Slashdot Mirror
FAA's Drone Laws Clash With Local Regulations (nytimes.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration has finally started to roll out its new rules for small drones. The agency was notably slow to do so — slow enough that many cities, counties, and states beat them to it. Now, the FAA's rules are clashing with established and more developed rules, frustrating local lawmakers and confusing drone hobbyists. "Lawmakers said the agency's drone rules did not go as far as many states and municipalities that are explicitly banning flights within cities and over homes, strengthening privacy protections and imposing steep criminal and financial penalties on violators."
The FAA's slow and unilateral response is causing local officials to fight the nationwide regulations. "There was not supposed to be such a divide between local and federal drone regulations. Congress instructed the FAA three years ago to write laws for drones, a nascent technology at the time. Yet the agency struggled to create first-time rules for the category that would balance a public outcry over safety concerns with the economic benefits drone makers promised from the machines." Meanwhile, tech companies focused on drone development are pleased with the FAA's light touch. There are hobbyists on each side of the issue; some are glad to avoid more restrictive and complicated local regulations, while others wish the government would do more to slow the rush of unprepared and reckless new drone owners.
The FAA's slow and unilateral response is causing local officials to fight the nationwide regulations. "There was not supposed to be such a divide between local and federal drone regulations. Congress instructed the FAA three years ago to write laws for drones, a nascent technology at the time. Yet the agency struggled to create first-time rules for the category that would balance a public outcry over safety concerns with the economic benefits drone makers promised from the machines." Meanwhile, tech companies focused on drone development are pleased with the FAA's light touch. There are hobbyists on each side of the issue; some are glad to avoid more restrictive and complicated local regulations, while others wish the government would do more to slow the rush of unprepared and reckless new drone owners.
The FAA has no jurisdiction over hobby drones in my neighborhood. Those drones cannot fly high enough to even risk an incident with interstate air travel or the military. The US Constitution affords no such authority to the federal government in such matters and there is no nexus which can be stretched to create one. It's like justifying the drug laws on "smoking weed impacts interstate commerce, so the feds can get involved." Well, no, smoking locally grown weed in the same municipality or state or flying a drone that never actually interferes with interstate travel of goods and people happens entirely within a state's borders and the US Constitution affords almost no jurisdiction in such cases.
many states and municipalities that are explicitly banning flights within cities and over homes
By the FAA's definition, a drone is an aircraft. States and municipaliteis dont have the unilateral authority to declare no-fly zones. thats the UN security council, NATO, NORAD, and the FAA. its the same reason why as an amateur radeo operator, the local law prohibiting my short wave antenna is entirely unenforceable. Radio communication is the sacrosanct jurisdiction of the FCC.
Good people go to bed earlier.
.... while others wish the government would do more to slow the rush of unprepared and reckless new drone owners.
Not just new, but ALL drone owners. And registration numbers so I can report and file charges against anyone who refuses to fly away when I wave them off.
If one more asshole hovers over one of my tennis games again, I will spend the rest of my life getting political momentum to ban those fucking things.
There is nothing more ridiculous than the moral panic over drones.
There is nothing preventing local authorities (or organizations) passing more restrictive laws in the aviation world, as long as those laws amplify the nationally established ones.
"The avalanche has already started. It's too late for the pebbles to vote." - Kosh
This should not turn into a long running battle. Drones are going to be a huge part of life soon. Delivery drones will fly over homes and law enforcement will have a field day with these things. Anything that can be seen by an aircraft at 3,000 feet is already in public view so it is not a privacy issue. We do not need tens of thousands of court cases, at the public expense, while every nut job in the nation tries to limit the use of drones. Imagine fire detection abilities in the wee hours of the night by drones. Every year, when cold weather hits hard, families perish in house fires in the night. Drones may very well save lives. Recently, by chance I discovered a car, crashed into a pole, with severe damage. I was able to call police and rescue units who quickly arrived. I don't know if there were survivors or not but that car may have been there for several hours. Drones, on patrol may be able to spot these kinds of situations and save numerous lives. Drones could also function as WiFi stations enabling computers to easily communicate over dense neighborhoods.
