Councilmen Introduce Bills Strongly Regulating UAV Use in NYC

SternisheFan passes on this excerpt from an Ars Technica article: On Wednesday Councilman Dan Garodnick introduced a bill to the New York City council seeking to ban all use of drones except those operated by police officers who obtain warrants. A second, parallel bill introduced by councilman Paul Vallone would place more stringent restrictions on drone use but stop short of banning drones for hobbyists and companies altogether. Both bills have been passed to the city's committee on public safety. An all-out ban on drones within the metropolis would be a quite wide-reaching step, especially as the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) seems poised to adopt more permissive rules, with respect to commercial interests in particular. Earlier this year, the FAA formally granted six Hollywood companies exemptions to drone ban rules. A couple of months later, the FAA granted similar exemptions for construction site monitoring and oil rig flare stack inspections. The article explains that Vallone's bill is less restrictive, and rather than propose an outright ban "lists 10 instances where operating a UAV would be illegal, including at night, out of the operator's eyesight, or above 400 ft high. Outside of those conditions, hobbyists and commercial interests would be free to fly drones."

Comments

Re: here's a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that everything in politics revolves around money. These guys get to the top using money and create laws based on money. So, sorry. If you have enough money to buy yourself the laws you want you likely don't care about flying a drone in a park.

Re: hooray for the government

[Anonymous Coward]

If gun bans work, then please explain Chicago.

FAA has sole jurisdiction

[gavron]

In the United States the Federal Aviation Administration is the entity with jurisdiction over all airspace SURFACE to SPACE*

This has been discussed on slashdot so many times in the last year wrt drones and FAA authority that it's beating a dead horse.

NY Councilmen can posture and mumble and pass laws all day long but they have no authority over the air.

E

* Note that this includes surface to 400ft which some people believe is magically exempt from regulation... except the FAA has recently shown it's not.

Re:Should let them work inside parks.

[budgenator]

Oh good grief people read the article,

No person may avigate a UAV within the limits of the city except:
        1. The police department in accordance with section 14-133.1.
        2. A person avigating such UAV pursuant to and within the limits of an express authorization by the federal aviation administration.

basically a grandstanding city Councilman introduced a statute making it illegal to operate a UAV anywhere it is all ready illegal to operate a UAV!

Re:Stupid rethuglicans restricting our rights

[budgenator]

Garodnick was elected to New York City Council in 2005, winning 63 percent of the vote in the general election and defeating both the Republican and Libertarian candidates. In the five-way Democratic primary that year he won 59% of the vote. Daniel Garodnick

I've noticed that Democrats are more likely to "pass a law" on the "issue du jour" than they are to either rationally consider whether a new law is really necessary or to hold LE and the courts accountable for enforcing the existing applicable laws.

Re:Flying a drone into something is a right!

[Morgon]

Nobody's talking about these being 'rights'. There are existing laws for privacy violations and 'peeping toms', there's absolutely no reason or need for heavy-handed over-regulation just because it's new technology. Everything in life can be used for good or for ill, they need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, not just blanket-banning the entire industry just because of some politician's twisted mind.

Re:Should let them work inside parks.

[ScentCone]

Where is it in the constitution that flying a drone is a protected right?

Ah, another person who never went to school, or certainly wasn't paying attention.

Your rights are not defined in the constitution. The constitution exists to limit the government's power to interfere with your liberty. Some of those liberties are so important that they are also mentioned by name (the right to liberty that by definition includes the right to speak, assemble, protect yourself, etc). Only leftist idiots think that it's the government that grants you your rights. That's 100% Nanny State backwards. Please do not vote.

Re:hooray for the government

[occasional_dabbler]

My reply appeared above your comment, for some reason... Bird strike inside of the FAA rules should be acceptable as an everyday occurence (laundry bills aside). 1549 was outside of these rules (many more birds hitting both engines) and it was a lucky escape; a very experienced pilot and a suitable place for a ditching (The first well-observed and survivable ditching in maybe 50 years? - it was by no means certain that ditching was a safe manoevre; all the substantiation was from scale model tests and simulation - no full-size tests).

To be quite blunt: if a bird of 8lb goes into your engine you're ok, if a bird of 9lb goes into your engine there's no guarantee. If the bird's bigger brother goes down the other engine then you're in the realms of statistical probabilities and prayer.