FAA

[MavicEric]

This is only my opinion but I think the FAA has always been in charge of the enforcement of all air space in the United States. Why are state and local governments overstepping their jurisdiction and making laws and ordnances aginst drones. This should not be allowed. Most drone flyers I have met want to follow the FAA rules we do not need our state and local governments to regulate something they do not have a clue about. I would like to hear comments from the drone flying community.

Dr Eric Cohen MD
Orlando, FL

 

[Qoncussion]

As an experienced MR pilot, I really want to agree with you. But, drones are now consumer products. For every experienced pilot, there are a hundred inexperienced pilots. Some of whom fly recklessly. The public needs to be protected. That said, I have seen poorly thought out city ordinance passed by politicians whose only experience with a drone is what they hear on the nightly "be very afraid" broadcast (the "news").

 

[tcope]

Why do local law makers do it? Because they can. Illegal laws are made all of the time. You may find as you go down the ladder that people making local laws (cities, counties, townships, etc.) don't understand the issues and don't apply the proper expertise in making those local laws.

Another issue may be that the US regulations on UAV use were left a little open for interpretation. This gives the impression to many law makers that they can make certain laws to regulate airspace. Until they are challenged, they will continue to do this.

Bottom line... keep in mind that laws are not always 100% legal. Illegal laws are made _all of the time_. This is not only about UAV matters.

 

[ascension]

I think there are a number of factors at play here.
First, the FAA's, and similar agencies throughout the world, jurisdiction over airspace did not envision little remote controlled toys capable of 1000' or more operated by folks who have little information of what they are capable of causing. The original premise was licensed, trained, regulated and tested individuals operating in that airspace.
Second, operating a drone at 100 feet to the deck clearly gets noticed by people who don't want any interference in their privacy or property, and no matter the current state of airspace classification or legality issues, flying something with cameras and relatively high performance is introducing the general populace to flying objects they want no part of putting up with, and haven't had to in the past.
This is going to be an evolution, but compromise on both sides is going to be required, and in my view, as a career airline pilot and a brand new drone operator with knowledge of the system, we have a long way to go.

 

[tcope]

I believe a simple solution may be for the FAA require a license other than the 107 for hobby use only just as any other vehicle.

Not that easy. Is this test for "drones" only and not all other RC craft? What about all types of UAVs? What about all things that go into airspace? I think this is why they drew the line at hobby use. I think they knew there was no reason to regulate someone who wants to fold some paper in a certain way and throw it into the air one afternoon. Or someone who wants to attach a rubber band to a prop and go out to the park one day.

Can a better job be done? Yes. I think it needs some time.

 

[MPPilot]

I believe a simple solution may be for the FAA require a license other than the 107 for hobby use only just as any other vehicle. A short test written and flight could probably satisfy safety concerns of those not familiar with drones. Again I am all for safety and following rules but the rules have to be uniform and not have selective inforcement by state and local governments. Thank you to everyone for the great input. I have only been flying for about a year and am finding less & less places to fly as restrictions are being added on a regular basis by people that have no clue about the equipment they are writing ordinances for.

I hear what you are saying and agree to an extent, but do you really want the federal government setting up an FAA version of the DMV?

 

[Qoncussion]

I believe a simple solution may be for the FAA require a license other than the 107 for hobby use only just as any other vehicle...

Nice thought, but have you seen how licensed 17 year old boys drive cars? Or for that matter, girls of any age? KIDDING!

 

[MavicEric]

I would think it could be like the 107 exam but not for commercial use. Just a thought to protect the hobby flyers doing the right thing. Very complicated.

 

[96P993]

Nice thought, but have you seen how licensed 17 year old boys drive cars? Or for that matter, girls of any age? KIDDING!

