Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FAA's Drone Laws Clash With Local Regulations (nytimes.com)

Posted by Soulskill on from the leave-the-laws-to-the-experts dept.

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.

60 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. Constitutionally, the FAA should lose by MikeRT · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Constitutionally, the FAA should lose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Commerce Clause can be extended to cover almost anything. Your drone is capable of crossing state lines, so it can be regulated. End. Of. Story.

    2. Re:Constitutionally, the FAA should lose by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      The 9th and 10th Amendments are more recent than the commerce clause, therefore they take precedence. End. of. story.

      Or.. it should be, anyway.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    3. Re:Constitutionally, the FAA should lose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Constitutionally, the FAA should lose by cdwiegand · · Score: 1

      The US Constitution gives Congress sole law writing authority and they passed laws creating the FAA. Those various laws also grant the FAA the authority to do this. Constitutionally they are very well covered. If you disagree, try suing them and taking it to SCOTUS. Even they will agree due to safety being the main driver.

      --
      . Define sqrt(x) as something really evil like (x / rand()), and bury it deep. Watch your coworkers go nuts.
    5. Re:Constitutionally, the FAA should lose by TimSSG · · Score: 1
      Never heard of state or local laws; that a new level of lack of knowledge on slashdot. Tim S.

      The US Constitution gives Congress sole law writing authority and they passed laws creating the FAA. Those various laws also grant the FAA the authority to do this. Constitutionally they are very well covered. If you disagree, try suing them and taking it to SCOTUS. Even they will agree due to safety being the main driver.

    6. Re:Constitutionally, the FAA should lose by BitZtream · · Score: 1, Troll

      As soon as that weed is sold, it becomes a federal issue, if nothing else its a tax issue.

      Which is why the feds don't bust people who grow their own.

      The constitution defines a couple fist fulls of Musts and Must nots, everything else it leaves to Congress to control, the Supreme Court can disagree with Congress and throw it out, but otherwise Congress is actually capable of doing pretty much anything they want.

      And its ignorant fucking statements like yours that are a major contributing factor as to why we have such a shitty Congress and national state of affairs. People like yourself expect to stand back without any actual understanding of hour our government works and screen 'constitution' when its sounds entirely like you've never even read it. And you do nothing to actually fix the problem. Just shout and point at something someone else did and absolve yourself of the actual situation.

      The FAA has jurisdiction over what flies over any US territory, deal with it. Doesn't matter if its a grain of sand millimeters off the ground or a military aircraft at 80k feet, or even ballistic missiles (though its probably not worth arguing about if ballistic missiles are flying around, is it?).

      The reality of it is, "We, the people of the United States of America" DO WANT DRONES REGULATED. I say this as someone who has been flying RC aircraft for over 20 years and currently own 3 flight ready quadcopter, 2 standard helicopters and a fixed wing rc aircraft. Countless model rockets as well. I'm safe. Joe Sixpack that gets one as a christmas present is not. Until 5 years ago, Joe Sixpack was going to be so incapable of controlling the aircraft that its probably going to crash on take off... this wasn't even all that dangerous cause it happened once, fairly early in the life of the aircraft. Artificial stability (the part that makes it so a human being can actually fly a quad in the first place) makes it so Joe Sixpack doesn't crash immediately. This is dangerous. Now he gets over confident and starts doing 'cool' things without actually thinking about what he's doing.

      He's just not thinking about the fact that a 5 pound aircraft dropping uncontrolled from 10 feet above someones head is well beyond the amount of blunt force required to kill someone with a head strike ... and thats just an unintentional freefall, I'm ignoring all sorts of things that could cause all sorts of damage to a person besides death

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    7. Re:Constitutionally, the FAA should lose by sycodon · · Score: 1

      I spit out my coffee reading this I laughed so hard.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    8. Re:Constitutionally, the FAA should lose by bonehead · · Score: 1

      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.

      By smoking locally grown weed in Colorado, you have reduced the demand for weed grown in California, thereby affecting interstate commerce and giving the federal government jurisdiction.

      If that sounds ridiculous, that's because it is. However, that argument still gets used (successfully) when the feds really, really want to stick their noses in where they don't belong.

    9. Re:Constitutionally, the FAA should lose by sycodon · · Score: 1

      In this particular case, at this particular time, and IF your local law makers are worse Control Freaks than the feds, it's a good thing. Because you can tell them to shove it, federal supersedes them.

      Don't expect that to last long though.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    10. Re:Constitutionally, the FAA should lose by bkmoore · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

      Yes they do.

