Time for USA pilots to call their Congresspersons!

[WEOTN]

Drone Innovation Act of 2017 (HR 2930) -

They're after us again. Call and let them know to NOT support this bill.

 

[PT_Mavic]

Thanks for the heads-up - once again, an Orwellian title designed to con the rubes. Of which there are tens of millions and they get to vote too.

 

[Andrew Wright]

Drone Innovation Act of 2017 (HR 2930) -

They're after us again. Call and let them know to NOT support this bill.[/QUOTE

I will be interested to see how this plays out. That said I would like to see a set of rules that run across all states that clearly lays out where is acceptable to fly.

I read too many stories of people being intercepted by law enforcement who sometimes simply don't know the rules. Add to that local town rules that aren't published clearly and you have a totally confused picture.

I operate within the law when flying, but it it increasingly difficult to do that when the rules aren't readily available.

Currently researching a trip to San Francisco and Los Angeles later this year in regard to where I can fly. This is made more difficult by local cities drone policy either missing not being updated on their websites in many years.

 

[ascension]

How this proceeds is going to be interesting.
My sense, based on a career in aviation, is that the FAA wants no part of anything to do with drones nor their un-certificated, un-tested operators.
I'm guessing there will be some kind of hard ceiling, above which the FAA will continue to control, that requires a significant demonstration of equipment and operator capability to penetrate, along with far greater drone requirements, (like ADS-B), and they will leave everything below that ceiling to local jurisdictions.

 

[jwblair]

How this proceeds is going to be interesting.
My sense, based on a career in aviation, is that the FAA wants no part of anything to do with drones nor their un-certificated, un-tested operators.
I'm guessing there will be some kind of hard ceiling, above which the FAA will continue to control, that requires a significant demonstration of equipment and operator capability to penetrate, along with far greater drone requirements, (like ADS-B), and they will leave everything below that ceiling to local jurisdictions.

Check out this thread about Senate Bill 1272:

(b) RESERVED POWERS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In prescribing regulations or standards related to civil unmanned aircraft systems, the Administrator shall ensure that the authority of a State, local, or tribal government to issue reasonable restrictions on the time, manner, and place of operation of a civil unmanned aircraft system that is operated below 200 feet above ground level or within 200 feet of a structure is not preempted.​

Relax. The 200 foot rule is a reasonable compromise, that gives us some breathing room - we can fly at 200 to 400 feet over private property and lower than that provided we are located 200 feet horizontally from a private structure. I see this as giving us a solid 200 foot altitude corridor, if you will, where we may move freely. I see no reason for the FAA to impinge on this intent

Compare this with existing scenarios where it is illegal to fly less than 500 feet above a private dwelling, with an FAA mandated maximum height of 400 feet., in effect making it illegal to fly over private property at all.

The new law may make things more solid and predictable for droners.

I think you are misreading the law. It does not say that we have the right to fly 200 feet above private property. It says that local governments can make their own rules for drones flying below 200' AGL (which can include taking off and landing) or within 200' of any structure (there is no qualification of public or private land or structure in the text) without having to worry about the FAA claiming that such laws are preempted by FAA regulations. 336 only restricts the FAA from regulating recreational drone flights, not local governments. In the past the FAA claimed that local governments could not regulate any aircraft operations in the air as that was the sole purview of the FAA. This language explicitly states that local governments can make their own rules for the airspace below 200' AGL and that such local rules have precedence over the FAA rules. I see this as a bad thing.