And it's been raining ever since. So I've only flown it once. I'm pretty freaking excited to fly it though. And yes. I did register it with the FAA. Here's a little review I wrote comparing it to the Phantom 2 I bought and returned after only 30 days a year ago.
https://www.thegeekpub.com/400...
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
Drones are a useful tool, a fun toy and sometimes a nuisance. Drones are not a serious hazard unless they are used in a completely reckless or criminal manner that would trigger a bunch of generalized laws already on the books that apply generally to reckless behavior and criminal intent.
Far more likely it is criminals acting within government that will abuse the power of government to regulate drones to cover up criminal behavior by keeping people from documenting criminality with amateur video. It is no different than when bad cops threaten and confiscate cell phones to cover up police abuse.
I don't have a problem with the FAA and local laws being so different and addressing different topics. Unless you live in a place like Texarcana, your neighbor peeking over your wall isn't a federal or interstate problem and the feds shouldn't be trying to protect privacy from peek-by-droners. Similarly, the local governments shouldn't be worrying about interference with interstate flights and all the other issues that the feds should be regulating.
What's wrong with two (or even three) sets of rules, each made by government entities tasked with addressing scopes of problems?
And if you have a silly situation where someone tries to make silly rules in the other entity's scope (e.g. cities trying to ban all flights over or within that city) just let the silly people lose. Yeah, there will be some complexity, and arguments about what belongs to who, but we've always had that going on. That's not an "aircraft thing," it's an "America thing" and we argue about where the lines are, all the time.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The FAA has jurisdiction over all airspace in the US including that below 500 ft above ground level (AGL). https://www.faa.gov/news/updat...
Specifically *ALL* airspace within 12 nautical miles (NM) of the US coastline is subject to FAA jurisdiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (you can read the boring primary source if you follow links at http://macklow.com/airspace/)
Federal law comes before and above local and state law, so local and state politicians can growse and complain, but they passed laws about airspace... and they have no jurisdiction over that airspace. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) makes sure of that. http://litigation.findlaw.com/...
Finally, these are not drones, and the FAA has not promulgated regulation about drones. These are unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). This is what the FAA registration is for, and it DOES cover model aircraft above a certain weight. https://www.faa.gov/uas/
Ehud
P.S. The following articles all APPEAR to be different... until you read the comments, and realize that every time this topic comes up the same people come out of the woodwork to make up the same stories. Please help spread the facts. (See links above).
http://news.slashdot.org/story...
http://tech.slashdot.org/story...
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
and even on a California legislature story: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
while others wish the government would do more to slow the rush of unprepared and reckless new drone owners.
A little red tape might actually help. A measured amount, that is not permitted to be burdensome.
I would suggest requiring that manufacturers ensure their product is sold on the condition that it will only be sold to a licensed pilot or licensed, or registered drone operator.
Operating a drone should require a license involving paying perhaps a $20 fee, and proving completion of a qualifying training course for basic drone operation, and passing a written exam.
The idea is to not keep people out hobbyists or other people who are serious about proper and safe drone operation, BUT selling every mom and pop a drone, is plain irresponsible, until such time as a high margin of safety can be assured (Which it cannot, by current technology).
if they do anything more than simply FLY (as in has any other capability, whether utilized or not, from cameras and microphones, to sensors, to gps, to payload, to ordinance, etc), AND/OR design is significantly different than existing flying vehicles (airplanes, helicopters), AND/OR they can operate beyond simple short-range line-of-sight to the operator, they are not R/C hobbyist aircraft which have been allowed for decades.. ban anything and everything else.
require per-flight scientific research permit, and vet the hell out of the applications and applicants and flight plans, for anything more than R/C aircraft. anything else we do not need them. period. military, of course, is excluded, for overseas operations or domestically only in case of invasion. no peacetime deployment or enforcement duties of any kind, and they must be operated from military bases by flight certified military pilots only. absolutely no law enforcement ownership or deployments, period. they cant guarantee that the only data gathered is that which is covered by a valid warrant signed by a real judge and not in a secret court.
