Drone court battle, I fought the law...

[Deleted member 94307]

I really don't understand where you're going with that line of argument but, in any case, people going on and on about how the system is so unfair is not achieving anything or helping anyone. If you feel strongly enough about something that needs changing then you would probably be better off getting lots of signatures on a petition and then sending it to appropriate elected officials.

You are very naive if you actually believe that will make a difference. Without special interest groups ($$$$) nothing will happen. That’s why people are dying from gun violence but drones get banned. My line of argument makes perfect sense.. PARKS are what we are talking about and they are the perfect place for drones to fly and for their pilots to be regulated.

 

[deleted member 877]

You are very naive if you actually believe that will make a difference. Without special interest groups ($$$$) nothing will happen. That’s why people are dying from gun violence but drones get banned. My line of argument makes perfect sense.. PARKS are what we are talking about and they are the perfect place for drones to fly and for their pilots to be regulated.

Yeah, but I have looked back at your posts on this thread and you're strong on suggestions about what should be happening without realising that there is little or no chance of drone flying in national parks being allowed in the foreseeable future.

You could at least start with a petition to get an idea of whether or not a lot of drone flyers even want to fly in national parks. But if all you do is complain then you'll simply end up achieving little else but annoying people resulting in your message being lost in the background noise.

 

[pmshop]

By the way all - that state drone law guide covers ALL states.

I really don't understand where you're going with that line of argument but, in any case, people going on and on about how the system is so unfair is not achieving anything or helping anyone. If you feel strongly enough about something that needs changing then you would probably be better off getting lots of signatures on a petition and then sending it to appropriate elected officials.

On the municipal level, I agree.
But on the level of FAA and NPS, no.
You can only gripe.
For example, the recent FAA decision on May 17th.
They should have had LAANC online for hobbyists FIRST, THEN close down the towers to phone calls.
And the AMA is a joke - protecting THEIR interests FIRST, not ALL hobbyists, by making sure THEIR fields in controlled airspace was recognized.

You can get a waiver for NPS flights.
Must be Part 107 and have LOTS of money.
Take a look at the series Aerial America.
They got in.

 

[Mavic Mac]

Very new to the world of drones and not a RC airplane operator but I am sure AMA has a lot of members and put forth a unified effort to protect "their world". I figure there are probably many small drone clubs and maybe even a national club. If the clubs got unified in their efforts change can be made. It takes time, effort and commitment. The "special interest groups" have money because of membership, marketing and corporation support. Fortunately, or unfortunately, drone flying is a worldwide sport. People in India are not as concerned about the regulations in the US NPS as somebody living in the USA.


In the US organizations like the Sierra Club, Audubon, etc. have a large membership base that supports their efforts. They want the National Parks to be a place where their members can go and relax to watch wildlife without the noise of drones bothering them or the wildlife and they have the money to push their cause. One person writing a letter may not make a difference, but a combined effort will. The action needs to be started at the local level and then work its way up. Politicians listen if they think they will lose a large segment of their voter base.

Okay will get down off my soapbox now.

 

[BigAl07]

Very new to the world of drones and not a RC airplane operator but I am sure AMA has a lot of members and put forth a unified effort to protect "their world". I figure there are probably many small drone clubs and maybe even a national club. If the clubs got unified in their efforts change can be made. It takes time, effort and commitment. The "special interest groups" have money because of membership, marketing and corporation support. Fortunately, or unfortunately, drone flying is a worldwide sport. People in India are not as concerned about the regulations in the US NPS as somebody living in the USA.

I'm one of those "not new to the world of R/C aircraft" and I was trying to stay out of this conversation simply because I've seen others just like it grow and "devolve" so many times... but.....

The AMA has a large voice and a large wallet. This can be seen simply by the fact that the AMA was very much responsible for "Hobby Rules" being so slack all these years when Section 333 and Part 107 rules were much more strict. Even though the FAA wanted to "control" all things flying in the air, the AMA and their supporters pooled their resources (money and attorneys) and lobbied to create the Hobby/Recreation "Carve Out" called Part 101. There is no telling how much $$ exchanged hands along the way but suffice to say it was BIG $$.