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

      Are you even familiar with your local airspace? Do you have a copy of the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) and keep it updated? Do you have a current VFR sectional? Have you checked the NOTAMS (Notices to Airmen)? Do you know where military training routes and training areas are located? Do you know what the performance of all drones are?

      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...

      Along those lines of logic, what if each municipality or State decided to create their own airspace definitions and issue their own pilots licenses? What if for example, the State of Louisiana decided to have their ATC only speak French? French is after all one of the official ICAO languages and is spoken by a sizable population in that state.

    11. Re: Constitutionally, the FAA should lose by dywolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not actually true, and the FAA does in fact have rules for model aircraft.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    12. Re:Constitutionally, the FAA should lose by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Ummm.
      No.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    13. Re:Constitutionally, the FAA should lose by dywolf · · Score: 1

      So apparently you've never heard of either the Commerce Clause not the Supremacy Clause.
      You should correct that deficiency.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    14. Re: Constitutionally, the FAA should lose by fatboy · · Score: 1

      And it is in dispute if those new rules violate the Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.

      --
      --fatboy
    15. Re:Constitutionally, the FAA should lose by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Well, besides the point that the Constitution only gives Congress LIMITED law writing authority (leaving most such authority to state legislatures), the fact is that among the laws passed by Congress giving authority to the FAA is one which strictly limits their authority to regulate drones. A law which the regulation the FAA is trying to put out there violates.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    16. Re:Constitutionally, the FAA should lose by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      By reading the article it seems to me that the issue is that the FAA rules are more relaxed than what some local rules are.

      But don't forget that there is already a federal exemption for RC aircraft in effect as well that predates the drones. Notice that drones are just a special variant of RC aircraft.

      In any case FAA may still want to have a word when it comes to drones and RC aircraft in areas close to airfields - it would be annoying if a drone was causing damage to a manned aircraft, even if the damage was minor it would cause severe implications.

      The big problem here is that earlier a lot of RC enthusiasts had pretty good understanding of where and how to fly safe as well as the fact that their devices were pretty expensive, but today when just about any moron with just a few dollars on the pocket can buy a RC device that's easy to control and fly around with around the heads of people even after consumption of a six-pack of beer it's suddenly another issue. "Hey, look at this".

      It's actually not very different from how cars were handled 100 years ago - the safety requirements have escalated. Today you need to take skid car courses and a lot of other training before you can get a drivers license. (At least in Sweden) Car manufacturers are also responsible for providing safety features like seat belts. And driving under the influence carries penalties and loss of license to drive a car.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    17. Re:Constitutionally, the FAA should lose by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      Doesn't work this way with the 2nd amendment - why should it work with something that isn't even a right enumerated in the constitution?

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    18. Re:Constitutionally, the FAA should lose by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Remember the 9th amendment. It is a very powerful reminder of what the Constitution actually does and where our rights actually come from.

    19. Re:Constitutionally, the FAA should lose by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      You are correct sir.

      In fact, that't exactly the argument that that the US government used in Wickard vs. Filburn to make the interstate commerce clause apply to pretty much any thing that like.

      Though in this case, I do agree that airspace should be a uniform federal thing. J. Random local-yokel DA should not get to make a name for himself by prosecuting model aircraft hobbyists for made-up offenses because the word "drone" is unpopular these days. Nor should they be allowed to give jimmy-bob the OK to fire on them with shotguns. Can you imagine the national chaos is every state, county, city, property owner, or whatever, were able to make up its own rules over the airspace? Good luck catching a flight, operating an airline, or doing anything anywhere that has to do with aviation. In fact, the FAA has better than a thirty-five year history regulating model aircraft (And a healthy, productive, and reciprocal relationship with the Academy of Model Aeronautics) under advisory circular 91-57.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    20. Re:Constitutionally, the FAA should lose by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      uh, not quite. It is " ignorant fucking statements like yours that are a major contributing factor as to why we have such a shitty Congress and national state of affairs" (to quote you). The 9th Amendment very clearly points out that the Constitution is in no way a comprehensive list of the rights we, the people (individually and collectively in groups of our choosing) enjoy and the 10th very clearly points out that the Federal government has absolutely no authority to do anything unless the Constitution explicitly says so. Anyone who cannot comprehend the 9th and 10th amendments has no business speaking about the Constitution in public.

