So I got ticketed by Federal Police Officers...(video included)

[Mike2A]

Do you possess a 107 license?

Yes...besides the FAA requirement for commercial drone flying, it gives you credentials that open the door when you need to negotiate with someone for permission.

 

[macoman]

Yes...besides the FAA requirement for commercial drone flying, it gives you credentials that open the door when you need to negotiate with someone for permission.

Yup... The 107 license have tremendous power to allow you have the permissions in area of no flying. The one I have is just the crappy registration one for $5 bucks.

 

[qtonic]

Are you not over-complicating this? Local authorities can certainly control what happens on the ground in their jurisdiction. UAV operations (takeoff and landing) are ground operation. Flying in the airspace above is not a ground operation and so, primarily, is under FAA jurisdiction, although it could violate noise or other local ordinances.

Violating the "spirit of the law" is not a meaningful term if it refers to a law that the "spirit" of which is attempting to regulate something beyond the authority of the lawmaker.

The 'spirit of the law' part was quoted from another post in this thread. I was just invoking that part of the discussion. I don't necessarily have an opinion yet.

However I do think it's a fair and simple question. If your home town or all home towns say 'no taking off or landing from here', is that appropriate?

I'm interested in opinions, especially from those who were strongly 'pro-authorities' in this thread, not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

[THA]

The 'spirit of the law' part was quoted from another post in this thread. I was just invoking that part of the discussion. I don't necessarily have an opinion yet.

However I do think it's a fair and simple question. If your home town or all home towns say 'no taking off or landing from here', is that appropriate?

I'm interested in opinions, especially from those who were strongly 'pro-authorities' in this thread, not that there is anything wrong with that.

If a city, county, state in the USA says no take off or landing and have an ordinance then it is real. If it says no flying, they have no authority. Only over actual takeoff and landing. FAA controls the rest.

 

[42FrankZ]

If a city, county, state in the USA says no take off or landing and have an ordinance then it is real. If it says no flying, they have no authority. Only over actual takeoff and landing. FAA controls the rest.

Take off an landing is part of flight, you can't do it without them. This is equivalent to people trying to ban guns by saying you can't by ammunition.

Of course lawsuits need to happen to void the no take off laws, and the courts need to use some "common sense" and enforce the idea that states can't ban flying (including all phases) of it.

Hopefully we won't see this in the 9th.

 

[qtonic]

If a city, county, state in the USA says no take off or landing and have an ordinance then it is real. If it says no flying, they have no authority. Only over actual takeoff and landing. FAA controls the rest.

I have heard that as well. In fact I understood it to be the case.

But others here say that is just a misunderstanding of their duty to respect the intent of a law (and in fact that they are childish for wanting what another law seems to suggest is ok).

It may be unrealistic, but I think drone pilots should try to come to a common understanding about what our rights should or should not entail before the matter is completely out of our hands without us having a solid stance one way or the other.

 

[sar104]

I have heard that as well. In fact I understood it to be the case.

But others here say that is just a misunderstanding of their duty to respect the intent of a law (and in fact that they are childish for wanting what another law seems to suggest is ok).

That would be a clear misunderstanding of the law, IMO, in conflating flight with takeoff and landing. They may both be essential components of flying, but that does not make them the same; an overflight is an activity entirely in the air, over no phase of which the local authority has jurisdiction, while takeoff and landing are activities on the ground, over which they have complete jurisdiction. Taken to its logical extension, that argument could result in local authorities having no control over where airports are built, for example. Whether the intent of a law banning takeoff and landing is really to prevent UAV flights in that area doesn't really matter, because they have no duty to enable an activity even if they have no authority to ban it.

It may be unrealistic, but I think drone pilots should try to come to a common understanding about what our rights should or should not entail before the matter is completely out of our hands without us having a solid stance one way or the other.

The AMA has coordinated that kind of action for model aircraft, but do not seem especially committed to lobbying for sUAS operations. A dedicated organization for that might be a good idea.