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.
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.
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.
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/...
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."
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.
<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".