An FAA Video from 10-17-2019 You may want to watch

[Thomas B]

BVLOS is one topic discussed.

 

[AMann]

If anything, listen to it beginning at 41:10- Senator Lee’s bill regarding airspace regulations below 200ft

 

[Thomas B]

If anything, listen to it beginning at 41:25

Sorry All... meant to note that.
Thanks @AMann

 

[AMann]

Sorry All... meant to note that.
Thanks @AMann

It’s OK, but it is a good commentary that people should listen to before they write their representatives because it brings up some good points about how this bill will allow different municipalities to enforce different regulations, and they are going to be scattered all over the place making it very confusing for everyone.

And I thought the privacy laws in Europe regarding public photography were bad enough!

 

[SandiSCE]

It’s OK, but it is a good commentary that people should listen to before they write their representatives because it brings up some good points about how this bill will allow different municipalities to enforce different regulations, and they are going to be scattered all over the place making it very confusing for everyone.

And I thought the privacy laws in Europe regarding public photography were bad enough!

It is a sure fire recipe for chaos.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

I don't know who the individual was that began speaking at 41:10 put he makes some very valid points.

You can't have every municipality creating rules for their municipality.

As for private property owners I think a simple rule would be the property owner has the right to the airspace up to the height of the highest object on their property. If there are trees that are 50' high they have the right to the airspace up to 50'. I think this would be a rational solution in most place and a logical barrier since why would anyone want to fly their drone lower than the height of an obstacle on someone else's property.

I think there need to be some very clear general rules and where exceptions need to be made those exceptions can be worked out on a case by case basis.

 

[Thomas B]

I don't know who the individual was that began speaking at 41:10 put he makes some very valid points.

You can't have every municipality creating rules for their municipality.

As for private property owners I think a simple rule would be the property owner has the right to the airspace up to the height of the highest object on their property. If there are trees that are 50' high they have the right to the airspace up to 50'. I think this would be a rational solution in most place and a logical barrier since why would anyone want to fly their drone lower than the height of an obstacle on someone else's property.

I think there need to be some very clear general rules and where exceptions need to be made those exceptions can be worked out on a case by case basis.

Not for argument, but just to point out current law defines FAA control from the ground up.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Not for argument, but just to point out current law defines FAA control from the ground up.

However, if Congress changes that, the FAA has to follow. FAA's jurisdiction is based upon authority given to them by Congress. If Congress abdicates control of the first 200 feet to local municipalities, the FAA would have no control over it anymore, and we would be facing a nightmare of inconsistent regulations from city to city!

 

[Thomas B]

However, if Congress changes that, the FAA has to follow. FAA's jurisdiction is based upon authority given to them by Congress. If Congress abdicates control of the first 200 feet to local municipalities, the FAA would have no control over it anymore, and we would be facing a nightmare of inconsistent regulations from city to city!

Would definitely create a quagmire of rules.... and likely tax the ability of local LEOs to do that enforcement as well as fight real crime.

 

[CactusJackSlade]

I don't know who the individual was that began speaking at 41:10 put he makes some very valid points.

You can't have every municipality creating rules for their municipality.

As for private property owners I think a simple rule would be the property owner has the right to the airspace up to the height of the highest object on their property. If there are trees that are 50' high they have the right to the airspace up to 50'. I think this would be a rational solution in most place and a logical barrier since why would anyone want to fly their drone lower than the height of an obstacle on someone else's property.

I think there need to be some very clear general rules and where exceptions need to be made those exceptions can be worked out on a case by case basis.

Well, then you get groups of paranoid land owners putting up "CB radio towers" just so they can get a 150' ceiling....

Nobody wants to see themselves on YouTube naked in your own back yard, but I would think local Peeping Tom laws would already cover a lot of concerns?

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Well, then you get groups of paranoid land owners putting up "CB radio towers" just so they can get a 150' ceiling....

Nobody wants to see themselves on YouTube naked in your own back yard, but I would think local Peeping Tom laws would already cover a lot of concerns?

Under current law you have no expectation of privacy in your backyard.

There may be a few but I don't expect there are going to be great many people putting up 150' towers just for the sake of having a 150' ceiling over their property (I'm guessing it would cost prohibitive).

 

[CactusJackSlade]

Under current law you have no expectation of privacy in your backyard.

There may be a few but I don't expect there are going to be great many people putting up 150' towers just for the sake of having a 150' ceiling over their property (I'm guessing it would cost prohibitive).

Actually there have been several arrests using peeping tom laws and privacy on your property, do a general search... and yes, there is an expectation of privacy in your own back yard. That is what Peeping Tom laws are about. The question is where does that privacy end? 200 feet, 50 feet, 10 feet? that is the current dilemma right now for the FAA and local law.