    21. Re: Constitutionally, the FAA should lose by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Bullshit, it says neither of those two things. You're flat out making shit up that does not exist.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    22. Re:Constitutionally, the FAA should lose by Agripa · · Score: 1

      and there is no nexus which can be stretched to create one.

      If sufficient nexus can be established for Gun-Free School Zones Act the by adding "has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce", then Congress will have no trouble establishing it for the FAA if it has not already done so.

      http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...

  2. seems cut-and-dry to me by nimbius · · Score: 1

    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.
    1. Re:seems cut-and-dry to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just like homeowners associations cannot prohibit satellite dishes because they think they are ugly. (That one is explicitly mentioned in federal law, actually.)

      Federal law always trumps local ones. Always. If the state has one law and the feds make one that supersedes it, then the federal law wins. The states, however, do not have to enforce federal laws. You see this with marijuana laws in particular. Even though it's legal to consume it in Colorado, federal employees can be terminated for using it. (Ordinary companies can make rules as such but their enforcement is a bit trickier. They can be challenged in court as civil rights violations, depending on the nature of the company rule.)

    2. Re:seems cut-and-dry to me by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      It's important to note that while state or local laws cannot supersede federal laws (for example, if the feds say "You can't do {X} legally" and a state says you can, the fact that the state allows it is not an affirmative defense in a federal trial), they can build on them. If the feds say "You can't do {X} legally." the states could say "And you can't do {X.1} legally either."

      One example of this is protected classes in anti-discrimination laws. For example, by federal laws, a business cannot discriminate against someone on the basis of their race or religion. While a particular state cannot remove any protected class from the list that the feds have, they can add to the list.

      So, the feds provide a baseline, and the states and/or local jurisdictions can augment that baseline, but not remove any part of it. (Unless they challenge it in court and win. But depending on the law, that frequently ends up going to SCOTUS.)

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    3. Re:seems cut-and-dry to me by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      " If the state has one law and the feds make one that supersedes it, then the federal law wins."

      This sometimes can lead to very ugly legal situations though - with federal, state and local authorities often working to subvert each other and all being constrained by the courts, America has a rich traditional of legal games and tricks, often resorting to indirectly prohibiting what cannot be directly prohibited or passing laws that are impossible to comply with in order to drive away undesirables.

    4. Re:seems cut-and-dry to me by TimSSG · · Score: 1
      Not always true; if the State passed the law first, the state law is often allowed to stand. I was told about a law that was passed in Michigan related to semi tractor trailers that was passed by the state and it was allowed to stand even though the feds passed one with a lower limits later on. So, semi drivers in Michigan are able to haul more than they can in other states. Tim S.

      Just like homeowners associations cannot prohibit satellite dishes because they think they are ugly. (That one is explicitly mentioned in federal law, actually.)

      Federal law always trumps local ones. Always. If the state has one law and the feds make one that supersedes it, then the federal law wins. The states, however, do not have to enforce federal laws. You see this with marijuana laws in particular. Even though it's legal to consume it in Colorado, federal employees can be terminated for using it. (Ordinary companies can make rules as such but their enforcement is a bit trickier. They can be challenged in court as civil rights violations, depending on the nature of the company rule.)

    5. Re:seems cut-and-dry to me by TimSSG · · Score: 1
      As I already stated if the State Law was first; then it is possible that the State Law will still be valid instead of the Federal Law! It is only if the Federal Law is first that the State is limited by the Federal Law. So, your always supersedes is false! I have no idea if the decision is done in Federal Court, US Congress, or US Executive branch decides which State Laws are allowed to stand; but, it does rarely happen. Tim S.

      states can pass any law they want. but fed law does always supercede. if the fed law is establishing a minimum, then the state is free to go beyond that minimum, but not below it. if the few law is establishing a maximum, then the state is free to go below that maximum, but not beyond it. ie, intent of the law matters in determining which way the boundary lies.

  3. Moral Panic by borcharc · · Score: 1

    There is nothing more ridiculous than the moral panic over drones.

    1. Re:Moral Panic by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      No, the most ridiculous are the regulations around "indecency" where a female nipple is considered harmful for kids but not a male nipple.
       

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:Moral Panic by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2

      There's moral panic over drones? I know that a fair number of people have well-founded privacy and safety concerns, but I don't think I've seen anyone say that drones are an affront to God or a violation of their basic ethics.

    3. Re:Moral Panic by borcharc · · Score: 1

      No one has a right to privacy in an area a drone could see. If you have a privacy concern close your blinds or go inside. If you want to worry about privacy at least pick something that actually invades it like license plate scanners vs a drone that you are convinced is spying on you.