You seem to be quite hell bent on saving and protecting others around us...Im just wondering how many people have been hurt or killed by remote aircrafts in the last 10 years (not governmental)

 

[Qoncussion]

You seem to be quite **** bent on saving and protecting others around us...Im just wondering how many people have been hurt or killed by remote aircrafts in the last 10 years (not governmental)

While I'm not entirely sure that I understand your comment, my position is only that of seeing through the eyes of the many unqualified agencies placing regulations on us. Any idiot can get a license. My friend's grandfather reached a point where he was driving with his cane on the gas and brake pedals. He had a license.

Having a license (though a great idea on paper) does not mean that licensed pilots won't do something incredibly stupid, which (my point being) leads to more regulations, prohibiting us from flying anywhere but in our living rooms.

Trust me - I have no love for the regulatory bodies. But, I also don't have pockets deep enough to file a law suit when (if) I get fined for *safely* flying in the middle of nowhere, because I've been lumped in with the many who fly dangerously. I don't know the solution... That's why were talking about it here. That's all I'm saying...

 

[MavicEric]

49 U.S. Code § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace

I guess my point is the FAA already regulates airspace, so why should state and local governments in addition to the FAA add additional regulations. Another point is sate and local governments do not have expertise in this matter to regulate airspace. Don't think the unnecessary overlap in regulation is needed or necessary. Again, just my opinion all comments are very welcome and appreciated.

Dr Eric Cohen MD

 

[MavicFlieger]

...the FAA already regulates airspace, so why should state and local governments in addition to the FAA add additional regulations.

Why?…because your neighbors, your patients, your friends and family complain.

They complain to your local park administration. They complain to your city and county parks commission. They complain to your state legislature. They say, “There are drones flying all over my area—all the time. They spy into my bedroom windows. In no time at all one of them is going to fall out of the sky and scar my poor little Sally’s beautiful face for the rest of her life. Who will be responsible for that? There needs to be a law against these flying lawnmowers!”
or
“Those drones are scaring the bison. Something must be done."

Rational or not this is the kind of pressure government officials are receiving. There are more people like that than there are of us.

Another point is sate and local governments do not have expertise in this matter to regulate airspace.

Expertise is not particularly relevant to whether or not anyone or group will or will not do something. This forum and YouTube can provide several examples of people, who have never flown a drone before, popping a Mavic out of the box it came in, charging the batteries, and immediately launching the Mavic into the wall in their bedroom.

Some rule makers have no expertise. Some may have a little. Here are examples in my local area. I think we can all take lessons from them.

One example of limited expertise is Ordinance 38, http://www.ebparks.org/Assets/_Nav_Categories/Activities/Ordinance+38+-+EBRPD.pdf, of the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) in the San Francisco Bay Area. Ordinance 38, Section 409 states, “No person shall…fly any UAS closer than 500 feet above District parklands, as defined by Federal Regulations.” For their “500 feet above District parklands, as defined by Federal Regulations” they refer to “Minimum and safe altitudes” in 14 CFR 91.119 - Minimum safe altitudes: General.. Upon examination it is clear that this definition does not refer to UASs or UAVs. Since 400 feet AGL is the recommended upper limit of UAS flight, their statement is both incorrect and absurd. EBRPD's mistake was being too specific.

The nearby and occasionally contiguous East Bay Municipal Water District (EBMUD) is not specific with respect to UAVs. Whether this is expertise or oversight one can’t be sure. Their trail permit for access to their property disallows drones. However, their “Watershed and Recreation Rules and Regulations”, East Bay Municipal Utility District :: Rules and regulations, does not mention drones, unmanned aircraft, or unmanned aerial vehicle. Their prohibition of drones is likely upheld by their General Nuisance sections 9.03, 9.04, 9.05, or 9.06. This is similar in effect to the National Park’s limitation in that UAVs cannot be operated from park property, however, there can be no limitation flying over park property.

State and local agencies increasingly will be encouraged to regulate UAVs. Those that do not attempt to specifically limit National Air Space (NAS) in their regulations, but more generally limit what can be done on their property, will likely be more successful.