Senate Drone Bill Would Give Power to States and Local Governments.

For all those people crowing when the FAA's hobbyist guidelines were overturned, this is the inevitable result. Enjoy saving your $5 registration fee and prepare yourself for a nightmare patchwork of state and local restrictions. You thought it was confusing where you could fly before? Good luck.
 
If they will enforce and restricted our freedom of flying drones, my current phantom 3 standard will be my last one. I am not going to purchase any other drone if I will not be able to fly anywhere.
 
"The bill proposes that the FAA chose up to ten state, local, and tribal governments to create pilot programs lasting two years during which the governments would work closely with the agency to create their own individual drone rules."

In two years, the whole system will likely have gone through an additional revision or two. Then that program will be behind by two years while the technology improves at lightning speed.
 
For all those people crowing when the FAA's hobbyist guidelines were overturned, this is the inevitable result. Enjoy saving your $5 registration fee and prepare yourself for a nightmare patchwork of state and local restrictions. You thought it was confusing where you could fly before? Good luck.

This has nothing to do with FAA registration. Local governments have been writing local rules for drones before the FAA even initiated registration. The Feds are just trying to codify local governments ability to do it with the FAA's blessing. The FAA doesn't intend to get in the way of local laws concerning recreational drone flying especially below 400 feet. Let the locals do their dirty work and enforcement for them. The FAA will bless these regs in a heart beat.
 
This has nothing to do with FAA registration. Local governments have been writing local rules for drones before the FAA even initiated registration. The Feds are just trying to codify local governments ability to do it with the FAA's blessing. The FAA doesn't intend to get in the way of local laws concerning recreational drone flying especially below 400 feet. Let the locals do their dirty work and enforcement for them. The FAA will bless these regs in a heart beat.
Sooner the better.
 
Once (if) this become law, Cities can move very fast. A matter of weeks is possible.
 
^^^^^^ Yep, and people thought the FAA rules sucked. Some cities will be harsh if allowed. Kinda like fireworks. My guess would be that if you live where the local and or state government doesn't like fireworks, they aren't gonna want UAVs
 
Patchwork aviation rules WILL NEVER WORK! If rules governing civil and commercial aviation were in the hands of state and local authorities there would be no aviation industry at all -- NONE! Imagine having hundreds of different rules that would change dozens of times while in flight.

There are well financed folks out there that want to be rid of drones and they will grease the palms of state and local pols to get drones banned in there jurisdiction.

1. Industry that doesn't want environmental groups watching them will pressure the local governments to ban drones or they will threaten to leave.

2. Rich folk living near the ocean/lake/river etc will push to have drones banned so they can keep the unwashed masses from flying anywhere near there homes.

3. Helicopter companies will push to have drones banned because they're dangerous to copters and cut into there bottom line by providing aerial imagery for a lot less than the copter companies.

4. The major airlines will push to have drones banned because they could be dangerous and would rather not have to deal with them at all.

5. The police will push to have drones banned because they might be terrorists and because they'd rather not have any more eyes watching what they're doing.

Oh yeah, these limits may very well apply to one extent or another to Remote Pilots that are certified -- the FAA may govern there actions in the air above and below a set altitude, but if state and local governments are free to impose limits on where you can take off and land and how high you have to be then that becomes a defacto prohibition.

The folks that celebrated the FAA loss of registration and ultimately control had better get your celebration going soon because when state and local governments are given a say -- well you know the saying about being careful what you asked for...


Brian
 
Patchwork aviation rules WILL NEVER WORK! If rules governing civil and commercial aviation were in the hands of state and local authorities there would be no aviation industry at all -- NONE! Imagine having hundreds of different rules that would change dozens of times while in flight.

There are well financed folks out there that want to be rid of drones and they will grease the palms of state and local pols to get drones banned in there jurisdiction.

1. Industry that doesn't want environmental groups watching them will pressure the local governments to ban drones or they will threaten to leave.

2. Rich folk living near the ocean/lake/river etc will push to have drones banned so they can keep the unwashed masses from flying anywhere near there homes.

3. Helicopter companies will push to have drones banned because they're dangerous to copters and cut into there bottom line by providing aerial imagery for a lot less than the copter companies.

4. The major airlines will push to have drones banned because they could be dangerous and would rather not have to deal with them at all.

5. The police will push to have drones banned because they might be terrorists and because they'd rather not have any more eyes watching what they're doing.

Oh yeah, these limits may very well apply to one extent or another to Remote Pilots that are certified -- the FAA may govern there actions in the air above and below a set altitude, but if state and local governments are free to impose limits on where you can take off and land and how high you have to be then that becomes a defacto prohibition.