    4. Re:Moral Panic by Gryle · · Score: 1

      A drone could certainly see into my backyard from the right height and angle. I don't have a right to privacy in my own backyard?

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
  4. Legistlated to bits. by flyonthewall · · Score: 1

    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
    1. Re:Legistlated to bits. by flyonthewall · · Score: 1

      Correction: By laws I mean regulations.

      --
      "The avalanche has already started. It's too late for the pebbles to vote." - Kosh
    2. Re:Legistlated to bits. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      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.

      I know what an "amplifier" is in electronic terms. I have no idea what you mean by "amplify" when it comes to laws.

      Are you seriously claiming that a state could pass a law that only multi-engine aircraft can fly within state borders, or that all aircraft above 14,000 AGL must operate IFR, or other such nonsense? Or that the federal 18,000 AGL Class A airspace rules don't apply in their state?

      I really can't tell if it is tighter or looser regulations are what you mean by "amplify". I can tell that allowing such silliness would be a serious hindrance to that state's aviation system, and that of neighboring states. Imagine all the airlines having to keep from flying over the state of Kentucky because they have little bottles of alcoholic beverages on board and FooBunk County in Kentucky is a dry county. Imagine all the general aviation aircraft having to fly around Oklahoma because they are single engine.

      "Federal preemption". Sometimes there is no good reason for it; in cases of keeping a unified airspace system there is. There's a VOR approach that comes into the local airport right over the city I live in. Suppose our city council decides to pass a law that says that nobody can fly lower than 2000' AGL over the city. Instead of being at the legal and authorized 700' AGL that an aircraft can descend to now, he's got to stay at 2000' AGL until two miles from the airport. What a great system we'd have, huh?

  5. Re:Absolutely!! by pla · · Score: 2

    Unless you practice in the nude, Ms. Sharapova, don't flatter yourself. No one sends their drones your way to watch you flail at fuzzy yellow balls like a drunken hippo.

  6. My wonderful wife bought me a Phantom 3 for Xmas by MikeDataLink · · Score: 1

    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!
  7. Sky is Falling! by bigpat · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Sky is Falling! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Sky is Falling! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      The point was that the types of laws that states and municipalities are passing in order to prohibit the sorts of behaviors they don't want are redundant with laws already on the books that prohibit generally reckless behaviors that endanger people.

      But that point is wrong. There are laws in my city that prohibit flying a UAS in a public park. There are city parks around here that are almost always empty -- flying a UAS at low altitude and within a close radius is hardly reckless, and it endangers nobody.

      To the degree that they also prohibit non-reckless use of drones, then it is good that they have been superseded with Federal Regulations.

      Which is it? Are they preempted by federal regulations or not? I don't know that my city law about flight in public parks has been preempted by the FAA, but if so, then the law you claim is preventing reckless endangerment of the public has been preempted. You can't have it both ways.

  8. This might be a good thing by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    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.
    1. Re:This might be a good thing by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with two (or even three) sets of rules, each made by government entities tasked with addressing scopes of problems?

      Someone flying below 1000' AGL with a good camera can take a lot of incriminating pictures of your daughter by your swimming pool, especially if her boyfriend (or girlfriend) is there too.

      Your city, in response, passes a law, based on privacy concerns, that nobody can fly less than 2000' AGL over your fair city. Unfortunately, this conflicts with the existing federal laws on minimum safe altitudes. It also conflicts with the VOR approach to the local airport which allows pilots to descend to 650' AGL. It also conflicts with the ILS approach where the outer marker has a crossing altitude of just 1650' AGL.

      Does the FAA need to keep track of every local law prohibiting flight in the national airspace so it can keep the charts up to date, and how does that impact the rules that try to institute standards for things like approaches so pilots don't have to keep track of thousands of details? Or do thousands of pilots independently have to keep track of thousands of different cities' laws regarding the national airspace they are using?

      Is it a good thing for a pilot who has obeyed the published approach procedure and made a safe landing in low weather, to be approached by a local cop on the ramp because he didn't know that Greater Dloob Township passed a law that nobody could fly lower than 1000' AGL and that ILS approach he just flew had him at 500' AGL while transiting that municipality?

      While some laws are passed based on different "concerns", they still need to make a regular picture, not a patchwork of special limits in special areas.

      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.

