Incorrect sign....

[Lapeer20m]

Came across this sign:

Michigan is currently ahead of many other states as we were the first to pass a strong preemption law that prohibits any unit of government except the state legislature and the faa from regulating unmanned aircraft.

This sign is interesting as it apparently prohibits part 107 pilots based on some non-existent part 107 rule?

A polite email is being sent asking for the removal of the sign.

I’ll keep everyone posted.

 

[Starz]

Maybe something there that I’m not seeing, but it looks legal to me. The area where it says “on district property” is the pertinent part.
Why would they not be allowed to dictate what activity takes place on their land?

 

[Scott Kei]

They are allowed to "on their land", but they don't own the air above their land.

 

[tcope]

Yeah, the only dumb think is when they quote FAA regs and Part 107 (in general).

 

[BigAl07]

I think their only mistake is citing Part 107. If they left that off it is completely legal as it's a Land Use ordinance and not a Flying over our Land issue.


***Edit: @tcope beat me to it LOL

 

[Lapeer20m]

There are threeproblems with this sign that make it unenforceable:

Part 107 only applies to non-hobby flights, so the reference presumably does not apply to hobbyists,

Part 107 does NOT prohibit flying in this airspace, so the reference on the sign is incorrect,

State law specifically prohibits school districts and all other political subdivisions from enacting or enforcing any drone regulations.

Mcl 259.305 reads, in pertinent part:

1) Except as expressly authorized by statute, a political subdivision shall not enact or enforce an ordinance or resolution that regulates the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft or otherwise engage in the regulation of the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft.

In short, one may fly anywhere they want in Michigan as long as it is not prohibited by the faa and it is unlawful for a district or local government to make any rules to the contrary, including takeoff/landing.

 

[tcope]

There are threeproblems with this sign that make it unenforceable:

Part 107 only applies to non-hobby flights, so the reference presumably does not apply to hobbyists,

Part 107 does NOT prohibit flying in this airspace, so the reference on the sign is incorrect,

State law specifically prohibits school districts and all other political subdivisions from enacting or enforcing any drone regulations.

Mcl 259.305 reads, in pertinent part:

1) Except as expressly authorized by statute, a political subdivision shall not enact or enforce an ordinance or resolution that regulates the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft or otherwise engage in the regulation of the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft.

In short, one may fly anywhere they want in Michigan as long as it is not prohibited by the faa and it is unlawful for a district or local government to make any rules to the contrary, including takeoff/landing.

That is not the entire statute. There is a #2 as follows:

(2) This act does not prohibit a political subdivision from promulgating rules, regulations, and ordinances for the use of unmanned ​

aircraft​

systems by the political subdivision within the boundaries of the political subdivision.​

As listed, it appears that they can regulate the property that they manage.​

 

[Lapeer20m]

That is not the entire statute. There is a #2 as follows:

(2) This act does not prohibit a political subdivision from promulgating rules, regulations, and ordinances for the use of unmanned
aircraft

systems by the political subdivision within the boundaries of the political subdivision.

As listed, it appears that they can regulate the property that they manage.

That is part of the statute and it allows, in this case a school, to regulate drones that are USED by the school. This allows the school to decide which employees can fly the uas, under what circumstances, training requirements, etc.

The statute goes on to include language indicating that nothing in the law is to interfere with faa regulations and further down explains that drones cannot be used for hunting or hunter harassment.

 

[Lapeer20m]

That is part of the statute and it allows, in this case a school, to regulate drones that are USED by the school. This allows the school to decide which employees can fly the uas, under what circumstances, training requirements, etc.

The statute goes on to include language indicating that nothing in the law is to interfere with faa regulations and further down explains that drones cannot be used for hunting or hunter harassment.

I agree this is not the best written law, but to try and interpret it any other way would lead to an absurd result.

It would not make any logical sense to have a law that prohibits a municipality from doing X

Then create an Exception that allows a municipality to do X within their borders.

Because a municipality is not allowed to regulate things outside their borders.

They key phrase in the statute is “for use”

 

[AMann]

the sign ‘looks official’, and their security folks will point at is as they enforce it... sounds like another fly-in coming soon.

 

[Lapeer20m]

the sign ‘looks official’, and their security folks will point at is as they enforce it... sounds like another fly-in coming soon.

We started with a polite email. It’s definitely preferred to handle these issues on a friendly cooperative basis rather than adversarial.

If it doesn’t get addressed we will make polite phone calls and go to meetings and speak respectfully before escalating to a fly-in.

 

[kensteele]

I agree this is not the best written law, but to try and interpret it any other way would lead to an absurd result.

It would not make any logical sense to have a law that prohibits a municipality from doing X

Then create an Exception that allows a municipality to do X within their borders.

Because a municipality is not allowed to regulate things outside their borders.

They key phrase in the statute is “for use”

except nobody will believe it. you will be called out for "playing lawyer" if you try to "read" the statute and you'll be told the law allows the school to do whatever it wants on it's own property. pre-emption has never worked on privileges; only on rights.

try explaining to the police officer that the law is meant to allow the school to control what it's own employees can do which the school already can do without needing a law. which is why you will be told the law is meant to except the pre-emption and you'll be trespassed.

exactly why we don't need "drone" laws.

