States and cities trying to domesticate the drone.

[GMack]

Saw this under the California > Berkeley, California heading in this link: http://uavs.insct.org/local-regulation/ Seems most severe I've read, if passed, as they want no drones at all including any fly-overs in transit too which is more severe than the National Parks.

"PROCLAIM BERKELEY A NO DRONE ZONE AND ENACT AN ORDINANCE TO THAT EFFECT: “NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City of Berkeley, with this Resolution and by Proclamation proclaims Berkeley a No Drone Zone, and instructs the City Attorney to perform the necessary legal tasks to transform this declaration of a No Drone Zone into an Ordinance for the City of Berkeley wherein drones are hereby banned from airspace over the City of Berkeley, including drones in transit. Under that Ordinance, flying of a drone within the airspace of the City of Berkeley shall be considered a misdemeanor carrying a maximum penalty of up to one year in jail and a fine not to exceed $10,000. Each offense that is more than one offense of flying a drone within said airspace will be considered to be an additional misdemeanor, with jail time and fines based on the number of violations.” Submitted by: George Lippman, Chairperson, Peace and Justice Commission."

Fly 'em while you still can.

 

[MapMaker53]

Apparently, the Council of the City of Berkeley is not familiar with who controls airspace and the fact that they cannot legally control the airspace above the city. Hopefully, the City Attorney mentioned understands the law before the city is sued by someone overflying legally.

 

[microlinux]

Of course there is the minor detail that the FAA has the sole authority to regulate airspace, no? Am I misunderstanding something about this - I'm under the impression that a city could legally prohibit you from operating a drone from city property, but not over it?

 

[MapMaker53]

My understanding is a local government may have a limited ability to control flyover using specific ordinances regarding specific locations or events, but not a blanket control over all airspace. But I'm not an attorney.

 

[GMack]

My fear is that it is coming out of Berkeley, CA who has a lot of clout in Washington with their senators, as well as the state capitol, and federal courthouses in the Bay area.

I can see them superseding the FAA rules with sundry environmental laws, privacy matters, terrorist possibilities, trespassing, wildlife endangerment, and the list goes on. They did it with the federal air resources rules and made those even more restrictive than federal laws, and the state won. I wouldn't be surprised if the FAA runs from the entire matter to let states decide their own policies with regards to drones.

I know in my HOA they will go on for hours if I fly mine over one of their houses and it will be a blanket ban so I don't do it. Almost lost my two motorcycles due to one rider who came home at 2AM with loud pipes, but thankfully he moved and they dropped the matter.

Given that one council body enacted some drone laws with a 50 to 0 vote against them, all it takes is: "Mr./Ms. Lawmaker, do you want a drone flying randomly over your house?" We know where that will go in a vote. If Berkeley enacts and wins, it will become a domino effect to all other cities.

Somewhere I fear all cities will become NFZs' without a permit. Drone software flight unlocks could be handled through the local Film Commissioner's office too. Just pay the $660 Hollywood film permit fee and go fly for a day, but only after you provide all the other paperwork.

 

[microlinux]

Just pay the $660 Hollywood film permit fee and go fly for a day, but only after you provide all the other paperwork.

It's crazy . . . the government doesn't want drones bothering or endangering anyone . . . unless you pay them off - then it's ok!

 

[Helihover]

Cities, counties and what have you, can make up any laws they want grounding UAV's. In fact the FAA ask you to follow your local ordinances. Problem is none of these laws being made are taking the final step of being approved which is, being approved by the FAA.

If you guys are really concerned in your state, please go tell someone. Somebody schedule a meeting with the Berkeley lawyer and show him the "State and Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft System Fact Sheet", released by the FAA 12/17/15. Then go on to explain to him how a patchwork system of airspace control only complicates matters in the big picture. Then you can show him how the city of Burbank, Honolulu, Hempstead, and Audubon Park have all failed in court trying to control the NAS. Then I would personally go into a more personal, "why" attitude. Why are you attempting such dramatic measures? What is the goal of the outcome and so on, trying to dig deeper to find the source. Then if you want to take it even further, go to the source and educate that too. The FAA surely isn't educating anyone or even stepping up to help out UAV industry when it sees a serious threat. Look at all the shootings.....

Until someone steps up, we're going to have a mess on our hands trying to fly. Look at SoCal all ready. There's restrictions here and there and registration here, but not there, all of which is nonsense. Yet, several of you are abiding. Florida seems to be pretty tight too. Theres only one or two people taking action against the locals that I'm aware of. That's not enough. Sitting on the keyboard talking about it does nothing, you guys should really get out and talk to these people before it's made an actual law. Trust me, if there was any of these laws or ordinances trying to be applied here in the Portland area, I would be all over it, but Portland is cool

 

[jellofan]

Saw this under the California > Berkeley, California heading in this link: Local Regulation - Domesticating the Drone Seems most severe I've read, if passed, as they want no drones at all including any fly-overs in transit too which is more severe than the National Parks.
.

Many folks replying here and elsewhere in this forum keep talking about the FAA having sole responsibility for the NAS. But the website mentioned in this post has a pointer to another resource which makes for interesting reading since it is designed to provide guidance to cities on how to formulate drone policy, including regulation: http://uavs.insct.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/NLC-Drone-Report.pdf

 

[BigAl07]

Many folks replying here and elsewhere in this forum keep talking about the FAA having sole responsibility for the NAS. But the website mentioned in this post has a pointer to another resource which makes for interesting reading since it is designed to provide guidance to cities on how to formulate drone policy, including regulation: http://uavs.insct.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/NLC-Drone-Report.pdf

That's a lot of reading. I know what I'll be doing in the morning LOL

 

[microlinux]

The Berkeley Drones of Death, powered by nuclear reactors . . .

WHEREAS, drones have the capability of carrying a variety of weapons, including 12- guage shot guns, tear gas, rubber bullet guns, bombs and missiles

WHEREAS, Unmanned Aerial vehicles (drones) have the capability to watch individuals, groups and populations on a 24-hour basis, following and recording their movements for days and weeks in an unprecedented way

WHEREAS, drones have the capability to continuously monitor cell-phone and text messaging of individuals, groups and populations

WHEREAS, drones are being developed that will use computerized facial images to target individuals and, once launched, to operate, autonomously, without further human involvement, to locate and kill those individuals (ActiveTracking is just a beta test!)

It's from 2012, so I'm not sure it's relevant anymore, but I like to think they'd call it The Skynet Act.

 

[Stew-2]

I can see them superseding the FAA rules with sundry environmental laws, privacy matters, terrorist possibilities, trespassing, wildlife endangerment, and the list goes on. They did it with the federal air resources rules and made those even more restrictive than federal laws, and the state won.

The only reason they got (get) away with tighter air pollution laws vs federal law is because CARB was founded before the EPA by a couple of years. I agree though, all these drone laws are starting to borderline on absurdity and I'm starting to wish I didn't blow over a grand on something it seems I won't even be able to use here before too long.