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.

Comments

Constitutionally, the FAA should lose

[MikeRT]

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.

Re:Constitutionally, the FAA should lose

[Anonymous Coward]

The FAA has no jurisdiction over hobby drones in my neighborhood.

Citation Needed. (Prior Case Law seems to contradict your opinions)

Those drones cannot fly high enough to even risk an incident with interstate air travel or the military.

I'm pretty sure that if you stand on top of a 500 foot cliff (or building), and fly the drone over the edge, it doesn't just magically appear below the altitude limit. And unless you're claiming there are no airports and the military never, ever conducts any operations in your area, the height isn't even relevant.

As for the article, it's the usual misinformation. The FAA has set restrictions, in most cases local government are more than capable of enacting additional restrictions. As for things like privacy concerns, that's not even the FAA's deal to regulate.

Re:Sky is Falling!

[Obfuscant]

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.

That statement is almost a tautology, only failing to be so because you used the word "completely", and because the law defines "reckless" in a bit stricter sense than you seem to. (I.e., "completely reckless" is not a legal term; it is reckless or it isn't.) Not every stupid thing someone does that violates the FARs is reckless, but that does't make them legal or reasonable.

There are many stupid things that people do that are not reckless, and smart people can do reckless things. Let's stop using a legally restrictive term and try using the word "dangerous". Doing dangerous things ignorantly is just as bad as doing the same dangerous thing knowingly. Criminal intent in "reckless" isn't a requirement, only the action.

For example, if I go out to the boonies and fly my drone up to 600' AGL, am I operating recklessly? Maybe, maybe not -- and because I know the airspace it isn't. But I don't want my example of doing it safely but illegally to become the example for a nitwit who knows nothing of the airspace rules. The question "if HE can do it, why can't I" is a pretty serious question, and the answer "he knows the airspace and can do illegal things safely and you don't" is a pretty stupid answer.