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

[bkmoore]

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.

Re: Constitutionally, the FAA should lose

[dywolf]

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