The problem with the AMA (and it's gotten a LOT better over just the last year) is that because "Drone Operators" don't follow the rules and have given themselves and the community as a whole several black eyes they intentionally distanced themselves from anything to do with MultiRotors/Drones. Because "drones" don't need a runway, a designated flying area, they don't even need the operator to understand how to fly or any basics of flight, they don't NEED an AMA sanctioned field and often times are shunned from them because they don't want to "fly by the rules" (traffic patterns etc). This caused a huge rift between "traditional" R/C operators and the new "MultiRotor" operators in most areas. Fortunately I belong to a club who not only allows MR's but embraces them and fosters new R/C operators to use and understand them.

Yes the vast majority of sUAS operators are genuinely good people and law abiding citizens but it only takes 1 bad apple to spoil the whole basket. Unfortunately we are all lumped into the same basket regardless if we deserve it or not.

In the US organizations like the Sierra Club, Audubon, etc. have a large membership base that supports their efforts. They want the National Parks to be a place where their members can go and relax to watch wildlife without the noise of drones bothering them or the wildlife and they have the money to push their cause. One person writing a letter may not make a difference, but a combined effort will. The action needs to be started at the local level and then work its way up. Politicians listen if they think they will lose a large segment of their voter base.

Okay will get down off my soapbox now.

If more "Drone Operators" would get behind the AMA and join forces it might have a better chance of supporting the common interests like the ones in this thread. I'm not sure that's really possible because so many sUAS operators insist on "we don't need/want those rules so we'll go out on our own and hope for the best".

 

[Skyewalkr]

You can get a waiver for NPS flights.
Must be Part 107 and have LOTS of money.

why would you need lots of money? waiver applications are free. is it to bribe the officials?

 

[dmurphynj]

It’s really ridiculous in Jersey. All of the safe places to fly are parks.. county park law is you can only fly in one per county where “model aircraft” fly.. they include drones as model aircraft. You go to one of those parks and are told you have to pay to register or for permit $15 I think.. then you get to fly 15-20 min at a time and fixed wing aircraft have priority!

Depends on the county. I've been flying quite a bit out of the Garrett Mountain Reservation in West Paterson. The park actually has two separate Drone Zones - designated areas for drone flying. Never been bothered there, not once. Really nice that Passaic County is thinking of us.

 

[deleted member 877]

@Lapeer20m - Saw you on Oz By Drone's YouTube Live-stream this morning. Good job !

 

[bushie]

Yeah, but I have looked back at your posts on this thread and you're strong on suggestions about what should be happening without realising that there is little or no chance of drone flying in national parks being allowed in the foreseeable future.

You could at least start with a petition to get an idea of whether or not a lot of drone flyers even want to fly in national parks. But if all you do is complain then you'll simply end up achieving little else but annoying people resulting in your message being lost in the background noise.

Are you talking about Oz or the US.

I understand that in Qld you can fly in National parks and in WA you certainly can so long as you comply with CASA regs and don't disturb animals. Some other states are not as accommodating.

 

[deleted member 877]

Are you talking about Oz or the US.

I understand that in Qld you can fly in National parks and in WA you certainly can so long as you comply with CASA regs and don't disturb animals. Some other states are not as accommodating.

I was referring to the US. You're correct - in Queensland we are allowed to fly in national parks.

 

[ReadyKilowatt]

I'm one of those "not new to the world of R/C aircraft" and I was trying to stay out of this conversation simply because I've seen others just like it grow and "devolve" so many times... but.....

The AMA has a large voice and a large wallet. This can be seen simply by the fact that the AMA was very much responsible for "Hobby Rules" being so slack all these years when Section 333 and Part 107 rules were much more strict. Even though the FAA wanted to "control" all things flying in the air, the AMA and their supporters pooled their resources (money and attorneys) and lobbied to create the Hobby/Recreation "Carve Out" called Part 101. There is no telling how much $$ exchanged hands along the way but suffice to say it was BIG $$.