      Except it won't be the silly people who lose, at least not in any direct way. It will be the pilots who find out that Podunk City has passed a law prohibiting flight below 2000' AGL after they have landed at Podunk City airport and the local cops show up to arrest them. Yes, the silly people will have strangled general aviation into and out of their locality, but most people don't recognize the value of that, and don't consider that someone who flies into the local airport counts in the FAA traffic totals that bring in grant money for airport projects, they usually buy gas that pays for jobs at the FBO, and they are often there to visit the city or a business.

      "Let the silly people lose" results in the tyranny of the ignorant or fearful.

      Yeah, there will be some complexity, and arguments about what belongs to who, but we've always had that going on.

      There has been blissfully little of that regarding aviation. There has been altogether too much of it regarding amateur radio and antenna restrictions. On the whole, I prefer less more than more.

    2. Re:This might be a good thing by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      I started replying but then I realized that it was all just jokes-but-serious that were outing me as a closet-anarchist, without my policy actually doing any good. I think this means you win, Obfuscant. Touche.

      (For the amusement of the historians, I'll include my draft post below...)

      ...

      Someone flying below 1000' AGL with a good camera can take a lot of incriminating pictures of your daughter by your swimming pool, especially if her boyfriend (or girlfriend) is there too.

      Then my daughter and her girlfriend should stop murdering people at the pool ("Young lady, if I have to clean up all your messes, you'll never learn anything! You dispose of this drowning victim yourself! Oh, and you're grounded."), and do something less incriminating, such as having hott lesbian sexx. My daughter would know that the Cuban Missile Crisis happened over half a century ago so if a U2 could spot a silo at 70k then the horny 15-year-old next door can easily spot her at 1k with Wal-Mart grade equipment. It would never occur to my daughter that laws, rather than her discretion/countermeasures, would ever have a significant effect on her privacy.

      (That's also why she'll encrypt her love-letter emails, too: because she knows that if she doesn't, they're possibly public just like her outdoor sex acts.)

      I'm serious, but I also realize I'm totally dodging the issue and you deserve a better reply than that. Fortunately, you almost supplied the answer:

      Does the FAA need to keep track of every local law...?

      No, but turn that around, and I think you have the answer. If locals want to ignore the reality of both the FAA regs and their personal experiences that aircraft sometimes fly lower, then they're not really trying to do their jobs responsibly. If a government acts in bad faith like that, then yes, there will (and should) be conflicts. Obviously I don't really want pilots always worrying that they're going to be arrested every time they land, but everyone is always playing that game every day whenever they cross any jurisdictional boundary. If you didn't want to see a Taliban courtrooom then you shouldn't have flown to Afghanistan. (Or Los Angeles. Whatever.)

      Hmm... let's pretend a local government has a safety agenda, rather than a faux (and futile) privacy agenda. They're not so much scared of voyeurs watching our hot nubian daughters having sex by the pool, but rather, they're scared of our daughters being shredded by the powerful cheaply-proliferating propellers, due to the pilot masturbating when they're supposed to be maintaining altitude or paying attention to the remaining LiPo voltage. This is a believable agenda, because one thing we are really good at, is getting scared. And probably even for good reason, since "drone" pilots tend to....

      (At this point I realized that Shit Happens and our daughters are, in fact, going to be shredded if I run things, because I have so little faith in the laws (whether federal or local) really having an effect on what copter-operators end up doing. So don't vote for me. My opponent won't really keep you any safer, but at least he'll try to. His heart in the right place and mine's not. ;-)

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  9. FAA has jurisdiction of all airspace in the US. by gavron · · Score: 2

    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/...

    1. Re:FAA has jurisdiction of all airspace in the US. by gavron · · Score: 1

      The FAA has jurisidction over military airspace. This includes military operating areas (MOAs), Restricted airspace, and any other Special Use Airspace (SUAs).

      See: https://www.faasafety.gov/gsla...

      Ehud

  10. Re:If you want to slow them down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They should also have appropriate insurance.
    Lots and lots of insurance.

  11. Wrong approach by jd · · Score: 1

    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)
  12. Re:Forbid Local Laws and Ignorance by bonehead · · Score: 1

    Seriously? You're taking the position that what this country needs is MORE surveillance of the public?

    Please die in a fire.

  13. Re:If you want to slow them down by Tailhook · · Score: 1

    Agreed. Amateur radio requires graduated license tests. The result is a sharp bend in the histogram from technician to extra class licensees; most of the flotsam are kept off frequencies that resonate planet-wide because most use of powerful HF bands is limited to licensees above 'technician.'