As for people putting up large towers to have a higher ceiling... you might be surprised how paranoid people are about privacy and go to extreme lengths - agree that would be few and far between... and i guess HAM operators will have a head start ;-)

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Regarding privacy expectations.
There’s been a lot of discussion about this in the past on these forums, and some responses I’ve read seem to be pretty clear cut and common sense.
Privacy laws will differ in many places but in general if you are in public you should have no expectations of privacy in regards to being filmed.
Generally from a distance, in a overview type of filming, you don’t have to put up with someone putting a camera right in your face.
At home, if your front yard is not fenced or open type fencing, there is no expectation of privacy.
Likewise if in your front room (lounge room etc) with curtains open, and visible from the street / footpath (sidewalk).
In your backyard, this is an area generally fenced to a height that no one can see in, you so have an expectation of privacy.
No one can seen in normally, without the need to climb up the fence or tree etc, or use something to stand on to view over.
Children’s privacy is different in most countries / states, they often have a little more in the way of privacy (or rather child protection) rights.
The privacy aspect from the airspace above should be treated same as from the ground I feel, this is where it’s a grey / gray area.
Every drone and camera has different capabilities, and the person on the ground has NO idea just what detail can be seen from a drone (or filmed) or even if filming is taking place or not.
Privacy rules don’t come under any air authority I’m aware of, always a state or sometimes federal law.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Actually there have been several arrests using peeping tom laws and privacy on your property, do a general search... and yes, there is an expectation of privacy in your own back yard. That is what Peeping Tom laws are about. The question is where does that privacy end? 200 feet, 50 feet, 10 feet? that is the current dilemma right now for the FAA and local law.

As for people putting up large towers to have a higher ceiling... you might be surprised how paranoid people are about privacy and go to extreme lengths - agree that would be few and far between... and i guess HAM operators will have a head start ;-)

I won't research the laws in all 50 states but I believe the law in NJ is typical of the laws throughout the U.S. The peeping tom laws have to do with peering through windows or other areas of access into a structure...

"Peering into windows or other openings of dwelling places. A person commits a crime of the fourth degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he peers into a window or other opening of a dwelling or other structure adapted for overnight accommodation for the purpose of invading the privacy of another person and under circumstances in which a reasonable person in the dwelling or other structure would not expect to be observed."

If you are in your backyard and you have a six foot high fence and one of the neighbors in a surrounding home has a second floor deck and can see into your backyard it is not covered by peeping tom laws. There have been instances where a security camera on a pole that could see into a neighbors backyard. The neighbor whose yard was being "peeped" on try to have the camera removed. The court refused the request and the camera remained. Again, the backyard was not considered a place where there is an expectation of privacy.

If you can provide a link to a specific case where in a similar situation someone was convicted under a peeping tom law I'd like to read the details of the case.

 

[dfb]

If anything, listen to it beginning at 41:10- Senator Lee’s bill regarding airspace regulations below 200ft

I had just written to Senator Lee, my Senator, and was pleased to hear all my concerns voiced in the video above. I, however, did not include concerns in my questions about manned flight. I have requested a reply for more details and hope I don't just receive a pre-prepared response.

 

[SandiSCE]

However, if Congress changes that, the FAA has to follow. FAA's jurisdiction is based upon authority given to them by Congress. If Congress abdicates control of the first 200 feet to local municipalities, the FAA would have no control over it anymore, and we would be facing a nightmare of inconsistent regulations from city to city!

Absolutely.

 

[Jim Padgett]

putting up "CB radio towers" just so they can get a 150' ceiling....

Several years ago the FCC regulation regarding antenna towers over 60 feet high was quietly changed to 20 feet. Also the term ‘tower’ was replaced with a rambling description ‘any structural part of the contiguous system at the site of a transmitter', regardless of the elevation of the antenna itself. Plus the FAA now co-monitors every FCC application for “aviation safety reasons”.

 

[The Rolling Drones]

However, if Congress changes that, the FAA has to follow. FAA's jurisdiction is based upon authority given to them by Congress. If Congress abdicates control of the first 200 feet to local municipalities, the FAA would have no control over it anymore, and we would be facing a nightmare of inconsistent regulations from city to city!

Trying to find a silver lining if this were to pass. If the FAA no longer controled ground to 200ft would that not mean UAV PIC would no longer have to abide by FAA regulations like flying at night or over people as long as they were within 0-200ft??

 

[AnzacJack]

Trying to find a silver lining if this were to pass. If the FAA no longer controled ground to 200ft would that not mean UAV PIC would no longer have to abide by FAA regulations like flying at night or over people as long as they were within 0-200ft??

i guess that would be correct, but every man and his dog would be making rules that would be far more detrimental.

 

[The Rolling Drones]

Agreed.