The problem with the AMA (and it's gotten a LOT better over just the last year) is that because "Drone Operators" don't follow the rules and have given themselves and the community as a whole several black eyes they intentionally distanced themselves from anything to do with MultiRotors/Drones. Because "drones" don't need a runway, a designated flying area, they don't even need the operator to understand how to fly or any basics of flight, they don't NEED an AMA sanctioned field and often times are shunned from them because they don't want to "fly by the rules" (traffic patterns etc). This caused a huge rift between "traditional" R/C operators and the new "MultiRotor" operators in most areas. Fortunately I belong to a club who not only allows MR's but embraces them and fosters new R/C operators to use and understand them.

Yes the vast majority of sUAS operators are genuinely good people and law abiding citizens but it only takes 1 bad apple to spoil the whole basket. Unfortunately we are all lumped into the same basket regardless if we deserve it or not.



If more "Drone Operators" would get behind the AMA and join forces it might have a better chance of supporting the common interests like the ones in this thread. I'm not sure that's really possible because so many sUAS operators insist on "we don't need/want those rules so we'll go out on our own and hope for the best".

I reluctantly renewed my AMA membership this year, after going for a few months without. I did it mostly for the insurance and because at least there's someone in Washington voicing objection to outlawing hobby flights.

But the organization is otherwise worthless to the UAV pilot. They are a "model aircraft" origination. Their use case is to watch a scale model of a full-size aircraft fly, not to attach a payload (camera) to a UAV in order to take advantage of altitude. As such it doesn't matter to the majority of the AMA membership to fly anywhere, only in a location where they can best enjoy watching their creation fly. So geographical restrictions aren't much of a concern to them.

 

[RBeaton]

They should allow drones in parks when there are few or no people present.. this would make everyone safer because rangers could check out Reg. And if we are following laws. It would prevent people from flying over homes and streets. Parks are not only pretty places to take pictures, they are the safest places to fly drones when they are barely occupied.. and a place where park rangers, unlike police , actually could make the time to check up on drone users.

I requested permission ( according to NJ STATE LAW) to fly out of Liberty State Park at 6:30am on a weekday (with visual observer present) and was told only if I pay $2500 for permit and have insurance. (The law doesn’t say anything about that as far as I read) then the Assistant Commissioner told me “yeah it’s getting harder to find places to fly drones” I explained to him that’s not the case and that I was well aware of what airspace I could fly in. The problem is finding places to fly from where you don’t need to worry about being robbed while you fly. I finally managed to find a place to get pictures of the city and flew right up to the park in vlos to get some pictures too..

Agreed that you should get that in writing. Last time I checked. It was more like $75 / $150 depending on whether you were flying recreationally or commercially, and I think this was posted on the NJ State Parks website. Or, I might have inquired at Island Beach State Park... can’t remember exactly. However, there is some other stipulation that the flight has to be approved by the superintendent as being compatible with the values of the park. I will say that with those hoops to jump through, it was much easier to go to the edge of the park and fly VLOS right into the park along the beach.

 

[STKNRUD]

By the way all - that state drone law guide covers ALL states.


On the municipal level, I agree.
But on the level of FAA and NPS, no.
You can only gripe.
For example, the recent FAA decision on May 17th.
They should have had LAANC online for hobbyists FIRST, THEN close down the towers to phone calls.
And the AMA is a joke - protecting THEIR interests FIRST, not ALL hobbyists, by making sure THEIR fields in controlled airspace was recognized.

You can get a waiver for NPS flights.
Must be Part 107 and have LOTS of money.
Take a look at the series Aerial America.
They got in.

It appears you aren’t a member of the AMA. And why shouldn’t they try to preserve flying models AND drones from AMA flying sites? Hello?

 

[TxArch DroneGuy]

Texas revoked ANY municipality's drone ordinances and stated if they want to re-enact them they must go through an FAA approval process.

Exactly, the Great State of Texas legislature and the governor signed the bill, also bans and makes county governments as well as cities, zoning ordinances banning the flying of UAS, Null and Void. They cannot legally ban UAS from taking off or flying from any public property. Effective 9/1/17.