The folks that celebrated the FAA loss of registration and ultimately control had better get your celebration going soon because when state and local governments are given a say -- well you know the saying about being careful what you asked for...


Brian

All kinds of special interest groups have reasons to be for or against sUAS, and you have focussed exclusively on the opponents. Historically, new technology hasn't ended up banned or heavily restricted just because it threatened some status quo or other. I think that there will be a period of adjustment, especially in terms of regulation, but that just like previously, this technology will be integrated into society.
 
All kinds of special interest groups have reasons to be for or against sUAS, and you have focussed exclusively on the opponents. Historically, new technology hasn't ended up banned or heavily restricted just because it threatened some status quo or other. I think that there will be a period of adjustment, especially in terms of regulation, but that just like previously, this technology will be integrated into society.

History is _filled_ with better products that have been banned because parties with deep pockets made it so.
 
All kinds of special interest groups have reasons to be for or against sUAS, and you have focussed exclusively on the opponents. Historically, new technology hasn't ended up banned or heavily restricted just because it threatened some status quo or other. I think that there will be a period of adjustment, especially in terms of regulation, but that just like previously, this technology will be integrated into society.


Well yeah, in this thread entitled "Senate Drone Bill Would Give Power to States and Local Governments" I focused on the subject and went into the consequence. There are indeed many economic benefits to drones but a million little people and small businesses are easily overcome by a single interest with big money -- that's how things work don't ya know!

I suspect that if states and local governments do muddy the waters with laws aimed at preventing little people from flying drones, and I fully expect they will, it is likely this issue will be revisited and hopefully by saner people than we have now. I agree that this technology is here to stay and with possible additions that improve safety it will be harder to prohibit them on the basis of safety. But, the interests I mentioned before and likely others not listed will not want to let drones back and they have the money to fight it.


Brian
 
After spending a few minutes reading this bill it seems that the following is what it does...

It changes Section 336 to include some additional items. I think this than does not affect anyone under 107:

"...when flown in the immediate reaches of the airspace above property...the operator has the permission of the property owner."

Above property would be with 200' of the ground or structure.

It goes on to talk about how the FAA also needs to start coordination with several states to begin talks on how to create further, local, regulations on drones.

This bill needs to be approved by the Senate and the House before section 336 can be changed. Keep in mind, this has been tried before and failed.

My 2 cents if this were to happen... it would basically make flying almost impossible unless it's over land that you own. That is, if the law were actually enforced. Right now no one in the US can fly beyond VLOS. How many people have been charged with this. I suspect the only time this law would be used is if there was n actual complaint made against a person. However, this would allow anyone to simply raise the complaint and then the law, at least, would be used as a threat to get the operator to stop flying in the area. IMHO, the 200' rule amounts to a way to stop anyone from flying anywhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: skeptic49
After spending a few minutes reading this bill it seems that the following is what it does...

It changes Section 336 to include some additional items. I think this than does not affect anyone under 107:

"...when flown in the immediate reaches of the airspace above property...the operator has the permission of the property owner."

Above property would be with 200' of the ground or structure.

It goes on to talk about how the FAA also needs to start coordination with several states to begin talks on how to create further, local, regulations on drones.

This bill needs to be approved by the Senate and the House before section 336 can be changed. Keep in mind, this has been tried before and failed.

My 2 cents if this were to happen... it would basically make flying almost impossible unless it's over land that you own. That is, if the law were actually enforced. Right now no one in the US can fly beyond VLOS. How many people have been charged with this. I suspect the only time this law would be used is if there was n actual complaint made against a person. However, this would allow anyone to simply raise the complaint and then the law, at least, would be used as a threat to get the operator to stop flying in the area. IMHO, the 200' rule amounts to a way to stop anyone from flying anywhere.


Agree!


Brian
 
[QUOTE=" . . . if this were to happen... it would basically make flying almost impossible unless it's over land that you own. . . . . . . , the 200' rule amounts to a way to stop anyone from flying anywhere.[/QUOTE]
============================================

I agree - no question about it - the anti-drone types are after us, determined to wipe out private civilian enjoyment of this technology. All we need now is for a couple of innocent victims of the general public to be brutalized by the "anti-blade-guard" types.

GIven the attitude of some of the self-centered types in here, combined with the apparent blindness of the mfgs. and sellers of drones, anyone doubt what is going to happen to us legit. drone operators ?
 
According to Wikipedia: Drone Federalism Act of 2017 - Wikipedia it will not allow anyone to fly in private or public property... That's just unbelievable. It's this bill go thru, it will end the drone business in the US.

It would not necessarily end hobby flights since it only applies below 200 ft AGL. That still leaves higher altitudes available. It does sound like a potential nightmare of different regulations by locality though.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,054
Messages
1,467,297
Members
104,919
Latest member
BobDan