Except where there is a relevant easement, the FAA cannot authorize flights below 500 feet altitude. (Technically, they can only authorized above that level because there's a country-wide easement for it.) Drone use below that level could lead to criminal and/or civil liability for trespass.
Wow, you really said everything that could be said that leaves out law enforcement (guffaw like that would ever be in a law) and basically ignores how things work in reality land.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Under the United States Constitution, the Feds are allowed to Establish Minimum Standards, which is exactly what the FAA is doing. There's not conflict as the Summary States as the FAA has no control over air space below 500 feet (150m) except around airports and in regards to the training/maintenance/ownership requirements for both Vertical and Fixed Wing Aircraft. If a City wants to ban drones entirely, they can as it's their right unless it conflicts with FAA rules in regards to licensed airspace.
You always start with the end you want to achieve. You can't get somewhere without knowing where it is, you can't even heuristically reach a goal without some measure of deviance.
The FAA is notoriously bad at this, always has been. The NTSB has lambasted them multiple times for failures in devising and enforcing regulations. The FAA was also solely responsible for air traffic controllers having no choice but to sleep on duty (not sure that issue was ever fixed).
I'm not impressed with the NTSB either, but at least they make some sort of effort.
The whole aviation safety and regulatory system needs to be replaced - not just to get drone regulations up to speed, but to eliminate corruption and replace it with sound judgement.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Seriously? You're taking the position that what this country needs is MORE surveillance of the public?
Please die in a fire.
> easement covering the flight
it won't be locally grown, but "surprise!" how soon will it be ultra-locally tolled?
notwithstanding that the concept of "cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos" was lost by Causby to USians in 1946, and Canucks took a bit longer (Bernstein in '78), I do still have the absolute right to control my property's airspace, up to the easement boundary.
if you're 499' AGL or less, gosh dang there's now a $2500 exit toll.
signs describing the T&C's of a mandatory per-incident right-to-use license are at the fences and everything.
didn't read them? not my problem.
the EULA posted on the signs indicate the do-er's acceptance that failure to pay the toll prior to entry results in confiscation of the trespassing toy (vee haff vays...)
if you want it back? you pay the toll plus a $2500 storage fee, within 72 hours.
unclaimed toys are forfeit.
says so, right there in the EULA you agreed to.
suck it, punk.
open your wallet or get off my airspace.
The FAA's authority over UAS is not as cut-and-dried as all that.
I'm a model aircraft flier and a member of the Academy of Model Aeronautics, and the AMA is of the opinion that the FAA has overreached with its new registration rule. Specifically, they believe that Congress prevents the FAA from regulating model aircraft due to an exemption in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. The AMA's official blog has a recent article (link is below, just cut'n'paste it) which includes the following statement: "AMA has also argued that the new registration rule runs counter to Congress' intent in Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, otherwise known as the Special Rule for Model Aircraft." There is a court challenge in progress on this issue as well.
http://amablog.modelaircraft.o...
Now, this exemption won't cover commercial UAS, but the hobbyist model flier is very likely exempt (with the possible exception of some FPV models (controlled using onboard video downlinks rather than direct line-of-sight to the model). It should not need to be pointed out that essentially all of the "drone" troubles being encountered now are due to improper behavior that violates common sense, ordinary caution, the AMA code of conduct, and a variety of state and federal laws relating to full-scale aviation and public safety.
Moreover, the people doing these dumb things aren't likely to properly register their toys in any case, so all of these regulations are worthless in any practical sense to begin with. (I find it useful to think of this type of behavior as comparable to shining lasers at airliners: It's a stupid and potentially dangerous activity practiced by fools who won't behave themselves, and no amount of legislation will change that.)
