towns/states.
Congress is going in the other direction. The Drone Federalism Act of 2017 (S.1272) basically allows local jurisdiction to control drone operations below 200 ft AGL (or 200 ft from th highest point of a structure). It's not a law yet, but it's been sent to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
 
Congress is going in the other direction. The Drone Federalism Act of 2017 (S.1272) basically allows local jurisdiction to control drone operations below 200 ft AGL (or 200 ft from th highest point of a structure). It's not a law yet, but it's been sent to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Yes, I've seen that too...these are the laws we need to fight. Unfortunately, I don't see a powerful enough lobby arm on behalf of UAS being able to battle against the powerful local chamber lobbyists to win. AOPA has just recently adopted UAV pilots as a membership group, but I don't see them spending their lobby money fighting on our behalf just yet.
 
Actually, that is incorrect. The FAA has a very long standing policy and position of supporting local land use laws, which is what we are talking about here. Just because it is now being applied to sUAVs is irrelevant. Think airports....the FAA yields to cities on where to put airports, land use and zoning requirements, etc. The FAA is charged with keeping airspace safe and does discourage local laws regarding overflight using sUAVs. Local ordinances that dictate what altitude you can fly at where have been scrutinized as it infringes on the FAA's responsibility.
What i'm saying is that the FAA is stating that local laws can be made as long as they don't interfere with FAA laws but the FAA is not taking the position that those laws are legal or not. It's a _very_ small difference and the result is exactly the same. The distinction is that the FAA is not stating that the local laws are legal or not. I mention this because _many_ of those local laws are not legal. The FAA's position is really, as long as local laws don't trump our jurisdiction, we are not going to say anything.

But in reality, they don't say anything anyway... until it interferes with them in some way. Because truth is, if it keeps a drone out of the air, they FAA is all for it.
 
Yes, I've seen that too...these are the laws we need to fight. Unfortunately, I don't see a powerful enough lobby arm on behalf of UAS being able to battle against the powerful local chamber lobbyists to win.
Drones are a $5 billion market. DJI's revenue is 1.6 billion. The list of benefits of using drones is _huge_. The downsides.... really rather limited. Well, unless you listen to Feinstein. She thinks drones can steal your soul.
 
Drones are a $5 billion market. DJI's revenue is 1.6 billion. The list of benefits of using drones is _huge_. The downsides.... really rather limited. Well, unless you listen to Feinstein. She thinks drones can steal your soul.

Oh Agreed....but I don't see DJI being interested in lobbying Congress against bad drone laws. Just because a business is profitable, doesn't mean there is an organization fighting for it in Congress. Right now, there isn't a powerful enough lobby arm of the industry that can move it in our direction. That will certainly change as businesses and pilots better organize and fully realize the benefits. But I'm concerned about the damage of bad laws prior to that happening.
 
What we can probably do better as a community is help educate cities about the benefits and work with them when they insist on more laws. In the situation presented by the OP, it is always best to just comply with an officer's instructions, then tackle the issue later with the appropriate entity. It rarely works to argue laws and jurisdiction with police as they are there to enforce the law, not decide whether it is fair or not. Show up at city council meetings when laws like this are discussed and present valid arguments in favor of more exceptions or less stringent laws. Cities are going to do what they know....and they know they don't want snoopers and things flying around disturbing other people. We should work to educate them on how we can meet the needs of everyone involved, and keep flying. We also need to face the fact that more laws are coming....it's inevitable.
 
Ultimately it comes down to community participation. Last year the town of Nags Head, NC, passed a law that restricted (but not ban) the use of drones on the beach. The original ordinance was much more restrictive. Comments from local drone users was instrumental in limiting the impact of ordinance. Source:
 
I was not in a no fly zone.There are no condos there either.This was just open space.The officer claimed no one can fly a drone anywhere in the City of Orange Beach including your own property without a permit from the city.I am am AMA member and also have registered my crafts.I follow the FAA guidelines when flying.

Your being a member of AMA and registration of the drone makes no difference. The city enacted a legal ordnance (unless it's later proven otherwise) to restrict the use of drones within the city limits. And apparently you were in the city's "no fly zone". End of story
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
Your being a member of AMA and registration of the drone makes no difference. The city enacted a legal ordnance (unless it's later proven otherwise) to restrict the use of drones within the city limits. And apparently you were in the city's "no fly zone". End of story
The point i was making has nothing to do with a no fly zone {edited}.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My local county sheriff just purchased two new Phantom fours for beach recue, know they are looking for someone to fly them
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,354
Members
104,934
Latest member
jody.paugh@fullerandsons.