 

[Lapeer20m]

except nobody will believe it. you will be called out for "playing lawyer" if you try to "read" the statute and you'll be told the law allows the school to do whatever it wants on it's own property. pre-emption has never worked on privileges; only on rights.

try explaining to the police officer that the law is meant to allow the school to control what it's own employees can do which the school already can do without needing a law. which is why you will be told the law is meant to except the pre-emption and you'll be trespassed.

exactly why we don't need "drone" laws.

Schools already have a lot of power to trespass people, especially adults. It’s not like i am suggesting anyone go here and fly drones while class is in session. honestly, a school is likely not the best place to fly drones, at least not during times when the school is being used by students.

On to the next point,

It’s not like a random police officer is the final word. He’s just a regular guy going about his day and likely has no idea about drone laws.

I am part of an organization that is currently taking a different municipality to court over the same issue, although their response has been quite extreme. With a little luck, the municipality will appeal, and we will have a legal precedent in the state. We have the backing of a multi billion dollar company who has a vested interest in making sure this end the right way so I’m actually hoping for an appeal.

 

[Rick0504N]

I know I am in the minority here, if not alone, but if I approached a park and saw that sign, I would just look for another spot to fly and let it be. Just curious- what type of park is it - kid’s playing in playground, ball fields, etc? How big is the park? Just curious why they would post that sign for that particular park. And guys, I get it—if there is no ‘legal’ (regulatory) reason why the sign is there, then it shouldn’t be there and we should be able to fly there, but perhaps there’s more to it (i.e. common sense). Hopefully I’m way off base and it’s a wide open space where a responsible pilot would have no issues with possibly causing harm to other park-goers if something went awry with AC.

 

[Lapeer20m]

I know I am in the majority here, if not alone, but if I approached a park and saw that sign, I would just look for another spot to fly and let it be. Just curious- what type of park is it - kid’s playing in playground, ball fields, etc? How big is the park? Just curious why they would post that sign for that particular park. And guys, I get it—if there is no ‘legal’ (regulatory) reason why the sign is there, then it shouldn’t be there and we should be able to fly there, but perhaps there’s more to it (i.e. common sense). Hopefully I’m way off base and it’s a wide open space where a responsible pilot would have no issues with possibly causing harm to other park-goers if something went awry with AC.

I respect people’s decision to choose not to fly at a venue that posts a sign.


I speak up because I think it is the right thing to do and I am fortunate enough that I have the means, ability, and network of talent to correct these issues.

Personally, I look at it from a freedom and liberty standpoint. The system we have in place is that we the people yield all of the power. We elect public servants to do just that, serve. These people are not our bosses and they do not get to operate outside of the law. I feel it is incumbent upon citizens to hold our elected representatives accountable when they violate the law. In this case, it is explicitly unlawful for this entity to attempt to regulate unmanned aircraft.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

[Rick0504N]

I hear you. But am still curious about the park. Can you include an “above” shot of it from Google Earth?

 

[kensteele]

I know I am in the majority here, if not alone, but if I approached a park and saw that sign, I would just look for another spot to fly and let it be. Just curious- what type of park is it - kid’s playing in playground, ball fields, etc? How big is the park? Just curious why they would post that sign for that particular park. And guys, I get it—if there is no ‘legal’ (regulatory) reason why the sign is there, then it shouldn’t be there and we should be able to fly there, but perhaps there’s more to it (i.e. common sense). Hopefully I’m way off base and it’s a wide open space where a responsible pilot would have no issues with possibly causing harm to other park-goers if something went awry with AC.

you're not alone, plenty of people like you are here...in this forum. and all over america.

 

[dbyantis]

They are allowed to "on their land", but they don't own the air above their land.

There are many more places that restrict launch and land from the property, you can fly by in the air, but they control the land you are on, so that requires compliance.

 

[tcope]

I know I am in the majority here, if not alone, but if I approached a park and saw that sign, I would just look for another spot to fly and let it be.

As mentioned by Lapeer, that is everyone's right. However, the problem is when people are allowed to get away with violating someone else's rights. Pretty soon it becomes the norm and not the exception. It is then a much larger fight to get that right back. We see this with other illegal drone laws. The people know full well that the law is illegal but they use it as tool to harass people into their view. The police then tell the person they cannot fly because it is the law and if they continue to do it, will be fined $xxxx. Most people would think its a law so they can't do it and move on. If a person stands up for their rights, no one enforces the law because they know that they would loose. So it is just used to harass people. As mentioned, I can't fault each person's decision on how they want to handle themselves in those situations. But kudo's to those who attempt to do something about it. You are fighting a tough fight for the rest of us.

There might be a good reason for the ban. I'm not 100% sure that the state is not allowing those land managers to make rules to govern their land but (another park system put a drone ban into place and state that their legal counsel said that they were allowed to do this) if the state made a statute against such a ban, they are on the hook.

 

[Lapeer20m]

Sorry it took so long. Someone sent me
The photo of the sign. I had to figure out where it was located. Here is the google map view. It’s tucked into a high density area. Lots of houses around.

Many school grounds in the state are utilized as parks and open to the public when school Is not in session. Not sure if this is such a place or not.

I’m not necessarily advocating that people fly on school property, but I do not believe there is anything in part 107 that would prevent flights here. It is not in controlled airspace.