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
Seriously? You're taking the position that what this country needs is MORE surveillance of the public?
Please die in a fire.
Surveillance of the public is only a problem when it's the Government doing it, or a private individual/corporation doing it at the the request of the Government (i.e. acting as an agent of the government). There should never be any laws which prevent an individual, acting in their own capacity, from viewing, recording, filming, etc. anything which happens in full view of the public or on public property.
Yes, that includes taking pictures of your cleavage, or up your skirt. Put some fucking clothes on if you don't want people taking pictures of your "naughty bits".
The entire idea of a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' is total crap. If you want privacy, go somewhere private. I don't have an issue with a few specific exceptions in well-defined areas, such as a restroom or a phone booth. But in most cases, anything which my eyes can see and my ears can hear ought to be 100% fair game to record.
> Except where there is a relevant easement, the FAA cannot authorize flights below 500 feet altitude.
Absolutely not true.
The FAA authorizes ALL fixed-wing aircraft operation below 500ft AGL during ALL takeoffs and landings.
The FAA authorizes ALL rotorcraft to operate at ANY altitude during ALL phases of flight.
Here’s the Reason The FAA’s Drone Registration System Doesn’t Make Sense
A few years ago, Congress passed the Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, an immense 300-page tome that set directives to the FAA including how airports should be improved, what medical certificates apply to what type of pilot, and special rules for model aircraft.
The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft
In the Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, ‘model aircraft’ are defined as, ‘an unmanned aircraft capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere, flown within visual line of sight, and flown for hobby or recreational purposes.’ If these qualifications are met, the FAA may not make a rule regarding these aircraft, so long as they are not flown within 5 miles of an airport.
Geez, read about it here....
Bunch of local assholes bitching they cant suck money from hobbiests, and that they cant suck the dick of the rich old complainer types.
From Forbes: (warning: they are annoying about adblockers,...) http://www.forbes.com/sites/jo...
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
We should also require registration for tennis balls and tennis rackets, so that anyone who hits the ball over my head in the park can be arrested and charged.
if it's a public park, you have no standing.
If one more tennis ball lands in my front yard, or spoils my picnic, I will spend the rest of my life getting political momentum to ban those fucking things.
iff your front yard, keep the tennis ball.
ditto if the picnic is on your property.
who needs political momentum when you can impound the trespassing objects?
no need for a ban. with penalty of forfeit, the transgressors may begin to understand.
further, if you're so inclined, post signs and collect appropriately-large storage and ball-retrieval fees.
The FCC heavily regulates all radio emissions, and those regulations leave ample room for hobbyists to operate and even innovate. The FAA can/should/does provide the same service for airspace. Why should aircraft operators expect less of their government than radio operators? The FCC is immensely helpful in maintaining orderly EM spectrum use in the US and--along with the ITU and other national and international organizations--around the world. The news here is that aircraft are becoming so inexpensive that more people are discovering they need a license to operate them beyond certain limited ranges of capability, a fact that licensed pilots as well as licensed practitioners of other hobbies already know.
Does anyone know in the US what rights propery owners have to the space above their property? I know it obviously doesn't go very high....but I also don't need to purchase additional "space" when expanding vertically. At least to a certain point....what is that point? Is there a special "air rights certificate" needed for anything larger than 3 stories? What about 5 stories, or 10? If is a "floating" limit, like 10 feet above the highest point on the premise", then building vertically essentially increased the area of the property. Maybe I should put up as large of a flagpole as the local ordinances allow, and anything that passes within that height limit and over my borders is tresspassing?
And it's been raining ever since.
Huh? It's been raining ever since what? Just copy the stupid subject into the comment area and quit thinking it's trendy to split your post !!!
.
Drones don't kill people. People kill people.
The only solution is to arm everyone with a drone so that the good drone owners can kill the bad drone owners.
This message brought to you by the National Drone Association.
God bless 'merica.