    One can imagine a similar tiered system for UAVs. Start with telecommand PEP (transmitter power) of maybe 25mw at 5GHz and no return video or telemetry for unlicensed pilots. That keeps it line-of-sight by nature. Escalate from there.

    There should be an exemption for traditional RC activity over recognized fields. Pilots operating over self-governing club facilities aren't a part of the recent `drone' drama and don't deserve this regulatory friction. That sort of reasonableness is probably beyond contemporary federal government mentality however; if you're not a giant corporation or powerful pressure group then you simply don't exist, as the long established AMA (Academe of Model Aeronautics) has discovered.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  14. But not necessarily over hobby model aircraft... by OmniGeek · · Score: 2

    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."
  15. FAA's regs are doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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....

  16. Yeah by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

    Bunch of local assholes bitching they cant suck money from hobbiests, and that they cant suck the dick of the rich old complainer types.

  17. This may be of use by OmniGeek · · Score: 1

    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."
  18. Re:If you want to slow them down by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

    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.

    Agreed. Amateur radio requires graduated license tests.

    Except there is no requirement for someone to have an amateur radio license before he can buy a radio capable of transmitting in the amateur band. I don't have to show my license to the guy at the hamfest who is selling recycled Motorola stuff before I can give him $10 for an old Mostar.

    And since building a radio (or UAS) is possible, which parts of either do we say defines the radio (or UAS) and requires a license to possess or buy? (Like "lower receiver" for guns.)

    There should be an exemption for traditional RC activity over recognized fields.

    "Dear Amazon.com: I don't have a drone license, but I promise to fly my Phantom III Pro only over recognized fields. Please send me two. Your Friend, Obfuscant."

    The concept of requiring people to have a license before they can buy a UAS is simply unenforceable. Even more unenforceable than requiring people to register to fly them.

  19. Re:If you want to slow them down by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

    <flamebait>Good luck, we can't even get registration for guns that routinely kill innocent people,</flaimbait>

    Guns do not routinely kill innocent people. I'm pretty sure that none of the three I currently own are slipping out at night wreaking havoc. Perhaps during the day when I'm not home, but there are no reports of multiple unsolved murders in my neighborhood. Perhaps they're hopping on the free buses run by our city and wiping out large numbers of people a few miles away. If so, I would be fully in support of a law prohibiting unaccompanied firearms from riding public transport.

    What you mean is that some evil people use guns to kill innocent people. That is a significantly different concept than "guns routinely kill".

  20. Re:If you want to slow them down by Viewsonic · · Score: 1

    Neither do drones or automobiles.

    What's your point exactly?

  21. Re:If you want to slow them down by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

    What's your point exactly?

    Pretty simple, I thought. The statement that "guns routinely kill innocent people" is flamebait, pure and simple, and is patently absurd. It is not only false, but irrelevant to any part of this discussion.

  22. Re:If you want to slow them down by mysidia · · Score: 1

    Good luck, we can't even get registration for guns that routinely kill innocent people

    Great work continuing with the fear mongering. We know more about guns than drones, however. If you exclude intentional suicides, there is evidence that countries who have done a total ban on guns have equal or more deaths due to violent crime. Also, they even have gun crime --- remember, Paris is a Gun Free Zone, and, yet they still have more serious, not less-serious incidents, b/c the gun wielders don't feel threatened, and police took more than 2 hours to respond. It's a controversial topic, and many people believe they need guns to defend themselves: when seconds count, the police are hours away, and securing the means to defend yourself without interference or questioning from your government is a fundamental liberty that is among those this country was founded upon.

    Also, the concern about registration is, one of distrust of the government safeguarding your privacy: they cannot even keep voter lists with personal addresses from hitting the public internet, And possible future abuses or "suspicion of gun owners" or attempts to shame them.

    For example: lists of registered gun owners sometimes fall into the hands of activist organizations, who might use the lists to harass people, or attack people, or burglars who might want to steal from people.

    Attend to the privacy issues FIRST, and get good privacy regulation, then we can talk about the possibility of registering certain kinds of firearms.

    IMO; it's more important to register who possess and exchanges ammunition. Guns do nothing without efficient and safe ammunition, also, people can make their own guns more easily, and ammunition has a limited shelf life, before it degrades.

    Securing the means to your recreational indulgement in fancy experimental toys, and idle curiosity, or desire to play, to the detriment of another person's safety, not so much.

    There are people who would be concerned about restrictions on private drone use, But, I believe, not nearly so much, as there are people who insist on having the proper tools to protect themselves and their loved ones.