 

[erkme73]

Not to discuss gun control, but rather preemption statutes. Quite some time ago (maybe 5-10 years ago?) Florida passed a similar preemption statute for gun control - basically forbidding local governments to impose any regulations which may infringe on gun rights. What was particularly interesting, IIRC, is that the statute explicitly defined legal consequences for city council members who dared circumvent the state statute. It included criminal civil penalties.

edited to add: Yes, here it is: Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Again, not trying to open a gun control debate. But rather trying to highlight that state preemption laws can define severe penalties directed at municipalities which don't adhere to the statute. Thus, hopefully, keeping bone-headed local elected officials from running afoul of the statute, and passing the cost of defense on to the local tax payer.

(3) PROHIBITIONS; PENALTIES.—
(a) Any person, county, agency, municipality, district, or other entity that violates the Legislature’s occupation of the whole field of regulation of firearms and ammunition, as declared in subsection (1), by enacting or causing to be enforced any local ordinance or administrative rule or regulation impinging upon such exclusive occupation of the field shall be liable as set forth herein.
(b) If any county, city, town, or other local government violates this section, the court shall declare the improper ordinance, regulation, or rule invalid and issue a permanent injunction against the local government prohibiting it from enforcing such ordinance, regulation, or rule. It is no defense that in enacting the ordinance, regulation, or rule the local government was acting in good faith or upon advice of counsel.
(c) If the court determines that a violation was knowing and willful, the court shall assess a civil fine of up to $5,000 against the elected or appointed local government official or officials or administrative agency head under whose jurisdiction the violation occurred.
(d) Except as required by applicable law, public funds may not be used to defend or reimburse the unlawful conduct of any person found to have knowingly and willfully violated this section.
(e) A knowing and willful violation of any provision of this section by a person acting in an official capacity for any entity enacting or causing to be enforced a local ordinance or administrative rule or regulation prohibited under paragraph (a) or otherwise under color of law shall be cause for termination of employment or contract or removal from office by the Governor.
(f) A person or an organization whose membership is adversely affected by any ordinance, regulation, measure, directive, rule, enactment, order, or policy promulgated or caused to be enforced in violation of this section may file suit against any county, agency, municipality, district, or other entity in any court of this state having jurisdiction over any defendant to the suit for declaratory and injunctive relief and for actual damages, as limited herein, caused by the violation. A court shall award the prevailing plaintiff in any such suit:
1. Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in accordance with the laws of this state, including a contingency fee multiplier, as authorized by law; and
2. The actual damages incurred, but not more than $100,000.

It would be nice if states preemption statutes included teeth like this.

 

[HoozierDroneDaddy]

Yeah, but I have looked back at your posts on this thread and you're strong on suggestions about what should be happening without realising that there is little or no chance of drone flying in national parks being allowed in the foreseeable future.

You could at least start with a petition to get an idea of whether or not a lot of drone flyers even want to fly in national parks. But if all you do is complain then you'll simply end up achieving little else but annoying people resulting in your message being lost in the background noise.

Actually you can GET PERMISSION to fly in National Parks. You just need to contact the appropriate individual and get authorization. You will need to comply with appropriate requirements. Not easy, but it can be done.

 

[jgullam]

I think the danger in stripping from local government the ability to regulate is that what is appropriate in the capital and in the population centers that elect legislators can be ludicrous in rural areas.
I think there are absolutely legitimate reasons to limit activities at the local level (not just UAV flying) that would never occur to state policy makers.
Imagine if the ranking member of your state legislature had his (picture the fat, white, 70 year old man) grand daughters wedding "ruined" by a drone. He goes back to Capital City and pushes through legislation that says no drones allowed and jail time for any city council that allows it.
I don't want to piss off the gun owners by using the phrase "common sense" (but I guess I just did) but I think it's dangerous to advocate any Always/Never legislation.
I guess this puts me in the let's get organized camp and I'll go ahead and join AMA or, if they're is a more appropriate organization for us I'm open to suggestions.
My $0.02

 

[dirkclod]

OK guys this has went OT as in a deferent direction from The OP's issue and what he is doing
I am going to at the moment just stop it here . When Lapeer20m has more info on his case he will let me know and this will resume .
Sorry guys

​

OK guys this is now CLOSED but the OP has continued with this here Drone ordinance lawsuit (part 2)